For my part thats the opposite !

I decided to drop bilinear after having encoded Monster ! On the first scene, the head of the child bed is supposed to be a perfect curve; With bilinear it was more like a stair that a smooth half circle. I changed to bicubic(0,0.6) and the curve was perfect.

opposite?
8O
you wrote:
"I changed to bicubic(0,0.6) and the curve was perfect."

i misunderstand something Phil cos
i use bicubic and got better result too.
see my last post before this,i wrote:
"..the second(without lanczos) is really best..."
with bicubic was better than lanczos!
:wink:

You're right Jorel, I read "bilinear" where you wrote "bicubic". So my post does'nt have any sense :-)

Seems that the weather is to hot for my brain (36°C since one week here in France!)

Yeah!, I saw that last night in the news. People are jumping off the Eiffel Tower to swim in the water fountains :mrgreen: (Just kidding :cool: )
Drink a cold "Perrier" ;)

-kwag

In one way, we are lucky in Paris : in south of the country temp raised to 40° :-)

@J-Wo: yes, I normally use 300-2500 bitrate.

@Dialhot: did Undot improve the picture any? Are you working with high quality sources? I would have thought spatial filtering would have been unecessary with a HQ divx since any noise would (should?) have been filtered out during the divx encoding process ... but use whatever works of course!

Improved the quality ? It depends in wich way we are talking. I did all my test at constant CQ (70). Can't really say if undot improved the quality or not but what I'm sure is that it didn't lower it (that important ;-)) and the sample size was 10% smaller with undot than without it.

So the final CQ will be greater, and we can say that the quality will be better.

BTW, we always use a spatial filter even in the optimal scripts for DVD clean sources even if this noise would (and should) have been filterd during the MPEG2 DVD authoring. no ?

I've always thought that any spatial filtering softens divx sources too much as they're already pretty soft compared to DVDs so I tend to leave it out and take the CQ hit - I just prefer the results of a sharper source with a lower CQ. Same thing goes for Kwag's DVD scripts, IMHO they soften the picture too much so I just do my own thing with less spatial filtering.

I guess noise should have been filtered out during the DVD encoding process but experience has shown this not to be the case.

But what Im trying to say is: if you like the results then use the script, whatever it is :)

That is also why I use Lanczos resizing. We are the same. But in this case Undot+Lanzos is better thatn Bilinear+nothing.

For sure ;-)

FWIW I used to use Lanczos but noticed over-sharpening artefacts from time to time so I switched back to Bicubic.

Girv are you using avisynth 2.0x or 2.5x with this divx script?

//Wolfi

ATC doesn't exist for avs2.08...

I am very basic here so bare with me is this what the script should look like

THanx

@bigggt: looks good :)

I would use BlockBuster after resize, because resize also smooths a bit.

ok thanx guys

Hi :)
Does avisynth 2.5x support textsub? Line :arrow:

LoadPlugin("C:\VDub\plugins\textsub.vdf")

New with this "new" aviSy. version :?

//Wolfi

Wolfi,

Yes, it does but you don't need to use the virtualdub version, there is a native avisynth 2.5 version. But please, next time, start a new thread since your question has nothing to do with this thread idea... :wink:

[]'s
Vmesquita

Thanks vmesquita...yes sorry my post was off topic and a kinda tought of that aftar I had post my question, sorry once again :oops:

I will just stick to this post http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5058 , I suppose this is my answer and I will for now stick to reading instead of asking you questions. Btw I forgot there was a subtitle forum also... :oops:

//Wolfi

Wolfi,

Please, don't be shy to post! Of course searching before posting prevents us from awnsering the same thing over and over again, but we're all here to help! I just said that to keep the forum organized! :D
All posts are welcome! :D

[]'s
Vmesquita