new tool PerfectXviD helps to get best setting for alt-curve

[TheUnforgiven]

i've coded a tool that analyses the xvid first pass debubview log file and gives frames distribution around the average frame size.
here is an example of the output:

EDIT: these results r wrong see the correct results in my other post down.

Number of frames = 5797
Average frame size = 13,135
Max frame size is +376% over the average
Min frame size is -565% under the average

+400%
[ 4 frame 0.07%
+300%
[ 10 frame 0.17%
+200%
[ 261 frame 4.50%
+100%
[ 2296 frame 39.61%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 2153 frame 37.14%
-100%
[ 768 frame 13.25%
-200%
[ 163 frame 2.81%
-300%
[ 58 frame 1.00%
-400%
[ 13 frame 0.22%
-500%
[ 1 frame 0.02%
-600%

i think these results have the potential to help us decide the best settings for the alt-curve for any movie but i need ur help guys to test and find the best way to decide alt-curve settings based on info similar to this and i want to know ur opinion also if this is a good idea to decide the settings based on such analysis.
about the program it is called PerfectXviD and i'll post it soon.

[unplugged]

This is very good reference point (to mention one thing... Gordian Knot give frames size stats considering also keyframes? That was a problem!), I think some of that information should be implemented in XviD config GUI :)

But aren't tools like DBG or ALT-DBG doing the ~same thing yet?
Why not consider also the stats file as source, Gordian Gnot is cool but lacks something...

Originally posted by TheUnforgiven
Min frame size is -565-% under the average

:scared: Aaaargh! This is very misleading, please correct this calc. policy or many non experienced dudes could get drilled by their params choiches... :D

P.S.: important, please report (and specity this) all frame size statistics firstly withot keyframes (treat them separately).

[Didée]

[edit: unplugged seems to be much quicker in typing than me ;) ]

This could evolve into something really useful. I´ll leave the discussion to the - more experienced ;)

But, one first comment:

Something´s wrong with your "below average framesizes" !

"average framesize" = 100% --> "100% below average" = 0 kByte framesize

The fact you can enter values > 100% for "low distance" in the configuration, deals only for scaling the curve (have a look at foxer´s graph).

Besides that, things get more confusing to me, lately.
Default is Lo300/Hi300/MidAggression/Strenght50%.
Somehow, Lo100/Hi300/LoAggression/Strenght50% seems to be kind of universal weapon.
Now, lately I read several posts where Koepi (and others) talked about
Lo90/Hi500(!)/MidAggression/Strenght30%(!), without further explanation. This differs significantly from what´s common ...

I really love this great codec, but I have a hell lotta work in "real life", and therefore have no time to play around, play around, play around ... and would really like to see some more solid guidelines.

Perhaps this tool you are beginning to invent gives a kick in that direction?

[TheUnforgiven]

@unplugged
-i think dbg and alt-debug r meant to analyse the second pass debug info to give quantizers info. my prog analyses first pass to help deciding alt-curve settings.
-the misprint corrected now
-about keyframes i think they r included cuz i just processed everything xvid debug prin has thrown i dont know the effect of this till now.

@Didee
EDIT: i'll think again and i'll have a look on the code to see y this is happenning.

@all this tool is early beta and maybe it has errors on calculations or in some concepts but the important thing is the idea and how can we develop it to get better alt-curve results

[unplugged]

Originally posted by TheUnforgiven
-about keyframes i think they r included cuz i just processed everything xvid debug prin has...

Identify them, it's important for your tool

Originally posted by TheUnforgiven
...i dont know the effect of this till now.

Simply the reason:
1) keyframes have out of control *size gain*
2) You don't and can't control them from XviD alt-curve menu (of course)

so it's useful to keep out keyframes (I-Frame) from the main statistics since they are nothing to do with curve control, the main target of your tool.

Good work ;)

[OUTPinged_]

Didee,

The "strength" setting is pretty useless if you dont know 1/2pass ratio. Set MRQ instead.


unforgiven:

Quick and probably incorrect way of guessing decent 2pass settings:

1. take only delta sizes excluding credits.
2. calc averages in increments of 10% and average framesize.
3. look at maximum quantizer, get mrq/strength values from it.
4. look ar averages. there are frames that have "unnaturally high" framesizes. They are pretty easy to detect and should be excluded from decision where to place a high distance.
5. value for a low distance should have a more strict threshold for low dist. decision.
6. The tool should give a preview at how quantizers will be distributed. Newbies will gain a lot from tweaking values and instantly checking if they are any good or not.

