New Quantization Matrices - EQM V3 series (last update: 04/02/2005 - V3ULR)

[Sharktooth]

Description:
This is a HIGH BITRATE matrix designed to work at full anamorphic DVD res (720x432) with bitrates over 1600kbits (for an average motion movie) and works pretty well even with Q2 encodings or extremely High bitrates. But for that target there will be an Ultra-high bitrate matrix (EMQ V3UHR).

EQM V3HR:

8 10 10 10 11 11 13 15
10 10 10 10 11 12 14 16
10 10 11 11 13 14 16 18
10 10 11 13 15 17 19 23
11 11 13 15 19 22 26 29
11 12 14 17 22 28 34 41
13 14 16 19 26 34 44 55
15 16 18 23 29 41 55 72

15 15 15 15 16 17 19 22
15 15 15 15 16 18 20 23
15 15 16 17 19 20 23 27
15 15 17 19 22 25 29 33
16 16 19 22 28 32 38 43
17 18 20 25 32 41 50 60
19 20 23 29 38 50 66 81
22 23 27 33 43 60 81 106


Here's the direct link: EQM V3HR (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/CQMs/eqm_v3hr.xcm)

Notes: Unlike V1 and V2, EQM V3 set of matrices were generated using a matrix built starting from a HVS study on luminance by IEEE. The same used by ReferenceDivX to build his HVS matrices.The differences with V2 are minimal (coz V2 is HVS tuned too, but in a different way) but the new coefficient scaling ensures V3 is full IEEE HVS compliant.
The HR matrix is a mid-high/high bitrate matrix.A low, ultra-low and ultra-high bitrate counterparts are coming...
Have fun with it and post your impressions.
Thanx in advance.

WARNING: It may not work with some standalones (expecially the ones with ESS chipsets).

IMPORTANT NOTE:
- FIXED -
There's a recently discovered bug in Xvid that affects all 1.xx versions with Trellis Quantization.
Some matrices trigger an overflow in trellis causing visible blocking at certain quants. One of them is EQM V3HR (but other matrices where reported as well).
There are 2 workarounds (at least i found those 2 only):
disable Trellis Quantization OR limit the MinQ and MaxQ to 2-31 respectively.
- FIXED -

EDIT: Updated on 01/10/2004

[Sharktooth]

Description:
This is a LOW BITRATE matrix designed to work at full anamorphic DVD res (720x432) with bitrates lower than 1500kbits (for an average motion movie) and works pretty well even with high motion sources (using higher bitrates) keeping details where other matrices produce artifacts.

EQM V3LR:

8 14 14 14 15 15 18 21
14 14 14 14 15 16 19 22
14 14 15 15 17 19 22 25
14 14 15 18 21 23 27 31
15 15 17 21 26 30 35 40
15 16 19 23 30 38 46 56
18 19 22 27 35 46 61 76
21 22 25 31 40 56 76 99

19 19 19 19 20 21 24 28
19 19 19 19 20 22 26 29
19 19 20 21 23 26 29 34
19 19 21 24 28 31 36 42
20 20 23 28 35 41 48 55
21 22 26 31 41 51 63 76
24 26 29 36 48 63 83 103
28 29 34 42 55 76 103 134


Here's the direct dowload link: EQM V3LR (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/CQMs/eqm_v3lr.xcm)
The LR matrix was created in the same way of HR matrix but tuned for low bitrate encodes.

[Sharktooth]

Description:
This is an ULTRA-LOW BITRATE soft matrix (re)designed for 2 reasons:
- Reducing artifacts as low as possible while keeping a good overall picture quality on low bitrate encodes.
- Producing the best matrix for 1 CD backup.


EQM V3ULR (revision 3)

8 14 20 28 38 45 56 65
14 20 26 37 44 56 64 70
20 26 36 43 55 64 70 75
28 37 43 54 63 70 76 79
38 44 55 63 70 77 80 83
45 56 64 70 77 81 84 88
56 64 70 76 80 84 89 95
65 70 75 79 83 88 95 102

18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
19 20 22 24 26 28 30 34
20 22 24 26 29 30 34 40
22 24 26 30 32 36 44 50
24 26 29 32 38 48 55 60
26 28 30 36 48 58 74 80
28 30 34 44 55 74 92 104
30 34 40 50 60 80 104 128


Here's the direct download link:EQM V3ULR (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/CQMs/eqm_v3ulr_rev3.xcm)

Notes: This CQM is not HVS tuned.

EDIT: Matrix updated on 04/02/2005. Gained some compression, should avoid smaller artifacts.

[Sharktooth]

Description:
This is an ULTRA-HIGH BITRATE matrix designed to work at full anamorphic DVD res (720x432) at very very high bitrates. The saturation point is 30% higher than Didée's 6of9 matrix but at the cost of a lower compressibility.

EQM V3UHR (revision 2):

8 8 8 8 8 8 10 11
8 8 8 8 8 9 10 12
8 8 8 8 9 10 12 14
8 8 8 10 11 13 15 17
8 8 9 11 14 16 19 22
8 9 10 13 16 21 25 31
10 10 12 15 19 25 33 41
11 12 14 17 22 31 41 54

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12
10 10 10 10 10 10 12 14
10 10 10 10 11 13 15 17
10 10 10 11 14 16 19 22
10 10 10 13 16 21 25 31
10 10 12 15 19 25 33 41
11 12 14 17 22 31 41 54


Here's the direct dowload link: EQM V3UHR (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/CQMs/eqm_v3uhr_rev2.xcm)

WARNING: It may not work with some standalones (expecially the ones with ESS chipsets).

UPDATED 17/12/2004

[JarrettH]

Thanks, I'll have to try them next movie I do.
Any comments regarding these matrices versus others?

[Sharktooth]

Sure. All those matrices are HVS tuned, that means they are tuned in some way to spare bits from unvisible details and use them for the visible details.
UHR is a real monster when used at constant Q3 (or for DVD-R size backups) expecially with high quality sources.
For a general use i would reccomend LR or HR.
ULR is not properly an ultra-low bitrate matrix but it's very suitable for full DVD resolution 1CD backups (i dont even take into consideration bitrates lower than 700kbps cause V3 series matrices are aimed for movie backups).
As i said ULR has the same application of Jawor's 1CD matrix.
LR and HR are suitable for 2 or 3 CD backups, you can use them in place of HVS Better/Best or similar matrices.
I'm still testing them on different sources and i need some feedback on compressibility results.
I will do some fine tuning after the test results.

[spolja]

Hi,
Is Ultra High Bitrate matrix suitable for HD content?

[Sharktooth]

It is for sure, but remember that HD content needs more bitrate due to the higher resolution.

[Sharktooth]

Description:
This is an EXTREMELY HIGH BITRATE matrix designed for constant quality encodings ONLY. Compressibility is "ridiculus" in comparison with other high-bitrate matrices but there is a reason...
It's application is pretty obvious: it's for backing up original material or HD material without using lossless codecs.

EQM V3EHR:

8 8 9 11 13 13 14 17
8 8 11 12 13 14 17 18
9 11 13 13 14 17 17 16
11 11 13 13 13 17 18 20
11 13 13 13 16 17 20 24
13 13 13 16 17 20 24 29
13 12 13 17 19 23 28 34
12 13 17 19 23 28 34 41

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8


Here's the direct download link: EQM V3EHR (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/CQMs/eqm_v3ehr.xcm)

Notes: This CQM is not HVS tuned.

WARNING: It may not work with some standalones (expecially the ones with ESS chipsets).

EDIT: Matrix updated (uhm... completely redesigned) on 05/10/2004.

[olavitur]

Shartooth: I tested your new EQM V3UHR quantization matrix with two movies (The Bourne Identity and Kill Bill Vol. 2) and the quality I got was simply amazing. Though I had to use bitrates around 3000kbps to get there but it was worth every bit.
Both of the movies were in PAL 720x576 format so I decided to use LanczosResize to resize then to 720x480 so that I wouldn't have to use even higher bitrates (~3000kbps is high enough for me). First pass (Q2) bitrates were around 6500kbps for both of the movies.

Currently I'm making some more tests and comparing EQM V3UHR with Semi-Insane (by the way, SixOfNine didn't have a change against V3UHR).

[Sharktooth]

I've spent a lot of time for "internal" tests and I'm really happy to receive some positive feedback.
There is also an "experimental" version of EQM V3EHR for insanely high bitrates (6000+) or Q2 encodings.
If you have some free time i suggest you to try EHR too.
Have a nice day and thanks again for the feedback.

[olavitur]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
I've spent a lot of time for "internal" tests and I'm really happy to receive some positive feedback.
There is also an "experimental" version of EQM V3EHR for insanely high bitrates (6000+) or Q2 encodings.
If you have some free time i suggest you to try EHR too.
Have a nice day and thanks again for the feedback.

Thanks, but no thanks... I'm not that insane :)
I think your EQM V3UHR is good enough for most of us high quality freaks. Not many of us wants to encode xvid clips which are the same size as original dvd...

I managed to do some comparing between V3UHR and Semi-Insane (SI). This time it was really tough to find any real differences between these two matrixes as they produced about equal picture quality. But it seemes that V3UHR handles noisy parts of the movie a little bit better than SI does. With SI when there was panning in the video noise tend to float on the screen a little. With V3UHR I didn't notice this so much. Maybe SI works better on movies that have minimal amount of noise.

[Sharktooth]

UHR should produce a smaller file than semi insane @constant Q2.
Tnx again for your feedback :)

[mateo4x4]

Hi Sharktooth !
For the last two days I've been testing EQM V3ULR. The original DVD movie 110 min long, with average motion. AR=1.88 (cropping). I decided to make 1 CD bacup using XviD 1.0.2 with 2-pass encoding. Audio vbr mp3 96 kbps. I tried to make a backup without resizing and also did some tests with different resize values (608 and 544). Encoder settings:
QP OFF
GMC OFF
B-VOPs 2/1.5/1
CG ON
MSP 6
CM ON
VHQ 2
MIfi 300
Q I/P/B 2-31
Trellis OFF
The compressibility tests were between 40-68% (depending on the resolution) and they were always about 12% higher than for Jawor's matrix. The problem is that I always got oversized files up to 760 MB. When useing Jawor's matrix, I got proper sizes of files. I don't quite understand what is the reason.

[Sharktooth]

Weird. Have you tried it with different movies?
However try playing with the overflow treatment options.

[JarrettH]

Going to use any of these for your comparison Soulhunter?:confused:

[mateo4x4]

Have you tried it with different movies?
I've just done 4 encodings for the same movie. I didn't want to use a piece of Vob doing this kind of tests, because I think they are not thruthful enough.

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by JarrettH
Going to use any of these for your comparison Soulhunter?:confused:
Yes :)

[Sharktooth]

EQM V3EHR is no longer "beta" and matrices for "streaming bitrates" are coming ...

@mateo4x4: Any news?

EDIT: There won't be matrices for streaming bitrates at this time...

[mateo4x4]

Hi !
I had some problems with network connection and I was also quite busy by writting one article. But today I'm going to compress another 2 movies and use EQM V3ULR.

[Sharktooth]

Tnx for your effort. I decided to investigate a bit more on the V3ULR matrix. I'm not 100% convinced it's doing good...

[mateo4x4]

Another two movies compressed.
Both long films (118 and 124 mins).
I decided to choose one 4:3 and one 16:9.
This time I did not resize at all.
Average bitrate for video 750 kb/s
XviD settings the same as in my first post.
This time both files got ideal sizes (700 and 701 MB).
So, the reason of previous oversizing is still enigmatic. I'm not sure, but it's quite possible that I've set min. quantisers to 1 for my first encoding. But it shouldn't be the reason. I think I'll try to make same more conversions. I like this kind of matrices, because most often I make 1 CD backup.

[Sharktooth]

The oversize was probably due to the source.
In very particular situations the codec rate control simply fails.
The easiest solutions for ovesized encodings are 2: limit the quantizer to 2-31 or play with overflow treatment settings.
BTW, a new V3ULR is coming. A new softer matrix will completely replace it.
I've noticed too much blocking due to the coefficient distribution.
The new V3ULR won't be HVS tuned but aimed to reduce blocking and artifacts.

EDIT: V3ULR has been just updated.

[mateo4x4]

BTW, a new V3ULR is coming. A new softer matrix will completely replace it.
I've noticed too much blocking due to the coefficient distribution.
The new V3ULR won't be HVS tuned but aimed to reduce blocking and artifacts.
Grand news for me :)

[Sharktooth]

Just updated.
Dont worry about the compressibility tests... do the whole encode and look at the final quality:)

[mateo4x4]

new V3ULR - 4 encodings and super results. Really good matrix for 1 CD compression and low bitrate :)

[Sharktooth]

tnx for your feedback! There were 2 versions of V3ULR and i wasnt able to choose which one should be the official ULR. Theoretically speaking the first one should provide a better quality so it was my first choice.
After some negative feedbacks i immediately nuked it coz of the artifacts.
HVS matrices are useless at the lowest bitrates coz there are not enaugh details...
However can you please post your xvid settings and some screenshots of your encodes with V3ULR?

[mateo4x4]

No problem. I've just started another encodig. I tried to reach the compressibility test over 66% and then set all quantizers to 1-3.
I decided to go fishing today so I will try to post all results after I come back from the lake :)

[Soulhunter]

ShamelessPlug*

Our CQM comparison V3 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84276) started... :D

* The ShamelessPlug is copyrighted by mf


Bye

[Didée]

Is there an error in the forum's database? I can access the "CQM comparison V3" thread through above link. But it doesn't show up for me in the thread list of the XviD forum :confused:

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Didée

Is there an error in the forum's database? I can access the "CQM comparison V3" thread through above link. But it doesn't show up for me in the thread list of the XviD forum :confused:

You cant see this... :confused:

http://img14.exs.cx/img14/3817/336.th.png (http://img14.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img14&image=336.png)

Should I send a pm to a mod or so ???


Bye

[Mnl]

I can't see the thread either :confused:

[unmei]

true, i see thread downto changed 18th oct on the first page - but no "CQM comparison V3" (22th oct) anywhere :/

[Teegedeck]

The thread is there; make sure you're not viewing the page from your browser's cache. Click the 'reload'-button. Also make sure you're not using a proxy. Another option may be that one of this site's proxies lags a bit behind. If you don't succeed with the above proposed, I'll pass it on to our tech department.

[Soulhunter]

Hmm, is it normal that my thread has no icon @ the left side... :confused:

http://img14.exs.cx/img14/3817/336.png

Btw, I cant see it @ my own "Subscribed Threads" page... :eek:

Maybe you can see it coz you are a mod or so ???

Or have I enabled the "hide thread" option... :D


@ All

Sorry for all this off-topic stuff !!!


Bye

[Teegedeck]

Uh-oh. There is a problem indeed. I cannot reply in that thread! 'Invalid thread specified'.

[Soulhunter]

If you are able to delete it, I could simply re-post it !!!


Bye

[Teegedeck]

That doesn't work either. Please be patient until someone more into this PHP stuff than me or Koepi has had a look at it. Thanks.

Edit: Oh, what the heck! Why don't you post it again, now? :)

[Soulhunter]

Is it possible to post a thread with the same title as a "existing" one... :confused:

Hmm, I will simply try n' see !!!


EDIT: Yay, seems to work ... :)


Tia n' Bye

[Teegedeck]

Well, it worked. :D The other thread will either be eventually deleted or simply wander off into oblivion.

[mateo4x4]

EQM V3 ULR

The results of my tests:

Compressibility: about 16% higher than HVS Best and 0,2% higher than
Jawor's 1CD QM.
4 different DVD sources compressed.
All XviD settings: default
Some scenes were encoded with resolution of 720x* and some resized to
640x*
Av. bitrate 850-950 kb/s
No additional AVS filters used.

In my opinion it works really fine and is much better than previous ULR matrix. The picture is much cleaner.

Download screens (http://www.dreamland.neostrada.pl/Screens_updated.zip)- updated

[Sharktooth]

This version is performing really better than the previous.
Thanx for the screenshots (the .zip is broken) and for your feedback.
Once the Soulhunter's Custom Quantization Matrices test will end i could "retouch" some of the V3 matrices (expecially the high bitrate ones).

[mateo4x4]

(the .zip is broken)
You mean it doesn't work ? Any problems with unpacking this file ?

[Sharktooth]

i had to repair it to see the screenshots but 1 is corrupted.

[mateo4x4]

Hmmm.. I really don't know what is the reason :confused:
I tried to download, unpack .zip and all of the screenshots are fine.
In 10 min time I'll try to add same more screens and make a new .zip file under that link.

[Ark]

Originally posted by mateo4x4
Hmmm.. I really don't know what is the reason :confused:
I tried to download, unpack .zip and all of the screenshots are fine.
In 10 min time I'll try to add same more screens and make a new .zip file under that link.

Err.. the new .zip is corrupted too.. :(

What're you using to create the .zip file? (Windows i guess)

[Sharktooth]

Corrupted :(
I fixed it with winrar.

[mateo4x4]

What're you using to create the .zip file? (Windows i guess)
No, I use Winrar 3.30.
Really strange. I have no idea what is the reason :confused:

[708145]

I was able to download both correctly, although it took several times with the first one.

Look here (http://www.funknmary.de/data)

bis besser,
T0B1A5

[Sharktooth]

Maybe it's the server. Who knows?

@Tobias: I will PM you tomorrow with a LONG explanation... :)

[XiOUS]

I made a DVD -> XViD copy of one of my DVD-9 R2 (PAL) movies yesterday following the guide located here (http://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=221896)
Using DGIndex (http://neuron2.net/fixd2v/decodefix.html) (instead of DVD2AVI) VitrualDub 1.5.10 and VirtualDubMod 1.5.10.1 (for muxing AVI with AC3), I used latest (to my knowledge) XviD-1.0.2-29082004.

As "Quantization type" I used MPEG (as it was recommended for higher bitrate), I guess I should have used your V3HR or VRUHR matrices now when I found out about them, right? I used bitrate 2400kbps (shows up as 2100 kb/s in GSpot v2.21). Which matrices would u recommend using with that kind of bitrate? And do you have any recommendations other then default settings when making XViD with that high bitrate?

My other question is that my source was 720x576@25fps (PAL), in DGIndex when using the cropping feauture (to take away small black bars at top and bottom) I could crop 16x2 (16 at top and 16 at buttom) so it showed up as 720x544 (576-16*2=544). I guess the source is anamorphic DVD, so it uses 544 horizontal lines (and 720 vertical lines)? But when following the guide to keep original Aspect Ration of 1.85:1 (says on DVD-box) I would make 720/1.85 = 389 horizontal lines (after cropping), which is far less then original 544. To have a height that is a multiple of 8 I decided upon 392 horizontal lines (720/392 = 1.84:1). It all looks alright, but my question is that when encoding DVD to XViD (or DivX) you actually loose horizontal resoultion on anamorphic sources right? So transparency between DVD and XViD isn't possible?

[PiXuS]

Originally posted by XiOUS
I made a DVD -> XViD copy of one of my DVD-9 R2 (PAL) movies yesterday following the guide located here (http://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=221896)
Using DGIndex (http://neuron2.net/fixd2v/decodefix.html) (instead of DVD2AVI) VitrualDub 1.5.10 and VirtualDubMod 1.5.10.1 (for muxing AVI with AC3), I used latest (to my knowledge) XviD-1.0.2-29082004.

Hmmm... I am not sure VDM 1.5.10.1/2439 is a good tool to mux AC3 with AVI. But, I am really not 100% sure. Do a search about that and AviMuxGUI.

Originally posted by XiOUS


As "Quantization type" I used MPEG (as it was recommended for higher bitrate), I guess I should have used your V3HR or VRUHR matrices now when I found out about them, right? I used bitrate 2400kbps (shows up as 2100 kb/s in GSpot v2.21). Which matrices would u recommend using with that kind of bitrate? And do you have any recommendations other then default settings when making XViD with that high bitrate?


There are MANY Custom Quant Matrices out there. Check that thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73666) for example (in the first post there is a link to a collection of CQM). Also, do some research about Didée SixOfNine matrix. Some people (a few ;) ) still feel it is by far the best CQM for high-bitrate/high-quality/efficient encodes.

Originally posted by XiOUS

My other question is that my source was 720x576@25fps (PAL), in DGIndex when using the cropping feauture (to take away small black bars at top and bottom) I could crop 16x2 (16 at top and 16 at buttom) so it showed up as 720x544 (576-16*2=544). I guess the source is anamorphic DVD, so it uses 544 horizontal lines (and 720 vertical lines)? But when following the guide to keep original Aspect Ration of 1.85:1 (says on DVD-box) I would make 720/1.85 = 389 horizontal lines (after cropping), which is far less then original 544. To have a height that is a multiple of 8 I decided upon 392 horizontal lines (720/392 = 1.84:1). It all looks alright, but my question is that when encoding DVD to XViD (or DivX) you actually loose horizontal resoultion on anamorphic sources right? So transparency between DVD and XViD isn't possible?

