Quote:
I'm really looking for Milan, the developer, because he's the one that can answer the questions I've E-Mailed related to the bitrate constraints and options :D Still, no reply :( -kwag |
@Testers
Do you use scripts (with filters) in encoding process, or pure source file (just resized, croped, etc) :?: I see that quality even without any filters is quite good. And what about the quality with processing set to fastest? Do you agree with Vmesquita. Any noticable speed (and quality) difference with build proposed by Dano? I know tha a lot of questions :oops: I just come back home, and I do test by my own, but I want to read others opinions. I'm very looking forward to this encoder. A ... almost forgot. Phil, you to get error when prcessing ffvfw (avi mode) in TMPG? Edit: From small manual included with package: Quote:
|
Kwag,
I'm going to start testing ffmpeg tomorrow. I'm going to experiment with PVR250 captures encoded with KDVD at 704x480. I get pretty good results with the MA script and TMPGEnc at present. I need to know if you have found any better settings than those shown in your examples.
:?: Do you have any further suggestions to the steps you used posted earlier in this thread? I'm going to use your example as a guideline. :?: Not having used PullDown.exe and DVDPatcher before, is there anything in particular I need to know? |
Kwag!
Which ffvfw build do you got? I got "ffvfw-20031117.exe". Well I still CAN'T get rid of those blocks on fast moving objects and plain dark gray surfaces, even if Quality is set to 99! Also something strange happens when opening that sample of ffvfw in Bitrateviewer. Bitrateviewer shows a avg. Q of 5.78! and crashes imideately. Same stream opened in BRV encoded by tmpgEnc gives me and Q of 4.2 and no problem scrolling on it etc.! I did a lot of testings and found out a lot, but to me it seems that it doesn't make sense to do further reports as I do got these problems mentioned above. Maybe I have a ffvfw wrong build installed? Who knows. :cry: |
Here results from my tests (sorry, just two encodes)
First: I'm not very used to employ VirtualDub, but I guess is normal that, after selecting save as AVI, and giving the file a name (fake.avi), two files are generated: the .mpg file and a fake.avi file. Second: encoding speed at 5-8 fps, still have to compare with CCE Third: the film I'm testing, the PAL version of Star Wars II. Selected an scene with an airplane landing (lot of flat surfaces) and after an explosion. Buf, lots of macroblocks in the fire, nothing to do comparing with kwag samples of Red Planet (I remember also an explosion there, with no blocks). Am I doing anything wrong, or is it the PAL issue?. I can't believe that!. Well, sure you'll solve this, also. I'll post further testing, and will try to upload a screen capture. |
Hi Nicksteel :) Welcome to the party :lol:
I use pure source without filters, for ffvfw and TMPG for quality and speed comparition. Kwag use ( i gues) MA script. I don't use pulldown (I'm with PAL). From my test ... hmmm ... actualy size2 i 5% slower, and size3 is 10% slower than default :roll: I might get false result. Some other test please. Edit: @Incredible I also noticed wrong bitrate issue with VD. MPEG2 (ffvfw) larger size file have smaller bitrate than MPEG1(TMPG) smaller file. Strange |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
-kwag |
:oops: And same for me. Demuxed file now have proper bitrate. Sorry :roll:
|
Ooops,
I still haven't found the 2004 version of ffvfw. Where can I get that Karl? Guys, I don't want to keep only saying the same but I just did an encode with tmpg and ffvfw. Did 1650 frames from a PAL DVD Full D1 source to target 704x576 res with MA script. tmpg took 15:00 at CQ80 m300 M2500 - 16.9MB ffvfw took 22:00 at CQ100 - 15.3MB (Kwag's recommendations) My only point here is trying to understand if i'm doing something wrong since you do it as fast as tmpg or even faster... Thanks. PS- Now, where the h#ll is that 2004 ffvfw version :?: :evil: |
Different Builds (versions)
|
Just a thought for those with quality and/or speed issues. I remember back when I first tried ffvfw for capturing that sometimes if I changed any of the parameters and then back again things got messed up. Anyways, I would do an uninstall and then reinstall and everything would be fine again. So you might want to try doing a reinstall and then once you have the settings you want save them as a preset and check the "Don't Save Settings to Registry" box. Also, you might want to try burning your file and cheking it on a standalone since it could be a decoder issue. For example if I save my file as test.m2v it won't play in Media Player but will play in PowerDVD. If I save my file like Kwag as test.mpg and demux, the test.m2v plays in Media Player and PowerDVD.
