XviD-01082002-1

[Koepi]

Hi,

I got asked for it, so here it is:

XviD-01082002-1:
- EPZS(^2) motion estimation activated
- New curve treatment, finally in CVS (doesn't work with bframe packed bitstream!).
- New greyscale mode - good for unclean b/w content (also commited to CVS)

Please test it (it's educational, don't forget that. We need feedback to develop it.)

Find it using the XviD link in my signature.

Regards,
Koepi

[Marc FD]

It was very close to be Koepi's XviD 02082002 :D
Great work. Respect.
Hope gruel will soon get EPZS(^2) finalized.

BTW i'm still using your CVS source. could you please make a src CVS package too for guys who don't know how to use CVS (like me)

Just a suggestion. Thx.

EDIT : Your site is more readable now (yellow/red on black was too agressive :) )

[Neo Neko]

Yaaaaay! New version, new version! And the long fabled greyscale mode. Gonna be a whole lotta testing going on tonight.

[Koepi]

Nice that you like a new toy :)

Btw., just notice that I fixed the "broken" GUI once more, now there are no lines through the checkboxes anymore ;)

Regards,
Koepi

[ookzDVD]

@Koepi,

Thank you for your great job and builds ;)

If you don't mind, could you summarize the "generic profile" for
1 CD and 2 CD rip in this thread, especially for the I MinQ/MaxQ
and P MinP/MaxQ, I-frame boost %, and the latest 2 additional setting : below I-frame distance and I-frame bitrate reduction %.

Thank you.

[Koepi]

The defaults are fine :P

There are no generic profiles, and you know that. You have to adopt them to the source you're working with. _There is no magic setting_ , really, I assure you. And if it would, I wouldn't be so dumb and tells ya all! ;)

Seriously. tweak around yourself. learn how to use it. So many things you have to take care of, and I can't really give a helping hand as there's much which you can tweak. No generic things though.

Sorry.

Regards,
Koepi

[LoKi128]

I don't know if the grayscale mode will save any bits, but if it does, I guess it could be a cool option to have for the credits. After all, they are mostly white text on black anyway, and maybe you could even use it for the intro credits as well, to save some more bits... I guess.

Dunno, just some late night rambling :)

[cult]

movie:3:10 to yuma(1957-western,b&w)
motion search:6
quantization:mpeg
4cc:xvid
maximum i-interval:250
minimum:6
enabled greyscale
I quant:2-5
P quant:2-12
below i frame distance:30
bitrate reduction:30
payback with bias
alternative:
agression:medium,200,75,50
video size:591MB
audio size:121MB (ac3)
used temporalsofte2(2,5,7)before resize
unfilter(-20,20)
mv hints
simpleresize
divx3.11 compes test:38,8
divx4 comp test:23
resolution 672x352(after smart cropping)
The film looks great!
And I mean watching it from 20 cm distance from the monitor.
Ok,no perfect quality,but still great.
I had to increase alot the brightness of my monitor to see some pixels in some fast action scenes.But this level of brightness is not for watching movies.So I have to say:
Great work!
Thank u all and thank u koepi for compiling this binary after my request!

[rui]

Well, since the Greyscale thread is closed i thought of posting this here. And since this test was done with 01/08 Koepi's build, isn't of topic too ;)

I made a small test, using a colour trailer with 3570 frames. The first encode was done in quantizer mode, with quant 4, and greyscale off. I got a final avi with 28.844 KB.
The second test was done with the same exact settings, but with greyscale on. The final avi was 26.436 KB.

So, i got a reduction in size of about 9%. This correspondes to the values mentioned in the xvid.org thread.(this was a very clean source).

To my understanding, greyscale is delivering exactly what it said would do.

[sierrafoxtrot]

it's beautiful!! just encoded 12 angry men, and the annoying green hue is gone! sometimes i wish i could hug koepi ... :D

[tomy601k]

I did a test with America's Sweethearts. I set the size to 800 MB since I'm using XCD and I set the audio bitrate to 128 Kbit/s. Hence that the DVD is R2 PAL Which is 10-20% less quality than R1 NTSC DVD's. I choosed 640X272 for the resoultion and used this build of XVID. I didn't change much of the settings, almost the same as Doom9 suggested.