(The default values are really not something you should use even if you are a newbie. If i could, i would suggest Foxer to make other values as a default for a quick encoding)

[sierrafoxtrot]

here's my 2 pence,

if you could have an equivalent of GKnot's nandub stats analysis function (graphing 1st pass size vs calculated 2nd pass) it would be fantastic. that way you could throw loads of different high low distances at the it, and it would graphically display the projected bitrate distribution for each frame.

i also agree with outpinged about unaturally large frames distorting the calculation. i guess you should really weight the frame size distribution, ie, if you've got 200 frames of >70,000kB, then they get less wieghting in the calculation.

am i making any sense?

;)

[TheUnforgiven]

the bug pointed by Didee is fixed now here is the correct output of the example in the first post:

Number of frames = 5797
Average frame size = 13,135
Max frame size is +376% over the average
Min frame size is -85% under the average

+400%
[ 4 frame 0.07%
+300%
[ 10 frame 0.17%
+200%
[ 261 frame 4.50%
+100%
[ 2296 frame 39.61%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 3177 frame 54.80%
-100%

[TheUnforgiven]

the tool is attached to this post i hope they'll approve it quickly
ver 0.2

EDIT: newer version is available below this one was removed

[TheUnforgiven]

@unplugged, outpinged, sierrafoxtrot, didee:
thanx for ur great suggestions i'll study them carefully.
but the big question now is how can we tweak the alt. curve settings according to the simple info provided by the tool. i want to see the tweaking possibility before going further.
for example can someone suggest alt. curve settings with explanation for the video clip analysed above.

i see the point about i-frames and i agree with u but the tool now is just analysing debug info for the first frame which doe not have any info about frame type maybe we can do some hack in the future but let us see some results first to see if the tool is good anyway to enhance our encodes.

[sierrafoxtrot]

thanks for writing this, i'll test it the moment the attachment is approved.

i'm not too sure about what alt curve values would work for the particular clip, but imho, i think that i would use hi/lo 200/100, because there are very few frames > 300% and the majority of frames are +/-100%.

actually, come to think of it, all these calculations don't take into account payback rate (bias or proportional) and strength (or does it?) and i *know* strength has a massive effect on quality. i'm just happy to have another tool to mess about with ;)

[iago]

I totally agree with Didée on his above post, (and in that we've "...got hell lotta work in real life..." ;).

And such a tool (analyzing the stats file for frames distribution with respect to average framesize) can be of great help to decide on the second pass alt.CC settings, which will (obviously) differ from movie to movie in most cases.

best regards
iago

[TheUnforgiven]

i don't know y the attachment did not appear till now !
anyway u can download it from here:
http://www.everwicked.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8116#post8116

and plz give feed back if u could optimize anything with it.

[Acaila]

I've just tried out your (very promising :)) tool, and I've come to some strange results.

This is the output for a movie I've encoded recently:
Number of frames = 136365
Average frame size = 30
Max frame size is +100% over the average
Min frame size is -100% under the average

+100%
[ 31833 frame 23,34%
+50%
[ 34058 frame 24,98%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 34134 frame 25,03%
-50%
[ 31784 frame 23,31%
-100%
It has an "average frame size" which seems a bit too small to me :) (unless it's in kb?). Also the range of the higher than average frame sizes is quite small. Could be because I cap the max quant where there are only a few frames that receive it, which means it's already highly optimized.
The movie reached an average of 2.62 for the 2nd pass btw.

Ps.
Your tool "forgets" the output it calculates when it loses focus...

[iago]

@Acaila

Also the range of the higher than average frame sizes is quite small. Could be because I cap the max quant where there are only a few frames that receive it, which means it's already highly optimized.

As I understand it, though I haven't tried yet, the tool is designed to work with the "1st pass" debugview log file. How come can you cap the max quant in the first pass? Isn't it always a constant quant of 2 in the first pass? :) (If so, the restriction in your file analysis might be due to sth else?)