|
Just a little off-topic, but I found this fact very interesting:
I tried encoding the same clip I described before using CCE 2-pass VBR and run throught SSIM: the result average was nearly the same: 55.21, but the file was a little bigger:33.711 kb. I guess I'll try with TmpgEnc to see what happens, and post. It's a nice way to compare against FFVFW. |
@Incredible ( and all )
Just found out, on a very dark movie (Count of Monte Cristo), I got some visible blocks on dark areas. BTW, This is a very dirty (mastered) picture :!: I went to a friends home, who works professionally on video editing, and I encoded a piece from the movie with his CCE, ran a test, and I found the image to be clearer. But I noticed something strange with CCE :!: CCE adds noise to the image :!: I didn't know that, because I don't work with CCE. I can clearly see a "noisier" but less blocky image with CCE, and that was encoding one pass VBR with Q set to 1 (Maximum quality) and MAX bitrate set to 8,000Kbps :!: So I made a test with ffvfw CODEC, and I turned on "Enable Image Processing" on Input, and added "Noise" . Check the following options: Noise New noise algorithm(avih) Uniform Noise Set Luminance noise strength to 8 Set Chroma strength to 0 Now give it a try :!: Look at CCE's screen shot: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/01/7.png And now look at ffvfw with noise added: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/01/8.png And ffvfw WITHOUT noise: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/01/9.png And last, TMPGEnc screenshot, that was encoded with CQ=100 and MIN=0 and MAX=8,000Kbps. http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i...2004/01/10.png BTW, the size of the sample encoded with CCE is 10,532KB with an average bitrate of 7,529Kbps :!: , and the one with ffvfw(noise added) is only 4,745KB with an average bitrate of 3,027Kbps. So I think this CODEC, in a very near future, is going to give CCE a run for it's money :mrgreen: Note: Look at the color tones, and see that TMPEG's color balance is off :!: -kwag |
Sample #3 - Very dark night scenes, water, small particles.
I think this speaks for itself ;)
http://www.kvcd.net/count-ffvfw-test.m2v Edit: Encoded with the parameters (noise) described above. -kwag |
Kwag, can you tell me how make "Enable Image Processing" to be non-grey? I don't fully understand how this works. I've got ffdshow and ffvfw instaled. What I must force in one or another to this option be active?
Edit: Few days ago I was thinking that it would be great if standalone plyers have implemented noise add. But it is nice to hear/read that it can be possible on encoder level. Adding noise "cleans" picture from this "stairs color" effect, and I always use this in ffdshow for crapy movies playback. |
Quote:
|
Dialhot wrote:
Quote:
I tried to make use of TMPGEnc to encode a fake .avi with ffvfw, but gave me also an error. And made several encodings, comparing CCE, TMPGEnc and ffvfw. For me, ffvfw a little slower (5 seconds in 1000 frames sample). Since I'm at work, I'll post later my results, and some captures (should I resize them to fit better in the browser window?). |
Kwag, I felt free to do a side by side comarison using Photoshop and also i rised the luma & Gamme to see whats in the deeps of your Pics.
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif First: my surfaces (compared to her arm) are far fare away from your samples! So tonight I will upgrade (deinstall/reinstall) my ffvfw to the 2004 build. I see that Tmpgenc adds more red in general. CCE does look more smooth and calm than the TmpgEnc's one. Now the ffvfw: To me it seems that the noise adding even does make the surfaces like her arm a little bit uneasy BUT as seen as a whole the picture looks more natural! Look at her skin and it just "seems" to be more detailed (her eyes). Well we could now start a philosophy which one is better, the added noise one or the left as it is one of the ffvfw samples. But my conlcusion is that I do agree that in case of YOUR samples the ffvfw do look best! So in my cases it seems to be ... I don't know, a codec problem, older ffvfw build, ....??? I have to check this out. As you see in MY samples above the surfaces & fast moving objects do come out MUCH more blocky compared to MY TmpgEnc outputs. ;-) @ Digitall.doc Quote:
On the other hand, when using our settings (matrix, bitrate etc.) this added noise will be quantized off! Thats the filtering of the matrix as its filters especially high frequencies. Adding a Blockbuster() gives more control of the noise generating, as you can set "where" noise should be added, on the whole image, more at edges/details or only at plain non-detailed surfaces. |
Quote:
For speed/efficiency matter, only tests can answer because it depends on how the noiser is coded in the ffvfw. We all know for instance than avisynth do resizing better and faster than tmpgenc, but we didn't know it before we tried. Quote:
Quote:
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.