I wouldn't crop with DGIndex. I would either use the wonderful AutoCrop plugin or Gordian Knot to do that job. Nevertheless, if after cropping a 16:9 movie the resolution goes from 720x576 to 720x544, then the AR becomes ((720/544)*1.823)/1.5 ~= 1.609. So, the resolution on playback would go from 1050x576 (AR=1.823) to 875x544 (AR=1.609). If you aim for an anamorphic encode, you shouldn't bother to keep an AR=1.823. As long as you know what the AR is after you crop, you can easily compute the required resolution on playback to keep the AR correct. Just test it yourself.

Make sure you crop using a mod16 x mod16 (or mod32 x mod16 if you want to be really safe) resolution.

Correct me if I am full of baloney. ;)

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by XiOUS
As "Quantization type" I used MPEG (as it was recommended for higher bitrate), I guess I should have used your V3HR or VRUHR matrices now when I found out about them, right? I used bitrate 2400kbps (shows up as 2100 kb/s in GSpot v2.21). Which matrices would u recommend using with that kind of bitrate? And do you have any recommendations other then default settings when making XViD with that high bitrate?
I suggest you to use EQM V3HR.

Originally posted by XiOUS
My other question is that my source was 720x576@25fps (PAL), in DGIndex when using the cropping feauture (to take away small black bars at top and bottom) I could crop 16x2 (16 at top and 16 at buttom) so it showed up as 720x544 (576-16*2=544). I guess the source is anamorphic DVD, so it uses 544 horizontal lines (and 720 vertical lines)? But when following the guide to keep original Aspect Ration of 1.85:1 (says on DVD-box) I would make 720/1.85 = 389 horizontal lines (after cropping), which is far less then original 544. To have a height that is a multiple of 8 I decided upon 392 horizontal lines (720/392 = 1.84:1). It all looks alright, but my question is that when encoding DVD to XViD (or DivX) you actually loose horizontal resoultion on anamorphic sources right? So transparency between DVD and XViD isn't possible?
DVD image is resized while playing.
An exact copy means you don't resize and use the Aspect Ratio correction within the codec configuration dialog.
That procedure is called Anamorphic encoding.
Use the forum search function for more info

[XiOUS]

Originally posted by PiXuS
Hmmm... I am not sure VDM 1.5.10.1/2439 is a good tool to mux AC3 with AVI. But, I am really not 100% sure. Do a search about that and AviMuxGUI.
I've muxed several AVI's with AC3's using VDM and there is no synch problem or any other problems when playing them on the computer. Haven't tested to play on standalone DVD-player because I have none that support Xvid, but it should work there to I guess?

Originally posted by PiXuS
I wouldn't crop with DGIndex. I would either use the wonderful AutoCrop plugin or Gordian Knot to do that job. Nevertheless, if after cropping a 16:9 movie the resolution goes from 720x576 to 720x544, then the AR becomes ((720/544)*1.823)/1.5 ~= 1.609. So, the resolution on playback would go from 1050x576 (AR=1.823) to 875x544 (AR=1.609). If you aim for an anamorphic encode, you shouldn't bother to keep an AR=1.823. As long as you know what the AR is after you crop, you can easily compute the required resolution on playback to keep the AR correct. Just test it yourself.
...
I don't crop with DGIndex (only check how much can be cropped) I do it in AVISynth-script like this one:
LoadPlugin("C:\DGDecode.dll")
mpeg2source("H:\Tsam\tsam.d2v")
crop(0,16,0,-16)
lanczosresize(720,392)
isn't that the best way to go? And by 720x544 I meant that DGIndex showed that resolution after cropping.
Ok to get AR 1.85 in original then horizontal resolution should be: x/576 = 1.85 -> x = 1066
with cropping (16x2) -> 1066/544 ~= 1.96 is the new AR.
So to keep all horizontal lines (544, with black bars cropped) in original DVD then I should encode in resoultion 1066x544, like this:?
LoadPlugin("C:\DGDecode.dll")
mpeg2source("H:\Tsam\tsam.d2v")
crop(0,16,0,-16)
lanczosresize(1066,544)
Or do horizontal resolution have to be a multiple of 8 too? Then I should use 1064x544 as 1064 is multiple of 8?
I guess there is no way to encode XViD or DiVX in anamorphic so that it's decoded like anamorphic DVD on DVD-player?

[SeeMoreDigital]

If a PAL 720x576 source was converted to square pixels, it would not exceed 1024 pixels wide, so your 1050 and 1066 calculations are slightly off.

Also, if the source image is exactly 1.85:1, the vertical pixel count should be around 560 (to the nearest 16th pixel). More often than not however, I doubt that the source will be exactly 1.85:1.


Cheers

[XiOUS]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
If a PAL 720x576 source was converted to square pixels, it would not exceed 1024 pixels wide, so your 1050 and 1066 calculations are slightly off.

Also, if the source image is exactly 1.85:1, the vertical pixel count should be around 560 (to the nearest 16th pixel). More often than not however, I doubt that the source will be exactly 1.85:1.


Cheers
It says 1,85:1 on the DVD-box for the movie. But when I encode it to XViD I have to have a horizontal wide of around 1064 to keep all 544 horizontal lines intact, right? As anamorphic DVD's are resized in horizontal resoultion when played on 16:9 TV's, right?

[PiXuS]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
If a PAL 720x576 source was converted to square pixels, it would not exceed 1024 pixels wide, so your 1050 and 1066 calculations are slightly off.

Also, if the source image is exactly 1.85:1, the vertical pixel count should be around 560 (to the nearest 16th pixel). More often than not however, I doubt that the source will be exactly 1.85:1.
Cheers

Can you point me to some thread or FAQ concerning this statement? I thought it was simply a matter of multiplying the horizontal lines by the PAR (1.823 if 16:9 and 1.367 if 4:3). For NTSC material, this means on playback a resolution of 875x480 for 16:9 stuff and 656x480 for 4:3 stuff. I find it weird, because I always computed the playback resolutions like so, and always got perfect results. 1024/586 is 1.77 which is 16/9, which isn't the TRUE ratio of a 16:9 presentation.

This guide on doom9 is saying what you are saying. (http://www.doom9.org/aspectratios.htm)

But then, read this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42708).


Originally posted by XiOUS

It says 1,85:1 on the DVD-box for the movie. But when I encode it to XViD I have to have a horizontal wide of around 1064 to keep all 544 horizontal lines intact, right? As anamorphic DVD's are resized in horizontal resoultion when played on 16:9 TV's, right?



Well, Goldfinger is a 1.85 presentation. That is close to 1.823 and you will notice in Gordian Knot preview mode that it fills the whole anamorphic frame (i.e.: if you are a PAL guy, it will basically use the whole 576 lines of resolution). A 2.35 presentation will really use less active lines than a 1.85 resolution (non-active lines are those which compose the black bars).

The way you computed 1066 is not correct. Let's use SeeMoreDigital numbers (PAR=1.77)

If you don't crop, the resolution on playback would be:

(1.77 * 576) x 576 ~= 1020x576

If you DO crop to 544 lines instead of 576, the resolution on playback becomes:

(((720/544)*1.77)/1.5) * 544 x 544 ~= 850x544.

And this is logic.. you have less columns because you have less lines (you got to keep the ratios right!).

Hope it helps!

[SeeMoreDigital]

PiXuS,

I have a link at the bottom of my "sig" that you may find helpful.

But in essence, digital images on DVD's contain pixels not lines. In the case of an PAL DVD, as you know it contains 576 vertical pixels.

576 multiplied by 1.7777 (aka: 16:9) equals 1024

In the case of an NTSC DVD, it contains 480 vertical pixels.

480 x 1.7777 = 853.3333

Don't forget the above calcs are based on converting your "anamorhpic" source images to "square" pixelled images.


Cheers

[PiXuS]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
PiXuS,

I have a link at the bottom of my "sig" that you may find helpful.



I read the whole thing. But... to quote you: "In my opinion, the ITU standard is not really necessary when performing 'digital pixel to digital pixel' conversions.".

So, it is all about your humble opinion.

Which brings us back to square one.


But in essence, digital images on DVD's contain pixels not lines. In the case of an PAL DVD, as you know it contains 576 vertical pixels.


Do you know that pixels in a horizontal row form lines and pixels in a vertical row form columns?

FYI, each frame of a PAL DVD are made up of 720x576 pixels.


576 multiplied by 1.7777 (aka: 16:9) equals 1024

In the case of an NTSC DVD, it contains 480 vertical pixels.

480 x 1.7777 = 853.3333


We both know how to multiply!!

[SeeMoreDigital]

Try not to get yourself bogged down with pixel to line conversions!

Sooner or later the digital to analogue (PAL/NTSC CRT display) element of the image chain will be gone and all we'll be left with is pixels!

Do you have the new version of XviD-1.1.-127-13102004 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84039) and more importantly, its DSdec filter installed. If you have, then try playing these "pixel perfect" (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=562776#post562776)720x576 and 720x480 anamorhpic encodes.

They have been generated using my calculations and the same theory apply to cropped encodes!

They've also been tested on Mpeg4/DVD stand-alone players that support the playback of anamorphic .AVI files.


Cheers

[PiXuS]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Try not to get yourself bogged down with pixel to line conversions!

Sooner or later the digital to analogue (PAL/NTSC CRT display) element of the image chain will be gone and all we'll be left with is pixels!


Is that Newspeak you are trying to impose on us? ;)


Do you have the new version of XviD-1.1.-127-13102004 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84039) and more importantly, its DSdec filter installed. If you have, then try playing these "pixel perfect" (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=562776#post562776)720x576 and 720x480 anamorhpic encodes.

They have been generated using my calculations and the same theory apply to cropped encodes!

They've also been tested on Mpeg4/DVD stand-alone players that support the playback of anamorphic .AVI files.


Cheers

I don't have any beta versions of XviD. I am using the latest stable build from Koepi (1.0.2). I downloaded your 16:9 NTSC "TestCard" and put the AVI in a Matroska container. I created two files.. one with a resolution of 875x480 (1.823) and one with a resolution of 853x480 (1.777).

The 1.777 version appeared to be the correct one. Though, I will refer you to this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75998). From all I read on this wonderful subject, if the DVD was well mastered, you should follow the ITU standard and use a PAR of 1.823. If the DVD wasn't well done, use a PAR of 1.777. Geez... if you read the thread, you will notice even len0x seems to change is mind about following the ITU standard as often as he changes underwear.

So, that being said, I guess it all boils down to a case by case affair. Do a preview @ 1.777, then @ 1.823, find something which should be round and decide what seems correct.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Okay play the files in a software player that supports AR signalling detection by default, such as VLC media player or Nero's ShowTime player.

Why did you feel the need no mux my Mpeg4 streams into the MKV container and alter their AR... this is just asking for trouble!

And by the way, if you want your anamorphic Mpeg4 streams to play back at the correct AR in either AVI or MKV container, replace your XviD.ax file with this one (http://82.2.167.24/Uploaded_Files/Doom9_Forum_files/XviD_DSdec_filter_with_AR_detection_2.zip).


Cheers

[PiXuS]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Okay play the files in a software player that supports AR signalling detection by default, such as VLC media player or Nero's ShowTime player.

Why did you feel the need no mux my Mpeg4 streams into the MKV container and alter their AR... this is just asking for trouble!


Asking for trouble? Why would you say that? I don't want to take another tangent in our conversation (we already hijacked Sharktooth thread pretty badly :eek: ), but I don't understand your point regarding MKV. Try it.. it is very good.

I use MPC and MPC doesn't care about the PAR signalling in the stream so I needed to use MKV so that the PAR signal in the container could be detected and used.


And by the way, if you want your anamorphic Mpeg4 streams to play back at the correct AR in either AVI or MKV container, replace your XviD.ax file with this one (http://82.2.167.24/Uploaded_Files/Doom9_Forum_files/XviD_DSdec_filter_with_AR_detection_2.zip).


Well, okay.. thanks.. but.. my system is already pretty clutered as is. ;)


All that being said, I think XiOUS has enough pointers now to forge is own opinion on the subject. And.. btw... if you are afraid you make a mistake in your encode vis-à-vis a given PAR (say 1.777 or 1.823), just make an anamorphic encode. You then will always be able to change the PAR as you wish (even to some weird values). So you can't f*** up your encode for ever..

[ChronoCross]

really the mkv container shouldn't be used unless your dealing with multiple audio/subs. using it purely for the aspect ratio configuration serves no point. getting the aspect ratio to work fully in avi is probably in the long run going to be better. I support mkv for it's capabilities but it should be used for this purpose as a last resort.

[SeeMoreDigital]

PiXuS,

Unfortunately, it seems pretty obvious that you don't require any help in this matter!

This is strange because you asked why your anamorphic encodes don't come out properly... I've given you the answer and provided some anamorphic encodes for you to try!

I also find it strange how you expect to view anamorphic encodes correctly without installing the "all important" and "necessary" Mpeg4 direct-show decoder filter - which I also provided a link to!

Personally, I don't have any problems generating or playing back anamorphic encodes (via software or hardware players). Neither do many other forum members... Can you say the same?


Cheers

[PiXuS]

Originally posted by ChronoCross
really the mkv container shouldn't be used unless your dealing with multiple audio/subs. using it purely for the aspect ratio configuration serves no point. getting the aspect ratio to work fully in avi is probably in the long run going to be better. I support mkv for it's capabilities but it should be used for this purpose as a last resort.

Nah. I use Matroska for 1 avi + 1 ac3 + subs + chapters. I use mkvmerge to do the job of multiplexing everything. The tool is easy to use (especially through the mmg GUI!). I agree, if all I wanted to do was fix the AR, I would actually use the MPEG-4 container. I don't like the idea of using AVI.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Unfortunately, it seems pretty obvious that you don't require any help in this matter!

This is strange because you asked why your anamorphic encodes don't come out properly... I've given you the answer and provided some anamorphic encodes for you to try!

I also find it strange how you expect to view anamorphic encodes correctly without installing the "all important" and "necessary" Mpeg4 direct-show decoder filter - which I also provided a link to!

Personally, I don't have any problems generating or playing back anamorphic encodes (via software or hardware players). Neither do many other forum members... Can you say the same?


Huh... your tone gives a weird turn to our conversation. I am certainly not going to fight over aspect ratio stuff. (!!) I thought I had made it clear I feel the ITU standard should be followed when a DVD is properly mastered and not if not. You think 16/9 should be used all the time. Fine, I respect that (never thought I would need to explicitly tell a humain being I respect is choice of divisions....arg!)

You say: This is strange because you asked why your anamorphic encodes don't come out properly.... Huh... are you confusing XiOUS with PiXuS? I never really asked for your help...

Anyway... this is too weird. Me afraid, shudering and running away !!

:scared:

[SeeMoreDigital]

Can one of you re-name yourself to say... Stan :)

[LoKi128]

Just wanted to post some filesizes from my encodes of The Princess Bride (the softest, noisiest DVD I've ever seen):

@ 720x416

HR - 974,926,523
LR - 815,469,405
ULR - 773,913,937
ULR - 762,522,443 (using Deen then LimitedSharpen)

The first three have no processing except IVTC, Lanczos4 and UnDot. The last one I added Deen and LimitedSharpen before the resize.

The problem with this movie is that since it is so noisy, scenes that show the sky, or some other constant-color background, it seems that the brightness of that area fluctuates, and there is some blocking. The blocking is not so obvious in the HR matrix and very evident in the ULR matrix, as it averages more. To correct the problem i just used UnFilter, Resize to 640 and Undot. Deen was making the already soft image just look like a VHS transfer anyway.

Anyway, that ULR matrix is pretty good! I even made a 1CD encode of The Truman Show at 640 with the full AC3 that looked great! Thanks!

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by LoKi128
....The problem with this movie is that since it is so noisy, scenes that show the sky, or some other constant-color background... You've just reminded me that my DVD of "The Big Blue" also displays these kinds nasty effects...


Cheers

[Sharktooth]

@LoKi128: EQM V3ULR produces blocks when compressibility is really too low. Helping compressibility and removing noise with filters like UnFilter(x,x), UnDot() or RemoveGrain(mode=2) will produce a great looking 1CD backups.
Temporal denoisers like Convolution3d or TemporalCleaner will help a lot with extremely noisy sources.
Keep in mind most DVDs have added noise too and and low-bitrate matrices tends to quantize noise (high-frequencies) with higher coefficients (less details).
That may result in fluctuating blocks in flat or gradient coloured areas. If you want to remove blocks just use a high bitrate matrix (and 2 CDs or more CDs...) or remove as much noise as you can (with filters) but trying to keep the details.
Anyways dont confuse the noise with the film grain...

[Didée]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
Anyways dont confuse the noise with the film grain...
But the encoder will confuse them for sure. And it's the encoder which you want to help in producing a harmonious result.

Lately, I've come across the aiming "kill the noise, keep the grain" several times. But I still wait for an answer, from any of the proposers, to this question:

1. What's the difference, from a filter's or an encoder's point of view, between "noise" and "grain", so that either one shall be able to distinct between them two?

1a. What's the actual benefit of the distinction, which most likely will be very unsure anyways?


From my limited experience, impressing the audience with details on terminology helps the filter very little, and the encoder even less. Try encoding Alien² with "kill the noise, keep the grain". I give an ensurance on having BIG fun :)

[Teegedeck]

From the encoder's side there isn't really a difference, granted. It is more the viewer's impression that determines which is which. Still, the subjective difference can be quite staggering. A certain amount of 'grain' will usually create the (false) impression of a higher level of detail, while just a bit more 'grain' will seem annoying and hence be called 'noise'. I strongly feel that everything below the personal, subjective 'grain'-threshold should be kept, even if it means using a higher bitrate. My personal threshold of what I perceive as 'pleasant' grain is very low, of course. When I denoise I would not denoise to a perfectly clean picture (I guess you could summ that up as 'kill the noise, keep the grain').

Sure, I could add the noise on playback via ffdshow but it seems nonsensical to me to first remove information from the video by filtering out the noise in order to 'recreate' or better 'invent' a clean picture that wasn't really there in the first place, and afterwards try to attain a 'natural' (as I perceive it) look to it again. Even if this would safe me quite a lot of diskspace/bitrate.

Still, I've got to say I understand fully that others perceive this completely different - people I really respect, like -h for example, preferred to denoise video as much as possible.

Excuse this late-night rant.

Good night.

[Sharktooth]

IMHO noise and film grain are 2 different things.
They're distingushable coz the "dot" diameter is different: grain is "larger" while noise is much "smaller" (but sometimes not too much) and keeps randomly moving every frame.
My ideal filtering is exactly "kill the noise, keep the grain".

[Sharktooth]

IMPORTANT NOTE:
There's a recently discovered bug in Xvid that affects all 1.xx versions with Trellis Quantization.
Some matrices trigger an overflow in trellis causing visible blocking at certain quants. One of them is EQM V3HR (but other matrices were reported as well).
There are 2 workarounds (at least i found those 2 only):
disable Trellis Quantization OR limit the MinQ and MaxQ to 2-31 respectively.

[pwh04]

Just want to say thanks Sharktooth for these cqms. I'm a noob with custom matrices. I'm using bicubic sharp and tomsmocomp with no other filtering and I am very happy with the results.

[Sharktooth]

Thanks for your feedback pwh04

[Sharktooth]

I have updated EQM V3ULR. Any feedback will be appreciated.

[len0x]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
I have updated EQM V3ULR. Any feedback will be appreciated.

What are the changes and expected quality outcome?

[Sharktooth]

Better I-Frame quantization. Ark provided me a clip where I-Frames were blocky, and those blocks were compromising also the next P and B frames.
I think i have fixed it, but some feedback will be appreciated.

[Ark]

I'll try it on the same Matrix encode, same settings, to better viewing of changes

[dr.Prozac]

Hi !
About EQM V3ULR
I made many tests today. Really good matrix. This new one is about 1,5% less compressable than the previous version. It is always about 1,5% less compressable than Jawor's matrix. I made a comparison including eqm ulr, hvs good, hvs best and jawor's matrices. All XviD settings default. Just VHQ set to 2. We made many tests at our polish forum and got best results with vhq=2 so I always use it. Bitrate for all samples was 750-850 kbps. Beyond a doubt, eqm ulr brings the best quality. :)
Btw
Was this new one used in Soulhunter's Custom matrix comparison - V3 - Round 2 ? I voted yesterday.

[Ark]

I've done some tests with the new ULR, and it seems that the I-frames-blocking issue is almost resolved. I say almost because in comparing ULR with other few matrices (h263, mpeg, 6of9), still some "ringing" remain.

It's not blocking now, but it's like I-frames are sharper than other frames, but also more noisy, and the jump from I to the next frame is quite apparent (not in normal playback btw), something that doesn't happen with other matrices.

Even LR "suffers" from this, but you have to look really hard to see what i mean.

It seems to me that this is somehow costant about your matrices, but other than that i can't say if it's good or bad, as i said, in normal playback it's almost impossible to see it.

[acrespo]

I am searching for a custom matrix to Anime with 900-1100 kbps bitrate. I usualy do encodes with H.263 because any custom matrix I tried give me many block artefacts. My videos are analog capture episodies from VHS and resolution is 640x480, IVTCed filtered with Removedust (script from removegrain page), AAA script from Soulhunter, LimitedSharpen and FastLineDarken.

I do 2-passes because I need near 175Mbytes each episode:
Xvid settings:
VHQ 1
Chroma Optmizer
No B-Frame
Trellis
No Qpel
No Adaptative Quantization
No GMC
MSP 6
No Cartoon Mode

[Soulhunter]

My advice...

- Enable B-VOP's

- Stay with H.263 for anime @ low bitrates

- Go for 233MB and give Y.A.C.Q.M. a try... :D


Bye

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by dr.Prozac
Hi !
About EQM V3ULR
I made many tests today. Really good matrix. This new one is about 1,5% less compressable than the previous version. It is always about 1,5% less compressable than Jawor's matrix. I made a comparison including eqm ulr, hvs good, hvs best and jawor's matrices. All XviD settings default. Just VHQ set to 2. We made many tests at our polish forum and got best results with vhq=2 so I always use it. Bitrate for all samples was 750-850 kbps. Beyond a doubt, eqm ulr brings the best quality. :)
Btw
Was this new one used in Soulhunter's Custom matrix comparison - V3 - Round 2 ? I voted yesterday.
1.5% is a small price to pay for the better quality but it's also a small margin and it should not interfere too much.
However in the SH comparison there was the old ULR.

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by Ark
I've done some tests with the new ULR, and it seems that the I-frames-blocking issue is almost resolved. I say almost because in comparing ULR with other few matrices (h263, mpeg, 6of9), still some "ringing" remain.

It's not blocking now, but it's like I-frames are sharper than other frames, but also more noisy, and the jump from I to the next frame is quite apparent (not in normal playback btw), something that doesn't happen with other matrices.

Even LR "suffers" from this, but you have to look really hard to see what i mean.

It seems to me that this is somehow costant about your matrices, but other than that i can't say if it's good or bad, as i said, in normal playback it's almost impossible to see it.
Yes, all my matrices (except UHR and EHR) have better intra-frame than inter-frame quantization.
It's an "I-Frame pumping"-like effect to ensure a better quality for reference frames (the codec does a similar thing also). If it hurts you, you can always lower the I-Frame Boost (%) parameter in xvid 2nd pass options.
BTW those "differences" are not visible during playback but IMHO they help to keep a good amount of details in both P and B frames.

[Sharktooth]

Updated EQM V3UHR to raise a bit (but only a bit) the compressibility.
I've also renamed some files to *_rev2.xcm so you will be sure to have the latest version of the matrices.
ULR will be updated soon (at least as soon as i finish testing).

[Velocity 7]

I have to say I'm mighty impressed by these matrices. However, I've been testing these on actual video captured movie-like content rather than anime, and by doing two-pass I've noticed that ULR doesn't have that much of a difference compared to EHR in quality.

So, is that new ULR ready?

[Soulhunter]

Wow, improved EQM3 versions and Jawors 2CD matrix...

Should I post the CQMC round 3, or directly start CQMC v4 ???


Bye

[IgorC]

actually im trying some matrices, so it will be usefull for me some results of test
and what about update EQM_ulr_rev2?

[Sharktooth]

Since im a bit busy with the usual xmas fuzz i have no time to update ULR. But it's going to be updated in the first days of the new year:)

[Palmnut]

I think I'm a little hard-of-thinking after Christmas. Any chance you can recommend, in one place, suitable ranges of bitrates for each matrix?

[Sharktooth]

I can't. There are other factors (motion, resolution, fps, interlaced/progressive material, compressibility etc.) that can influence the answare.
So i can only say "high/med/low" bitrate without specifying the "exact" numbers coz they highly depend on those factors too.

[gurabli]

Which matrix would you recommend for an avarage encoding with 850 - 1200 kBit/s avarage bitrate and resolution around 576*320 - 640*352?





B-VOPs 2, 1.50, 1.00
bframes vhq on
vhq 4
adaptive quant. ON
Qpel ON
GMC ON
closed GOV
trellis ON
quant.restriction 2-31-2-31-2-31
chroma motion ON

2 pass enconding.
Xvid 1.1 Celtic Druid CVS 2004.12.20


Quality is the most important factor! Please suggest a 1 and 2 CD matrix. Thanx in forward.
(I think I should use eqm_v3lr , or?)

[Sharktooth]

Well having no other data i suggest you to try EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR or Jawor's 1CD matrices.
For the lowest bitrate choice (850) it depends on the res. you choose.
The higher the res. the most "conservative" matrix should be chosen.
For example: 640x352 @ 850kbits, Jawor's 1CD or EQM V3ULR will give the best results. if you bring down the resolution to 576x320 maybe you could think to use a higher bitrate matrix (V3LR maybe).

[gurabli]

Thank you Sharktooth!

With these custom settings should I almoust always get better results than with the built-in matrices (H263 or MPEG)?

Which matrix is the best for the 2CD encoding at 576x320 @ ~1100kbits?

Thanx in forward! You help me a lot! Can you give me a link where can I read more about the custom matrices? I would like to learn what does these numbers mean:)

[Sharktooth]

H.263 is a good quant. type for 1 CD backups, but usually a tuned matrix should do a better job (that means h.263 is a generic, and generic "things" are not the best for a particular usage...).

I dont like MPEG matrix at all. I would never use it, but it's there and it was the "standard" in old MPEG codecs...

I will suggest EQM V3LR for 576x320 @ 1100kbps, but it's a safe and conservative choice coz i dont know the compressibility of your material.
Also if you look around on this board you will notice there's a Jawors's 2 CD matrix, give it a try.
Just use the forum search function to find all you need to know about custom matrices (search for "custom matrices", "custom matrix", "custom quantization", "CQM", "HVS").

[Didée]

gurabli: Most of these threads (http://forum.doom9.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=1141260&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending) should make a good read about the topic.

[gurabli]

Thanx for your help!

I am going to try out these suggested matrices!

[gurabli]

If I use standard H263 matrices I always get undersized files. The movie is good compressible, it would fit one one CD but I would like to make a 2 CD encoding.

Is the problem with the matrice choice?

Bitrate around 1600. 7xx X 3XX resolution.
Quant 1-31.
Should I use for eg: v3HR for this high bitrate to get the proper desired size? 1400MB

[Teegedeck]

Note: Answered to that in your 'undersize-oversize'-thread, trying to keep your special problem separated from the general discussion about EQM matrices.

[PatchWorKs]

From Afronic DVD Guides' FU forum:

I once tried to include some custom matrices in FU, but this resulted in a lot of feedback from people experiencing bad display on their standalone divx players, and I had to remove (well, actually it's only disabled in the code) the custom matrices handling.

Is this true ?

Check the original 3ad (http://www.dvd-guides.com/component/option,com_simpleboard/Itemid,61/func,view/id,8228/catid,26/)

[Sharktooth]

There are definatly some "problematic" matrices.
Not all decoders (hardware or software...) are able to handle, for example, matrices that have inter-matrix coefficients below 16.

P.S.: Links to the custom matrices are working again.

Edit: @patchworks, are you registered in that forum? if so, please inform them the link to the CQMs (both soulhunter's and mine) are changed and the celtic_druid files are now @ http://celticdruid.no-ip.com/xvid/

[Sharktooth]

EQM V3ULR has been updated.

[IgorC]

Looks like new REV3 ULR has less ringing

XVID 1.1 last beta1
REV3
http://img236.exs.cx/img236/5772/rev36oi.th.jpg (http://img236.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img236&image=rev36oi.jpg)

REV2

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/1332/rev20ri.th.jpg (http://img236.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img236&image=rev20ri.jpg)

[CruNcher]

Looks like new REV3 ULR has less ringing


sounds interesting but if it's now more like h263 it could be also bad
let's test it :)

[Sharktooth]

No, it's still v3ulr :)
h263 is completely different.

[unplugged]

Hello, is there any sticky-like thread talking about matrices and its findings?
Shark, I see your signature with some downloads... where I can find some instant info/comment on these matrices? (their names are too cryptic)
I have been far from this msgboard for long time...
Thanks!

[Sharktooth]

Infos on my CMQs are on the first page of this thread.
There is no sticky for CQMs, if you need more info you have to use the forum search function.

[unplugged]

Thank you very much, I thought 1st page was only part and/or first experiments (in fact, right now I see that posts are updated).
Well, I think to give a try with EQM V3ULR...

[Sharktooth]

I always update the original posts so updates can be easily found.
Once you're done with testing ULR please comment it here.
Thanks :)

[unplugged]

720x304 2-hour movie anamorphic ready, for 630 MB target size (Video only)
Ultra LR or LR ?

1st full-quality pass constant quant 3 (final titles q16) with ECQ V3ULR is 600 MB
(bframe sensitivity -12), I will add also TemporalSoften(5,2,2,15,2)

What you mean when say "V3ULR isn't HVS tuned"?

[Sharktooth]

Are you satisfied with the final quality? Q3 should be good.
Originally posted by unplugged
What you mean when say "V3ULR isn't HVS tuned"?
I mean it is not built starting from the IEEE HVS matrix.

[unplugged]

It went really good, very little artifacts, don't realize how... but crisp too.
During play I see much mosquito noise in medium/low light scenes, but under VirtualDub all seem ok.
Good work, V3ULR seems to have the pluses from H.263 and from MPEG scheme (crisp response). :)
Source is only vertically lanczos-resized, quant 3 result is yet awesome.

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by unplugged
During play I see much mosquito noise in medium/low light scenes, but under VirtualDub all seem ok.
Check the brightness control in the decoder. Maybe it's too high.

[CrashUK]

I did a full dvd res anamorphic.. using the EQM V3ULR matrix..

its 2.2 gig with 5.1 ac3 sound

video bitrate 1700Kbps
sound bitrate 448kbps

Adaptive Quantixation Off
GMC Off
Qpixel Off
Packed bitstream Off
2 BVOPS

VHQ Mode Wide Search
Use chroma motion

9 hours to encodec

[Sharktooth]

And? Does it please you?
The video bitrate seems a bit high for V3ULR...

[niamh]

I finally decided to cheat on Didée :D , and have a try of your matrices. Out of laziness, is there a single zip package available somewhere? would be nice to download/extract the lot in one go :)

[Sharktooth]

http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/CQMs/CQMs.rar

EDIT: Updated link

[Audionut]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
I mean it is not built starting from the IEEE HVS matrix.

Where can 1 find this matrix?

[Sharktooth]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33499

[CrashUK]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
And? Does it please you?
The video bitrate seems a bit high for V3ULR...

Yes it does.. v3ulr is a good around matrix..

[Poutnik]

I like ULR matrix. Can I use it with MTK profile
with min quants=2 for HW players (No GMC,No QP, 1 BVOP, packed bs)?
( There are 2 intra coef. < 16 )

If yes, should I disable trellis too ?

[Sharktooth]

Yes, it should work perfectly.
Trellis quantization is done during encoding and does not iterfere with decoding.

[Poutnik]

I thought trellis does some local quant changes, similar to AQ, but in different way and for different reason.
So I was not sure if trellis set a quant for a block to 1,
causing player unhappy.....
Maybe it respects quant limitation.

BTW, why some low coef matrices works and other fails ?

[Poutnik]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
There are definatly some "problematic" matrices.
Not all decoders (hardware or software...) are able to handle, for example, matrices that have inter-matrix coefficients below 16. It seems ULR rev3 matrix is HW player friendly, because inter coefficients are NOT below 16, even if intra ones ARE ?
(there are two 14 ) I always thought under16 can be dangerous in intra matrix too...

[Sharktooth]

The big problems usually shows when INTER matrix coefficients < 16.
Intra matrix starts always with a 8...
You may want to search for trellis on the web for more details.

[Poutnik]

I know about the 8. This is constant by principle. I had in mind AC coeffs. As DCT works, there is possible range of DCT coeffs 0-2048 for DC and -2048 - +2048 for AC ones.
By dividing/rounding by matrix coeff 8(DC) or 16(AC) and quant 1 we get for both 0-255 (signed byte or 128 offset for AC ).
If there is sub16 matrix, quant 1 and high DCT coeff, codec is
in a trouble.....

Very high AC coeff are fortunately unusual.

There is possibility such trouble occurs for inter matrix
just because it is used more often (P,B) then intra (I) ?

I will have a look for trellis, of course..

[Sharktooth]

I never experienced problems with intra matrix coefficients below 16 (and obviously > 8). The decoders limitations were always for inter matrix.
BTW, i always try to avoid quant 1, so maybe i didnt observe the behaviour @ that quant with matrices with coefficients < 16.
Once one of my high bitrate matrices triggered an overflow in trellis but that was promptly fixed by devs...

There is possibility such trouble occurs for inter matrix
just because it is used more often (P,B) then intra (I) ?
No, infact if you use a high bitrate matrix (V3HR for example) and force I-frame Quants @ 1 there will be no troubles (except the filesize...).

[Poutnik]

Thank you, Sharktooth, for patiency, all your replies and not least
your matrices ( ULR and LR are my favourite, work good, look good :) )

[Xpa]

Hi, this is an excinting thread and i have some questions regarding with a movie that i have to compress:
The Source: The Incredibles DVD (Very clean source, inexistent noise)

My idea is to compress this movie splitted in 3 cds (mode 2, 795MB for each) with AC3 AUDIO, and Bitrate about 2400Kbits. (the splitting process is not so dificult, using VirtualDubMod and SubRip for divide sub, i have some practice)
Codec that i use: xvid last koepi bins.

I beleve that the proper matrix to use is EQM V3HR, It is correct?
But, can i use this other (EQM V3UHR) instead?...maybe this other matrix will give me all the quality posible, allways watching the oversize that will generate....

Why 3 cds do you ask? Because my idea is to make 2 versions, one, a ultra-high quality compression (3cds) and a 1 cd backup version.

And a final question,what matrix is best suitable for tv capures (noisy and very noisy sources)?

Regards.

[Sharktooth]

2400kbps for UHR is a bit too low, but since the movie you're going to encode is very compressible i suggest you to try both matrices on a small clip (5 minutes maybe) and see which one looks better.
However, in normal (common) situations i would have choosen HR too :)
For what concerns video capture, well i didnt make any specific matrices but my experience says you need a much higher bitrate than normal and a mid-high bitrate matrix to obtain good results.
Or you could filter all the noise out with avisynth filters and use whatever matrix you want depending on the final filesize and resolution you wanna achieve.

[Xpa]

Well thanks Sharktooth!, i have finished the encodig for 3cds :
Xvid AC3
1:55 dur.
Using the matrix EQM-V3HR is quite formidable, with an extremaly
high comprensibility (about 100%) with a resolution of 808x303 (if i down de res the comp goes far beyond 110%... usless).
The Script:

LoadPlugin("C:\ARCHIV~1\ARCALC~1\dgmpgdec\DGDecode.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\ARCHIV~1\ARCALC~1\AVS_Plugins\FluxSmooth.dll")
Mpeg2Source("E:\DVDS\VOBMOV~1\MOVIE2~1.D2V")
Crop(0,60,-0,-62)
Lumafilter()
FluxsmoothST(5,3)
Lanczos4Resize(808,330)

And the image quality is clear, perfect, totally block free (it is obviusly at this bitrate isn't?). Maybe its perfect to do a DVD from this xvid in the future, i think.
The size of the video was perfect too (restricting the quantizer 1-3, 1-4, 1-5 , I-Frames,P-Frames,B-Frames) and compressing the final titles (quant 24), thats why i loves xvid! :)

Well, thxs again for the guide Sharktooth, and now, 4 cds?.... no! :)
Instead i will buy a DVD.... and compress in 3cds or 1...

[Sharktooth]

If your compressibility test goes over 100% you can safely do 2 things:
1 - Encode anamorphically (select the correct AR in the codec, crop the black borders on top and bottom and do not resize - basically a 1:1 copy in terms of resolution).
2 - Keep the horizonal res to 720 (and scale vertical res to the corresponding value) and use a higher bitrate matrix (for example UHR or 6of9).
Both methods will produce a higer quality encode.

[Xpa]

Sharktooth, but if i keep 720 x something (whithout black bars) res, the codec may undersize the final size, maybe compensating with a more restricted quantz or more I-Frame Boost (more than 75 actually).
But a bigger resoluttion doesn't give me more quality and sharpess? (over 720x???)
Or the very high res in this case is not the top priority for max quality encoding?
Regars.

[Sharktooth]

Going anamorphic will keep the vertical res to the original value.
Let's say you have a 2.35:1 AR movie to compress.
Cropping the black bars (from the original 720x576 res) results in a 720x432 picture with an incorrect aspect ratio.
Generally to get it right the 432 is resized to 308 (nearest mod16 value) so you obtain a 720*308 picture that looks with the correct AR.
Doing this you're loosing pixels in favor of a correct looking picture.
There's another way (anamorphic encode) to get the correct AR without loosing pixels and almost all DVDs movies use this technique to NOT loose definition.
The video stream contains a "field" where the AR is stored and the decoder, reads the stream and resizes the picture during playback.
That means, watching your movie on a PC monitor (with a higher resolution than a standard TV) or on a widescreen or HD TV will result in a better quality coz you're encode has more pixels than the 720x308 encode.
Resizing over the original res is quite useless coz you're not adding "quality" but interpolated pixels only.
Resizing to 1024x432 (for the correct AR) is an overkill, coz you mantain the original horizontal res but you're adding 304 pixels to the vertical res that contains no significative (and maybe incorrect) data.
Sharktooth, but if i keep 720 x something (whithout black bars) res, the codec may undersize the final size, maybe compensating with a more restricted quantz or more I-Frame Boost (more than 75 actually).
That's why, in that case, i suggested to use a higher bitrate matrix.

[Xpa]

The anamorphic encode is not supported in xvid i guess (in the codec config explains that), so the only option is to resize the height only...
But doing this is better than resize from 720x432 to 808x330...
In fact, using xvid , there was an other option (similar to anamorphic encodig):
Encodig to 720x358 (wichout black bars and no resizing).
The AR in this case will be 2,011. Now, dependig of the software to use, the video will be resized acording to the especified ar, for example: in bsplayer, if i set the video to 235:100, the ar is corrected, but the original is 2,011.
Do yo recomend me this other "method" to encode without resizing and loosing pixels but wrong AR (corrected by the software i use to reproduce it)?

[IgorC]

Xpa, read private message ;)

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by Xpa
The anamorphic encode is not supported in xvid i guess (in the codec config explains that), so the only option is to resize the height only...
What?!? Where does it explain that?
But doing this is better than resize from 720x432 to 808x330...
In fact, using xvid , there was an other option (similar to anamorphic encodig):
Encodig to 720x358 (wichout black bars and no resizing).
The AR in this case will be 2,011. Now, dependig of the software to use, the video will be resized acording to the especified ar, for example: in bsplayer, if i set the video to 235:100, the ar is corrected, but the original is 2,011.
It's not similar... it IS anamorphic encoding...
Do yo recomend me this other "method" to encode without resizing and loosing pixels but wrong AR (corrected by the software i use to reproduce it)?
Yes, unless the software or hardware player doesnt support it.

[Xpa]

What?!? Where does it explain that?
XviD Configuration -> Aspect Ratio:
"...Aspect Ratio is written to mpeg-4 bit stream,
but infortunately is likely to be ignored if video stream is encapsulated in a general-purpose container (lke .avi, .ogm, .mkv)
Therfore, be aware that using different aspect ratio than default might be ignored by some players, especially when decoded on Windows.
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Maybe i expressed wrong with some things or repetitive....
Well, at this point i have no doubt to do with this video.

Thanks for your time (and patience ;) ) responding me with this matter.

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by Xpa
XviD Configuration -> Aspect Ratio:
"...Aspect Ratio is written to mpeg-4 bit stream,
but infortunately is likely to be ignored if video stream is encapsulated in a general-purpose container (lke .avi, .ogm, .mkv)
Therfore, be aware that using different aspect ratio than default might be ignored by some players, especially when decoded on Windows.
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Maybe i expressed wrong with some things or repetitive....
Well, it does not say "Xvid does not support anamorphic encoding"... coz this is anamorphing encoding:)

Well, at this point i have no doubt to do with this video.

Thanks for your time (and patience ;) ) responding me with this matter.
np

[dungweaver]

Just reporting in excellent results with eqm_v3ulr_rev3 in day to day usage.

Currently using Q=4 single pass with AQ off and QR(2,31,2,31,2,31).

Source = digital TV (SD or PD) mpeg2, resized to 592x336.
Gspot reports a video of 485 kbps. Qf of 0.098. Image quality is excellent.

This was a documentary with a fair bit of action. Nearly 28 minutes of show into only 124 MB.

Sharktooth does this surprise you? Anyone else getting results like this? I am just a wee bit sceptical; seems too good to be true.

[bugmenotwillyou]

Sharktooth I've just tried your EQM V3HR and the results were great for a 1800kbit encode. But I'm just wondering if the Trellis bug still exists (the one with the two workarounds).
If I use one of your workarounds either disabling Trellis Quantization OR limit the MinQ and MaxQ to 2-31 respectively, wouldn't I lose quality in the process.
I always have kept Trellis Quantization checked since I was under the assumption it gave a quality boost.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I'am using Xvid 1.10 b2 04042005

[Didée]

If I use one of your workarounds either disabling Trellis Quantization OR limit the MinQ and MaxQ to 2-31 respectively, wouldn't I lose quality in the process.
Limiting quantizers to 2/31 is not a workaround. It is the recommended setting.

In fact, the default of 1/31 is a workaround. (For XviD newbies whining about undersized encodes.)

You won't loose quality by not using quant 1 in a 2-pass scenario. However by disabling trellis, you probably would - but only a tiny bit.

[Sharktooth]

@dungweaver: well, ULR stands for a ultra low rates. however nice to see it's good for you too :)

@bugmenotwillyou: i already answered you by PM, however, as you can see, Didée said the same thing.

[bugmenotwillyou]

Thanks for the prompt replies guys.
The V3HR CQM is perfect then for my encodes.

[Teegedeck]

Sharktooth I've just tried your EQM V3HR and the results were great for a 1800kbit encode. But I'm just wondering if the Trellis bug still exists (the one with the two workarounds).
[...]
I always have kept Trellis Quantization checked since I was under the assumption it gave a quality boost.
Nope, no Trellis bug anywhere in sight. :) And with a matrix like v3UHR or SixOfNine at 1800 kbps for full-res-encodes I am quite positive that Trellis actually is a huge quality-advantage in a two-pass scenario.

Not sure about how it summs up with v3HR and whatever resolution you use.

[bugmenotwillyou]

Nope, no Trellis bug anywhere in sight. :) And with a matrix like v3UHR or SixOfNine at 1800 kbps for full-res-encodes I am quite positive that Trellis actually is a huge quality-advantage in a two-pass scenario.

Not sure about how it summs up with v3HR and whatever resolution you use.
Yeah your post in another thread about Trellis bug being "fixed months ago" was the one that prompted me to ask that question of whether the Trellis bug still existed for Sharktooth's CQMs, so kudos to you.

The EQM v3UHR that you suggested would be too much for my 1800kbps encodes for my 704xXXX anamorphic encodes, no? I usually like to fit 2 movies on 1 DVDR so 1800kbps to 2100kbps would be in the range of EQM v3HR, I would have thought?

I had the impression that EQM v3UHR was for ~2500kbps-4000kpbs (full-res or HD encodes) and EQM v3HR was for 1600kpbs-~2500kbps (assuming using full-res or slightly lower) or is my thinking flawed?

[Sharktooth]

Well, it all depends on source resolution, framerate, compressibility etc.
However in general 1600-2300 is a good range for HR, 1300-1900 for LR, 2300+ UHR.
I may join HR and LR in one matrix in the near future... :)

[Beave]

What would be your suggestions for HDTV encodes to 960x528 @ 1500-2000 bitrates? The source is as usually noisier and blockier than DVD sources. I find 6of9=24 not too suitable for this task. Would the ULR matrix fit the profile? I like a sharp picture, but I dislike artifacts from too low bitrates.

[Heini011]

Hi Beave,

denoise the hd clip (for much noise use mvdenoise from mvtools) and use eqmv3hr instead of 6o9. (but eqmv3hr is soften the clip a little bit.)

greetings.

[Sharktooth]

Maybe you want to use EQM V2 (autogk sharp matrix) for that purpose since it scales very well... but if it's "too much", try ULR (theoretically it shoud do it even better). However ensure you denoise the source without loosing details (read: use the right filters and not just the first denoiser you find on the web).

[Soulhunter]

@ Beave

If you dont mind low fps, give FFT3D a try!


Bye

[Sharktooth]

The reason is HD eats up a lot of bitrate and having some extra compressibility by denoising would ensure a much better encode without wasting an enormous amount of bits... :)

[Didée]

True. However my fear is, there are people out there that brute-filter so much compressibility on their HD sources that, in the end, they're not encoding HD anymore, but just big framesizes ...

[Soulhunter]

Yeah, thats the reason why i suggested FFT3D for the denoising... ^^

It kills most of the noise without removing too much of the "real" details !!!


Bye

[BigDid]

Hello all,

Not enough practice to be affirmative, but I am actually testing fft3d compared to peachsmoother.
fft3d default (sigma=2) is comparable to peach default but really retains more details.
For more compression, try sigma=3.

Sizes of one of my testing (original mpg2 being 110672ko, encoded to 75% xvid, one pass):
Avi no filter : 30890ko, 13,83fps
Avi peach() : 28456ko, 13,14fps
Avi fft3d s=2: 28378ko, 8,38fps
Avi fft3d s=3: 26764ko, 8,44fps

There is also a quicker gpu version of fft3d for those having an ati radeon 95xx or higher or geforce 5xxx at least or any gpu having hardware supporting for dx90c.

Did

[Beave]

Thanks, I usually only put removegrain() in the avs. I just got a few eps with extrem grain in it. I only get 25% compressibility without denoisers.
I tried lremovedust, but only lremovedust(17,10) got rid of most of the noise and got compressibility to 60%. But now the clip looks pretty washed out. I will try your suggested filters. Maybe using the right matrix I could get away with 45%.

But usually the hd stuff isn't as bad so removing some of the filmgrain should help the picture quality. I just wondered if there is a matrix, that is especially good for noisy and blocky sources.

So FFT3D seems to be the latest in denoising? It would be great to remove some of the noise without loosing detail, which is the main reason for HDTV anyways.

[Soulhunter]

FFT3D gives excellent results as long you dont "overdo" it... For most DVD sources simgma=1 should be already enough, but if you cope with very grainy/noisy stuff you'd need much higher sigma values to kill the noise... Well, the catch is that FFT3D produces slight grid artifacts if you use too high sigma values! So, using FFT3D with sigma=2 + some mild tempo-spatial denoising afterwards could be better than using FFT3D with sigma=3 alone for example... ^^


Bye

[Backflip]

Let's say you have a 2.35:1 AR movie to compress.
Cropping the black bars (from the original 720x576 res) results in a 720x432 picture with an incorrect aspect ratio.
Generally to get it right the 432 is resized to 308 (nearest mod16 value) so you obtain a 720*308 picture that looks with the correct AR.
Doing this you're loosing pixels in favor of a correct looking picture.
There's another way (anamorphic encode) to get the correct AR without loosing pixels and almost all DVDs movies use this technique to NOT loose definition.

Edit - cleaned up :)

I believe I get the way to correctly encode anamorphically while keeping all picture info and AR -- Set AR in the XviD codec (240,100 (2.40:1) for example), crop out black bars (only down to 720 x 432) giving 0% AR error. Set Input Pixel PAR to 1:1.

I encoded The Pacifier DVD with:
2-pass, EQM V3ULR rev 3, QPEL, B-VOPs - 2/1.5/1, Packed Bitstream, Closed GOV, Chroma Motion, Motion Search Precision (Ultra High), VHQ Mode (4) Chroma Optimizer and Trellis Quantization (1,31), Lanczos

It had a compressibility of 87% at 720 x 432 anamorphic for a 1404 MB target size. High, but not too high I guess.

To me it came out better than the 1404 MB/MPEG matrix encode. Particularly the first boat/water scene (which is probably the worst scene to encode). It's not as blocky.

Ended up with a 1.37 GB (1,475,354,624 bytes) AVI and muxed into MKV @ 702MB + 701MB with MMG.

Used same settings for Assault On Precinct 13 DVD except this movie was less compressible @ 77%. Got an ever so slightly oversized file 1.37 GB (1,475,850,240 bytes) AVI which I'm not entirely sure about. MMG will only output 703 + 700 MB (with settings at 702 MB (2 file max.)

Anyways I'm pleased with the results, thank you :)

[Sharktooth]

:) thanks

[Backflip]

Bit off-topic, but I've used 720 x 432 for a 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 DVD (is it right to use 720 x 432 for 2.40:1 DVD?), I've now got a 1.85:1 DVD which I'm ripping (The Ring Two), what would be the closest MOD 16 values? 720 x 560 seems to be it (AR error is 0). Is this correct? I have cropping of 8 and 8, top & bottom. Top border is quite large

Are the matrices good for 720 x 560? I think they are, but I'm asking to be sure, thanks :)

[Sharktooth]

well, you just really need to crop the black borders to a mod 16 resolution and set the AR in the codec - ONLY -. no resize, no fancy things... the final AR will be correct.
of course anamorphic resolution encodes have more pixel than a non anamorphic one, so remember to choose a slightly lower bitrate matrix.

[Backflip]

Yip, I'm using EQM V3ULR. The compressibility of the matrix is very high. I'm getting 85.8% of 0.171 and that's with QPEL off (other options mostly defaults + VHQ 4/MSP 6), which seems reasonable. Bitrate is around 1400. MPEG yields 71.8%. Maybe numbers are a little low for full 720 x 460, but it seems reasonable. I got fairly good results with action movies at the same bitrate and compressibility (although I used QPEL in those cases), looked great on tv :) I need just to cut down on some things so it's playable (no dropping of frames and less early/late) on the Xbox via XBMC (FFMPEG decoder), so I took out QPEL.

If I go to like regular 720 x 384 the percentage is 125.1. Is there any problem with encoding with the percentage that high? What are the consequences?

Anyways, thanks for the matrices. Maybe I go to 3-4CD XviD/AAC backups giving about 1800-2400 kbps for full anamorphic :)

[Sharktooth]

If I go to like regular 720 x 384 the percentage is 125.1. Is there any problem with encoding with the percentage that high? What are the consequences?
It's ok but you will obtain an undersized file. It's the case to use a higher bitrate matrix.

Anyways, thanks for the matrices. Maybe I go to 3-4CD XviD/AAC backups giving about 1800-2400 kbps for full anamorphic :)
...using a higher bitrate matrix :)

[Backflip]

It's ok but you will obtain an undersized file. It's the case to use a higher bitrate matrix.

...using a higher bitrate matrix :)

Yip, I'm going for your ULR matrix now :), it's yielding around 93% with The Ring Two encoding. I used the MPEG matrix before, but that still seemed too blocky. Gonna be encoding at around 1695 kbps (XviD/AAC 6CH). I've been twisting and turning on whether to keep original AC3 or use 6CH AAC. I mean if the setting of Normal HE-AAC is infact percievably the same as the AC3 file (anyone have any benchmarks?), then why not :)

edit - I has founded the problemo. The Xbox just can't handle full (DVD res - 720 x 560) anamorphic XviD encodes @ beyond around 1600 kbps (even with QPEL and other CPU usage increasing things disabled). Woers me :(

Again though what parts I was able to watch certainly are less blocky than the MPEG matrix, so with the ULR matrix blockiness is majorly reduced. The MPEG matrix seems totally outclassed.

[Sharktooth]

Yip, I'm going for your ULR matrix now :), it's yielding around 93% with The Ring Two encoding. I used the MPEG matrix before, but that still seemed too blocky. Gonna be encoding at around 1695 kbps (XviD/AAC 6CH). I've been twisting and turning on whether to keep original AC3 or use 6CH AAC. I mean if the setting of Normal HE-AAC is infact percievably the same as the AC3 file (anyone have any benchmarks?), then why not :)
AAC is superior to AC3, but re-encoding leads always to a loss in quality. Also AAC is more complex to decode (slightly).

edit - I has founded the problemo. The Xbox just can't handle full (DVD res - 720 x 560) anamorphic XviD encodes @ beyond around 1600 kbps (even with QPEL and other CPU usage increasing things disabled). Woers me :(
Disable post-processing and use the latest XBMC.

Again though what parts I was able to watch certainly are less blocky than the MPEG matrix, so with the ULR matrix blockiness is majorly reduced. The MPEG matrix seems totally outclassed.
EQM V3ULR was not ever meant to replace MPEG matrix, however it obviously behaves much better than it at low bitrates.

[UltimAtomMAX]

I've updated my post about some odd xvid codec results and now reply here to say that custom matrix V3ULR worx on KISS DP-450 SA player.

[Backflip]

I've since found the real problem (from what I've read at the XBMC forum) with the 720 x 560 anamorphic encode I did. FFMPEG has difficulty with B-VOP's of 2. I've even seen this affect some lower resolution encodes (though they don't drop frames). With post-processing disabled the problem still occurs. Using the latest T3CH CVS release from a few days ago.

[Backflip]

The rips done using EQM V3 series are splendid. However I've noticed that straight black at certain points (i.e. the end or beginning credits) have some sort of slightly lighter shade of black running through them - the light black appears as the credits/words roll up. The lighter black is much less noticeable during the day, but at night I can see it pretty clearly; using XBMC, displaying on a 25" 4:3 TV.

I can't see any light black when using MPlayer and watching it on the PC monitor, but the monitor is smaller at 17" 4:3.

It seems to happen no matter what settings I use. Latest rip/encode was Sahara. I used:

Square Pixel (704 x 288 mod 16)
Adaptive Quant
QPel
GMC
B-VOP 2/1.5/1.0
Packed Bitstream
Closed GOV
eqm_v3ulr_rev31CD
Chroma Optimizer (BVOP sensitivity = 0)
Trellis (1,31)
MSP: 6
VHQ: 4 (I encode overnight anyway :))
Chroma Motion

Compressibility was 84%

I think I'm going to do another encode tonight so I'll use one of the default matrices and similar settings to the above^. Will report back :)

[Sharktooth]

can you post a screenshot or a small clip?

[Backflip]

I'm getting some screenshots ready and a clip of the credits. To be honest when I'm playing the files through XBMC is the only time when I see the lighter black, maybe it's to do with the default constrast settings, or just the build of MPlayer-XBMC is using? So it could be just an issue with XBMC decoding.

After giving it more serious thought XBMC is said to not be perfect at playing back XviD or DivX, so this might be a small consequence of that.

[Sharktooth]

Maybe.

[Backflip]

Hiya Sharktooth. I've been reading through the forums mostly about resize/filtering (Bicubic/Bilinear/Lanczos) and noticed you mentioned a preference for not resizing. How do you do this? I only see that you've have to use a resize filter in Gordian Knot (like Bicubic/Bilinear/Lanczos etc) Or do you mean something else?

Just an example of how I'm approaching things. Just to make sure I'm using the matrices in the way they're supposed to be used. Figures returned (compressing Bride and the Prejudice DVD). My aim is 2CD DVD backup, keeping as much resolution as resonably possible:

I crop getting 70 from top and bottom -- leaving quite a big black bar on left and very minor black line on top and bottom giving lowest AR error (no Smart Crop All at this point). Figures are:

Using V3ULR
Target size = 1400 MB

XviD settings:
XviD - 2-pass
Chroma Optimizer
Motion search precision -- 6
VHQ -- 4
Trellis (1,31)

720 x 304 (-0.8 aspect error)
Bit rate: 1384 Kbps
0.253 B/(P*F)
65.9% of 0.384
Soft Bicubic resize

What would you do next? I would personally add 1 bframe, so I can use that resolution and have a compressibility around 70% or perhaps lower resolution to 640 x 272 (no Smart Crop All) and use VHR (with possibly Lanczos). I would personally like to make the rip look good at a high res, but what would you recommend?

[Sharktooth]

The full resolution for a DVD is 720x576. Depending on the movie AR, black bars are added.
When i say "no resizing" i mean anamorphic encode: keeping the full DVD resolution removing the black bars only then set the proper aspect ratio in the codec options.
You will end up with resolutions like 720x432 but the final aspect ratio will be corrected by the decoder. No lines are lost during the resizing process.
A quick forum search (start with "anamorphic encoding") will highlight some threads with more info on the subject.
Now you can try to encode your Bride and the prejudice DVD with this technique .
Since there is more data to compress (due to the higher horizontal resolution) try using 1 or 2 bframes and turning on adaptive quantization.
Just a note: some codec features effects (like b-frames, AQ/psy, etc) that will affect quality in selected areas or frames to keep higher details on significative counterparts will be less visually "annoying" and more efficient on higher res encodes.

[Backflip]

When you say remove the black borders only do you mean cropping all of it away until you can't crop any more without cropping out good picture/video? Or crop down until the AR is 0% even when there's quite a bit of black bar left?

edit - ok I've cropped down the top and bottom to 720 x 432. Incidently I was certain a bit of the top is cropped out with the cropping autocrop gives (72 top and bottom).

Figures I'm getting are 0.178, 73.6 and 0.242. Shall see how it turns out, thanks :)

edit2 - finally, I think I get it. You keep settings how they, then just down the resolution, without using Smart Crop All. So you keep all of the picture without taking out good picture :)

[Cyberace]

FYI, it now sounds as if the FFmpeg developers have found the root cause why the visual quality is poor on some XviD encoder files when use FFmpeg/libavcodec to decode it instead of using the native XviD codec, see: http://mplayerhq.hu/piperma....ml#3641 (http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2005-September/thread.html#3641) "[Ffmpeg-devel] libavcodec: possible QPEL decoding bug (Marius the Mad)", basically it seems like there is a bug in libavcodec QPEL decoding (or rather lack of QPEL decoding) which can be seen as poor quality or artifacts in players that uses FFmpeg to decode XviD that been encoded with QPEL, (like XBMC, and also in FFdshow for Windows PC's).

frame 154 from 311564.avi, decoded by
libavcodec: http://img379.imageshack.us/my.php?image=154a2pp.png
xvid: http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?image=154x2az.png

frame 283 from 311564.avi (I can't see any difference on this one), decoded by:
libavcodec: http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?image=283a1ve.png
xvid: http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?image=283x3qj.png

frame 597 from 311564.avi, decoded by:
libavcodec: http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?image=597a1bc.png
xvid: http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?image=597x2gz.png

Frame 154 from 310058.avi sample, decoded by:
libavcodec: http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/6352/n154a7bm.png
xvid: http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/4498/n154x2mj.png

Frame 283 from 310058.avi sample, decoded by:
libavcodec: http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/9566/n283a5ry.png
xvid: http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5461/n283x1dg.png

Frame 597 from 310058.avi sample, decoded by:
libavcodec: http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/1294/n597a9id.png
xvid: http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2001/n597x0yf.png

I didn't use any postprocessing (apart from YV12->RGB32
convertion during decoding).

Try to check it in a darkened room, possibly at night, the problem is very visible then. Try increasing the gamma value. If you use kuickshow as image viewer you could press "g" four times to lighten the images up. Then you will see that either libavcodec or xvid is faulty. btw. you can use gimp to show the difference between both images. The difference image won't be all black. Increase the gamma value to brighten the differences.


My clips triggering this behaviour is available here (below 10 MB):
http://uploadhut.com/view.php/311564.avi (1000 frame clip encoded with only only QPEL enabled)
http://uploadhut.com/view.php/310058.avi (encoded with qpel, gmc and mpeg quantizers)
The effect is extremely visible during the playback (much more so than in the screenshots).
So XviD files that haven't been encoded QPEL don't have this very noticable image quality (noisy and muddy picture with clear artifacts).

I hope that the FFmpeg developers can find a solution to this and that the solution then get ported over to MPlayer (and XBMC).

PS! Both XBMC and FFdshow uses FFmpeg libavcodec to decode XviD (however MPlayer uses native XviD)

[Heini011]

Hi,

many thanks Sharktooth for your great work!

i was satisfied with the EQM V3HR matrix, wich offers good quality and compressibility, for long time. but sadly it softed the images a little too much for my already denoised videos. so i created a modification with less hf and inter-frame compression but only a little less over-all compressibility.

give it a try...


08 10 10 10 11 11 13 15
10 10 10 10 11 12 14 16
10 10 11 11 13 14 16 18
10 10 11 13 15 17 19 22
11 11 13 15 17 20 23 27
11 12 14 17 20 24 30 36
13 14 16 19 23 30 40 48
15 16 18 22 27 36 48 62

13 14 14 14 15 16 18 21
14 14 14 14 16 17 20 22
14 14 15 16 18 20 22 25
14 14 16 18 21 23 26 30
15 16 18 21 24 27 31 36
16 17 20 23 27 32 40 48
18 20 22 26 31 40 53 64
21 22 25 30 36 48 64 83


greetings.

[Sharktooth]

Hi,

many thanks Sharktooth for your great work!

i was satisfied with the EQM V3HR matrix, wich offers good quality and compressibility, for long time. but sadly it softed the images a little too much for my already denoised videos. so i created a modification with less hf and inter-frame compression but only a little less over-all compressibility.

...

greetings.
v3HR is a HVS matrix. this modified version "lost" the HVS optimization and some compressibility. Yes, it retains more fine details but it's placed between v3HR and v3UHR. I was also thinking to "kill" both LR and HR and create a "midrange" general purpouse matrix no longer based on HVS studies by IEEE.
However feel free to mod any of my matrices, and let us know if you obtain better results.

[Heini011]

Hi Sharktooth,

>it's placed between v3HR and v3UHR

yes, but it gives only 9% increase in file size (@q=2) against v3HR, whereas v3UHR is already at 60%, which is too much for me.

i'am very satisfied with the results of my modded v3HR on denoised video material.

greetings.

[gumballguy]

Do the people in this thread have experience with HDTV encodes and these custom matrices? Ive done dvds (with standard quant matrices) and know what to expect there.... but its a little different when youve got bitrate ~6000, but a resolution in the vicinity of ~1800*1000 and are turning interlaced to progressive.
All numbers approx only, say rounded to 100's/1000's.

The high bitrate ordinarily would suggest V3UHR i would assume... but with such an increase in resolution?

[Sharktooth]

UHR? I suggest using LOW BITRATE matrices unless you're not scared by reaching bitrate as high as 6-8000kbps...

[Didée]

... and in case gumballguy is american and used to consult a "2nd opinion":

Most times, "low bitrate" matrices are the ones to use when encoding HD resolutions, indeed.

[gumballguy]

Lol. I was giong by GK, in which I'd have bitrates of 3000 to fit it to half a dvdr, or 6000 to fit it to a whole dvdr.

If you say low bitrate, well, I'll try it!

Would you suggest I start with EQM V3LR ?

[Sharktooth]

Try both LR and ULR. I'd also try 6of9 HVS. Jawor's 1CD matrix could be a good choiche too but IMHO it's too smooth.

[Backflip]

Should I assume properly mastered DVD's don't need to have additional bars on left and right of the picture? Bride & Prejudice has a rather thick bar on the left, and it messes everything up in terms of encoding :/

Requesting an opinion, but Sharktooth, what pixel/res/comp % do you aim for, in terms of the best utilisation of your matrices? Would you go down as far as a resolution of 576x448 (1.85:1). I currently aim for 80% and a 2.70 pixel (with 1 b-frame usually). Lower than 74% and I change matrix.

edit - should give some stat's. Currently encoding a familiar movie - Shark Tale (1.85:1).

576x448 (w/ 16:9 set in codec); next 0% AR error down from 720x560 (1.85:1)

Aim for 2 CD's @ average bit rate of 1890
All extra options off except for Cartoon Mode. Using Lanczos resize:
HR.V3 - 0.293, 54% of 0.538
LR.V3 - 0.293, 68.4 of 0.428
ULR.V3 - 0.293, 73.6 of 0.398

[Sharktooth]

well... black bars usually screw the final quality... crop them out without mercy :)
I usually try to keep the original resolution and choose the matrix according to matrix characteristics.
Compressibility test may tell you how much a matrix compresses but not what visual quality you will get from that matrix.
I know all my matrices (except EQM V2) are ultra sharp, so if i want a sharp encode i get one of them keeping an eye to the compressibility. If i want a soft encode i choose jawor's 1CD or EQM V2 (high-bitrate), or other soft matrices.

[Backflip]

Gonna try compress Shark Tale (1890 Kbps average)
HR.V3
2 b-frames and AQ
Comp test of 0.188 with 54.1% of 0.347.

[Backflip]

Having a look at the encode now, quite impressive :) One thing though - AR. Should it be indicated as 1.77:1 in MPlayer for a 1.85:1 movie? I used X: 16 and Y: 9 in the XviD codec settings, then 1:1 option in Gordian Knot. MPlayer prescales to 994x560.

After cropping just down to 720x560 I do have black borders, but it looks like if I cropped to 720x544 has absolutely no black border (W-Zoom @ 100% Y-Zoom @ 99% tho). Aspect error @ 1.4%. Does this matter or will the AR (X: 16 Y: 9) setting I use give perfect AR anyway? With a slight loss in quality because of stretching?

Thanks :)

[Sharktooth]

You should try to keep the source AR and crop away all the black borders.
Also, if you want a better upscaling (during playback) and you have a video card with Pixel Shader 2.0 capabilities, use Media Player Classic by gabest.
In the options go to Playback -> output. Set Directshow Video to "VMR9 (renderless)".
Now under VMR7/9 (renderless) pane set "Use texture surfaces and render video in 3D" then set Resizing to Bicubic A=xxx.

[Backflip]

Does keeping the source AR mean going into XviD settings and specifying AR of 1.85:1 (X: 185 Y: 100) with a movie which is stated to have an AR of 1.85:1 on the box. This was my original intention, but I just thought the setting X: 16 Y: 9 would do the same thing :(

[Sharktooth]

Yes, you should specify 1.85:1.
16:9 is 1.77:1 and that's a wrong aspect ratio for your movie

[Backflip]

Sweet, I think I got it right :) Cropped 12 from top and bottom, giving 720x544 (1.85:1/1004x544 on playback). No black left. I'm quite impressed with the encode. Only thing that really stands out as a minor thing is the streaking during the opening sequence (Dreamworks Blue background sequence).

I think I'm going to finally encode Bride & Prejudice (IMDB link - http://imdb.com/title/tt0361411/). Cropping away most black bars gives me either 720x432 @ W: 101% H: 100% (with black border on the left - clockwise: 72,0,72,0) or 704x432 @ W: 98% H: 100% (no black - 72,0,72,4). So I must go with 704x432 I believe, and give X: 235 Y: 100 in XviD codec settings (2.35:1 AR).

@ a bitrate of 1384 Kbps (2 CD backup) and being a musical with some high motion (dancing) I will probably use EQM V3LR which is returning (defaults & MSP:6, VHQ:4, Lanczos resize):

0.182 with 46.6% of 0.391
0.182 with 61.1% of 0.298 (1 b-frame) think I'll go with this one
0.182 with 63.2% of 0.288 (2 b-frame)

[JarrettH]

I haven't posted here forever, but I check these forums for xvid updates (isn't that sad). Thanks for your continuing work Sharktooth :)

[Sharktooth]

I will create another matrix (mid-range general purpouse) before "dropping" MPEG-4 ASP custom matrices.
I think there is nothing more to do coz there are plenty of good matrices out there.

[Backflip]

You should try to keep the source AR and crop away all the black borders.
Also, if you want a better upscaling (during playback) and you have a video card with Pixel Shader 2.0 capabilities, use Media Player Classic by gabest.
In the options go to Playback -> output. Set Directshow Video to "VMR9 (renderless)".
Now under VMR7/9 (renderless) pane set "Use texture surfaces and render video in 3D" then set Resizing to Bicubic A=xxx.

I'm not too sure I have Pixel Shader 2.0 capabilities, but I certainly noticed a smoother texture when I changed the settings. Using celtic_druid 's latest FFDShow for decoding. What should I use for A=???, .060, 0.75 or 1.00?

I also have noticed MPlayer (latest celtic_druid build) doesn't seem to upscale as well as MPC (with VMR9 (renderless) setting changed). Is there anything similar that you can switch in MPlayer so it upscales better?

Might post some pic's just to show how much smoother the picture is with the VMR9 (renderless) setting changed.

[Sharktooth]

uhm... dont know if mplayer supports VMR. however the sharpness in MPC is due to the bicubic resize (opposing to standar bilinear used by almost all players).

[Backflip]

Cool, now, I think I've got the whole anamorphic thing down. Just to go over it again - with 2.35:1 -- crop 72 from top and bottom, same with 2.40:1 material. Now, what is recommended for 1.85:1 material.

Also, what happens with video which is fullscreen, yet has bars (letterboxed?) added to the top? Can I still use the 1:1 options, then crop out the bars -- top and bottom (how much cropping should be needed?)? What Aspect ratio, the the XviD codec, would I give it?

Can't wait to try out the gerneral purpose CQM :)

[g8o4lyf]

Hello. I just finished making a 1/2 dvdr size xvid rip from spiderman 2. The original source was 1080i with ac3 audio and I ripped it to 2200 mb with the help of v3hr matrix. The main problem I faced was deciding on what resolution to choose for the rip. I checked out the sinbad xvid rip from cmore hd and i think the resolution for that was 832 by something. It still looked amazing in my friends hdtv. I wanted to avoid small resolutions because then after 14 hours or so of encoding its pretty pointless isnt it ? Ripping from 1080i to 6xx by xxx to me is same like making a 2cd rip from a dvd. So after compressibility tests and messing around I finally settled for the following:

Frame Size: 880 x 400 @ 29.970fps
Data Rate: 1998 kbps avg.(0.29% overhead) gknot showed 1897
Audio: Dolby ac3 384 kbps.

Here are some shots from my rip below. Shot 1 is to show the fire effects, shot 2 is the spidey and octavius fight on the building, if you look carefully you can see the web on docs face. Shot 3 is a fast motion scene when spidey is flinged from one building to another and the last shot 4 is my favorite, it shows water, fire, metal and explosion all at once. You might notice some artefacts in the pic because I had to save that shot at high quality instead of maximum as I cant upload more than 200 kb file here.

I am really pleased with my results and I cant say that I see artifacts in my rip because I dont. There are some parts with artifacts in the source itself so I have them in my rip but they are negligible.

If anyone has any ideas or pointers on how I could get a bigger resolution around this bitrate or any other optimaztions please share. This is the first time I ripped an hdtv ts file to xvid so I am sure there are lots of things to learn. Peace and thanks for providing the custom matrices.

[fight2win]

hi, i'm sorry if this question has been asked before, but pls can someone give me a link for a custom matrix for high quality 2-cd xvid rip of a dvd movie! thanks in advance!

[Sharktooth]

no. :search: to know why.

[g8o4lyf]

Hello again. I just tried out the ULR matrix to rip Batman Begins to a half dvd5 xvid rip and I must say I am very impressed. I was planning on using the HR or UHR matrix but I noticed the rips being softer by those matrices. I went through this post and I saw the screenshot posted by crashuk and the sample looked very sharp to me so I gave ULR a shot. To make things harder I ripped the dvd at 816x336 anamorphic@1590kbps (thats the bitrate vdub shows me in properties). When I ripped the movie at higher bitrate using HR last time I noticed many many artifacts mainly because of the bats. This time around the rip was sweet. No artifacts noticable by me so far. If anyone wants any samples let me know I will post some. But I think I will stick to the ULR if it keeps producing sharp results like this. Thanks sharktooh :D

[Backflip]

What would you recommend for backing up Star Wars Episode III: Return of the Sith to 2CD's, Sharktooth? I'm keeping the anamorphic frame.

Numbers I'm getting using ULR V3. 2 b-frames and AQ enabled.
Source: Retail R4 DVD @ 25 fps
Average bitrate - 1009 Kbps
0.138, 66.7 of 0.206
Lanczos Resize

After cropping mattes including lighter pixels/mess (74,2,74,0), res of 704x416 is possible without going over the 100% H-Zoom.

I have a feeling it'll look alright since it's a pretty dark movie and there's CG all over the show.

BTW, Sharktooth, is it correct to crop away mattes as much as possible, including the messy bits, and then if this results in a 101% H-zoom, go down to the next 16x16 compliant resolution? i.e. 704x416.

Thanks :)

[Backflip]

Very surprising, the quality is splendid for a 2 CD rip. Having a high quality source must've helped quite a bit too.

Really magnificent stuff Sharktooth :)

Now that I've done a few encodes and stuff I really don't get the reall advantage of square pixel at all. I think anamorphic is the way to go + a high quality CQM.

(One sad thing that I saw which is unrelated pretty much and that's XBMC scales the picture to a 2.36:1 according to the onscreen info, on a FS PAL 25 inch TV. Don't ask me why it does this because MPlayer on the PC scales it to 980 x 416 @ 2.35:1. I'll ask about this prob at the XBMC main site.)

[Sharktooth]

Well, i find it quite weird XBMC behaves that way, but maybe XBMC devs preferred it or it's just a bug, or it's just a compensation for the TV scale...
However i agree, anamorphic rox.

[Backflip]

Yeah, it's a little strange. MPEG4 Modifier reports - Custom pixel shape (32:23 = 1.39130) and 2.355 : 1. Maybe 2.355 is a little too close to 2.36.

Anyways, thanks. I'm going to encode another movie - Ice Age @ about 1,950 Kbps (2CD's, 2 audio tracks). Think EQM V3UHR is the only option for this one. That or EQM V3UHR.

[Cyberace]

XBMC scales the picture to a 2.36:1 according to the onscreen info, on a FS PAL 25 inch TV. Don't ask me why it does this because MPlayer on the PC scales it to 980 x 416 @ 2.35:1. I'll ask about this prob at the XBMC main site.)Have you tested the same files in Media Player Classic (http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/) (as MPC scales very similar to XBMC)?
btw, have you "calibrated" the pixel-size to a perfect square in XBMC settings before playing?

PS! Understand scaling is much more correct in XBMC and Media Player Classic than in MPlayer!

[Sharktooth]

Yeah, it's a little strange. MPEG4 Modifier reports - Custom pixel shape (32:23 = 1.39130) and 2.355 : 1. Maybe 2.355 is a little too close to 2.36.

Anyways, thanks. I'm going to encode another movie - Ice Age @ about 1,950 Kbps (2CD's, 2 audio tracks). Think EQM V3UHR is the only option for this one. That or EQM V3UHR.
maybe HR or UHR (due to the high compressibility of the movie)... try both on a short clip and see what one gives the best quality.

[Backflip]

Is there anything you'd recommend not using when it comes to encoding animation such as Ice Age, Sharktooth? Is Cartoon mode ok?

[Sharktooth]

keep cartoon mode for toons and low detail animes with large flat colored areas not CGs.
CG needs smooth matrices (EQM V2 for example).
Avoid oversharpening/overfiltering, usually CG movies are already clean. If they have some mosquito noise (usually added in production phase) just clean it with non aggressive temporal filters (temporalsoften or something).

[Backflip]

Ok, I'll try that with Madagascar. Figures are pretty low using UHRv3:
0.197, 41.7% of 0.471. Using AQ and 2 b-frames.

[Meat_PoPsiclez]

Description:
This is an EXTREMELY HIGH BITRATE matrix designed for constant quality encodings ONLY. Compressibility is "ridiculus" in comparison with other high-bitrate matrices but there is a reason...
It's application is pretty obvious: it's for backing up original material or HD material without using lossless codecs.



Well I tried eqm_v3ehr on some unprocessed minidv footage, and with xvid set to q=2.5 no b-frames (just as a starting point, haven't experimented with them with high bitrate encodes) I managed a 'humble' average of 10.5mbit/s covering slow motion, many abrubt scene changes, and lots of high motion. Did I mention it was noisy minidv footage, and interlaced? A lot to contend with. In any case, the results are damn near flawless. I'm not talking just perceptibility either, I'm talking frame by frame comparisons done in photoshop. Here are the results.

http://www.anti-logic.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=699

As you can see much of the image is literally bit exact! Hats off to you Sharktooth! Going from 29mbit/s (ntsc dv) to 10mbit/s with so little loss to call it nothing at all? I'm sure a cleaner source would provide even better results. Now if only camcorders could use mpeg4 with a custom matrix for direct encoding... pipe dream.

What would the point of diminishing returns with this matrix be, in terms of q setting or bitrate? For long term archival of footage for later editing, this seems to be a clear winner in my eyes.

[Sharktooth]

The purpouse of EHR was exactly this: near lossless encoding for archival purpouses.

[Backflip]

Sorry to bother you Sharktooth, but I've just realised something now with regards to aspect. When I put the PAR in the XviD settings should I not be using the actual AR which is displayed when PAL anamorphic (16:9) is checked? Example:

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/4940/aspect015sp.th.jpg (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aspect015sp.jpg)

So in XviD codec I should use 183 : 100 if I want to be as close as possible to the original AR after cropping? Sorry this only just occurred to me to ask the question.

Also, in this instance can I get even closer to the original AR by putting something like 183 : 10* or something?

One last thing, I have another movie that indicates 2.379 (even though on the box it's 2.35:1). Should 237 : 100 be used or 238 : 100? I personally think 238 : 100.

[JnZ]

Thx Sharktooth for matrices. I use them very often ULR,LR,HR,UHR for DVD's and now for HD's. Before this, I used Bulletproofs HQ matrix, but now, my encodes are litlle more scalable.

Thanks very much. Highly appreciated.

IMHO I think, that this is best matrices I've ever used, and that I encode to xvid couple of years (since B frames discovered :) and SBC was overcomed).

[Sharktooth]

Sorry to bother you Sharktooth, but I've just realised something now with regards to aspect. When I put the PAR in the XviD settings should I not be using the actual AR which is displayed when PAL anamorphic (16:9) is checked? Example:

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/4940/aspect015sp.th.jpg (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aspect015sp.jpg)

So in XviD codec I should use 183 : 100 if I want to be as close as possible to the original AR after cropping? Sorry this only just occurred to me to ask the question.

Also, in this instance can I get even closer to the original AR by putting something like 183 : 10* or something?

One last thing, I have another movie that indicates 2.379 (even though on the box it's 2.35:1). Should 237 : 100 be used or 238 : 100? I personally think 238 : 100.
Get as closer as you can to the original AR reported in the DVD .VOBs.

[Backflip]

How do you find out the AR of the VOB files? Thanks :)

[Backflip]

I think I've figured it now. Appleseed for example. I crop mattes and end with the highest resolution of 704x560. I then use a PAR of 16:9 PAL (my source is PAL). Playing in MPlayer I get:

Movie-Aspect is 1.83:1 - prescaling to correct movie aspect.
VO: [directx] 704x560 => 1024x560 Planar YV12

(1.832 is indicated in GKnot if PAL anamorphic 16:9 is selected)

It looks to be correct, is it correct? I think it is, hopefully it is :)

[Sharktooth]

it is.

[CrashUK]

Been doing some testing using your EQM V3ULR (revision 3) matrix with KDVD profile but with your. it gives lower file size than kdvd matrix. picture looks same to me.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Actually a camcorder that recorded directly to MPEG-4 is a pretty bad idea. Because you have MPEG GOPs, (I, P and B frames), editing becomes difficult. With DV, frames are only spatially predicted, not temporally (all I frames). If you have P and B frames, editing becomes much more difficult because you cannot directly seek to (and cut) any frame without re-encoding. It is possible (see HDV - a high def format that uses long GOP MPEG-2) - but there is some re-encoding involved, which can result in a lot of quality loss through subsequent generations.

A good workaround is to convert to a lossless or quasi-lossless format like Apple Intermediary or Huffyuv, do the editing, and then re-encode, but at this point I'm really getting off topic :) Sorry, I'm in a Final Cut Pro class ATM. A good thought though.

-Misfit

Well I tried eqm_v3ehr on some unprocessed minidv footage, and with xvid set to q=2.5 no b-frames (just as a starting point, haven't experimented with them with high bitrate encodes) I managed a 'humble' average of 10.5mbit/s covering slow motion, many abrubt scene changes, and lots of high motion. Did I mention it was noisy minidv footage, and interlaced? A lot to contend with. In any case, the results are damn near flawless. I'm not talking just perceptibility either, I'm talking frame by frame comparisons done in photoshop. Here are the results.

http://www.anti-logic.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=699

As you can see much of the image is literally bit exact! Hats off to you Sharktooth! Going from 29mbit/s (ntsc dv) to 10mbit/s with so little loss to call it nothing at all? I'm sure a cleaner source would provide even better results. Now if only camcorders could use mpeg4 with a custom matrix for direct encoding... pipe dream.

What would the point of diminishing returns with this matrix be, in terms of q setting or bitrate? For long term archival of footage for later editing, this seems to be a clear winner in my eyes.

[Terka]

1.) Which matrix should i use for DV->720x576 Xvid interlaced?
I want to keep the quality.
2) which quantitizer should i use for encodings? I will store on HDD
Help please.

[Audionut]

1.) Which matrix should i use for DV->720x576 Xvid interlaced?
I want to keep the quality.
2) which quantitizer should i use for encodings? I will store on HDD
Help please.

