KVCDx3 template without any filters?
 

This question is present in another treath but till now I have no reply so I try tu ask you directly.

As I'm not very used to change PC configuration :oops: I would like to know the benefit in therm of file lenght and time to encode before to change all my present configuration and ........ risk :Drunk: to crash my PC.

I already tried to encode with KVCDx3 template 480-576 resolution with a lot of satisfation. Now I can fit 75-90 min of movie in one CD with CQ of 70-75. Now I would like to make the jump to 120 min in one CD using the best filters you use but before, I wolud like to know the influence of these filter over the lenght an the time to encode.

So if it is possible for you , could you try to make 3 test and put the results on a table in a way that all the people who read in the forum can understand an chose if it's better to put a movie in one or two CD.

1) first test - 2 min of an action movie (whathever you want) - 480*576 resolution with CQ75 standard GOP a Q matrix and without any filters - Results: lenght of file and time to encode.

2) second test - 480*576 resolution with with CQ75, KVCDx3 template and without any filters - Results: lenght of file and time to encode.

3) Third test - 480*576 resolution with with CQ75, KVCDx3 template and all the filters that you are using at the moment - Results: lenght of file and time to encode.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Re: Question for KWAG
 

As I received a lot of help from Kwag after this question ........... :roll: ........ with the real help of "LABOMBA","heyitsme" and "muaddib" in these days I'm completing a lot of test with a lot of configuration.

All the test was made with DVD source like input.

The results are ... very very interesting :lol: 8O :twisted:

So... before to post the table with the results with the dimension of files produced and time to encode... I would like to know from you wich are the best filters to reduce the dimension of files if the source input is DVD (that means a source very clean) without losing detail of immage.

That's to validate all my results, and give to all the people reading this forum a "map" to understand if is "time" worth to use the filters and try to reach the "120 min on one CD goal".

GORI,

All your questions have been addressed many times before. It's not necessary to do this, or to re(prove) this again :wink: Read here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2073

-kwag

These two filters used together help reduce file size and is fast:
SpaceDust()
TemporalCleaner()

This creates great compression but is extremely slow and may make your movie a little too soft for your tastes:
FaeryDust()
TemporalCleaner()
Convolution3D(preset="movieHQ")

You could also try this for a smaller file, but for me it is too soft of a picture:
mergechroma(blur(1.50))
mergeluma(blur(0.2))
SpaceDust()
FluxSmooth()
NoMoSmooth()
TemporalCleaner()
Convolution3D(preset="movieHQ")


Here is a good thread about compressing your DVD movies. There are links to video samples in the thread, that show the great looking results of super compression:
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic....ghlight=s1mone

Re: Question for KWAG
 

Of course it's worth it to use avisynth filters! :wink: They're great!!!

As Kwag previously mentioned, the info you were asking about has been done many times before and can be found throughout many posts in the forums, but I just got done doing some tests of my own today with different filter combinations and I posted the results (including Time To Encode and Filesize) here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3136&start=15. Hope you find it useful.

-d&c

Many thank's to

kwag
digitalize
dazed&confused

for the help and the links

Now I can understand something It's was uncomprensible to me.

Thank you very much !!!! :D :D :D