Quantcast Bitrates: CQmatic/Calcumatic Continued... - Page 6 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #101  
06-24-2005, 05:13 PM
Prodater64 Prodater64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Palma de Mallorca - España
Posts: 2,925
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@Inc: That 2 pass aproach doesn't worth as cq given in HC Encoder log file is not the correct when used in cqmaxbitrate mode as in this mode the encoder do "cut" bits that doesn't brings back to the stream.
If you use cq mode, you have a high probability that your streams can't be load in any dvd author program, neither play in any SAP.
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #102  
06-24-2005, 05:45 PM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Yep thats what I called "the issue Ive heard/read of".

So maybe that will be fixed sometime in the near future as its possible to do mpegencoding by keeping the compilancy in CQmode without "cutting" peaks afterwards .... but I do keep my head low as I dont have any clue about that complex programming of an mpegencoding engine from almost scratch.

The used avg Quant CAN be parsed afterwards by HC encoder and putted/changed in the log. Thats stored in the flow of the mpegstream somewhere I dont know exatly ... as Bitrateviewer is also able to parse the FINAL existing Q values out of a ready encoded mpeg stream. So a final last step mpeg parsing could switch that value in the log text.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
07-03-2005, 09:40 PM
Prodater64 Prodater64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Palma de Mallorca - España
Posts: 2,925
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You can see a tool as I was talking here:

http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15979
Reply With Quote
  #104  
07-05-2005, 06:20 PM
Prodater64 Prodater64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Palma de Mallorca - España
Posts: 2,925
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't understand why all about calcumatic/cqmatic is here in this thread. It seems that we don't open more threads in this subforum and I don't know why.
But anyway:
@Kwag: Could you explain me this:



You can see that calculated avg bitrate = 5511.9 kbps

103' 49'' = 103,8206667 min

103,8206667 * 60 * 5511.9 / 8 = 4291868 KB

And calcumatic shows 4191088.

Similar about audio:

103,8206667 * 60 * 384 / 8 = 299003 KB

Why calcumatic does it in this way?
Reply With Quote
  #105  
07-05-2005, 06:37 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodater64
You can see that calculated avg bitrate = 5511.9 kbps

103' 49'' = 103,8206667 min

103,8206667 * 60 * 5511.9 / 8 = 4291868 KB

And calcumatic shows 4191088.

Similar about audio:

103,8206667 * 60 * 384 / 8 = 299003 KB

Why calcumatic does it in this way?
Because you're missing a small detail

( 103,820.6667 * 60 * 5511.9 / 8 ) / 1.024 = 4191277 KB

And ( 103,8206667 * 60 * 384 / 8 ) / 1.024 = 291995 KB

(Results are rounded)

That's why CalcuMatic will give you EXACT results, and you can confirm that if you do an average bitrate encode (2-pass), and then compare the file size on disk (with Windows file manager) against the size CalcuMatic gave you. The result will be almost identical

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #106  
07-05-2005, 06:39 PM
Prodater64 Prodater64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Palma de Mallorca - España
Posts: 2,925
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


Also I misstyped , (commas) by . (point) as in north american way.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
07-05-2005, 06:44 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodater64
Also I misstyped , (commas) by . (point) as in north american way.
I know
Took me a second to figure it out

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #108  
07-05-2005, 07:28 PM
Prodater64 Prodater64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Palma de Mallorca - España
Posts: 2,925
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Then if:

(103.8206667 * 60 * 5511.9 / 8 ) / 1.024 = 4191277 KB results are KB

what units are

(103.8206667 * 60 * 5511.9 / 8 ) = 4291868

Reply With Quote
  #109  
07-05-2005, 07:43 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodater64
Then if:

(103.8206667 * 60 * 5511.9 / 8 ) / 1.024 = 4191277 KB results are KB

what units are

(103.8206667 * 60 * 5511.9 / 8 ) = 4291868

Kilobytes. Based on 1000 bytes, instead of 1024 bytes.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #110  
07-07-2005, 05:11 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hmm...
Since you're dividing by 1024 to get to Kilobytes, it means the previous figure should be bytes based in 1000.
Am I right?
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #111  
07-07-2005, 05:28 AM
Prodater64 Prodater64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Palma de Mallorca - España
Posts: 2,925
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Hmm...
Since you're dividing by 1024 to get to Kilobytes, it means the previous figure should be bytes based in 1000.
Am I right?
Not.
He is dividing by 1.024 (decimal number).
Reply With Quote
  #112  
07-07-2005, 08:04 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
No he is not.
He's grouping digits .
1 Kilobyte is not == 1,024 bytes.
1 kilobyte is == 1024 bytes.
That's what Karl is doing.
He is dividing by 1024 to reach Kilobytes.
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #113  
07-07-2005, 08:34 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
No he is not.
Yes he is

