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 > (Auto) Gordian Knot

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 7th January 2002, 21:21   #1  |  Link
SirTomahawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 29
Pixel or Quality?! Someone rip "Enemy at the gates" with Gordian?!

Hello,
my problem is: I try to rip "Thirteen Days" (bad DVD, shit on Kinowelt) and I want a 1-CD of course (its short about 2 hours long). But the quality Index for 576x320 for example is @ 20% VideoSize/FirstPass. I tested all resolutions with a few minutes of the film at the recommended bitrate. I think 480x256 looks like 704x384..., the resolutions between these looks worse. CAN THIS BE? What's best: Full resolution with bad pixels or less pixel with more quality?

My feeling was, that it must be good in balance - less pixels (only a little bit) too get more quality for the rest of the pixels. But where is the perfect point? I know..., it cannot be a rule or a math formular. But when Gordian says "QUALITY SUCKS" @ 704x384 and it looks finally like the 480x256 "QUALITY OK", whats the better option?

My first Rip was "Enemy at the gates". I do it with FlaskMpeg (20 times or more!!!). Finally it was PERFECT at 704x304 with 700,00 MB (2 hours, 5 minutes, 37 seconds). After this motivation-booster I changed to Nanodub and than to Gordian Knot (because the people talking about it - it must be better). I ripped more than 10 films but no of them reaches the quality of "Enemy at the gates". And for example "Exit Wounds" is 30 minutes shorter!! IS THE FILM A COMPRESSIBILITY CHAMP OR WHAT?! Someone else rip "enemy at the gates" with Gordian Knot? Or have a state-file of the compressibility? I WANT TO KNOW THIS! Otherwise I must get it again and rip it with nanodub first pass, to get an answer.

PLEASE HELP, T.
SirTomahawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2002, 21:48   #2  |  Link
TheWEF
Gordian Mod.
 
TheWEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 772

you should probably try the medium noise filter to put 13 days on one cd. 512x... bilinear could be possible, but i think that's the max.
saving private ryan compresses even less. sometimes it is better to go for 2 cds...

wef.
TheWEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2002, 22:36   #3  |  Link
neo_sapien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 241
If I recall correctly, Enemy at the Gates is a very dark film. You can't expect the Nazis to have refrained from knocking out the light bulbs, I guess. Don't dark films compress well? That's one reason right there.

EDIT~I think it's also a low motion film, with a few scenes that prove to be the exception.
neo_sapien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2002, 22:40   #4  |  Link
SirTomahawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 29

hi WEF,
noise filter I never used. Why with 13 days? Its not a "grizzly", is it? Or some other reasons for noise-filter?
Yes 512x is maximum...
Why bilinear? Can you describe this? I know, there are a lot of tutorials, but I read them and then I have a question? Shit happens...
What does bicubic? It calculate the interpolated pixels with different gaussian blur?

Yes, sometimes 2 CDs ist the only option. Think about that guys who post "Only 1-CD Rip is a real profi-work". Somebody say them, that there are different CD-Sizes... . What about that? "Only 420-MB Rips (3 hours of course) is real profi-work".

For fun I ripped Pearl Harbor on minimum quality..., 54 Megs ist the result.... - IT LOOKS PERFECT!!! (only for the guys with a lot of fantasy)

CU, & tanx
SirTomahawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2002, 22:44   #5  |  Link
SirTomahawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 29

Yes NEO,
that's my mind. It is very dark..., and very slow (snipers are no sprinters of course).

Yes, I think it is the film and not the proggie, that put out this GREAT QUALITY.

CU, T.
SirTomahawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2002, 12:22   #6  |  Link
FxOverlord
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 14
@Sir Tomahawk

Quote:
Why with 13 days? Its not a "grizzly", is it? Or some other reasons for noise-filter?
Never seen the film transfer on DVD put i assume u mean not noisy by "grizzly". I think theWEF is suggesting you put noise filters on to make the movie more compressable or perhaps i'm putting words in theWEF's mouth :P

Quote:
Why bilinear? Can you describe this?
Bilinear uses less bits to resize the image. A bilinear resize is also good at removing noise while not making your encoding time double

Quote:
What does bicubic? It calculate the interpolated pixels with different gaussian blur?
Erm? Don't know the technicalities of it but bicubic resizes use more bits and are sharper. Most people don't like bilinear because it's too soft and don't like like precise bicubic because it's too sharp. It's all up to you. But i think theWEF suggested bilinear because you are having problems reaching a sufficient resolution
FxOverlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2002, 12:39   #7  |  Link
SirTomahawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 29
Mhhh...

@FXOverlord
Sounds got to me what you write. A "grizzly" is a film, where you see every pixel in contrast to its neighbours. In use of resizing the most of them will kicked. That's another question: after resampling (down to 70% for example) it is no "grizzly", because the contrast is smoothen through the resizing. What bilinear can do at this point for me? It smoothen a little bit more and so the film has less detail (contrast) and the compressibility is better?

Tanx & cu

MAY THE COMPRESSIBILITY WITH YOU!
SirTomahawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2002, 02:28   #8  |  Link
FxOverlord
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 14

Quote:
What bilinear can do at this point for me? It smoothen a little bit more and so the film has less detail (contrast) and the compressibility is better?
Yeah bilinear resize hasn't as much detail as a sharp bicubic resize (the image is softer - blurrier). For example if i resize a movie that is shot through lots of trees (lots of leaves means lots of detail) a sharp bicubic resize you could see all the single leaves but with bilinear some of the trees might have solid green patches where the leaves have been blurred (no leave edges). The bilinear effect is like using a smoother filter (SpatialSoftenMMX is one used in GKnot as part of avisynth). Since there is not as much detail (blurrier image) it compresses a lot better. Just run some compressability tests using sharp bicubic and bilinear resize and you'll see what i mean.
But bare this in mind that most people DO find bilinear TOO soft.
FxOverlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2002, 02:55   #9  |  Link
TheWEF
Gordian Mod.
 
TheWEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 772
Re:

Quote:
Originally posted by FxOverlord
But bare this in mind that most people DO find bilinear TOO soft.
yes, but if you try to squeeze a movie into 1 cd with force (like in this case) it is more than stupid not to use bilinear.

13 days: use bilinear or go for two cds. ok?

wef.
TheWEF 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 04:39.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.