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 > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Usage

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 15th September 2011, 20:20   #1  |  Link
Zathor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,405
MeGUI filter renewal

The AviSynth filters in MeGUI used for denoising/deinterlacing have not changed in years. Therefore new filters may be available which improve the quality or the workflow. As I am clearly no expert in that area I would like to have your feedback what can be improved in MeGUI regarding AviSynth.

Currently these filters are used:

Denoise
  • Undot() # Minimal Noise
  • mergechroma(blur(1.3)) # Little Noise
  • FluxSmoothST(7,7) # Medium Noise
  • Convolution3D("movielq") # Heavy Noise

Deinterlace / IVTC
  • Yadif()
  • TDeint()
  • TomsMoComp()
  • FieldDeinterlace()
  • tfm(order=-1).tdecimate()
  • Telecide(guide=1).Decimate()
  • TDecimate(cycleR=0)
  • tfm(order=1).tdecimate(hybrid=1)
  • tfm(order=1).tdecimate(hybrid=3)
  • LeakKernelDeint(order=1,sharp=true)

The deinterlace/ivtc filters are selected based upon the detected source types. These types are detected by an script based on TIVTC.dll. The possible types are:
  • Progressive
  • Interlaced
  • Film
  • M-in-5 decimation required
  • Hybrid film/interlaced. Mostly film
  • Hybrid film/interlaced. Mostly interlaced
  • Partially interlaced
  • Partially film

At the moment I am thinking about adding MCTemporalDenoise() (with the options "very low" to "very high") and removing all other denoisers. With MCTemporalDenoise() is it only a short step to TempGaussMC(). But I am unsure if it can replace all deinterlacers, reduce the necessary source type list or which settings should be used by default. Any feedback is welcome!
Zathor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 07:37   #2  |  Link
flebber
Practising Schemer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 791
For denoising especially for light noise removal. I like vagudenoiser, it is quick, effective and on light and medium settings I have not had side effects. I rarely encode animation so I cannot comment to much on its effect n them.

links
Avisnyth Vaguedenoiser http://avisynth.org.ru/vague/vaguedenoiser.html
Fiziks Avisynth http://avisynth.org.ru/fizick.html
A good brief guide here Scintilla's guide http://www.aquilinestudios.org/avsfi...ial.html#vague
flebber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 07:47   #3  |  Link
flebber
Practising Schemer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 791
Should have mentioned dfftest as well home page here http://bengal.missouri.edu/~kes25c/ and doom9 discussion thread http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=132194 It gives great results for me but on my computers it has a big impact on encoding speed, very slow for me.

Not sure if its in the scope of what you were thinking but "Sharpeners" LSFmod. Easy to set defaults and good results.
http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/LSFmod and doom9 discussion thread http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=142706
flebber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 12:17   #4  |  Link
7ekno
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
MCTemporalDenoise() would be a great addition

You can replace Undot() with RemoveGrain(mode=1) since it runs faster and is the same algorithm ...

So minimal noise = RemoveGrain(mode=1), little noise would be MCTemporalDenoise(settings="low", +/- GPU=true), medium noise would be MCTemporalDenoise(settings="medium", +/- GPU=true) and heavy noise would be MCTemporalDenoise(settings="heavy", +/- GPU=true) ...

For the de-interlacers, you can't go past QTGMC and it's preset system (which effectively matches what you already have setup, just in a single script), it surpasses TGMC() in speed and quality and has a great selection of "speed vs quality" options already built in!

7ek
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 12:36   #5  |  Link
Gser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 418
All of the above and Deblock_QED for deblocking.
Gser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 13:20   #6  |  Link
flebber
Practising Schemer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 791
Have to put a vote down for MCtemporal denoise as its a compilation of multiple filters not just denoising I think its misleading to new users especially, and for me 14 filters is overkill in most cases.

