Is there really any need to crop away the mattes?

[SeeMoreDigital]

I have done quite a fex DivX encodes over the years.

And like most softwares it just seems to get better and better.

When I first started with DivX I always cropped away the mattes (black bars) but I decided to do some tests with the newest version and leave them in.

I can't say that there's any problem leaving the mattes in anymore. As there does'nt appear to be any wierd smears or coloured lines between the black and the image!

Has anybody else noticed this or have a comment?

[Awatef]

Make a comparison, one time cropped, one time not cropped, with the same quality setting, 1-pass quality based 100% for example.
You'll see that the not cropped version will be bigger.

So you will always have to crop, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

[SeeMoreDigital]

What you say can indeed be true.

However, I've found that the file size differences are only slight and if you leave them at their full pixel size 720wide x576high they play back at the correct aspect ratio more easily via the DivX player 2.1 and via my Xcard.

But at least there are no more annoying coloured lines above the bottom matte and the image. Like there were with the earlier DivX codecs!

Thanks

[MasterYoshidino]

hmm I would have thought that a resized file to 608x320 with black bars would have less bitrate since there's less motion overall (black compresses best of any color), instead of having crops then enlarging the detail.
Kinda like a jpg with black bars takes up less filesize than one without them ...
I need to check this with Spirited Away Region 2 ...
Here's 3 jpgs to kinda support the concept

The source 720x480 16/9 frame :: 204Kb
http://masteryoshidino.adultbouncer.com/images/spirited_source.jpg

The file bilinear resized but not cropped :: 125Kb
http://masteryoshidino.adultbouncer.com/images/spirited_no_crop.jpg

The file bilinear resized and cropped :: 132Kb
http://masteryoshidino.adultbouncer.com/images/spirited_yes_crop.jpg

edit: These are source frames copied from AviSynth output via Photoshop with 12 (beyond max quality) quality for Jpeg.
the code used for the filter chain is below.

MPEG2source("F:\spirited.d2v",cpu=6,iPP=true,idct=5)
SeparateFields()
MSharpen(threshold=10,strength=50,mask=false,highq=true,debug=false)
Weave()
ConvertToYUY2()
Telecide(hints=true,post=4,order=1,chroma=true,guide=1,dthresh=3,gthresh=10)
Decimate(cycle=5,mode=2,quality=3)
_2DCleanYUY2(0,8,3,3,0,127,127)
crop(26,22,668,432)
BilinearResize(608,320)
Of course if you did NOT resize then the crop version would be smaller since there are less pixels to render. Some movies have the black bars appear noisy as they dvd authors did not add black borders before authoring, so that you see the scanline marching ants problem at the edges, others like Spirited Away have them artificially added so there's no noise on them. Depends on source.

[Awatef]

@ yoshidino
For some reason, I can't access your files, but here is what I think you're understanding wrong:
One doesn't compare 640x360 with black bars and 640x360 without.
You have to compare 640x360 as pure 16:9 and 640x480 as 4:3 letterboxed, or 640x272 as pure 2,35:1 and 640x480 as 4:3 letterboxed, then you'll see that the cropped version is smaller.

[SeeMoreDigital]

MasterYoshidino

When I create DivX encodes from a DVD I always keep the DivX pixel size the same as the DVD pixel size. Which in my case is 720w x 576h.

What you say about some DVD's having black bar/matte noise, is indeed true. Especially on some of the early DVD releases.

One of the worst early DVD examples of bad cropping and frame centering I've seen is Bladerunner, in both the European PAL and Japaniese NTSC versions.

The image is so far off center you can see a sloping 'vertical' black bar to the right if image. And although the aspect ratio is stated as being 2.35:1. It's more like 2.00:1!

And as for the 'digital' audio stream......... well that's another story altogether!

[aramo]

My thinking on removing the matt is that it's not the black that causes problems but the sharp border between the black matt and the video image. I do some photographic/graphic work and the lossy formats [e.g. jpg] do have a tougher job if the image contains sharp regular boundaries.

If you really want to check for differences then generate a 'with' and 'without' matt bmp of a frame where the active video areas are the same size. Crop the with-matt bmp to exactly match the without-matt bmp and the use a graphics program to show you the difference between the two images.

While the general principal should apply to video compression maybe it's just not that evident with modern compressors, for myself I'll stick with aggressively cropping the matt.

[SeeMoreDigital]

aramo

What you say is also true!

The sharp border between the black matte and the video image can make it difficult for some video codecs to encode correctly. Especially if say, the 2.35:1 image is not 'square' within the 1.77:1 (16:9) background frame.

I wonder how many other people out there have had bad experiences with poorly centred or squared images. As I said before, my early Bladerunner DVD's are awful...... they are even worse when viewed on a TV!

[Awatef]

@ seemoredigital
encoding in original DVD resolution is *always* wrong.
Always resize to a valid aspect ratio.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Oh dear Awatef,

Why do you think it's always wrong to encode in the same size as the original DVD pixel size?

I've got 70 odd movies on my server and they look ok to me. Especially when they're viewed on my widescreen TV via Xcard.

[Awatef]

special resolutions for special purposes

what you have is the exception ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well the encodes are also viewed (over our home network) on my kids PC's via the DivX Player 2.1 in 16:9 mode.

After all, there's no way I'm letting them watch Harry Potter, Titanic or Lord of the Rings for 3 hours on my DVD player.

Know what I mean!

[Mole]

SeeMoreDigital

How many CDs are you making your rips into?

I guess the reason why you encode with the full DVD resolution is to preserve details, right?

Have to point you out something, that you are in fact losing details doing it this way.

I'm too lazy to dig up links etc. Perhaps somebody else would be so kind.

We're just trying to help you make better rips.
But hey, as long as you are happy with it...

Ever thought that by just changing the settings slightly, your rips could be a whole lot better???
But of course, if you say they look great on your TV already, then you probably wouldn't have the eyes to notice the difference anyway.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Thanks Mole

As a general rule I normally try and get 120 mins worth of video for every 700MB. This is so I can back the movies up onto CD-R.

With 2.35:1 movies, 120mins is ok for me. However with 1.77:1 or 1.85:1 movies 90-100 mins per 700MB is as far as I would go!

I did manage to get my PAL copy of StarWars2 (2.35:1), which is 136mins long onto a 700MB CD-R (video 635MB and audio 64MB) but this really was pushing it. When I played it back via my TV I could switch between the DVD and DivX copy. The DivX copy held up quite well even during the 'Speeder Chase' and 'This Party is Over' chapters.

I forgot to mention earlier that I find NTSC DVD's at 720w x 480h (345,600 pixels total) give much better DivX encoding results than PAL DVD's 720w x 576h (414,720 pixels total). Especially if you encode them at 'film rate' 24fps instead of 30fps.

I guess some of you guys are NTSC users?

And I do have the eyes for it, as I encode film and analogue tape to digital for a living!

But I would like to experiment with some different settings.

[Mole]

Reading from your reply, I can see that you have a quite different view of "quality" than most people on this board...

For 1 CD rip, using full DVD res. is nuts. Maybe for short anime episodes, but not full lenght movies. You "think" you preserve details, but the truth is, the codec will remove a lot of details because of bitrate shortage. And belive me, for 1 CD rips, there are going to be major bitrate shortage.

Belive me, I've been there before also. When I was a newbie ripper, I would rip at 704x288 or something and thought I'd preserve all details on DVD.

But I made lots of rips and learned a lot and now all my rips are 640-576-512 horizontal pixel range (depending on movie lenght and type). It is better to have a lower resolution rip and little artefacts, than high resolution with shit and blocks everywhere.

Besides, if you use a TV to judge the quality, almost everything will look good on it. Even video CDs looks good on a TV.

BTW, you gave yourself some clues already when you said that your NTSC rips looks better than PAL. Less pixels....

I do both PAL and NTSC rips.

Are all your PAL DVDs progressive?

BTW, have you EVER tried to crop out black borders and lower resolution of same movie and compare with full 720x576?

[aramo]

@SeeMoreDigital

Ol' Moles' on the right track, fwiw I usually use approx 12MB per minute [24/25fps] and though it may be slightly overkill I did the Sopranos @ 1 episode per 650-700MB, this is after my usual agressive cropping with 1.85->608x336 [crop+resize] as a rule. Having tried the X-Files at 2*44 min episodes per 700MB I know that the extra give to Sporanos was worth it even if the XFiles looked OK.

Despite the above I do extra features at whatever suits 4:3->320x240 at approx 5MB/min is still passable and probably; in the right light; beats diy VHS.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Mole,

Yes, you maybe correct with regard to my view about quality. Especially when the encodes are viewed on a TV.

For quite a while now I've been experimenting with squeezing as much as I can out of the DivX codec and there is no denying that an interlaced TV image is more forgiving than progressive PC/VDU image.

However I have created some 60min encodes from an NTSC DVD source that are 700MB each in size. And when these are played back via the Xcard in 480NTSC progressive RGB mode (the card does not support 576PAL progressive yet... and by the sounds of it, it never will) directly into my TV, the results are flawless compared to the source DVD.

