Setting the min bitrate to 0.57 * average-bitrate will likely increase it above the old standard 300kbps, right? So will that not reduce video quality since more bits are used to encode frames that dont need them and the overall CQ will have to be lower? Or did I miss something again?

/girv

Yes, but usually the MIN bitrate fluctuates around 400-500Kbps, so CQ calculations are more accurate than when lowering it to 300.
Unless you're using the ULBR, where the average is very low, and also the MAX bitrate, then you can go way low on the MIN too.

-kwag

I just got done with this a couple minutes ago, and after looking at the log I'm kinda confused at what the correct cq should be ? Should I choose 80.18 or 80? I also see it chose the the same cq more than once. Here's the log

http://www.kvcd.net
CQMatic Version 1.1.12a
Copyright Softronex Corporation, 2003.
All rights reserved.
Time: 11:57:48 Date: 08/20/2003
Ready!
Project: C:\DVD\Kwag070803.tpr

Creating: CQMatic.tpr

C:\DVD\Kwag070803.m1v
Project resolution: 352x240
Execute.
Movie Time: 108
Average Bitrate: 903
Prediction Only mode
Executing Prediction Phase...
Process started at 11:58:43
On 08/20/2003
CQ set for prediction
Setting up initial sampling.
Using CQ of 60.00
Prediction cycle #1
Encoder started...
Process time: 2.55 minutes.
Encoder end.
File size difference = 1.387796
Low fence: 60.000000
High fence: 90.000000
Last CQ = 60.00
Current CQ = 83.27
CQ difference = 23.267738
Using CQ of 83.27
Prediction cycle #2
Encoder started...
Process time: 2.52 minutes.
Encoder end.
File size difference = 0.846521
Low fence: 60.000000
High fence: 83.267738
Last CQ = 83.27
Current CQ = 71.63
CQ difference = 11.633873
Using CQ of 71.63
Prediction cycle #3
Encoder started...
Process time: 2.18 minutes.
Encoder end.
File size difference = 1.243023
Low fence: 71.633865
High fence: 83.267738
Last CQ = 71.63
Current CQ = 77.45
CQ difference = 5.816940
Using CQ of 77.45
Prediction cycle #4
Encoder started...
Process time: 2.47 minutes.
Encoder end.
File size difference = 1.163526
Low fence: 77.450806
High fence: 83.267738
Last CQ = 77.45
Current CQ = 80.36
CQ difference = 2.908463
Using CQ of 80.36
Prediction cycle #5
Encoder started...
Process time: 2.22 minutes.
Encoder end.
File size difference = 0.993907
Low fence: 77.450806
High fence: 80.359268
Last CQ = 80.36
Current CQ = 78.91
CQ difference = 1.454231
Using CQ of 78.91
Prediction cycle #6
Encoder started...
Process time: 2.17 minutes.
Encoder end.
File size difference = 1.140644
Low fence: 78.905037
High fence: 80.359268
Last CQ = 78.91
Current CQ = 79.63
CQ difference = 0.727119
Using CQ of 79.63
Prediction cycle #7
Encoder started...
Process time: 2.48 minutes.
Encoder end.
File size difference = 1.061152
Low fence: 79.632156
High fence: 80.359268
Last CQ = 79.63
Current CQ = 80.00
CQ difference = 0.363556
Using CQ of 80.00
Prediction cycle #8
Encoder started...
Process time: 2.22 minutes.
Encoder end.
File size difference = 1.024969
Low fence: 79.995712
High fence: 80.359268
Last CQ = 80.00
Current CQ = 80.18
CQ difference = 0.181778
CQMatic complete!
Total minutes of process: 18.80
Process ended at 12:17:31
On 08/20/2003


David

It's 80. I've updated CQMatic to 1.1.12b, to show the final CQ ( by Phil's request ;) )
I'll upload it in a little while.

-kwag

Uploaded!
http://www.kvcd.net/CQMatic-1.1.12b.exe

-kwag

The cq of 80 was to big. CQ 80=836,318=816mb
I'm going to try testing it again and see if I get the same value.

