Quantcast KVCD: Bitrate to get Better Results than the Standard Matrix? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
11-27-2003, 12:52 AM
MrTibs MrTibs is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 200
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I often encode with a CQ at a 100. Is there a bitrate where I would get better results with the standard matrix? Or, is your matrix always going to give me better results.

FYI, KVCD can produce great results with a rip and for clean sources but on some of my noisy sources...not so good.

(I don't mind a 2 cd encode for some movies. It seems that my analog captures compress poorly so a single CD encode just doens't look good enough.)

Edit: I miss typed. What I ment to convey is that on MY very noisy sources, the 1 CD encoding results are not very good (due to the bitrate required for the noise). The problem is not KVCD but rather the source. So, my question was aimed at the issue of video quality when compression was not an issue. Sorry, Kwag I didn't mean to type what I did.
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  
11-27-2003, 04:23 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 MrTibs
FYI, KVCD can produce great results with a rip and for clean sources but on some of my noisy sources...not so good.
That's the purpose of the scripts in fact. Did you see that thread talking about resizing by half, denoising and then restore the orignal size ? It seems that gives wonderful results on analog captures as your.

(I do not find it but I'm sure some can point it to you).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
11-27-2003, 04:41 AM
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
Here it is
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6863

BUT!
The main purpose by doing this ONE-HALF-Filter-ONE was that the filters can perform better on lower resolutions - also you don't have to set them that heavy which also lets you preserve more details. And by the way in case of Dust Filters like Pixiedust() it rises up the speed.

BUT! Anyhow ... we do loose pixelinformations by resizing to half thats a fact ... well you won't recognise it that much on TV but ... it hurts to our High-Resolution emotions

So ... in case of captures and all streams which will be recognised as Fieldbased you can do the following:

Avisource(........)
SeparateFields().Bicubicresize(xxxx, 1/2 yyy)
YourFilterSettingsHere()
Weave()

What does this mean? Nomen est Omen so the fields will be separated and you will obtain (in case of 704x576 capture) a 704x288 stream which runs at 50fps !!
There we also got that ONE HALF ONE Effect ... for better filtering results!
And the Weave() command will re-assemble the fields again so it results again as a 704x576 25fps stream.

I do it on every capture (no matter if REALLY interlaced or just progressive) and I also did it on some bad/noisy DVD sources.

But watch out if applying Temporal filtering! In such a case you should use the "interleave" method.

In case of Peachsmoother (if you remember my script) you still should use the "Seperate Fields" method as it is recommended by the author himself at doom9.org
Reply With Quote
  #4  
11-27-2003, 04:51 AM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here's an easy way to interlaced filtering, no matter if you use spatial or temporal filters:

Code:
AVISource()
UnFoldFieldsVertical(flip=true)
#All filters here#
#Resizing here#
FoldFieldsVertical(flip=true)
AddBorders()
Here are the two functions you need:

Code:
# JDL_UnfoldFieldsVertical
#
#   Separates the fields in a clip and stacks them vertically.
#   Regardless of field order, even fields are on top.
#
# PARAMETERS:
#   flip - pass true to flip the bottom field vertically;
#          useful when dealing with spatial filters
#          (default: false)
#
function UnfoldFieldsVertical(clip c, bool "flip")
{
    flip = default(flip, false)
    oldParity = c.GetParity()
    c.AssumeTFF().SeparateFields().AssumeFrameBased()
    top = SelectEven()
    bottom = SelectOdd()
    StackVertical(top, flip ? bottom.FlipVertical()
    \                       : bottom)
    return (c.FrameCount() == 0)
    \      ? c
    \      : SetParity(oldParity)
}