Please correct me if there's something I got wrong as to how the tool works (doesn't it work with the first pass debugview log file?).

Thanks,
iago

[Acaila]

@iago:

Yes I know, it was an misunderstanding on my side :)

I remembered it as soon as I shut down my computer, and I didn't want to start it back up :D

[avih]

this tool and it's 'recommendations' (when done) could be a nice step towards automatic cc setting in the xvid vfw itself ;)

[rui]

OK, i want to congratulate TheUnforgiven for giving us such a great tool!

In spite i like the possibilities that alt cc. gives to the user, in the last days i have used default cc many times. Now, using your tool, i managed to lower the average quantizer of a test i made, both comparing to default cc, and using "normal" alt cc. :)

Since no one spicified on this, i used medium agression and left strength at 50%.

[TheUnforgiven]

@Acaila
I've come to some strange results.

i think everything is ok now, waiting for ur next test :D

Your tool "forgets" the output it calculates when it loses focus...

thats true i'll fix that in future versions.

@iago
Please correct me if there's something I got wrong as to how the tool works (doesn't it work with the first pass debugview log file?).

thats exacly what it is.

@avih
this tool and it's 'recommendations' (when done) could be a nice step towards automatic cc setting in the xvid vfw itself

i hope that we can find the good recommendation through the discussion and tests here.

@rui
Now, using your tool, i managed to lower the average quantizer of a test i made, both comparing to default cc, and using "normal" alt cc.

very happy to hear that and thanx for the congratulations.

[Acaila]

i think everything is ok now, waiting for ur next testWell, not exactly :). Can you explain why the average frame size is only 30?? (I believe it's in bytes, but can you confirm that?)

[TheUnforgiven]

@Acaila
did u use the f-pass only debug file?
if u used the one with 2-pass info also the prog will behave incorrectly, maybe the prog thought there r much more frames because u load a debug file with extra lines(info) other than the first pass info.
have a look at the example .LOG file that comes with the tool, the input must be like this one.

[rui]

Just one small thing: when i choose the interval to be 50%, one must creat an outside file for the report, because the amount of data displayed is higher than the space in the PerfectXvid software window, at least in my case (800x600 resolution), and i couldn’t find a way of scrooling down.

But not big problem, because i can always create the txt with all the data.

Then i have a small doubt: a report of a test i made mentions:

–75% of average frame size –> 43,64%

With this value, i should choose, for low motion, 25 or 75%?
I am asking this because, if i am correct, the report is saying that i have many frames below the average, so i should decrease the low motion to 25, so more small frames get more data.


Right? Or not? :D

And when te report mentions -100%, what value should one choose for low motion?

Sorry if i am asking something that should already be long gone (after all the alt cc thread was very big and full of explanations), but i for one admit that, after so long, i still have some doubts about alt. cc behaviour :(

[iago]

Hi again,

And, in addition to rui's question, here's the report of a test I made with the tool:

Number of frames = 178576
Average frame size = 7.088
Max frame size is +1.425% over the average
Min frame size is -99% under the average

+1500%
[ 1 frame 0,00%
+1400%
[ 5 frame 0,00%
+1300%
[ 7 frame 0,00%
+1200%
[ 13 frame 0,01%
+1100%
[ 12 frame 0,01%
+1000%
[ 40 frame 0,02%
+900%
[ 73 frame 0,04%
+800%
[ 181 frame 0,10%
+700%
[ 237 frame 0,13%
+600%
[ 302 frame 0,17%
+500%
[ 478 frame 0,27%
+400%
[ 1664 frame 0,93%
+300%
[ 3898 frame 2,18%
+200%
[ 12185 frame 6,82%
+100%
[ 41506 frame 23,24%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 116865 frame 65,44%
-100%


Yes, what would be your recommendations for the altCC settings according to this report? Setting low 100, high 500 or something? :)

regards,
iago

[TheUnforgiven]

@rui
i'll try to fix the thing with scrolling in future.
i think theoritically u should set low something a little before the 75% maybe 70%.if i am wrong plz someone correct me (i still have doubts like u).and maybe u should wait for another opinion on this but i think we all assume things noone is sure about. this is y i made this tool, to verify these things. y don't u do a test for us in different values and tell us the results.
the alt. curve topic is not over yet maybe u will find the best settings.