David

Hi DKruskie.. evening all :)

If you mean testing CQM prediction, it should still remain the same. I've
done this a few times w/ other CQM versions - - so no need to.. really :!:

Also, I would imagine that if you re-encode again, w/ same params, you'll
end up w/ the same FinalSize.. I would assume :roll:

-vhelp

Is there a big in 1.2.0 where cqmatic says "CQ_VBR set for prediction" when in fact it's set for CQ? It also does prediction in CQ as I specified in my project file... Just noticed this now and not sure if it's always been there or just a fluke I spotted.

@ j-wo..

I noticed this too, a couple of weeks ago, but thought it was a bug that
was already cought, or I missed the explanation. I ignored it since :roll:

-vhelp

hmm well I think something was messed up in my project file, cause my prediction was going bonkers. I'm encoding episodes of Babylon 5, which normally settle at CQ 63. But the prediction was going up to CQ 80 then back down, but got stuck at CQ 63.01. Anyway I remade my project file from scratch and now it seems to be working fine (i.e. it says CQ set for prediction). I'll write back if I have any more problems

Kwag, a little more needed.
 

quote="kwag"
It's a piece of cake, and your aspect will always be correct :!:
Here's what you do.
Open your .d2v as "Video Source" in TMPEG. Got to "Crop" and clip out your black borders, leaving only your Film area.
You'll get this:

Now look at the top values on the top left. In my case, it's 718x358. So take those values to Moviestacker, and enter them in the "Film pixel" text boxes.
Now read the "Resize" values that MS gives you, and enter them in TMPEG's "Video Arrange Method" pixels text boxes.
You'll have this:

That's it :!:
Now your movie will have the aspect it's supposed to have, perfectly

Given the above, what modifications do I make to my AVS, either using GripCrop or using values from Movie Stacker in the script?

Re: Kwag, a little more needed.
 

In order to enter the "Film Pixels" into MS, you have to deselect "Use Gripcrop" on the first tab of MS. When you then look at the script that MS creates, you'll notice there are no GripCrop or GripBorders lines. Instead you'll see something like:
These are the lines you would then use in replace of GripCrop. The first line would go where GripCrop used to go, and the second goes where GripBorders used to be. Good luck!

Re: Kwag, a little more needed.
 

Understand. Thanks!

Kwag, probably just another dumb question..........
 

On the tmpgenc screen, you show crop checked. Is this necessary when I use moviestacker to produce script statements using the tmpgenc pixels as you have described in other posts?

Re: Kwag, probably just another dumb question..........
 

No, because the script produced by Moviestacker takes care of the cropping automatically, so it's already feeding the exact film pixels to TMPEG.

-kwag

Re: Kwag, probably just another dumb question..........
 

Great! I am processing with the MA optimum script at present. The CQMatic passes are going much faster than with the non-MA with 2.08 and I look forward to seeing the results. I assume motion should be smoother with the MA script.

addborders() error
 

Running MA optimum script with Avisynth 2.52

AddBorders(16, 33, 16, 33) gives error when TMPGEnc starts:

Evaluate: Unrecognized exception!

Is there a dll containing Addborders() different for 2.52. Only this function gives a problem.

Trying to use:

LoadPlugin("c:\video\dlls\GripFit_preview.dll")

gives me a error saying that it is not an Avisynth 2.5 plug in.

I'm trying to use movie stacker data into my avs.

hey nick,
use the word "latexxx" in the search and you get
the gripfit yv12 for avisynth 2.5x!
:wink:

thanks again(tons) latexxx!
:wink:

Here, http://www.nic.fi/~lhahne/GripFit_YV12.zip

Excuse me for opening an old topic (I am playing with the two versions of CqMatic (12xx & 13xx), and was looking for comparisons when I came across this.

Kwag - is there anyway to get those crop values (in the picture, the 704x272) in tmpg without using moviestacker?