I already got the Vite's ripping for this movie so that I can compare it. Vite set the resolution to 576X256 and they used divx3.11 SBC.

Now, When I finished everything I choosed 3 of my friends for testing. I invited each one alone and showed both movies to them and asked them what they think. They all agreed that XVID version is much better (Note : they don't know about XVID and Divx), and one of them said that he can see more details on the faces and the colors are much brightful in the XVID version.

On overall I think that XVID now officially beat divx (not that it didn't beat divx before :) ) and I can understand why Vite group choosed to rip their movies now using XVID :D

Great Work Koepi, My regards to Foxer also :)

[Koepi]

Hehe, thanks for your thumbs up, it's nice to see that you like the latest additions.

Now I only need to get my hands on a matrix and SPR DVD to tweak around with the settings so doom9 can see that, too ;)

Regards,
Koepi

[rui]

Originally posted by tomy601k
I ..Hence that the DVD is R2 PAL Which is 10-20% less quality than R1 NTSC DVD's...

Why? because of the fps? (pal - 25; ntsc - 29,97). I thought that the ntsc frame rate was made that way because of the tv system over there, but it didn't meant better quality, sice the original picture was made at 24 fps (see last quote).

I got the following quote here: http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/interlace.htm


NTSC

The TV industry is dominated by two main standards for TV design: PAL and NTSC. NTSC is one of my pet hates basically because of it's rather low quality and use of weird framerates. NTSC stands for the National Television Systems Committee, it is the colour video standard used in North America, Canada, Mexico and Japan. Some engineers have said it should stand for Never Twice Same Color because no two NTSC pictures look alike :). Due to the electric system used in the US it was decided to scan the lines across the NTSC TV screen at about 60Hz (or 60 half frames per second) which produced 30 whole pictures every second. NTSC resolution is about one sixth less than that of PAL. This may not seem so bad, but divide a sheet of paper into six even parts and chop one off of the bottom and you will have a lot of detail lost. NTSC uses 525 horizontal lines of which only about 487 make up the active picture.

PAL

PAL stands for Phase Alternating Line, it is the TV standard used for Europe, Hong Kong and the Middle East. It was a new standard based on the old NTSC system but designed to correct the NTSC colour problems produced by phase errors in the transmission path. PAL resolution is 625 horizontal lines but only about 540 of these are used for the picture. PAL is higher quality than NTSC, it keeps a sharper picture and remains closer to the original format produced by motion picture cameras. Due to the European electric standards it was decided to interlace PAL lines every other line at 50Hz producing 25 whole frames every second.

Also this:


As I have already mentioned, a motion picture camera captures its images at 24 frames every second. Each frame is a full image. An NTSC television, however, must play 30 frames per second, and these frames must be interlaced into two fields both top and bottom! So basically what we are saying is we must play 60 half frames (or fields) every second. The only way we are going to be able to play a 24 fps motion picture on NTSC television is to change it from 24 fps to 30 fps and interlace these frames into two fields making 60 half frames per second. This transformation process is done with a machine called a Telecine. A Telecine machine does something called pulldown, which, in its simplest explanation, "pulls down" an extra frame every fourth frame to make five whole frames instead of four!

I am not trying to start anything here, just want to know if you are correct or not.

[tomy601k]

@rui


I am not trying to start anything here, just want to know if you are correct or not.

Yeah I know what you mean :)

Actually when I said that R1 NTSC DVD's are 10-20% better in quality than R2 PAL DVD's ... I was refering to my personal experience. I ripped many movies from both regions. Sometime the same movie. I noticed that the compressibility of NTSC DVD's are better than PAL in the range of 10-20%. In addition to that I can notice that NTSC DVD's are better quality than PAL DVD's when I watch them on my PC. It is only based on a personal experience and point of view.

By the way do you know what happened to Nicky? His articles and guides used to be one of the best.

[rui]

Well, if you say so, i believe you :)

It appears that Nicky got so busy that he ended the updates on his site :(
I too liked his guides a lot. I started in this xvid/divx "thing" there.

