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 5th January 2002, 04:35   #21  |  Link
serbersan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 116
Quote:
BTW- What about using a temporal setting of 2 when I encode amovie for 2 CD's? Would this have any effect?
Well I think a TempSmoother(1) is ALWAYS useful for 1 CD rips and at level 2 I think the same but I never go with level 4 and I have doubts about level 3 but maybe....

But well for 2 CD rips if you I think is better to lower the resolution, but the difference between the filter and lowering the resolution isn't so obvious.

As Matter says the overall quality with filter it's better but faces and other details have much more sharpness without filter and lowering the resolution. And I have used a TempSmoother(1). I think we could doubt between lowering resolution or TempSmoother(2,1) maybe (1) but I will never use level 2 for a 2 CD rip.

Well here I attach my results.
dres -> resolution 576x240 without filters
dfil -> resolution 640x256 TempSmoother(1)

Last edited by serbersan; 5th January 2002 at 04:37.
serbersan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 04:43   #22  |  Link
serbersan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 116

How I attach a file????

The Attach file doesn't work correcty, it allows me to attach a file but it doesn't show it.
serbersan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 04:46   #23  |  Link
MaTTeR
AC3 5.1 Addict
 
MaTTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Big Blue Nation_USA
Posts: 2,036

@serbersan

So you would always use at least a 1 with 1CD rips but why would make you use 2 for a 1 CD rip? If the film was more noisy you would use 2? What are you viewing your rips on to judge the PQ?

I'm currently encoding a 141 minute movie going for 2 CDs using a temporal value of 2 @ 608 resolution. I'll let you know how it turns out. Maybe I'll encode it a 2nd time using a value of 1 just to see the difference.
MaTTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 05:02   #24  |  Link
serbersan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 116

Well MaTTeR, if I could attach the file I want you could view the difference between 576 without filtering and 640 with filter (1). And Yes the 576 has more sharpness in some cases but in others the overall better quality is for 640 (1) Well I choose 576 because the sharpness it's in zones of the image that are important.


For 1 CD I use TempSmoother(1) but if the movie it's easy to compress if you have any doubt use TempSmoother(2) but with level 3 in some action scenes or in faces the effect is very noticeable but if the movie is too large or difficult the overall quality will be good.

My advice is use TempSmoother(1)(dark movies) or (2)(not easy or very easy movies) but be warned with level 3 and I not recommend to use level 4.

And for your 141 minutes rip I think TempSmoother(1) will be good at least with 608, I think I used it with so long movies, or TempSmoother (2,1). In any case with 141 minutes I don't think TempSmoother was a bad choice only you have to see if the movie has much noise or is difficult or simply for other times....do a test with 1 and if the result wasn't good enough use more filtering.

I think for 2 CD rips first lower the resolution and then use filtering. But again, the difference will be very subtle unless the movie was easy to compress.
serbersan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 16:58   #25  |  Link
serbersan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 116

Well I have to remade my post, finally I burned the filter movie because the overall quality was better, there isn't backgrounds with strange efects of moving(because the too much noise and the lower resolution)

Well I think lower to 608 is right but no less without do before some filtering.

I didn't do 608 without filtering because in 576 there was zones where appears smooth made by postfiltering because it hadn't enough bit to encode.

Sorry for you time.
serbersan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 22:50   #26  |  Link
ChristianHJW
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

@MaTTer : using temp smoother has nothing to do with removing 'noise' . Its a very effective method to improve compressability of the movie by removing delta information between consecutive frames ....
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 22:59   #27  |  Link
MaTTeR
AC3 5.1 Addict
 
MaTTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Big Blue Nation_USA
Posts: 2,036

@ChristianHJW

Hmm...well it certainly smooths out the graininess of the last 3 movies I did. I suppose that effect is just a byproduct?
MaTTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 23:03   #28  |  Link
serbersan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 116
Are you sure ChristianHJW???

If I remember in the rip I've done of Dr T with TempSmoother, there was less noise in background and in some zones of the image, in some cases less detail in human skin. And the first minutes are very noisy.

IMHO the filtering in this rip is better than lowering resolution the overall quality is better(less mosquito noise for example).