MCtemporal Denoise is:
Code:
MVTools (v2.5.10),
MaskTools (v2.0a43),
LSFmod (v1.9),
FFT3Dgpu (v0.8.2.7) or FFT3Dfilter (v2.1.1),
TTempsmooth (v0.9.4),
RemoveGrain + Repair (v1.0PR),
Deblock (v1.2),
Deblock_QED (25.may.2010),
DctFilter (v0.0.1.4),
EEDI2 (v0.9.2),
SangNom (v1.0beta),
GradFun2DBmod (v1.5),
GradFun2db (v1.0),
AddGrainC (v1.5).
If we are going with removegrain what about using modes 5 or 19?
flebber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 13:43   #7  |  Link
aegisofrime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 478
This thread sounds like a great opportunity to review the current state of Avisynth filters as well
aegisofrime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 14:05   #8  |  Link
markanini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 299
Maybe QTGMC and the latest SMDegrain?
markanini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 15:10   #9  |  Link
javlak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 48
I agree to all posts above me, adding fft3dfilter and MC_Spuds.
javlak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2011, 22:20   #10  |  Link
jmac698
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,867
Updated wiki (I wish more people would do this)
http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/Denoisers
jmac698 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2011, 04:54   #11  |  Link
aegisofrime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by markanini View Post
Maybe QTGMC and the latest SMDegrain?
QTGMC should definitely be among the deinterlacers!
aegisofrime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2011, 13:39   #12  |  Link
Wilbert
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,364
@All,

I don't like that wiki page: http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/Denoisers for several reasons: (1) Such comparisons are always subjective, (2) it depends very much on the type of source (life video, anime, analog caps, etc ...) you are denoising and (3) references (of the comparisons themselves) are completely lacking.

At most (in my view) you can list some/all denoising methodes and compare them in 'an objective as much' possible way with various sources. But until then we should probably remove that page. Thoughts?
Wilbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2011, 15:23   #13  |  Link
saint-francis
too much lurking
 
saint-francis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 668
I had been using MCTD for a long while with MeGUI and an AVS profile and dreamt of the day it would be incorporated into MeGUI. I have since stopped this practice because I've been finding that it blurs the image too much. This is no doubt due to my poor understanding of how to use it. It does offer great flexibility though and if it could be set up properly I think it would work quite well.
saint-francis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2011, 19:10   #14  |  Link
jmac698
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,867
@wil
I think someone made this comment to me before, if you don't like it improve it But sometimes I didn't like that answer, because I had to learn to code for some big open source project and didn't have the time or skills, so the concept fails. In this case, anyhow can make a few screenshots.

As for the page,
-People will search for comments/recommendations anyhow. Hiding the page isn't going to stop them. They want *something*.
-One persons recommendation represents an evaluation of many alternatives. If it's ok for them, there's a better chance it's something you might like. The general question is, what is the value of recommendation systems in general? Well let me answer - it works for Amazon, and they make money from it.. remember the famous contest about it.
-There are very valid comments like, plugin X does the same algorithm as plugin Y but it's faster
-Many recommendations is an indication that an underlying statistical preference is being met
-You *can* say what is best, subjectively, for most people, otherwise we'd never get progress in say codecs. You can read public codec tests for example.
-Some old objective metrics are shown not to be well related to subjective impressions
-Some errors everyone can agree on, though the value of how annoying it is varies. So a comment like, it never makes artefacts, could be a valid point.
-If you don't like the page, improve it - post some screenshots to the page
-For me, out of 50 plugins to try, at least narrowing the list of alternatives is worth it to me. I'm sure there's some kind of value in a tuned script like tempguassmc as compared to random settings on some old plugin...
-Some algorithms have such good performance that there's no denying they are better. TNLmeans blows away previous limits in denoising.
-I think the recommendations are filtering out the alternatives with obviously bad errors, leaving more preference-based errors behind. So you can say the recommendations have no obvious glithes, are about the same, but have a different "look"
jmac698 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2011, 22:22   #15  |  Link
johnmeyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilbert View Post
I don't like that wiki page: http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/Denoisers for several reasons: (1) Such comparisons are always subjective, (2) it depends very much on the type of source (life video, anime, analog caps, etc ...) you are denoising and (3) references (of the comparisons themselves) are completely lacking.

At most (in my view) you can list some/all denoising methodes and compare them in 'an objective as much' possible way with various sources. But until then we should probably remove that page. Thoughts?
I am a junior member on this forum, so my thoughts probably don't count for much, but I have always felt that Forum Rule #12 was (and is) too strict. I understand at least some of the reasons why you want to restrict people from asking or posting what is "best." I assume the link to this Wiki is potentially in violation of that rule, but you are asking for opinions as to whether or not the rule has been broken.

