HCenc 024

[hank315]

Update 10-sep-2010
For the final HC024: http://hank315.nl

----------------------------------------------------

A beta of HCenc 024 can be downloaded here (http://www.mediafire.com/?vzbmydxgv4k)

For now it's the encoder only so you have to edit the hc.ini file manually.
New features:

*1PASS
This command enables 1 pass VBR encoding.
1 pass can be used for clips > 1000 frames, smaller clips are done using 2 pass.

*CHROMAFORMAT 420
*CHROMAFORMAT 422
Output can be 420 (default) or 422 color space,
for 422 color space YUY2 input is required, for 420 input can be YV12 or YUY2

*INTRAVLC 0
*INTRAVLC 1
Chooses the VLC table for intra blocks: 0 = table14, 1 = table15. (non-intra blocks are always table14)
Default is *INTRAVLC 0.
In general *INTRAVLC 0 is better for low bitrates, *INTRAVLC 1 for high bitrates.


Notes:
- The 1 pass is really *very* beta.
- HCenc now accepts YUY2 input, for 420 output the chroma is sub-sampled progressively, in the final release it can also be done interlaced.
- Some bugs are solved, probably some new introduced...

Many thanks to manolito and Darksoul71 for the 1 pass code discussion/testing :)

[Video Dude]

:thanks:

One pass and YUY2 input are great new features.

[Adub]

Yes, indeed. Thanks a lot for your hard work there Hank!

[MrC]

Thanks for this new beta. As I said you during my preliminary testing some weeks ago, 1-pass VBR is really impressive: accurate and high quality. My only concern was the "small" predictive routine timings: faster than a standard 1st pass but slower than a 10% OPV (constant quantization).

Another question: when you say In general *INTRAVLC 0 is better for low bitrates, *INTRAVLC 1 for high bitrates what is the limit between high and low bitrates? I mean, high bitrates for DVD-MPEG2 could be considered low bitrates for BD-MPEG2...

Thanks again for your hard and great work.

;)

Bye

[manolito]

Also thanks very much for this version. This one-pass mode is so good, I have already abandoned 2-pass VBR altogether...:)

The only issues I found are the same as in the older beta: A slight stability issue when exiting the encoder during the second stage of the sampling phase (sometimes HC just freezes), and the command line parameters "-1pass" and "-2pass" are not implemented yet.

My only concern was the "small" predictive routine timings: faster than a standard 1st pass but slower than a 10% OPV (constant quantization).

I cannot confirm these findings on my machine (single core CPU). My last encode was a 2 hour movie. Sampling took a little under 12 minutes, and the actual encode took 8 hours and 10 minutes. This translates to about 2.5% for the sampling phase which is excellent in my book. Remember that for the normal prediction phase you need at least 4 to 5 sample passes to get a useable result.

I did notice a slight speed difference between the two beta versions. Generally the older beta was a little faster than the current one. Not only during the sample phase, the main difference was during the actual encode where the current beta was about 10% slower than the older one.

A happy new year to everyone,

Cheers
manolito

[blutach]

Thanks Hank and Happy New Year!

Regards

[Dark Shikari]

Here's a feature suggestion: make an "auto" intraVLC option (like direct auto in x264) that simply tries both during the first pass and then chooses the best for the second.

If that costs too much speed, just take a random sampling of intra blocks (maybe 1% of them) during the first pass to try both on.

[MrC]

These were my testings in early december, comparing current AVStoDVD 1-pass OPV routine (5% CQ prediction) with new HCenc 1-pass VBR (CPU used is a good old fashioned AMD Athlon XP 1800+):

Sample 1 (short time and bad quality clip):
Video: E:\Movies\Test\video.flv
Info: Sorenson H263 - 328 kbps - 320x152 - DAR 2.105 - 24 fps - - 2:29 minutes - 3585 frames

*MAXBITRATE 9000
*BITRATE 4199
*1PASS
*PROFILE BEST
*ASPECT 16:9
*PROGRESSIVE
*BIAS 40
*DC_PREC 9
*MATRIX MPEG
*AQ 1
*LUMGAIN 0


OPV oversize: +31%
OPV tot encoding time: 242 s
VBR oversize: +17%
VBR tot encoding time: 243 s

Sample 2 (medium time and good quality clip):
Video: E:\Movies\video.avi
Info: XviD - 2000 kbps - 720x576 - DAR 1.25 - 25 fps - PPF - 12:11 minutes - 18283 frames

*MAXBITRATE 9000
*BITRATE 4398
*1PASS
*PROFILE BEST
*ASPECT 4:3
*PROGRESSIVE
*BIAS 40
*DC_PREC 9
*MATRIX MPEG
*AQ 1
*LUMGAIN 0


OPV downsize: -4%
OPV tot encoding time: 1427 s
VBR downsize: 0% :eek::cool:
VBR tot encoding time: 1800 s

Surely encoding time depends from a lot of factors (source clip type, CQ prediction passes number, etc.), but I was surprised that new HCenc sampling pass has been a little "long" in sample #2.

I have to admit that I did not make any further tests with more recent betas. I will do.

BTW, I repeat, 1-pass is really impressive for both quality and size accuracy. When hank will be confident enough about it, I will surely adopt it into AVStoDVD.

;)

Bye

[hank315]

My only concern was the "small" predictive routine timings: faster than a standard 1st pass but slower than a 10% OPV (constant quantization).
The prediction stage isn't multi-threaded ATM, in the final release it will be multi-threaded so higher speeds can be expected.

The only issues I found are the same as in the older beta: A slight stability issue when exiting the encoder during the second stage of the sampling phase (sometimes HC just freezes), and the command line parameters "-1pass" and "-2pass" are not implemented yet.
ATM the whole 1pass VBR prediction is only one thread with minimal error handling, still beta :)
Command Line parameters -1pass and -2pass are implemented but I never tested it...

Here's a feature suggestion: make an "auto" intraVLC option (like direct auto in x264) that simply tries both during the first pass and then chooses the best for the second.

If that costs too much speed, just take a random sampling of intra blocks (maybe 1% of them) during the first pass to try both on.
I also think it's needed to do both because there's no way to predict which VLC is optimal, a complete frame has to be done twice to see which table produces the smallest code.
But probably it's better to do it in the final pass only because the optimum highly depends on the fill rate (runs/levels) of the intra 8x8 blocks.
The first pass is always done with Q=4, Q in the last pass depends on chosen bitrate etc. so there can be a large difference in the nr of runs for pass1 vs pass2.


For those interested, some technical info:
MPEG2 has 2 options for VLC (Variable Length Coding) of intra blocks, it can use 2 tables for coding the DCT coefficients
If the fill rate per block is high, VLC using table15 is more efficient but the overhead is larger because the EOB (EndOfBlock) code is 4 bits for table15 and only 2 bits for table14.
An optimal encode can be done because the VLC table can be changed every frame, it's marked by a flag in the picture extension header.

[Dark Shikari]

I also think it's needed to do both because there's no way to predict which VLC is optimal, a complete frame has to be done twice to see which table produces the smallest code.
But probably it's better to do it in the final pass only because the optimum highly depends on the fill rate (runs/levels) of the intra 8x8 blocks.
The first pass is always done with Q=4, Q in the last pass depends on chosen bitrate etc. so there can be a large difference in the nr of runs for pass1 vs pass2.Then fix your first pass to be target-bitrate as well. It should give ratecontrol benefits in the second pass to have a first pass relatively near the bitrate of the second pass anyways, especially for lower bitrate encodes.For those interested, some technical info:
MPEG2 has 2 options for VLC (Variable Length Coding) of intra blocks, it can use 2 tables for coding the DCT coefficients
If the fill rate per block is high, VLC using table15 is more efficient but the overhead is larger because the EOB (EndOfBlock) code is 4 bits for table15 and only 2 bits for table14.
An optimal encode can be done because the VLC table can be changed every frame, it's marked by a flag in the picture extension header.In which case this really is exactly like --direct auto in x264, as direct mode is a flag that can be changed per-frame as well.

