KDVD Sample #2
 

Here you go people :D
Another sample, this time a Full Screen KDVD sample, WITHOUT any filters :cool: :!:

http://www.kvcd.net/ffvfw-bourne-ide...creen-test.m2v

Do we really need another encoder :?: :mrgreen:
I don't think so :!:
BTW, my Red Planet encode, multiplexed perfectly WITHOUT any overruns or underruns :!:
So there are no errors on the MPEG stream produced by this CODEC :cool:

-kwag

That's really great quality, Kwag 8O

On my first test filesize was a bit big (using filters). I'm trying to reduce CQ now. A quick calc showed a final size of 2 GB for a 90 minutes video @CQ100.

Yeah, I'm beginning to fall in love with this CODEC :mrgreen: Maybe a PAL issue :idea:

-kwag

With a CQ of 60, i would get a filesize of 495 MB for a 90 minutes movie.
A longer test confimed that with a CQ of 100 final size would be near 1.8 GB.

I'll try next with a CQ near 90.

I wonder how you achieve this without filters. I'm using the latest optimal script at the moment.

Next try will be without filters.

EDIT: Without filters, size is 40% bigger...

Hi Krassi,

The issue is probably related to PAL and the matrix.
So you'll have to lower the quality % lower than 100, as you've already done.
But how is the quality, compared to the samples I posted :?:

-kwag

Awful :twisted:
The sample you provided is much sharper, mine has mosquitos and blocks everywhere. A comparable CQ/filesize with yours would be under 60, but this is unwatchable. The only difference i have regarding your settings (the one you posted in this thread) is the "Maximum i frame interval" which i changed to 15 (PAL).
I'll do a further test with another source. Maybe its source related. Currently i'm encoding a video capture from TV (pva).

As seen in an average nice Quality on very low bitrate encodings!

But I can't copy that exhusiasm (at this point) as to me it seems that this encoder gots problems on surfaces! Do try to encode a underwater movie like U571 i.e. :arrow: fading surfaces got uneasy "stairs".

BUT Im still testing more, so that's only my answer now, but that could change when going more deep into ffwfv settings :wink:

Here some Pics:

All from the same Movie! And the same encoding turn!
- Quality 95
- 10% encoded via Slicer()
- GOP 15 IBBP Sequence
- 1/2 DVD size 352x576 PAL
- AVG 951kbit
- endsize 6852 kb

Very interesting, on complex and VERY dark parts :arrow: phantastic!
But on uneasy surfaces (even easy surfaces/fadings) :arrow: more stairs like in comparison to tmpgEnc at the same avg bitrate.


http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

Even if I get up to Quality 100, the "stairs"/artifacts in surfaces won't get away!
To me it seems a strange quantisation allocation according to surfaces? :?

And, if just setting ONE B frame, the stream comes out just using IPPPPPPPP etc.

Me neither !

On the sampel of kwag (bourne identity), don't you see the blocky face of Matt Damon throught the window of the Mini ?
Don't you see all the mosquitos around the moving car (the police car at the beguinbing, and the red mini when you see it from behind before it does a sharp turn) ?

Okay these are little defaults for a fullscreen sample. The problem is that, if I undestood well what you wrote (I read quicly), this sampel is done with the maximum quality you can set ? So there is no way to have a better things, either if the size would be a lot bigger.

I have to make some tests off my own, espacially to see what happens with some filters.

You can have a larger size, and slightly quality, by making a shorter GOP.
But I compared this same movie encoded with TMPEG, and this just blew it away :!:
I would like to see this compared to CCE's MPEG-2. I think this it better too :!:
TMPEG produces FAR more artifacts around objects, at the same file size than this CODEC makes. It's an amazing motion estimation algorithm :!:
I'll try to encode a couple of clips of this film with TMPEG, so we can compare.

-kwag

These are the tests I want to make also in fact :-)
It's true that telling "the sample is uggly" means nothing if there is no other encoder that can do better.

Kwag the problem is that the GOP seq allocation is horrible! Its very arbitary, now I did again set to 15 min and 15 max with 2 B frames allocated.

I open the m2v and checked the GOP. Reslut = 8O :evil: :?:

IPPPPPPPPPPBPPIPPPIPPPIPPPIIPPPPPP and so on

Means: the B frame allocation sometimes doesent follw the settings of IBBP...

AND everytime a scenechange happens, the GOP resets to an I frame, even min 15 and max 15 of I frames in the interval is set.

To make larger streams, you shouldn't reduce the gop, but reduce the quatizers! :arrow:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/01/6.jpg

As you can see the min Quantizers and the max quantizers.

The less you quantize, the large the file gets.

"Like" in our tmpgEncs CQ settings, where we do determin the min and max bitrates.
In here it means: Quality will be the dynamic quatizer between the min and max quantizer settings.

So set min quantizers to 2 and max quantizers to maybe 10 and you will se that with the same Quality setting the sample size will blow up :arrow: quality here rises also.

;-)

BTW, 2-pass is working for me.
Another thing to test :lol:

But CQ-mode seems to be better (IMHO).