1. depends on excatly what size restrictions you have.
2. "2"

[Terka]

i want to keep it interlaced, dont want to resize and quality similar to original, sharp picture. where the matrices for interlaced encodings can be found? are they same for xvid and mpg2 encoding?

[Audionut]

http://rapidshare.de/files/14332073/Audionut_s_max_16_interlaced.xcm.html

Here is an high quality matrix designed for interlaced encoding.

Keep in mind that it will eat space.

Your best bet is to select a sample of your movie that represents the entire movie and encode that at quant 2.
If the resulting bitrate is to high, then choose quant 3. etc, etc.

[JnZ]

1.) Which matrix should i use for DV->720x576 Xvid interlaced?
I want to keep the quality.
2) which quantitizer should i use for encodings? I will store on HDD
Help please.
Hi, my countryman! :)
1) Why do you want to store it as interlaced? I think good deinterlace method done better job. Sharktooth HR,EHR are very good.
2) Use Q2 if you don't care size, but it eats lot of space.

[Graal_CPM]

:goodpost: This eqm_v3ulr_rev3 matrix rocks!!!

I have almost managed to reach my goal of having a simple "universal", brainless, quick way to backup my DVDs...

And with the following avisyhtn script, I have managed to gain 10% compressibility (compared to a simple Lanczos4Resize+Undot) , keeping a very pleasing and sharp picture :


#Crop/Resize
crop(0,74,718,428,true)
Lanczos4Resize(704,288)
#Denoise
RemoveGrain(mode=1)
LRemoveDust_YV12(17,1)
#Sharpen
dull=last
sharp=last.ModerateSharpen(0.3)
soothe(sharp,dull)
#SpatioTemp smooth
FluxSmoothST(2,2)


I have used recommended and default parameters here... Let me know if I can do better. Again, I know there is no such thing as a "universal" script, but my goal here is not full quality archiving but preserving my DVD from kids-fingers, being able to enjoy the movie, and not spending too much time on each DVD...

Note that encoding time can goes up to 6:30 hour for a 133min movie on my P4-2.4 with GKnot, but it's worth it... Credits also goes to Didée for his awesome scripts of course!!

[Teegedeck]

I...think you're denoising too much. Definitely. Much too much. With that ULR matrix you should be able to just keep the full anamorphic resolution without resizers as well. Should look better without such a long script.

[Sharktooth]

ULR tends to artificially preserve sharpeness even if someone could say that effect is due to "ringing", but i like the result.
if you want a smoother picture use jawor's 1cd matrix.

[Didée]

Well, there's not that much denoising happening through that script ... surely it's not "invisible" denoising, but it's still rather moderate, IMO.

The key question is: How strong are you compressing, Graal_CPM? Are you doing 1CD encodes, 2/3/4 movies per DVD, constant quant encoding for storage on HD, ... ??

[Graal_CPM]

Thank you for all the fine ideas here.

My aim is strong compression/low bitrate to fit one movie on 1CD for 100min movies, and on 2CDs for larger ones. The 100min "rule" depends heavily on the kind of movie of course.
Xvid is two-pass with default parameters provided on Doom9 guide, plus ULR. Using GKnot test, I try to stay around a 70% compressibility. Final result is watched through a Sanyo Z3 (VGA in) on a 3.5m diagonal white wall (ffdshow, no filtering). My eyes are not used to HDTV, so the reference quality is the one of the original DVD.

Teegedeck:
I...think you're denoising too much. Definitely. Much too much. With that ULR matrix you should be able to just keep the full anamorphic resolution without resizers as well.
I was just wondering if it was too much too... Note that I've tried to stick with the most conservative settings. I am not so sure about FluxSmoothST... It seems like a "logical" step for high compression (+3% compressibility). I welcome any suggestion on this or ideas for another more "transparent" spacio-temp filter.
Thanks for the anamorphic tip. I should have given my objectives before (Didée's post). Keeping the anamorphic just "costs" to much for my goal. I keep that in mind for other projects though.

Sharktooth:
ULR tends to artificially preserve sharpeness even if someone could say that effect is due to "ringing", but i like the result.
if you want a smoother picture use jawor's 1cd matrix.

I think ULR result just rocks !! :thanks: Mostly IMHO because the increased compressibility allows for a larger resolution. And on all my encoding tests, the larger the resolution, the better the sharpeness... Filtering appears as a very good complement to ULR in order to kill the blocking with a higher bitrate. It is true also that without filtering (almost, just undot), I see a triffle more "ringing" when zooming (I really have to look for it on specific frames, like poles on a blue sky).
Now I wan't to give a try to jawor's 1cd, to see if I can drop some denoising, without too much smoothing.

Didée:
Well, there's not that much denoising happening through that script ... surely it's not "invisible" denoising, but it's still rather moderate, IMO.

Actually, your comment meet my eyes (subjective) impressions. I guess that "invisible" denoising is the holy grail of scripting! However with your heavy work, I feel you are getting closer and closer :D. It seems that Soothe helps a bit here to compensate for previous denoising. Without increasing compressibility and it's a first to me. A little aSharp or LimitedSharpen was still too much.

Thanx again for these precious input guys! :cool:

[Terka]

2 Audionut:
you mean interlaced encoding eats space, or this matrix?
which bitrate, quant should i use?
still tried 7000, or Q4 (all DV source)

[Audionut]

2 Audionut:
you mean interlaced encoding eats space, or this matrix?
which bitrate, quant should i use?
still tried 7000, or Q4 (all DV source)

The matrix will require a large bitrate.
Note that interlaced encoding requires more bitrate than progressive, also.

Q4 encoding should be fine.

The best thing to do, would be to encode a sample of the video at Q4. If you like the quality, and the final size is ok for you, then your set.
If the quality is not high enough for you, then try Q3.
Or if the final video size is to large, then try Q5.

edit: I also recommend that with a high bitrate matrix, you set the B-VOP "Quantizer offset" to "0.00"

[BigDid]

ULR tends to artificially preserve sharpeness even if someone could say that effect is due to "ringing", but i like the result.
I like the sharpness, but not the ringing :rolleyes:
if you want a smoother picture use jawor's 1cd matrix.
Just wanted to share my last tests, I use AGK and when it switch from sharp matrix (EQM V2) to soft matrix, it uses V3ULR.
I'm very satisfied with it as long as the bitrate (above 900kbps) and/or the resolution (above 608 for 16/9) does not go down. In that case the ringing is very present and I now use H263 instead and the ratio sharpness/ringing is better to my eyes with H263.

I had this idea re-reading the CQM tests made by soulhunter and seeing that H263 was near the V3ULR I wanted to give it a try and have really good results.

How-to in AGK: in hidden option (Ctrl-F9) use the "enable stand-alone support" and select "ESS"; ESS uses H263 (or mpeg custom) for compatibility with the SAP having an ESS chip.

Did

[Teegedeck]

H.263's natural predator (competitor) isn't ULR but EQM v3LR or HR. If H.263 does look better on your source than ULR, then I think you have been using the wrong matrix all along or, put differenty, it could well be that you have been using ULR for too high bitrates. You could check out whether EQM v3LR or even HR beat H.263 on your encoding setup.

[Sharktooth]

Probably... but he's right on one thing though: the resolution.
ULR is made to be used at higher resolutions than 608*xxx. Lower resolutions will show bigger artifacts that would be hidden in higher res.
In the ULR case the ringing will be more evident, but it's "needed" to keep the image sharpness at higher res.

[BigDid]

Thanks to both for your valuable comments.

It's true I have not compared H263 to Jawor 1cd, will try to (lazy me only using AGK). Also I'm quite sure soulhunter's comparison was for 800-900kbp/s (or low bitrate ), that V3ULR was winner, and H263 was just behind it; just cannot find the threads right now, will edit if/when research succesfull :angry:

Too high bitrate is not really an option for SAP compatibility (usually around 1200kbp/s and/or 640 wide for 16/9). AGK uses EQMV2 as sharp matrix whenever possible*, so in these cases I will try to compare EQMV2 to v3LR or HR.

SAP compatibility is also my concern concerning the xvid presets thingie Teegedeck is starting. Give me time to ingest that highly interesting but though thread and I will post there :)

Did

* From recalling, the AGK comptest is something like:
- If using sharpmatrix, will a 608 wide (for 16/9) be possible with a 60% minimum compressibility?
if yes use EQMV2 with sharp resizing (lanczos)
- if not will 608 wide be possible with soft resizing (bicubic?)
if yes use EQMV2 with soft resizing
- If not will 608 wide be possible with V3ULR with sharp or soft resizing for 60% compressibility
If yes use V3ULR with 608 wide with sharp or soft resizing
- if not use V3ULR with less than 608 with sharp or soft resizing and decrease resolution until 55 to 60% compressibility is reached

Edit1: gotcha
V3-900kbp/s xvid 1.02; 1st v3ulr, 2nd h263, 3rd jawor 1cd here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=570152#post570152
Also V4-1100kbp/s xvid 1.03 here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=648109#post648109
Edit2:
The defaut "soft" cqm/matrix used by AGK is not V3ULR but Jawor1cd; it is however possible to use the v3ULR as soft matrix by creating a ".newsoftmatrix" file in the AGK install directory.

[Backflip]

Interesting, I used EQM_v3UHR_rev2 for The Skeleton Key recently along with qpel. Main reason for using it was compessibility was huge on the movie and I was making a 2CD rip at 672x288 resolution (yip, square pixel). Although I haven't done a comparison with other ways of encoding the movie I think it did a good job.

I'm thinking of using Autogk sharp matrix for a movie. Should I be considering using this at this point in time or just stick with the other matrix's?

edit - nvm, I've just looked at the matrix's and eqm_v3hr is pretty similar to (or might be the same as) autogk sharp.

ps - I did want to stick with full anamorphic because I do see a benefit, as far as encoding 1.85:1 movies, but I've decided to go back to square pixel. I haven't fully grasped how to encode a movie with accurate AR (which is the initial reason I chose to begin encoding in anamorphic) if it's an approx. 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 movie since you can't just put in 16:9 PAL (I think), you need to use DAR settings. If anyone could tell me where you get the DAR setting from and how to most accurately put it in that would be nice though. Is it not just the PAL anamorphic 16:9 Aspect Ratio number you get, so if it's 2.331 or 2.44 I'd put in the DAR settings: 233 : 100 or 244 : 100 respectively?

[Teegedeck]

Simply use (PAL or NTSC) 16:9 Pixel Aspect Ratio. That'll be enough.

[BigDid]

...I'm thinking of using Autogk sharp matrix for a movie. Should I be considering using this at this point in time or just stick with the other matrix's?

edit - nvm, I've just looked at the matrix's and eqm_v3hr is pretty similar to (or might be the same as) autogk sharp...
It seems we have similar concerns: you use a high details (less compressible) matrix and want to try a more compressible one. I use a more compressible matrix and would like to try one keeping more details: LR or HR

Keep in mind that AGK is aimed for low to medium birates and that most users have SAP compatibility in mind. I, usually encode between 900 to 1200 kbp/s, sometimes below (A capture for aviator was 850kbp/s and H263 :D ). I still have to try higher bitrates, and the CQM related, in conjunction with the MTK6000 profile if I want that kind of encode to play on my SAP.

Beside digging in the main AGK thread, only Sharktooth or Len0x may recall the tests making EQMV2 the winner for the sharp AGK matrix. Hey that's a good one; Sharky: at that time were LR or HR pretenders for V2 or was it really out of scope?

Did

[Sharktooth]

It seems we have similar concerns: you use a high details (less compressible) matrix and want to try a more compressible one. I use a more compressible matrix and would like to try one keeping more details: LR or HR

Keep in mind that AGK is aimed for low to medium birates and that most users have SAP compatibility in mind. I, usually encode between 900 to 1200 kbp/s, sometimes below (A capture for aviator was 850kbp/s and H263 :D ). I still have to try higher bitrates, and the CQM related, in conjunction with the MTK6000 profile if I want that kind of encode to play on my SAP.

Beside digging in the main AGK thread, only Sharktooth or Len0x may recall the tests making EQMV2 the winner for the sharp AGK matrix. Hey that's a good one; Sharky: at that time were LR or HR pretenders for V2 or was it really out of scope?

Did
LR and HR were already there but v2 was preferred coz of the versatility (good for movies, cg etc.) while hr and other 5 matrices blended between HR and v2 were somewhat too sharp (or there were artifacts) for some kind of sources (mainly cg) and some of them (mainly HR) gave less compressibility.

[BigDid]

From a few posts back:
"It's true I have not compared H263 to Jawor 1cd, will try to (lazy me only using AGK)."

I did some quick tests from 5mn Vob part: Fusion the core, mix of quick and slow motion, some faces close-up also.

Result are:
1/ULR3 More compressible, good sharp overall look, some ringing sometimes strong, sometimes soft.
2/Jawor1cd, 5.3% less compressible than ULR3 (on that clip), good overall look, softer than ULR3, nearly no ringing.
3/H263, 14.5% less compressible than ULR3, good overall look, softer than ULR3, nearly no ringing.
So it seems Jawor1cd may be the replacement for ULR3 with lower width/bitrate, quite same results as H263 but more compressible. I'll give it a try on a full movie when possible.

To Teegedeck, you are right in terms of compressibility, H263 is more competitor with LR than ULR.

Also the AGK-V2 (see Sharktooth comments) seems really balanced between LR and HR. I'll try comparing V2 to HR more extensively when possible, goal beeing is HR giving really more details than V2?

Did

[neutrogenik]

Thanks a lot for the matrix grids, my vid quality are much more better with it :thanks:

[fight2win]

while encoding with vdub, how to use these matrices?

[BigDid]

while encoding with vdub, how to use these matrices?
Hi,

In Vdubmod (I don't use VD) Menu video/Compression/choose xvid (way down)/profile/quantization type, change to MPEG-custom/edit matrix/ load your custom matrix (.xcm) done.

Looking for some screenshots seen recently, will give a link if found.

Did

Ps: Gotcha: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=805048#post805048
shots are in xvid config/quantization type/drop down box is H263 have to check MPEG-Custom to get the edit matrix box functionnal :)

[NeD tHe OnE]

Hey Sharktooth! It seems that I have a problem using EQM v3 ULR!

Is this preset correct for 1CD Backup of 100 mins length movie, with 640*xxx backup ?

"
slow extreme compression: VHQ=4, VHQ for b-frames, AQ, EQM v3 ULR, 1st pass @q=4,
curve-compr. H30, L15, quantizer-restrictions min. 4, max. 7"

I got an undersized file like around 450 mb when i need it to be 700'

but i got exact 700 when i changed the values a bit lyk 1st pass @ wt =1 & quant. restrictions min=1 , max=7 )

Just want to ask you whether its a right thing to do...

[NeD tHe OnE]

One more thing? which is according to you is better H.263 or ULR v3?

for one cd backup.

H.263 gives you soft pictures it is good @ low bitrates,

and what is the optimum bitrate to go for while using ULR?

Is it better @ real low bitrates like around 400 - 800 kbps?

[foxyshadis]

It says all over the forum to NOT do that. You get zero extra quality and might as well just burn the 450 to a cd. If it undersizes then you go up a matrix, which will put that extra space to good use! In this case from ULR to LR.

[NeD tHe OnE]

I might have backed it up if the Quality was good ...

I mean imagine a video @ 400 kbps , its very low ... I can clearly make out its artifacts ... What should I do?

when i did that I got a smooth Video arnd 1000 kbps ?

Ok .. you tell me to go for a higher preset . What exactly should i do for that to get 700 mb and best quality.

Forgot to mention ... i am using Gordian Knot

[foxyshadis]

"quantizer-restrictions min. 4, max. 7"

I didn't see this. Well, it makes sense now. Why even bother with two-pass if you're going to do that? It should always be set to min 2, max 31, unless you have some very special reason to set it otherwise, or you will get bad video that's often under or oversized. Try a fresh 2-pass with that and ULR.

VHQ=4 is probably overkill at this bitrate, the low bitrate artifacts chew up any minor gain it could make, and you lose a lot of speed. VHQ 1 or 2 would make more sense.

[NeD tHe OnE]

What does VHQ=4 exactly do?

more compression?

Right now I encoded a video MPEG1 format to mkv using ur Xvid settings ... I had aimed for 929 kbps and I got 528 kbps .. The quality wasnt bad nor too good,

So should check with VHQ=1 or 2? and what good will it do?

[NeD tHe OnE]

Thx foxyshadis ...

I got near .. i mean .. i got around the desired bitrate .. a bit oversized by a 2 mb

VHQ=1 worked

[NeD tHe OnE]

Should I try VHQ=2?

what is the difference between VHQ=2 & VHQ=1?

[foxyshadis]

Try it if you want, if the video is very clean it might help, but probably won't noticeably at that bitrate.

If it's oversized by 2 megs, try lowering the second pass bitrate by, say, 5-10 kbps.

[Sharktooth]

you can even keep min quant = 1 with ULR.

[jsquare]

Which one of these ULR matrices is compatible with SAP?

I tried V3ULR, which is my favorite but didn't work with my Philips DVP642.

[BigDid]

Which one of these ULR matrices is compatible with SAP?

I tried V3ULR, which is my favorite but didn't work with my Philips DVP642.
Hi,

This is related to your SAP chipset: ESS Vibrato.

Basically, you need to stick with the regular xvid matrix: H263 or MPEG and limit the max bitrate to 4000kbp/s by, IE, using "the home theatre" profile, PAL or NTSC;

Links:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=645982#post645982
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82765
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=94536&highlight=dvp642
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=103972&highlight=dvp642
:search:

Did

[Sharktooth]

As BigDid said the chipset of your standalone player does not support custom quant matrices.
However check the first posts in this thread. There you'll find what matrices are compatible with SAPs which support custom quant matrices.

[jsquare]

As BigDid said the chipset of your standalone player does not support custom quant matrices.
However check the first posts in this thread. There you'll find what matrices are compatible with SAPs which support custom quant matrices.
Thanks guys, I was thinking of getting rid off the Philips(lack of support) and get another brand.

[BigDid]

Thanks guys, I was thinking of getting rid off the Philips(lack of support) and get another brand.
Hi,

If I may quote Sharktooth :) as sharktooth said "you'll find what matrices are compatible with SAPs which support custom quant matrices."

If you want a SAP with more compatible functions/items/possibilities and Cqm :) , the MTK 1389 chipsets are quite good. I have a H&B 3220 not aging fine (2 years old) but can play (nearly)whatever i give it except GMC or Ogg. I am waiting for the replacement that will be a Peekton PK 6006 same chip family, more compatible, firmware upgradable.

Links in the hardware section:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=98228
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67028
and specially this one to compare different players in english or french:
http://www.divxtest.com/form/divxtest2_list.php?lang=eng

More on SAP subjects may be more suited in the hardware section. Enjoy.

Did

[Backflip]

Simply use (PAL or NTSC) 16:9 Pixel Aspect Ratio. That'll be enough.

Ok, I'll try that. It's just that to me it seemed incorrect because for example, I've cropped The Machinist down toe 720x432 (all black bar and messy pixels gone). Approximate aspect of the movie is 2.35:1 (DVD is R4 PAL), but when I use PAL 16:9 the aspect the resulting aspect is 2.42:1.

2.42:1 is totally correct?

ps - incidently the retail region 4 (PAL) DVD of The Machinist has 1.85:1 AR printed on the box :P Obvious typo.

[Terka]

which matrix is suitable for interlaced Xvid encoding (DV source), how high bitrate (or quantetizer) should i use?

[Backflip]

2.42:1 is totally correct?

Sorry to bring this up again, but now, just browsing the forums I've found this old post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=54677) where ChristianHJW encoded a sample anamorphically, but as you can see he suggested setting (display) aspect ratio as 2.35. Why in this example was PAL 16:9 PAR not used? Is it not the best option with regards to getting correct aspect?

I would really, really like to know if I correctly crop etc that simply setting the PAR as PAL 16:9 will definitively be the correct way to retain best aspect ratio. Can anyone confirm this so I can go along my merry way encoding without any doubts as to whether I'm doing things totally wrong or not.

Currently I've got Star Wars episode III encoded, setting PAR as 16:9 PAL gives me an aspect of 2:46:1 on playback (704x416 => 1024x416)

Again I apolagise for bringing up the same question over and over again, but it really takes a long time to encode stuff and I'd like to be certain that it's right instead of coming back to it in the future with the knowledge that it's infact wrong :(

Thanks very much :)

[dado023]

hi

i have to encode 48min long video(interlaced source) @910kbps
encoded size is cca 355mb

is v3ulr matrix good for this task and what is more important will it work on yamada 6600 divx player, coz i wanna watch it on a TV....


tnx in advance

[Sharktooth]

which matrix is suitable for interlaced Xvid encoding (DV source), how high bitrate (or quantetizer) should i use?
hi

i have to encode 48min long video(interlaced source) @910kbps
encoded size is cca 355mb

is v3ulr matrix good for this task and what is more important will it work on yamada 6600 divx player, coz i wanna watch it on a TV....


tnx in advance

:readguid: :search:

[Sharktooth]

Sorry to bring this up again, but now, just browsing the forums I've found this old post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=54677) where ChristianHJW encoded a sample anamorphically, but as you can see he suggested setting (display) aspect ratio as 2.35. Why in this example was PAL 16:9 PAR not used? Is it not the best option with regards to getting correct aspect?

I would really, really like to know if I correctly crop etc that simply setting the PAR as PAL 16:9 will definitively be the correct way to retain best aspect ratio. Can anyone confirm this so I can go along my merry way encoding without any doubts as to whether I'm doing things totally wrong or not.

Currently I've got Star Wars episode III encoded, setting PAR as 16:9 PAL gives me an aspect of 2:46:1 on playback (704x416 => 1024x416)

Again I apolagise for bringing up the same question over and over again, but it really takes a long time to encode stuff and I'd like to be certain that it's right instead of coming back to it in the future with the knowledge that it's infact wrong :(

Thanks very much :)
this thread is about my custom matrices not anamorphic encoding...

[CrashUK]

hi
is v3ulr matrix good for this task and what is more important will it work on yamada 6600 divx player, coz i wanna watch it on a TV....


tnx in advance

also tested the matrix on a lot of divx dvd players and they all work.. if you know what your doing xvid can be better for dvd/divx hardware then divx6.

[dado023]

:thanks:
@CrashUK
i was waiting for days for some1 to reply me, this was my home page coz i was waitin for answer.....a million thanks

@sharktooth
i always search and read the guides since the time of divx3 sbc.......but if missed something does that mean i have to read 10 times or more.....
i apologise for this but i have to say your attitude is so geek....

best regards

[Sharktooth]

well, that's not my attitude... it's answering almost the same questions 1.000.000 of times that hurts...
however, there are rules on this forum... and guess what's the first rule?
1) Read up before asking! There are tons of guides, FAQs and each forum has a dedicated Q&A thread with additional info.
1a) Use the search function before posting. Chances are your question has already been answered.

[fight2win]

for a 2-hr. movie, 704X384 resize, 1466 mb ac3 2-ch xvid rip, which matrix would u guys advise?

[Sharktooth]

exactly how many atoms of materia are in the air your breathing?
if you can answer that i will answer your question...

[fight2win]

exactly how many atoms of materia are in the air your breathing?
if you can answer that i will answer your question...

i am not demanding an answer, i just wanted advice, i thought forums did that, but this looks like a special case!
Anyways,:thanks:

[Sharktooth]

without info on the compressibility of the source i cant give you any answer.

[BigDid]

for a 2-hr. movie, 704X384 resize, 1466 mb ac3 2-ch xvid rip, which matrix would u guys advise?
Hi,

No precise answer, cause Sharktooth comment is true, but some pointers in this post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=799006#post799006) from 1 page behind for low to mid bitrates.
For Mid to mid-high bitrates see comments from Sharktooth the post right above concerning LR, V2 and HR.

This thread is only 14 pages long and lots of interesting things discussed, may I suggest you take the time to read it?

Did

Edit, just posted on a similar subject here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=825536#post825536)

[fight2win]

i tried both eqm_v3lr and hr, got lots of blockiness and artifacts, guess i'll go with mpeg matrix

[Sharktooth]

that means you need a lower bitrate matrix.
mpeg wont help...

[Livesms]

that means you need a lower bitrate matrix.
mpeg wont help...

Tell me please - which matric should i use for realtime video 720*576 capturing with Xvid with Q=1-2 (bitrates 3000 optimum-5000 max)?

[Sharktooth]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=825468#post825468

[Livesms]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=825468#post825468

This case is for 2-pass encoding and I'm capturing from TV tuner and only 1-pass Const bitrate or Const Quality can be used.

2-hr. for 1466 mb is 1500-1600 and i can afford 3000 or even 5000 in some case - 1 hour for 2048mb.

[BigDid]

i tried both eqm_v3lr and hr, got lots of blockiness and artifacts, guess i'll go with mpeg matrix

Is my english so bad? :(

From my previous post: some pointers in this post from 1 page behind for low to mid bitrates
The quoted post says this: 1/ULR3 More compressible, good sharp overall look, some ringing sometimes strong, sometimes soft.
2/Jawor1cd, 5.3% less compressible than ULR3 (on that clip), good overall look, softer than ULR3, nearly no ringing.
3/H263, 14.5% less compressible than ULR3, good overall look, softer than ULR3, nearly no ringing.
More: Edit, just posted on a similar subject here

The quoted post says this: So from more compressible/less details to less compressible/more details(usually):
V3ULR -> more details than Jawor but more ringing
Jawor 1CD -> less compressible than V3ULR(+-5%), less details, less ringing
H263<=>V3LR (quite same compressibility but not same usage )
V2 aka AGK sharpmatrix
V3HR

Thank you for your attention, or should I say please,pay attention :rolleyes:

Did

[Sharktooth]

There's also a description for every of my matrices matrices on their own post...

[Livesms]

Do any of this matrices speed up compression? Which of them will you suggest for real-time capturing from TV tuner with max quality?

[Sharktooth]

No speedup. Also you're really started annoying me with thos "what should i use...".
The answer is :search: &:readguid:
Once you start understanding how the codec works you'll know what to choose.

[Heini011]

i modded eqm_v3hr for nearly the same / slightly smaller filesize and simultaneously a bit better quality (more homogeneous quality, less bluring and less blocky) based on experience. the new matrices uses mainly less inter-frame compression and slighty less hf compression, cause that should be done by filtering in avisynth before. therefore i increased only intra-frame lf compression a bit.

heini_mr.xcm

8, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17,
11, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19,
11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23,
12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 30,
13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 32, 40,
14, 16, 17, 20, 24, 32, 43, 53,
16, 17, 19, 23, 30, 40, 53, 70

13, 14, 15, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22,
14, 15, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24,
15, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27,
15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 28, 32,
16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 29, 33, 42,
18, 20, 22, 25, 29, 34, 45, 56,
20, 22, 24, 28, 33, 45, 60, 74,
22, 24, 27, 32, 42, 56, 74, 98


and for lower bitrate encodings a similar hvs tuned "Six-Of-Nine" principle matrix for min quant = 3.

heini_lr_6o9.xcm

8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 12,
8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13,
8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17,
8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22,
9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 24, 29,
10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 24, 31, 38,
12, 13, 14, 17, 22, 29, 38, 49

10, 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 13, 16,
11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17,
11, 11, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19,
11, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23,
11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24, 30,
12, 13, 16, 18, 21, 25, 32, 39,
13, 16, 17, 20, 24, 32, 41, 51,
16, 17, 19, 23, 30, 39, 51, 66

[BigDid]

... and for lower bitrate encodings a similar hvs tuned "Six-Of-Nine" principle matrix for min quant = 3...
Hi,

Do you mean lower bitrate than the original 6of9Hvs ?
In my (small) tests, at fixed Q=2 V3Hr had given me 2491Kbp/s and 6of9Hvs 3104kbp/s (Original 6of9 was 3164)
So I suppose your tuned 6of9 is somehow between 2500 to 3100 kbp/s...

Did

[Heini011]

Hi Did,

>Do you mean lower bitrate than the original 6of9Hvs ?

No. heini_lr_6o9.xcm is a matrix, which is similar hvs tuned as heini_mr.xcm, which is a slightly modded version of Sharktooth eqm-v3 hr matrix. from "6of9" is only the idea to increase min quant to 3 for a more consistent quantizer distibution.

i was never happy with the original six-of-nine, cause the encodings are blocky on motion. this is not the case with my matrix, but the price is ~ 7-8% lower compressability. but the compressabilty at q=3 is still ~ 24% better than heini_mr.xcm at q=2.

for high quality / high bitrate encodings we need min quant = 2 (cause all coefficients have to be >=8, dc closed)

greetings

[Teegedeck]

Interesting; I hope to find the time to test this eventually. :)

[BigDid]

i modded eqm_v3hr for nearly the same / slightly smaller filesize and simultaneously a bit better quality (more homogeneous quality, less bluring and less blocky) based on experience. the new matrices uses mainly less inter-frame compression and slighty less hf compression, cause that should be done by filtering in avisynth before. therefore i increased only intra-frame lf compression a bit.

heini_mr.xcm...
Hi,

Days are passing and still have no time to share an extensive review :(

A few words to let you know I tested your 2 Cqm.

The 6o9hvs_tuned is not compressible enough for me (too much bitrate needed)
The Hr_tuned (heini_mr) is promising.
I compared it more with the V2 than the original V3HR that your Cqm definitely outperform (for me)
The V2 is still very comparable and a little more compressible.

So, I will continue to use the V2 unless codec is saturating in which case I will switch to your heini_mr.
:thanks:

Did

[Heini011]

Hi Did,

i wrote it already: heini_lr_6o9.xcm is meant for minimum quantizer = 3. so you have to set quantizer = 3 in zones for first pass only and then 3 x Min Quant.. = 3 at more \ quantization. then it gives the desired compressibility.

eqm v3 is almost the same as v2, but has less inter-frame compression. heini_mr is a modded version from v3 and should be compared with that matrix, cause is gives round about the same compressability.

greetings.

[Plamen234]

Please, I need a piece of advice to choose a CQM in this particular case?
I'm asking this because from my preliminary figures I have to use Shraktooth's v3 ULR CQM @2300kbps which confuses me.

Details:
movie: Lord of the rings - The Two Towers SEE
target size: dvd-r (=3455MB for the video only)
resolution: 704x416 (cropping only) anamorphic 16:9
average bitrate: 2350kbps

Enc size prediction results (q=2):
mpeg -> 5314MB (and the target size 3455MB is 65% )
Shraktooth's v3 HR -> 6062MB (...=57%)
6of9 nonHVS -> 8015MB (...=43%)

StatsReader says from the 1st-pass file that:
Shraktooth's v3 ULR -> 4211MB (...=82%)
Shraktooth's v3 LR -> 4761MB (...=73%)

According to the firgures I should use v3ULR because it would be the least constrained choice. But Sharktooth has posted before that such bitrates are too high for ULR. So I should use the next bitrate-hungry CQM - v3LR.

Is this the rigth decision?
Any help is quite welcome.

p.s. xvid settings ASP5, B-frames 2-1-1, qpel, chroma optimiser ON, MSP=4, vhq=3, chroma motion ON, trellis on, turbo off, quants=2-31

[Teegedeck]

I'm not commenting on the comressibility of LOTR here - although I think it is quite normal - because I have yet to try and encode the whole movie (I only use selected scenes from the trilogy for testing), but just to say that what you found there is nothing extraordinary.

Actually you cannot say 'this matrix is meant for a bitrate of xyz kbps' at all. A 'high bitrate matrix' might produce a 'low' bitrate* and a 'low bitrate matrix' might produce a 'high' bitrate, depending on the source. The only thing you can tell for sure is that on the same source, the high bitrate matrix will always produce a higher bitrate than the low bitrate matrix.

* Take for example your typical Hollywood drama/romantic comedy; you'll easily be able to compress such a movie with a very-high-bitrate matrix at quantizer 3 to a filesize that you usually achieve with a low bitrate matrix at quantizer 3 for your 'average' movie.

[Plamen234]

So in this particular case, is LR the right choice for cqm? If no, which one would you recommend? Please.

[Teegedeck]

These percentage figures mean very little to me, sorry. I would aim for an average quantizer 3 and use the matrix which allows for that. I would prefer the LR matrix at an average quantizer 3 over the ULR matrix at an average quantizer of 2. But it doesn't seem you have that choice.

You could of course mildly denoise to improve compressibility. Search a bit and I think you will find ample discussions about how best to encode LOTR.

[Plamen234]

Thank you. I'll do it your way.

[G_M_C]

I do use custom matrices. Up till now ive used some of the custom matrices that have come with DVD-Rebuilder's Matrix editor (for CCE). They seem to do a good job, but I also want to try the matrices found in this thread.

Well i've read through most posts but I'm a bit at a loss. And it's quite a simple question: What would we consider Very High Bitrate or just HIGH or LOW Bitrate for that matter.

The question is not that simple to anwer offcourse, because 3600 Kbps @ standard PAL Anamorphic (720x576) could be considered very high bitrate i quess, but the same 3600 Kbps @ 1080p would be considered very low bitrate. The bitrate itself could better be mesured in bits per pixel I think; For instance; 720 x 576 = 414720 pixels, bpp = 3.600.000 / 414720 ~~ 8,68.

So getting bach to the question; Could someone post a "rule of thumb" on the in this thread mentioned bitrates; How many bpp would be considered EXTREMELY HIGH BITRATE, VERY HIGH BITRATE etc. With this "rule of thumb", it might become more easy to choose the proper Matrix for everybody, form novices to advanced user.

[foxyshadis]

You can see Teegedeck's presets thread for Enc compressibility levels and the "rules of thumb" he derives from them. Not to mention being much more accurate than bpf. Such a test would also probably be the best way to choose between these, although I usually just pick one based on some rough idea of what I want.

[G_M_C]

[...]although I usually just pick one based on some rough idea of what I want.

I do too, but it is quite possible to, for instance, "undersetimate" the possible settings.

In the previous example 3600kbps @ PAL anamorpic; I've always treated this as Very high bitrate, and chose a matrix that fitted that discription. But somehow "ive got the feeling" that I underestimeted this bitrate, and could have used the "EXTREMELY high bitrate matrix" found in this topic (and thus allmost encoded this "lossless").

A short overview or rule of thumb as I mentioned above, would have made shure i chose te right one (eliminating guessing like you and me do now ;) )


BTW; Short explination maybe required. I came to this high bitrate because I can get a documentary consisting of 3 eps @ 50 mins fitting on 1 DVDR ;) And i want as high as possible quality bacause the original is in 1080P format (and i dont have a HDTV, PAL-SD is max for me :'( )

[708145]

In the previous example 3600kbps @ PAL anamorpic; I've always treated this as Very high bitrate, and chose a matrix that fitted that discription. But somehow "ive got the feeling" that I underestimeted this bitrate, and could have used the "EXTREMELY high bitrate matrix" found in this topic (and thus allmost encoded this "lossless").


Is there any interest in an application that encodes to xvid q2 and automatically picks the CQM (or interpolates between existing ones) to hit the requested final size?

I'm willing to code this if there is interest.

bis besser,
T0B1A5

[G_M_C]

Is there any interest in an application that encodes to xvid q2 and automatically picks the CQM (or interpolates between existing ones) to hit the requested final size?

I'm willing to code this if there is interest.

bis besser,
T0B1A5

Offcourse a tool would be a nice thing. But i think there would be more "to do" as you might think.

For instance; I encode especially for "DivX Certified" players, mind you NOT DivX 6.x but the 5.x versions.

this means i cannot use stuff like Qpel, packed bitstream, GMC or more than 1 consecutive b-frame. I simply comes down to the matrix i choose, because that is allmost the only significant improvement i can make. And the other thing I'm interested in is QUALITY, speed of the encode doesnt matter at all to me (using some AviSynth filters slows things down anyway, so XviD encoding speed doesnt matter anymore ;) )

The reason I do this is that many home DivX players will not play the XviD's with the mentiones "advanced" settings; not even mine (a Denon !).

So when you make a tool like you purposed, you need to make different profiles too (like DivX certified-compliant, or pure XviD-compliant etc. etc.) to account for different players/capabillities. But if you can make such a thing, i think it will be a great help (for me at least).

But a simple list with some numbers (bpp, as i described) would also be good enough for me ;)

[foxyshadis]

EHR is more 10Mbps range. On a test video (11 Mbps EHR q2), using 3600 kbps results in video that's significantly more ringy and blocky than UHR, very high quants; it's really made for processing, not hvs, and shouldn't be used in final encodes unless you have the space for archival quality. There's a good chance it won't work on standalones too, the dividers are so low.

[Sharktooth]

foxyshadis got it right...

i must say ULR is no longer a good matrix... at least on LCD displays coz they have an ultra-high contrast that will make ULR "sharpening-effect" look ugly and artificial.

[G_M_C]

K guys thx for the input. Ill post the 2 matrices I normally choose from, maybe "you as experts" can see if there OK or point me to better ones ;)

[henryho_hk]

Sharktooth, would you recommend any alternative to ULR?

[Sharktooth]

V3LR if you want to keep details or jawors 1cd matrix if you want a smooth output.

[Teegedeck]

Hm, LR doesn't reach quite the compression you get from from ULR, I think. It's almost playing in the same league as HR. Perhaps one shouldn't use XviD at all for compression so strong that ULR or Javor's 1CD-matrix are needed. :)

XviD's output at the low end cannot compare with x264 but I think the illusion of crispness that ULR provides is a neat trick. Do you really like Javor's 1CD better?

[Sharktooth]

Well, LR is not so bad at high quants. However, yes, the ULR crispness IS a trick but since some time, LCD monitors have impossible contrast ratios (600:1 or more) ... so the "trick" is no longer good...

[CrashUK]

Well, LR is not so bad at high quants. However, yes, the ULR crispness IS a trick but since some time, LCD monitors have impossible contrast ratios (600:1 or more) ... so the "trick" is no longer good...

what do you think is best matrix for LCD screens..

[Sharktooth]

V3LR or Jawor's 1CD should be fine at low bitrates. For higher bitrates there should be no problems.

[halsboss]

Description:
This is an EXTREMELY HIGH BITRATE matrix designed for constant quality encodings ONLY. ... It's application is pretty obvious: it's for backing up original material or HD material without using lossless codecs. EQM V3EHR:

8 8 9 11 13 13 14 17
8 8 11 12 13 14 17 18
9 11 13 13 14 17 17 16
11 11 13 13 13 17 18 20
11 13 13 13 16 17 20 24
13 13 13 16 17 20 24 29
13 12 13 17 19 23 28 34
12 13 17 19 23 28 34 41

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

WARNING: It may not work with some standalones (expecially the ones with ESS chipsets). EDIT: Matrix updated (uhm... completely redesigned) on 05/10/2004.

Some time ago I came across this "Fox matrix" and seek your comment in relation to it and EQM V3EHR... likely pro's and cons (xvid->DVD using HC)

08 08 09 09 10 10 11 11
08 09 09 10 10 11 11 12
09 09 10 10 11 11 12 12
09 10 10 11 11 12 13 13
10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14
10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15
11 11 12 13 13 14 15 15
11 12 12 13 14 15 15 16

08 08 09 09 10 10 11 11
08 09 09 10 10 11 11 12
09 09 10 10 11 11 12 12
09 10 10 11 11 12 13 13
10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14
10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15
11 11 12 13 13 14 15 15
11 12 12 13 14 15 15 16


Hmm, http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=748689#post748689 says the Fox Home Entertainment Matrix is

08 08 09 11 13 13 14 17
08 08 11 12 13 14 17 18
09 11 13 13 14 17 17 19
11 11 13 13 13 17 18 20
11 13 13 13 16 17 20 24
13 13 13 16 17 20 24 29
13 12 13 17 19 23 28 34
12 13 17 19 23 28 34 41

08 08 08 09 09 09 09 10
08 08 09 09 09 09 10 10
08 09 09 09 09 10 10 10
09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10
09 09 09 10 10 10 10 11
09 09 10 10 10 10 11 11
09 10 10 10 10 11 11 11
10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11

... anyone know so which is the latest "real" Fox Matrix ?
Edit 2: Searching finally located it...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=866287#post866287 says of the 1st of these 2 Fox matrices Fox 2 now comes in HC 018 encoder zip which you can get from doom9's download section...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=759321#post759321 was the original source for me and said

Here's what Fox DVDs use these days, in case you're interested:

[Sharro]

Hi Everybody and Sharktooth,

Sorry to bump in here, I've read the whole thread and didn't find anything that could kill my curiosity.

I've been using hvs-best for quite a few years (damn I'm getting old) and I'm willing to test at least one of your cqm but I need some directions.

Basically I encode at animations (pixar, dreamworks, etc) which compress quite well at bitrates > 1300kbps and resolutions >= 640, lanczosresize and ocasionaly Undot, unfilter or lumafilter.

Which of your cqms should I start with ?

EDIT: Hmppfff, read this thread...didn't read the other... I should definetly start with HR and LR. Any known compatibility problems with standalones ?

Any help appreciated.

All the best,

Sharro

[HeadBangeR77]

From my limited experience, I would say you should give v3HR a try - for my needs it smooths a bit too much, but for your content should be just fine (considering the bitrate & resolution you've given). It is still less compresable than HVS-Best Picture, though the difference is rather small, and depends of course on the content you encode.