You could borrow x264's method of doing it in 1pass--simply keep a moving average of the mode scores and pick whatever one has been best in recent frames. For intra VLC, this should be even more accurate than for direct auto in x264.

[Smetvid]

WOW! thanks a lot for the 4:2:2 encoding. I used to use Main Concept for 4:2:2 material for editing masters and recently I started using FFMPEG but that was kind of a pain. For me HCenc has been an awesome encoder but I was always missing the option of encoding 4:2:2 material. I encode a lot of 150 mbit 4:2:2 I frame only material for HD editing systems.

I will try it out this weekend but I'm sure HCenc will now be able to do everything I ever wanted in a encoder.

[Chumbo]

I tested the issue reported in the HCEnc 023 thread and it still crashes. The issue I'm referring to is referenced here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1228612#post1228612), here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1228941#post1228941) and here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1229102#post1229102).

[Trahald]

@Chumbo
You cant delete them since people have replied to it so there would be a confusing gap. You should edit your post above to only have the links to the original posts. not full quotes.

[Gromozeka]

hank315
Its the great coder :thanks:
May be you add trellis quantization and GOP>36?

[Chumbo]

@Chumbo
You cant delete them since people have replied to it so there would be a confusing gap. You should edit your post above to only have the links to the original posts. not full quotes.
Thank you. I updated the post above.

[manolito]

Command Line parameters -1pass and -2pass are implemented but I never tested it...
Just retested both beta versions I have - these command line parameters are ignored...

Cheers
manolito

[hank315]

@manolito
OK, will check it out, will be fixed in the final 024 release.
Thanks for the report...

[fjhdavid]

Dear Hank, (I already post this message in the HC encoder thread, but I think it is better here)

as you maybe read in the DVD-RB forum, I found that DVD-RB with HC-encoder scaled better with dualcore than with quadcore (my dualcore is around 20% speeder than my quadcore, both having same frequency and I am using multiple encoder (2) and (4) setting in DVD-RB)

is it possible to improve HC encoder in this way? (but maybe it is inherent to the processor architecture)?

[Fishman0919]

Dear Hank, (I already post this message in the HC encoder thread, but I think it is better here)

as you maybe read in the DVD-RB forum, I found that DVD-RB with HC-encoder scaled better with dualcore than with quadcore (my dualcore is around 20% speeder than my quadcore, both having same frequency and I am using multiple encoder (2) and (4) setting in DVD-RB)

is it possible to improve HC encoder in this way? (but maybe it is inherent to the processor architecture)?


My quadcore is much faster then my dualcore with HC and DVD-RB.

My AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ 2.8GHz dualcore takes about 50-55 mins to encode The Hulk DVD Full disc.

My AMD Phenom 9950 BLACK EDITION 2.6GHz takes about 30 min's.

[fjhdavid]

my laptop is an intel dual core2 duo 2.1Ghz (45nm) and typical speed with my script is : 11fps (multiple encoder(2))
my PC is an intel quad core2 duo 2.5Ghz (45nm) and typical speed with my script is : 8.5fps (multiple encoder(4))

as you can see and if you take into account speed processor, it is nearly 35% less for my quadcore !

and if I use only 2 core with my quad, I still have 8.5fps !

and seems that my quad is waiting something ...both computers are under window Vista and have 4GB RAM with big hardrive and no other software like antispy...

I use also "lossless file" and "best" settings for HC encoder 0.23

PS: I tested HC encoder 0.24 beta and it is the same results and problem

[hank315]

my PC is an intel quad core2 duo 2.5Ghz (45nm) and typical speed with my script is : 8.5fps (multiple encoder(4))
That must be a *very* slow script...
My PC is an Intel quad core (Q9450 2.66 Ghz), typical encoding speed 200-250 fps using DVD-RB.

Please dump the *LOSSLESS parameter, using 4 instances of HCenc also means you have to maintain 4 very IO intensive operations which will slow down speed, especially using Vista.

[fjhdavid]

yes, I use fft3Dfilter for denoising and sharpen! (slow but as you know wonderful)

But, I did a re-encoding without the script and without the "lossless" and I have (PAL film 704x576):

125fps with my dual core
and 120fps with my quad (compare to your 200-250fps)!!! My quad is a Q9300.

as you see, there is a problem with my quad!

Hank, do you have any idea?

PS: with HC 0.24, the first 30 minutes of my black and white PAL movie was ok, but the end of the film was black and green.... (with HC 0.23, all the film is of course fine). Hope this will help.

[Fishman0919]

my laptop is an intel dual core2 duo 2.1Ghz (45nm) and typical speed with my script is : 11fps (multiple encoder(2))
my PC is an intel quad core2 duo 2.5Ghz (45nm) and typical speed with my script is : 8.5fps (multiple encoder(4))

as you can see and if you take into account speed processor, it is nearly 35% less for my quadcore !

and if I use only 2 core with my quad, I still have 8.5fps !

and seems that my quad is waiting something ...both computers are under window Vista and have 4GB RAM with big hardrive and no other software like antispy...

I use also "lossless file" and "best" settings for HC encoder 0.23

PS: I tested HC encoder 0.24 beta and it is the same results and problem

AMD 9950 OC'ed to 2.8ghz Redistributing (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/fishman0919/QuadcorePredict.jpg)
AMD 9950 OC'ed to 2.8ghz Encoding (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/fishman0919/QuadcoreEncode.jpg)

AMD 5400+ at 2.8ghz Redistributing (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/fishman0919/DualcorePre.jpg)
AMD 5400+ at 2.8ghz Encoding (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/fishman0919/Dualcoreencoding.jpg)

You must has something else going on for it to be that slow.

[halsboss]

But, I did a re-encoding without the script and without the "lossless" and I have (PAL film 704x576):

125fps with my dual core
and 120fps with my quad (compare to your 200-250fps)!!! My quad is a Q9300.


Wow!!!! I have a stock 4-core Q9450/4Gb/2Disk/nvidia8800GT (& Trend anti-virus) and still never ever get above about 60-80fps with xvid avi input and latest ffdshow codecs and setMTmode specifying 4 threads. I'd be happy with your speeds, let alone hank's or Fishman0919 which appear amazing to me.

Would it be possible to post a sample clip somewhere, your HC's .ini and .avs script so that I can try it out and compare ?

If there's a standard "test suite" and comparative timings for this somewhere then could someone please provide a link ?

Thanks.

[Chumbo]

@hank,
Just a few "wish list" items if you have time to add:
- create a path if it doesn't exist as in the case of the dbpath or lossless file when configured directly in the ini file
- when multiple encodes are going, it would be nice if HC recognizes the lossless file is there and seializes the next one or like you do with the db now. I know we don't want to run too many lossless operations due to the IO intensity, but in the case of two, it would be nice.

Thanks for your consideration.

[EDIT] On the 2nd bullet above, personally, I use two different physical drives, so I don't have that issue. I'm curious how it performs when there are two lossless files on a RAID system during the 2nd pass. I was curious, so I tested it on a single drive and even 2 bring processing to its knees.

[fjhdavid]

I think there is still something strange in the way that "multiple encoders process is handled" with quadcore.

let me explain:

I use hc encoder in "best" setting with "no lossless" parameters and I encoded a PAL 704x576 25fps film.
I disabled avisynth and filters

With a dualcore2 at 2.1ghz I have : 2x36fps = 72fps
With a quadcore2 at 2.5ghz I have : 4x25fps = 100 fps

but more important for Hank, with dualcore it is almost linear if I use one core or 2 cores (I played with the boot.ini of XP to choose one or two cores)

for the quadcore there is a bootleneck somewhere, as:

with two cores I have: 2x50fps = 100fps
with three cores I have: 3x33fps = 99fps
with four cores I have: 4x25fps = 100fps

where does it come? I have no others software installed

If I use avisynth, results in fps are lower of course but the bottleneck is almost identical with the quadcore. In this case quadcore is even slower than the dualcore!!!!
my two cents.

EDIT: the only difference is that my quadcore has "single channel" memory and the dualcore has "dual channel" memory, could it be the reason?

[Fishman0919]

the only difference is that my quadcore has "single channel" memory and the dualcore has "dual channel" memory, could it be the reason?

Again, look at my pic's.

My Dual core is encoding 2 instances of HC at about 45 fps. with ddr2 800 mem.

My Quadcore is encoding 4 instances at about 55 fps. with ddr2 1066 mem.

Both cpu are running at 2.8ghz.

Something is going on funny with your quadcore.

[halsboss]

I'd like to know what your avisynth scripts are actually doing - if they're "passthrough" I'd expect to be quicker than my resizing/resharpening script fps, however if they do similar things then I too will know my q9450 4-core is slower than it should be. What anti-virus do you run and is it configured to intercept/examine everything ?

[fjhdavid]

I do a bicubicresize (Mitchell-Netravali variant)
I do several color and luminosity tweaking

but 90% of the coomputational time is done with a filtering in the frequency domain (denoising and sharpening) with the fft3dfilter.

I use the same script with my dual and quad, and have the same antivirus on both. I did the test without the antivir, and results are identical.

As the speed is very slow in term of fps, I think there is no bottleneck with I/O.

[halsboss]

do you mind posting your actual script and a test clip ?

[fjhdavid]

here is my script:

-------------------------------------------------------
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\FFT3DFilter.dll")
Crop(0,72,0,-72)
ColorYUV(off_y=15)
ConvertToRGB(interlaced=true)
RGBAdjust(1,0.96,1,1,0,1,2,0,1,1,1,1)
BicubicResize(704,576)
ConvertToYV12()
ColorYUV(gain_y=15)
FFT3DFilter(sigma=3,bt=3,bw=32,bh=32,ow=16,oh=16,plane=3)
FFT3DFilter(sigma=1.5,bt=3,bw=32,bh=32,ow=16,oh=16,sharpen=0.7,plane=0)
---------------------------------------------------------

IMPORTANT:

you have to put the file : fftw3.dll in the \windows\system32 folder (it is a mathematic library you need in order to use fft3dfilter)

but the file is too big (381kb), I can send it to you by mail?


you have to put the file (attached file): FFT3DFilter.dll in the "plugins folder" of avisynth

---------------------------------------------------------

you can use any video clip, but mine is a PAL 704x576, so maybe the best will be for you to use a 704x480 (NTSC) but put BicubicResize(704,480)!

I choose HC encoder with BEST settings, GOP=auto and DC=10

------------------------------------------------------------

I use standard PAL clip but you can use the clip you want (even NTSC)

[halsboss]

eek, ive been told never resize an interlaced clip like that with a plain resize. all the other best settings in the world will not help with that. is it upsizing or downsizing ? i thnk you need to denoise before resizing too. sorry for the offtopic. i'm pal too.

[fjhdavid]

you are absolutly right, but:

my films are PAL film progressive (frame based and Y progressive) but interlaced coded for colors component only (U and V), so interlaced=true and the resize is ok in this case.

the denoising could be done before or after (usually you do it before to save computing time as you crop before and because it is spatially better), but in my case, denoise and sharpen are frequencies filtered and have to be done together at the end (for sharpen efficiency) and if I want to do only one FFT transforms....which is very math intensive....

but If I had a core i7 I would do it separatly: "before for denoising" and "after for sharpening" !

dowload the math library directly from here:

ftp://ftp.fftw.org/pub/fftw/fftw3win32mingw.zip

and you have to put the file : fftw3.dll in the \windows\system32 folder


tell me your results as soon as you can!