There's also no denying that to obtain good results from DivX you should encode at around 1000 - 1200kbps.

Do any of you guys view your encodes on a TV via an Xcard, Video Card with TV out or a DVD player which is DivX capable (Kiss 450 etc)?

[orestis]

Hello, first post.

What about using both high resolution and high bitrate ? I keep the AC-3 audio so 1-CD rips are a no-no, right ? So with 2 cd rips I have the headroom for a high resolution (720*400 for PAL) and still get a 60%-80% depending on the movie on the compressibility test. Usually when receiving a 60% I will lower the resolution a bit.

Am I on the right track ? I am a complete newbie and I've read most of these forums and guides but there are still some questions...

[manono]

Hi-

Do any of you guys view your encodes on a TV via an Xcard, Video Card with TV out or a DVD player which is DivX capable (Kiss 450 etc)?

Yes, 2 out of the 3 choices. And I sure as heck don't encode at 720x480 with a 2 hour movie on 1 CD. But why do you ask?

[aramo]

@manono

Not sure why your asking, but occassionally and with some reluctance I use TV-out on either a matrox marvel [g200] or ATI radeon 9700 card to view/tape divx.

[manono]

Yeah aramo, I was responding to SMD's question.

[aramo]

tisk how embarrasking :)

[Teegedeck]

For XviD, an uncropped movie seems to do 1-2% worse on a compressibility test than a cropped one (full-res). And yes, I just did a full-res encode of a 100-minute movie on 1 CD. Yes; I am a loony, but a happy one! :) (And usually I put it on two CDs.)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Wow, I thought this tread had died a death!

I suppose what I really wanted to find out about via this post, was just how low you could go with a full frame DivX (720w x 480h or 720w x 480h pixels) when the encodes are viewed primarily on a standard (50Hz or 60Hz, non progressive) TV screen.

I am well aware that most people 'back up' their 2 hour movies onto 2 CD-R's. However, it would seem that most people (on the forum) only view their encodes via their PC's, which does demand a higher quality encode!

However, when you create encodes, primarily for viewing on a standard TV, you quickly find that TV is far more forgiving. So I just wondered how much you could get away with.

Granted a 137min uncropped encode on a 700MB CD-R is pushing it a bit. But what about 90 - 100mins?

[aramo]

Yeah SeeMoreDigital you've really got people going with this one :)

I know there are far more accomplished people here about but my take on 'how far can you compress' is that it's just too subjective to give anything more than guidelines to other people. If the encodes are stictly for your own viewing it makes zero difference what you do as long as your happy, so what if I think your two banannas short of a picnic :)

FWIW I went thru a similar thought chain about a year ago, finally I concluded [1] CD-Rs are cheap [2] I don't want to have to redo movie [3] the whole 1 or 2 CD thing is a temporary blip [4] by the time set-top DVD players support divx I'll have a DVD writer or harddisk/network based alternative portability method .. none of this is critical to your question but it does pose the question why bother trying to get a movie on 1 CD at all.

my 2c [euro] etc

[SeeMoreDigital]

aramo, you make a good point.

I currently store most, if not all my DivX encodes on a file server. Which just happens to be the same PC that my Xcard is in. Which just happens to be in a room right next door to where my main A/V setup is!

So I could, and sometimes do, create DivX encodes that look every bit as good as the original.

Like you say, this topic is too subjective. As you've really got to be there (or should I say be here) to experience what I do before you can make an assessment. It's a shame, the internet brings us closer together but we are still so far apart.

Anyway, who knows, in a few years time we'll have DivX 9. So we'll all be able to encode at just 100kbps in full DVD quality and store the results on our 5000GB hard drives!

Here's hoping!

I think it's time to close this thread.................

[Owen]

LOL
Sorry, I have been reading this thread and marvelling at what people call quality.
A 1CD per hour encode can’t be called quality. Try 4 CDs (3Gig) per hour and your getting close for 720x576 4:3 source. Less for 16:9 etc.
Quality is relative to your expectations I suppose.;)
To me, high quality is when I can’t tell It’s a copy. And at 3Gig per hour I CAN tell on my rear projection TV.
This makes the idea of “quality” video on CD’s a jock IMHO. :D

Regards,

Owen

[SeeMoreDigital]

Owen

I beg to differ. There are many reasons why you encodes don't look so hot on your rear projection TV.

The main one being the quality of the encode in the first place and another one could be the method of connection from your computer to your TV.

