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 April 2003, 23:47   #1  |  Link
N_F
Do you find me... pretty?
 
N_F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 760
Speed and compression of different denoisers

These are some tests I recently ran on different denoisers I figured I'd share.

Noisy clip: 4000 frames of Sex and the City (NTSC, 4:3)
Clean clip: 4000 frames of Fellowship of the Ring (PAL, 16:9 (2.35))

Code:
* = Added on first edit
** = Added on second edit
*** = Last added

Denoiser                     Time              Size

Noisy clip
None                         5:33 (100%)       64,0 (100%)
*Unfilter(-5,-5)             5:33 (100%)       56.0 (88%)
*Undot()        ´            5:35 (101%)       61.4 (96%)
temporalsoften(2,3,3,2,6)    5:47 (104%)       62,5 (98%)
Mergechroma(blur(1.3))       5:48 (105%)       61,4 (96%)   
**DNR2()                     5:57 (108%)       62.0 (97%)
*TemporalCleaner()           5:57 (108%)       62.0 (97%)   
temporalsoften(3,5,5,2,10)   5:59 (108%)       59,8 (93%)
**STMedianFilter(8,15,4,7)   6:04 (109%)       60.3 (94%)
temporalsoften(4,8,8,2,10)   6:04 (109%)       58,0 (91%)
*Deen()                      6:08 (111%)       53.3 (83%)
fluxsmooth()                 6:11 (111%)       57,4 (90%)
convolution3d("moviehq")     6:14 (112%)       62,2 (97%)
convolution3d("movielq")     6:14 (112%)       59,7 (93%)
**Peachsmoother()            6:28 (117%)       53.7 (84%)
SpaceDust()                  6:46 (122%)       54,0 (84%)
****convolution3d("vhsbq")   7:05 (128%)       57.6 (90%)
**SmoothHiQ(7,20,25,230,5)  16:54 (305%)       50.3 (79%)
FaeryDust()                 26:17 (474%)       55,6 (87%)
PixieDust()                 26:36 (479%)       48,7 (76%)
GoldDust()                  26:49 (483%)       40,4 (63%)

 
Clean clip
None                         3:20 (100%)       26,3 (100%)
*Undot()                     3:21 (101%)       25.8 (98%)
*Unfilter(-5,-5)             3:22 (101%)       23.5 (89%)
Mergechroma(blur(1.3))       3:30 (105%)       25,9 (98%)
**DNR2()                     3:31 (106%)       26.7 (102%) (!?)
temporalsoften(2,3,3,2,6)    3:34 (107%)       25,5 (97%)
temporalsoften(3,5,5,2,10)   3:42 (111%)       25,1 (95%)
**STMedianFilter(8,15,4,7)   3:43 (112%)       26.2 (100%)
*TemporalCleaner()           3:45 (113%)       25.9 (98%)
temporalsoften(4,8,8,2,10)   3:47 (114%)       24,9 (95%)
fluxsmooth()                 3:50 (115%)       24,2 (92%)
*Deen()                      3:56 (118%)       22.4 (85%)
convolution3d(movielq)       3:58 (119%)       25,0 (95%)
convolution3d(moviehq)       3:59 (120%)       25,6 (97%)
**Peachsmoother()            4:03 (122%)       24.3 (92%)
SpaceDust()                  4:07 (124%)       22,2 (84%)
***convolution3d("vhsbq")    4:23 (132%)       25.1 (95%)
FaeryDust()                 12:14 (367%)       23,9 (91%)
GoldDust()                  12:45 (383%)       20,5 (78%)
PixieDust()                 12:48 (384%)       22,3 (85%)
**SmoothHiQ(7,20,25,230,5)  14:10 (425%)       20.6 (78%)
If there are any conclusions to be drawn someone else will have to draw them for now. I’m having a cold at the moment and I’ve been feeling dizzy all day; my mind is not at its sharpest.

One thing to note though is Convolution3D. It seems to be a common misconception that it’s very slow, but as you can see it’s not.

All tests were run with Avisynth 2.51. Dust with the help of Warpsharp’s LoadPluginEx()

Also, if you’re missing a filter leave its name and setting here and I’ll add it

* Take note of Undot and Unfilter (both by Tom Barry IIRC). How is it possible they hardly affect encoding speed, yet in Unfilter's case (and to much lesser extent Undot) changes the picture's size greatly? It would seem there are hardly any extra calculations done or something like that Not that I'm complaining...

Last edited by N_F; 23rd April 2003 at 10:00.
N_F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2003, 00:15   #2  |  Link
irasnyd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 45
If you've got the time, two more I suggest are deen and undot.

I just use them with the defaults:
deen()
undot()

irasnyd
irasnyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2003, 10:58   #3  |  Link
manono
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 7,348
Hi-

Nice test N_F. I'd like to see how TemporalCleaner() compares to the rest of them.
manono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2003, 11:38   #4  |  Link
frodoontop
Registered User
 
frodoontop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 126
This test is really helpfull. If you have some time, please look at Unfilter(-5,-5). I use it a lot.
frodoontop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2003, 14:46   #5  |  Link
Valky
Registered User
 
Valky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 275
My conclusion is that there is no point using Fairydust anymore on noisy source, cause it takes about same time than Pixiedust().
Or then this might be caused by Warpsharp’s LoadPluginEx().
Valky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2003, 15:30   #6  |  Link
Prettz
easily bamboozled user
 
Prettz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 373
Nice test, but can you tell us your system specs too, possibly to compare performance with different CPUs (i.e. athlon vs P4)?
Prettz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2003, 17:06   #7  |  Link
PerCIVaL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32
how about smart smoother HQ ? I use it a lot in virtualdub. you should be able to load it into avs.

Also, I find compression important but quality more so. Smart smoother gives me very good results. So does convolution3d.
PerCIVaL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2003, 23:31   #8  |  Link
N_F
Do you find me... pretty?
 
N_F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 760
I'll try to add all the filters you've mentioned within a day or two.

@PerCIVaL - I haven't had any success with sshq in avisynth yet, but I'll see if I can get it to work.

@Prettz - Well my basic specs are Athlon 1300, 256 MB mem, Win XP. But I don't think it'll do you any good, there are so many other things that makes a difference
N_F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2003, 23:53   #9  |  Link
trbarry
Registered User
 
trbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gainesville FL USA
Posts: 2,092
If you are doing an exhaustive set of tests you might also want to include STMedianFilter(8,15,4,7). ( www.trbarry.com/Readme_STMedianFilter.txt )

- Tom
trbarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2003, 00:06   #10  |  Link
JuanC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 220
How about including PeachSmoother ? :J
JuanC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2003, 11:25   #11  |  Link
12monkeys
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7
Another vote for PeachSmoother, I use it all the time
12monkeys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2003, 12:19   #12  |  Link
majerle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
ehmmm...

how about quality ? a psnr confrontation could be usefull
you can use psnr4avi ( http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/_XOO...e/psnr4avi.exe )

Thanks

Andres
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2003, 15:13   #13  |  Link
sh0dan
Retired AviSynth Dev ;)
 
sh0dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 3,480
PSNR doesn't say anything about quality - just as little as compression does. A PSNR test would IMO be a waste of time.
__________________
Regards, sh0dan // VoxPod
sh0dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2003, 15:25   #14  |  Link
DDogg
Retired, but still around
 
DDogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lone Star
Posts: 3,058
N_F, even if it would be a totally subjective judgement, I wonder if you might consider assigning a "quality" factor and then plot a graph in Excel so that time, compression and quality (again, I know that is voodoo) could indicate the general trending of the better combinations?

Probably a real pain in the backside for you
DDogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2003, 16:13   #15  |  Link
Piper
Registered User
 
Piper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 196
While we're at it, let's not forget DNR2 as Shayne kindly pointed out in: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44335

I've been toying with this filter over the past few days, comparing it with Pixiedust. I'm quite impressed - the results between the two filters are very close to each other with DNR2 preserving more detail (IMHO) while running much faster.
Piper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2003, 00:11   #16  |  Link
N_F
Do you find me... pretty?
 
N_F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 760
@DDogg - I've been thinking about that, but thing is, I have ~30 clips, and it's damn hard seeing any difference without spending a considereble amount of time comparing them. Still, I'll think about it.


Could anyone tell me what sshiq version to use? There seems to be like 10 different versions made by 10 different people available. I've found one by Sh0dan, but it works in RGB IIRC and involves some kind of vdf inport.
N_F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2003, 01:08   #17  |  Link
^^-+I4004+-^^
Banned
 
^^-+I4004+-^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Croatia [local name:Hrvatska]
Posts: 551
numbers really mean less for this kinda comparisson,and for images,you would have to include at least few settings for each filter (yes,peachsmoother and grapesmoother too...hehe)
so it's a tremendous job
for example;there's a source video screenshot,spliced with screenshot after filtering (split screen),this is cropped heavily,but the frame is picked so it had details and some uniform parts too....(this image portion is retained after cropping too)
for every filter/settings there's one such jpeg (very small)....
(i think somone already did such test..with few denoisers)
but as i said too many filters,combinations,numerus settings for each...tough job
^^-+I4004+-^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2003, 09:24   #18  |  Link
TNM
CG Movies Freak
 
TNM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SG//VN
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Piper
While we're at it, let's not forget DNR2 as Shayne kindly pointed out in: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44335

I've been toying with this filter over the past few days, comparing it with Pixiedust. I'm quite impressed - the results between the two filters are very close to each other with DNR2 preserving more detail (IMHO) while running much faster.
Can u pls post which setting of this filter can give close result to pixiedust?
TNM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2003, 10:59   #19  |  Link
FuPP
TotalEclipseOfTheBrain
 
FuPP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 347
"(i think somone already did such test..with few denoisers)"

It was me but pictures showed were not always very relevant (mostly due to a lack of time). Sorry...

"While we're at it, let's not forget DNR2 as Shayne kindly pointed out"

Yes, I'd like to play a little bit with that one. Does anybody have some sample scripts with that filter, to use them as a starting point (and then play with parameters)?

Regards,
FuPP

Last edited by FuPP; 18th April 2003 at 11:02.
FuPP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2003, 16:55   #20  |  Link
PerCIVaL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32
@N_F

you should be able to get the latest version here:
http://shelob.mordor.net/dgraft/hiq/smoothhiq.html

As for vdf import, IIRC there is no avisynth version of the filter yet. The page above has detailed instructions how to correctly import the vdf though.

Thanks for the great tests btw!
PerCIVaL 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 19:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.