Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 ASP

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 20th September 2002, 17:23   #21  |  Link
Dali Lama
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 331
Hi guys/gals,

Don't have much time, but wanted to share some testing I did last night.

After performing quant 2-8 tests using 4 matrices, I have come to this conclusion:

h.263 quants 2-3
mpeg quants 4-5
low quants 6-8
ultralow 8+

I have attached the low and ultralow matrices for those who wish to test also.

Note: Those matrices were taken from CCE SP Custom Matrices.

Take Care,

Dali
Dali Lama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2002, 17:23   #22  |  Link
Dali Lama
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 331
Here is the Ultra Low Bitrate Matrix
Dali Lama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2002, 17:31   #23  |  Link
Rrrough
Registered User
 
Rrrough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Avantasia
Posts: 177
@Dali Lama

great news can't wait until your attachments appear, thanks for posting them !!!
which build did you use ?

@Dave

what kind of problems did you run into with "regular" builds ???

@ReferenceDivx

could you please post your image quality metrics program or a link for it ? I would like to test Dali's matrices both visually and objectively.

cheers

Last edited by Rrrough; 20th September 2002 at 17:43.
Rrrough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2002, 18:00   #24  |  Link
ReferenceDivx
Registered User
 
ReferenceDivx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Washington State University
Posts: 110
I'm still trying to decide what to do

I don't exactly know what i want to do with the program i'm developing. I've been doing research into video quality metrics and the Human Visual System. I've been working on a program for the last few months that include ideas from the most recent papers and my own ideas about HVS. I'm wondering if i should make the program open source, or make it closed source. I've also been debating if i should make the web site into a research site that has papers on the newest ideas and trends in HVS. My goal is to design a new quality metric that is within 85-95% of how human perceive the quality of video. I am only really interested in mid to high bitrate video streams. Once i have my video metrics i will use some Neural networks or some fuzy logic to find the best ratios and weights for the metric's values. My final goal would be to make a new "psnr" that is almost as fast but would judge the "true" quality of dct based video streams. Finally, I would like to come up with a numbering system that would give a quality metic number to the overall video(taking into consideration many factors). My new site lives at http://www.hvsmetrics.com (however there is only an apache page up now)

Oh ya i would like to get a computer programming job someday too.
ReferenceDivx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2002, 18:20   #25  |  Link
Rrrough
Registered User
 
Rrrough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Avantasia
Posts: 177
@ReferenceDivx

sorry, didn't intend to sound demanding in any way, didn't know it's that complex. I deeply respect your decision if it'd be keeping it closed-source (of course an open-source version would be nice as well). I just thought it could be a valuable tool for testing different matrices and thus maybe improving xvid's already perfect visual quality a bit more...
that's definetly an eager project you're working on, I wish you good luck with it (as well as with the job)

cheers

Last edited by Rrrough; 20th September 2002 at 19:02.
Rrrough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2002, 20:46   #26  |  Link
Dali Lama
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 331
Greetings,

Whoever is interested in this thread needs to see the thread about DCTune in the General Forum. Exciting stuff could happen.

Bye,

Dali

Edit: @ReferenceDivx, DCTune has a Quality metric. I think you might be interested in that.

Last edited by Dali Lama; 20th September 2002 at 21:47.
Dali Lama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2002, 22:18   #27  |  Link
SirDavidGuy
Flying Attack Donkey
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 159
Quote:
@Dave

what kind of problems did you run into with "regular" builds ???
It crashed at the beginning of the encoding.

For what reason, I am uncertain of.
__________________
"Bork Bork Bork"
SirDavidGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 00:10   #28  |  Link
iago
retired
 
iago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: hollywood
Posts: 1,013
@all

Though keeping a close eye on this thread for a while, I've just found the time to start a test encode with the new matrix that ReferenceDivx posted. The movie is Salvador (1hr-57min), somewhat hard to compress I guess , 512*272, SimpleResize, aiming for 666000kb to fit on 1CD (700mb) with ogg audio. Using Koepi's 04092002-1 build, no lumi, max-min I-frame intervals: 300-5, credits 20quant, (and external cc, quants 2-6/2-16, payback proportionally, payback delay:300 for the second pass). BTW, I'll have the chance to test Statsreader 1.9 for the first time as well, Koepi; besides seeing how the matrix behaves with high quantizers in a full 2-pass encode .

And I really wonder how the result will be...

best regards,
iago

EDIT: Unfortunately I couldn't linear-scale the curve for external cc, since statsreader 1.9 crashed and refused my stats file; so I'm going for internal cc with altCC defaults. And average quantizer will really be pretty high with the above target size I guess, since the first-pass size is ~2150 mb ...

Last edited by iago; 21st September 2002 at 07:24.
iago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 02:29   #29  |  Link
SirDavidGuy
Flying Attack Donkey
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 159
My low-bitrate matrix is going well, but I am occasionally getting a purple macroblock jumping out of no where, any ideas?
__________________
"Bork Bork Bork"
SirDavidGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 03:01   #30  |  Link
-h
Kilted Yaksman
 
-h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,303
Purple! Goodness I haven't seen anything like that for a while.

Are you using B-frames? Lumi-masking? What are the lowest/highest values in your matrix? Does the lumi component appear correct, and it's just the colour that's wrong?

-h
-h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 03:12   #31  |  Link
SirDavidGuy
Flying Attack Donkey
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 159
Quote:
Are you using B-frames? Lumi-masking?
Nope.

Quote:
What are the lowest/highest values in your matrix?
(Going From Memory) 12, 99.

Quote:
Does the lumi component appear correct, and it's just the colour that's wrong?
It too appears incorrect. I'm still looking for a reason.
__________________
"Bork Bork Bork"
SirDavidGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 09:27   #32  |  Link
-h
Kilted Yaksman
 
-h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,303
It too appears incorrect. I'm still looking for a reason.

How very curious. Do the artifacts still appear when decoding with ffdshow? It seems we have a bug in custom-matrix quantization.

The only other thing I can suggest is disabling MMX optimizations and trying again.

-h
-h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 10:06   #33  |  Link
iago
retired
 
iago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: hollywood
Posts: 1,013
hello again,

With the encoding parameters given in the above post, the second-pass results are as follows:

Quantizers Analisis
---------------------

Quantizers Used For Movie :
------------------------------
Quant 2 Used : 131 Times, Percentage Used : 0.08%
Quant 3 Used : 3736 Times, Percentage Used : 2.19%
Quant 4 Used : 44102 Times, Percentage Used : 25.86%
Quant 5 Used : 73548 Times, Percentage Used : 43.12%
Quant 6 Used : 40827 Times, Percentage Used : 23.94%
Quant 7 Used : 7415 Times, Percentage Used : 4.35%
Quant 8 Used : 699 Times, Percentage Used : 0.41%
Quant 9 Used : 72 Times, Percentage Used : 0.04%
Quant 10 Used : 28 Times, Percentage Used : 0.02%
Quant 11 Used : 1 Times, Percentage Used : 0.00%

Average Quantizer Used for Movie : 5.036

Quantizers Used For Credits :
--------------------------------
Quant 20 Used : 5964 Times.

MPEG Quantization Type Used 176523 timed, Percentage Used : 100.00%

Quantizers prevented from rising too steeply 68 times


Intra-Frame (Key-Frame) Quantizers
------------------------------------

Movie
-------
Quant 6 Used : 1304 Times, Percentage Used : 98.56%

Credits
---------
Quant 20 Used : 19 Times, Percentage Used : 1.44%

Inter-Frame (P-Frame) Quantizers
------------------------------------

Movie
-------
Quant 2 Used : 131 Times, Percentage Used : 0.07%
Quant 3 Used : 3736 Times, Percentage Used : 2.13%
Quant 4 Used : 44102 Times, Percentage Used : 25.17%
Quant 5 Used : 73548 Times, Percentage Used : 41.98%
Quant 6 Used : 39523 Times, Percentage Used : 22.56%
Quant 7 Used : 7415 Times, Percentage Used : 4.23%
Quant 8 Used : 699 Times, Percentage Used : 0.40%
Quant 9 Used : 72 Times, Percentage Used : 0.04%
Quant 10 Used : 28 Times, Percentage Used : 0.02%
Quant 11 Used : 1 Times, Percentage Used : 0.00%

Credits
---------
Quant 20 Used : 5945 Times, Percentage Used : 3.39%

Frame Analisis
----------------

Number Of Intra-Frames (Key-Frames) : 1323
Number Of Inter-Frames (P-Frames) : 175200
Total Number Of Frames : 176523

0.75% of the Movie is Intra-Frames (Key-Frames)
99.25% of the Movie is Inter-Frames (P-Frames)

Size Analysis
----------------

1-Pass Size : 2270629239 Bytes or 2217411 KBytes or 2165 MBytes
Scaled Size : 676026371 Bytes or 660182 KBytes or 644 MBytes
Actual Size : 675989793 Bytes or 660146 KBytes or 644 MBytes

Usefull Statistics
------------------
Compressibility : -33.39%
Relative Quality of XviD avi : 39.71%
Absolute Quality of XviD avi : 90.89%

---------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't seem very bright, yes?

