Encoding comparison pictures.I used megui and x264 hq hd

[Jeremy Duncan]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2SZ9PNJ9

Megui:
x264: dxva-hd HQ
bitrates:
9500
11000
12000

file formate mp4
Audio muxed in using adaptive muxer from megui's tool tab.








Encoding time:
The 9500 encode took 2 hours 14 minutes 16 seconds
The 1100 encode took 2 hours 22 minutes 5 seconds
The 1200 encode took 2 hours 27 minutes 10 seconds
2 lsf at bitrate 12000 took 2 hours 36 minutes 29 seconds











video encoded details:
Blade Runner, Blu Ray. From the disk, not a pirate stuff.
Ripped with anydvd.
Played in vista 32 bit
vc1
1920x1080 hd res
23.976 fps
15084 frames
629.13 seconds
10 minutes, 23 seconds











Avs file used for 9500, 11000, 12000 pictures:

DirectShowSource("Video.GRF",audio=false,fps=23.976)

Crop(0,144,-0,-136)
Spline36Resize(1920,800).AddBorders(0,140,0,140)




Avs file used for 2 lsf picture:

directshowsource("C:\Users\canteen\Desktop\Blade Runner.GRF",audio=false,fps=23.976)
MT("
LimitedSharpenFaster(strength=11)
LimitedSharpenFaster(strength=11)
",2)
crop( 0, 144, 0, -136)
MT("spline64resize(1920, last.height)",2)
MT("spline64resize(last.width, 800)",2, splitvertical=true)




Picture size comparison list, in bytes:

frame 1

9500 size: 2,794,444
11000 size: 2,798,157
12000 size: 2,791,598
hc enc size: 2,728, 638
from disk: 2,805,609
2 lsf size: 2,784,039

frame 2

9500 size: 2,493,578
11000 size: 2,510,371
12000 size: 2,508,938
hc enc size: 2,558,309
from disk: 2,552,330
2 lsf size: 2,515,251

frame 3

from disk: 2,505,822
2 lsf: 2,502,642

Framw 2, 9500 bitrate
http://thumbnails.imagebam.com/4045/8698b540441803.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/8698b540441803)

Frame 2, 12000 bitrate
http://thumbnails14.imagebam.com/4045/0f959540441805.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/0f959540441805)

Frame 2, from 2 lsf
http://thumbnails14.imagebam.com/4045/b97b4e40442729.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/b97b4e40442729)

Frame 2, original take from the disk using copy and paste screenshot method
http://thumbnails16.imagebam.com/4045/71efaf40441807.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/71efaf40441807)

[Sharktooth]

what's your question?

[Jeremy Duncan]

what's your question?

It is not a question but a statement.

These are the results using this various methods, is the statement.
In english I wonder if you follow a statement with a question as you have done?

[Sharktooth]

well... what's the point then?

[Jeremy Duncan]

well... what's the point then?

To show the results. I find them interesting...I dunno about you? :)

[neuron2]

What is interesting about them?

[Jeremy Duncan]

I like to see if the luma detail on the edges has a clean line or a snowy fuzzy line.

I like to see if one encoding method covers up detail that the original didn't, like blothches in the original.
Were the Bloatches made smooth by the encoder, and if they were then did higher bitrates cause the bloatces to reappear?

I like to see if using lsf made detail appear that was not so good in the original.

Why do I like to see these things? because if I am happy the peoples skin does not look blemish free and plastic, and detail that should be seen is seen.
That makes me very happy and so i thought posting this info here would help makeo ther people happy too. :)