Good Luck with your projects ChristianHJW
serbersan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 23:08   #29  |  Link
Peters
Registered User
 
Peters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: France
Posts: 138
Re:

Quote:
Originally posted by ChristianHJW
@MaTTer : using temp smoother has nothing to do with removing 'noise' . Its a very effective method to improve compressability of the movie by removing delta information between consecutive frames ....
hmmm, I suppose that putting temporal smoother as a noise filter in Gordian Knot is a mistake?!
Peters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 23:37   #30  |  Link
Acaila
Retired
 
Acaila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,529

@Matter

The reason why it removes "grainyness" is based on the fact that a certain pixel in one frame has the grain-effect, but the two pixels in the two adjactent frames are enormal. Hence it's being corrected and the "grainyness" disappears. BUT this doesn't blur the picture unless you use a very high setting.

@Peters

That's actually only half of the story.
If you push the edit button on GKnot you'll see that the noise filter is actually a combination of various decrees of TemporalSmoother and SpatialSoftenMMX. TemporalSmoother reduces the delta information between frames, SpatialSoften reduces the noise by blurring the image inside one frame.
Btw, used in conjuction they don't increase compression over using just TemporalSmoother alone. But SpatialSoften blurs a whole lot more than TempSmoother so don't use it unless you've got very bad noise.
Acaila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2002, 23:50   #31  |  Link
Peters
Registered User
 
Peters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: France
Posts: 138

@Acaila


SpatialSoften is not used by Gordian Knot if you choose little noise.
So don't say it's not a noise reducer!


TemporalSmoother(clip[,strength[,radius]])

This is a port of the TemporalSmoother filter from VirtualDub. It works in RGB32 & YUY2 pixel formats.
From VirtualDub help file:

This filter is an adaptive noise reducer, working along the time axis; it is most effective when the image is not moving much. Increase the filter strength to increase noise reduction, and decrease it to reduce speckling and ghosting artifacts. It is recommended that you combine this filter with a spatial (area-based) noise reducer for greatest effect
Peters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2002, 18:01   #32  |  Link
MaTTeR
AC3 5.1 Addict
 
MaTTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Big Blue Nation_USA
Posts: 2,036
My 141 minute movie turned out nicely using a temporal value of 2 with DivX 3(2 CDs). I'm going to encode it again with a value of 1 though.

I also decided to encode the movie with a value of 1 using DivX4. The results were unimpressive. I don't use DivX4 very often so I thought I would give it a try with Gknot and use the same Gknot settings basically as my DivX3 settings. Of course using DivX4, Gknot tells me I'll get 1227 bitrate compared to 1197 for DivX3 so I expected it would look alittle better. Personally, my eyes like the DivX3 version that I encoded with a temporal value of 2. However, now I want to encode it again with a value of 1 using Divx3.

I had my girlfriend view both DivX4 and DivX3 encodes without her know which was which. She picked the DivX3 version also. Overall, it seems Like the DivX 4.12 codec is much darker. It's almost like it tries darken an object in the picture that it feels is unimportant just to get better compressibility. That method would be fine but it's a little to agressive. I guess I now see why most of the pros/gurus here use DivX 3 instead of DivX4.12

Again, the temporal smoother setting just simply rocks! It gives a better overall picture without really losing any definition of the fine areas.

EDIT- Anyone notice that file size predictability isn't as good while using the temporal smoother? I'm having to add about 20MB to the total size selection in Gknot to fill the CD's

Last edited by MaTTeR; 6th January 2002 at 18:17.
MaTTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2002, 19:48   #33  |  Link
ThePanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 117

is it still believed that smart smoother should also be applied? (I apply temp. smoother before resizing (.6 bicubic) and smart smoother after resizing for my anime rips). also, what is this "2D Cleaner (Optimized)" I now see on Donald Graft's filter page? Is this comparable to or better than smart smoother?
ThePanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2002, 21:01   #34  |  Link
Acaila
Retired
 
Acaila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,529
I've done some testing of TempSmooth with SmartSmooth in the past, especially on anime. What I saw was absolutely no extra compression of using TempSmooth + SmartSmooth over TempSmooth alone. However using SmartSmooth put a serious blur over my movies, even at low filter settings. Obviously I don't like using it anymore, I just stick to TempSmooth.

1 CD Movie -> TempSmooth 2 or 3
2 CD Movie -> TempSmooth 1

Quote:
EDIT- Anyone notice that file size predictability isn't as good while using the temporal smoother? I'm having to add about 20MB to the total size selection in Gknot to fill the CD's.
File size prediction doesn't take into account the effect of TempSmooth, because it's different for every movie (and probably because it wasn't tested thouroughly before GKnot was put on the market). And since file size predictability is already off for DivX4 and few extra MB won't make much of a difference

Last edited by Acaila; 6th January 2002 at 21:08.
Acaila 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 12:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions Inc.