But surprisingly the encode looked pretty good to my eyes and it is very watchable imho. A very subjective view of course, but I really liked the result I got with that custom-matrix, though I couldn't linear-scale the curve (due to statsreader 1.9 crash), which I guess would improve the result even more...

best regards,
iago
iago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 18:47   #34  |  Link
Koepi
Moderator
 
Koepi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,455
There's something wrong with cust. quant matrix in XviD, I can confirm that. The min. frame size rises from 107 bytes @880 macroblocks/image to 189bytes(!!!) - 82bytes per frame...

~10.4MB lost for my movie... back to MPEG quant type...

Regards,
Koepi
Koepi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 19:00   #35  |  Link
iago
retired
 
iago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: hollywood
Posts: 1,013
@Koepi

That's really bad news . I'd started to like the results it gives... Yeah, too many bytes lost then.

thanks,
iago
iago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 19:47   #36  |  Link
-h
Kilted Yaksman
 
-h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,303
There's something wrong with cust. quant matrix in XviD, I can confirm that. The min. frame size rises from 107 bytes @880 macroblocks/image to 189bytes(!!!) - 82bytes per frame...

Sounds like it's forcing a VOL header every frame. I don't think that's desired behaviour..

-h
-h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 20:51   #37  |  Link
rui
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portugal
Posts: 730
I made a test using constant quant 4 with normal mpeg and costum mpeg, and the costum mpeg one was bigger by about 500 Kb.
The test was The Replacements trailer, so 500 Kb is significative here.
In a limited size test, i assume that costum matrix would give me higher quantizers.
__________________
Rui
rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 20:59   #38  |  Link
Dali Lama
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 331
Ok Guys/Gals, here it comes...

CG/Animation Matrix (requires very low noise source)
MPEG (used to define the MPEG-2 Standard, sharp @ high bitrates)
Standard (a general purpose matrix designed for natural film sources)
[list=1][*]CG/Animation - (requires very low noise source)[*]MPEG - (used to define the MPEG-2 Standard, sharp @ high bitrates)[*]Standard - (a general purpose matrix designed for natural film sources)[*]Low Bitrate - (inter and intra frame smoothing)[*]Very Low Bitrate - (more inter and intra frame smoothing)[*]Ultra Low Bitrate - (high inter and intra frame smoothing)[*]Ultimate - (sorry couldn't help myself This is my custom matrix that I like a lot for clean sources)[/list=1]

Note: All matrices come from CCE SP, except for Low Bitrate (which I modded from Very Low Bitrate) and Ultimate...
File is attached as zip. All matrix text files are there.

Note again: I am disappointed by the news of larger filesizes with Custom Matrices, but I am sure that will be resolved.

Now lets test!

I'll post my experiences later,

Dali

Last edited by Dali Lama; 22nd September 2002 at 05:37.
Dali Lama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2002, 00:31   #39  |  Link
Rrrough
Registered User
 
Rrrough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Avantasia
Posts: 177
@-h

didn't you look up the size difference between VOL and VOP header and found a value about 35 bytes ???
if so, where could be the difference coming from ???
(edit : the difference between 35 and 82, of course )

@Dali

I like the low bitrate matrix for quants ~5-7 from visual experience, but still struggling with DCTune to give me reliable results...

cheers

Last edited by Rrrough; 22nd September 2002 at 00:41.
Rrrough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2002, 02:12   #40  |  Link
-h
Kilted Yaksman
 
-h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,303
didn't you look up the size difference between VOL and VOP header and found a value about 35 bytes ???
if so, where could be the difference coming from ???
(edit : the difference between 35 and 82, of course )


The quantization matrix requires 64 bytes, one of them is probably being written for some odd reason.

-h
-h is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.