But you can have a look here:http://www.lukesvideo.com/
This guy has some very good guides too.

[Koepi]

I know a real good site with brilliant guides and all the stuff you need, too:

http://www.doom9.net/

*caugh* if you'd stop advertising for other sites as if "they are better" now it would be very kind.

Regards,
koepi

[Marc FD]

NTSC better than PAL ?? when it's not interlaced at least...
on the paper PAL is much better than NTSC.
but if a PAL DVD is masterised from NTSC, you'll off course have less quality. Maybe due to noise too. PAL could have less compressibility because it's too accurate, and gets more noise.
Have you tried to use very soft filtering settings ??

PS : you can't compare quality of 2 different sources encoded with the same settings. Have you tried to compare the DVDs directly ??

But all this is of course theorical and off-topic :D

EDIT : Warning : "Koepi is watching you" ;)

[rui]

Originally posted by Koepi
I know a real good site with brilliant guides and all the stuff you need, too:

http://www.doom9.net/

*caugh* if you'd stop advertising for other sites as if "they are better" now it would be very kind.

Regards,
koepi

Sorry. :(

I will strike myself from the forum for one entire day, as punishment.

[Koepi]

Hu? that wasn't my intention. It's just so that doom9 has many good guides ;)

Stay here, enjoy hangin' around! (I just did mention that linking to two different sites and stating they're sooo good might not be the best thing to do ;) )

Regards,
Koepi

[Razor04]

Great to see a new feature added. I will have to test this some later after work. I think that it would be cool though if you could activate Greyscale on the credits only like LoKi128 mentioned. I don't know if this would benefit them at all, but it can't make them worse.

[spyder]

The guides on Lukes' Video are much more capture related anyway so you really weren't in the wrong IMHO.

[bob0r]

Nice work Koepi ur added in http://base2091.com Multi Media Essentials

This install is for:
3ivx 3.5 (quicktime & media player)
AC3
DivX 3.11 Alpha
DivX 4.12
DivX 5.02 PRO
MP3 (320kbps) (+lame)
MP3 PRO
MPEG 4 v1 v2 v3
QuickTime 6.0
Sigma Designs MPEG-4
SmR
SVCD
Windows Media 8
XviD

-NEW Base 2091 codec pack v4.1:

XViD 01 augustus 2002 added



Base 2091 codec pack v4.0:

XViD 27 july 2002 added

.bs2 = rar

great work!

[grug2k]

Originally posted by tomy601k
In addition to that I can notice that NTSC DVD's are better quality than PAL DVD's when I watch them on my PC. It is only based on a personal experience and point of view.

Agreed, it all depends on your point of view, but I fail to see how you can find a PAL DVD with 20% more resolution than an NTSC DVD to look worse.

[soulfx]

DOH! :p

I just finished an encoding and then noticed the 01082002-1 build. Oh well, I've got plenty more encodes to do, just wanted to say nice work and all on everything.

Also, I second the idea of using greyscale mode in credit encoding (possibly the best way to cut down on credits would be to OCR them and then just have a blank video, soundtrack, and subs *but thats another thread)

--Edit: Well I was thinking... (this can be trouble sometimes) what's the difference between enabling greyscale mode in XviD and turning the Saturation down before it even hits XviD. Would there be a difference between the two methods of greyscaling a video? Possibly using the saturation adjustment one could set a trim value on the credits an AVS script and sat=0.0. I could run some tests I guess :)

Peace,
SoulFX

[Koepi]

Uh, and there we go:

XviD-03082002-1:
- Speed optimized
- New curve treatment, finally in CVS (doesn't work with bframe packed bitstream!).
- New greyscale mode - good for unclean b/w content (also commited to CVS)

EDIT: this build uses PMVfast as I wanted to check if there really are those errors which EPZS should have. BUT: PMVfast is inferiour, it tends to produce "blocky" output very early, EPZS is way better in this arena.

I'll upload a new build soon.

Mates, you're all over-estimating b/w mode as it just cuts off 5-10% of bitrate. I'll try to hack that in later, but it sounds like you're expecting wonders which this code _can't_ fullfill! XviD is extreme advance compression technology, the drop in bitrate used isn't that remarkable.