[TheUnforgiven]

@ago
really u have very big frames i doubt they r very big i-frames.i guess u have restricted i-frames quantizer very much.the problem with i-frames is discussed before and i'll try to come up with a solution to exclude them from the calculation. maybe u should ignore the very very big size frames cuz they r most probably i-frames and focus on tweaking 65% frames below the average. u can read my answer to rui but i say here that i am not the one to recommend settings because simply i am not an expert in alt. curve. and i repeat my advise in testing.

[iago]

@TheUnforgiven

really u have very big frames i doubt they r very big i-frames.i guess u have restricted i-frames quantizer very much.the problem with i-frames is discussed before and i'll try to come up with a solution to exclude them from the calculation
I also think that this great range is due to I-frames. Capping the quantizers is only an issue of the second pass, whereas your tool works on the first pass debugview log file and the "first pass" is done with a "constant quantizer of 2".

Imho, I-frames, which obviously lead to such great deviations, should absolutely be excluded from the calculation in your tool.

And, btw, thanks a lot for working on such a promising tool, which certainly will be more accurate and useful when the I-frames are excluded from the report file.

best regards,
iago

[TheUnforgiven]

i have an idea to implement i-frame guessing from the debug info but i need ur help.
in the debug info of the first pass we get the number of kblocks and mblocks, if the mblocks is more than 50% the frame will be considered i-frame.
my questions r:
1-r the blocks always 16x16?
2-what is the difference between kblocks and mblocks?
3-is this a good way to guess i-frames?


@iago
Capping the quantizers is only an issue of the second pass, whereas your tool works on the first pass
sorry i forgot that.

[Acaila]

Why don't you just check for intra or inter frame? Inter is P/B-frame, intra is I-frame.

[rui]

Well, i made a couple of small tests (i know that these are really small tests, but here i only have a P2-350, and it would be very hard to do something bigger) , but they weren’t much conclusive.
I the first pass, i got a report saying :

Number of frames = 3570
Average frame size = 20.196
Max frame size is +371% over the average
Min frame size is -99% under the average

+400%
[ 1 frame 0,03%
+350%
[ 3 frame 0,08%
+300%
[ 6 frame 0,17%
+250%
[ 16 frame 0,45%
+200%
[ 58 frame 1,62%
+150%
[ 154 frame 4,31%
+100%
[ 317 frame 8,88%
+50%
[ 827 frame 23,17%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 1590 frame 44,54%
-50%
[ 534 frame 14,96%
-100%

So i made two encodes, one using medium agression and high-250% low-75%, and another one using high-250% and low-25%

In the first one i got an average quantizer of 7,339. In the second i got an avergae quantizer of 7,346 (a little higher). But in the first test some quant 18 were used, and in the second test a max of quant 17 were used.

This leads me to another question: it’s better to have a low average quantizer or to have a little higher average quantizer but lower absolute quantizers used?

[biersauf]

uh, can someone explain me that? why do you get high-250% an low-25%?

[rui]

Because the values of 200% and above have very few frames above average. So i choose to take bits only for frames at 250% above average.
And below average, i have 44,54% frames at 50% below average, and 14,96% at 100% below average.
So i decided to choose 25 and 75 to give some margin between settings, to try to obtain some diferences. But as you can see, the diference between average quantizers was very small. Correct, it was a small test ;)

[biersauf]

oh my god. dont mind. can someone else explain me that :( . thank you for your explanation, but... anybody german? plssss

[sierrafoxtrot]

um, koepi's german, but i think he's probably got his hands full atm. i haven't had a chance to play around much with this program yet, but from what i've seen, rui's right. if you try loading your stats file in Gknot, under the nandub files tab, you should be able to click on the distribution button for framesizes. then you get a couple of nice curves, that show framesize distribution vs filesize.

here's what i think:

i) the average quantizer shouldn't change too much, you are only using alt cc to distribute the bits in a manner which gives constant quality.

ii) if you've got loads of frames smaller than av. (see iago's post in this thread) 44.54 + 14.96 = 59.5%, then you should raise the low percentage (ie, from 100% to 50%)

iii) if you've got lots of frames significantly larger than average (shot in the dark here, >10% above +300) then you should raise the hi percentage value.

iv) i think curve aggression should be adjusted based on the distribution of the framesizes. if you've got a distribution like iago's (try plotting x-axis: % deviation from av, y-axis: number of frames) then i'd go for medium aggression. but if you get a more even distribution, then i'd go for high aggression, because there are a wider range of framesizes.

sorry if that doesn't make much sense. anyone got any thoughts?

i've just gotten rumble in the bronx and donnie darko, and i know donnie darko is really compressible, and i'm guessing jackie isn't going to be :D , so i'm going to encode both over the weekend with hi/lo 500/100 and hi/lo 100/500, high and low aggression just to see what looks better and try to correlate that with PerfectXvid.

maybe someone else could try something similar. rui? ;)

[TheUnforgiven]

@acaila
i know u think i am stupid.. i discover it myself last night.
the new version is ready with i-frame exclusion i'll post it now

[TheUnforgiven]

this is a new version with everything u asked for :D

ver0.3 changes:
- i-frames are excluded now from the distribution.
- improved GUI with scroll bars.
- no need now to recalculate everything when changing the interval length.
- new interval length, 25.

it is attached to this post but if u cant wait untill it get approved u can get it here:
http://www.everwicked.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8166#post8166

[TheUnforgiven]

@rui
thanx for ur results
This leads me to another question: it’s better to have a low average quantizer or to have a little higher average quantizer but lower absolute quantizers used?
i think this depend on what frames u want to optimize high,low or something in between.

@sierrafoxtrot
mmm.. very interesting

[rui]

Originally posted by sierrafoxtrot
if you try loading your stats file in Gknot, under the nandub files tab, you should be able to click on the distribution button for framesizes. then you get a couple of nice curves, that show framesize distribution vs filesize.

Interesting. I didn't know that.
Originally posted by sierrafoxtrot

iv) i think curve aggression should be adjusted based on the distribution of the framesizes. if you've got a distribution like iago's (try plotting x-axis: % deviation from av, y-axis: number of frames) then i'd go for medium aggression. but if you get a more even distribution, then i'd go for high aggression, because there are a wider range of framesizes.


Another good point. So, in my test above, you think that i should use high agression instead of medium, since i got very few frames above the 200% mark, right?

Well, i pretend to compress my favorite "The Replacements" (very very hard movie) this weekend. I will share the expericence with you guys later.

[iago]

@TheUnforgiven

ver0.3 changes:
- i-frames are excluded now from the distribution.
- improved GUI with scroll bars.
- no need now to recalculate everything when changing the interval length.
- new interval length, 25. Nice work. Will give it a try ASAP. ;)

iago

[unplugged]

And anyone clear me/us this :(

Number of frames = 191744
190090 delta frames and 1654 key frames (excluded)
Average frame size = 8.982
Max frame size is +1.025% over the average
Min frame size is -98% under the average

+1100%
[ 3 frame 0,00%
+1000%
[ 6 frame 0,00%
+900%
[ 6 frame 0,00%
+800%
[ 17 frame 0,01%
+700%
[ 95 frame 0,05%
+600%
[ 291 frame 0,15%
+500%
[ 640 frame 0,34%
+400%
[ 1228 frame 0,65%
+300%
[ 3013 frame 1,59%
+200%
[ 7939 frame 4,18%
+100%
[ 50797 frame 26,72%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 124570 frame 65,53%
-100%

So when I set 350% in High curve (alt-CC) 2nd-pass setup

I would scale 1100% frames to 350% ??
I would scale 500% frames to 159% ??? (proportionally)
I would scale 300% frames to 95% ?!?!!! :scared:

?

[biersauf]

ahhh, how did you get these settings???

[unplugged]

Settings?

To what do you refer exactly?
I have used last version, 0.3.
350% is a common point for high CC normalizing.

Maybe PerfectXviD still includes I-Frame in statistics... :rolleyes: (bug?)