Quote:
He's grouping digits .
1 Kilobyte is not == 1,024 bytes.
1 kilobyte is == 1024 bytes.
That's what Karl is doing.
He is dividing by 1024 to reach Kilobytes.
Cheers
Karl is is dividing by 1dot024. Not 1024 (that is 1comma024).
And he does so because "5511.9" is already in 'kilo' (kbps = kilo bit per second)

The problem is : is 5511.9 in base 1000 or 1024 ? That is perhaps the question you asked Rui.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
07-07-2005, 01:25 PM
GFR GFR is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Phil,

let me answer for Rui:

in portuguese, the decimal separator is "," (comma) while the thousands separator is "." (dot) - that's why the confusion.

so one and twenty four thousenths is 1,024 ("in portuguese") and 1.024 ("in english") ;
One thousand and twenty four is 1.024 ("in portuguese") and 1,024 ("in english").
Reply With Quote
  #115  
07-07-2005, 02:37 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFR
in portuguese, the decimal separator is "," (comma) while the thousands separator is "." (dot) - that's why the confusion.
I know. That's the same in all Europe.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
07-09-2005, 08:56 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok.
I got it all wrong
Karl was really talking about 1 dot 024.
I did get confused because usually in my calcs I use bytes and not kilobytes where I divide by 1024 to reach kilobytes in the end.
Sorry guys.
BTW I don't see why doing the calcs using movie time in minutes and seconds while we can do it in frames which is a much more accurate measure.
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #117  
07-09-2005, 10:07 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
BTW I don't see why doing the calcs using movie time in minutes and seconds while we can do it in frames which is a much more accurate measure.Cheers
To avoid confusion between 23.976 and 23,976
Reply With Quote
  #118  
07-09-2005, 10:24 AM
Prodater64 Prodater64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Palma de Mallorca - España
Posts: 2,925
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Ok.
... BTW I don't see why doing the calcs using movie time in minutes and seconds while we can do it in frames which is a much more accurate measure.
Cheers
BTW Did you test and compare ProCalc, based on Boulder spreadsheet?
Reply With Quote
  #119  
07-09-2005, 11:00 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
To avoid confusion between 23.976 and 23,976
You joker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodater64
BTW Did you test and compare ProCalc, based on Boulder spreadsheet?
Not yet.
My PC won't let me.
I mean I have downloaded ProCalc and all but it won't start even with the VB6 runtimes...
Too many DLL's all screwed up or something.
It's a miracle that I can still browse the web on FireFox.
It's slow as hell and I was blaming my ISP .
All started happening from the moment I installed avast for testing and they uninstalled it to go back to avg free .
avast uninstaller presented me with tons of errors and froze my pc.
I had to hard reset it and then I got presented with a lot of errors on boot.
I shall reinstall XP and I'll let you know then.
When will I learn that I must do some XP images for times like this when things get difficult
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #120  
07-09-2005, 06:39 PM
Prodater64 Prodater64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Palma de Mallorca - España
Posts: 2,925
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
BTW I don't see why doing the calcs using movie time in minutes and seconds while we can do it in frames which is a much more accurate measure.
Cheers
ProCalc info minutes and seconds so in that way ASPA (Available Space Proportional Allocation) is compatible in a straight way with CQmatic, as it require min and sec as input plus avg btr and TMPGEnc project. But, "in fact" ProCalc do all calculations based on frames and fps.
You know, same than Boulder spreadsheet.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bitrates: CQMatic and CalcuMatic now Open Source! kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 18 07-12-2008 06:13 AM
Bitrates: Latest CQMatic/CalcuMatic epuleda Video Encoding and Conversion 2 05-25-2006 09:54 PM
Bitrates: CQMatic/CalcuMatic kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 715 01-04-2005 09:51 AM
Bitrates: CQMatic/Calcumatic? Blubear Video Encoding and Conversion 6 07-17-2004 08:53 PM
Bitrates: Success (CQMatic & CalcuMatic) jorel Video Encoding and Conversion 10 10-25-2003 08:00 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 PM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd