New Version of Avi.net

[weaver4]

avi.net web site is down again; for over a week.

Anyone know what is going on?

[ricardo.santos]

new avi.Net version up

http://www.clonead.co.uk/

[Jacquers]

w00t! Great news!

[weaver4]

Great News! And it is not even my Birthday.

I love this program.

[ricardo.santos]

Weaver 4

can you change the title of the first post to something more "suitable" to the content of it?

Something like "avi.Net new version" or similar?

[weaver4]

Weaver 4

can you change the title of the first post to something more "suitable" to the content of it?

Something like "avi.Net new version" or similar?

done.

[ricardo.santos]

thanks

[Jacquers]

Just one thing missing from new version: Minimize button during loading of video (indexing & extracting audio phase). Other than that, a really good program.

[woah!]

hmm so why does this thing access the web? and why if you deny it access it wont load...

uninstalled......

[Gehenna]

Would you care to elaborate on this?
What application (firewall?) are you using?

You should not make accuasations like this,without giving some form of evidence.

I have just installed avi.net (latest version) with a Packet Sniffer(Sniff-em) running in the background,and i see ZERO tcp/ip activity on the installation.

[woah!]

well i am only going on what my firewall Look n Stop is telling me thats all, and wanted to know why/if this is true.

heres the screens:

http://images.dr3vil.com/files2/default/looknstop.jpg


if i say ok it runs the program ok, if i deny it i get this:


http://images.dr3vil.com/files2/default/looknstop1.jpg

[Gehenna]

Its just a localhost (127.0.0.1) to (0.0.0.0) [all interfaces]

[woah!]

ok well i dont really know all the in's and outs sorry.. but why would it be such a crucial thing that the app will not load and crash if you dont allow it to connect even locally?

maybe something that still needs debugging?

[Jacquers]

It's working fine on my PC with or without internet connection.

avi.NET is still working as good as ever, but the new version is lacking some info that was there is previous versions: Current FPS during encoding ?

[Fugdefino]

Working here ok too with decent results. Would like an option to disable packed bitstream if possible though.

[ricardo.santos]

new version out (2.1.1.0)

[iNFO-DVD]

hmm so why does this thing access the web?
Don't know, at a guess maybe something to do with the .NET framework, dunno. What I can say is avi.NET is certainly not doing anything dodgy.... The only web links/URL access in my code is the ones for when you press the WWW, EMAIL or DONATE buttons.

[iNFO-DVD]

Would like an option to disable packed bitstream if possible though.Why? avi.NET doesn't use them. If you use GSpot on an XVID for example you'll see it says NVOP and also the MPEG Fixer proggy will say packed bitstreams but that's just to do with the proper settings of the profiles, it doesn't actually use any, 0% NVOPS. Does that make sense?

[iNFO-DVD]

avi.NET is still working as good as ever, but the new version is lacking some info that was there is previous versions: Current FPS during encoding ?It was only removed because of the titlebar change, I had no where to display it during encoding. I'll put it back if you like, or if I can find somewhere to display it.

[Nrmf]

This Thing ROCKS


Thank you for your time and improvements

[weaver4]

I love AVI.net but their is one very minor thing that I would like to see changed.

AutoGK has a single pass mode where you can set the quality value, AutoGK then changes this to a quantizer value. For example they suggest that you use a quality value of 75% for XviD which I think is a quantizer value of about 2.5.

I have also notices that the XviD codec and the DivX codec allow you to put non whole number for their quantizers.

For XviD a quantizer of 3 I find the quality is not quite good enough but a quantizer of 2 the file is too big.

I would like to be able to put in fractional amounts for the quantizer so I can set it to 2.3 or 2.5 for XviD.

[Fugdefino]

Why? avi.NET doesn't use them. If you use GSpot on an XVID for example you'll see it says NVOP and also the MPEG Fixer proggy will say packed bitstreams but that's just to do with the proper settings of the profiles, it doesn't actually use any, 0% NVOPS. Does that make sense?

Ok thanks. Didn't realise that.

[iNFO-DVD]

There's a new version 2.1.3.0. I've added more information in the log file, display window and batch tooltip and re-added the FPS feedback during encode as requested.

[Jacquers]

Thanx for all the new versions lately. Now avi.NET has the ability to save and load jobs so they dont get lost when you close the program.

Plz bring back thre minimize button at startup :)

[nfm]

It doesn't work with windows xp x64, to be more specific it cannot detect any codecs, maybe it looks in system32 folder where it shouldn't or it can't read "Wow6432Node" section in registry.

[theclaus]

I love AVI.net but their is one very minor thing that I would like to see changed.

AutoGK has a single pass mode where you can set the quality value, AutoGK then changes this to a quantizer value. For example they suggest that you use a quality value of 75% for XviD which I think is a quantizer value of about 2.5.

I have also notices that the XviD codec and the DivX codec allow you to put non whole number for their quantizers.

For XviD a quantizer of 3 I find the quality is not quite good enough but a quantizer of 2 the file is too big.

I would like to be able to put in fractional amounts for the quantizer so I can set it to 2.3 or 2.5 for XviD.

True but AVI.NET was design with SAP(StandAlone Player) in mind. Whenever I would use the quality mode in AutoGK it would bark about setting this might not make this encode SAP ready. Perhaps that is why it was never put into AVI.NET

[theclaus]

iNFO-DVD, I would just like to say thank you for putting out this awesome program. I was looking for something that would work for my SAP and AVI.NET has never let me down.

[iNFO-DVD]

It doesn't work with windows xp x64I know, it's not suppose to.

Plz bring back thre minimize button at startupOK, will do.

I would like to be able to put in fractional amounts for the quantizer so I can set it to 2.3 or 2.5 for XviD.Hmm, you sure you mean 2.5 not 3.5, if I do a movie at 2.5 it goes well over the top with the bitrate, 3.5 seems to give a more realistic amount. Anyway, the problem is you wouldn't believe the amount of people who would email me completely puzzled if I changed it to an input box where the user can enter a 'fraction'.......... To keep it kind of simple I suppose I could change it to include half values, 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 and so on, would that do?

I've added a shutdown option too which will be in the next version as a few people emailed me about this. Lastly, thanks for all the kind words and feedback.

[McoreD]

iNFO-DVD, avi.NET is one awesome .NET encoding application. I've got one suggestion.

It would be GREAT if avi.NET would not be "Indexing Video and encoding Audio" until the user add's all the jobs to the list and press Start.

Imagine a scenario where, the user has several length source files, ready to convert to XviD. For each source file, user will have to wait until each source gets goes through the "Indexing Video and encoding Audio" as soon as a source file is opened.

How about making it much simpler?
1. User adds the source file.
2. Chooses target file size
3. Add to Job List
4. Repeats step 1 & 2 for more files if necessary
5. Presses Start

Or am I missing something and avi.NET is already acting that way? AutoGK doesn't seem to extract audio as soon as a source file is opened, so it has to be a design issue.

[Jacquers]

The indexing video & extracting audio part is needed for the preview & getting the video info (time, size, etc) from the resulting d2v file.

If we were willing to risk encoding the videos without preview & using the "default" settings then maybe it could work.

Also, I have heard rumours of an "info only" cmd line option coming in a new version of DGIndex that could make the suggestion possible (but still without preview)

[iNFO-DVD]

@McoreD: I understand what you mean but I must do that step, I need the information and the preview is a major part of avi.NET.

@jacquers: 100% correct.

As for the point about DGIndex 'info-only' option, that would be great, I've heard it mentioned once or twice, if I remember right I think I mentioned it to neuron2 or one of the DGIndex threads but I don't know if it will happen or not. I hope it does as that would mean I 'could' do a no-preview option.

[mod]

I think it's planned, but neuron2 has other work to do before, as reported on his homepage.

[Jacquers]

There is the possibility of using MediaInfo (source, dll & samples available) to get the required info, but IMO DGIndex is more accurate...

Preview: Maybe cutting a short bit from the input file (1st minute or so) just so that the user can see the effects of cropping, adjusting brightness etc. could work? This short bit would also be much quicker to process in DGIndex.

Then when it's encoding time you could index the whole input file.

[iNFO-DVD]

There is the possibility of using MediaInfoI've tested mediainfo quite a lot over the months and it certainly is not up for the job, I've had many files it can't deal with, not usable at this time.

Preview: Maybe cutting a short bit from the input file (1st minute or so) just so that the user can see the effects of cropping, adjusting brightness etc. could work?I did at one point have an idea to start DGIndex then after a preset time, 2 or 3 seconds maybe, force it to stop, I would then have the information required. I just didn't like the idea of starting it and forcing it to shutdown. It's still a thought.

[McoreD]

The indexing video & extracting audio part is needed for the preview & getting the video info (time, size, etc) from the resulting d2v file
I understand Jacquers. But doesn't the obvious question still arise: why would the program need to worry about video info (time, size) until the job is actually started?

[mod]

why would the program need to worry about video info (time, size) until the job is actually started?
Maybe the user would imho.

[ricardo.santos]

Good job Info-dvd
Glad to see youre back on working with avi.Net
new version 2.1.5.0

[audioman]

Great Great Great prog

I am used to doing AC3 xvid files maintaining High bitrate and this software rocks
Keep on working on it INFO DVD :)

[audioman]

Preview: Maybe cutting a short bit from the input file (1st minute or so) just so that the user can see the effects of cropping, adjusting brightness etc. could work? This short bit would also be much quicker to process in DGIndex.



I agree with JACQUERS
The possibility to cut just a part of the movie in order to make a teste

[audioman]

Hi INFODVD

I have just a problem concerning a dvd I own ( The matrix )
Can I force the movie size to 2200 , because I get a warning error saying that I cannot go further

I encoded the film , it is about 2h10mn with a quality bit pixel of 0.33 and resolution 640 and bitrate 1400
The image does not look so good ...

Can I put a 2200 bitrate because the movie is 2H time

Thanks for your answer

[iNFO-DVD]

Don't you mean a 2200 size?

You don't receive a 'warning error' saying you can't continue....... You receive a warning information box that asks you if you want to continue, just say 'Yes'.

[audioman]

Hi INFODVD

What kind of settings do AVI.NET uses for xvid codec ?

Is it xvid original presets or presets you just created for the software ?

thanks for your answers

[iNFO-DVD]

Settings based around the 'Home Theatre' Profiles for standalone compatibilty.

[audioman]

Thanks INFO

Another question

What is the most important

- choosing a Custom size for the movie ?

or

- Forcing the bitrate

Which are the advantages and flaws about this two fonctions ?

I must add , Size is not important to me , should I decide to force the bitrate ?
I usually choose 640 resolution with a QF 0.33

Thanks

[iNFO-DVD]

What is the most important - choosing a Custom size for the movie ? or - Forcing the bitrate Whatever, it doesn't matter. The force bitrate option is there if you need to force a particular bitrate for some reason, I don't use it my self as I like to make my backups to a certain set size allowing me to put a fixed amount of backups on DVD.

If you like to encode to about 0.30 QF then I'd just pick a set size that gave me that, or just over, makes it easier for back up but to be honest do whatever feels better for you. As for the 'working' of avi.NET it doesn't matter which option you choose.

[Jacquers]

Thanx for bringing back the minimize button at startup. Could you please also bring it back for "indexing video and extracting audio" ?

And if possible some more options for configuring the DivX Codec? Things like setting the encoder to "Balanced", "Better" & "Extreme" quality?

[audioman]

Could you do the same with xvid codec too in the next release

[iNFO-DVD]

Could you please also bring it back for "indexing video and extracting audio" ?It already is.

"Balanced", "Better" & "Extreme" quality?Do you think the 'quality gain' is worth it? What I mean is, if I add a higher quality option will you actually see the effect of that when watching it on your TV? I'll do some more tests...

Could you do the same with xvid codec too in the next releaseIn what way? VHQ to 4-wide search?

[Jacquers]

You are right, I probably wont see much of a visual improvement on a normal tv, but maybe it would be worth it on a high-definition tv?

[iNFO-DVD]

Well I've been doing some tests, encoding some clips with DivX balanced and DivX Extreme, I've been looking at the frames, zooming and comparing on the PC monitor...... I see not one single bit of difference......

I think it's just another one of these situations where there's another extra option or settings to improve this and improve that, this quality is better on paper, blaa blaa blaa, though in reality, usually it makes no difference.

But saying that, I'd like to see something that would prove me wrong, it would be nice to see some screens maybe and/or some tests that can actually show me that I will actually be able to see some quality gain.

[Jacquers]

I guess things like that are very subjective anyway... what is the default that avi.NET uses? I assume it's balanced?

ps. I assume that your DivX codec is Pro & is registered. If it's the community / unregistered some settings are disabled and you will actually only encode in Balanced mode I think.

[iNFO-DVD]

I assume it's balanced?Yes

I assume that your DivX codec is Pro & is registered.Yes

[Jacquers]

Thx for all your hard work on avi.NET lately, it's nice to have it back - alive and kicking.

All this talk about percieved quality on tv pc has made me think:
Have you ever thought about adding a 1pass bitrate based option? Half the encoding time and on a normal tv it would still be better than vhs quality

I know there is the 1 pass q based - the quality is good, but the filesize is unpredictable...

[audioman]

In what way? VHQ to 4-wide search?

yes exactly :)

How did you guess that ?

The xvid preset in AVI.NET is VHQ 1 or VHQ 4 ?

[ricardo.santos]

Well I've been doing some tests, encoding some clips with DivX balanced and DivX Extreme, I've been looking at the frames, zooming and comparing on the PC monitor...... I see not one single bit of difference......


some months ago i also done some tests and couldnt see any difference, everyone was "saying: extreme mode gives better quality", but i couldnt see any difference and because im a newbie in this area i decided not say anything. my tests were right then.

FEATURE REQUEST

I´ve made this request some months but you stopped working on avi.Net and since youre back im gonna request it again:
taken from avi.Net homepage
I was unhappy with the current programs that were available for AVI conversion. I felt it important to make an AVI that was SAP(StandAlone Player) Friendly.

any chance of enabling xsub creation? since all standart cerified divx players play xsub it would be a good idea.

[iNFO-DVD]

Subtitles isn't something I know too much about or use much, only when I have to (forced). xsubs..... hmmm, gonna do some searching and reading find out what they are, lol.

Don't xsubs get muxed in with the A/V in a .divx file, isn't this just compatible with players that are DivX6 compatible???????

[ricardo.santos]

Don't xsubs get muxed in with the A/V in a .divx file, isn't this just compatible with players that are DivX6 compatible???????

yes, compatible with standart certified divx players, not to be confused with ultra certified.

instead of having burned in subs, why not have selectable xsubs? for example i understand english but my family needs subs, xsubs is the perfect backup solution, on for the family off for me like in a normal dvd.

i was thinking more like: extract the subs to sub/idx and then at the end use divxmux.exe to mux them into the video.

[iNFO-DVD]

compatible with standard certified divx playersIs that definate? Are you telling me an AVI file with the .divx extension containing xsubs will play on pretty much all divx standalones?????? There's just something about this that gives me an uneasy feeling......
extract the subs to sub/idx and then at the end use divxmux.exe to mux them into the videoWell, that sounds fine but the realities of it are not so easy. I can't include 'divxmux.exe' along with my package, I already asked DivX Networks, as I wanted to use it to mux instead of what I now do which means users would have to download it seperately from DivX Networks. This may sound easy enough but have you any idea how that would just 'blow the mind' of some users....... or telling/explaining to someone how to rename a file from .divx to .avi, believe me, I couldn't take all the emails trying to explain the most basic things to users, I have limits :D

[audioman]

Lots of people here deal with divx codec

I have some xvid movies with artefacts concerning fog scenes , water or even dark scenes . The image gets noisy when the codec has to deal with this kind of scenes

What about the divx codec ? is it better ?

[ricardo.santos]

Is that definate? Are you telling me an AVI file with the .divx extension containing xsubs will play on pretty much all divx standalones?????? There's just something about this that gives me an uneasy feeling......
yes, i dont understand why people are so "ceptical" about xsubs, unlike srt subs all divx certified SAP plays them the same way, srt format might play centered on one SAP and more to left on another, subtitle size also changes from player to player let alone the color

Well, that sounds fine but the realities of it are not so easy. I can't include 'divxmux.exe' along with my package, I already asked DivX Networks, as I wanted to use it to mux instead of what I now do which means users would have to download it seperately from DivX Networks. This may sound easy enough but have you any idea how that would just 'blow the mind' of some users....... or telling/explaining to someone how to rename a file from .divx to .avi, believe me, I couldn't take all the emails trying to explain the most basic things to users, I have limits :D
i understand your reasoning, u could always try StaxRip aproach(downloads divxmux/instals separately automatically to the right location)

and i think xsubs work with xvid aswell(HT profile on xvid) altough i havent tested it

[iNFO-DVD]

Lots of people here deal with divx codec. I have some xvid movies with artefacts concerning fog scenes , water or even dark scenes . The image gets noisy when the codec has to deal with this kind of scenes. What about the divx codec ? is it better ?

You used the dreaded word 'better', lol. Actually, on the whole, I would say that the people on the doom9 forums use XVID more than DIVX, though I may be wrong, being 'free' may have something to do with that.

As for XVID movies with artefacts I would guess that it's probably not down to the codec so much but the way it was encoded originally, using the same method with the DIVX codec may well have given you the same result. I would guess it's more down to the settings used, the filters and bitrates for example. Also, the quality of the source can also have an impact. What programs and settings did you used?

Just get the section in question from the source, example, just rip the chapter from DVD and work on in with both codecs and different settings to see if you can come up with something that is more pleasing to you.

[iNFO-DVD]

i dont understand why people are so "sceptical" about xsubsWell it's not just the xsubs that I'm sceptical about..... As avi.NET's prime function is to be standalone compatible (all standalones) I have to be careful when adding anything that could break this.

I'm happy to add any settings/functions as long as they stay within the confines of standalone compatibility.

If you come up with any more ideas/suggestions then let me know, as for xsubs I'll still have a play anyway so all is not lost, I've never tried them on my players so will have a test.

[audioman]

I would guess it's more down to the settings used, the filters and bitrates for example. Also, the quality of the source can also have an impact. What programs and settings did you used?

I used AVI.NET to encode the movie lol :D

The movie is 2H15mn
Is the lenght of the movie a problem ?
The bitrate used for the movie is quite high and Qbit pixel around 0.33 for a 640 resolution

[iNFO-DVD]

I used AVI.NET to encode the movie lol :Dlol, I asked for that :D

The bitrate used for the movie is quite high and Qbit pixel around 0.33 for a 640 resolutionThat sounds fine, if it *IS* down to an XVID codec settings I wonder if the fact I turned Trellis off in the last version may have something to do with it....... Though when the encode was quite good it didn't seem to have an effect, but when the resulting conversion looked like it needed something extra the Trellis setting seemed to kick in where it was needed. I done some tests earlier, look at this thread:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=862440#post862440

Obviously Trellis will be re-enabled in the next release of avi.NET, which will be very soon as I've changed quite a few things.(today).

How did you get on with DIVX?

[audioman]

thanks for the answer

Good job on the TRELLIS post , it is quite efficient
I will do some further tests in the future avi.net version

I read the article " xvid presets - preliminary thoughts " and I was quite impressed by Teegedeck
He seems to know lots of things regarding xvid image quality

How about integrating xvid matrices in avi.net ? maybe it would be a great idea no ?

[iNFO-DVD]

How about integrating xvid matrices in avi.net ? maybe it would be a great idea no ?Can't.... Standalone compatibility....

[audioman]

Ok then I will have a try on the further avi.net release

[iNFO-DVD]

Concerning your post about FOG scenes I done some further test, I used quite a low bitrate for the picture size, equated to about 0.14 b/p. I done a few tests with both XVID and DIVX, the XVID encodes where fine, DIVX not.

Obviously playing was OK, I'm refering to viewing the individual frames.

I used chapter 11 from the movie 'THE OTHERS', what a film, which starts with a fog scene where she sees her husband, even at these low bitrates the quality of the XVID was excellent, no problem on the FOG at all. DIVX was another matter, very blocky indeed.

Just out of interest, DIVX has a complete problem with this movie, must be all the dark scenes or something, it's very undersized.

[audioman]

thanks info

could you post just a little part of the avi fog scene so that i could check by myself :) ( rapidshare for ex )

did you use the trellis mode ?

I had problems at the beginning of the movie " world of narnia " where there is a fade and a foggy scene

:thanks:

[iNFO-DVD]

Here's some more screenshots of the movie chapter in question. This chapter did actually cause problems for both codecs on default settings:

XVID: Whilst using a bitrate of 732 for the 640x272 encode XVID handled this well and gave a finished video file of bitrate: 732. Using a higher bitrate of 1406 on the same clip caused XVID to go haywire and massively over size the file, bitrate was something like 3500, can't remember exactly. Tweaking the 'Overflow treatment' settings was able to bring it back in line across the board. All was well.

DIVX: Whilst using a bitrate of 732 for the 640x272 encode DIVX handled this well (as in as far as the bitrate) and gave a finished video file of bitrate: 732. Using a higher bitrate of 1406 on the same clip caused DIVX to constantly give me an undersized file, or should I say under bitrate value file. To get the clips I tested I had to use a bitrate of about 1950 to get an actual encode of 1406.

No matter what setting I used, within the confines of standalone compatibility, I could not get the desired bitrate I fed to the DIVX codec for this chapter 11 dark foggy scene of the movie, 'The Others'. I know I've gone off track a bit as the original question was concerning fog scenes not how DIVX and XVID fluff on the bitrates. I just felt it was interesting in my tests.

Now to the screenshots, even when I eventually got the required bitrates you'll see that XVID handles these scenes much better, even the higher bitrate DIVX screens are far worse in quality compared to the lower bitrate XVID shots.

SCENE 1A: 732 kb/s (DIVX TOP | XVID BOTTOM)

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/1_732.png

As you can see the top DIVX screen is quite poor with lots of blocks. I'd say the bottom XVID shot is fine, quite sharp.

SCENE 1B: 1406 kb/s (DIVX TOP | XVID BOTTOM)

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/1_1406.png

Same frame using the higher bitrates. DIVX is better but still not on par with XVID.

The next set of screens just validate my same conclusion to the above.

SCENE 2A: 732 kb/s (DIVX TOP | XVID BOTTOM)

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/2_732.png

SCENE 2B: 1406 kb/s (DIVX TOP | XVID BOTTOM)

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/2_1406.png

SCENE 3A: 732 kb/s (DIVX TOP | XVID BOTTOM)

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/3_732.png

SCENE 3B: 1406 kb/s (DIVX TOP | XVID BOTTOM)

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/3_1406.png

So whether it's just this movie, or whether it's dark foggy or low contrast scenes in general DIVX does not handle this very well, going to look through my collection to see whether I can find something with a foggy chapter and do further tests. I used to prefer the DIVX codec, don't know why, just did, but I am turning now towards XVID as been doing lots of frame by frame tests the last week or so, just checking and tweaking various options, and am begining to really fall for XVID. ;-)

If Doom9 happens to read this then maybe you could include this chapter 11 of 'The Others' movie in with your next 'Codec Shootout'. It has an excellent foggy scene and would be great to see how different codecs deal with it.

[Jacquers]

Cool to see a comparison like that. I'm a DivX fan as well, but I have to admit that XviD does look better in these examples. Without getting into too much of an argument of which codec is better, I'm willing to bet that DivX was faster than XviD though. Maybe worth the extra minutes of encoding if you are a quality freak.

And as you said in a previous post, tweaking the DivX to use "better" or "extreme" didnt really help...

What about settings like noise reduction, pshycovisual enhancements, enhance texture etc?

[Jacquers]

Ever thought about adding input support for other filetypes other than DVD and mpeg? For example: existing avi files that are not SAP friendly.

And if for some insane reason I want to turn of cropping, is this possible? I have a DVD that has hardcoded subtitles, that when you crop, the bottom of the subs get cut off. In that case I would prefer not to crop the input.

[DaltonX22]

Hello INFO.DVD,

is it possible to add as upgrade the possibility to choose the start and the end of the film we want to encode. This would allow to cut the introduction and the end (actor name list) in the aim to improve the bitrate when encoding to fit 1CD.

For example in the Fantastic four movie we can easily remove 10minute from the film which is alot and affect the bitrate level.

thank in advance for your answer.

[iNFO-DVD]

Without getting into too much of an argument of which codec is better, I'm willing to bet that DivX was faster than XviD though.

And as you said in a previous post, tweaking the DivX to use "better" or "extreme" didnt really help... What about settings like noise reduction, pshycovisual enhancements, enhance texture etc?I agree, let's not get into a 'which codec is better' debate, been done hundreds of times, and it'll only bring the wraith of the forum down on us ;-)

You are right, DivX was faster, and I must admit, I was only unhappy with it mainly during the scenes I spoke about, definately a problem area for it, the rest of movie was better, and whilst playing there doesn't seems to be that much difference if at all.

I did try all the other settings, texture/psycho e.t.c., I could make a slight improvement, and I mean very slight, the time taken was at least double and it still didn't come close to XviD. It would be nice if they could concentrate on this for a future release.

Ever thought about adding input support for other filetypes other than DVD and mpeg? For example: existing avi files that are not SAP friendly.I wasn't going too but have had a few ideas the last couple of days so I'll look into it after I release v2.1.7.0.

And if for some insane reason I want to turn of cropping, is this possible? I have a DVD that has hardcoded subtitles, that when you crop, the bottom of the subs get cut off. In that case I would prefer not to crop the input.Didn't know you could get DVD's with hard-coded subs. Again, I'll look into it.

is it possible to add as upgrade the possibility to choose the start and the end of the film we want to encode. This would allow to cut the introduction and the end (actor name list) in the aim to improve the bitrate when encoding to fit 1CDHmmm, I'll see if I can find a way to do it.

[DaltonX22]

Your answer give the feeling that it might be difficult to do it but anyhow thanks to think about it whatever will be the conclusion.

Avi.net is a great sofware, I am happy of your recents AVi.net upgrades and wish you good luck for the nexts.

BR

[audioman]

Thank you very very much INFO :)
Again an update of your software with many improvements ( 2.1.7.0 )

have you activated trellis on the last release ?

I want to thank you for all the screenshots
again , xvid codec is sharper and less blocky than divx codec
I will post my avi file as soon as I go back home to let you understand my problem on the " narnia movie "

Several ideas to give you for further releases :

- Why not integrating matrices as other programs do ( Gk or Megui )

- choose a start and end of the film ( possible ? )

- possibility to choose VHQ 4 ?

thanks again for your hard work :)

[ricardo.santos]

Why not integrating matrices as other programs do ( Gk or Megui )


Can't.... Standalone compatibility....
.....

[iNFO-DVD]

Thanks :D

[audioman]

Ok guys sorry :)


How about the other questions regarding trellis and VHQ4

[iNFO-DVD]

How about the other questions regarding trellis and VHQ4Yes, after my tests that I did, Trellis is on. As for VHQ4, I did test upon test, frame by frame analysis, I could see no difference, and it took twice as long, I couldn't justify it's use.

[audioman]

I really agree with you

VHQ 4 is very long to encode ( up to 6 hours on my computer )
Glad to have the trellis on again:)

[audioman]

Hi again INFO

Just a question ?

Do we really have to do a compressibility test to encode movies with AVI.NET ?

In that case , which software would you use to do it in complement to avi.net

[iNFO-DVD]

Don't understand your question, avi.NET doesn't do a compress test.

[audioman]

Okay

Info, I know AVI.NET does not do a comp test
in order to determine the right Qbit pixel ( Qf ) to use in avi.net, is it necessary to use a second program to determine it more precisely ?

I hope you understood :)

[iNFO-DVD]

No it's not.

[iNFO-DVD]

I been messing around and thought I'd add support for HDTV content.

I don't know whether the next version will allow direct transport stream (.ts) loading as I'm currently just working on bringing the HDTV MPEG files into avi.NET.

Does anyone in this thread use these source files? I ask just incase someone wants to have a test.

To maintain SAP compatibility I would obviously need to bring the frame rate down of the 50/59/60 FPS content. Maybe by selecting just one field, do you think that is acceptable?

Is doing a colour correction for HDTV important? Or should I say, should I definately use it during conversion?

I noticed these HDTV clips really tax your system, previewing a 1920x1080 file, resized to 720 via an AVS script is a killer and my system isn't exactly that old, 3Ghz P4HT. I would have to kill the audio during preview to help with a PC previewing the video, the audio wouldn't be needed for preview anyhow.

[iNFO-DVD]

Wow, I mentioned HDTV and it killed the thread :D

For an update (HDTV) checkout this thread: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=864440#post864440

[audioman]

Thanks again for your updates INFO :)

[audioman]

Hi INFO

No news from you ? Are you on holiday ?

How about some new stuff about avi.net ? :)

[Nrmf]

yes i have been waiting ofr years for avi.net to support .ts files i will test everything and anything

[iNFO-DVD]

I will release a new version later today (Sunday).

[MarkCurly]

AVI.NET does not do a comp test
in order to determine the right Qbit pixel ( Qf ) to use in avi.net, is it necessary to use a second program to determine it more precisely?

No it's not.

I've just finished reading some posts that indicate that a compression test *SHOULD* be used to determine the Qf value.

This thread and posts:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=75421
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=486973#post486973
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=487024#post487024

This thread:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=68753

[AjnabiZ]

Any news on the new version ?

[iNFO-DVD]

I've just finished reading some posts that indicate that a compression test *SHOULD* be used to determine the Qf value.The question I was originally asked was whether a compression test by another program was needed to determine the correct QF in avi.NET.... and I say again, NO. Though he may have meant would it be better if avi.NET had a compression test that's not what was asked. The QF value is a calculation, so again, NO, compression test is NOT needed to determine a QF value.

The links you gave were mainly concerning AutoGK and the way that does it's thing, avi.NET does not work the same way.

[iNFO-DVD]

Any news on the new version ?
As quoted above....
I will release a new version later today (Sunday).

[AjnabiZ]

As quoted above....


ok :thanks:

[audioman]

Thanks INFO for the future version

What kind of new functions will you implement ?

[iNFO-DVD]

just the .ts input support.

[iNFO-DVD]

New version 2.1.8.0 is up.

[MarkCurly]

The question I was originally asked was whether a compression test by another program was needed to determine the correct QF in avi.NET.... and I say again, NO. Though he may have meant would it be better if avi.NET had a compression test that's not what was asked. The QF value is a calculation, so again, NO, compression test is NOT needed to determine a QF value.

The links you gave were mainly concerning AutoGK and the way that does it's thing, avi.NET does not work the same way.

Yes, Qf is a calculation.

But, looking at it another way, Qf and filesize and framesize and bitrate are all inter-related input parameters to the encoder.

I think a compression test is very useful to determine appropriate values for the encoding parameters.

A compression test is useful because some video sources compress better than others.
For example, nature documentaries, with vegetation and much camera movement, need more bits to get an acceptable quality encode.
Anime (for example) does not need as many bits to get an acceptable encode.

I think audioman was also saying the same (perhaps not saying it clearly enough), and was also asking what external program might do a compress test and suggest appropriate parameters for the encode.

I am suggesting that a compression test would be a useful addition to avi.NET.

Thanks!

[audioman]

Thanks MARK

This is absolutely what I was meaning
a compression test is very useful , some movies are more or less compressible !!!

Another question to INFO

Concerning quality based ( 1 pass quant ) and size based ( 2 pass ) , what parameter do you advise to use to get the best from a movie ?

Thanks

[Jacquers]

I see you switched to DivXMux.exe instead of vdubmod for muxing.

Just a warning: DivXMux has a "bug" where audio delays greater than +-1000ms are just ignored and dont get applied when muxing.

[AjnabiZ]

Any reason for moving from VdubMod to DivXMud ?

[Jacquers]

Probably because of the 2gb limit or better standalone compatibility.

ps. forgot to mention that DivXMux has a 4GB limit for muxing.

[iNFO-DVD]

This is absolutely what I was meaning
a compression test is very useful , some movies are more or less compressible !!!I completely understand but what I'm trying to say is what use to avi.NET would this have? Due to standalone support there's certain options I can't use and thus can't let the user select e.t.c. If avi.NET gets to the target size (within reason) anyway, then what use would the compression test have? What ever results I'd get from a compression test I don't see how they can help.

Concerning quality based ( 1 pass quant ) and size based ( 2 pass ) , what parameter do you advise to use to get the best from a movie ?In general or with avi.NET? Because of standalone support there's not any codec parameters as such you can change in avi.NET. Please expand.....

DivXMux has a "bug" where audio delays greater than +-1000ms are just ignored I know nothing about that..... > +-1000 would only happen in rare circumstances, I'll have to see how that goes, maybe it's not a problem, DivXNetworks sent me the DivXMux to include in avi.NET, they asked me to use only this version, it's a higher build than the one that got released normally. Hopefully it wont be a problem.

Any reason for moving from VdubMod to DivXMud ?Well, smaller, easier to use, specific for the job and look at 'Jacquers' answer.

[audioman]

Hi INFO

Let me try to explain...
In AVI.NET, would you advise me to select quality based movie ( 1 pass quantity for example 3 ) or just choosing a 2 pass ( size based movie )
Can you explain me the differences between the Two parameters
I always wanted to keep my movies close to original dvd lol :)

[ricardo.santos]

lets say you converted a movie ( 1 pass quantity for example 3 ) and final size was 2 gig, for what ive seen here written in the forum a 2 pass conversion set for 2gig will look better than a 1 pass quality mode.

i never do quality based pass

[audioman]

lets say you converted a movie ( 1 pass quantity for example 3 ) and final size was 2 gig, for what ive seen here written in the forum a 2 pass conversion set for 2gig will look better than a 1 pass quality mode.

i never do quality based pass

Can you tell me which posts you've read ?

Your answer is pretty weird , I just made a test on a movie and the quality is awesome with quantizer 3
The final avi file is 1.2 go and Bitrate 1800 for a 100 mn movie

How can you say it will look better with a two pass mode ? Weaver can you help ?

[Jacquers]

Would it be possible to add support to use .ifo files as input?
The IFO parsing part would be the hardest part, but combining the vobs in the avs script is easy and if you have multiple vobs in DGIndex as input the audio still gets demuxed to a single file.

Some of my newer dvds (legally owned) have tough copy protections on them that I could only get to my hdd with RipIt4Me, which doesnt give me one large vob. I could combine them into one vob with a simple dos copy cmd, but then extracting the subtitles dont work as the ifo points to the seperate vobs, not the combined one.

Any ideas?

[iNFO-DVD]

Would it be possible to add support to use .ifo files as input?
The IFO parsing part would be the hardest part, but combining the vobs in the avs script is easy and if you have multiple vobs in DGIndex as input the audio still gets demuxed to a single file.

Some of my newer dvds (legally owned) have tough copy protections on them that I could only get to my hdd with RipIt4Me, which doesnt give me one large vob. I could combine them into one vob with a simple dos copy cmd, but then extracting the subtitles dont work as the ifo points to the seperate vobs, not the combined one.

Any ideas?IFO Parsing wouldn't be 'hard', I already do this in 'rip.NET' but you're worrying over nothing. What makes you think you need your VOB in a single file?

[ricardo.santos]

Can you tell me which posts you've read ?

I´ve read here that (can remember the post/who wrote it, but i remeber someone saying that 2 pass mode will always give better quality than a 1 quality pass (both with same size)


Your answer is pretty weird
english is not my native language.

I just made a test on a movie and the quality is awesome with quantizer 3
The final avi file is 1.2 go and Bitrate 1800 for a 100 mn movie

How can you say it will look better with a two pass mode ?

Ive decided to do some tests, perhaps i done something wrong in the last ones i did a while back, i used avi.Net and choose quantitizer 3 and converted a 10 minute vob file, the final size was 150 megs. Picture quality was good

I then converted the same vob file in two pass mode and set final size as 150 megs and i was surprised to see that the quality was the same as the 1 pass conversion.

there were some diffrences but standing away from the pC i couldnt see any differnce at least on this movie.

But final size is a no go for me in 1 pass, i usually capture shows from tv and for 45 m show the size would be 700 megs, witha 2 pass i can put 2 shows on a cd with same quality.

So you were right and i was wrong about the quality. a 1 pass conversion takes as much as twicw size of a two pass

[mod]

Usually, a 2 pass encode can "distribute" better the bits all over the movie length, depending on the source.
ie, if the movie is 2 hours long, 1 hour people talking in a room and 1 hour cars running in a street (wtf ^^) then a 2 pass encode will give more bits to the second hour.
A (low) fixed quantizer encode will use a lot more bits for the 1st hour then the "needed" ones, so the 1st hour of movie will be bigger without giving a higher quality.
If the avg bitrate of the 2 pass encode is "high enough" to give a good output in the second hour of the movie, then what you get is a movie the same quality but with a "cheaper" 1st hour.

[Jacquers]

I thought avi.NET only accepted a single vob at a time as input? Wasnt this the reason why rip.NET exists, to have the movie as one big vob instead of multiple files?

I would have used rip.NET but the copy protection on the disc meant I had to use RipIt4Me

[ricardo.santos]

Usually, a 2 pass encode can "distribute" better the bits all over the movie length

So that i can understand it better, what 1 pass quality mode does to overcome that problem is raises the bitrate to bypass/overcome "bitarte shortfalls" but on the downside makes the file size bigger because of the increase in bitrate.

is that it?

[iNFO-DVD]

I thought avi.NET only accepted a single vob at a time as input? Wasnt this the reason why rip.NET exists, to have the movie as one big vob instead of multiple files?No, it was developed beacuse of the lack of standalone compatible programs that were available at the time.

I would have used rip.NET but the copy protection on the disc meant I had to use RipIt4MeThat's fine, you don't need to use rip.NET.

The point you have to remember is to convert a DVD to AVI or anything for that matter you really should take the relevant PGC to convert. If after you have ripped a DVD, lets say a 'traditional' file rip, nothing fancy, so you end up with a bunch of (usually 1GB) VOB files. These are NOT good to use as input, some movies that have multiple angles and more importantly seamless branching will do some right weird things if you try to convert. Imagine a movie that has different versions in the same VOB SET...... One of the X-MEN movies did this and I think ID-4 or was it a TERMINATOR, can't remember. Realisticly you need to take just the correct version, the correctly PGC that you want to convert. I usually rip it to a single file so then I can see that it's a PGC rip and not just the 'normal' ripped files. Some DVD's may require ripping, then some sort of re-ripping once on the hard drive to get the desired PGC, with rip.NET for example, or one of the many processing tools available for the job, this would only be relevant for some of the later newer protection DVD's.

[MarkCurly]

I completely understand but what I'm trying to say is what use to avi.NET would this have? ... If avi.NET gets to the target size (within reason) anyway, then what use would the compression test have? What ever results I'd get from a compression test I don't see how they can help.
When a user converts some video, they get to choose the bitrate or filesize.

They might choose to convert a 4:3 aspect 1 hour movie into a 700MB file, with a screen width of 640 pixels. Qf might be calculated around 0.20.
(They might think "0.20 sounds OK, lets go!")

BUT the movie might contain a LOT of detailed scenery and a LOT of movement. Some movies compress better than other movies. It may be that Qf=0.20 is not enough bits to get a good quality encode. But the user will not know this until the encode has finished, and they see the blockyness and smearing and whatever damage the codec did because it did not have enough bits.

BUT if before they converted it, they were able to run a compression test, the test would say: "Woah! this stuff does not compress well! You need Qf around 0.30. You need to either increase the filesize, or decrease the framesize."

Or suppose the video was Anime with little moving frames. The compression test would say: "You are wasting space, you only need a Qf of 0.20, how about increasing the frame size to 720 width for more quality?" Or it might say: "If I turn off b-frames, the quality should be better."

In any case, the user gets some feedback on the parameters they have chosen before they waste however many hours on an encode that didn't look good enough.

Due to standalone support there's certain options I can't use and thus can't let the user select e.t.c.
The options the compression test helps set are the inter-related Qf/filesize/bitrate/framesize options.
Not (necessarily) the more esoteric options.

[iNFO-DVD]

BUT if before they converted it, they were able to run a compression test, the test would say: "Woah! this stuff does not compress well! You need Qf around 0.30. You need to either increase the filesize, or decrease the framesize."

Or suppose the video was Anime with little moving frames. The compression test would say: "You are wasting space, you only need a Qf of 0.20, how about increasing the frame size to 720 width for more quality?" Or it might say: "If I turn off b-frames, the quality should be better."Sorry but that is unacceptable. I cannot realistically do a comptest, gives results to the user and wait for them to redo their settings. That will really p*ss people off.

The theory of what you say I completely agree with, it's the practicallity of it that's the problem.

[weaver4]

Usually, a 2 pass encode can "distribute" better the bits all over the movie length, depending on the source.
ie, if the movie is 2 hours long, 1 hour people talking in a room and 1 hour cars running in a street (wtf ^^) then a 2 pass encode will give more bits to the second hour.
A (low) fixed quantizer encode will use a lot more bits for the 1st hour then the "needed" ones, so the 1st hour of movie will be bigger without giving a higher quality.
If the avg bitrate of the 2 pass encode is "high enough" to give a good output in the second hour of the movie, then what you get is a movie the same quality but with a "cheaper" 1st hour.

A single pass constant quality will give considerably more bits to to those frames that have more action in them. In your example the second hour would get (significantly) more bits. The first hour would only have the bits that are needed to give the quality that you asked for. Look at it this way, in a single pass the encoder looks a each frame and make the determination on how many bits it needs to allocate to get the quality you desire of the next frame. If the two frames are identical it will use none (well close to none). In a two pass system the first pass will look at the frames and the second pass will determine where it needs to make quality sacrifices to get the filesize you want.

You might want to look at the documentation for AutoGK and Staxrip, you will see that they concur on the quality of single-pass.

Some movies need 800kbs average bit rate, some need 1600kbs to get good quality. Without a compressibility check how do you know? Use single-pass and let the Codec figure it out.

[Jacquers]

Ok, thanx for your answer iNFO-DVD, I managed to do the following: Rip to hdd with RipIt4Me in movie-only mode, then process with rip.NET. And avi.NET is happy with the input.

I still think it would be nice if avi.NET could have .ifo as input because the files from RipIt4Me did contain only one angle, but I get your point that loading from ifo can be an issue of someone hasnt ripped it correctly

[mod]

@weaver4: I agree with you, maybe my english isn't very good ^^.
I was trying to say that "given the same filesize" the 2 pass encoding distributes better the bits. Of course a quality-based encoding uses the bits needed for every frame, but this doesn't allow a good control of the final filesize.
[ Atm I'm working to add a comp check to my tool sARc, as it sounds like "don't say that the result is ugly, I told you that 20% was TOO low!!" ;) ]

[iNFO-DVD]

because the files from RipIt4Me did contain only one angleBearing everything in mind about what I said earlier, you can if you wish add the files directly from RipIt4Me, I've never used the program, but if you have a bunch of VOB files, VTS_01_1.VOB _2.VOB e.t.c. you can use them for input, just load the first one into avi.NET, it will process the whole set automatically.

[iNFO-DVD]

I'm tying with the idea of a compression test, it seems a lot of people would welcome it, there's lots of information about the forum of how this is done e.t.c. the problem I have is it's implementation..... How would I actually integrate it into avi.NET? Would it be something used all the time? Used for both 1 pass and 2 pass? Would it be an individual button? The problem I have is what to do with the result..... Do I just run a comptest when a button is pressed and relay the % result to the user before the real encoding starts?

I really need to know where I'm going with this before I can start to do any code.

Thanks

[ricardo.santos]

..... How would I actually integrate it into avi.NET? Would it be something used all the time? Used for both 1 pass and 2 pass? Would it be an individual button?

If youre going for it i reckon for both is a good idea, and if possible to leave it as an option. If im converting episodic dvds i dont need the test for each one.


.....
The problem I have is what to do with the result..... Do I just run a comptest when a button is pressed and relay the % result to the user before the real encoding starts?

I really need to know where I'm going with this before I can start to do any code.


I would like to see the actual comptest encoding.

[iNFO-DVD]

Actually this is going from bad to worse. I'm kind of all geared up now to mess with the compression test stuff but.....

This is what I was thinking:
At the start of the encode automatically do a comptest, display this value to the user in the log window as normal then automatically choose a compatible matrix, let's say a low, medium, high matrix depending on the compression test value. Now here's the problem.....

(If I'm wrong here I hope someone can correct me)
To use a custom matrix I need to use the Quantization Type: MPEG-Custom which I can't use as I need to be using a standalone player profile. If I changed to unrestricted then I can't alter the VBV values.......

[Sharktooth]

Ah... that could be a problem.
AFAIK AutoGK use unrestricted settings except for ESS and MTK chipsets.
So i guess the DXN profiles just want h263 quantization.

[ricardo.santos]

cant help you on the second part but i have a question about:
All the user gets to see after the comptest is a "bunch of numbers"?

I thought it would be up to the user after visually checking the comptest to enable the use of matrice or just increase the final size?

[Sharktooth]

well i was thinking to run the comp.test with the user settings and checking the PSNR or SSIM of the comp.test encode.
if results are too low then some "countermeasures" should be taken.
That, at least, was my idea for the MeGUI compt.test (still not implemented).

[weaver4]

I have used alternate matrix under autogk and I personally don't feel it is worth it. I have found that I select the SAP-ESS option (so it uses h.264) the filesizes are much smaller. With the default setup the filesizes are much larger when you are using the same quantizer. And I don't think the picture is much better (the experts say it is better though). Try it yourself run the same movie twice on AutoGK once with the defaults and once with the SAP-ESS option on compare the filesizes and then look at the picture.

I am very happy with the picture quality with respect to filesize on AVI.net; so please don't mess it up.

[iNFO-DVD]

New version up, v2.1.8.2, fixes the shutdown bug refered to HERE (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=115290) and also another bug concerning the job list and HDTV.

[MarkCurly]

Actually this is going from bad to worse. I'm kind of all geared up now to mess with the compression test stuff but.....

This is what I was thinking:
At the start of the encode automatically do a comptest, display this value to the user in the log window as normal then automatically choose a compatible matrix, let's say a low, medium, high matrix depending on the compression test value. Now here's the problem.....

(If I'm wrong here I hope someone can correct me)
To use a custom matrix I need to use the Quantization Type: MPEG-Custom which I can't use as I need to be using a standalone player profile. If I changed to unrestricted then I can't alter the VBV values.......
Because you want to retain standalone compatibilty, I would not muck-about too much with the matrix.

The major thing you want to change based on a compression test is the Qf value used (which means changing the bitrate and/or framesize).

AutoGK (IIRC), if it decides that a video source is less than normally compressible, may decide to use the H263 matrix (which is softer). If it decides that the video source is more than normally compressible, it may decide to use the standard MPEG matrix and/or to disable B-frames.
(It always uses a standard matrix, either H263 or MPEG.)

You perhaps don't need the compression test to be ALWAYs run; you could make it an optional step that the user can run if they want to before doing the main compress. The main compress would NOT automatically start after the compression test had finished, so that the user has a chance to read the results and decide how to change the convert parameters. It could run and display information (probably in conjunction with the bitrate calculator?) and perhaps make some suggestions for changed bitrate and/or framesize. Maybe with a button to copy the suggestions to the current convert setup.

[audioman]

I think Mark Pointed out the right way for you INFO
Just knowing the right QF to use for every movie

But How to implement the comptest in AVI.net , that is the question :(

Good Luck and thanks again for your wonderful piece of software , I know it must be a tough work

AVI.NET rockkkkkkkkkkks

[Sharktooth]

AutoGK (IIRC), if it decides that a video source is less than normally compressible, may decide to use the H263 matrix (which is softer). If it decides that the video source is more than normally compressible, it may decide to use the standard MPEG matrix and/or to disable B-frames.
(It always uses a standard matrix, either H263 or MPEG.)
No, it uses EQM V2 instead of MPEG standard.

[MarkCurly]

No, it uses EQM V2 instead of MPEG standard.
I forgot to say I would have the ".compatability, Enable standalone support: ESS" option enabled.
I don't know, but wouldn't it then use either H263 or a standard MPEG matrix?
Sorry.

[Sharktooth]

IIRC h263 only.

[unskinnyboy]

@iNFO-DVD, A question..mostly about the future direction of avi.NET.

Do you always plan to center the development of avi.NET around yours and your mate's standalones? Like I said in another thread, newer, cheaper and better standalones come out every other day and these babies play almost anything. You feed them any of those files which you considered yesterday to be fully standalone incompatible, and chances are that these standalones will play them. And on the consumer side of things, people are upgrading, slowly but surely. Most of the upgrades are due to the fact that people want to be able to play files which are of better quality and at least some are due to the fact that they get fed up of recompressing their downloaded files (the downloaded files might be using advanced features which their standalones wouldn't support). And of course, there are people who buy standalones for the first time, and they will surely buy one of those play-it-all ones.

The point here is that, soon, making a file standalone compatible wouldn't be such a big deal anymore, so what would you do with avi.NET then? Will it always be based on the very picky 2 standalones you have? Or would you rather shed the strict standalone-compatible stipulations you have and go after implementing more features to fully milk the MPEG-4 ASP unrestricted profile?

P.S: Do you or your mate plan to upgrade your standalones? :-p

[iNFO-DVD]

I would like to think avi.NET would change with the times and use more codec options as and when.

Just because some players come out in the last couple of months or year which will play whatever I can't then start using an unrestricted profile just because that player can play them and obviously on the other hand that doesn't mean I wont change anything.

I have a Sigma chipset based player from 3 years ago and I tell you this it plays far more AVI's than any of the newer MTK and ESS based players we have in the UK that I've tried. Mine's fine, I can play unrestricted profile and custom matrices, it's them bloody cheap MTK and ESS eastern imports that I test I dislike which flood our shops.

If people don't like the fact that current standalone playback machines is my priority then don't use avi.NET.

[iNFO-DVD]

It has occured to me after all these standalone player conversations that maybe I could relax certain options, do you think this would be a good idea:

To have any option that would relax the XVID standalone profile for people who have players that can deal with this? I don't want to go to far just yet, I was thinking more on the line of this option using a profile that would then allow me to use custom matrices, the 3 EQM ones for example.

[MarkCurly]

It has occured to me after all these standalone player conversations that maybe I could relax certain options, do you think this would be a good idea:

To have any option that would relax the XVID standalone profile for people who have players that can deal with this? I don't want to go to far just yet, I was thinking more on the line of this option using a profile that would then allow me to use custom matrices, the 3 EQM ones for example.
That would be a great idea.

My player cannot handle custom matrices (well I hear there are some it can handle...), BUT I would like to enable 2 consecutive B-frames. The XviD (IIRC) and DivX Personal Theatre profiles only allow 1 consecutive B-frame.

I'm ->||<- this close to hacking into AutoGK myself to allow 2 consecutive B-frames (via AGKPal)...

If avi.NET had a compression test and allowed tweaking of the encode parameters a little, I'd throw AutoGK away and never look back!

[Sharktooth]

@info-dvd: maybe adding a "strict divx profile compliance" checkbox in the options would be an idea...
when disabled it will allow the codec to use 2-bframes and (in case of xvid) custom matrices.

[iNFO-DVD]

@info-dvd: maybe adding a "strict divx profile compliance" checkbox in the options would be an idea...
when disabled it will allow the codec to use 2-bframes and (in case of xvid) custom matrices.That sounds OK to me.

I've been messing around with all the comptest stuff, I'm just trying to sort the first part out first can some just tell me if what I'm doing so far sounds about right:

1. Running a 1st pass and doing 5% of movie (selectrangeevery) in chunks of 14 frames.
2. Parsing the video.pass file, for now, dismissing frame 1 and 14 of each chunk.
3. Adding these values (*20 for all movie as I only done 5%)

Q1: This would then give me the maximum (comptest value 100%) size for the movie (in bytes, see below)?
Q2: I'm assuming by the value that the number I'm getting from the video.pass file is in bytes?

Once I know I have this part sorted I can move on.
Thanks

[MarkCurly]

1. Running a 1st pass and doing 5% of movie (selectrangeevery) in chunks of 14 frames.
2. Parsing the video.pass file, for now, dismissing frame 1 and 14 of each chunk.
3. Adding these values (*20 for all movie as I only done 5%)
That sounds about exactly right.
Except I'd multiply by 20*14/12 = 23.3, because you are not counting frame 1 and 14; only counting every 12 frames in 280.

Q1: This would then give me the maximum (comptest value 100%) size for the movie (in bytes, see below)?
Yes.
AutoGK does a 1 pass quality based, quantizer=2, framesize=original source framesize encode for the compress test.
I presume quantizer=2 is considered "as good as it gets" = 100% (more or less).
If the user intends to override some setting (matrix, b-frames), then I suppose the comptest should be run with those overrides as well, to compare apples with apples.

That filesize would then be converted into a Qf value.
(the "100%" Qf value.)

Then (IIRC, these are approx figures) it considers that between 40% to 60% of that video bitrate is needed by a two-pass encode to get good quality.

If the current user chosen Qf is already between 40%-50% of the "100%" Qf value, then all is good to go.

If the current user chosen Qf is <40%, then it needs to be increased by increasing the target filesize (bitrate) or decreasing the target framesize.

If the current user chosen Qf is >60%, then it could be decreased by choosing a smaller target filesize (bitrate), or increasing the target framesize.

(I'm not sure if I've got my %'age figures exactly correct above.)

Q2: I'm assuming by the value that the number I'm getting from the video.pass file is in bytes?
I don't know.
I recall reading that one or other of the codecs (XviD or DivX) did not create a pass file, so you might have to do different things for each codec. If you can manage it, parsing or decoding the resultant comptest AVI directly and counting the framesizes might be a way to do it.

[mod]

According to
this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=866097#post866097) thread, you have to discard only the 1st of every 14 frames (the I frame).
I've implemented it for xvid_encraw and atm it works if no bframes are used. With 5% of source the error is minimal.
With B-frames, you have to discard frame 1 (type I), and frames 2-3-12-13-14 from the computation.

[iNFO-DVD]

Except I'd multiply by 20*14/12 = 23.3, because you are not counting frame 1 and 14; only counting every 12 frames in 280.Oh yes, good point.

I'm not sure if I've got my %'age figures exactly correct aboveTo be honest I'm not worried about that at the moment, just want to get the first part sorted first, but I'll come back to that.

With B-frames, you have to discard frame 1 (type I), and frames 2-3-12-13-14 from the computation.wow, hold on, are you saying I have to discard 6 frames of every 14? I have also noticed that frame 1 of the 14 frame chunks isn't always an I frame.

EDIT: I think my last question or two is answered in that link, cheers. One last stupid question..... I see IIRC pop up in a lot of threads can someone be kind enought to tell me what it means.

[Gehenna]

. I see IIRC pop up in a lot of threads can someone be kind enought to tell me what it means.

Errr. If i remember correctly it actually stands for If i remember correctly tends to be its most common usage

[iNFO-DVD]

Thanks

[iNFO-DVD]

I feel this is easier than I originally thought which makes me think I'm doing something worng.

I doing the stuff with the video.pass, I'm doing the relevant calculations and getting the total bytes at maximum.

Well if I get this maximum value and divide it by the size in bytes that I've chose for my encode it gives me a value, like: 0.40 or 0.68 or whatever, which is obviously a %. Is that it? Is that the comptest? Is that all I need to do?

I'm not bothered at the moment about what I do with the result just want to know whether I've got the comptest value.

EDIT: Forget that, I'm doing it wrong (i think, lol).

[iNFO-DVD]

framesize=original source framesize encode for the compress test.Now that's interesting, no wonder I was getting a high value with HDTV sources. So I keep all settings as I would for the real encode but the resolution has to be the same as the original input?

[MarkCurly]

Well if I get this maximum value and divide it by the size in bytes that I've chose for my encode it gives me a value, like: 0.40 or 0.68 or whatever, which is obviously a %. Is that it? Is that the comptest? Is that all I need to do?
EDIT: Forget that, I'm doing it wrong (i think, lol).
Remember that the chosen filesize for the encode includes audio, but the comptest does not include audio (at least the AutoGK comptest does not include audio).
Also, the comptest is at full source framesize, but the chosen encode is likely at a smaller framesize, so the filesizes are not directly comparable.
I think converting it all into a Qf value will allow an "apples-with-apples" comparison.

Suppose the comptest came up with a recommended filesize, but *suppose* that the calculation did not depend upon the target framesize?
User says: "Convert this to 720x576", comptest says "You need 500MB".
User says: "Convert this to 320x240", comptest says "You need 500MB".
WTF? Surely the smaller framesize needs less bits?
A rule that just uses filesize won't work. I'm sure working with Qf will get the expected result.

I suggest the rule should (IMO) be based on Qf:
User says: "Convert this to 720x540", comptest says "You need Qf ~ 0.25 (implies, for example, video size 500MB+audio 27MB = target filesize 527MB)".
User says: "Convert this to 320x240", comptest says "You need Qf ~ 0.25 (implies, for example, video size 100MB+audio 27MB = target filesize 127MB)".

(example numbers use 30 minutes of 24 frame/s video.)


"MarkCurly: framesize=original source framesize encode for the compress test."
Now that's interesting, no wonder I was getting a high value with HDTV sources. So I keep all settings as I would for the real encode but the resolution has to be the same as the original input?
All I can say is that that is what AutoGK does.

I personally would have though that the comptest should be done at the same framesize as the intended encode, but then I hardly know anything about it anyway...

Imagine if the reason the video source was not compressible was because of high frequency (small), high contrast detail?
The comptest would recommend a higher Qf to retain that detail.
BUT, that detail might be removed as the frame was resized to the target framesize (because of its small size), and then the higher Qf is not needed and goes to waste.

(This is a worst case. Usually, the detail and/or movement that made the source hard to compress will largely be retained even after resizing the frame - or so I would have thought... Stop listening to me now, I don't know what I'm talking about! ;))

[iNFO-DVD]

I think converting it all into a Qf value will allow an "apples-with-apples" comparisonThat's kind of what I'm doing.

I already have the program bits/pixel (QF) value in avi.NET, I'm getting the frame sizes after the comptest and calculating the average size of a frame, thus, I can then get the predicted bits/pixel (QF) which then allows me to have the comptest %.

It does all seem to be roughly working, the problem I've been having, or at least the most time consuming thing, is trying to find the optimal frames to keep and discard, as I'm dealing with B-Frames I've been working around discarding the first 3 and last 3 of a chunk after following above link and other links. My values are not the same as AutoGK but similar in the way the value with rise and fall with different sources.

Two points, using the source resolution completely threw the value. It seemed to work much better using the encoding resolution. Point 2, HDTV sources seem to have a large comptest value, 70% to 80% using the standard QF of 0.20. I don't know, maybe it's right, just seems a little high, these HDTV sources are massive, nice though.

I also read some threads concerning oversized b-frames, so I've been checking for them and discarding them, I found it seems to give me better results.

[iNFO-DVD]

v2.1.8.4
1. Fixed/Altered the HDTV routines and fixed a potential problem.
2. If/When the PID dialog is shown, the AV PID selection is now seperate for audio & video.
3. Fixed possibility of incorrectly displayed information in Audio list.
4. Minor bits and bobs.

CloneAD (http://www.clonead.co.uk)

Now I can spend my time doing that 'comptest', may release something later (after the football).

[iNFO-DVD]

Well I've implemented a comptest into avi.NET, it doesn't do much as of now apart from tell you a percentage. Because of working with b-frames don't expect it to give the same values as AutoGK. I suppose after a little time we will discover it's own thresholds. I'll try and get a version out later today on this forum. At the moment it will be for 2-pass XVID encodes only.

One thing I would like to ask......
The term compression test and it's value get refered to when people talk about how much a movie will compress. It's also gets refered to when people talk about the quality. Now if after a comptest we have, for example, a value of 30%. How do we know if that is 30% because the movie just happens to compress very well or 30% because our settings are to low, like low bitrate, resolution too high?

[mod]

Now if after a comptest we have, for example, a value of 30%. How do we know if that is 30% because the movie just happens to compress very well or 30% because our settings are to low, like low bitrate, resolution too high?
IMO the answer is:
"With target size of (ie) 1400 MB, you're trying to compress this source at the XX% of the "full quality" size. If for you it's too low give me more bits, if it's too much use less bits, if it's ok just encode." :) Usually a value between 0.60 and 0.75 gives good results.

[iNFO-DVD]

"With target size of (ie) 1400 MB, you're trying to compress this source at the XX% of the "full quality" size. If for you it's too low give me more bits, if it's too much use less bits, if it's ok just encode." :) Usually a value between 0.60 and 0.75 gives good results.Yes I understand that but what if a test was 30% because it just compress really well, not because the settings are too low? How do you know the difference? Or do we not.

BTW, thanks for that link above you provided, was very good.

[MarkCurly]

Two points, using the source resolution completely threw the value. It seemed to work much better using the encoding resolution.
This might indicate a problem (bug) with your calculation.

Suppose you have source video with framesize 640x480.
Comptest this using the source framesize, and then again with a 320x240 framesize. If the two results differ by a factor of ~ 4, then you are not taking the source framesize into account. The two values should be roughly the same, regardless of the framesize used in the comptest.

Point 2, HDTV sources seem to have a large comptest value, 70% to 80% using the standard QF of 0.20.
Same as point 1 perhaps? Source framerate not used correctly?

One thing I would like to ask......
The term compression test and it's value get refered to when people talk about how much a movie will compress. It's also gets refered to when people talk about the quality. Now if after a comptest we have, for example, a value of 30%. How do we know if that is 30% because the movie just happens to compress very well or 30% because our settings are to low, like low bitrate, resolution too high?
What mod said...

(30% sounds like a source that is *not* compressible; or more correctly, needs more target bits than the user has chosen.
What you said would make more sense if you had said:
"is it 30% because the movie just happens to NOT compress very well or 30% because our settings are too low?")

But you are right, ONCE it has been converted into a %'age, you DON'T know if the %'age is high/low because the source is/is not compressible OR because the settings are too high/low.
It could be VERY compressible, but if the chosen settings are still too low, then the %'age will be too low.
It could be NOT VERY compressible, but the chosen settings are very very high, then the %'age will be high.

What you DO KNOW is, are you allocating enough bits to get a good encode?
A small %'age says you don't have enough bits.
A large %'age says you might have too many bits.

I'll just make sure I'm on the same page as you.
The comptest %'age is = Qf(target) / Qf(comptest)
(Or some equivalent calculation.)

All other things being equal (such as source length/framerate/framesize, target filesize):

- A less compressible source will have a larger comptest "100%" number, and then the %'age value will be smaller.
(%'age = target/source.)

- A more compressible source will have a smaller comptest "100%" number, and then the %'age value will be larger.

- If the user choosen bitrate is smaller, the %'age value will be smaller.

- If the user choosen bitrate is larger, the %'age value will be larger.

(Sorry to labour this, I'm just making sure I'm on the same page...)

[iNFO-DVD]

This might indicate a problem (bug) with your calculation.Was just my initial though, made correct amendments, all seems OK now. Yes I use source resolution.

But you are right, ONCE it has been converted into a %'age, you DON'T know if the %'age is high/low because the source is/is not compressible OR because the settings are too high/low.That's fine, that's what I wanted to hear. The logic of it made me think that. Just wanted some verification.

I'll just make sure I'm on the same page as you. The comptest %'age is = Qf(target) / Qf(comptest)
(Or some equivalent calculation.)Yes, we're on the same page. :)

- If the user choosen bitrate is smaller, the %'age value will be smaller. - If the user choosen bitrate is larger, the %'age value will be larger.Yes, my tests incicate this.

My HDTV tests I did that were worrying me I'll forget about for now simply because the largest HDTV clip I have is only one minute long so it's hardly a good source to work with. I'll get some better sources for them.

[mod]

I'm happy the link helped you :)
It would be nice to share a short clip with the same script, to check if the results are the same. Tonight I've implemented the B-frames part and I'm testing it right now, a comparison of final Ratios would save a lot of testing time :)

[iNFO-DVD]

It would be nice to share a short clip with the same script, to check if the results are the same. Tonight I've implemented the B-frames part and I'm testing it right now, a comparison of final Ratios would save a lot of testing time :)Yes I completely agree.

I thought something was wrong as I used a 45min HDTV episode, ran the comptest and got a high 90% or something figure which I thought was far too high. Ran the same thing through AutoGK and it gave an even bigger value (well over 100%) then brought the prediction down to about 90%. This obviously made me feel a lot better, it seems I might be on the right track.

[iNFO-DVD]

I have to go out for a few hours now so I'll post the BETA version, other bugs may have been introduced......


comptest will only work if you select the default 2-pass xvid.
log will say [5%] though for speed it's really only doing 2.5% for now. Don't expect same values as AutoGK, it's the 'trend' of the comptest that I'm interested in.

DOWNLOAD >> HERE (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__files/avi.NET_2185_BETA1.zip) <<

(put in installation folder)

[audioman]

Hi INFO

Thanks again for your work

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any comptest
Is it completely internal to avi.net ?
Because there is nothing in my log


avi.NET v2.1.8.5
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1400MHz (1399MHz)

IN : C:\--------\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VOB
OUT: C:\------\VIDEO_TS\Test.avi

ORIGINAL MPEG FILE
MPEG TYPE : 2
RESOLUTION : 720x576
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
FIELD ORDER : TFF

CONVERTED AVI FILE
RESOLUTION : 640x272
DURATION : 0:05:41
FPS : 25
CODEC : XVID
PASSES : 2
METHOD : SIZE BASED
SIZE : 80MB
BITRATE : 1580Kbps
BITS/PIXEL : 0.36
AUDIO : AC3
SUBTITLES : NONE

SELECTED OPTIONS
DE-INTERLACE: NO
DE-GRAINED : NO
HIGHER CROP : NO

TIME TAKEN [AUDIO]: N/A
TIME TAKEN [VIDEO]: 00:10:55
ENCODE RATE 1/2 : 33 FPS
ENCODE RATE 2/2 : 22 FPS

TIME TAKEN [TOTAL]: 00:11:07

[iNFO-DVD]

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any comptest You have to select (tick) the compression test option.

BTW, 640x270, 1580 bitrate 0.36 b/p is a little excessive....... you don't need that much bitrate......

[audioman]

Hi info

Thanks For the answer , I have found the Tick comptest

I ran a job on a movie and I got this error message at the end of the 5% compression test

http://www.badongo.com/pic/277797

I 'm trying with another short clip

Same issue : http://www.badongo.com/pic/277801

Hope that helps INFO :)

By the way , at the end of the comptest , What happens ? Will the user have the possibility ( according to the values specified by comptest ) to choose a special resolution or QF to use ?

[ricardo.santos]

I got no error messages the value i got was:
5441236%

and then it carrried on on converting automatically.

my version doesnt say BETA1 at the top

[audioman]

This is very weird

Look at this
Do you have the same version ?

http://www.badongo.com/pic/277817

Can you make a screenshot of your version ?

[iNFO-DVD]

I got this error message at the endThat's the same error we used to get before with the FPS, I'll take a look, it's because I'm trying to return a value and do a type conversion at the same time, never errors on mine though, typical.

at the end of the comptest , What happens ?One thing at a time.

Anyway, since I've been back in I managed to have another little test and am quite pleased so far with the results.

DEEP BLUE SEA [R2] 10 MINS 92MB 0.20QF
AVI.NET 43% AUTOGK 46%

EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS [R2] 10 MINS 96MB 0.20QF
AVI.NET 76% AUTOGK 72%

THE OTHERS [R2] 10 MINS 112MB 0.20QF
AVI.NET 177% AUTOGK 176%

(I like testing 'The Others' movie as it's that damn dark it seems to throw all calculations e.t.c.)

As you can see the trend of the comptest in avi.NET seems to be working even when it went very high with 'The Others', AutoGK displayed similar behaviour. As a BETA 1 it seems to be working well.

Going to try some other treaks e.t.c.

[iNFO-DVD]

and then it carrried on converting automatically.Yes it will, it's supposed to, just click stop.

my version doesnt say BETA1 at the topHow can it not??????? that's weird.

[ricardo.santos]

This is very weird

Look at this
Do you have the same version ?

http://www.badongo.com/pic/277817

Can you make a screenshot of your version ?

well it could be my eyes playing tricks but its the same version and the BETA1 is there now.

but on my first and only try it wasnt there because i compared it with your screenshot twice.

[audioman]

never errors on mine though, typical.


What should I do then ?

Ricardo does not seem to have errors on his version because he did have a %
I really don't understand :rolleyes:

[ricardo.santos]

Yes it will, it's supposed to, just click stop.


ok, i was under the impression that a small "portion" of the film would undergo a comptest and then the user would be presented with the playback of that portion and decide wether to continue or not with the encoding.

[ricardo.santos]

What should I do then ?

Ricardo does not seem to have errors on his version ?
I really don't understand :rolleyes:

but im converting audio to mp3 youre keeping ac3? Could that be it?

[audioman]

No it is not :(

I just ran a test and the error message did show again

I WILL WAIT

[iNFO-DVD]

Download again now

different version

and it's nothin gto do with AC3. The % error is my fault.

[audioman]

Thanks

Do you mean to follow that link ?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=870960#post870960

[ricardo.santos]

Anyway, since I've been back in I managed to have another little test and am quite pleased so far with the results.

DEEP BLUE SEA [R2] 10 MINS 92MB 0.20QF
AVI.NET 43% AUTOGK 46%

EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS [R2] 10 MINS 96MB 0.20QF
AVI.NET 76% AUTOGK 72%

THE OTHERS [R2] 10 MINS 112MB 0.20QF
AVI.NET 177% AUTOGK 176%



Does those preliminar results mean that by selecting a 0.20QF the result will be satisfactory? no need for comptest?

[iNFO-DVD]

Do you mean to follow that link ?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=870960#post870960Yes, same link and filename as before, still BETA 1, only the time has changed in the HELP panel.

Does those preliminar results mean that by selecting a 0.20QF the result will be satisfactory? no need for comptest?No, just means the comptest seems to be working.

I don't really care about what I'll do about the comptest values at the moment, just want to get the comptest working as it should.

Does your % value work now with new version?

[ricardo.santos]

.

Does your % value work now with new version?

yes on 2 minute vob 17MG with 0.19QF i got 49%

gonna try on a 10 minute vob

[iNFO-DVD]

yes on 2 minute vob 17MG with 0.19QF i got 49%. gonna try on a 10 minute vobExcellent, how about you audioman? Does you % work now?

[audioman]

Excellent the comptest works , Bravo INFO

Here is my LOG

avi.NET v2.1.8.5
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1400MHz (1399MHz)

IN : C:\HARRY_POTTER_III\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VOB
OUT: C:\HARRY_POTTER_III\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.avi

ORIGINAL MPEG FILE
MPEG TYPE : 2
RESOLUTION : 720x576
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
FIELD ORDER : TFF

CONVERTED AVI FILE
RESOLUTION : 640x272
DURATION : 0:05:41
FPS : 25
CODEC : XVID
PASSES : 2
METHOD : SIZE BASED
SIZE : 70MB
BITRATE : 1334Kbps
BITS/PIXEL : 0.31
AUDIO : AC3
SUBTITLES : NONE

SELECTED OPTIONS
DE-INTERLACE: NO
DE-GRAINED : NO
HIGHER CROP : NO

TIME TAKEN [AUDIO]: N/A
TIME TAKEN [VIDEO]: 00:11:29
ENCODE RATE 1/2 : 31 FPS
ENCODE RATE 2/2 : 21 FPS

TIME TAKEN [TOTAL]: 00:11:39

[ricardo.santos]

10 minute vob, final size 93 0.20QF i got a value of 46%

PS: very fast the comptest, i mainly use avi.Net for episodic dvd conversions and if i multiply that time by 4 its not that much time.

[iNFO-DVD]

Excellent the comptest works , Bravo INFOGreat news :)

Here is my LOGThe log doesn't contain any comptest info yet, just the screen.

very fast the comptestThat's good, I bumped that second BETA1 back up to 5% as well.

Thank you both for at least running it for me and giving me feedback that it actually works, or at least does something.

[audioman]

The log doesn't contain any comptest info yet, just the screen.


Never mind , The comptest works :)

[audioman]

Thank you both for at least running it for me and giving me feedback that it actually works, or at least does something.

You're welcome !!!
Keep up the good work and inform us about the values and how to deal with them !!!!!!!

[ricardo.santos]

Thank you both for at least running it for me and giving me feedback that it actually works, or at least does something.

No problem, im the one who should be thanking you for developing avi.Net.

Does it only work with Xvid? xvid on my pc is slow the encoding is still running well beyond 20 minutes now with divx it would something like 15/16 minutes.

Would it be a good idea to disable "remove temp files" when doing a comptest? if the user decides to stop the conversion he wouldnt have to go through the indexing phase again?

Sorry just trying to understand, be "gentle" if im wrong as im not that "bright" with this stuff :)

[iNFO-DVD]

Would it be a good idea to disable "remove temp files" when doing a comptest? if the user decides to stop the conversion he wouldnt have to go through the indexing phase again?You don't have to anyway. If you stop it or there's an error the .TEMP files don't get removed. They only get removed if you have selected that option AND the conversion takes place as normal.

[ricardo.santos]

thanks for the clarification

[iNFO-DVD]

It obviously now goes without saying that once the comptest has ran I now need to do something about the results.

After reading THIS (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=107897) thread about comptest presets I've decided, at least for now, to use this as a starting point. I can't at the moment use custom matrices, well, until I find some that are more standalone compatible.

I was able to discover that I can change the HomeTheatre profile for the CinemaPlus profile which has the same VBV e.t.c. constraints but allows me to alter the 'Quantization Type', H263, MPEG, MPEG-Custom, which is good news. I've altered the original presets, at least for now, as I think they were a bit too harsh and I'm not using the CQM's listed.

COMPRESSION TEST COUNTER MEASURES [avi.NET]
[key: comptest%|quant type|b-frames|quant restrictions|curve compression|Adaptive quant (lum masking)]

25-44 H263 B1,1.5,1 Q2,31 CC30,15 AQ?
45-57 H263 B1,1.6,0 Q2,15 CC15,05
58-89 MPEG B1,1.6.0 Q2,07(I6) CC10,03
90+ MPEG B1,1.0,1 Q1,05(I4) CC=NONE

Any thoughts?

Things that spring to mind.....
What to do below 25?
Using AQ in first preset
Thoughts concerning CC

I know the MPEG matrix is not everyone's cup of tea but it helps with SAP compliance whilst I'm not using CQM's and helps bring the value down when things are going too high.

Again, the Q1 in the 90+ presets is not everyone's idea as ideal but it does work well with movies like 'The Others' e.t.c. that are very dark. Some people *DO* want to reach there target size.

Just off to do some more reading on CC.

[iNFO-DVD]

Now updated to BETA 2, it will actually do something now depending on the value.

Download >> HERE (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__files/avi.NET_2185_BETA2.zip) <<

Current Settings: (opinions sought and welcomed)

05/09/06 06:49 BETA 2

XX-39 [PROFILE LQ] H263 | 1,1.62,0 | 10,15,20 | 20,10 | 2,15
40-59 [PROFILE GQ] H263 | 1,1.62,0 | 05,10,15 | 10,05 | 2,09
60-89 [PROFILE HQ] MPEG | 1,1.62,0 | 05,10,15 | 05,05 | 2,07(I6)
90-XX [PROFILE UHQ] MPEG | 1,1.00,1 | 00,05,05 | 00,00 | 1,05(I4)

KEY: COMPTEST|PROFILE|QUANT|B-FRAMES|OVERFLOW|COMP CURVE|QUANTIZERS

One last thing.... Does anyone use the 352 screen size option? Shall I drop it and use something between 480 and 640, like 576?

[audioman]

Hi INFO

I will have a test tonight :)

I used to select a 0.30 - 0.33 QF for my movies

What kind of value should I use now before the movie encodes ? Carrying on using the same value ?

Will the comptest adapt its profiles to the selected value ?

Thanks for your explanations INFO :)

[ricardo.santos]

...opinions sought and welcomed....


ive tried it and choose a final size half of what i normally use, that gave a bits/pixel value of 0.10, after the compression test(17%)avi.Net choose the LQ profile and comparing the "no cp test " version and the version that used the LQ profile theres no doubt that the profile atenuated some effects caused by low bitrate encodings(ringing,blocks)

final video sizes were "respected" on both versions

Keep up the good work!

[audioman]

Hi ricardo

Do you usually use a 0.20 bits/pixel ? is this not too low ?

Did you test on a short clip or an entire movie ?

[ricardo.santos]

No, i have a sort of rule for my backups:

for every minute of the film i "give it" 10 mg on my final video, for example 90 minute movie would have a size of 900 mg.

there are exceptions(full screen movies and movies wih lots of CGI/fx(King Kong for example didnt look so good in the CGI scenes with that rule, i had to increase the final size).

for the tests i encoded a 15 minute clip from one stargate sg1 episode. i choose 0.10 because thats half the value that avi.Net recommends without comptest.

[iNFO-DVD]

ive tried it and choose a final size half of what i normally use, that gave a bits/pixel value of 0.10, after the compression test(17%)avi.Net choose the LQ profile and comparing the "no cp test " version and the version that used the LQ profile theres no doubt that the profile atenuated some effects caused by low bitrate encodings(ringing,blocks). Final video sizes were "respected" on both versions. Keep up the good work!That's good news, thanks.

Do you usually use a 0.20 bits/pixel ? is this not too low ? Did you test on a short clip or an entire movie ?No, 0.20 is NOT too low though in saying that it's hard to say, hence the comptest.

It varies from clip to clip, or movie to movie. For instance, at the moment whilst programming I using a test clip from the movie 'Eight Legged Freaks', if I were to use your starting point QF it gives a comptest of 154%, far too high. If I use a starting point of 0.20 it gives 82%. The clip from 'Clarlies Angels' at 0.20 only gives me 35%. It just shows you the importance of the comptest.

Infact, concerning the comptest I have actually come to really appreciate it now. How could I have not had one....... and I would like to say it would never have been implimented had it not been for various people in this thread going on and on about. So I thank you all.

[iNFO-DVD]

Talking of the comptest I suppose what I'm trying to achieve with the four profiles is this:

LQ: Too low, not enough bitrate, have to take counter measures.
GQ: Within reasonable thresholds. H263 Good Quality.
HQ: Within reasonable thresholds. MPEG High Quality.
UHQ: Too high, too much bitrate, have to take counter measures.

The GQ and HQ will just use, I suppose, the best quality setting, within reason, that I can do whilst keeping SAP happy.

With LQ and UHQ things get more tricky. The UHQ I would say is easier to deal with, the MPEG quant type will help sharpen and the slight change in codec settings will help bring the % down. The LQ setting would probably be the hardest to deal with, it's just too low, I may have to change the encoder performance with the LQ setting. Here's an extract from the DIVX guide when talking about the 'SLOW' Encoder Performance mode: Slow performance/quality mode enables the rate-distortion algorithm, designed to dramatically improve the video quality of low-bitrate encoding.

So for example, if a comptest determines Profile LQ because the value is so low it isn't saying oh, you want a low quality encode, hence LQ, it's saying more like, it *is* going to be low quality so lets set everything up to make it better, a counter measure, does that make sense. It could end up and LQ and UHQ encode could take a longer.

I know I'm just ranting on, just speaking out loud really, just keeping you all informed of my thoughts.

The LQ and UHQ could also invoke some different synth filters to help, any ideas?

[iNFO-DVD]

Adding the divx comptest support to avi.NET is giving me a right headache. Using the same methods as I did with XVID I'm getting totally different results, (usually much lower). I verified this with AutoGK, DIVX % is usually much lower. Reading some threads I have came across one or two that suggest problems with doing comptests with DIVX. Hmmmm, what to do.... what to do......

1. So do I just go with and accept its different value?
2. Accept its different value but take that into account when looking at what counter measures to take? (like change the counter measure thresholds)
3. Do the comptest using XVID, even for DIVX, to get the correct, more widely accepted, or known, values? (though this does seems weird)

Anyone got any input on this?

[Sharktooth]

Well, when changing codec parameters the compressibility will change.
If you're going to repeat the comptest with the new settings, remember there are few other "counter measures" to add (like lowering resolution or heavy filtering).
IMHO lowering the resolution is the way to go so you can mantain a good encoding speed (even with slower codec settings) and a good overall quality.
You can even do it in a "single pass", maximize the codec settings and lower the res by a notch.
But remember to:
a) Inform the user that quality is too low and avi.net is reducing the res
b) Keep a SAP compatible resolution
c) Offer an option in the program settings to override the resize (and go on with the user selected resolution) or an option to disable the comptest.

[audioman]

for the tests i encoded a 15 minute clip from one stargate sg1 episode. i choose 0.10 because thats half the value that avi.Net recommends without comptest.

Ricardo , you are talking about a value avi.NET recommends

Where the hell is that value ? is this the value below in the pic ?

http://pix.nofrag.com/6d/16/05cbe220732eebedd7c7db208e5bt.jpg (http://pix.nofrag.com/6d/16/05cbe220732eebedd7c7db208e5b.html)

Second question

I am completely newbie to the comptest
What should I do ? Keep the 896 value and then run the encoding ?
The comptest will give me a value and determine the proper profile to use , this is it ? :eek:

Thanks for your answers guys

[weaver4]

That's good news, thanks.

No, 0.20 is NOT too low though in saying that it's hard to say, hence the comptest.

It varies from clip to clip, or movie to movie. For instance, at the moment whilst programming I using a test clip from the movie 'Eight Legged Freaks', if I were to use your starting point QF it gives a comptest of 154%, far too high. If I use a starting point of 0.20 it gives 82%. The clip from 'Clarlies Angels' at 0.20 only gives me 35%. It just shows you the importance of the comptest.

Infact, concerning the comptest I have actually come to really appreciate it now. How could I have not had one....... and I would like to say it would never have been implimented had it not been for various people in this thread going on and on about. So I thank you all.

Or use single pass, constant quality!

[audioman]

Could I have answers please cause I gotta encode a bunch of movies

Thanks

[ricardo.santos]

Ricardo , you are talking about a value avi.NET recommends

Where the hell is that value ? is this the value below in the pic ?

http://pix.nofrag.com/6d/16/05cbe220732eebedd7c7db208e5bt.jpg (http://pix.nofrag.com/6d/16/05cbe220732eebedd7c7db208e5b.html)

here it is:
http://img423.imageshack.us/img423/1830/untitledfm8.jpg

Second question

I am completely newbie to the comptest
What should I do ? Keep the 896 value and then run the encoding ?
The comptest will give me a value and determine the proper profile to use , this is it ? :eek:

Thanks for your answers guys

exactly. i think the default value that avi.Net gives us is a good starting point, with time you´ll be able by looking/watching the movie what the final size will be, for a 640 encoding like i said before the "1 min=10 mg rule" is a good starting point.

[audioman]

Thanks ricardo

This is pretty weird

How can a 896 Mo movie give a very good quality ?

I am quite surprised

[ricardo.santos]

Thanks ricardo

This is pretty weird

How can a 896 Mo movie give a very good quality ?

I am quite surprised

how long is your movie? what aspect ratio?

[audioman]

My movie is 100 mn long
I choose 640 most of the time

[ricardo.santos]

if it was me and it was a 2:35 movie i would choose between 1000 and 1100 no more than that.

[iNFO-DVD]

This is pretty weird, How can a 896 Mo movie give a very good quality ? I am quite surprisedWell you shouldn't be........ Some widescreen movies encoded to 700MB can look perfect, all depends on the movie.

[audioman]

Okay

I have remarked something

When the movie is loaded into avi.net , the QF starting point is approximatively 0.20 , with a given bitrate

In my case , I always keep AC3 in my movies
Obviously when I tick the AC3 button , QF and bitrate get lower What I do is :

increase the file size in order to match the original bitrate

Then I run the comptest and encoding

Is it the right way to proceed ?

I am testing on a short clip right now

By the way , Hi INFO :)

[iNFO-DVD]

Well, when changing codec parameters the compressibility will change.
Exactly, and I can use this to my advantage for extremely low/high compressible movies, hence counter measures.

If you're going to repeat the comptest with the new settings, remember there are few other "counter measures" to add (like lowering resolution or heavy filtering).
I agree but I wouldn't do yet another comptest after changing settings, I feel it would be an overkill. When the comptest % goes out of some set thresholds I'll just have to make sure the internal codec/filter changes I make are set specifically for them thresholds.

IMHO lowering the resolution is the way to go so you can mantain a good encoding speed (even with slower codec settings) and a good overall quality.
I agree.

a) Inform the user that quality is too low and avi.net is reducing the res
b) Keep a SAP compatible resolution
c) Offer an option in the program settings to override the resize (and go on with the user selected resolution) or an option to disable the comptest.
a) If I do that I surely will.
b) Most certainly.
c) Definately.

Thanks for your feedback and I completely agree with you. :thanks:

[iNFO-DVD]

When the movie is loaded into avi.net , the QF starting point is approximatively 0.20 , with a given bitrate, in my case , I always keep AC3 in my movies. Obviously when I tick the AC3 button , QF and bitrate get lower
Yes, rather than you load a movie in and everything say zero or whatever I've always thought it's better to at least get a starting point. To be honest, you could always leave it on what was recommended and a lot of the time the results would be fine. Mainly, it's a starting point, a guess. As for you changing the AC3, yes, the bitrate and QF will lower, and if we're talking about a full movie for example then I'd then probably go to the next set size up and check the QF value to make sure it hasn't went too high. But in saying all that, the comptest will ease your mind that bit more.

Then I run the comptest and encoding, Is it the right way to proceed ? I am testing on a short clip right nowProblem is, though better than nothing, testing on a clip you may have taken from the movie may not give you as acurate results as letting avi.NET do the comptest on the whole movie at set intervals. I'd just set everything up and let it start, if something was wrong, like the value far too high/low then I'd just stop it, change some settings, and go again.

The time it would take to press stop, reload the movie in, choose your size and go again is going to be far quicker than taking a clip then loading that in and doing just the same on it, you'd then have to stop and load the main movie back in again anyway. More often than not your comptest value I would guess would be OK and over time you'll get to know a lot more.

By the way , Hi INFO :)Hi :)

[audioman]

Problem is, though better than nothing, testing on a clip you may have taken from the movie may not give you as acurate results as letting avi.NET do the comptest on the whole movie at set intervals. I'd just set everything up and let it start, if something was wrong, like the value far too high/low then I'd just stop it, change some settings, and go again.
Hi :)

:thanks:

Is 5% a sufficient value to detect high action scenes in a film or non action scenes ?

[iNFO-DVD]

Is 5% a sufficient value to detect high action scenes in a film or non action scenes ?Well, I suppose it's a good enough realistic value, 100% would be best but that's just going to far, a big overkill IMO. 5% seems to be about the accepted 'realistic' value to use. It's doing the 5% at a rate of 14 frames every 280 throughout the whole movie so it is getting good representation of all the scenes.

[MarkCurly]

...I agree but I wouldn't do yet another comptest after changing settings, I feel it would be an overkill. When the comptest % goes out of some set thresholds I'll just have to make sure the internal codec/filter changes I make are set specifically for them thresholds.
It all sounds like it's coming together... :)

1) If the comptest is run, and an initial %'age is calculated, and THEN the user changes the target encode parameters, which 'profile' is then used?
Does avi.NET allow a new 'estimated' comptest value to be calculated based on the new target parameters and change the profile used? (It would be good if it did.)

An example, suppose I chose 1 CD encode (700MB), and the comptest said it was 35% (and would then use your LQ profile).
Now that I know the source is not very compressible, I change the target to a 2CD (1400MB) and then proceed to encode.
It would be good if avi.NET figured out that with the new target size, the estimated comptest is NOW ~70%, and it should now use the HQ profile.
It would not be too good if it still used the LQ profile, based on the old comptest!

2) Does the comptest encode currently compress with the source framesize, or does it use the target framesize?
I know I suggested the comptest encode might use the target framesize, BUT if the comptest encode used the original source framesize and in fact used NONE of the target encode parameters, then the calculated "100%" comptest value is a CONSTANT for a particular source.
Then if the user changed the target parameters, a new comptest value can be calculated EXACTLY based on the new target Qf, just calculate it as Qf(target) / Qf(Source) and the divisor does not have to be re-calculated.

(Of course even if the initial comptest encode *does* use the target framesize, the you can still calculate a new comptest %'age when the target size changes, it will just be a little less accurate...)

3) Does the comptest work for DivX?
If not, chasing some of the links you posted shows that some people use VDubMod as part of a comptest because it can be made to output a framesize file. If you used that file rather than the XviD pass file, it could work for DivX also.

4) Can I change the b-Frames to max consecutive 2 somewhere?

5) A rhetorical/philisophical question about the settings used for each profile...
When deciding what parameters to use for each value of the (MeGUI?) comptest %'ages (profiles), I imagine that the XviD community spend man months or more tuning the matrices and other encode parameters and re-encoding video and viewing it and testing it with video quality programs etc.

In converting those profiles for avi.NET's version of those profiles, it *may* be that some of the parameters are not optimal, because it is not an apples-with-apples situation (avi.NET doesn't want to use custom matrices). Or the threshholds might not be in best place; maybe the UHQ profile should kick in at 80% rather than 90%? Maybe the threshholds would be better if they were all shifteding by 10% in some direction?
(Note: I have NO IDEA if the profiles are not optimal, and I'm not suggesting that the UHQ threshold needs changing, or that all the threshholds need shifting, I'm just using those as examples. (Did you read my earlier post where I said I had no idea what I'm talking about ;)))

Hopefully people can provide feedback on how well they work.

THANK YOU THANK YOU for the wonderful encoding tool that is avi.NET!

[MarkCurly]

Current Settings: (opinions sought and welcomed)

05/09/06 06:49 BETA 2

XX-39 [PROFILE LQ] H263 | 1,1.62,0 | 10,15,20 | 20,10 | 2,15
40-59 [PROFILE GQ] H263 | 1,1.62,0 | 05,10,15 | 10,05 | 2,09
60-89 [PROFILE HQ] MPEG | 1,1.62,0 | 05,10,15 | 05,05 | 2,07(I6)
90-XX [PROFILE UHQ] MPEG | 1,1.00,1 | 00,05,05 | 00,00 | 1,05(I4)

KEY: COMPTEST|PROFILE|QUANT|B-FRAMES|OVERFLOW|COMP CURVE|QUANTIZERS
Have you seen the ESS and ETK "Unofficial" profiles that henryho_hk created (in one of the links you posted)?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=850423#post850423

As near as I can tell, henryho_hk has built a BAT script that automates encoding using an xvid_encraw program.

His script uses the 'normal' (non-SAP) profiles that Teegedeck suggested BUT ALSO has some of his own "unofficial" SAP profiles.
Look in the CODE block at the link above (click+drag mouse to select it all), and can see he has some ESS and MTK profiles.
They are:
comptest >30% ESS
comptest >45% ESS
comptest >58% ESS
comptest >90% ESS
comptest >30% MTK
comptest >45% MTK
comptest >58% MTK
comptest >90% MTK

I don't know if they are any good, or better than yours, but there they are...

