Quantcast CCE and KVCDx3, but Grayscale is Horrible? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
01-26-2003, 12:39 PM
DarthEshpo DarthEshpo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mortara (PV), Italy
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi guys!

I must use KVCDx3 MPEG-2 template because my player (Samsung DVD-611) doesn't accept XVCD (KVCD) discs.
But TMPGEnc doesn't satisfact me at all. The grey scale is orrible. The darkest black seems like a dark grey. And there are a lot of white dots all over the picture (the source is perfect).
So, I've thinked: why don't I use CCE instead of TMPGEnc?
I've asked this question to Kwag and he says that I can't use CCE because this encoder doesn't support the high number of GOPs that the KVCDx3 template uses, but I can patch the CCE matrix and use the KVCDx3 MPEG-2 matrix.

I've do this. I've patched CCE 2.5 SP with the KVCDx3's (MPEG-2) matrix and I've compressed all at 480x576. Yeah, I know this is not the original resolution, but this is only a test. The results were FANTASTICS! CCE compress much better than TMPGEnc when using MPEG-2 compression!

So, my question is. By patching CCE i've obtained good results. Will I see some quality improvement changing the GOPs structure of CCE to the maximum? I mean, for example:

I-Pictures: 1
P-Pictures: 5823
B-Pictures: 2
Interval of Seq. Header: 24 ...and so on...

If CCE (for example) could reach only the value 2000 in the P-Pictures option, I can set 2000 as value, for getting better results in my test and for be near to the KVCDx3 original value. It's an idea?

Yes, I know that my english is orrible, but i'm italian .

So:

1) What's the Matrix and the GOP's structure?
2) What improvements can I see changing the GOP structure? And by changing the matrix?
3)How can I set CCE for the GOP structure?

Thanks for your replyes and sorry again for my poor english .

Bye, Daniele.
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
  #2  
01-26-2003, 07:30 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hy Daniele,

seems a very good idea your test.
i think that cce could get better results too(in mpeg2).
"The darkest black seems like a dark grey."(yeah,i see it sometimes)
waiting for a answer with you.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
01-26-2003, 09:12 PM
gopalkk gopalkk is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 53
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yep. I feel we need Magic Man (Kwag)'s help in using CCE for MPEG-2.

I am getting same or better compression with CCE and CCE is doing
it in REALTIME with no AviSynth filters used.

How to patch CCE Matrix? I forgot that part. Did u see extra compression with using this new matrix? Pl. provide your input.

My problem with Tmpgenc is only with Indian Interlaced DVDs (sourced from regular movie films).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
01-26-2003, 09:19 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
.....magic man ever comes.....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
01-27-2003, 04:16 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi guys !
I see your enthusiasm and excitment about CCE , Its good but I don't think that we can ask KWAG to be involved in this NON ethic and as I see it non Legal activity with CCE .
He already informed us , long time ago , that he doesn't own , doesn't work and doesnt have any intention to be involved in any kind of "optimizations" that u suggest .
So it'll be just unfair to ask hem even to respond to your provocative
posts .
So think again before u ask this kind of stuff on this site .
With deepest respect
bman
Reply With Quote
  #6  
01-27-2003, 05:08 AM
GEDE GEDE is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@DarthEshpo


have U tried the Header trick?
(muxing mpeg1 as SVCD , burning as svcd making a sxvcd )


from my expirience (tested on several different players), mpeg1 sxvcds will play on almost any standart svcd compatible player

ciao
__________________
Kwag u da man!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
01-27-2003, 09:31 AM
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
Hi guys,

Sorry to get here late . I've was pretty busy yesterday

@Daniele,

As bman said, I'm really not very interested in CCE. There's not that much difference anymore between CCE and TMPEG. Long time ago, there was. Times have changed. As to your question about the P frames 5823, your answer is in Q-29 here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=68
And as the main emphasis here is on MPEG-1, that is also the main reason we don't use CCE. TMPEG is better than CCE at any resolution and bit rate when encoding to MPEG-1. This is an industry fact.