I'll be happy to post you a CD of some short 'video only' DivX Mpeg4 and WME9 .avi encodes from an Mpeg2 source.

And if you've got a DVD player that can play RAW Mpeg files
I'll even throw in an Mpeg1 encode at the same bitrate and file size as the Mpeg2 source file.........

I assure you, not even you will be able to tell the difference!

[Mole]

Shit man, if you really want quality. Then don't recompress at all!

My view is that the whole purpose of re-compressing is to store a movie at a smaller file size sacrificing quality.

Personally, I'm a 1 CD advocate. I don't like swapping disc when watching a movie. When the time DVD-Rs becomes cheap and common, I wouldn't use MPEG4 anyway. I'd simply transcode my DVDs as MPEG2.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well Mole, there might be a lot of people in the world that would like to do just that - if it was cheap and easy enough to do!

The fact is, if it was cheap and easy enough for everbody on the planet to copy every movie onto a DVD R/RW. Within a very short time none of the 'production houses' would be able to afford to create new movies, as there would be no money available (don't forget a sizeable source of income comes from DVD/VHS rental and sales). So were is the fun in that?

Although what many of us do on this forum could be considered as being illegal (well, in some countries anyway) I don't think that what many of us are doing do to be as blatantly wrong as to what you are proposing!

I like to think that we are helping to create and push new technologies forward.

I don't like to steal. I like to experiment!

[Mole]

I was responding to Owen's comments regarding quality.

[Owen]

Mole,
Did I say I recompress?
I NEVER recompress a digital source.
If I want to copy DVD's I copy to DVDR. On two disks if required.
I was talking about CAPTURE from free to air TV and satelite.

SeeMoreDigital,

The problem I have has nothing to do with the connection to my rear projector.
I direct TV and satellite through my TV@nywhere capture card and back out through a Radeon 9500Pro to my TV. So I am watching LIVE TV routed though the PC.
When I capture and replay I am using all the same hardware. The only difference is the compression codec.
So when I say that I can see compression artifacts, even at maximum bit rate, they are caused by the codec.
High quality big screen TV’s are not very forgiving of compression artifacts.
I have given up using Xvid for this reason. I just cant get the quality I want at ANY bit rate. Even at over 1 Megabyte per second (8.8Mbits) or over 4Gig per hour on PAL 720x576 4:3 aspect ratio source.
That’s about the same data rate as a superbit DVD
DIVX5.05 shows almost no artifacts at high bit rates. 800kbytes per second (6.4Mbits) looks better than XVID at 1.1Megabytes per second (8.8Mbits).
But when I go down to about 4.4Mbits or 2Gig per hour. Quality is getting marginal.
So I say again that quality is relative to your expectations. And my expectations are high.
As for high quality video on a CD. Well 15min of quality video is not very useful.
That’s why I use DVDR.
I fear that when I upgrade to a true high definition Toshiba LCOS 1920x1080p rear projector, that all my existing captures will look like crap.

Regards,

Owen

[Mole]

Do you do de-interlace?

If you have to de-interlace, there's going to be a major quality drop.

If I wanted near perfect quality for interlaced source, I'd encode it as interlaced MPEG2 at very high bitrates.

Sure, MPEG4 can give better quality than MPEG2, but once you de-interlace, you'll losing the quality advantage already.

I can tell you why DivX looks better than XviD. It's simply because DivX use filters which removes noise and smooth things up, while XviD still keeps the noise.

I noticed too that my captures at a glance seems to look better with DivX, but at closer inspections revealed what was happening.

The XviD encodes would look nice too if you put some temporal+spatial filters before encoding.

The difference is that XviD gives you the choice, while DivX will always apply them internally.

With exceptionally clean source, XviD would preserve more details.

[SeeMoreDigital]

OK Owen,

It sounds like you have a nice collection of 'boys toys'. Good on you mate!

Can you confirm a few things for me please: -

01: If you spin a DVD in your PC's DVD drive and output the image via your Radeon 9500Pro. What does the image look like?

02: Do you have to manually 'ping' (resize) your images to fit your TV.

03: How does the Radeon 9500Pro connect to your TV. Via Composite, S-VHS or component (RGB)?

04: How long are your interconnect cables?

05: What's the quality of your interconnects like?

At work we have a couple of new 42inch plasma monitors, which can be connected to a PC in a variety ways. Via Xcard RGB (composite or S-VHS) out, Radeon RGB (composite or S-VHS) out, Radeon VGA out, or with a bit of fiddling, Radeon DVI out.

Granted each output connection generates a different looking output image. And requires a fair bit of setting up. However, much improvement was made when I decided to make our own cables!