Looking at his profiles, there are some things I'm not too sure about...
- "-nopacked" my SAP handles packed OK.
- "-imin 3 -imax 5" the quantizer restrictions seem rather narrow (this for the cmprgt30ess profile, but the others also have narrow quantizer restrictions).
- "-max_bframes 1" my player handles 2 OK
- They don't use the built-in XviD profiles...

(PS: My player is a Philips DVP642)

[iNFO-DVD]

1) If the comptest is run, and an initial %'age is calculated, and THEN the user changes the target encode parameters, which 'profile' is then used?
Does avi.NET allow a new 'estimated' comptest value to be calculated based on the new target parameters and change the profile used? (It would be good if it did.)

An example, suppose I chose 1 CD encode (700MB), and the comptest said it was 35% (and would then use your LQ profile).
Now that I know the source is not very compressible, I change the target to a 2CD (1400MB) and then proceed to encode.
It would be good if avi.NET figured out that with the new target size, the estimated comptest is NOW ~70%, and it should now use the HQ profile.
It would not be too good if it still used the LQ profile, based on the old comptest!
Unfortunately, 700MB at 35% doesn't then equal 70% if set to 1400MB, it would be far more % than that.

I've probably called the profiles with the wrong name, it could be confusing, making a user think the LQ would mean it will make a low quality encode e.t.c, it doesn't mean that. What it means is more like a low % has been detected so I have to use some high encode settings to try to obtain as much quality as I can get from the codec because the user has set it too low. For instant, a LQ encode, especially with DIVX could end up taking far longer than any other as I have to then change the encode/performance setting, turn on some psychovisual and enchanced texture to try to improve it, options I wouldn't normally need to use if there was more bitrate the movie had to play with.

If a % is too low or too high I have to take counter measures to try and improve the quality if too low or make a high % lower by using some sharper quant type for example. I may have to include some filters too, dunno yet, maybe a smoother resizer for low % detections.

2) Does the comptest encode currently compress with the source framesize, or does it use the target framesize?
The source, thanks to you that is. As of the BETA 2 it was switched to the SOURCE as I was actually using the encode size to start with. When I release BETA 3 at some point today that has been changed again slightly to the size of the actual input without borders, silly me was using the direct input size, 720x576 for example rather than the processed size without the black borders, example 720x400 or whatever it may be. It's a lot more acurate now.

Then if the user changed the target parameters, a new comptest value can be calculated EXACTLY based on the new target Qf, just calculate it as Qf(target) / Qf(Source) and the divisor does not have to be re-calculated.
You have a really good point there, hadn't thought of that, infact, I'm really glad you mentioned it. Trouble is, I can't stop the encode to allow user intervention then carry on kind of automatically, that would be unusable in reality, whatever I do I have to make that decision from within the program automatically. At the very least I could display on the screen a % estimate of every other set size in the list.

3) Does the comptest work for DivX?
Yes, it's all done, in BETA 3. I noticed the DIVX % are lower than the XVID ones, sometimes quite massively, I verified this behaviour with AutoGK too.

4) Can I change the b-Frames to max consecutive 2 somewhere?No, 2-bframes are NOT fully SAP compliant.

5) A rhetorical/philisophical question about the settings used for each profile...
When deciding what parameters to use for each value of the (MeGUI?) comptest %'ages (profiles), I imagine that the XviD community spend man months or more tuning the matrices and other encode parameters and re-encoding video and viewing it and testing it with video quality programs etc.

In converting those profiles for avi.NET's version of those profiles, it *may* be that some of the parameters are not optimal, because it is not an apples-with-apples situation (avi.NET doesn't want to use custom matrices). Or the threshholds might not be in best place; maybe the UHQ profile should kick in at 80% rather than 90%? Maybe the threshholds would be better if they were all shifteding by 10% in some direction?
That's just going to be trial and error I think, all I can do is read as much as possible about the codec settings and try to chose what's best within the threshold, not to mention the constant clip encodes I've been doing. I'm open to suggestions on this front. As for thresholds, I have set the DIVX thresholds slightly lower that the XVID ones.

I'm eagar to hear suggestions on particular codec settings, both XVID and DIVX, for the different profile thresholds.

[MarkCurly]

One last thing.... Does anyone use the 352 screen size option? Shall I drop it and use something between 480 and 640, like 576?
560 would be closer to the geometric mean of 640 and 480.
I would have thought that smaller widths (and that includes 480) would be less often used.
How about adding two imtermediate sizes between 640 and 480, like so: 640, 576, 528 and 480?

[iNFO-DVD]

Have you seen the ESS and ETK "Unofficial" profiles that henryho_hk created (in one of the links you posted)?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=850423#post850423No, I'd missed them, cheers, printing them out now, will take a look at them with a coffee.

I must admit, what I don't like is different profiles for different chipsets... what if you had ESS and MTK? I have a SIGMA and MTK chipset, my mate has MTK and ESS, what profile do they use then? What if you got rid of your ESS and got an MTK, oh no, you may not be able to play your AVI's.... I'd always stick with a more global profile.

Anyway, off to look through them profiles, thanks again.

[iNFO-DVD]

560 would be closer to the geometric mean of 640 and 480.Yes of course, that's what I meant.... :D

[MarkCurly]

I've probably called the profiles with the wrong name...
I think they are OK.
I do understand them to mean:
Make the best choices for what is likely a LQ encode.
Make the best choices for what is likely a GQ encode.
Make the best choices for what is likely a HQ encode.
Make the best choices for what is likely a UHQ encode.

Trouble is, I can't stop the encode to allow user intervention then carry on kind of automatically, that would be unusable in reality, whatever I do I have to make that decision from within the program automatically.
NOOO!! :eek:
I was hoping the comptest could be called like the bitrate calculator, and the results played around with before the encode continues.
One of the things I don't like about AutoGK is that if the comptest suggests you are going to get a low quality encode, you can't change your mind unless you abort the encode and start again. If you let AutoGK continue, you can end up with a too-small framesize.

No, 2-bframes are NOT fully SAP compliant.
My ESS based player does handle 2 consecutive OK (I once even tried a file with 5% of 3 consecutive).
Any tweakability you can provide here would be much appreciated.

Unfortunately, 700MB at 35% doesn't then equal 70% if set to 1400MB, it would be far more % than that.
Somewhat more, yes. :)
<pedantic>I didn't want to bother with a calculation, but assuming 100MB of the video was MP3 audio, then the original "1CD" is 600MB of video, and the "2CD" is 1300MB of video, a ration of 2.17, so I would expect a new comptest of ~76% (assuming I have the gist of the calculation).
(BTW: when I use "~", I mean it to mean "Approximately")
</pedantic>

[iNFO-DVD]

I think they are OK.
I do understand them to mean:
Make the best choices for what is likely a LQ encode.
Make the best choices for what is likely a GQ encode.
Make the best choices for what is likely a HQ encode.
Make the best choices for what is likely a UHQ encodeYes.

NOOO!! :eek:
I was hoping the comptest could be called like the bitrate calculator, and the results played around with before the encode continues.lol, well at the moment, once turned on it does it automatically, but I'll see what else I can do during development.

One of the things I don't like about AutoGK is that if the comptest suggests you are going to get a low quality encode, you can't change your mind unless you abort the encode and start again.Just out of curiousity, what does that actually mean in reality refering to avi.NET?

Current:
1. Load movie, do your settings, go.
2. Comptest
3. Is it OK? Most of the time YES, if not, stop, goto 1 and miss 2 and 3
4. Encode

Your way:
1. Load movie, do your settings, go.
2. Comptest
3. Is it OK? if yes, goto 4, if not goto 1 and miss 2 and 3
4. Encode

Doesn't seem to be much difference apart from the fact the comptest everytime would have to be verified and back to user to carry on with encode. It seems the current way would actually be quicker and less hassle because after all most of the time the % value will be acceptable. But saying all that, I know what you mean. :)

My ESS based player does handle 2 consecutive OKI know, but some others don't.

then the original "1CD" is 600MB of video, and the "2CD" is 1300MB of video, a ration of 2.17, so I would expect a new comptest of ~76%No, it doesn't change at the same rate..... in your example I'd guess more round the 105% mark. But it doesn't matter as your idea of the QF was perfect anyway.

[MarkCurly]

Current:
1. Load movie, do your settings, go.
2. Comptest
3. Is it OK? Most of the time YES, if not, stop, goto 1 and miss 2 and 3
4. Encode
Whew! :D The optional stop in step 3 allays most of my fears.

My ideal flowchart goes like so:
1. Load movie.
2. Do settings. Can include calling the bitrate calculator to help with the settings. Can include changing the LQ/GQ/HQ/UHQ profile used (even before a comptest has been done). If a comptest has already been done and a Qf(comptest) value is available, then auto-suggest the profile based on Qf(target)/Qf(comptest).
3. Optional manually called comptest. The profile (LQ/GQ/HQ/UHQ) is set. Stop and return to step 2. (Now Qf(comptest) is known, step 2 can be smarter.)
4. User says "Go, encode"
5. Optional "auto" configured comptest. The profile (LQ/GQ/HQ/UHQ) is set.
6. Is it OK? Most of the time YES, if not, stop, goto 2 7. Encode

A user would be unlikely to do BOTH the manual step 3 comptest AND the optional auto-configured step 5 comptest.
I would likely turn the step 5 auto-comptest off, and just do the step 3 manual comptest.
Other users might NOT do the step 3 manual comptest, but instead configure the step 5 to auto-run.

No, it doesn't change at the same rate..... in your example I'd guess more round the 105% mark. But it doesn't matter as your idea of the QF was perfect anyway.
That has me completely confused... :confused:
Can you please give a worked example?

[Sharktooth]

The xvid/divx difference in comptest is due to the "optimized H.263" quantization.
Sadly xvid and divx should have different thresholds for comptest.

[weaver4]

if it was me and it was a 2:35 movie i would choose between 1000 and 1100 no more than that.

I also use 640 as width. And on the seldom occasion I do two pass I use I 1000 for 9:5 and I use 1200 for 4:3.

[audioman]

Yesterday night I encoded a dreamworks film
Here is the Log

avi.NET v2.1.8.5
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1400MHz (1399MHz)

IN : C:\AVINET RIPS\SHREK\VTS_01_PGC_01_1.VOB
OUT: C:\AVINET RIPS\SHREK\Shrek 1318.avi

ORIGINAL MPEG FILE
MPEG TYPE : 2
RESOLUTION : 720x576
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
FIELD ORDER : TFF

CONVERTED AVI FILE
RESOLUTION : 640x352
DURATION : 1:26:23
FPS : 25
CODEC : XVID
PASSES : 2
METHOD : SIZE BASED
SIZE : 1094MB
BITRATE : 1318Kbps
BITS/PIXEL : 0.23
AUDIO : AC3
SUBTITLES : NONE

SELECTED OPTIONS
DE-INTERLACE: NO
DE-GRAINED : NO
HIGHER CROP : NO

COMPRESSION VALUE : 94%

TIME TAKEN [AUDIO]: N/A
TIME TAKEN [VIDEO]: 03:06:03
ENCODE RATE 1/2 : 37 FPS
ENCODE RATE 2/2 : 28 FPS

TIME TAKEN [TOTAL]: 03:10:12

The QF starting point was 0.23 with a 896 MB size


AVI.NET choose the UHQ profile but I got noisy backgrounds in
dark scenes :(

What should I do ? encode at higher rate ?

I don't really think the image quality will be better

:thanks:

[audioman]

Another weird thing I remarked

Look at the PIC

http://pix.nofrag.com/d6/1a/df241e943d5fea53585ba250e882t.jpg (http://pix.nofrag.com/d6/1a/df241e943d5fea53585ba250e882.html)

In upper right corner Look at the Codec used : DIVX :confused:

I always do XVID and the codec used is DIVX

Do you have this kind of issue too Guys ?

[iNFO-DVD]

The QF starting point was 0.23 with a 896 MB size. AVI.NET choose the UHQ profile but I got noisy backgrounds in dark scenes :(

What should I do ? encode at higher rate ?

I don't really think the image quality will be better
Well the settings in that BETA are not yet finalised so I wouldn't worry too much. Why are you encoding at 94%, drop in to 700MB, I know this sounds strange but the picture may even improve.

[audioman]

Well the settings in that BETA are not yet finalised so I wouldn't worry too much.

It's okay That's what I was thinking :)

Why are you encoding at 94%, drop in to 700MB, I know this sounds strange but the picture may even improve.

94% is the value given by the comptest for a 86mn movie
I kept ac3 audio
I don't really understand the question
Could you develop ?

:thanks:

[iNFO-DVD]

Another weird thing I remarked

Look at the PIC

http://pix.nofrag.com/d6/1a/df241e943d5fea53585ba250e882t.jpg (http://pix.nofrag.com/d6/1a/df241e943d5fea53585ba250e882.html)

In upper right corner Look at the Codec used : DIVX :confused:

I always do XVID and the codec used is DIVX

Do you have this kind of issue too Guys ?Well first of all, update your GSpot, there's a new one that's just came out. Yours is even older than the 2 year old version.

As of v2.1.8.0 of avi.NET the MUX program was changed to DivXMux, instead of VirtualDubMod. Whether you have encoded using DIVX or XVID DivXMux will write the FourCC as DIVX, that's why you think you have a DIVX file, because of the FourCC.

Update your GSpot and you'll notice it will display the XVID version at middle/left, for example XviD0041. If the display and/or log says XVID, then it's an XVID, have faith.. :)

[iNFO-DVD]

94% is the value given by the comptest for a 86mn movie.
I kept ac3 audio
I don't really understand the question
Could you develop ?
You have chosen 896MB as the size, the movie compresses very well (94%) so there's probably no need to have it that high. It's that high, counter measures have kicked in, drop the size, convert to 700MB instead.

[audioman]

No I did not convert to 896 MB
896 is the starting point value given by avi.net with a bitrate 1318

I ticked the ac3 button and the values get lower ( normal )
I increased the values to get a bitrate 1318

Avi.net gave a file size of 1094 mo with a bitrate of 1318

The comptest ran and gave a 94 % compression and decided to choose the UHQ profile

Is that clearer ?

[iNFO-DVD]

No I did not convert to 896 MB
896 is the starting point value given by avi.net with a bitrate 1318

I ticked the ac3 button and the values get lower ( normal )
I increased the values to get a bitrate 1318

Avi.net gave a file size of 1094 mo with a bitrate of 1318

The comptest ran and gave a 94 % compression and decided to choose the UHQ profile

Is that clearer ?I know, it's toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo high :)

Keep at 893, select AC3, everything will drop, leave it... why keep to the bitrate originally given???? keep to set sizes, it makes more sense.

94% is too high.

[audioman]

Ok

The compressibility test shows 71% with the 893 file size and AC3 enabled
The profile HQ is used :)

[iNFO-DVD]

That's better. :)

[audioman]

No it's not better

The quality is just worse
I don't have the quality of the original

[iNFO-DVD]

Do you have a screenshot of what you are refering to? or a sample of the original? Actually, hold back on the sample as not sure of the legality of it if it's a commercial movie.

On a different note, something I noticed in a couple of your earlier posts:

METHOD : SIZE BASED
SIZE : 1094MB
BITRATE : 1318Kbps

I increased the values to get a bitrate 1318
Avi.net gave a file size of 1094 mo with a bitrate of 1318
As it says SIZE BASED that means you must have set the size, noted the bitrate, selected AC3, then fiddled about with the size to get back to the bitrate of 1318.

Why didn't you just click the bitrate box instead?
As I mentioned earlier wouldn't it have been easier to select a set size of 1120 or 1398? Don't think you have to go back to what avi.NET tells you when you load in the file.

EXPLANATION OF SIZE BASED AND BITRATE BASED OPTIONS:
As you set a size, whether a set size or one you insert manually, the bitrate will change when you hit enter. If you change the bitrate directly by clicking the bitrate box it does not change the size. It's the value in the bitrate box that gets sent to the codec. If you want a set bitrate, click the bitrate box and enter value, your LOG will then say BITRATE BASED instead of SIZE BASED.

Personally I never use BITRATE BASED and also choose a set size for movies as they're going to end up on a DVD.

[iNFO-DVD]

I don't have the quality of the originallol, is that what you are expecting? you may be dissapointed, whatever program you use.

[audioman]

lol, is that what you are expecting? you may be dissapointed, whatever program you use.

I don't share your opinion
There are several posts in this forum , talking about xvid matrices ( 6o9, sharktooth etc ...) with guys really happy to have a great quality near original
But I don't want to deal with Megui or other softwares

I don't mind about the encoding time ( I even think that avi.net encodes too fast !!! Kind of surprising compared to others ) :)
I just want a very good backup quality ( near the original )
I don't want washed backgrounds, and pixellisation
I just want to avoid making a backup DVD because the filesize is too high

I think that your software rocks and is full of simplicity .That's what I appreciate about avi.net
But I did not find the way to get High quality backups :(

[iNFO-DVD]

great quality near originalAh yes, that's better, you originally said: I don't have the quality of the original ;)

[iNFO-DVD]

I even think that avi.net encodes too fast !!!lol, you want say that with the next version......

I don't want washed backgrounds, and pixellisationShow me, would like to see. Did it look the same with other software?

But I did not find the way to get High quality backups :(So everything you encode is bad?

[audioman]

lol, you want say that with the next version......


Ok Let's see :)

Check your email
I sent you a short clip
You 'll see by yourself :)

[iNFO-DVD]

You sent me a movie clip that was 598Kbps.............

598!

What are you expecting at that bitrate?

I can tell you now, for a bitrate of 598 I thought that clip was pretty damn good.

[audioman]

The clip is 1 mn long

Have you checked the txt file ? :confused:

I don' think we have the same eyes
Look at the clouds at the beggining , the image is washed out

I am sure you know What I mean especially in dark scenes
You've said it there
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=863098#post863098

I would have advices from other guys too :)

[mod]

Can I see the clip too? :rolleyes:

[audioman]

Hi mod

Check your private message for the Link

[iNFO-DVD]

The clip is 1 mn long
Have you checked the txt file ? :confused:Yes I have, that's were it tells me you encoded it at 598...... You mentioned poor quality, at the bitrate that file was encoded at I'm not suprised. What is it that is confusing you? To be honest, you're puzzling me :confused:

Here's 3 screens from the encode, including the starting clouds. This was encoded at 598. In my opinion, for 598 they're quite good.

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/3screen.png

I am sure you know What I mean especially in dark scenes
You've said it there
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=863098#post863098Well I can't see anything that looks anywhere near as bad as them DIVX shots.

One more thing to note, that avi.NET you are using is a BETA, it's had it's codec settings messed with.... but more importantly, the bitrate was 598!!!!!

[iNFO-DVD]

Just wanted to quickly mention something and ask a question.


Before I first released avi.NET, back when I was messing with interleave settings and getting VirtualDubMod to mux the A/V I realised that using an interleave of 1 vid frame caused me problems with my player, it would only happen if this was true:

XVID AC3 1 vid frame interleave

The problem was like a sort of stutter, only bearly, but enough to notice, it was unacceptable. So after lots of reading it seemed the way to go was 96/96ms for AC3 and since then this has worked well.

Well........ I'd forget about all that and time went on and recently I changed the MUX program to DivXMux, which gives no control over interleave settings and guess what, yes, it interleaves at 1 vid frame. My problem has returned. :mad:

Now what do I do?

What I'm asking is if anyone else has this problem with their player, if so, I'll drop DivXMux and return to VDM. If it's just kind of me, I'll stick with it.

The problem doesn't occur with any DIVX file, or XVID with MP3, just XVID with AC3.

[mod]

Hmm.. never used XviD + ac3, will try if I have time.
A question: how do you make divxmux work with xvid? I'd like to use it instead of AviMux GUI but I often get sync issues. If I remember correctly you are using a "modified" version right? Is it possible to share it? If it isn't could you just post the arguments for a simple xxx.avi + yyy.mp3 or zzz.ac3 mux? Thanks (hey I didn't forget the comp check, simply I'm too busy atm, I'll work on it in the weekend :) )

EDIT: Thanks audioman for the link (well.. the 2nd one :D ). I agree with iNFO-DVD, imo the quality is really good @598kbps (dark colors, fast motion..). Of course it depends on the output device.

[audioman]

thanks guys

Sorry having bothering you with my screenshots

I 'll do some more tests then in order to get the best quality
I must make me a reason that with xvid or divx codec I will never get the same quality as original :)
I don't want to backup my own dvd in dvd either

Why all you guys don't keep AC3 track in your movies
I personally own a dolby digital system and it is very pleasant

By the INFO, concerning screenshots
Which software do u use to capture ?

:)

[iNFO-DVD]

Well it's been a long time coming, sorry about that, it is just because I have had to do test after test, tweak after tweak, of various clips with takes days.

There has been *BIG* changes in this BETA 3 version. Custom Matrices have now been included. I've tested on 2 different players and they work fine but if you have a player which will not play these AVI's from avi.NET in this version (old ESS?), then de-selecting 'Advanced Analysis' will make avi.NET revert back to what it used to be like, with pretty much standard player profile settings.

Clicking the 'Advanced Analysis' option in avi.NET will cause it, when encoding has started, to run a comptest and enable the internal use of custom matrices. I've included 2 matrices so far. EQM_V3ULR and EQM_V3UR (Thanks Sharktooth), would like to include the EQM_V3HR but I need to do some further tests first. The difference in picture quality when using these matrices has impressed me very much.

SOME CURRENT SETTINGS
comptest value of < 60% AND bitrate < 850 will use: EQM_V3ULR
comptest value of > 60% AND bitrate < 850 will use: EQM_V3LR
bitrate > 850 AND < 1550 will use: EQM_V3LR
bitrate > 1550 will use: EQM_V3HR (not yet, currently still EQM_V3LR)

Codec settings also differ slightly depending on comptest e.t.c.
comptest value is now more accurate than BETA 2.

If just changed the resize back to Bicubic instead of Lanczos as Lanczos can be a bit sharp.
Not sure whether to go with:
Bicubic resize or Lanczos resize with RemoveGrain(mode=2)

Please use the BETA 3 and test, thanks.

Download >> HERE (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__files/avi.NET_2185_BETA3.zip) <<

Unzip, run, (it's a self-extracting exe file), point it to avi.NET folder when asked, all done.

[MarkCurly]

...I've tested on 2 different players and they work fine ...
One of those wouldn't happen to be a Philips DVP642/630 would it?

[iNFO-DVD]

These are the current BETA 3 codec settings during encode when 'Advanced Analysis' used.

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/SETTINGS.PNG

[ricardo.santos]

ive tried beta 3 and according to my tests/comparisons( 6 so far) the output looks better without the matrices/comptest when using EQM_V3ULR

will post some pics later

[iNFO-DVD]

Are you just refering to the ULR?

I may know what you mean, doing my own test, the LR matrix ALWAYS looked better than the ULR, but it wasn't quite that simple. It looked better by comparing frames one by one, which isn't actually how you would normally see it. By the frame by frame compare I could notice more artefacts around objects with ULR, LR was much crisper, but in saying that ULR isn't supposed to be sharp, it's much better when you are going to such a low stage in bitrate that when blocks start to appear it smoothes them much better, the actual textures in the background e.t.c. Well, that's what my tests revealed. I may have to change the bitrate thresholds slightly.

Strange you say it was worse than without though. Every single one of my tests over this past week, and I mean hundreds, has revealed the matrix tests were ALWAYS better looking, IMO.

[iNFO-DVD]

when using EQM_V3ULR

Was this the type of problem you were getting with ULR?

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/EQM_V3ULR.png

Look around the guys face edge, eyes, nose, mouth and the edges of the fingers on the girls hand. The ULR seems to not like edges at all. Using the LR on the above clips comes out fine, better than original.

I need to try and find a low bitrate matrix that at least works with most players, or a lot of them, unless I just stick to the LR for everything under about 1550 bitrate?

[ricardo.santos]

i dont know what you mean with URL.

i will post pics later as im doing some stuff at the moment but heres the logs:

1st test: i converted a 5 minute as i would normally do and choose a final size of 40MG

2nd test: converted the same 5 vob and choose a final size of 30MG with Comptest enabled
ORIGINAL MPEG FILE
MPEG TYPE : 2
RESOLUTION : 720x576
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
FIELD ORDER : TFF

CONVERTED AVI FILE
RESOLUTION : 640x368
DURATION : 0:05:00
FPS : 25
CODEC : XVID
PASSES : 2
METHOD : SIZE BASED
SIZE : 30MB
BITRATE : 707Kbps
BITS/PIXEL : 0.12
AUDIO : MP3
SUBTITLES : NONE

SELECTED FILTERS
DE-INTERLACE: NO
DE-GRAINED : NO
DE-GRAINED : NO
HIGHER CROP : NO

COMPRESSION VALUE : 26%

TIME TAKEN [AUDIO]: 00:00:44
TIME TAKEN [VIDEO]: 00:09:59
ENCODE RATE 1/2 : 32 FPS
ENCODE RATE 2/2 : 19 FPS

TIME TAKEN [TOTAL]: 00:11:07


3rd: test converted the same vob file and choose a final size og 30MG without comptest
ORIGINAL MPEG FILE
MPEG TYPE : 2
RESOLUTION : 720x576
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
FIELD ORDER : TFF

CONVERTED AVI FILE
RESOLUTION : 640x368
DURATION : 0:05:00
FPS : 25
CODEC : XVID
PASSES : 2
METHOD : SIZE BASED
SIZE : 30MB
BITRATE : 707Kbps
BITS/PIXEL : 0.12
AUDIO : MP3
SUBTITLES : NONE

SELECTED FILTERS
DE-INTERLACE: NO
DE-GRAINED : NO
DE-GRAINED : NO
HIGHER CROP : NO

COMPRESSION VALUE : N/A

TIME TAKEN [AUDIO]: 00:00:45
TIME TAKEN [VIDEO]: 00:08:56
ENCODE RATE 1/2 : 33 FPS
ENCODE RATE 2/2 : 21 FPS

TIME TAKEN [TOTAL]: 00:09:48

Conclusion: to my eyes the video without comptest(30MG) enabled looks better than the one with comptest, the matrice used was EQM_V3ULR

[ricardo.santos]

i converted vobs 3 5min vobs from the beggining, middle and end of the movie

[ricardo.santos]

using virtualdub to get the pics:
1st: with CP enabled
2nd:without CP
look at the top left, when comparing frames looking at objects/peoples faces i dont see any diference, video gets artifacts along the edges with CP enabled
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3358/1jl4.jpg
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3589/2kq3.jpg

[ricardo.santos]

here's the link for the video, first part with CP and second part without it.

http://rapidshare.de/files/32616099/test.avi

it could be my eyes playing tricks :)

[iNFO-DVD]

i dont know what you mean with URL.I said ULR, not URL.... I was refering to the matrix used, there's two, the LR and the ULR.

to my eyes the video without comptest(30MG) enabled looks better than the one with comptest, the matrice used was EQM_V3ULRYes I have to agree, it completely destroys edges.

Thanks for showing the log, it's says 'DE-GRAINED' twice, I'll fix that.

here's the link for the video, first part with CP and second part without it.Thanks, I completely agree with you. I'll changed the ULR matrix.

Try something that uses a few more bits, like over 900, the other matrix (V3LR) should kick in which should show you some nice improvement.

[iNFO-DVD]

I've changed the low bitrate selected matrix from the EQM_V3ULR to the EQM_V3LR.

Here are some screenshots of a test conversion I did to 640x272. These are a very low bitrate, 590 (0.13 b/p). I hope you have an LCD monitor as you may not see the difference if viewing on a CRT.

The next four screenshots contain pairs of frames, the top frame is the original encoded frame without the comptest, using the standard H263. The bottom frame is with the comptest using EQM_V3LR.

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/8LEGS-SS1.PNG
Look at the wall and wire, significantly less blocking. The top edge of the hand also has less of that hazy mush.

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/8LEGS-SS2.PNG
Less blocking on the door, and look at the improvement of the boy walking in the room and the wall behind him.

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/8LEGS-SS3.PNG
Big improvement with the green plants in the background, officers face and the front line of her shirt that runs down.

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/8LEGS-SS4.PNG
Lastly a similar shot, faces are more pleasing, hair is better, background.

Remeber these screenshots were taken from a clip encoded at only 590 bitrate. I hope they show the improvement to the picture using the EQM_V3LR matrix. I really like this one.

[Sharktooth]

Weird. Something's wrong. ULR should look much better, but that matrix was not meant for those "so low" bitrates.

[iNFO-DVD]

Weird. Something's wrong. ULR should look much better, but that matrix was not meant for those "so low" bitrates.That's what I thought but hey, the LR is doing a great job. Just a shame about that hazy mush (ringing? mosquito noise?) on the edges with the ULR.

[audioman]

Hi INFO

Congratulations for this new version
I particularly like the fact that avi.net asks to lower the bitrate or to increase resolution in order to have a great output quality

I am gonna have a test on NEMO ( with the new beta 3 ) because this is a very hard movie to encode ( water effect )
The latest LR matrix seems to be very promising

Maybe it is off topic but I discovered this Weekend, DVD rebuilder which is a stunning software allowing to keep close to dvd original quality ( of course with a big file size ) :)

I carry on testing

[iNFO-DVD]

BETA 4 >> HERE (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__files/avi.NET_2185_BETA4.zip) <<

[Sharktooth]

That's what I thought but hey, the LR is doing a great job. Just a shame about that hazy mush (ringing? mosquito noise?) on the edges with the ULR.
ULR performance are good for quants from 2 (maybe even 1) to 4 (dont worry the size of ULR quant 2 is much slower than standard...).
LR has a different approach and is based on the IEEE studies on human visual system (same as HR) and gives great visuals at mid-low bitrates, but i didnt think it could perform so good at those low bitrates.

[iNFO-DVD]

Lets put it this way...

If V3LR were a women, I'd be asking her out to dinner. ;)

[ricardo.santos]

Hi

Thanks for the new release.

On another matter, is anyonne having difficulty/ being "blocked" from the forum?

Every 2 weeks during the weekend i cant acess the forum, i can see the main page, guides, downloads pages but not the forum.

Anyone experiencing the same?

[audioman]

Aahahahahahahahahahaha :)

[iNFO-DVD]

On another matter, is anyonne having difficulty/ being "blocked" from the forum?

Every 2 weeks during the weekend i cant acess the forum, i can see the main page, guides, downloads pages but not the forum.

Anyone experiencing the same?I have too on a couple of occasions. The first time when the BBC news story was published, problems were due to high traffic. I had problems some days after too, been OK for a few days now. I presume it's high upsurge in readers to the forum....

[ricardo.santos]

I have too on a couple of occasions. The first time when the BBC news story was published, problems were due to high traffic. I had problems some days after too, been OK for a few days now. I presume it's high upsurge in readers to the forum....

the thing is is that some friends of mine that live nearbi could acess it the whole time, at least now i know im not the only one, i thought it was mypc/firewall playing up

Thanks

[ricardo.santos]

Which is which? Which one uses the matrice and wich one doesnt?

[ORIGINAL MPEG FILE]
MPEG Type : 2
Resolution : 720x576
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Field Order : TFF

[CONVERTED AVI FILE]
Resolution : 640x368
Duration : 0:05:00
FPS : 25
Codec : XVID
Passes : 2
Method : SIZE BASED
Size : 25MB
Bitrate : 567Kbps
Bits/Pixel : 0.10
Audio : MP3
Subtitles : NONE

[SELECTED FILTERS]
Deinterlace : NO
Sharp Image : NO
Smooth Image: NO
Higher Crop : NO

Compression Value : 21%

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4735/cp1tv1.png
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8360/normal1nl9.png

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1926/cp2rf9.png
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3859/normal2au8.png

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8413/cp3gq3.png
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1900/normal3nc2.png

[iNFO-DVD]

Are you asking? or telling?

[ricardo.santos]

its a question. i converted two vobs one with CP enabled the other without.

[iNFO-DVD]

Are you asking because you really don't know or you want me to guess?

Well, I'd say the bottom one usually looks more pleasing.

[ricardo.santos]

i wanted people to judge the pics and see if they could guess which is which.

well, to my surprise the top ones were the ones converted with CP, the bottom ones were just a straight encoding.

encodings were done with same final size, resolution,bitrate etc etc.

[iNFO-DVD]

The only thing I could say to that then is you're just going too low for the matrix.

640x368
0.11 b/p
567 bits
21% comp

My above example was 640x272 so at least that had a few more bits/pixel to play with. I did just do a test on a clip, similar to your latest one and got the opposite results, hmmm. How can the normal have less blocks than CT version? I can't reproduce that!

If it comes to it I'll disable the CQM below 30% and certain bitrate as it's just too low for it.

1. Try something a little higher, minimum 30+%
2. Were them screenshots from BETA 4?
3. Do you like Stargate? :)

[ricardo.santos]

The only thing I could say to that then is you're just going too low for the matrix.

640x368
0.11 b/p
567 bits
21% comp

My above example was 640x272 so at least that had a few more bits/pixel to play with. I did just do a test on a clip, similar to your latest one and got the opposite results, hmmm. How can the normal have less blocks than CT version? I can't reproduce that!

If it comes to it I'll disable the CQM below 30% and certain bitrate as it's just too low for it.

1. Try something a little higher, minimum 30+%
2. Were them screenshots from BETA 4?
3. Do you like Stargate? :)

1- i already did and the videos looked the same(shouldnt he one encoded with cp have better quality?), i wanted to see how effective the matrix was on lower bitrates and it turned out it made the video worse

2-Yes

3- Yes

ill redo the tests tomorrow with a higher bitrate, i formated my pc abouth a month ago, and theres not much stuff in it so i donth think my pc is messing up the tests

[iNFO-DVD]

Strange, just done some more tests with a very similar source comp/bitrate/size settings and it's not even close, the comptest version is far better.

[Sharktooth]

1st, 3rd and 5th pic.

[iNFO-DVD]

1st, 3rd and 5th pic.

lol :D

[Sharktooth]

well, i didnt read all the messages, just looked at the pic and answered the question.
2nd,4th and 6th pictures show blocking and detail smoothing, tipical of h.263 quantization, so the other 3 had to be the ones encoded with a custom matrix.
This is again the tipical example where PSNR fails to represent the perceived quality. h.263 encode will have a higher PSNR but even if the 1st, 3rd and 5th picture are mathematically "more" different from the original (lower PSNR), they just look better (visually pleasing).

[Nrmf]

i know this may make someone upset but i am curious i dig avi.net so much that i started using to make small small avi files for my new pocket pc but was curious is there a way to get a custom resolution say like 320x240 i know this was made for stand alones but man is this thing fast when it comes to making a avi for pocket pc. thank you

[iNFO-DVD]

Latest avi.NET, tweaked code, scripts and stuff.

avi.NET RC1 (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__files/avi.NET_2185_RC1.zip)

[iNFO-DVD]

resolution say like 320x240 for pocket pc. thank youI'll see if I can come up with something in the next few days, I start University Monday so I'm running out of time......... :scared:

[weaver4]

I'll see if I can come up with something in the next few days, I start University Monday so I'm running out of time......... :scared:

Good luck in college!

Don't forget to include saving the settings for single-pass encoding in your next build.

[Nrmf]

thank you and good luck:)

[iNFO-DVD]

small avi files for my new pocket pc but was curious is there a way to get a custom resolution say like 320x240How about something like this?

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/mobile.png

[Nrmf]

my honest thoughts i like it but the closer to 320x240 the better the picture looks on pocket pc device in the version before your RC1 i was able to get a 352x240 and it looked sweet with new RC1 version i can only get 480x240, with resolution at anything under 200 the picture would look blocky. i can test new versio for you if you like. but i do like the new title mobile.net this thing is to good thank you for your time and time and more time

[iNFO-DVD]

Yes well it would be 320x240 for something that is fullscreen. The above picture is for a widescreen movie. I can't force everthing to 320x240, would look well weird.

I have a smarphone which is QVGA 320x240 and they look fine. Want me to uploaded a BETA? I use TCMP and watch them fullscreen in landscape mode.

[Nrmf]

yes upload please i too use tcmp. its the only way to go with avi.net files....wooooooohoooooooooooo posted it and i will try

thank you

[iNFO-DVD]

It's obviously a stripped down version of avi.NET and it's only the first release so some stuff from avi.NET only code may still be lying around.