@jorel,

Got your PM, sorry for being late

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #8  
01-27-2003, 11:21 AM
DarthEshpo DarthEshpo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mortara (PV), Italy
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ciao!

To Kwag:
Sorry if I have posted the same question on CCE. But i'm REALLY interested in using this encoder for making KVCDs with MPEG-2 compression, since my player only allow VCDs, S-VCDs and X-S-VCD at the maximum total datarate of 2748 Kb/s. I've tryed the "Header Trick" but I've obtained no results. I don't like very much the TMPGEnc MPEG-2 compression: the encoder is very SLOW, it doesn't produces good results and the grey scale of the images is SIMPLY TERRIBLE (with MPEG-1 compression we can't see this problem). Also, there are A LOT of white dots all over the pictures, as I haved sayed (it's correct?).

By using CCE instead of TMPGEnc we can have a perfect image quality and we can encode an entire movie in only 9/10 hours (I do this with a 566MHz CPU). The colors are much betters and the mosquitos noises are less evidents.

So, Kwag. Now I need a reply. By patching the CCE matrix, will I produce MPEG-2 KVCDs? You have sayed that the high number of GOPs is only a signature of KVCD's template, so it's not important, isn't it? By changing the high value under the GOP's structure, will I see any changes in terms of quality and filesize?

And second: by changing the original KVCDx3's resolution to, for example, 480x576, do I produce better images? Less resolution means better quality, less blocks and yeah, less details. Or the KVCDx3 is optimized for it's original res?

Thanks for your reply and... this topic is very interesting!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
01-27-2003, 12:07 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 DarthEshpo
Ciao!

To Kwag:
I don't like very much the TMPGEnc MPEG-2 compression: the encoder is very SLOW
Hace you really tried TMPEG 2.510 encoding in CQ mode
Quote:
it doesn't produces good results and the grey scale of the images is SIMPLY TERRIBLE (with MPEG-1 compression we can't see this problem). Also, there are A LOT of white dots all over the pictures, as I haved sayed (it's correct?).
Well you should try again in CQ mode. The last tests I did comparing CCE to TMPEG in MPEG-2 there was really NO visual difference. I can provide proof of that, but I would have to dig up the old samples. There is a thread at vcdhelp.com where I posted some shots comparing CCE x-pass against TMPEG CQ, and there's no visual difference. Not to mention that TMPEG encoding in CQ mode will be about the same or faster then CCE 3-pass
Quote:

By using CCE instead of TMPGEnc we can have a perfect image quality and we can encode an entire movie in only 9/10 hours (I do this with a 566MHz CPU). The colors are much betters and the mosquitos noises are less evidents.
Can you provide sample screenshots to prove this Because I can prove that the results are about the same
Quote:

So, Kwag. Now I need a reply. By patching the CCE matrix, will I produce MPEG-2 KVCDs?
Sure!,you'll be encoding with KVCD's Q.Matrix, but you'll be missing the GOP
Quote:
You have sayed that the high number of GOPs is only a signature of KVCD's template, so it's not important, isn't it?
The last number (24) is what makes the difference. A max frames per GOP of 24. I believe you can't do that with CCE.
Quote:
By changing the high value under the GOP's structure, will I see any changes in terms of quality and filesize?
Fact proved in all KVCD templates, but tested with TMPEG
Quote:

And second: by changing the original KVCDx3's resolution to, for example, 480x576, do I produce better images?
No.
Quote:
Less resolution means better quality, less blocks and yeah, less details. Or the KVCDx3 is optimized for it's original res?
Less resolution always equals less sharpness.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #10  
01-27-2003, 09:43 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Hi guys,

Sorry to get here late . I've was pretty busy yesterday

@Daniele,

As bman said, I'm really not very interested in CCE. There's not that much difference anymore between CCE and TMPEG. Long time ago, there was. Times have changed. As to your question about the P frames 5823, your answer is in Q-29 here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=68
And as the main emphasis here is on MPEG-1, that is also the main reason we don't use CCE. TMPEG is better than CCE at any resolution and bit rate when encoding to MPEG-1. This is an industry fact.