Best regards,
Koepi

[manono]

Hi-

...but I fail to see how you can find a PAL DVD with 20% more resolution than an NTSC DVD to look worse.

I don't understand. Where's the 20% more resolution come from? Do you mean the 25fps vs the 30fps? But that's not correct, as NTSC movies are stored on the DVD at 24fps.

[DeXT]

PAL DVD resolution: 720x576
NTSC DVD resolution: 720x480

It seems to me that PAL has a 20% higher resolution isn't it? ;)

[soulfx]

Sometime the same movie.
PAL and NTSC are not released under the same transfer process. Each can undergo a different low-pass, EE, and other "enhancements". As it seems sometimes NTSC films get released later then PAL (which can be very anoying *cough* Futurama S01 *cough*) it might be NTSC gets more processing and attention then PAL (the "first realease").

I noticed that the compressibility of NTSC DVD's are better than PAL in the range of 10-20%.
This might have to do with PAL's higher resolution (PAL's have about 10-20% more info, thus will not compress as easily as NTSC). Also could attribute to different transfer processing.

In addition to that I can notice that NTSC DVD's are better quality than PAL DVD's when I watch them on my PC.
The EE used in the transfer process might differ between PAL and NTSC. This will result in a higher precieved quality.

What we have here is a comparison between "quality" (lol, Zen and the Art of ... err, never mind) and hard mathmatical data.

PAL resolution > NTSC = true
PAL quality (aka perceived detail) > NTSC = maybe, maybe not (transfer process, EE)
PAL compressibilty > NTSC = no (more data is harder to compress)

wow, man...
XviD-01082002-1 <-- original topic

Peace,
SoulFX

[tomy601k]

Originally posted by soulfx
wow, man...
XviD-01082002-1 <-- original topic


I agree :) . If I know that my statement would cause all that argument then I wouldn't say it in the first place (becausse it is not the right place to discuss such things ... Look at the topic ;) ).

Besides if you look at what I said

Originally posted by tomy601k

Actually when I said that R1 NTSC DVD's are 10-20% better
in quality than R2 PAL DVD's ... I was refering to my personal experience.


You can see that it is my point of view, I've ripped many DVD's from both Regions and I think that it not easy to have both DVD Regions in your hand to make such judgement (We have R2 DVD's here, but I'm a regular buyer for DVD's from e-bay and all the DVD's I bought are R1 DVD's). Most of guys who replied about this are talking theoritacally ... and they are right ... PAL DVD's suppose to be higher in qaulity than NTSC DVD's, but in reality it is different. Again it is just my point of view depending on my personal experience ... You can take it or you can leave it. It is up to you :)

Now let us end this discussion and let Koepi continue his marvelous work. The great thing about XVID now is that you don't need any magic formula to make high quality rips like it was before when you needed to tweak the codec for optimum quality.

Regards to everyone,
Tomy.

[spyder]

I have encountered a really big problem in this build. Either that or I have lost my mind one. Both are possible. Anyway, I enocded this movie(1hr 17min) with MPEG quantizers and Alt. CC switched off with a desired size of 1348608 kbytes. The file has come out WAY undersized and I don't mean a few hundred MBs even, I mean REALLY undersized. The outout file is only 311MB. I am re running this to make sure I didn't accidentally select Modulated Quants on the first pass for some reason. If anyone else has seen this, you could save me a lot of time by posting here.

[Koepi]

It is a known problem that occurs when second pass size is bigger choosen than first pass size.

Regards,
Koepi

[spyder]

No i don't think this is the problem. The output file is only 311MB and this is a noisy file. There is no way it is that comperssible. If so, I would just make a 1CD rip as I can fit the AC3 with 311MB on a 700MB CD.

[Koepi]

Did you choose to make your second pass bigger as the first pass?

I'm quite sure you did, this is the only thing where this happens.

[Koepi]

XviD-03082002-2:
- EPZS motion search reactivated.
- "first frame green bug" is fixed.