[unplugged]

Originally posted by unplugged
So when I set 350% in High curve (alt-CC) 2nd-pass setup

I would scale 1100% frames to 350% ??
I would scale 500% frames to 159% ??? (proportionally)
I would scale 300% frames to 95% ?!?!!!

Ummm... I will be more clear: :p

When I set 350% (ceiling) in High curve (alt-CC) 2nd-pass setup the encoder do such kind of scaling:

- Frames located to ~1100% range get normalized to ~350% (ratio 3,1428)
Thus proportionally:
- those at ~500% range get normalized to ~159%
- those at ~300% range get normalized to ~95%

[iago]

@unplugged
Maybe PerfectXviD still includes I-Frame in statistics... (bug?) Here are the two different results of the same first pass debugview log file: "Report1" is generated with the old 0.2 version (keyframes included), "Report2" is generated with the new 0.3 version (keyframes excluded):

Report1:

Number of frames = 214128
Average frame size = 5.548
Max frame size is +1.571% over the average
Min frame size is -98% under the average

+1600%
[ 1 frame 0,00%
+1500%
[ 0 frame 0,00%
+1400%
[ 1 frame 0,00%
+1300%
[ 0 frame 0,00%
+1200%
[ 1 frame 0,00%
+1100%
[ 6 frame 0,00%
+1000%
[ 21 frame 0,01%
+900%
[ 79 frame 0,04%
+800%
[ 140 frame 0,07%
+700%
[ 253 frame 0,12%
+600%
[ 373 frame 0,17%
+500%
[ 502 frame 0,23%
+400%
[ 1216 frame 0,57%
+300%
[ 4011 frame 1,87%
+200%
[ 14321 frame 6,69%
+100%
[ 54545 frame 25,47%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 137285 frame 64,11%
-100%


Report2:

Number of frames = 214128
202370 delta frames and 11758 key frames (excluded)
Average frame size = 5.618
Max frame size is +1.346% over the average
Min frame size is -98% under the average

+1400%
[ 1 frame 0,00%
+1300%
[ 0 frame 0,00%
+1200%
[ 0 frame 0,00%
+1100%
[ 1 frame 0,00%
+1000%
[ 7 frame 0,00%
+900%
[ 71 frame 0,04%
+800%
[ 102 frame 0,05%
+700%
[ 152 frame 0,08%
+600%
[ 222 frame 0,11%
+500%
[ 319 frame 0,16%
+400%
[ 981 frame 0,48%
+300%
[ 3614 frame 1,79%
+200%
[ 13892 frame 6,86%
+100%
[ 53747 frame 26,56%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 127894 frame 63,20%
-100%


It seems (to me) that the "exclusion of keyframes" issue is solved.

However, (interestingly or expectedly :)) the framesize distribution ranges do not differ so much in the two separate files (maybe for this movie I analyze?), whether the keyframes are included or excluded. At least the range differences between the two output files are so small and negligible that it will possibly not affect how you're gonna decide to set the Alt.CC parameters. (Probably I would decide on the "same" Alt.CC parameters, whichever of the above reports I take as a basis.) Also, this seems to me the possible result that we would get with most movies (except some really extreme cases).

Any comments and opinions?

regards,
iago

[Sygma21]

Number of frames = 136246
135115 delta frames and 1131 key frames (excluded)
Average frame size = 6_592
Max frame size is +1_108% over the average
Min frame size is -98% under the average

+1200%
[ 1 frame 0,00%
+1100%
[ 1 frame 0,00%
+1000%
[ 10 frame 0,01%
+900%
[ 8 frame 0,01%
+800%
[ 8 frame 0,01%
+700%
[ 83 frame 0,06%
+600%
[ 218 frame 0,16%
+500%
[ 262 frame 0,19%
+400%
[ 905 frame 0,67%
+300%
[ 1972 frame 1,46%
+200%
[ 5928 frame 4,39%
+100%
[ 41889 frame 31,00%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 82827 frame 61,30%
-100%

I read carefully the post and I suppose that best settings are Medium/Hi 250/Lo 90. Right or wrong ?

[unplugged]

I think that PerfectXviD is (in part) already viable for its job. Thanx goes to TheUnforgiven.