Why don't you try some sample clips, one pass, constant quantizer (2 or 3)? I've done hundreds of samples like that and it prooved useful for future encodings. :)

Hope I've helped a bit, cheers
HDBR77

[Sharktooth]

HR may have standalone compatibility issues.
To fix them just replace all "15"s with "16"s in the inter-matrix.

[Sharro]

...for my needs it smooths a bit too much...still less compresable than HVS-Best Picture, though the difference is rather small...

Why don't you try some sample clips, one pass, constant quantizer (2 or 3)? I've done hundreds of samples like that and it prooved useful for future encodings. :)
HDBR77

The HVS-Best/SharktoothCQM difference in size is exactly one of my curiosities. :D

I never encode a movie without 2 or 3 tries, I'll run a few first passes...

HR may have standalone compatibility issues.
To fix them just replace all "15"s with "16"s in the inter-matrix.

Thanks for the info.

EDIT:

Just tried a 2 pass encode with didee's 6of9 to test in my standalones together with Heini's (with inter-matrix 15's replaced by 16's), results:

Philips DVP720SA/02
===Heini's Intermatrix Min 16 -> perfect play
===Didee's SixOfNive hvs -> artifacts on video (blocks)

Philips DVP5960/12
===Heini's Intermatrix Min 16 -> perfect play
===Didee's SixOfNive hvs -> perfect play

Video was 704x288 pixels Xvid 2BF, QP, PB, Chroma Optimizer, Trellis with 1593Kbps set for the second pass

So for the time being I'll have to stick with Heini's IM Min 16. I'll also try it on a Yamada 6700 plus and revert.

END EDIT

[HeadBangeR77]

HR may have standalone compatibility issues.
To fix them just replace all "15"s with "16"s in the inter-matrix.
Thank you, good to know that. :)

@ Sharro
Sample clip form "The Curse of the Black Pearl", NTSC 23.976, 672x288, 12951 frames:

1) MSP=5, VHQ=1, VHQ for B-frames, Chroma ME, Turbo, Trellis, Chroma opt., B-frames 2/1.62/0 (goes very quickly, good for testing CQMs ;))
a) MPEG default QM @ Q2 : 101 MB, 1564 kbps
b) HVS Best Picture @ Q2 : 102 MB, 1588 kbps
c) Sharktooth's V3 HR @ Q2 : 118 MB, 1829 kbps
d) Heini's MR (V3 mod) @ Q2 : 120 MB, 1865 kbps

2) MSP=6, VHQ=3, VHQ for B-frames, Chroma ME, no Turbo, QPEL, Trellis, Chroma opt., B-frames 2/1.62/0 (slooow in comparison to the above ;))
a) MPEG default QM @ Q2 : 106 MB, 1651 kbps
b) HVS Best Picture @ Q2 : 108 MB, 1677 kbps
c) Sharktooth's V3 HR @ Q2 : 123 MB, 1915 kbps
d) Heini's MR (V3 mod) @ Q2 : 126 MB, 1955 kbps

To give Sharktooth his credits, the V3 LR one gave at quantizer 2:
93.5 MB (1448 kbps) and 98.3 MB (1522 kbps) for the above sample-encodes, what places it somewhere in between H.263 and standard MPEG.

[Sharro]

Well...after 2 different full 2 pass encodes on animations...where checking against the 1st pass size of HeadBanger77 I also got to 14 to 15% difference against HVS-Best, so slightly worst quant average on the second pass... I've thrown away the numbers and looked at the visual quality by doing a stack vertical...

Sharktooth :thanks:.

Much more detail retained and overall better looking, certainly a great option for 2 cd rips of animation with 2 AC3 tracks.

Now I have just to test in my standalone.

I'll revert.

All the best,

Sharro

[Sharro]

Hi Guys,

No problems with Standalone Philips DVP5960/12 using HR matrix after following Sharktooth inter-matrix advice.

Errr...as I don't like encoding, for fun I'm redoing my encodes with Colormatrix, damn...Xvid at full...that's going Slllloooowwww.

I've noticed a difference of "brightness" expected amongst different CQM's, specially in red color, do my eyes betray me for staring too much at different scenes ?

All the best,

Sharro

[BigDid]

Hi Guys,

No problems with Standalone Philips DVP5960/12 using HR matrix after following Sharktooth inter-matrix advice.

Errr...as I don't like encoding, for fun I'm redoing my encodes with Colormatrix, damn...Xvid at full...that's going Slllloooowwww.

I've noticed a difference of "brightness" expected amongst different CQM's, specially in red color, do my eyes betray me for staring too much at different scenes ?

All the best,

Sharro
Hi,

While you are comparing you may want to try the V3HR modded by Heini a few posts up in this page. I had good results with it and same tip applies for SAP compatibility ( replace all "15" and below "15" with "16" in the inter-matrix): http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=854722#post854722

Did

[HeadBangeR77]

While you are comparing you may want to try the V3HR modded by Heini a few posts up in this page. I had good results with it and same tip applies for SAP compatibility ( replace all "15" and below "15" with "16" in the inter-matrix): http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=854722#post854722
That's one of my favourites! Just slightly less compressable than Sharktooth's original one, and gives more crispy, sharp look, at least IMHO ;) I will edit my post above to add it to the list.

@ Sharro
Good to know the trick works for standalones :)
As to the brightness, I haven't marked anything like that, but I encode too rare to spot such a difference. Are you sure you haven't switched rendering mode in your fav player or output color space?

Red is always tricky - that's why I don't watch anything in YV12, unless I have to. Some terrible color-bleeding there, brrrr!

cheers,
HDBR77

[Sharro]

That's one of my favourites! ...@ Sharro
Good to know the trick works for standalones :)
As to the brightness, I haven't marked anything like that, but I encode too rare to spot such a difference. Are you sure you haven't switched rendering mode in your fav player or output color space?

Red is always tricky - that's why I don't watch anything in YV12, unless I have to. Some terrible color-bleeding there, brrrr!

cheers,
HDBR77

My doubts come from a stackvertical of the d2v with either hvs or v3hr but the "brightness" efect was more noticeable on v3hr.

I didn't had time to check this nights encode (HR with Colormatrix(0,2,d2v="***.d2v",threads=2) as it might have helped the color-bleeding.

I'll roll a few encodes within today and tomorrow and I'll certainly give a try to Heini's V3HR mod.

All the best,

Sharro

[HeadBangeR77]

OT:

1) Watch the same by forcing HQ YV12=>RGB32 conversion or just force YUY2 colorspace.
2) I've tried Colormatrix and I'm not happy with its results, with all the respect to the creator. First, it oversaturates red and human faces, imo. Second, it is forcing tv-scale (not full colors' range) by default, what I don't like especially (washed-out colors, dimmed image). Just a few ideas :rolleyes:

[Sharro]

OT:

...
2) I've tried Colormatrix and I'm not happy with its results, with all the respect to the creator. First, it oversaturates red and human faces, imo. Second, it is forcing tv-scale (not full colors' range) by default, what I don't like especially (washed-out colors, dimmed image). Just a few ideas :rolleyes:

If I well understood the principle of Colormatrix and if used properly it shouldn't give you the above problems, it should just feed the encoder with the colormatrix he's expecting (601) against the (mainly) standard colormatrix of mpeg2 (BT709).

I've compared colors of the mpeg2source and avisource with converttorgb and definetly the encodes with colormatrix had better color matching.

Maybe it could be a mistake of my eyes.

All the best,

Sharro

[Beave]

If the source is not bt709 you will get wrong colors with colormatrix of course.
I actually noticed the wrong colors myself a few years back and happiliy found colormatrix what got the solution to this problem. That was before autogk or megui were using them as standard.

[Vindarath]

is there any 'all purpose cqm'? im encoding hitman with the high rate cqm at cq2, 704w400h. but im getting bitrates below 1600.

[Ranguvar]

is there any 'all purpose cqm'? im encoding hitman with the high rate cqm at cq2, 704w400h. but im getting bitrates below 1600.
Try encoding a sample EQM V3LR, MPEG, and possibly EQM V3HR, and see which looks better to you.

[Lenny_Nero]

is there any 'all purpose cqm'?
I have been thinking about this question since it was posted, and because I do a large amount of DVB-TV to xvid encodes (5~10 a day) I have been looking for the best all-rounder to save me re-encoding things over and over.

Well just as there is no 'best' there is not really a cqm that will work right with everything, for everybody, because what I think looks good others will not.

But so far I have found that, again, this is for me (I like a sharper picture and always used mpeg over H.263) I have been very impressed with the "EQM - AutoGK sharp.xcm" cqm and so far (over 100 encodes) its working right every time and has yet to have a problem with any SAP (nothing below 16 in the inter-matrix).

But I would also do as Ranguvar says and at least try "EQM V3LR, MPEG, and possibly EQM V3HR" as well because they are top quality cqm's.

[Ranguvar]

The all-purpose CQM is now Xivd with the VAQ patch, using H.263 (technically not a CQM) with Adaptive Quantization enabled ;)

[shae]

The all-purpose CQM is now Xivd with the VAQ patch, using H.263 (technically not a CQM) with Adaptive Quantization enabled ;)Wouldn't that still result in a soft image?

[Ranguvar]

In most situations, nope. Perhaps in extremes.

[Lenny_Nero]

Wouldn't that still result in a soft image?
Thats how I would have thought it, or are you saying that now with the VAQ patch you dont need to do anything with CQM/QM's ?

[Sharktooth]

consider VAQ as a sort of "adaprive CQM" that even works on standalones.
If i have to choose between encoding with a CQM or encoding with VAQ, ill go for VAQ first. If and only if im not satisfied then i would use a CQM.

[Video Master]

consider VAQ as a sort of "adaprive CQM" that even works on standalones.
If i have to choose between encoding with a CQM or encoding with VAQ, ill go for VAQ first. If and only if im not satisfied then i would use a CQM.

I too prefer H.263 + AQ over CQMs , they work best for me.

Also i am using Xvid 1.1.2 [xvidcore.dll] Koepis Vanilla CVS Build , Nov 1 2006 specifically.

[Sharktooth]

xvid 1.1.2 AQ is not VAQ... and it sux... :)

[Video Master]

xvid 1.1.2 AQ is not VAQ... and it sux... :)

Point noted :)

[Tuik]

Hello,

What Custom Matrix should I use in SD content with a 2pass bitrate of 2250 kbps? The aim is the best sharpeness possible.

Thank you for the help.

[Jawor]

EQM v3 HR preserves detail pretty well (and works OK with VAQ). Qpel can help a lot as well (if our target player supports it). It's the resizing from 1920x1080 to 720xXXX that will cause a significant loss of detail (of course we have no other choice if we want to play our encodes on “DivX Home Theater” certified players).

[elguaxo]

Read the sticky (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119399) ;)

Here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=93539) you have a thread with compressibility tests using different CQMs and Jawor made a useful comment on compatibility here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1421926#post1421926).

The higher bitrate matrices keep more details, but they also need more bitrate.


edit: lol, the post with the question I was commenting to disappeared.

[Jawor]

Here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=93539) you have a thread with compressibility tests using different CQMs and Jawor made a useful comment on compatibility here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1421926#post1421926).

About the min=16 requirement for the INTER part... If you change the 15s to 16s in “EQM v3 HR”, the quality difference won't be really noticeable (I tried this ;) ). MediaTek-based players may require such a change. My Philips DVP3142/12 (Zoran Vaddis 966 chipset) plays every custom matrix I can throw at it. Very old players (e.g. based on the ESS Vibratto chipset) probably won't play any of the “MPEG-Custom” matrices.

[Tuik]

EQM v3 HR preserves detail pretty well (and works OK with VAQ). Qpel can help a lot as well (if our target player supports it). It's the resizing from 1920x1080 to 720xXXX that will cause a significant loss of detail (of course we have no other choice if we want to play our encodes on “DivX Home Theater” certified players).


It's ok to use a custom matrix and VAQ at the same time? And how do i use VAQ in xvid_encraw?

[Sharktooth]

not all quant matrices are VAQ friendly.
test them on a short clip and see if they're behaving correctly.

[henryho_hk]

Copy an updated xvidcore.dll to the same folder as xvid_encraw. Then you can use the lumi-masking option to turn on VAQ.

[SilaSurfer]

Hey Sharktooth very nice collection with EQM series. My favorite is Eqm V3HR modded for standalone support. I was just wondering is Trellis bug fixed or do I have to use these two workarounds?

1. Disable Trellis
or
2. Restrict quantizers to 2-31

I'm using latest Jawors Xvid 1.22 VAQ version.

[Tuik]

Hey,

Right now i'm using xvid-encraw from megui development server.

The aim is to backup bluray content to view in players which not support it.

So i'm encoding bluray to xvid HD 720p and bluray to xvid SD 480p.

I load to xvid a small avisynth script with DSS2, spline16 resize and a little bit of sharpen.

I've been in research for the best xvid options to retain the most detail without blocking and without loosing standalone player compatibility. The above taking in consideration that 480p is to be encoding at a max of 2000 avg bitrate and 720p at a max of 3000 avg bitrate.

The settings i'm using now are:

2 pass, 2 max b frames, bframe ratio 162, bframe offset 0, VHQ for bframes and mode 4, MSP 6, no QPEL, no GMC, Chroma Motion, Closed GOP, Trellis Quant, Adapt. Quantization, Packed Bitstream, No Turbo, max kframe in 240, min qt 2 max qt 31

So now what is missing is the custom matrix...

What CQM would you advise with all the above set?

(also if you suggestions on other used settings please don't abstain :))

Thanks for your help!

[henryho_hk]

1. Disable Trellis

Isn't the Trellis bug fixed years ago? And the min. Q should always be set 2 or higher.

[SilaSurfer]

And the min. Q should always be set 2 or higher.

I know that. I misunderstood what Sharktooth meant by his workarounds on the first page of this thread. The bug came when you would use Trellis + EqmV3HR matrix with quantizer ranges Min 1-31 Max but I never use that so. I thought that restricting max quantizers would show those issues. Thanks and I apologize for taking your time.

[Tuik]

Hey,

Right now i'm using xvid-encraw from megui development server.

The aim is to backup bluray content to view in players which not support it.

So i'm encoding bluray to xvid HD 720p and bluray to xvid SD 480p.

I load to xvid a small avisynth script with DSS2, spline16 resize and a little bit of sharpen.

I've been in research for the best xvid options to retain the most detail without blocking and without loosing standalone player compatibility. The above taking in consideration that 480p is to be encoding at a max of 2000 avg bitrate and 720p at a max of 3000 avg bitrate.

The settings i'm using now are:

2 pass, 2 max b frames, bframe ratio 162, bframe offset 0, VHQ for bframes and mode 4, MSP 6, no QPEL, no GMC, Chroma Motion, Closed GOP, Trellis Quant, Adapt. Quantization, Packed Bitstream, No Turbo, max kframe in 240, min qt 2 max qt 31

So now what is missing is the custom matrix...

What CQM would you advise with all the above set?

(also if you suggestions on other used settings please don't abstain :))

Thanks for your help!
Any help? :)

[henryho_hk]

Is it 720p or 480p @60fps or 30fps?

If you use a good denoiser, QPel can help 480p encodes. Avoid the old AQ.... grab a new xvidcore.dll and use the new VAQ if u need to.
I seem to have read somewhere for best standalone player compatibility, we should use max one consecutive B-frame with "Packed Bitstream" on. If it is a newer player supporting 2 max cons. B-frame, turn off "Packed Bitstream". QPel + 2-max-cons-B saves over 10% bitrate (for more movie details).

max key-frame interval is still 10*fps. But for 60fps encodes I think we may reduce it to 5~7*fps.

H263 with new VAQ offers the best standalone player compatibility and it encodes fastest too. If u want more details, u can use EQM-v2 or EQM-HR-v3-SAP-mod. Make sure that u do have sufficient bitrate because VAQ makes them more prone to blocks and rings for frame peepers. (Actually, H263+VAQ tends to give running textures @ insufficient bitrates too.)

[Tuik]

Is it 720p or 480p @60fps or 30fps?

If you use a good denoiser, QPel can help 480p encodes. Avoid the old AQ.... grab a new xvidcore.dll and use the new VAQ if u need to.
I seem to have read somewhere for best standalone player compatibility, we should use max one consecutive B-frame with "Packed Bitstream" on. If it is a newer player supporting 2 max cons. B-frame, turn off "Packed Bitstream". QPel + 2-max-cons-B saves over 10% bitrate (for more movie details).

max key-frame interval is still 10*fps. But for 60fps encodes I think we may reduce it to 5~7*fps.

H263 with new VAQ offers the best standalone player compatibility and it encodes fastest too. If u want more details, u can use EQM-v2 or EQM-HR-v3-SAP-mod. Make sure that u do have sufficient bitrate because VAQ makes them more prone to blocks and rings for frame peepers. (Actually, H263+VAQ tends to give running textures @ insufficient bitrates too.)

Encodes are @24fps

Well, my standalone player don't support QPEL so i cannot use it.

Hum.. could you explain me what really packed bitstream does? Because, until now, i've always used it because virtualdubmod doesn't show image if i turn packed bitstream off.

Well, for now, i've been using sixofnine HVS with VAQ and it seems to have good results, however, i can't find those matrices you said. Would you help me? Thanks a lot

[henryho_hk]

EQM matrices? Take a look at Sharktooth (http://forum.doom9.org/member.php?u=41310)'s signature.

[crasus]

I think he meant the EQM-HR-v3-SAP-mod (which doesn't seem to in Sharktooth's signature) ?

[henryho_hk]

I see. EQM-HR-v3-SAP-mod is to use CQE (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=73666) to modify inter-frame matrix of EQM-HR-v3 setting all <16 coefficients to 16.

[$in0bi]

I've got an artifact by using eqm v3hr matrix. You can see it in the right top corner.
http://i29.fastpic.ru/big/2011/1030/99/fd12cc1dd55cfa0d326df266f7374699.png

[Sharktooth]

It's highly improbable a quantization matrix can result in such an artifact unless the encoder and/or the decoder used is buggy.

[$in0bi]

It's highly improbable a quantization matrix can result in such an artifact unless the encoder and/or the decoder used is buggy.
But this artifact disappears only when I change the matrix or change bitrate. But with this bitrate and output size byte to byte the only decision is to change matrix, but if you think that your matrix is perfect that's nothing to discuss. Besides I've already reinstalled every codec and the result is the same. My friends told me that they saw such artifact when they had compared the matrices (eqmv3hr with others).

The answer from xvid.org:
From your pictures, I can just see that the problem _might_ indeed be related to custom quantization.

[neveja]

Sharktooth
What do you recommend for ripping on the matrix of 1CD (low bitrate 600-700kbps) - 'v3ulr', 'v3ulr_rev2' or 'v3ulr_rev3'?
Thanks in advance.

[henryho_hk]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1250770#post1250770

".... on a sidenote eqm v3 ULR is obsolete since LCD displays. ...."

(You can still compare it with Jawor's 1CD matrix and see which one looks better for you.)

[SilaSurfer]

If u want more details, u can use EQM-v2 or EQM-HR-v3-SAP-mod. Make sure that u do have sufficient bitrate because VAQ makes them more prone to blocks and rings for frame peepers. (Actually, H263+VAQ tends to give running textures @ insufficient bitrates too.)

@ henryho_hk

At what compressibility level did you notice EQM-v3HR + VAQ to show blocks and ringing? I still use Xvid when it comes to SD material and this is my favorite CQM. I was thinking of using VAQ instead of my general setup where I restrict quantizers. I think VAQ should provide more fine quantizer distribution. My compressibility is very low. With compcheck <90%, bitrate range 1800 to 2400.

[henryho_hk]

@ henryho_hk

At what compressibility level did you notice EQM-v3HR + VAQ to show blocks and ringing?

About 45.

[orion44]

Description:
This is a HIGH BITRATE matrix designed to work at full anamorphic DVD res (720x432) with bitrates over 1600kbits (for an average motion movie) and works pretty well even with Q2 encodings or extremely High bitrates. But for that target there will be an Ultra-high bitrate matrix (EMQ V3UHR).

EQM V3HR:

8 10 10 10 11 11 13 15
10 10 10 10 11 12 14 16
10 10 11 11 13 14 16 18
10 10 11 13 15 17 19 23
11 11 13 15 19 22 26 29
11 12 14 17 22 28 34 41
13 14 16 19 26 34 44 55
15 16 18 23 29 41 55 72

15 15 15 15 16 17 19 22
15 15 15 15 16 18 20 23
15 15 16 17 19 20 23 27
15 15 17 19 22 25 29 33
16 16 19 22 28 32 38 43
17 18 20 25 32 41 50 60
19 20 23 29 38 50 66 81
22 23 27 33 43 60 81 106



Can I use this matrix on a downsized video (576x432) that still requires high bitrates (I will set it to 1900 kbps)?