Reloaded HQ encode !!!

[Soulhunter]

Note: If you wanna directly see the even better looking SharpResize-encode, click here... (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=486155#post486155)

So, here are my settings and some screenshots !!!


Source: Matrix Reloaded (PAL/R2)

Image: 1024x576 Pix. @ 25fps
130 min. - movie-time

XviD: Version 1 RC4
2Pass | 1st Pass (VHQ1)
2Pass | 2nd Pass (VHQ4) @ 4224000 KB
I-frame interval = 250
BVOP's = 1 / 1 / 1
Matrix = Soulhunters v3

Audio: Dolby Digital (AC3)
5.1 - Channels
384 kBit/s

Size: Full DVD5 !!!

Time: About 820 min. (time to encode) ("2600XP")


http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/3544/Reloaded_080444.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4019/Reloaded_082362.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9734/Reloaded_083053.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6186/Reloaded_100259.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6162/Reloaded_111755.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/3262/Reloaded_123210.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5624/Reloaded_126145.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9043/Reloaded_127666.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5373/Reloaded_129235.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5876/Reloaded_139423.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9900/Reloaded_169657.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4596/Reloaded_170930.jpg


Bye

[symonjfox]

Impressive result!
Where do you take an original 1024*576 movie (since DVDs are 720*576 anamorphic)?
What upsampling filter do you use? Lanczos?

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by symonjfox
Impressive result!
Where do you take an original 1024*576 movie (since DVDs are 720*576 anamorphic)?
What upsampling filter do you use? Lanczos? Hehe, charming that you think I used a 1024x576 source... :D

Sure, I used the normal 720x576 PAL source !!!

And yes I used "only" Lanczos for the upsamling... :rolleyes:

But to keep much as possible of the detail, I used my own "high bitrate" matrix... ;)

Just another reason for me to use XviD instead of DivX !!!


Bye

[virus]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Sure, I used the normal 720x576 PAL source !!!
And yes I used "only" Lanczos for the upsamling... :rolleyes:

Please excuse my n00bness, but where's the point in enlarging the picture from 720 to 1024 px? No interpolation kernel will buy you any "new" detail... does it really look better on a large TV screen? And why don't you crop the black bars? Maybe you can remove them and tweak your own q-matrix a little bit more... ;)

[SoonUDie]

Impressive result... but I'd hope so, for 4GB! :D

[bond]

wow, never saw such great stuff before! :)
(apart from my 1cd encodes of course ;) )

now thats what i call mpeg-4 at its best

[KpeX]

Yes, your quality would be higher and filesize lower with cropping of black bars and keeping original size. Too bad you can't encode anamorphically in xvid.....oh wait :rolleyes:

[Teegedeck]

Semi-insane matrix with full anamorphic resolution (only cropping) and no filtering yields a _very_ nice result with standard settings (AQ, Trellis etc.) - except for doing the first pass at quant=3 - at around 2 GB.

For those who like it smoother, SixOfNine doesn't preserve all grain but looks excellently sharp. Still, I prefer the 'original' look.

[Soulhunter]

- New detail...

Not really !!!

But this way I dont need crappy "bilinear" fullscreen playback upsizing... :rolleyes:

Its also another way to preserve more picture detail !!!


- Black bars...

Just want to use a real 16:9 frame size... ;)


- Lower filesize...

With a DVD-writer Ive not to care about filesize... :D


- Anamorphically...

Yes, could give nice results... :)

But I as I said before, I dont like resizing while playback... ;)


Bye

[mf]

Keh, you didn't even use SharpResize. Bad Soulhunter!

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by mf
Keh, you didn't even use SharpResize. Bad Soulhunter! Ehm, still have to do 3 chapters of the 1st Pass, then I can finally start the 2nd Pass... :rolleyes:

I have to encode it chapter wise, coz I need to do other stuff as well on this machine... :o

When its done (maybe in 2-3 weeks) Ill post back !!!


But somehow I get the feeling I should restart this SharpResize encode... :(

Coz the filesize is going a way toooo huge (even for a DVD-R) !!!

Wanna use this "Vaguedenoiser stronger @ chroma way" I demand you today... :)

Maybe something else too... :confused:


AFAIK you have also done a 1024* Reloaded encode with SharpResize...

How big came it out n' what settings have you used ???


Bye

[Sirber]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
And yes I used "only" Lanczos for the upsamling... :rolleyes: Why not using "resize at play" (anamorphic) in MKV container? No loss and more compressability :)

[virus]

ok I see your point, thanks for the explanation :)

BTW speaking of high quality... since you've got bandwidth to spare,why not enhance the stream robustness to scratches/dust by lowering a bit the max I-frame interval? You use 10 seconds (250)... so in the worst case (damaged P-frame on a long sequence without scene-changes) you may end up with quite a long interruption.
Maybe using 125-150 can help a bit. The number of effectively added keyframes will be very limited so visually you won't lose anything...

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Sirber
Why not using "resize at play" (anamorphic) in MKV container? No loss and more compressibility :) What resizer would be used in this case... :confused:


Originally posted by virus
ok I see your point, thanks for the explanation :)

BTW speaking of high quality... since you've got bandwidth to spare,why not enhance the stream robustness to scratches/dust by lowering a bit the max I-frame interval? You use 10 seconds (250)... so in the worst case (damaged P-frame on a long sequence without scene-changes) you may end up with quite a long interruption.
Maybe using 125-150 can help a bit. The number of effectively added keyframes will be very limited so visually you won't lose anything... Good point, should think about this... :)




@mf

Ok, here are some SharpResize samples to compare... ;)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/3734/MR_Sharp_001.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1807/MR_Sharp_002.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7913/MR_Sharp_003.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7193/MR_Sharp_004.jpg

Looks much better than the unfiltered frames on the top... :)


But this ones are from the 1st Pass, so fixed Q2 only !!!

Not sure if they still look this good after the 2nd Pass... :o


On the other hand, with the first part of Matrix it worked very well !!!

But what I remember it was much better to compress than Reloaded...

I will wait n' see what happens !!!


Bye

[bond]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
What resizer would be used in this case... :confused:bilinear afaik

btw resize-at-play is also possible with .mp4 ;)

[Jawor]

But I as I said before, I dont like resizing while playback...
The XviD MPEG-4 Video Decoder from 1.0 RC3 and RC4 will do it for you automatically if you use the AVI container.

[bond]

Originally posted by Jawor
The XviD MPEG-4 Video Decoder from 1.0 RC3 and RC4 will do it for you automatically if you use the AVI container. some builds included that feature already, but its not there for 1.0 but will be released after it afaik

[Sirber]

I used matroska container with XviD 1.0-RC4. There is NO resize at encoding.

[Lefungus]

Is there any media player that use something else than bilinear to resize the video during playback ?

[bond]

Originally posted by Lefungus
Is there any media player that use something else than bilinear to resize the video during playback ? this doesnt depend on the video player, but on the video renderer in dshow

but you can internally upsize in ffdshow during playback (with lanczos aso...) so the video renderer doesnt have to upsize anymore when you go to fullscreen

[Soulhunter]

Yes, ffdshow can use any kind of resizer... :)

But its still not the same as resizing before encoding !!!

Btw, I like ffdshows resizing for downscaling when I watch my encodes on da TV... ;)


Bye

[Teegedeck]

As this already is the monstrous picture thread of the day ;) , here are some samples from the 1.9 GB anamorphic encoding. I resized them with GIMP in order to emulate resize during playback.

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/83056.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/80447.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/100262.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/belluci.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/merowinger4.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/merowinger3.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/castle5.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/castle6.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/castle7.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/castle8.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/castle9.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/111758.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/oracle2.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/trucks.jpg

http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/trucks2.jpg

Not quite as nice but half as big. :p

Note that I decided to leave in picture grain and hence used the 'semi-insane' matrix; but it is pretty easy to get a sharper picture if you use SixOfNine on this one.
Edit: Substituted/added pictures to get more comparable frames (frames should match exactly now in spite of different numbers - darn decoder lag).

[Soulhunter]

Impressive result !!!

Could you also post your settings... :)


Btw, Ive included the frame number in the name of my pictures...

So it would be nice if you could post the same frames, so we can compare them !!!

Think, they are a good mixture of closeups, fast motion, slow motion and mostly non keyframes... ;)

Someone else wanna post samples of his/her HQ Reloaded version ???


But yeah, this thread is going very huge... :rolleyes:

As I am a crappy 56k user, I know how long it takes to load tjis stuff !!!

No matter, its quite interesting anyhow... :D


Bye

[Teegedeck]

Thanks; it's all standard settings: 2 b-frames, 1.5 ratio, 1 offset, Trellis, adaptive quantization, VHQ=4 and ultra-high motion search effort, quarterpel, chroma-motion, chroma-optimizer, GMC, custom matrix: semi-insane, 1st pass at quant=3.

Edit: To spell it out: maximum i-frame intervall: 3000, i-frame boost: 10%, i-frames closer than 1 are reduced by 20%, overflow: 5% (all). Taget-filesize around 1.9 GB, but I've got to check that later.
Edit2: Again, I forgot to mention some settings. Anything else? No fancy filters, no resizer.

Errr... frame numbers? ... :o I must say I was in too much of a hurry, sorry. I only made sure that I didn't capture any keyframes but I was really sloppy about that framenumber thing. Maybe I'll do it again all over and also try to get at least some of the same frames you chose.

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
Maybe I'll do it again all over and also try to get at least some of the same frames you chose. Would be very cool... :cool:


I will also post the SharpResize encode results in 2-3 weeks !!!


If some other members post also some nice results including settings !!!

So this thread could be a good example for different kinds of encoding... :)

This way newbies can get quickly a nice impression of all encoding methods that are possible then !!!

Someone wanna post 2/3 CD encode samples also ???


THX n' Bye

[Blue_MiSfit]

Very nice job. I have been struggling to get a nice looking HD encode of Revolutions.

IMHO, a full 4 gigs is a little too much - I got Revolutions to look INCREDIBLE at 1024 with about 2.5 gigs. No idea what settings I used, and I havent been able to duplicate it :) Musta been one of those damned infernal gremlins messing around with DWORDs in my registry!!!

LOL as a wierd side-note, my comptuer science teacher is very bizarre. He loves gremlins...
Taken from his course syllabus buried in his unix directory structure:

"Waiting until the last minute to submit is not a good idea, since after midnight is gremlin time. Gremlins are heavily armed with very sharp pointers. This leaves the exact cutoff time somewhat fuzzy."

Mackey - the CMPS 12B instructor at UC Santa Cruz. He's a great man. :)

sorry abou being OT, I'm just in love with referencing gremlins right now :D

-misfit

[Soulhunter]

Btw, if you think that this thread takes too long to load, visit this (http://www.angeloonie.coms.nu/HQ.htm) nice site I found today... :D


Bye

[Teegedeck]

Unfortunately that site surpassed its download-limit. ;)
BTW, I've updated my screen-caps to match yours. The other pics still don't come with frame-numbers, though.
Edit: I'm so scatterbrained, still forgot to list some details of my settings. I guess it's because they seem so standard. I just use any feature there is... :p

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
Unfortunately that site surpassed its download-limit. ;) Yesterday I download some 4000x3000 (and above) pictures from it... :D

Originally posted by Teegedeck
BTW, I've updated my screen-caps to match yours. The other pics still don't come with frame-numbers, though.Much o' thanks... :)


Btw, Ive just re-started my SharpResize encode...

Now with some chroma denoising to compensate some compression that SR eats !!!

Amazing results expected, so stay tuned... ;)



Bye

[Rash]

Where can I find the semi-insane matrix? I'm willing to make some tests with it. :)

Thanks.

[lordadmira]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Originally posted by Sirber
Why not using "resize at play" (anamorphic) in MKV container? No loss and more compressibility What resizer would be used in this case...
Setting the aspect ratio in the container isn't a resize. What that's defining is the pixel shape. It gets confusing when u deal with this because the video stream and the viewing monitor can have their own pixel shapes. Getting the 2.35:1 anamorphic frame into a 1024x576 frame is a process referred to as squishing. If you then play that back on a 1:1 pixel size device (computer monitor), it looks wrong. The pixel size in that case is 2.35:1. The playback device will (should) unsquish that 2.35:1 pixel into the native pixel shape of the viewing device, be it 1:1, 4:3, or 16:9.

LA

[sysKin]

Originally posted by lordadmira
Getting the 2.35:1 anamorphic frame into a 1024x576 frame is a process referred to as squishing. (...) The pixel size in that case is 2.35:1.
2.35:1 ? No. 2.35:1 PAR with 1024x576 frame would give you 4.18:1 aspect ratio.
The playback device will (should) unsquish that 2.35:1 pixel into the native pixel shape of the viewing device, be it 1:1, 4:3, or 16:9. 1:1 yes, that's VGA monitor. All other ratios you quoted are never used in any display device. PAL TV uses 12:11 (almost 1:1), NTSC TV uses 10:11 (again, almost 1:1) and so on.

[Audionut]

Reguarding screen resizing.

Set your display resolution to 1600 by 900 pixels. 16:9 ;)

Now use your monitor adjustments to squash the pitcure to a 16:9 ratio.

You now have a perfect 16:9 display on a 4:3 display device.

It's very simple to either select this 16:9 resolution before playback of video, or set-up your player of choice to auto select this resolution on full screen playback.

Why? As stated before, resizing sucks. But IMHO, my way of resizing is better than even a wide-screen tv.
A wide-screen tv streches 16:9 material, where as this way squeezes the pitcure, to maintain a 16:9 ratio.

[lordadmira]

Dammit now even I'm getting confused. I'm talking about the movie with a 2.35:1 natural visual aspect ratio (like u would see it in a theater) being horizontally sampled into 1024 pixels and vertically sampled into 576 pixels so therefore the pixel shape is 1.32:1. Horizontal dpi / vertical dpi. Viewing this 1024x576 movie on a 2.35:1 display device will result in it looking like it should, the proper aspect. Imagine a special HDTV with physical width 2.35 times greater than its height and the screen being made up of 1024 elements horizontally and 576 elements vertically. But as demonstrated by the screen caps, displaying this 1024x576 frame containing a 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 1:1 pixel shape device, requires compressing it in the vertical dimension.

Ah, screw it. U know what, I don't really care that much. :D The terminology and notation for this subject is so screwed up that it's almost impossible to think straight about. :devil:

P.S. A monitor is a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio device with a 1:1 pixel shape, i.e. Hdpi/Vdi = 1. Just wanted to nail down atleast *one* fact. :rolleyes:

LA

[lordadmira]

Let me give one archetypical squishing example. SVCD's. They are usually encoded at 480 x 480 resolution but with a 4:3 pixel shape. So to map that onto a 1:1 shape device the horizontal has to get streched by 1.333, giving a playback effective resolution of 640 x 480. Just wanted to throw that out there for everyone's behoovement. ^_^

[Teegedeck]

Originally posted by Rash
Where can I find the semi-insane matrix? I'm willing to make some tests with it. :)
Comes with LigH's matrix editor. Usual warnings: that matrix of Didée is a dedicated high-bitrate matrix, do first pass at quant=3 etc. etc. Screenshots above are at quant=4 or 3 probably (due to the use of adaptive quantization some MBs have higher quantizers).

[sysKin]

Originally posted by lordadmira
Dammit now even I'm getting confused. I'm talking about the movie with a 2.35:1 natural visual aspect ratio (like u would see it in a theater) being horizontally sampled into 1024 pixels and vertically sampled into 576 pixels so therefore the pixel shape is 1.32:1.Exactly :) so PAR is 1.32:1 . This is exactly what will xvid calculate if you select DAR of 2.35:1 with such resolution, and the values - 132:100 - are the ones written to the bitstream.
Ah, screw it. U know what, I don't really care that much. :D The terminology and notation for this subject is so screwed up that it's almost impossible to think straight about. :devil:

P.S. A monitor is a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio device with a 1:1 pixel shape, i.e. Hdpi/Vdi = 1. Just wanted to nail down atleast *one* fact. :rolleyes:Well there is just one terminology thingy you're missing - pixel shape *is* pixel aspect ratio. So a monitor is 1:1 PAR (like you said) and 4:3 DAR (D for display).

Perhaps I should change XviD's gui a little bit and instead of "picture aspet ratio" make "display aspect ratio". I don't like the sound of it put at least the abbreviation will be different.

As for SVCD, the resolution is square (480x480) so yeah, DAR becomes equal to PAR.

:)
Radek

[atreya2011]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
Usual warnings: that matrix of Didée is a dedicated high-bitrate matrix, do first pass at quant=3 etc. etc.

What is the Lowest bitrate I can use with the semi insane matrix? (like 1000kbps, 1500kbps etc) or is it restricted to reallllly high bitrates like 2000kbps and above? :)

[Teegedeck]

I don't know how well it scales, myself. Yeah, 2000 kbps is certainly a good guess (as it is about the bitrate I've used on the one above), although it always heavily depends on the source. I think I would not use it if 2nd pass only outputs quant=5. It's certainly more for 3-CD-encodes than for 2-CD-encodes, but I'm never so positive about 'rules' and always do an encode with different matrices and settings before keeping one version.

[Honza]

I made backup of M Reloaded at 720x384 3 days ago using rc4 and Bulletproof's High Quality Matrix with quantitizer 2 (except credits (q20))and vhq2 other settings default. I have 2 ac3 streams and filesize is 1,89GB. It´s not as perfect as Soulhunter´s movie, but is´s enought for backup. I have backups with this settings and burn 2 or 3 movies on 1 DVD-R.

There are very litle diferences, but 1 Xvid per DVD-R is little bit crazy.

Resizing during playback - do you think, that 1024x800 will be standard resolution for monitor? I do´nt. I use now 1124x864 and I have only 17´´ LCD. I don´t know what will be standard in 10 or 20 years.(10 ago was standard 14 CRT). So if upsampling during playback will be necessary in some years and is not important if will be upsampling from 720, 1024 or 1200.

[Teegedeck]

Yes, one XviD per 1 DVD-R seems like overkill - as one could as well use a compressed domain transcoder and be done with it in 15 minutes. But if I can put two XviDs onto 1 DVD-R and reach near-transparency I'm satisfied. It all depends on the importance of the video portion. In some cases, you won't feel the need for full-res video. My classical music concert recordings I back-up onto 1 CD-R with the audio as LC-AAC while my horribly mastered B/W-DVDs go onto 1 CD-R as well with HE AAC.

Edit: The idea to use a DVD-R for an artificially sharpened version of a movie is also kind of to my liking. :) Hm, but I wonder if an anamorphic encode with 'semi-insane' at quant=2 wouldn't look even better.

[Rash]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
Comes with LigH's matrix editor. Usual warnings: that matrix of Didée is a dedicated high-bitrate matrix, do first pass at quant=3 etc. etc. Screenshots above are at quant=4 or 3 probably (due to the use of adaptive quantization some MBs have higher quantizers).
Thanks a lot. :)

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Honza
There are very little differences, but 1 XviD per DVD-R is little bit crazy.IMHO its a matter of taste... ;)

Lot ppl do 1/2 CD encodes and are happy with the results !!!

But for me all of this encodes look just horrible... :o


Originally posted by Honza
Resizing during playback - do you think, that 1024x800 will be standard resolution for monitor?
No, but 1024x768 (4:3) is imho widely used for PC monitors... :rolleyes:

And its also a standard (known as XGA) for projectors, plasma displays and other stuff !!!

Just have a look here (http://www.electroboard.com.au/products/detail.asp?ID=10087) or here... (http://www.computerhq.com/hardware/partinfo-id-19473.html) ;)


Originally posted by Teegedeck
The idea to use a DVD-R for an artificially sharpened version of a movie is also kind of to my liking. :) Hm, but I wonder if an anamorphic encode with 'semi-insane' at quant=2 wouldn't look even better. Comparison maybe... :D

The 1st pass of my SharpResize encode is done in 30h !!!

Estimated 4.6 GB (video only) @ Quant2 with my custom matrix... :cool:


Bye

[CruNcher]

take this
http://cruncher.mufflastig.com/XviD/samples/
:devil:

[Teegedeck]

Err.. Sorry, but this links to some 640x272 samples of Pearl Harbour that aren't even near to 'transparent' but contain quite a good amount of compression artefacts. Nice samples though; more like 'good filesize/quality ratio'. Also, isn't this thread about encoding Matrix Reloaded?

[Teegedeck]

Just to add some more of these nonsensical big pictures... :D (We know screenshots don't say that much about the quality of a video.)

Here's Soulhunter's initial encoding again, only cropped:
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/Reloaded_cropped_083053.jpg

And this is my original, anamorphic, unfiltered avs, resized with lanczos resize:
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/avs_lanczos_83055.jpg

And this is from my encode (semi-insane at quant=4?) again, this time also resized with lanczos resize:
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/my_encoding_83056.jpg

Edit: And this is what it would look like with semi-insane at quant=2
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/semi-insane_at_q2_lanczos.jpg

Edit: Ack! Is it my eyes or does SixOfNine at quant=2 look even more like the original than semi-insane on this one?!? Watch those teeth!
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Teegedeck/SixOfNine_at_q2_lanczos.jpg

Don't you think that Soulhunter's encoding seems pretty damn near transparent? At least I can't see many differences between MPEG-2 original and his encode. Also I think my own attempt is not so shabby, either... Perhaps in the future we should care more about good dshow resizers than about filtering? How about dshow sharp resize?

Edit: There's truely many more Agents Smith, now...

Edit 2: The capture of that specific frame at quant=2 with SixOfNine now seems even more true to the original to me than semi-insane. I certainly didn't have that impression when I made test-encodings, but I'll probably check again. The first pass with SixOfNine at quant=3 was 1.8 GB back then; perhaps it's worth a try. I'll encode that scene at quant=3 and check again in any case.

[Soulhunter]

Not sure, but for me the 6of9 n' the SemiInsane sample-frame looks 100 % identical... :confused:


Bye

[Jawor]

Both files are identical.

[Teegedeck]

Whoops, indeed. :o

Mixed them up, it seems. Will capture the frames again in order to make sure this time.

Edit: Sheesh, I just haven't got the time! I'll take them down.

[Soulhunter]

Oops, just realized that all my sample pics where removed due the hosts bandwidth restriction... :o

Sorry, should be fixed now !!!


Bye

[Teegedeck]

OK, I re-did the snapshots. BTW, encoding Matrix Reloaded with SixOfNine at quant=2 (anamorphically) would yield about 3.2 GB, semi-insane at quant=2 about 4.7 GB.

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
OK, I re-did the snapshots. BTW, encoding Matrix Reloaded with SixOfNine at quant=2 (anamorphically) would yield about 3.2 GB, semi-insane at quant=2 about 4.7 GB. Nice... :)

Btw, my CM @ quant 2 gave 6.5GB (with 384kbps AC3 stream) !!!


Bye

[BoNz1]

Originally posted by CruNcher
take this
http://cruncher.mufflastig.com/XviD/samples/
:devil:

Nice, and not just the video 8D. I did Matrix Reloaded onto 2 cds with AAC audio IIRC at 704x304 res or something like that. I was reasonably satisfied with the quality.

[atreya2011]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
Comes with LigH's matrix editor.

Sorry, but I downloaded LigH's matrix editor and I could not find the semi insane matrix. Is there any other place I can get it from?

[JasonFly]

Soulhunter, did you try IIP scrip^t of avisynth. I don't know many things about that script but it seems that his goal is to upsize the picture to 1024*xxx.

[Jawor]

@atreya2011: try here (http://www.ligh.de/software/qmatrix.zip)

[Didée]

Originally posted by JasonFly
it seems that his goal is to upsize the picture to 1024*xxx. No - the (initial) idea was to upsize to 1280*720 (720p). But it doesn't matter, it works with any output resolution.

And yes - Soulhunter already tried that script. It gave him already alot of reasons for ":rolleyes:"

;)

- Didée

[P0l1m0rph1c]

Originally posted by atreya2011
Sorry, but I downloaded LigH's matrix editor and I could not find the semi insane matrix. Is there any other place I can get it from?

http://dc0der.is-a-geek.org/qmatrix.rar

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Didée
It gave him already alot of reasons for ":rolleyes:"
Yeah, results where superb... :)

If you dont care much about speed its a wonderful thing !!!

Maybe I do a full IIP encode after the SharpResize one too... :rolleyes:


Bye

[SeeMoreDigital]

This is great stuff. I can't believe this thread passed me by!

Soulhunter I'm glad you've carried on experimenting with 1024x576 'true 16:9 frame' PAL encoding, since we last talked about it all those months ago.

I would be interested to learn if any NTSC coders have had any success generating encodes with 864x480 'true 16:9 frame'? All the ones I generated (from sections of T2 Extreme and StarWars 1) looked excellent and worked very well on my TV via hardware playback card but I did not have much luck at all playing them back via software player.

Anyway you've certainly generated a lot of interest in the subject.

Cheers

EDIT: I forgot to mention. If there are NTSC users interested in generating 'cropped and resized' encodes from 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 DVD sources, you might find using 864x368 and 864x352 image pixel frame sizes (respectively) provides a closer match to the DVD.

[CruNcher]

you could upsize and then use this here but be carefull it's slow

http://www.compression.ru/video/smart_sharpen/index_en.html

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Soulhunter I'm glad you've carried on experimenting with 1024x576 'true 16:9 frame' PAL encoding, since we last talked about it all those months ago. To tell truth I was a bit skeptical first... :rolleyes:

But now I have to gratitude you for forcing me to use such framsizes !!!


Originally posted by CruNcher
You could upsize and then use this here but be careful it's slow Thanks !!!

I will have a look at this... :)


Bye

[JasonFly]

It a little off topic but i'm wondering if such resolutions(1024*xxx) are compatible with standalone players.
I'm not sure I have make me clearly understood, so I give you some more info:
I don't know if Soulhunter XviD options are standalone compatible, but imagine he has chosen 1 bframe and no other "exotic" option, does this resolution can be play on a standalone? That is the question.

[Gaia]

Originally posted by JasonFly
It a little off topic but i'm wondering if such resolutions(1024*xxx) are compatible with standalone players.
I'm not sure I have make me clearly understood, so I give you some more info:
I don't know if Soulhunter XviD options are standalone compatible, but imagine he has chosen 1 bframe and no other "exotic" option, does this resolution can be play on a standalone? That is the question.

Most of the standalone players have big problems decoding high bitrate dvd resolution encodes. 1024x is definetly far too much for any player.

[Soulhunter]

Yeah, second that !!!


Even when there wouldn't be problems with the relative high resolution...

...the bitrate would be much too high for the current standalone chipset's !!!


Quite not sure if high resolution but "spec compliant" bitrate would be playable... :confused:


Btw, Ive only used 1 B-VOP !!!

See my settings in the first post... ;)


Bye

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Gaia
Most of the standalone players have big problems decoding high bitrate dvd resolution encodes. 1024x is definitely far too much for any player. Yes, unfortunately current hardware player chipsets can only cope with a maximum image pixel frame size of 720x576 (total 414,720 pixels). Worse still most hardware players stick to set pixel sizes/ratios meaning experimentation is limited!

I would have hoped that for you NTSC hardware player guys, would have been able to use say frame sizes of 864x480 (414,720 total pixels) but sadly this does not seem to be the case (Sigma's Xcard can though :D )

The main advantage of using such wide ratios becomes quite clear when viewing very quick panning shots and any high motion scenes. This has got to be due to having much more horizontal pixels (20% more for NTSC and 42% more for PAL) in the frame!

Anyway, for all those who have not tried yet... please give it a go!

Cheers

EDIT: Good news for all you NTSC users. If you have DirectX 9 installed and adjust your software media players playback colour out put to VMR9 'windowed', it is possible to view 864x480 encodes (or their cropped equivalent) without any video noise appearing at the far right of the frame.

[Didée]

Originally posted by CruNcher
you could upsize and then use this here but be carefull it's slow

http://www.compression.ru/video/smart_sharpen/index_en.html
Looks interesting ... but they seem to offer only those preview pics. Is there a download "hidden" somewhere in the russian pages?

However, from eyeballing these samples, it looks like this sharpener uses some sort of adaptive/gradualual unsharp-masking. Like "for each pixel, search the max. distance over which similar pixels occur continuously, then use that as the radius for unsharp masking this one pixel". Something like that.

I took the opportunity of processing one of their examples with iiP ;)

Have a look here:Comparison_MSUSmartSharp--iiP.zip (http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/ii00i/Comparison_MSUSmartSharp--iiP.zip) (ZIP 138kB)

(Note: the artefacts in the iiP-sample are already in the source (jpeg :rolleyes: ) - the source was feeded as-is into iiP, without any pre-processing).

The MSU filter does a great job in contrast enhancement, clearly better than iiP in this respect.
But taken literally, contrast enhancement is not "sharpening", it's ... contrast enhancement. And thus, the result of this MSU filter looks a little "thick" or "greasy" -- the usual effect of unsharp-masking.

Decide for yourself which one gives the sharper image.


- Didée


P.S.

For the curious: settings for iiP wereiip(
\ duststr=2, dustweight=1.0,
\ ss1_x=1.414, ss1_y=1.414,
\ detailcontr1=127, detailcontr2=192, contr_radius=5, PixSharp=1.0,
\ ss2_x=3.5, ss2_y=3.5,
\ Xstren=255, Xlimit=255,
\ subpelstren=1.58, antiflicker=false,
\ flatweight=0,
\ protect_floor=0, protect_bias=12,
\ dering=100, dering_weight=1.0,
\ dering_floor=4, dering_bias=6,
\ debug="-showall", cropx=0, cropy=16
\ )

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Didée
Looks interesting ... but they seem to offer only those preview pics. Is there a download "hidden" somewhere in the russian pages?
Yeah, cant find the download link... :(


Bye

[CruNcher]

http://www.compression.ru/video/smart_sharpen/src/smart_sharpen.zip

[TheUnforgiven]

good link CrunCher :D
is there a chance that u post a link to the deinterlacer if there is.
sorry for the offtopic

[CruNcher]

it's CruNcher ;) no sorry the Samsung ones are not public as it seemes

[TheUnforgiven]

used to write it CrunCher as its the name of my pc :cool:
thanx anyway.

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by CruNcher
http://www.compression.ru/video/smart_sharpen/src/smart_sharpen.zip Thanks !!!

Btw, can you speak/read russian lingo ???


Bye

[Soulhunter]

Just to fill the time till my SharpResize encode is done...


Here are my custom covers for the JewelCase !!!

Front:
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6028/Matrix2_cover02c.jpg

Inlay:
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7954/Reloaded_Inlay.jpg

Back:
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5580/Reloaded_Back.jpg


Bye

[nanogate]

When i try to get over 640x480 with sharp resize Virtualdub shows Avisynth readerror.
But its working with Lanczosresize.:confused:
Do I have an old version of Sharptools? (v0.1)
Its a little slow on my machine@640,352 firstpass (1-2 fps)
With Lanczos i got ~15 fps.
No other Filtering.

[SoonUDie]

@nanogate
SharpReszie is definately not meant to be fast!

At the moment, almost all DVD->HDTV conversion efforts are more "experimental" than practical, considering the speed loss... unless of course you enjoy encodes that take a couple days to finish!

Also, for your read error, Avisynth probably ran out of memory. To fix this, put the line

SetMemoryMax(amount)

at the beginning of your .avs file, where "amount" is the amount of memory you want to devote to the task (in general I use 128+).

For anyone else thinking of DVD->HDTV conversions, you should try fastEDIUpsizer (but this is also veeeery slow!), posted a while ago in this forum. It uses edge detection to get a more more pleasing (jaggie-free!) upsize than Lanczos or Bicubic.

[nanogate]

lol I often use setmemorymax(96) but dont use it when I need it :eek:

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by SoonUDie
...For anyone else thinking of DVD->HDTV conversions, you should try fastEDIUpsizer (but this is also veeeery slow!), posted a while ago in this forum. It uses edge detection to get a more more pleasing (jaggie-free!) upsize than Lanczos or Bicubic. What exactly do you mean when you say DVD->HDTV conversions?

If you are suggesting encoding using more vertical pixels than the DVD source (ie: more than 480 or 576) then in my opinion it's really not worth the effort!

I've done plenty of tests in this regard but came to the conclusion that only increasing the horizontal quantity of pixels is useful exercise!

Cheers

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by nanogate
When i try to get over 640x480 with sharp resize Virtualdub shows Avisynth readerror.
But its working with Lanczosresize.:confused:
Its coz SharpResize uses super-sampling (4x IIRC) !!!

Means it resizes to 2560x1920, adds sharpening and resizes back to 640x480... ;)


Bye

[atreya2011]

Originally posted by SoonUDie
Also, for your read error, Avisynth probably ran out of memory. To fix this, put the line

SetMemoryMax(amount)

at the beginning of your .avs file, where "amount" is the amount of memory you want to devote to the task (in general I use 128+).



Sorry for being offtopic, but virtual dub has crashed many a time for me during encoding at random points and I know it is defenitely a memory problem, so I can Use SetMemoryMax to fix it right?(btw I have PC 3200 512 MB DDR)

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by atreya2011
...so I can Use SetMemoryMax to fix it right?Just try it... ;)

Use also this tool (http://hcidesign.com/memtest/download.html) to test your RAM's stability !!!


Bye

[SoonUDie]

@atreya2011
Like Soulhunter said, try it and find out. I would assume that there is a good chance it will work for you.

@SeeMoreDigital
It's true that you can't really recreate information by upsizing using any known spatial technique. However, you can create *pleasant* results. Compare the SharpResize Matrix shots with the lanczos ones to see what I mean... the end result is that you get something much sharper that is more enjoyable to watch if you play it back on a high-definition display. Also, if you use something like fastEDIUpsizer, you can eliminate aliasing artifacts (jaggies).

[Teegedeck]

The more sane option would be to do this via postprocessing though... Either sharpening in ffdshow could have a similar effect (haven't tried it) or a sharp resizer used during playback.

[SoonUDie]

@Teegedeck
I think the point was that sharp resizing isn't something you *can* do in realtime with our current software... so you have to encode it that way. Otherwise, the only other option I can think of is a hardware upconversion box.

[Teegedeck]

Truely, 'sane' was the wrong expression when we reach hardware limitations here; 'space-effective' says it better. It is a niche thing, but upscaling while encoding is justified when the outcome looks nice and storage is cheap, I think.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by SoonUDie
...SeeMoreDigital
It's true that you can't really recreate information by upsizing using any known spatial technique. However, you can create *pleasant* results. Compare the SharpResize Matrix shots with the lanczos ones to see what I mean... the end result is that you get something much sharper that is more enjoyable to watch if you play it back on a high-definition display. Also, if you use something like fastEDIUpsizer, you can eliminate aliasing artifacts (jaggies). When generating encodes from an 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 source, what vertical image pixel frame sizes have you tried?

Cheers

[Soulhunter]

Yay, its done !!!

I just finished my SharpResize version... :D


Source: Matrix Reloaded (PAL/R2)

Image: 1024x576 Pix. @ 25fps | 132 min.

Settings: XviD v1 RC4 | 2Pass (VHQ1) @ 4199963 KB | BVOP's = 1 / 1 / 1 | Matrix = Soulhunters v3

Audio: Dolby Digital (AC3) | 5.1 Channels | 384 kBit/s

Time: About 4800 min. (time to encode) ("2600XP")


AviSynth script:

Clip = Last

Clip1 = Clip.VagueDenoiser(Threshold = 0.25, Method = 1, NSteps = 6, Chroma = False)
Clip2 = Clip.VagueDenoiser(Threshold = 1.00, Method = 1, NSteps = 6, Chroma = True )

Clip1.MergeChroma(Clip2)

SharpResize(1024, 576)


Samples:

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5696/Reloade_SR_127666.jpg

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3161/Reloade_SR_129235.jpg

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2896/Reloade_SR_139423.jpg

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8545/Reloade_SR_169657.jpg

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3371/Reloade_SR_170930.jpg


Bye

[JasonFly]

Your screenshots are amazing! Especially the last one with the explosion.I haven't compared with the previous but these are impressive.
Congratulations for your patience doing all these tests.(I can't imagine encoding time if you had set vhq to 4. But maybe the low speed should be
due to sharp resize? I don't know this filter very well)

What I must remember for these tests is that upsizing is definitely the solution to reduce(I should say: not to introduce) artifacts.This of course implies DVD storage but that's worth the quality I think

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by JasonFly
But maybe the low speed should be due to sharp resize?Ehm, mostly... :rolleyes:


Source:

The Matrix - Lobby Shootout / 3:07 min. @ 25fps / 1024x576 pix.


Settings:

XviD v1 RC4 (Koepis)

Fixed Quant 2 (VHQ1)

I-frame interval = 250

Matrix = Soulhunter v3

BVOP's = 1 / 1 / 1


Results:

LanczosResize
Size = 154 MB / Time = 05 min.

SharpResize
Size = 162 MB / Time = 65 min.


Bye

[bot]

I know you're either going to hate me or ignore me for asking this.

-But since transcoding the lossy dvd to divx is bound to introduce artefacts and lessen pq in other ways... and because of the 80 hour encoding... what kind of result would you get from resizing the source dvd during playback (with the highest possible quality resizer available at real time)?

I can't do the comparison myself for two reasons. One is that I don't have Matrix Revolution DVD (which is the frame of reference here). And the other is that I can't make the simplest avisynth script without getting OutOfMemory.

[kilg0r3]

Originally posted by bot
what kind of result would you get from resizing the source dvd during playback (with the highest possible quality resizer available at real time)?The disadvantages are (a) the macor blocks larger compared to the overall resolution and (b), which is related to (a), that you resize (enlarge) the artifacts introduced by recompression. And the other is that I can't make the simplest avisynth script without getting OutOfMemory. [/B]
SetMemoryMax(), IIRC, might help you there. But check the exact syntax

[bot]

Originally posted by kilg0r3
The disadvantages are (a) the macor blocks larger compared to the overall resolution and (b), which is related to (a), that you resize (enlarge) the artifacts introduced by recompression.
SetMemoryMax(), IIRC, might help you there. But check the exact syntax


A) The macro blocks of a dvd aren't that visible compared to in xvid (or any other) transcoding?

B) Recompression? I know DVD's are compressed, but that's a little bit harshly said?


Tried SetMemoryMax(). When I uninstalled Avisynth and reinstalled it (latest version) I stopped getting Outofmemory. Now the player (mpc) just switches off. It's noob-o-rama here :rolleyes:

[Teegedeck]

Wow, great screenshots! Congrats for that nice encoding, Soulhunter. :)

@kilg0r3: I doubt that macroblocks are of importance in this context; an anamorphic encode takes less bits than a true 16:9 frame and thus is less likely to introduce new 'blocking'. (For encoding it should be avoided that macroblock borders become visible or artifacts appear IMHO.)

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by bot
I know you're either going to hate me or ignore me for asking this. No fear, I will only make my usually sarcastic comments... :D


Originally posted by bot
But since transcoding the lossy dvd to DivX is bound to introduce artefact's and lessen pq in other ways...Most of the visible artefact's are already in the DVD source !!!

And btw, this here is the XviD forum, not the DivX forum... ;)


Originally posted by bot
What kind of result would you get from resizing the source dvd during playback...Ok, the source realtime-resized with Lanczos would look nearly identical to my 1st encode... :rolleyes:

But the source files would need more than 5GB storage IIRC !!!

So there is no chance to backup them on a single DVD5... ;)


Originally posted by bot
I can't do the comparison myself for two reasons. One is that I don't have Matrix Revolution DVD (which is the frame of reference here).Nope, its Matrix Reloaded !!!


Bye

[bot]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
@kilg0r3: I doubt that macroblocks are of importance in this context; an anamorphic encode takes less bits than a true 16:9 frame and thus is less likely to introduce new 'blocking'. (For encoding it should be avoided that macroblock borders become visible or artifacts appear IMHO.) [/B]

Using PAL for example:
Are you saying that backing up in anamorph xvid 720x576 creates more artefacts than resizing to 720x384?


@soulhunter ... *double sided migraine* Of course I meant xvid and reloadad. :scared:

But the source files would need more than 5GB storage IIRC

-I meant making an avs file, referring to the untouched dvd, resizing it in real time:
DVD minus extras + 10kB avs < Original Size

Edit: I get the sinking feeling that I'm missing a point.

[Teegedeck]

Originally posted by bot
Are you saying that backing up in anamorph xvid 720x576 creates more artefacts than resizing to 720x384?

That's a bit of a misunderstanding indeed. Soulhunter has resized his encoding to 1024x576; so this takes indeed more bits than an anamorphic 720x576. I even cropped off the black barrs and encoded 704x416 anamorphically. And that naturally saved me quite some bits when compared to a 'true 16:9 frame'.

Yes, on the other hand you could say, if you go lower and lower with the bitrate, that a 720x576 encode would probably start looking bad sooner than a 720x384 encode. Or not; anamorphic encodes tend to mask that effect pretty well. I'd say it depends. If you go to the extremely low bitrates, anamorphic encodes will look worse than non-anamorphic ones unless you encode the anamorphic frame at an altogether lower resolution than the non-anamorphic frame. But that's not the sort of thing we were talking about.

Neither of us got any artefacts in his encoding. We don't do such things. :cool:

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
...I even cropped off the black barrs and encoded 704x416 anamorphically. And that naturally saved me quite some bits when compared to a 'true 16:9 frame'. Have you tried encoding a 2.35:1 DVD source to an resized 1024x432 frame yet?

Cheers

[bot]

(For encoding it should be avoided that macroblock borders become visible or artifacts appear IMHO.)

So here you are referring to... what? Keeping 720x576 is bad visavi Resizing to 1024x576?








/resisting urge to hijack the thread by following up on the 720x324 :)

[Teegedeck]

I'm not talking about anything that specific, just about using a high-enough bitrate! That's all.

[Teegedeck]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Have you tried encoding a 2.35:1 DVD source to an resized 1024x432 frame yet?Cheers
Err, no. I'm sorry but ATM I don't see what you wanted to say with that.

[bot]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
I'm not talking about anything that specific, just about using a high-enough bitrate! That's all.

D'OH!
I tend to make things too complicated for myself when I read these forums

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by bot
I meant making an avs file, referring to the untouched dvd, resizing it in real time:
DVD minus extras + 10kB avs < Original Size

Edit: I get the sinking feeling that I'm missing a point. You wouldn't even need a 10kb avs, coz ffdshows RAW filtering could do this instead... ;)

Nah, all this stuff here is about making backup's of your DVD movies !!!

So, using the DVD every time you wanna watch the movie is exactly the opposite... :p


Bye

[bot]

Well, yeah, I was just wondering if it was kind of futile to transcode for 80hrs if you could get approximately the same result from resizing the original (or an image backup) during playback.
Oh I dunno.

[Didée]

bot:

If you don't have tried SharpResizing (like done by Soulhunter) yourself yet, let me describe how I experience such encodings.

Firstly, it must be applied carefully. If it's done too strong/too fast, the image gets crap.
If it's done correctly (Soulhunter did), then you get a very subtile effect. It is sometimes so weak that it gets hard to spot the difference in still pictures (screenshots). The difference becomes much more obvious when things are in motion. Everything gets a little crisper -- not that what usually is called "sharper", but simply more "crisp".
/* bites lips to not start over again about the terminology of "sharp". */

Anyhow, currently there is no way to do this kind of sharpening in realtime, not even close.

- Didée

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by bot
...if you could get approximately the same result from resizing the original...
Only "close" to my 1st encode, but far away from my 2nd one... ;)

Originally posted by Didée
/* bites lips to not start over again about the terminology of "sharp". */
Assume you mean the difference between edges n' texture... :rolleyes:

Hmm, why not ???

It could get very interesting and also informative... :)


Bye

[bot]

Would it be against the forum rules to ask if you could post a 10-15 second snippet as a torrent?

[vio]

After seeing this thread I decided to give it a shot.

I dont have Reloaded but I tried Kill Bill Vol 1 (PAL).

I copied Soulhunter's avs, except SharpResized to 1280x520. The warp strength I had to change to 100 as it produced some weird edges on some text.

Luckily I have two computers... the 2400XP is still going at it, should be fininshed in about 60-70 hours. All up the movie should take about 6 or 7 days. I stream dvb from this pc to the one I use now so that takes up a few cpu cycles.

Oh yeah VHQ4 :/, quant2 first pass.

Half DVD bitrate, the small test clip looked fantastic.

[Didée]

All up the movie should take about 6 or 7 days
:eek:
When using such slow scripts at such big framesizes, then by all means do a 3-pass-encoding! As a matter of principle, its a big waste to let these kind of slow scripts (also some of mine ;) ) render the whole clip two times.

1st-pass to a lossles YV12 compression (VBLE, FFVW1)
2nd and 3rd pass as normal XviD (or whatever else) 2-pass, feeding the lossless 1st-pass as source.

This will save you big time!

But you temporarily need free HD space in the range of 10 GB ~ 50 GB, maybe even more, depending on resolution and clip length.

- Didée

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by bot
Would it be against the forum rules to ask if you could post a 10-15 second snippet as a torrent? That would already make 3-4 MB data then !!!

I have only crappy 56k net-access... :(

But I could mail you some 1MB clips if you wanna host them !!!


Bye

[vio]

Well it finished, 5.5 days.

By far the best xvid encode I have ever done.

I have to agree, the screenshots dont do the movie justice as it looks fantastic in motion, but ordinary when paused.

When I get Kill Bill vol 2 i'll do both again and make a mega-xvid-dvd.

[bot]

Sorry, I don't have any server space to host anything :-/


Could you post the final script & encoding settings in the first post?

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by bot
Could you post the final script & encoding settings in the first post? Could be misleading then, coz my 1st encode used different ones !!!

But I will add a link to the SharpResize version in my 1st post... ;)


THX n' Bye

[dbzgundam]

Seems that a few posters wanted to see an NTSC user's results?

Here are some samples! (Before and after SharpResize.... Lanczos comes first)

http://www.esenet.com/baka/GMKcomparison.png

http://www.esenet.com/baka/GMKcomparison2.png


http://www.esenet.com/baka/GMKcomparison3.png

http://www.esenet.com/baka/GMKcomparison4.png

Settings were following Soulhunter's encode. (right down to the matrix being used)

[Soulhunter]

Nice compare !!!

But re-read the thread title... ;)


Bye

[dbzgundam]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Nice compare !!!

But re-read the thread title... ;)


Bye

Oh, you wanted NTSC Reloaded results (I thought the NTSC request was aimed at any movie)? I don't have Reloaded (I keep meaning to buy it, along with Revolutions) so I can't post any comparisons at the moment..... :(

[Soulhunter]

Wasn't meant as critic... ;)

Thought its just a bit confusing when reading the title !!!

Btw, Godzilla rulez... :cool:

Funny to see how he destroys all this lill model city's !!!


Offtopic:

Still looking for the original film music of these old Godzilla movies !!!

Dada da da dadada da... :D