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. |
17th April 2004, 06:11 | #2 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
i will give it a try tonight. I'm feeling old-school so I think I'm going to encode breakfast at tiffany's
will get back to you on the results
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
19th April 2004, 14:03 | #3 | Link |
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: www.videoaudio.pl
Posts: 218
|
Thanks for your CPU time.
So far I've tested this matrix on The Ninith Gate and The Matrix Revolutions (both R2 Poland). The 8% compressibility gain compared to HVS - Good Picture was observed when encoding with constant quantizers of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The settings were: Qpel, GMC, AQ, Trellis ON Packed Bitstream OFF Max I-frame interval 250 VHQ=4, MSP=6, ChromaME B-frames 3/1.50/1.00 B-VOP sensitivity 3 Profile AS@l5 and the rest set to defaults The Ninth Gate doesn't look brilliant even at quant=2 with both HVS - Good Picture and Jawor's 1CD (it seems to me that they overdid the edge enhancement while processing). I did not see any noticeable difference in quality. The Matrix Revolutions encodes also look very similar to each other. I had to use Code:
SelectRangeEvery(500,25) Now I'm doing a two-pass encode of The X-Files #8ABX03: Redrum, an analogue TV capture from TVP2 (one of the channels of the so-called public Polish TV, which is not public at all - they ask us to pay for it ) at desired video size of 180 MB (ca. 43 minutes, 512x384). I did an encode like this with the HVS - Good Picture matrix and this will be my first comparison at the same desired size, so that we could see how good is this matrix when working under difficult conditions. Unfortunately I won't be able to put here some screens or samples, but you can count on my report. Last edited by Jawor; 19th April 2004 at 14:36. |
19th April 2004, 15:08 | #4 | Link |
Moderator, Ex(viD)-Mascot
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,564
|
How about comparing it to HVS-best as this one seems the 1-CD matrix of choice at least for bond, JasonFly and me?
__________________
It's a man's life in Doom9's 52nd MPEG division. "The cat sat on the mat." ATM I'm thoroughly enjoying the Banshee - a fantastic music player/ripper for Linux. Give it a whirl! |
19th April 2004, 19:12 | #6 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
Well... I did a test encode, but I am going to hold off passing judgment until I do a couple more encodes. My first test was pretty unsuccessful, with a lot of macroblocking and haloing. Here are the settings (which I think were a little flawed...):
AVS: LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\mpeg2dec3.dll") LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\undot.dll") LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\peachsmoother.dll") mpeg2source("D:\Tiffanys\Breakfast at Tiffany's.d2v") crop(6,0,710,476) LanczosResize(640,352) Undot() convertToYUY2() PeachSmoother(NoiseReduction=45,Stability=15,Spatial=70,NoiseLevel=4.8,Baseline=3.2) convertToYV12() XviD RC4: 2 pass - target filesize: 609,612 kb Adaptive Quant, Qpel Bvops @ 5/1.0/1.5, Packed MSP @ 6 VHQ @ 4 Trellis All other settings at defaults I got the following for the status window: Average Quantizer: 5.04 B frame to P Frame ratio: 2.403 Only 1051 I Frames out of 164469 total!! Whole thing encoded at about 25fps on the second pass with my system. I think for this extremely grainy source ( Breakfast at Tiffany's ), PeachSmoother did a nice job of temporal smoothing, but even so this is a very difficult movie to encode. It looked nice in the I will do another run of this with some different settings. Exactly what those settings will be I am not totally sure, we'll see. Suggestions are welcome. I will get to the encoding in a few days since I don't want to stress my already highly tempermental power supply until my new 450 watt Antec arrives. I'm running like 400 watts of load on a 300 watt unit... It doesnt spin up the hard drives half of the time on boot now. scarry. Sorry for the lengthy post, but I think this matrix has promise.
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
19th April 2004, 19:18 | #7 | Link |
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: www.videoaudio.pl
Posts: 218
|
Thanks for the results.
I would suggest using GMC. I know it's slowing things down and the compressibility gain is not big (or sometimes none), but for 1CD encodes GMC is sometimes helpful, so I think it's important to test this matrix with it. Tomorrow I'll write something about this X-Files episode. |
20th April 2004, 07:07 | #8 | Link |
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: www.videoaudio.pl
Posts: 218
|
As I promised, here are the results of tests performed on The X-Files #8ABX03: "Redrum" (25fps, progressive, 4:3)
XviD settings: Profile: AS@L5 MSP=6, ChromaME, VHQ=1 Trellis, GMC, Qpel, AQ ON Packed Bitstream OFF B-frames 3/1.50/1.00 B-VOP Sensitivity 3 (movie), 10 (credits) weight=0.4 for the end credits Quantizers 2-31 maximum I-frame interval 250 "Fast" first pass desired size 180 MB I left the rest at their defaults AviSynth script Code:
AVISource(...) ConvertToYV12() Crop(4,4,-4,-2) Deen("c3d",1,16,20) UnDot() LanczosResize(512,384) UnDot() Quantizers and frame types for Jawor's 1CD Matrix: I-frames - 1.27 % P-frames - 22.29 % B-frames - 61.93 % S-frames - 14.51 % 2 - 4.9 % 3 - 24.6 % 4 - 22.6 % 5 - 42.0 % 6 - 4.6 % 7 - 0.6 % 8 - 0.4 % 9 - 0.3 % >9 - 0.1 % Quantizers and frame types for HVS - Good Picture: I-frames - 1.28 % P-frames - 22.58 % B-frames - 61.88 % S-frames - 14.27 % 2 - 3.3 % 3 - 24.8 % 4 - 20.1 % 5 - 41.6 % 6 - 7.9 % 7 - 1.3 % 8 - 0.2 % 9 - 0.4 % >9 - 0.3 % Take a look at these two screenshots - the first one is Jawor's 1CD Matrix, the second one is from HVS - Good Picture encode: Compare the mosquito noise on the edges - it's slightly more visible with HVS - Good Picture. Besides the mosquito noise, I haven't notice any diffrences between the two clips. Currently I'm testing the same clip with the HVS - Best Picture matrix. Last edited by Jawor; 26th April 2004 at 10:31. |
20th April 2004, 10:59 | #9 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 147
|
If you don't mind a little competition, would you mind testing this matrix? I'm sure you'll be interested once you see it
The Evil Matrix - v0.1
__________________
Stuff was here at some point. |
20th April 2004, 13:00 | #11 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 147
|
Thanks! I don't have time to run many tests, but on the material I've done so far (Men in Black II) it outperforms everything else at 1-CD bitrates. I got the values from a program designed to tune DCT matrices based on human perception, and adapted them for use in XviD (inter-frame matrix uses a higher compression tuning than intra-frame). I didn't exhuastively tune or test it though (came up with it a few hours ago, actually), which is why I'm asking for help. Thanks again for testing, I appreciate it. I'll make sure to try your matrix on my material too.
__________________
Stuff was here at some point. |
20th April 2004, 13:26 | #12 | Link |
! - User - !
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,081
|
Ther seem to be a few typos in your matrix since the vlues are not allways increasing in the downward and rightward direction, or, is this intended?
And, please remember, the average quant does not tell you anything about image quality. BTW, what is currently the best _free_ 'objective' method for measuring image quality.
__________________
Keep your tone warm and your sigs decent! Last edited by kilg0r3; 20th April 2004 at 13:44. |
20th April 2004, 14:04 | #13 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 147
|
Yes, that's inteded for now, because it's the way the program calculates the values (it's designed to optimize JPEG DTC matrices). I may try to transpose the values, but I never found out exactly what XviD's scanning method was. I think it's right, down left, down, up right, etc. Also, this was optimized for a specific scene, so it's possible the values were affected by that. It's also possible that the numbers might reflect certain human perceptual traits (sensitivity to certain "zones" within the DCT table) since the program generated it according to it's perceptual model.
In any case, typo or not, I was able to run some short tests - and yet again, this matrix came up with more detail and less artifacts that any other matrix I've tested so far (h.263, Jawor's, HVS Best, mpeg, and a few more of my own). I eventually want to test every matrix that was included with LigH's quant editor. I also hope other people can test it, so that it can be exposed to a large number and type of test cases. If people report good results, I may try to come up with a better one based off of the same principles. At the moment, the scene that it's doing really well on is high-motion.
__________________
Stuff was here at some point. Last edited by SoonUDie; 20th April 2004 at 14:21. |
20th April 2004, 14:06 | #14 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 147
|
Quote:
The program I used to create these matrices also has a "quality metric" mode. It's called DCTune, and you can get it here: http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/dctune/
__________________
Stuff was here at some point. Last edited by SoonUDie; 20th April 2004 at 14:18. |
|
20th April 2004, 14:39 | #15 | Link |
BeHappy/MeGUI developer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,727
|
2Jawor
Nice matrix! I've made 1CD DVRRip "Gigli" (2hr3min 640*352) at 670kbps - it's fine and clear thanx
__________________
BeHappy - AviSynth-based audio transcoding tool Audio encoding via AviSynth On2 VP7 is great in quality but it is unusable for long-term video backup puposes! Sincerely Yours, MCPD/MCTS |
21st April 2004, 08:59 | #17 | Link |
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: www.videoaudio.pl
Posts: 218
|
Results of tests performed on The X-Files #8ABX03: "Redrum" with HVS - Best Picture:
Average quantizer = 4.194 Quantizers and frame types: I-frames - 1.28 % P-frames - 22.81 % B-frames - 61.81 % S-frames - 14.10 % 2 - 2.4 % 3 - 24.6 % 4 - 36.5 % 5 - 28.2 % 6 - 6.6 % 7 - 1.2 % 8 - 0.2 % 9 - 0.1 % >9 - 0.1 % And here's the screenshot: It seems to me, that these both HVS matrices produced more perceptible mosquito noise and a softer image than my matrix. Is it only a matter of my imperfect sight or do you see it too? I'm currently testing it with Evil 0.1 matrix by SoonUDie. Last edited by Jawor; 26th April 2004 at 10:30. |
21st April 2004, 13:05 | #19 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 147
|
Jawor: in the shots you've posted so far, what I see is:
1) Your matrix is "rougher", and encodes more noise/"detail"... 2) ...at the price of more blocks, and a 3) loss of definition in some areas (see the red blotches) Do you think you could post some other screen shots, showing areas with high deatil, and areas with motion, etc.? At the moment, I'm stuck - in some cases, my matrix looks better than yours, and in others it doesn't. Take a look at the following pairs of shots: Jawor's Evil 0.1 Check out Gandalf's teeth! Evil does a much better job. Also, you can see that Evil has a slightly lower, but more consistent quality across the sleeve. HVS Best also gets it right (though I haven't included the image). But in the next pair, the tables are turned: Jawor's Evil 0.1 Evil seems to suffer from high quantization here. Non-deblocked, Jawor's has much more blocking than Evil in the red smoke, but deblocking seems to take care of that. HVS Best seems to be on par with Jawor's. So it looks like I still have some work to do... HVS best may still be the champ for now.
__________________
Stuff was here at some point. Last edited by SoonUDie; 21st April 2004 at 13:20. |
21st April 2004, 13:12 | #20 | Link | |
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: www.videoaudio.pl
Posts: 218
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|