About XviD itself:

2nd-pass: quant:2 H.263 inter stats1:17164 scaled:12591 actual:19511 overflow:-3422 movie

Now, IMO the intersting point is to know *exactly* how works *numerically* the curve scaling in XviD

1st I have noticed one thing, the "scaled:12591" value from the log is partially useless (or useless) because it reflects *only* 1st-pass/2nd-pass ratio, NOT the alt-CC curve values (especially the numbers for lowest and highest limit).

So, every number you encounter in scaled field is simply stats1*2nd-pass/1st-pass (ratio).
This is not clear to know the intentions of the encoder frame by frame :mad: (sure, not the intentions of alt-CC algo! Damn!)

2nd Because I can't trust on that "scaled" value I go directly to look the "actual" value (that must reflect the encoded result).
Sadly, looking this value there are continuous fluctations that prevents me to enstabilish an average scaling ratio between "actual" and "stats1". (of course, there is a big compression jump between one quantizer and the upper :rolleyes:, in fact the encoder MUST continuously fluctuate to compensate)

:stupid:
Indepth experts needed, or better... developers.

[IAmBlakeM]

@Sygma21

I'd think you'd want that high range up considerably higher since you have a ton of frames above the 250 mark. I'd guess you want that level around 500%-600% or else your very big frames are going to be reduced too much.

[biersauf]

k, heres my sample:

Number of frames = 1253
1247 delta frames and 6 key frames (excluded)
Average frame size = 10.621
Max frame size is +221% over the average
Min frame size is -99% under the average

+300%
[ 8 frame 0,64%
+200%
[ 73 frame 5,85%
+100%
[ 475 frame 38,09%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 681 frame 54,61%
-100%

so, which settings do you prefer? can anybody explain me that? now, i would set high to 100 and low to 100. (?)

ok, same sample:

Number of frames = 1253
1247 delta frames and 6 key frames (excluded)
Average frame size = 10.621
Max frame size is +221% over the average
Min frame size is -99% under the average

+225%
[ 8 frame 0,64%
+200%
[ 7 frame 0,56%
+175%
[ 12 frame 0,96%
+150%
[ 18 frame 1,44%
+125%
[ 35 frame 2,81%
+100%
[ 86 frame 6,90%
+75%
[ 114 frame 9,14%
+50%
[ 127 frame 10,18%
+25%
[ 128 frame 10,26%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 114 frame 9,14%
-25%
[ 188 frame 15,08%
-50%
[ 315 frame 25,26%
-75%
[ 43 frame 3,45%
-100%

high-25, low-25 or what?

[iago]

@biersauf

In your case, I would increase the high curve value _at least_ up to 200 (since 5.85% of the total frames goes up to that range) according to your report file.

iago

[iago]

@biersauf

+300%
[ 8 frame 0,64%
+200%
[ 73 frame 5,85%
+100%
[ 475 frame 38,09%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 681 frame 54,61%
-100%

i would set high to 100 and low to 100. (?)
My previous post refers to these values you provided before you edited your post (simultaneously with my reply I guess ;))

iago

[biersauf]

ok thx. so lets have a look at this (i know its the same as before):

Number of frames = 1253
1247 delta frames and 6 key frames (excluded)
Average frame size = 10.621
Max frame size is +221% over the average
Min frame size is -99% under the average

+225%
[ 8 frame 0,64%
+200%
[ 7 frame 0,56%
+175%
[ 12 frame 0,96%
+150%
[ 18 frame 1,44%
+125%
[ 35 frame 2,81%
+100%
[ 86 frame 6,90%
+75%
[ 114 frame 9,14%
+50%
[ 127 frame 10,18%
+25%
[ 128 frame 10,26%
--- Average frame size ---
[ 114 frame 9,14%
-25%
[ 188 frame 15,08%
-50%
[ 315 frame 25,26%
-75%
[ 43 frame 3,45%
-100%



so first, i have to look at 25%, this means 10.26%, right? then i have to look at the average frame size, which is 10.621. then i have to compare it. after that 10.26 is really close to 10.62 so i have to change high to 25 or is there something i do not understand? if the average frame size contains 22.5 for example i will go to 50%, that means 10,26 + 10,18, is this right?

thx for all...and sry for bad english :)