[Owen]

Mole,
I have been using Divx and Xvid since the first release.
I have always preferred Xvid until now.
I agree that DIVX is filtered but the filtering works very well for capturing satellite.
I just can’t stand the artefacts that Xvid introduces on less than perfect source.
I use ffdshow resize/sharpen to tweak the DIVX on playback.
The result is better than anything I have been able to get out of Xvid and ffdshow.
On very clean source like DVD I agree that Xvid is probably better but I never re encode DVD.
To use DIVX I have found that I have to deinterlace during capture or I get rate control problems were DIVX will get stuck in a very high quant for a few seconds on some scene changes.It's a long standing bug.
I would like to use Mpeg2 for capture but I cant find a real time codec that is any good. DIVX is the best I have found to date.
All the good Mpeg encoders are for transcoding only. No good for capture.
Any suggestions?


SeeMoreDigital,
To answer your questions.

1. Great. Better than stand alone DVD player. Using ZoomPlayer,WinDVD5 video decoder filters, AC3 audio filter, Reclock and ffdshow with Resize Sharpen Dscaler Sharpen and Gradual Denoise.
2. No
3. I have Svideo (SVHS) and Component (Not RGB) connections on TV
4. Cables are about 4 meters long.
5. Good quality but not outrageously expensive.

I am using the Svideo connection and have been able to get the picture to exactly fit the Toshiba 43" TV screen (after much fiddling with TV service mode adjustments) and it shows a nice clear 1024x768 desktop.
The Radeon VGA to Component adapter dose not support PAL so the only way to use the component connections on the TV is to use a expensive transcoder.
I am not convinced that this would be a worthwhile improvement on this non HD TV.
I plan on upgrading to a 57” Toshiba LCOS HDTV early next year when they become available in Australia. I saw the US model at a show in Sydney recently and it was amazing. Best display I have ever seen. Plasma’s can’t compete with this toy.

What type of cables did you make? Svideo, VGA.
Can you recommend a cable type to make a custom SVHS cable?

Regards,

Owen

PS. The only difference between the men and the boys is the price of there toys.
And he who dies with the most toys wins. :D

[Mole]

Well, you can get a hardware MPEG2 capture card which will do the job quite well.

Or you can use Ulead MediaStudio if you prefer software. It does a pretty decent job too.

I can assure you that the quality of the captures will be way way better with MPEG2 than DivX.

If the source is interlaced, it's better to keep it that way than de-interlace it.

Unless of course you do a Bob+Weave de-interlace, and get a 50/60 fps progressive.

You should read a bit at www.100fps.com and you'll realize that you will lose quality when using most de-interlace methods.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Owen, thanks for answering the questions.

Well, nothing obviously wrong seems to be jumping off the screen.
At work we mainly use the Xcard now for Mpeg1, 2 and 4 (DivX) output to plasma, via RGB. And very good it can look too!

For PowerPoint and MacroMedia type presentations we use the DVI output of the Radeon. Now, I may be wrong but I think weve managed to find a work around the DVI PAL issue. I'll check this out when I get back to work!

With regard to the cables I make, they are all around 5 metres long. I use a cable is by a company called 'Van Damme' and is available in a variety of colours, red, green, blue, yellow, black etc. It took me an entire weekend to cut and solder 6 sets of leads. Including some short interconnects such as phono to straight scart. Half way thru making the them I got really frustrated (soldering a series of nice chunkie cables into a tiny VGA and DVI connector is more akin to brain surgery) and nearly gave up. But it was well worth the effort and we are all happy with the results. Even the 8metre S-VHS to S-VHS lead (black & yellow cables) gives a very stable image.

Anyway, you mentioned PAL capturing to Mpeg2. Have you had a look at the ADS Instant DVD 2.0. It should be available now in Auz. If you've got a PC with USB2 you should be able to capture and convert an analogue signal to Mpeg2 at upto 15Mb per second. Check out the link below: -

http://www.adstech.com/products/USBAV702/intro/usb702intro.asp?pid=USBAV702

Max pixel frame capture size is 720w x 576h, so it should be good enough. Provided the source is good that is.

So, do you guys now have High Def TV to play with? Is it the same 1080p standard as the use in Japan and North America?

Cheers for now

[Mole]

Strange that you would mention the Instant DVD 2, because I happen to have it.

The quality is OK, but don't expect to do much during capture. Because the nature of USB, the whole computer basicly freezes during capture. It also doesn't handle noisy input so well. Even slight noise produce quite blocky movies. But I used only around 2 mbit/s. Perhaps it'll do better at higher bitrates.

I would recommenend an internal PCI card instead. I think there should be cards which has basic noise filter functions also.

[SeeMoreDigital]

I'm afraid I don't agree with Mole.

The ADS 2.0, external Mpeg 2 encoder will beat the pants off any internal encoder. Especially if you're capturing PAL signals.

Any internal capture device will have to compete with the massive array of E.M noise that's generated inside a PC's case. Not to mention that many internal cards have crappy Mpeg2 encoders!

If you can't get the ADS 2.0 to work properly then I'll be happy to take it off your hands as I'm currently using a borrowed ADS 1.0, which is generating excellent results at around 5000kbps.

If you don't believe me, have a look at some of Fred Thompsons posts about the ADS 1.0 and the ADS 2.0: -

http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=10

Please bare in mind that capturing and creating a good quality NTSC signal is a bit more difficult than capturing an PAL signal.

[Mole]

I live in Thailand and we use PAL here.

And I can assure you I know more than enough to get the ADS to work properly.

I can also wonder from what you have written earlier in this thread that our views of what's considered good quality is quite different.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well Mole,

I actually edit, telecine, encode and trancode video for a living and have done so professionally for over 15 years.

I ofcource started with analogue I even helped out with the design aspects of some of the early digital audio and video editing equipment. I then started a business, that amongst other things, could transfer cine film to Betamax and/or VHS tape. Now people want to trasfer Betamax and VHS to digital.

When I started this tread, it was all about 'cropping away the mattes' on 'low birate' 'anamorphic' 'DivX' encodes. That are to be viewed specifically an a '16:9 TV'.

Don't forget this thread is in the DivX section. So we should be talking about encoding to DivX (Mpeg4)!

You can by all means mention Mpeg2 as the source for which you are comparing your 'DivX' encode to. But in my opinion it's stretching this thread too far for people to start talking about encoding direct to Mpeg2, or any other codec for that matter!

If forum members want to send me a private message I am happy to help out (if I can) with any technical issues they may have with their equipment. I'm even mailed test encodes on CD-R to members on this forum (and other forums) all over the world.

I know exactly how to make DivX look as good as (or as near as damn it to) the original source. But that's not the issue here.

The DivX codec, like many codecs, is all about, how you can go about throwing away data without compromising the encoded image too much. It's also about experimentation. And, as I've said before DivX does a good job and it's quick!

So why don't some of you have a go at doing this!

Take one 120min widescreen 'PAL' DVD. Rip it. And instead of cropping it, resize it to 1024w x 576h pixels (true 16:9 frame size). Then encode it to fit onto a CD-R with audio at just 56 or 64kbps . Then view the encode on a 16:9 TV, not a PC monitor - And don't sit 6 inches away from the screen. Sit where you would do normally!

Then by all means, come back and tell me that it's the worse quality image 'you've ever seen' in such a small file size!

Remember. It's not just about what you can preserve. It's also about what you can get away with. Which after all, is one of the purposes of DivX!

[Mole]

Fine, do whatever you want.

I can see that with 15 years in the field, you haven't learned much.
I can also say that you are making yourself LESS credible by your views and opinions regarding quality and revealing that you have been so long in this field.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Regarding quality, it was Owen who brought up the issue of getting "near perfect" quality level and I just pointed it to him if he was such a quality freak, he shouldn't de-interlace his captures. Since neither DivX or XviD works so well with interlaced material, the best solution to retain quality is by using MPEG2.

While on the issue of using MPEG4, I do only 1 CD rip, because as I mentioned earlier, the whole purpose of using MPEG4 is to get it to a desired file size and try to get it look best as possible at that file size. Of course quality needs to be sacrificed in order to maintain the desired file size. This is the whole point of using MPEG4 and I think, SeeMoreDigital, that our views are same on this issue.

However, it is in the eye of the beholder to exactly what can be considered GOOD quality at the particular file size.

You may be perfectly OK with your rips, but like me and a few people have been trying to point out to you that you can get much higher quality rips while maintaining the same file size.

[manono]

Hi-

I hate to butt in, but Mole, you're getting real close to being insulting. SeeMoreDigital's posts have been reasonable and well thought out (not that I agree with all of them-see below). Let's keep this thread at the high level it's had for most of its length. Disagreements are fine, but personal insults are not. It seems to me though, that some of this discussion is apples to oranges as captures aren't generally of the same quality as DVDs (unless they're HD Sat caps, perhaps-unavailable where I am). Owen mentioned that before as the reason that he captures to DivX5. I don't usually hand out strikes, but I won't hesitate to close this thread if I have to.

Take one 120min widescreen 'PAL' DVD. Rip it. And instead of cropping it, resize it to 1024w x 576h pixels (true 16:9 frame size). Then encode it to fit onto a CD-R with audio at just 56 or 64kbps .

I don't really see the point of having high quality video, if the audio is of poor quality. But leaving that aside, I have a 43" wide screen HDTV with 1280x720 native resolution and DVI in. I also have a DVD/MPEG4 player with DVI out. I kind of agreed with you before that putting 2 hours of video on 1 CD at high resolution might be OK for a regular old standard interlaced TV set. They can cover up a lot of problems. But I always judged the quality of my rips by how they looked on a computer monitor. And when watching on a good TV set, if the rip isn't of good quality, the problems become only too obvious. I'm referring to the blocks and the noise and the general lack of sharpness. Even some of my old 2 CD 640x272 rips don't look so good on the good TV. Some movies are very compressible, and I have done some good 1 CD ones at 640x272 and nearly 2 hours length with VBR MP3 160 audio (and a few 2 CD rips at 704x304-they look excellent). But for the most part, it's 2 CDs at 640*xxx with MP3 audio or AC3 if the movie's compressibility permits it. But maybe I'll try out your suggestion (adjusting the resolution for NTSC).

On a related note, the H.263 matrix that DivX 5 uses is just too soft for my tastes, even when using LanczosResize. I've made a few rips following the Home Theater Profile, so that they'll play more smoothly in the MPEG4 player. Sometimes, when using the sharper XviD MPEG or similar matrices, the bitrate spikes so much that the video pauses briefly. And while the DivX5 rips do play more smoothly, they don't look anywhere near as good. I know, that's heresy, when coming from a DivX5 Forum mod. :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Mole,

You may be perfectly OK with your rips, but like me and a few people have been trying to point out to you that you can get much higher quality rips while maintaining the same file size.

You just don't get it. Maybe cropping and resizing can make your rips look better by when they are viewed only on a 4:3 (1.33:1) PC monitor or TV. But they will look crap when you try and view them on a 16:9 (1.77:1) PC monitor or TV.

You can't honestly believe that when you encode an image using less pixels (such as a 4:3 screen with 640w x 480h pixels) that when you try and stretch that image to fill a 16:9 screen, they will produce an image that looks good.

You have not read or followed the post. Granted I may have not been very specific to start with, but you should have got it by now.

Anyway, before you comment any further. Please confirm if you have either got a 16:9 PC monitor 'like I have' or even a 16:9 TV monitor 'like I have'!

You might think your encodes look good now on your 4:3 monitor but they won't look so hot on a 16:9 monitor.

Just imagine how good your face would look in the mirror, if it was stretched horizontally by 33%!

[SeeMoreDigital]

manono

Thanks for posting it's much appreciated.

If you are or were thinking about encoding a 720w x 480h pixel image to a true 16:9 widescreen image of 853.3333 (or it's near 16 pixel equivalent of 848 or 864) please don't. As, along with the image, you will also get a nice vertical band of white noise down the right hand side of the frame.

For some reason you will only obtain favourable results using PAL pixel ratios........ strange but true!

And you are so right about the audio, 56 or 64kbps does'nt sound that good. But it's good enough if you are using it to help you just view the encode!

The real deal here is that at present we've all got used to our 4:3 PC monitors. In a few short years time we will all be throwing out 4:3 in favour of 16:9. Just like we have done and are doing with are TV's right now. So how good will everybodies collection of DivX resized and cropped encodes look then!

Cheers manono. And by all means please close this thread.

'Respect' to Mole... he ain't so bad!

[Owen]

Settle down people.
No need to get agro.
Compressing video is all about compromise.
Deinterlacing and using DIVX is the best option so far.
This situation could change tomorrow. DIVX may even fix there interlace bugs.
I have a 3Gig P4. With this CPU power I consider hardware encoders obsolete.
CCE encoding can be done at triple real time.
I am just waiting for someone to release an mpeg2 codec that can be used in VCR type applications, in stead of a stand alone transcoder. I do not want to re encode after capture.
I have tried Ulead MediaStudio, but was not happy with the quality. It is also useless for VCR type capture.
I think I would opt for a DVB-S card to capture the Mpeg stream from Satellite long before a hardware Mpeg2 card. There is only one card available here that I know of, and I’m thinking about ordering one. Even though I can’t verify how well it will work.
As for DIVX softness. I agree, but I use ffdshow resize/shapening and the final replay quality is not bad at all. I like Xvid’s sharpness but it comes with the disadvantage of artifacts and a general cause digital look. Not a good compromise for me.