@jorel,

Got your PM, sorry for being late

-kwag
thank you Kwag,
i'm with you and really see the very good results... follow you.

bman wrote:
"Its good but I don't think that we can ask KWAG to be involved in this NON ethic and as I see it non Legal activity with CCE ."

yes bman ,you're correct, i'm with you too.
this forum is clean. (people, progs,friendship,everything).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
01-28-2003, 08:52 AM
DarthEshpo DarthEshpo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mortara (PV), Italy
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@ Kwag:

Sure. I can post you a test. But at this moment i'm a bit busy. I will post the tests (here?) in the next days, so, we can make a comparision, OK?

Kwag, i want to thank you for your replies on this topic and, as always, for your beautilifuls templates!

Bye!
Daniele.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
01-28-2003, 09:39 AM
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 DarthEshpo
Kwag, i want to thank you for your replies on this topic and, as always, for your beautilifuls templates!
Thanks Daniele, any time

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #13  
01-28-2003, 11:11 AM
DarthEshpo DarthEshpo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mortara (PV), Italy
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hey!

I'm ready to post the TMPGEnc example. But how can I post an attachment in this forum?

Daniele.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
01-28-2003, 11:24 AM
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 DarthEshpo
Hey!

I'm ready to post the TMPGEnc example. But how can I post an attachment in this forum?

Daniele.
Yo can't! You have to post an image link or url referencing an external site.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #15  
01-28-2003, 11:34 AM
DarthEshpo DarthEshpo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mortara (PV), Italy
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Can't I post this to you, Kwag?

It's only 3,8Mb...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
01-28-2003, 11:43 AM
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 DarthEshpo
Can't I post this to you, Kwag?

It's only 3,8Mb...
Mail it to kwag at kvcd.net
Reply With Quote
  #17  
01-28-2003, 12:46 PM
DarthEshpo DarthEshpo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mortara (PV), Italy
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks VERY MUCH Kwag!

I have sended the test. Can you put a link in this forum?

Daniele.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
01-28-2003, 12:58 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 DarthEshpo
Thanks VERY MUCH Kwag!

I have sended the test. Can you put a link in this forum?

Daniele.
Yes, as soon as I get the E-Mail
It's not here yet.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #19  
01-28-2003, 01:25 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
Hi Daniele,

Here's your sample so everyone can download it and view it: http://www.kvcd.net/b.mpg

My question is this: It's only 5 second, with a file size of about ~1.8MB
What exactly do you want to compare this to
Because if I make an MPEG-2 sample of 5 seconds with TMPEG that ends up with that file size, I guarantee you right now that there won't be any difference from TMPEG, CCE, or even some of the least used MPEG encoders in the market With that sample, each minute would ~21.876MB

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #20  
01-28-2003, 01:32 PM
DarthEshpo DarthEshpo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mortara (PV), Italy
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yes, the size is so big because is a CBR MPEG-2 at 2556Kb/s. I have compressed at CBR because with this method we can compare better the quality produced by the 2 encoders. If I select VBR, TMPGEnc could compress with a lower bitrate and CCE with an higher bitrate the same scene.

Have you noticed the white dots over the picture?
It's hard to see them but they are here.

Thanks again. Bye .
Daniele.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KVCDx3 y KVCDx3A viuda Convertir y Codificar Video (Español) 23 05-17-2004 06:17 PM
KVCDx3 keltus Convertir y Codificar Video (Español) 4 07-17-2003 03:07 PM
VirtualDub: horrible clicking sounds in audio mpierce Video Encoding and Conversion 1 04-08-2003 07:44 AM
I buy a DVD burner and you come out with a Kvcdx3? lvWSTATICWvl Video Encoding and Conversion 13 09-04-2002 03:06 PM
KVCD: No macroblocks, but the resolution is horrible! scottymac Video Encoding and Conversion 3 08-06-2002 05:03 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 PM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd