:?: :)

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