Speaking for myself (OK, who else would I be speaking for?), I find the listing useful, and the author's ranking intersting. I actually don't agree with the ranking, but I find VERY useful the author's reasoning for why he chooses the ranking. It is for this reason that I don't like the restriction on posting about what is best or better. I realize that discussions about "best" have led, and might again lead, to flame posts and other problems. But, having acknowledged that problem, we have some amazingly smart people posting here in this forum, and I would value having more direct access to their thinking, opinions, and recommendations.

You asked for "thoughts." Those are mine, FWIW.
johnmeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2011, 01:13   #16  |  Link
DeathAngelBR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 83
I wish there was an improved version of tfm/tdeint. MT QTGMC ( Preset="Slower", noisepreset="slower", noiseprocess=1, grainrestore=0.0, noiserestore=0.0 ) + LSF is way too slow on my quadcore, too much time demanding for me. 12 hours for an awful 720x480 dvd source, what the hell.
DeathAngelBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2011, 01:15   #17  |  Link
jmac698
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,867
wow, very well put! I couldn't have expressed it better. I've also always felt the same about that rule. I think the only problem is trying to make it into one "best" instead of just saying "one of the better alternatives, and these are the tradeoffs".
jmac698 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2011, 21:43   #18  |  Link
Zathor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,405
@all: Thank you very much for your feedback.

I do not want to start this "best" discussion. I am just searching for a good replacement for the old filters in MeGUI. I am therefore in search for filters which produce for most sources an (above) average result. I am dreaming of as less as possible filters which the user can select from e.g.
2-3 denoisers and the recommended main denoiser is fast and will not harm the result as the video beginner will very likely not change the selection and - also very likely - will complain about low speed
As a result the RemoveGrain(mode=1) + MCTemporalDenoise() seems to be a good advice. I will check them out but feedback is of course still welcome!

Quote:
Originally Posted by flebber View Post
Have to put a vote down for MCtemporal denoise as its a compilation of multiple filters not just denoising I think its misleading to new users especially, and for me 14 filters is overkill in most cases.
Why do you think it is overkill? MeGUI will download and update these filters if necessary and the user does not need to handle them. And also in most of the newer avsi files a lot of these filters are required, too. So if e.g. MeGUI will use QTGMC some/most are needed as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7ekno View Post
For the de-interlacers, you can't go past QTGMC and it's preset system (which effectively matches what you already have setup, just in a single script)
If I understand you correctly QTGMC can handle all of the deinterlace cases in my first posting? But I assume that IVTC is still required? At least a quick search shows that QTGMC seems to have no IVTC part.
Zathor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2011, 22:21   #19  |  Link
flebber
Practising Schemer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathor View Post

Why do you think it is overkill? MeGUI will download and update these filters if necessary and the user does not need to handle them. And also in most of the newer avsi files a lot of these filters are required, too. So if e.g. MeGUI will use QTGMC some/most are needed as well.
The current range of megui denoisers all perform their function by themselves, that is they are one filter (undot, fluxsmooth etc). Therefore if there is a side effect as a result of the denoising process you would know exactly where the error came from.

Why is it Overkill? Yes I have done encodes with multiple filters but never met an encode where I required 14 of them. With McTemporal you are not only denoising but line sharpening and god knows what else.

A side effect in your encoded source from mctemporal denoise is hard to figure because which of the 14 filters did it or was it the result of more than one? Your going to struggle to find out.

Its just total overkill on light to medium sources to me.
flebber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2011, 22:53   #20  |  Link
jmac698
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,867
Ok, it's possible to trace what exactly is happening, but not all 14 plugins are being used! Here is what you get with denoise and setting "very low"
fft3d(sigma=1), MVDegrain, MVTools(idx=40)
From http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/MCTemporalDenoise

So it looks like 3 filters are being used. I can't say for sure without going through the whole script myself. In fact in all the settings except high, those are the only 3 filters (high uses ttempsmooth). It's simple to test, call the denoising only and see what error messages you get, keep adding plugins until it works.
jmac698 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 11:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.