IMPORTANT: Must have the avi.NET RC1 installed and this file MUST be extracted in avi.NET installation folder. Then you can just run it direct or make shortcut.

mobile.NET BETA 1 - Download >> HERE (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__files/mobile.NET.zip) <<

[Nrmf]

link isnt working

[iNFO-DVD]

Link was only down for 20 seconds. Try again.

[Nrmf]

ok running it now along side with avi.net both apps making a file for me

[iNFO-DVD]

At the same time? That may not be good.

[DaltonX22]

Hello INFO-DVD,

I have followed the discussions and the work you did about comptest integration into Avi.net. You did a heavy work and I filled you were interrested by the challenge and the wish to satisfy the user of avi.net.

I don't think you have had time to think to one of my previous demand concerning the possibility to select manually the start and the end of the movie we want to encode.

Can you please keep one place to my demand for you next upgrade.

I don't think it will come soon as you will soon start the University.

I wish you good luck at University.

[audioman]

+ 1 :)

[iNFO-DVD]

I thought it may be a good idea to have a sort of program that would run a load of 'indexing' jobs. So if you wanted to do two or three jobs in avi.NET rather than wait for the indexing one at a time how about a program that will load whatever files you want in and index them all in one go. It doesn't just have to be used for avi.NET you could use it for any movies you need indexing. You could load a bunch of movies in and just leave it to do it's thing then load them into avi.NET when finished so you don't have to wait for the indexing in avi.NET.

Have a test and let me know if it works OK. The way it indexes is compatible with avi.NET.

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__img/_forum/index.png

index.NET BETA 1 - Download >> HERE << [LINK REMOVED! iNFO-DVD]

Put in avi.NET installation folder.

[Sharktooth]

iNFO-DVD is on fire...

[Jacquers]

Yeah, lots of nice new stuff lately. Thx!

Just a thought: the other day I accidently forgot to uncheck the "remove temp" option (I was comparing different encode settings on the same clip) and got an error because the temp files were gone. Wouldnt it be possible in such a case to let avi.NET create the .temp if it wasnt found?

It could open up other possibilities: If we had a profiles for avi.NET (e.g. encode to quant x / encode to xx MB), it would be possible to load a movie (just the filename) without doing the preview, load a profile and save the job. Then when avi.NET does the encoding it would see that the .temp is missing and go through the whole indexing routine. (Of course there is the risk that the movie and profile are incompatible, but thats up to the end user to select the right profile.)

[iNFO-DVD]

I think that's it for the moment need to get a new version out so am going to post avi.NET RC2. If no bugs or anything are found in next day or two it will be released as normal.

This RC2 of avi.NET also includes index.NET RC1 and mobile.NET RC1.

Unzip, run self-exe archive and point to avi.NET installation folder (v2.1.8.4).

Download >> HERE (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/__files/avi.NET-RC2.zip) <<

Thanks to everyone who tested and tried this stuff.

[weaver4]

Can someone give me a brief tutorial on what the new options are on the settings tab for RC2? What effect will they have on filesize and quality and such?

Thanks,

[audioman]

Yes a tutorial is welcomed
I get myself lost with all the options

[iNFO-DVD]

Can someone give me a brief tutorial on what the new options are on the settings tab for RC2?
Yes a tutorial is welcomed
I get myself lost with all the optionsC'mon lads, you've taken part in this thread, I thought you'd know about the new options as much as anyone. :D

There's two little new options, the sharp/smooth filter option, that should be obvious, it slightly sharps or smoothes the picture. The only other things is the comptest, 'Advanced Analysis'.

'Advanced Analysis' when enabled, will run the comptest and use more advanced settings and CQM's for XviD.

[ricardo.santos]

All tests done in "2 pass mode"

My impressions so far with RC2:

1- encoding times are "up" on a 90min movie between 15 and 18min without comptest, when using comptest i didnt encode a full dvd but on a 5 minute clip it took more 4 minutes than it takes without comptest enabled.

2- when using bitrates around 1200/1300 it tells me that pictutre quality is extremely low, quality will be impaired.

3- havent tryed mobile.Net and index.Net but on paper index.Net seems like a nice addition.

4- at the bitrates i usually use to me the output without enabling CP looks better.

5- since RC1 when i try to play videos that werent encoded with matrices in WMP the picture freezes, plays for a split second and then freezes again and so on(stutter), VLC plays it fine.

[weaver4]

C'mon lads, you've taken part in this thread, I thought you'd know about the new options as much as anyone. :D

There's two little new options, the sharp/smooth filter option, that should be obvious, it slightly sharps or smoothes the picture. The only other things is the comptest, 'Advanced Analysis'.

'Advanced Analysis' when enabled, will run the comptest and use more advanced settings and CQM's for XviD.

The reason that I ask is that AutoGK changed the Matrix they were using and for single-pass encodes the file sizes went up significantly. So I wanted to know if any of the changes that you made would have this impact.

[iNFO-DVD]

No matrices are used in single pass mode.

[iNFO-DVD]

1- encoding times are "up" on a 90min movie between 15 and 18min without comptestCan't understand why that happens, without comptest, everything is as it were with v2.1.8.4.

when using comptest i didnt encode a full dvd but on a 5 minute clip it took more 4 minutes than it takes without comptest enabled.Yes, encodes will take longer due to more time consuming settings.

2- when using bitrates around 1200/1300 it tells me that pictutre quality is extremely low, quality will be impaired.Yes that could be perfectly normal, all depends on source, you may use 900 bitrate on something and it will say it's too high.

4- at the bitrates i usually use to me the output without enabling CP looks better.Don't know why, you're the only one I've heard off that seems to say this. What version of XviD are you using?

5- since RC1 when i try to play videos that werent encoded with matrices in WMP the picture freezes, plays for a split second and then freezes again and so on(stutter), VLC plays it fine.Again, see answer to number 1.

[ricardo.santos]

Yes that could be perfectly normal, all depends on source, you may use 900 bitrate on something and it will say it's too high.


yes, i´m aware of that, but for this source 640.275 its enough its actually more than needed. i mainly convert episodivs dvds, stargate, galatica, the office uk, red dwarf uk.

Im using XviD-1.1.0-30122005 _Final Release_

[tyee]

Just found avi.NET and installed it and all the required files -AVISynth v2.56a, VobSub v2.23, XviD v1.1.0 using the support package. I installed ver. 2 of the .net framework (maybe this is my problem.)

After 2 encodes my resultant .avi file is tiny. Here is the result of encoding a 1GB .vob I had on my HD --


RIFFlD AVI LISTJ hdrlavih8 ì¢
€ ` LIST‚ strlstrh8 vidsdivx é À]
¸ ÿÿÿÿ €`strf( ( € ` DX50 P
strn Video LISTl strlstrh8 auds ÀÚ . ' ÿÿÿÿ strf €» ÀÚ strn Audio LIST odmldmlhô
LIST INFOISFT avi.NET v2.1.8.4 JUNKt LISTt; movi01wb wÑ|@áÜAË€~Aþ²ÿ‡‡ððþ€îø *¯>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏž„êûþu|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ûÿ�_>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>ÿçWÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùóçÏ¿ùÅSçÏ‹>|ùóçÏœ@yÁóçÏk¾|ùóçÏŸ<àùóÕÐß>|ò—ÏŸ4ÕÁóïþuyÁóçÏ‹>|ùó¥OŸ>|ùóçÏŸ>|ùÓçÏŸ>|ÙóçÏ�|ÙSçÏŸ|ûÿ�rŸ
D‰$H’
óm¶Ûm¶ÛÇ�;»»»»»»»»¼xñãÇ�¶ÛçÍkZÖµ*kZÖµ*kZ
óm¶Ûm¶ÛÇ�ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÞ<xñãÆÛmóæµ*kZÖµ*kZÖµ* ù¶Ûm¶ÛmãÇ�ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÞ<xñãvÛmóæµ*kZÖµ*kZÖµ* ø+m¶Ûl
¶ñãÇwwwwww ï xñãÇ�¶ß<kZÚÖÖµ¯Æ?kZÖ¼kZ


The above continued. I had to cut it off because it's over the message size limit in this forum.

This file is 17 KBytes. Anyone got a clue to what's wrong?

I can't copy and paste the log into this message but it all looks like no errors occurred!!

tyee

PS Here's my log --

avi.NET v2.1.8.4
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz (2798MHz)

IN : E:\VTS_03_1.VOB
OUT: E:\VTS_03_1.avi

ORIGINAL MPEG FILE
MPEG TYPE : 2
RESOLUTION : 720x480
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
FIELD ORDER : TFF

CONVERTED AVI FILE
RESOLUTION : 640x352
DURATION : 0:32:00
FPS : 23.976
CODEC : XVID
PASSES : 1
METHOD : QUALITY BASED
QUANT : 2.5
AUDIO : AC3
SUBTITLES : NONE

SELECTED OPTIONS
DE-INTERLACE: NO
DE-GRAINED : NO
BRIGHTER : NO
HIGHER CROP : NO

TIME TAKEN [AUDIO]: N/A
TIME TAKEN [VIDEO]: 00:23:44
ENCODE RATE 1/1 : 21 FPS

TIME TAKEN [TOTAL]: 00:23:45


Update -- Seems the vob file I used didn't have an audio track! I guess avi.NET must have audio to mux or things go wrong?? Anyway tried it again with an ac3 .vob and it worked fine, except I clicked use XVID and the output file is DIVX! I'm not sure why??

[iNFO-DVD]

Update -- Seems the vob file I used didn't have an audio track! I guess avi.NET must have audio to mux or things go wrong??No, avi.NET will work fine without audio. The thing is, it thinks there's audio in there which means DGIndex extracted an AC3 track from the VOB. Looking at your file: 'E:\VTS_03_1.VOB' makes me think it may be because you ripped in file mode? If so, strange things can happen, for conversion you need to ideally rip the PGC.

except I clicked use XVID and the output file is DIVX! I'm not sure why??Because it's not, believe me, it's XVID. Answered in an earlier post.

[iNFO-DVD]

yes, i´m aware of that, but for this source 640.275 its enough its actually more than needed. i mainly convert episodivs dvds, stargate, galatica, the office uk, red dwarf uk. Im usingYou mean 272. If it's very difficult to compress the bitrate may NOT be all that's needed.

[tyee]

OK. Sounds good to me but then how do I get rid of the DIVX logo in the bottom right corner?

tyee

[ricardo.santos]

You mean 272.

yes.

Honestly, im getting confused with all this CP ON/OFF, i usually use a bitrate between 1200/1300 and picutr looks brilliant, when i enabled CP it displayed that message.

"All i know" is that since i started to test CP on avi.Net im looking at Xvid in a different(better) way :)

[iNFO-DVD]

Honestly, im getting confused with all this CP ON/OFFThere's really no need. It is simple. If 'Advanced Analysis' is NOT selected then everything is as it were in earlier versions of avi.NET. If 'Advanced Analysis' is selected, then a comptest is performed and the proceeding encode (2 pass) will use more intense/higher/slower codec settings.

i usually use a bitrate between 1200/1300 and picutr looks brilliantThen that is all that matters. One word concerning bitrate, saying a certain bitrate is good is only relevant to a particular source. It's impossible to say 1200 bitrate is always good. 1200 may be excellent for 640x272 but could well be very poor for a 4:3 encode. On top of all that, different sources compress differently, hence the comptest. If it gives you a too low warning then I'd believe it and increase the size, or lower the resolution.

"All i know" is that since i started to test CP on avi.Net im looking at Xvid in a different(better) way :)Yes there's not much I can do with the DivX codec when it comes to changing options when compared to XviD. XviD allows me to use CQM's and a mass of options.

[Sharktooth]

OK. Sounds good to me but then how do I get rid of the DIVX logo in the bottom right corner?

tyee
Disable it in the divx decoder.

[tyee]

Sharktooth
Yes. thanks. I did disable it in the divx decoder. I also changed the 4cc code to xvid and that worked too.

tyee

[weaver4]

I just got 2.2.0.0. I noticed in the documentation that a good compressibility value should be between 50% and 60% for ideal. But where do you see these values? I see a QF factor and AR factor but nothing called a compressibility value.

[edit] I see that you have to run the encoding to get the values. I thought the test was done after the indexing but before you started to encode.

[Nrmf]

Does Mobile.Net make the audio into a mp3 as 1 channel or i this a bug i can use the file in avi.net as 2 channel mp3 but mobile tells me 1 channel.

[iNFO-DVD]

Does Mobile.Net make the audio into a mp3 as 1 channel or i this a bug i can use the file in avi.net as 2 channel mp3 but mobile tells me 1 channel.Yes, 1 channel, smartphones and PPC's are mono usually. If you think I should add this as an option, and why, then I will.

[Nrmf]

no you dont have to add i just thought for some reason ppc was stereo, no sense in working on that when you have class in front of you.........wooooooooooooohooooooooooo

[weaver4]

Avi.net does Rock, I use it all the time.

If one of your friends gave you a "legal" DVD to copy they might say: "Can you copy this onto one single CD" or "Can you copy this , I want a very good copy, I don't really care about size". They would not say "Can you copy this using a compressibility factor or 55%"

I would like a program (in the future) that you:
-> Select the source.
-> Select the size of the result, if you selected "Don't Care" it
-> Gives you a choice of the quality that you want: Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent.
-> Set audio quality: good, very good, original.
-> Then you hit go.

The program would then decode run a compressibility test and then determine how to meet your criteria; and then do it automatically.

Some programs are close, avi.net and autogk to be sure, but they are not there yet. They require the user to know quantizers, quality factors, bits/second, compressibility factors and such. Not very Grandmother friendly; but avi.net is the closest.

[Jacquers]

index.NET is proving to be really useful... now if it could also add the jobs to avi.NET that would really be a timesaver. Maybe it would be possible to add jobs to avi.NET's job queue that use single pass q-based, turning avi.NET into a batch converter?

[Nrmf]

will avinet use the new divx codec that was just released.

[Nrmf]

dosent look like it will i get an error message. look slike i have to go back a divx version.

[Nrmf]

just rebuilt my system and now i get errors when trying to bring a dvd rip into the latest version, is there a error log someone i can post for help

[Nrmf]

ok seems after i did i fresh install of win xp pro 64 the latest version wont run on my pc i nned to find a place to download the version before 2.0 so if anyone has a linkplease let me know.

[Nrmf]

get nothing but errors now with latest version install on reformated system used to work on xp 64 not anymore so i wonder if an older version needs to be installed then the latest or its a codec problem anyone alive in this thread

[Warrex]

Hi,

just decided to give Avi.net another try (great work on including Vobsub, index.net). I realize that it is meant to be a one click tool but nevertheless here are my 2 cents about it (just ignore me if the things have been posted before but add me to the list of people asking for them):

1. It's good to know that Avi.net produces Home Theatre compatible output. Not being able to tweak codec settings is annoying nevertheless. Advanced Analysis does not help much in this respect. Probably even some newbies would like to test new DivX features...

2. It would be cool if one could disable autocroping (e.g. cropping at all). I would have less (no) issues with subtitles then (e.g. overlapping with english subtiles that were burnt into the video stream of the original DVD).

3. I'd really like to use my own deinterlacer/sharpener/smoother This shouldn't be difficult to include. Renaming "Decomb Deinterlacing Filter" to "Deinterlacing Filter" and adding a config file to the avi.net directory should do. No newbie would ever see that but more advanced users could use their prefered filters of these catagories (like TDeint).

[MarkCurly]

...Not being able to tweak codec settings is annoying nevertheless...It would be cool if one could disable autocroping...I'd really like to use my own deinterlacer/sharpener/smoother.
Have you tried StaxRip?

It does not provide any automated suggestion for deinterlacing, but aside from that does everything you suggest (and everything I need). It is very configurable.

[Warrex]

Have you tried StaxRip?

:) That's what I have been using since its early stages when I needed a replacement for Gordian Knot (NOT Auto Gordian Knot). Right now I am trying to keep it up to date but DivX 6.4 does not work correctly anymore and StaxRips developer has not shown up for quite some time.

For my needs DrDivx 2.0., Mpegmediator, Auto Gordian Knot and MeGui are pretty useless. It's especially sad that DrDivx 2.0 is so limited feature wise. I still hope that there will be more pro user oriented tools which are still easy to use.

I'd love to see a tool with the things that make StaxRip so great like:


Customizability (manual integration of avisynth filters, etc.)
Possibilities for user predefined automation (like through StaxRips template projects, batch processing, etc.)
Possibility to cut and crop the video via a GUI (very important for my VCR captures)
Possibility to integrate newer versions of tools (I can see for myself if they still work)


However I think there has been room for improvement in StaxRip:


More streamlined interface: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=813174#post813174
Concerning batch processing (especially adding while encoding): http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=816232#post816232
Better integration of Vobsub (well like in Avi.net :) )

One click tools are great but I guess many Doom9.net readers just need more features especially when using Avisynth/VirtualdubMod manually is not an option (too time consuming).

I as already said, I know that Avi.net is a one click tool and that's fine. Still it currently has the most potential to satisfy my (basic) needs. That's why I was proposing those rather mild changes.

[Nrmf]

man i need some bad help, cant get avi.net to work worth anything

[iNFO-DVD]

with latest version install on reformated system used to work on xp 64 not anymore so i wonder if an older version needs to be installed then the latest or its a codec problem anyone alive in this threadI'm amazed it ever did work.....

avi.NET is NOT for XP64.

[weaver4]

INFO-DVD: How is college?

[Nrmf]

yes it used to work but how on earth do i fix the error message i am getting. send help please. what am i overlooking

[Nrmf]

2.1.70 is the only old version i have and it runs fine....what do i need to fix version 2

[Nrmf]

ok i have discovered this when i use index.net on a pc at my office and then got o to mobile.net i dont get any seeks or fast forward options on my ipaq hand held. sure could use some help with my error message from previous post.

[Nrmf]

well dont know what i did but yes it does run in winxp pro 64 and in win vista 32 and 64 versions i get the plugin error but after installing files it works and works well i might add.

[salman1]

i want to make 1400 or 2 cd but when press start it's say GO BACK AND CLIck return what that mean?

i want to use Lanzos for resize for xvid could u do that also like i want to add filter by myself can u also do that and can this encode avs script to avi. i am sorry i don't speak much english

thx a lot

also provide me latest version by direct download plz this what i m using now

http://maxupload.com/img/6FC3682F.jpg