# JDL_FoldFieldsVertical
#
#   Folds fields from a clip that resulted from calling
#   JDL_UnfoldFieldsVertical.
#
# PARAMETERS:
#   flip - pass true if the bottom field was flipped vertically with
#            JDL_UnfoldFieldsVertical
#          (default: false)
#
function FoldFieldsVertical(clip c, bool "flip")
{
    assert(c.Height() % 2 == 0, "JDL_FoldFieldsVertical: unexpected frame height")
    flip = default(flip, false)
    oldParity = c.GetParity()
    originalHeight = c.Height() / 2
    evens = c.Crop(0, 0, c.Width(), originalHeight)
    odds = c.Crop(0, originalHeight, c.Width(), originalHeight)
    odds = flip ? odds.FlipVertical() : odds
    Interleave(evens, odds).AssumeFieldBased().AssumeTFF().Weave()
    return (c.FrameCount() == 0)
    \      ? c
    \      : SetParity(oldParity)
}
You can save the functions in your Avisynth plugins folder (for example with the name foldfields.avsi) so you don't have to add all those lines in your script every time. Just remember to use the extension .avsi .

If you're worried about losing too much pixel information with the 1--1 thing, try 704x576 -> 480x576 -> 704x576.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
11-28-2003, 09:40 AM
MrTibs MrTibs is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 200
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks guys.

I'll try the scripts this weekend (where does the time go?).

I'm hooked on PixieDust but it has a bug on noisy souces that causes the fast moving parts of the frame to break up (macro blocks). For a while I thought this was due to my encoding process but you can actually see it in Vdub before the encoding (with Huffy as a source).

Increadible's script has worked wonders on my MJpeg encodes so I'm sure his and Boulder's will prove to be quite good here.

Thanks again, I'll let you know how it all turns out.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
12-02-2003, 12:01 AM
MrTibs MrTibs is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 200
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OK, first thanks again for the pointers.

I did know about increadible's One-half-one methods but I had captured at 352x480 so I was a little limited with my source.

I had been experimenting with a modifcation of incredable's script that used StackVertical but Boulder's script produced better results due to the parity check. The script allowed me to achieve a CQ of 77 for a movie 114 minutes long and nearly full screen. (I do a semi-full screen-to-wide-screen conversion to increase compression.)

The remaining challenge are the low lit scenes. The normal to bright scenes look fantastic but the dark ones are covered in macro blocks. Is this a place for blockbuster or what would you guys suggest?

@Dialhot
I got a taste of what KVCD can do even at lower CQ's with the one and only rip I did. The results are truly amazing so my hopes for my noisy captures has gone up too. You are probably right that I should continue to plug away until I can fit an entire movie onto a single CD. I have poked around and found some of your script examples so I'll be trying those next.


Any suggestions for the low lit scenes?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
12-02-2003, 02:19 AM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTibs
OK, first thanks again for the pointers.

I did know about increadible's One-half-one methods but I had captured at 352x480 so I was a little limited with my source.
Watch out! By separating the fields on a 352x480 stream and therefore obtaining a 352x240 @ 50FPS for filtering, Peachsmoother does behave totally different (as it seems to me) on 352x288(240)! It seems that the author implementated a "safe"-filtering brake so the filter performs worse on that size. If you already capture at 352x480 the Framedata is less enough and you don't need to separate the fields. Well I also will try this week Boulders recommendation of UnFold/FoldFieldsVertical but anyhow peachsmoother seems working worse on resolutions less than 352x576(480).
Quote:
The remaining challenge are the low lit scenes. The normal to bright scenes look fantastic but the dark ones are covered in macro blocks. Is this a place for blockbuster or what would you guys suggest?
What are your min/max Bitratesettings you encode with?
And .... yes Blockbuster(xxxx) "can" do little wonders on that scenes you mention so you have to try and use the settings of Blockbuster DialHot set at the end of his Avi scripts.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
standard VCD and KVCD (non-Standard) with the same results? Machsurfer Video Encoding and Conversion 7 05-31-2004 07:07 PM
bitrate exceeds 9800 dvd standard in tmpgenc author nicksteel Authoring VCD, DVD, Blu-ray 4 04-09-2004 04:54 PM
HeadAC3he: Wav or ac3 to mp2 with no standard bitrate? jorel Audio Conversion 2 09-21-2003 05:40 PM
TMPGEnc: Standard VCD with KVCD matrix vmesquita Video Encoding and Conversion 22 05-10-2003 11:44 AM
Old KVCD Matrix verses new Notch Matrix jamesp Avisynth Scripting 4 03-20-2003 03:48 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 PM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd