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