[spyder]

Koepi,

The first pass stats file is reported in GKnot to use 0.429 bits per pixel. The projected output size is 0.404 bits per pixel. This means that the second pass will have to be at least 0.404 bits per pixel and slightly smaller than the first pass. I have never seen a movie which was 1hr and 17 minutes and able to be fully compressed at 300MB with the highest quality. This is indeed a strange case. I ran the second pass again with your new CC enabled and it appears to be working fine. I will try without the first pass again without discarding the video and see what it's size is. I have done this before in which cases the encoder just produced a file equivalent to the first pass file, not smaller.

[spyder]

OK, now I understand what you are saying. Must be a new thing this undersizing as I have relied on it before to reproduce the 1st pass file if it couldn't reach the desired size. I'm running it now keeping the first pass. No reason it should be only 311MB.

[spyder]

I tried this again without discarding the first pass and the resulting file was 1.33GB. After seeing this, I lowered the size for the second pass to ~1150MB(problems in my original calculations, I really didn't need the file as big as I was trying for. Be quiet Acaila). It too comes out very small. I'm on to you Koepi. I know about your little conspiracy. Who do you think you are trying to force me to make 1CD rips?? LOL, just kidding.

In the meantime: i have switched to Acaila's Fabulously Great builds which Koepi hasn't touched. :) I don't know where the bug is, or if there is a bug but I will wait for a new release.

[Koepi]

Maybe you should try alt. curve compression, if i read correctly you used the "old" version of CC code.

This happens very seldom and I duno where it comes from, you should ask foxer, I think he had some ideas.

Acaila has builds too? Wow, didn't know that.

[spyder]

I tried both CCs and still get the problem. I am using Acaila's Fabulously Great build now.

[MaTTeR]

Acaila's builds now have the older lumi code which helped compressiblity.

[gldblade]

Maybe I'm missing something, but where are Acaila's builds?

[Acaila]

It's nothing fancy really. I just wanted the new CC code with the old Lumi Masking code together, since the new Lumi Masking doesn't help compressibility one bit (I had been using Koepi's 22-05 build for a long time because that was the last one with the old code, but I was getting behind on features).
I'm just starting out with learning how to compile, and I haven't got any webspace to store it on.

I'll attach the dll here so if anyone is interested they can try it out.

- CVS version 03-08-02
- EPZS and EPZS^2 ME enabled
- Old Lumi Masking code thrown in
- Added a nice properties page ;)
- NOT ICL optimized or anything, if you want that get Koepi's ;)

Ps. This was originally intended as a private project, so please don't kill me for it :D

[Marc FD]

But the new lumi algo gives better quality, no ??
(i don't see why the old one would be better than the new...weird)

[Acaila]

Maybe, but I've never seen any difference between the two codes in quality. Except that the old increases compression and the new does not, which is why I prefer the old.

[Marc FD]

have you tested on a TV ??

[Acaila]

No, and I don't need to because I only watch on my monitor anyway. I don't care how it looks on TV.
It did mention I started this for my own preferences, if you don't want it, don't use it.

[Marc FD]

I don't know which algo is better, if you say the old one gives good results, i trust you (i don't have time to test myself...)
I think we should ask to the creator of the new algo what's the improvements. He should be lurking on XviD.org

[MoonWalker]

Well if you want some info about the new lumi masking you can read this http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28129 Has some usefull info..


EDIT : Just downloaded the XviD-03082002-2.exe and it seems that the "Broken GUI" isn't fixed(I thougth it was, maybe I was wrong :) )

MoonWalker

[Koepi]

I didn't fix the boxes again (they're "broken" in CVS) because I wanted that binary to get out as fast as possible. Who cares anyways?

[MaTTeR]

Since I only view my rips on a analog TV then I can testify that I see no visual difference between Acaila's build with the old Lumi and a recent build with the new Lumi code. I've ripped about 4 moves in the last 3 days with Acaila's build...Jade, Clockwork Orange, Dont Say A Word and X-Men. A good portion of these movies were somewhat dark, depending on the movie the old Lumi code gave me an extra 5-9% compression in the end. So since I see no visual difference with my eyes, I'll stick with the better compressibility for now:)