A little DVD-RB-PRO support for 2.70 please !

[apfraats]

I would like to see some support for CCE 2.70 in DVD-RB-PRO.

If it was possible to set a custom TEMPLATE for 2.70.x.x a lot of problems should be gone.

CCE 2.70.x.x has a lot to offer, things that cannot be set now, such as using filters and other quality parameters I would like to see possible to use.

The most simple option for JDOBS is to allow a custom TEMPLATE te use for the whole job. So at the level with you specify CCE ADVANCED OPTION it would be very nice to see a TEMPLATE option, where you enter the name of the template being used.

You can set everything in the template and remove standard setting except the ones specified from the ECL files.

In that way you can use filters from CCE and other nice things, just by using a template.

A more dedicated way should be to have ALL CCE 2.70 paramters in ADVANCED CCE SETTINGS, but that will be a lot of work.

Just using a custom template in which you specify filter settings and gray cale for example would solve the need on a short term...

The gray scale know used in CCE 2.70 is 16-235 IIRC and should be 0-255 .

In a template you can use all setiings you want as it is passed through DVD-RB-PRO to CCE.

[jdobbs]

I have been using v2.70 since it was released and have no problems.

The lumenance levels to which you are referred have no application in DVD-RB. Those numbers are only used when converting from RGB to YUY2. DVD-RGB feeds YUY2 sources to CCE.

[apfraats]

Ok, no problems with Luminance levels, but all the filter options of CCE cannot be used, execept when using RB-OPT it's just partly possible (2.66/2.67 standards)

Of course it runs without problems......

It would be nice however to use the CCE integrated filters.

Now they are all switched off in the ECL files.

As the settings are already partly present (but filters switched off by setting 0) it should be posiible to add these to the advanced settings.

[jdobbs]

I purposefully left those out because it is my opinion that the filters available via AVISYNTH provide more choices and are more powerful. Mixing the use of both can be unpredictable. I think the CCE filters are only there because in encoding of AVI files directly, it's pretty much the only choice you have -- not so with AVISYNTH.

[apfraats]

Well if it's a developper choice, it's difficult to change.

But youre argument of mixing CCE filters and unpredictable results is TRUE also for avisynth filters.

Then again a lot of people still use CCE as it's after over 100'dreds of test runs is still the best encoder IMO. Especially 2.70.x.x which I'm trying now on fading scenes starting from black.

Filtering in CCE has two major advantages:

1) Speed. Speed is higher comparing to AVISYNTH filters.
2) Dithered quantization is NOT possible with Avisynth.

It's also likely, but I don't know that for sure, that filters are (partly) a part of the encoding engine. So they work the most effecient en effectively.

How many parameters we talk about ?

In 2.70.x.x

1) High Pass Filter, 2 parameters
2) Low Pass Filter, 2 parameters
3) Vertical Filter, 1 paramter.
4) Dithered quantization, 2 paramters.

So an addition of 7 paramteters that are passed should do the job.

This shouldn't be too difficult, and greatly improves support for CCE.

Of course these should be advanced settings. And with advanced settings you can already mess things up. (try CBR at 3500 b/sec). They should not be used if you don't know where they for.

They'll well fit in the advanced CCE settings.

And if you won't use them, you can leave them off (default setting). It's just a matter of passing them to the ECL files.

Now people have to mess with RB-OBT to accomplish this (and it's 2.66/2.67 based, not 2.70.x.x compliant).

Only the existence of RB-OPT is telling there is a need for it.....

As I love DVD-RB-PRO now, I would even love it more to see it to be the only tool needed. Already having tools out there that are dealing internally with ECL files and INI files is something not to be too happy with, but clearly stating out a users need.

As dealing with matrices and avisynth filters is already in DVD-RB-PRO, the use of encoder paramters should also be.

I love to experiment with them, as with all parameters.......

Because these settings are CCE specific they won't make the use of DVD-RB-PRO any more complicated, by leaving them off for the first time user.

Having seen a bit of the structure of the ECL files, I guess it is not too complicated and not too time consuming to implement.

[Boulder]

1) Speed. Speed is higher comparing to AVISYNTH filters.

Compared to what Avisynth filter? RemoveGrain, a spatial filter, is lightning fast and very effective.

Dithered quantization can be achieved by adding noise to the video in the Avisynth script. Blockbuster and AddGrain can do that.

[apfraats]

Yep, it's just like painting your car red first and paint it over in blue.

Why use filters if an encoder can do it for you ?

Will be faster and better....

Dithered quantization has nothing to do with adding noise, this leaves you with unwanted side-effects.

[Boulder]

I'd still like you to tell us which filters you have compared.

As earlier, you fail to prove things.

If you read CCE's manual, you'll see that dithered quantization is adding noise. Blockbuster even contains a dither parameter.

[apfraats]

for example the CCE's low pass filter, which is based on videobandwidth.

No AVS is based on videobandwith as far as I know, because it's a frame server.

Using low pass filter you can remove high frequenties from encoding without disturbing picture detail. Almost all AVS filters are frame based (or use before and after frames) and have nothing to do with video bandwith, although smoothing generally results in a lower video bandwidth. CCE is calculating it's encoding based on bandwidth settings. Something an AVS filter can never do...

[Boulder]

Have you seen DCTFilter?

[apfraats]

First I'm not gonna try every AVS filter and combinations to get a result the encoder can do better and much much faster.

The low pass filter has 2 parameters and it's used in encoding mathematics. Videobandwidth manipulation can never be accurately done by a frame server. Although smoothening genrelly lowers videobandwidth, also details are lost. CCE's bandwidth filter is NOT frame based even not on before and after frames such as many filters in AVS do. Then there is always the problem that certain area's are not processed such as corners, first frame, last frame e.d.

CCE's bandwidth filters are included in the encodres calculations and are therefore REAL bandwidth filters. The result is simply better and much faster than using AVS filters.

Dithered quantization is something different then adding noise to a source.

Flat area's are NOT affected by dithered quantization. Just adding noise to a whole frame does do that.

Every filter makes picture quality less as per definition...

It can only improve picture quality SUBJECTIVELY.

And then there is the speed factor. CCE filters are much faster.

And why should one be able to play with advanced settings such as GOP-size, matrices and not basic filter functionality integrated in the encoder ???

[Boulder]

Why don't you post some screenshots/samples then. I've asked you many times to provide a sample or a screenshot but you have always failed to do so.

Show me what the filters can do..better yet, provide an unprocessed sample and the parameters for CCE for all to try it out.

In any case, asking robot1 for support in RBOpt would be a better choice. It shouldn't be hard for him to add it and he was planning on working on a new release.

[apfraats]

To be Honest, I don't even know how to post screenshot's here.

The discussion is not even about 'how to imitate CCE filters by using AVS filters' ? but far more simple, 'Why not being able to use CCE filters by default, which are standard encoder functionality'

So it's not about 'proving' anything, it's about not being able to simply use encoders functionality straight from DVD-RB-PRO.....

Why doing a lot of time consuming and time wasting experiments with AVS numerous AVS filters when standard functionality is availbale in the encoder, but DVD-RB-PRO is preventing it from using them ????

There is no logic to me in that......

I simply haven't the time to try ALL possible AVS filtering.....

Also it is slowing down the process significantly.

As I said, AVS filters always have restrictions like:

First and Last frame not processed.
Corners not processed.

And that on a segment base.

I just want to make use of basic encoder functionality...

Now I use RB-OPT, that's there for a reason.

People seem to want things DVD-RB-PRO is clearly NOT SUPPORTING.

Even RB-OPT is outdated because it doesn't support the extra 2.70 filter paramters, but it is usefull for basic filtering.

Why travel from Amsterdam to Rome by visting the Northpole ????

I rather take the short way...

That's were the discussion is about, and not about the use of AVS filtering which always has imperfections as mentioned because they are all frame based......

[apfraats]

Why don't you post some screenshots/samples then. I've asked you many times to provide a sample or a screenshot but you have always failed to do so.

Show me what the filters can do..better yet, provide an unprocessed sample and the parameters for CCE for all to try it out.

In any case, asking robot1 for support in RBOpt would be a better choice. It shouldn't be hard for him to add it and he was planning on working on a new release.

Yep, I suppose I have to ask for enhanchements in RB-OPT.

Second best choice, youre right.

Indeed just using 500 tools to get what you want is better then using the basic tool probably :D

[jdobbs]

You really don't have to go overboard, apfraats. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I can add them in for the next version... but quite honestly, the opinion of most people is that the built-in filters in CCE are pretty much useless.

By the way... these filters aren't related to bandwidth... they are frequency filters for smoothing, etc... you can very definitely do any of this (better) with AVISYNTH. The dithering happens before quantization -- which means it also can be done in a frame server.

But I hesitate to even post this response... because now I can look forward to another argument... which I really don't want.

[apfraats]

Nope you won't get another one.......

It would really be nice to have them in DVD-RB-PRO, that's all.

You can discuss the use of filters for ages, everybody has their own preferences......

Normally I don't want heavy filtering, it's just has too many side effects. I haven't seen 'the perfect' filter anyway ......

It's just all about easy workflow, so just adding them would greatly improve my workflow structure...... and even more enjoy DVD-RB-PRO.

So I would greatly appreciate to see these simple settings in DVD-RB-PRO, as it already does version checking and can , theoratically, pretty easy be implemented.

You can save time by not showing LOW-pass High-Pass filter graph :)

These filter options I use the most. If you say that these filters are applied BEFORE real encode, let it be. They work, especially in 2.70 where you can set STRENGTH for these filters. And they are FAST, very FAST, comparing to avisynth filtering.

[Sir Didymus]

It would really be nice to have them in DVD-RB-PRO, that's all.

But this is just your opinion.
Respectufully speaking, I see no real advantages or flexibility impovements on what you consider a nice addon to DVD-RB.

Please note you have always the possibility, if you really want to use these options, to manually change the rebuilder.ecl file in order to enable whatever CCE option you want after the prepare phase...

[apfraats]

I don't consider editing an intermediate file such as an ECL a user-friendly way......


If you don't wanna use options, you sinply don't use them.

It's just somewhat more userfriendly to set youre options in DVD-RB-PRO itself...

As it looks I seem to be the only one wanting to use CCE filters.....

We have IDCT settings, GOP-sizes, use of custom matrices, VBR_BIAS , PRECISION and other settings. You can even set decoder settings for the instruction set to use... Well a little addition for the use of CCE filtering is not too much asked, concerning aal this. Why should one wants to change decoder instruction set used ???? Well it's there and it doesn't bother me.
So using CCE filters settings in DVD-RB-PRO would add something I need.

I often use batch processing, and I know you can even 'SKIP PREPARE' in batch, and manually editing the ECL-files, but this is NOT user-friendly, costs a lot of time and is sensitive for making errors. AND you have to use different working directories in front which is a waste of space.

Why doing things the difficult way, if it can be done in the MAIN tool itself ???, keeping all advantages of using DVD-RB-PRO such as TEMPLATE use, etcetera.

So I suppose if you use a C++ compiler, you gonna edit the assembly code manually afterwards ????

Sorry, don't see the logic here.....