SeeMoreDigital,
Thanks for the info.
We do have HD TV here. It is similar to the US system but the transmission system is different. It is 1920x1080i 50Hz and looks like a moving photograph. Awesome.
On a big screen it’s like looking out of a window.



Regards,

Owen

[SeeMoreDigital]

Owen,

Wow, a full 1920 x 1080i image should look awesome, especially when paired with the appropriate progressive monitor.

It's a real shame that this pixel size cannot be replicated even with the processing power of todays PC's. If you've seen the PC spec's required for T2 Extreme you will know why. And they've cheated. The output image is actually only a meagre 1440w x 816h pixels.

I tried doing some 1920 x 1080 DivX (and WMV9 VCM) encodes for a 'Director of Photography' (God that sounds posh!) friend of mine and although I could generate the encodes, they could not be played back smoothly, even on a 3Ghz. So we had to settle for 1440 x 816!

Still looked good though!

Please, before you consider purchasing a DVB-S capture card, have a look at some of Fred Thompsons posts, or even send him a PM. In the meantime if you've got, or can borrow a DV-cam with analogue capture in, have a play with one of these. I know it's not able to capture a pure digital data stream, like some of the DVB-S capture cards. But it will give you an indication as to how good a PAL analogue to digital capture can be - and you will get more use out of it!

[Insolit]

I've ripped quite a few movies maintaining the original AR of the DVD.
Also because I own a plasma widescreen, where I watch my movies.
But I've never kept the black bars to the encoding and see no point in it.
First of all because, as you said, we would get a not centered encoded video and second of all we where forcing the codec to encode something that it's not needed.
You can always just do the cropping of the black bars and also of a small part of the picture to maintain the correct aspect ratio, avoiding this way the resizing. With this method you'll keep the resolution of the DVD, having the correct aspect ratio for a 16:9 TV.
Now I'm encoding my movies to the usual 16:9 PC and sincerely I find no disadvantage about it. Quality is simply great! Just have to use the Zoom function of the TV to get the correct aspect ratio.
One question, I've read that to watch your 16:9 TV movies in your pc, you just resize them to 16:9 using the divx player.
Are you sure you're getting the correct aspect ratio? Because doing that might correct a little the aspect ratio, but not 100%.
To watch my 16:9 TV movies in the pc, I have to use for example the core player, and set the aspect ratio to PAL 16:9, which is different from the 16:9 usually found in the players.
To complete my post I'd also like to write, that I believe that is important to have a bitrate above at least the 1200 kbps, to have a good image quality. This is the reason why all my rips, except animated movies, are of 2 and sometimes of 3 cd's (Braveheart, Pearl Harbor, A.I....).

[Owen]

SeeMoreDigital,
Now you know why I can’t wait to get my hands on the new Toshiba LCOS it’s 1920x1080 Progressive scan. Yum Yum.
Your correct about capture with a DV Cam. My Panasonic MX8 has outstanding quality for pass through.
I use Zoom Player for playback. It has complete custom aspect ratio control.
I'll look up the posts from Fred, Thanks.

Regards,

Owen

[Mole]

When SeeMoreDigital implied I didn't have the skills to set up the ADS properly, I took that as quite insulting.

It is you who don't get it.

Even though you have a bigger video size, the codec will remove most of the details anyway.

I don't think you quite understand how lossy video compression works.

Let's say the file size 700 MB and 90 min movie.
One can have 720x576 and the other is 576x320.

The one at 720x576 is sure more detailed, but once the codec is through with it, a lot of details is gone already.

In order to preserve the amount of detail, you will have to increase the bitrate. There is of course a threshold where the amount of details removed by compression is so small that it's worth using the higher resolution.

Higher resolution does not automatically mean more detail. The bitrate used must also be known in order to be able to judge whenever it's good or not.

At bitrates below 1000, I can tell you there are no way a full 720x576 resolution will be able to preserve more details than 576x320. In fact, what such high resolution will do is just making the compression artefacts such as mosquito noise and macroblocks more visible than lower resolution.
Maybe at bitrates of around 2000, 720x576 will look as good as 576x320 at 1000.

Why do I feel I'm repeating myself....

And as manono said, when judging quality, you judge with a crisp **tron flat screen monitor, not a television or projector or even LCD.

If you want to compare a lower resolution rip with a higher resolution rip at same bitrate, you'll have to do it on a computer monitor. On a TV or projector, almost everything will look the same.

Otherwise, one might as well compare on a 14 inch TV set and say all rips looks good in it.