I still cannot achieve kwags samples :roll:

That's right, and these samples speak for themselves ;)

http://www.kvcd.net/tmpgeng-test.m2v
http://www.kvcd.net/ffvfw-test.m2v

Pay special attention when to the second scene on the samples, and look at the building walls.
You'll notice more "noise" specially in the walls and small details, with TMPEG's encode, and ffvfw are far FAR cleaner.
The TMPEG sample I encoded, was using a MIN of 300 and MAX of 3,500.

Drag those mpeg files into Bitrate viewer, and look at the quality curve :!:
Look at the non-linear curve that TMPEG creates, versus the flat, "true" constant quality created by ffvfw :cool:
BTW, the file sizes are only about 150KB in file size difference, with ffvfw's sample being the largest. But 150KB is a neglgible difference for this test.

-kwag

Who Huuuuu!
Hey, I see that now we're rocking :twisted:
Just 2 or 3 guys aren't enough for the task in hands here.
I'm just so sorry I won't be able to follow up with the testing today :?
My boss gave some homework that I'll have to finish by 24:00 or else...
Anyway I'll pick it up tomorrow, and I'm sure I'll have a coffee break in 1h just to see how it's going :lol:
Cheers

:D

:?: But maybe I'm doing something wrong (but I don't think so :D), btw... 2pass crashes ... and there I think I'm doing something wrong :?:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

I think you're doing something wrong, or there's something going on with PAL :!:
My GOP is a clean IBBPBBPBBP.... etc.
Did you demux with TMPEG, and drag the .m2v into bitrate viewer :?:

-kwag

@incredible,

Try those samples you encoded with the standard MPEG matrix. See if it's any better.
There might be a problem with the combination of matrix/PAL/CODEC.

-kwag

Rumble in the Jungle :D

Well, ..... why Bitrateviewer?
See this post of mine:
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8551

I do not trust Bitrateviewer, I do trust my eyes :wink: :arrow: WYSIWYG
(maybe I'm wrong) :?

EDIT: Well, lets see if that DCT is influated by the framerate, which to me that would makes no sense
(just downloading your last samples)

BUT THAT CODEC seems to be promising, I think we didn't got the optimal settings now, thats all.

Yes, I already tried that, but although the file size increases, the quality stays the same.
When I set MIN and MAX to a value of 2, the file size was larger and the MIN bitrate was also higher.
But quality wise, there was really no noticeable change.

So I stick with a MIN of 2 and MAX of 25 (25 to keep a higher MIN bitrate above zero), and this way I can forget all about prediction ;)

-kwag

True for MPEG-1. But for MPEG-2, bitrate viewer reports an accurate quality curve.You're right :!:
It's going to be a whole new ball game when we finish ooptimizing this stuff :mrgreen:

-kwag

:?: :)

Well as you see above I do my tryings on the TrumanShow, so lets assume we want to fit that on incl. 128kbit audio to one CDR-80 ... in quality 83 it would fit, but the quality doesent (at this moment) match the quality of TmpgEnc.
If I would rise to 95, the wanted filesize will get over the needed one which would fit on one CDR-80 .... so I do not understand why do you think "prediction" will be the past ?

EDIT I will do now one 23.976 encoding
(resized to ntsc and AssumeFPS(23.976)

I meant prediction for KDVDs. Not for KVCDs.
For KVCDs, TMPEG is still the champ :!:
Until the issue of MIN and MAX bitrates (constraints) is not added to ffvfw, we can't really use it for doing KVCDs.
But for (K)DVDs, that's a different story :D

-kwag

Achsoooo!

Well ok, that I didn't knew ... so we should do our contest CCE vs ffvfw ... as this would be more real :lol: as until now CCE was our nice KDVD producer.



Ok, I watched your samples! No matter if low bitrate or KDVD bitrate: ffvfw looks sharper, thats a fact.

Volunteers to do some tests :?: :lol:
( I don't have CCE )

-kwag

Next encode will be a PAL to ntsc (conversion via Avisynth) frameserved one.

Here at 704x576 (cutted by half) one using ffvfw Quality 95 and CCE Q30 both are 13200 kb

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

Again these problems on Surfaces/underwater i.e.

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

Kwag, do not see my contra-examples as offense to your ones! ;-)
But it seems that this codec still got its problems on especially surfaces etc.

Could you do a comparison also, by taking such scenes as shown above (underwater etc.)

Sorry, sorry, sorry,... :imstupid:
Such a high quality thread, and me here with silly newbie questions...:cluebat:

How the hell am I supposed to make VirtualDub start encoding mpeg?. I just see, in the File menu, options for "Save as AVI...". And what about VB version, or doesn't mind?.
... be patient

@Phil,

Here's a screenshot comparing TMPEg and ffvfw, on that scene "through the windshield":

TMPEG:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/01/5.png
FFVFW:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/01/6.png

BTW, the TMPEG sample I encoded to extract the image, is 139KB and about ~1,400Kbps average, while the ffvfw sample is 116KB and ~1,100Kbps averege bitrate.
Blow it up, and see for yourself ;)

-kwag

@ Doc
Just install that baby as mentioned "some"(:D) pages before and do load your avs in Vdub(mod) and do safe that one as avi using full processing mode and there you choose the ffvfwmpeg4 codec, ... do your settings as shown in the pics some posts before of Kwag and determine that the frames will only be safed in that determined mpeg (I directly name it .m2v) file, thats all.

BTW, CCE is about 70% faster than ffvfw :oops:

Now doing 23.976 encoding....

I dont ;) Yes, and every test I make, ffvfw clearly shows better (FAR) quality that TMPEG :!:
But I see that in your samples, it's the other way around :!:
Could we have a difference in CODECs somewhere :?:
I see the "scaling" effect on your samples, but I don't see that on my samples. Look at my last post, of the two screen shots "through the windshield", and you'll see that TMPEG's sample has more blocks compared to ffvfw, when you blow it up. I also watched the scene, at the beginning of the movie, where the boat is in the water, and the quality is far better than the movie I encoded with TMPEG.
So we must have something different :idea:

-kwag

incredible,

What matrix are you using in ffvfw :?: :?:

1. Notch
2. My new one
3. rocs MVCD
4. Standard

I tried all :wink: 8)

And sometimes the GOP seq does fit the IBBPBBP... and sometimes I do have 90% P frames in the whole framecount ... And everytime then an I frame at scenechange occurs :evil: :cry:

Guys,
There are 2 main differences in both Kwag's and Inc's tests:
1-Movie title for testing
2-PAL/NTSC
So you would have the same movie (in diff region anyway) so you could run some tests in sync?
Otherwise Kwag could have a PAL movie for testing or Inc could have a NTSC movie lost in his lab.
I think that's the only way we will understand what's happening.
Personally I tried ffvfw with kwag's settings and the results were great.
At least in terms of quality because ffvfw is really REALLY slow compared to anything :cry: :cry:
On the oposite Mencoder was 1,5 - 2 times faster than TMPGEnc and it's also based on libavcodec as ffvfw 8O
Also the guys from the "penguin arena" always said that it was very accurate in terms of file size and I could testify that the quality is GREAT also...
Hard times these we're going through...
C ya

Then I really suspect a PAL issue :!:
Look at my GOP, which looks almost the same on every encode:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i...2004/01/10.jpg

-kwag

Find da breaks!! I got the only P frame issue solved!

If you set the min I frames the same as max I frames (maybe 18/18) to avoid that scene change detection, the encoder seems to get confused and drops the B frames out, cause I just reset to 15/1 and now he respects my B frame count!

Ok, that's the first problem which is solved, so lets see if I can get rid of the "other" problems ... AND I WILL! :lol:

Now check your quality again on a small clip :)

-kwag

Still too much blocks (or uneasy parts) at fast moving scenes and still fading surfaces.

(Since 3 Encodings Im doing 23.976 704x480!)

EDIT/Update!!:
:arrow: 8O a 704x480 at mpeg2 23.976 1% predicted gave me 8566kb, would mean a whole 100% encoded video-stream of 836,5 MBs! Damn!!! 1140 kbit/s ! 3-Bframes, diff Matrix)

And here are the still parts! Excelent for that size! (but maybe luck) and endfile size (1% of whole stream)

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif


But heres still the problem with the bitrate allocation at high-motion parts:
(same 1% encoding!)

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

But I keep on playing ... :wink:


And ... as I gotta work tomorrow Ill go to bed now and continue tomorrow evening!

So good night everybody! :)

Damn good results though, Incredible.
I wonder if you guys could speed up ffvfw, let's say, 45-50% because that way it would be just as fast
as tmpgenc and much better in quality also.
Ok, 00:23 and my lady is already calling me to bed...
It's just not fair that I cannot carrie the pc with me to bed :lol:
C ya all tomorrow.

Get a Notebook PC and set up a WIFI (Wireless) network in your home.
Then you can browse the forums, while your wife reads a book :mrgreen:

-kwag

WOW 8O
I've gone only for 8 houres and you have made all that mess ;) Clean this up boys, and no more play ball in the house :lol:

@incredible
I did'nt know that you have played in the Truman Show ;)
@Correia
In my test ffvfw (MPEG1) is 30% faster than TMPG (MPEG1). I'll do test with ffvfw M2 vs TMPG M1, but maybe not now (01:58 AM) ;) I know that youre goal is to get a faster encoder than TMPG with equal or beter quality.
@Krassi
You preformed two pass encode with MPEG1 or MPEG2 engine? Second question, how (it always crashes in my VDMod+2passMPEG1), and what VD version (or maybe other tool)?

@all testers
Did you try to encode with SATD in stead of SAD comparison function. It's slower (almost equal in speed to TMPG) but IMO produces beter quality.

From my test (I always do smal test on LotR 1 trailer ~3min) quality is far beter with ffM2 than TMPG M1, so in this point I'm switch to ffvfw. Only one test with standalone compliance (but I think that will be no problem). It was'nt with MPEG1, even in such weird 480X280 res and 24fps ;)

I did. No visible difference.

-kwag