[halsboss]

I have those already. Post a 2-minute clip of your source so we can compare like for like, script and source and timings; doing otherwise is leaves too many variables, eg I'd never realistically compare your script to any of mine. Do you have the MT version of anyisynth installed ?

[stenews]

Hi to every gurus that are posting over this thread,
first off I have to said that I'm not so good as you in those kind of things, but I'm absolutely fascinated to learn about that.

I read how fjhdavid is using fft3Dfilter to encode with Hcenc.
What I'd like to know is if it's something to use with DVD-RB or with d2s too?
In case, cloud someone explain be better how to set-up those applications for that?
I'm already using all that but for AviSinth script and other things like that I need a step by step help.

Hope someone would help me in learning those procedures.
Bye,
Stefano. :p

[fjhdavid]

Halsboss, here is the link to my clip:

http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/82334/VTS-01-1-VOB.html


Stenews,

you can use avisynth filters with dvd-rb but in order to understand how to use it, I invite you to visit the avisynth.org site or doom9 forum. You will find "newbie" manual.

[stenews]

Thanks fjhdavid,
could you post me the doom's link where I can find those kind of explanations?
I'm not finding it at moment...

bye and thanks again!:)
Stefano.

[jeffy]

@fjhdavid: Did you try VirtualDub - File->Run video analysis pass? How fast is it? Maybe you are feeding the frames too slow :confused:

You might try MT("FFT3DFilter(sigma=3,bt=3,bw=32,bh=32,ow=16,oh=16,plane=3)",4)
MT("FFT3DFilter(sigma=1.5,bt=3,bw=32,bh=32,ow=16,oh=16,sharpen=0.7,plane=0)",4)

[fjhdavid]

yes I tested with MT. Same bottleneck.

I am waiting for halsboss and maybe you if you have time to do the test.

If you have the same fps I got, I think quad is scaling worse than dualcore (the reason could be the L2 cache which was designed for dualcore access...I read a very intresting article about that, and they say that the new core i7 has been built, him, with quadcore and cache acces in mind....).

But if you have better results, my system (or me) is faulty....

[Konrad Klar]

I think there is still something strange in the way that "multiple encoders process is handled" with quadcore.

let me explain:

I use hc encoder in "best" setting with "no lossless" parameters and I encoded a PAL 704x576 25fps film.
I disabled avisynth and filters

With a dualcore2 at 2.1ghz I have : 2x36fps = 72fps
With a quadcore2 at 2.5ghz I have : 4x25fps = 100 fps

but more important for Hank, with dualcore it is almost linear if I use one core or 2 cores (I played with the boot.ini of XP to choose one or two cores)

for the quadcore there is a bootleneck somewhere, as:

with two cores I have: 2x50fps = 100fps
with three cores I have: 3x33fps = 99fps
with four cores I have: 4x25fps = 100fps

where does it come? I have no others software installed

If I use avisynth, results in fps are lower of course but the bottleneck is almost identical with the quadcore. In this case quadcore is even slower than the dualcore!!!!
my two cents.

EDIT: the only difference is that my quadcore has "single channel" memory and the dualcore has "dual channel" memory, could it be the reason?

Maybe it is related to the fact that C2Quads have two seperate caches L2, one per each of pair of their cores and no L3 cache (for all cores).
So if some data are accessed/processed at the same time by cores from different pairs (with separate cache) that data cannot be cached at all and must be readed/written directly from/to RAM.

It would explain why Phenoms (and presumably Nehalems) are not affected by this issue (or less affected - L3 is slower than L2).

I don't know internals of HC's code, so I may be wrong on this.

[halsboss]

downloading the clip now. it's a vob.

Please post your full script including the source statement etc, and outline any pre-processing you do with versions (eg dgindex).
Also post your full HC.INI and full HC commandline and state which version of HC.

it may well not be HC.

wow Konrad likes frying chips and using half installed memory if he's an XP32'er !GA-EP35C-DS3R, Core2Quad Q6600 2400@3160MHz, 7.0GB/800 MHz DDR2, 2x500GB SATA RAID0, Radeon X1050 128MB, 22x DVD-RAM SATA :D

[Konrad Klar]

Konrad is 64'er :)

[halsboss]

Lucky devil. I'm not smart enough (read: too lazy) to get into that. And too cheap. Not enough of the progs I use are 64-bit - mainly avisynth and "legacy" related editors etc. Anyway, given the dribs of info supplied to date, I'm unconvinced in the interim it's HC.

[fjhdavid]

Halsboss,

I just enter the avisynth script, as it is and as I gave you, in the DVD-RB "Options" and "Filter editor".

I have no other software installed, or dgindex pre-proc. I use ONLY DVD-RB Pro 1.28 (with the dginex included) and avisynth 2.57 and FFT3Dfilter as I told you.

I use the .VOB clip I gave you as it is.

You will find attached my rebuilder.ini

Now, you have everything I have.
I use HC 0.23.

The explainations of Konrad about the Quad Cache is absolutly right, I read it already on technical forum and can explain why, under some circumstances, dualcore are faster than quadcore. About HC tweaking, I don't know but maybe it could be looked at by Hank.

[halsboss]

Ah, more dribs and drabs of info. DVD-RB, now, is it ?

Now, you have everything I have.No, in fact I don't.


LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\FFT3DFilter.dll")
Crop(0,72,0,-72)
ColorYUV(off_y=15)
ConvertToRGB(interlaced=true)
RGBAdjust(1,0.96,1,1,0,1,2,0,1,1,1,1)
BicubicResize(704,576)
ConvertToYV12()
ColorYUV(gain_y=15)
FFT3DFilter(sigma=3,bt=3,bw=32,bh=32,ow=16,oh=16,plane=3)
FFT3DFilter(sigma=1.5,bt=3,bw=32,bh=32,ow=16,oh=16,sharpen=0.7,plane=0)

I wondered why you had no source statement. I can't replicate yor setup (no DVD-DB) as I don't know anything about that application such as how it inserts the vob source in avisynth or what else it does. Maybe someone else can test it for you.

[tin3tin]

A nice HCenc feature would be to check before rendering, if there is enough free harddiskspace for the resulting file and throw a warning if there isn't. And maybe also a warning if there is too little RAM on the computer.

[mikenadia]

It seems that if in the avs file I enlarge too much (width above 1920: I know this is above specs !) , I have a windows XP error message (MPEG2 needs too close), I have an info message: HC.ini loaded; avisynth.dll loaded...

[hank315]

The maximum resolution HCenc can handle is 1920x1152, this is according to the first MPEG2 specification.
ATM the check for it in the GUI fails causing the crash, fixed now, thanks for the report.

[Chumbo]

I'd like to submit a feature request please. With titles like The Dark Knight and Transformers 2 released in a "hybrid" format, i.e., both IMAX and letterbox, I'm sure more titles will follow. The problem this presents, when encoding to DVD, is we can't really use one setting for the top/bottom for cropping on these titles without breaking every section up and encoding it separately.

I'm wondering if it's possible to add a similar section for cropping that is now available for Preview/Zones, for example. In this area we can add crop and shift info based on the frames. This would be a tremendous feature. Thank you for considering it.

[~Revolution~]

Is there a guide to describe the most beneficial "usage scenarios" for all of the built-in matrices in HCenc? Also if someone can point me to a guide about matrices and how they specifically work I would appreciate it :)