Smoothing & Sharpening Filters

[SoundScape]

Hello everybody,

I am having a big dilemma: to use sharpening or not to use…

I don’t know if you have noticed, but every DivX encoding produces a smoothing effect to the final video. Especially if pre-processing is enabled or a de-noising filter is used. I’ve tried everything. Encoded the same movie using no filters at all, then I used both a de-noising and a sharpening filter (Deen or TemporalSoften to remove the noise and aSharp to sharpen the picture) but in both cases I wasn’t satisfied with the result. In first case movie looked smoothed out, in second case too sharp and noise was amplified even though a de-noising filter was used. Any suggestions? And one last question: if we use a de-noising filter some detail is lost, right? What’s the point in applying sharpening after we get rid of the noise, since that lost detail won’t be restored? Anyone shares the same opinion with me that it is better not to tamper with the original looks of a movie? If any of you insists that I use a sharpening filter, what should be the filter order if the movie contains noise? De-noising filter first and then sharpening filter or the other way around? Sorry I am asking so many questions but I need your advice!

Thank you in advance!
:D

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by SoundScape

I don’t know if you have noticed, but every DivX encoding produces a smoothing effect...

Any suggestions?
Easy, use XviD instead of DivX... :p

IMO XviD is able to keep much more details than DivX !!!

Originally posted by SoundScape

What’s the point in applying sharpening after we get rid of the noise...
Sharpening the edges, but not the noise... ;)

Sharpening the edges = good !!!

Sharpening the noise = very bad

Originally posted by SoundScape

If any of you insists that I use a sharpening filter, what should be the filter order...

Hmm, at the moment I use something like this...

Crop -> Denoise² -> Resize -> Sharpen³

² VagueDenoiser and/or HQDn3D

³ LimitedSharpen


Bye

[Mug Funky]

it is indeed a good question about how much to mess with the original.

i think if all you're going to remove is grain, through either temporal or spatial means (or both), then you'll get a good compromise between the detail the encoder removes and the detail your filtering removes.

i'm for filters that increase compressibility - this means if you do it just right, you can remove stuff that will only make the encode bigger, but will have little to no effect on the actual "look" (usually removing grain makes things look better), meaning that the encoder will be spending it's bits on more important stuff, like detail.

of course, some films use grain as an effect, and you've got to wonder whether removing this is against the wishes of those who made the film. i normally don't care. in a situation where an encoder has a limited pool of bits to spend on a film, it's better for it to spend them on more important things.

as far as filters i use... i haven't found a setup yet that i'm completely happy with.

[AS]

Indeed, how to to remove and sharpen is an art more than science, even though filters themselves are pretty mechanical.

It's one of the reasons why some people hesitant to recommend settings even though it works for them.

[Chainmax]

I only used sharpening on anime/cartoon encodes, the only way I'd see it of use with live action footage is if the picture is originally too smooth or if it becomes that way because of the filters needed to clean it up. Try LimitedSharpen (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84196&perpage=20&pagenumber=1), it's good and it's fast.

[SoundScape]

Thank you all for your input and the very, very helpful answers! :D
Does anyone know where I can download LimitedSharp and give it a try? Also, what is your opinion and thoughts about the combination of TemporalSoften-FluxSmooth for light de-noising? I use them a lot and I always get quite nice results. Anyone uses them? Thanks again! :cool:

[dragongodz]

Does anyone know where I can download LimitedSharp and give it a try?
if you go down a few posts from this one you will find
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84196

:D

[SoundScape]

Thanks dragongodz. Got LimitedSharpen, but haven't tried it out yet.

And now I would like to bring another matter to your attention guys. I've noticed after performing some tests that sharpening works well when the encoding bitrate is high, for example around 3000bps. But for low bitrates, for example less than 1000bps, sharpening produces unwanted and, allow me to say, ugly effects by amplifying the artifacts found in MPEG-4 encoding. I don't know if anyone else has noticed that. Let me know!:sly:

Bye for now...:cool:

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by SoundScape

But for low bitrates, for example less than 1000bps, sharpening produces unwanted and, allow me to say, ugly effects by amplifying the artifacts found in MPEG-4 encoding. I don't know if anyone else has noticed that. Let me know!:sly:

Sure, coz sharpening lowers the compressibility of ya source... ;)


Bye

[dragongodz]

note that 99.9% of smoothing and sharpening filters do have options to change how much filtering(and sometimes how) they are doing. if the results are not good try reducing the settings to less severe settings.

[PiXuS]

Originally posted by SoundScape
Thanks dragongodz. Got LimitedSharpen, but haven't tried it out yet.

And now I would like to bring another matter to your attention guys. I've noticed after performing some tests that sharpening works well when the encoding bitrate is high, for example around 3000bps. But for low bitrates, for example less than 1000bps, sharpening produces unwanted and, allow me to say, ugly effects by amplifying the artifacts found in MPEG-4 encoding. I don't know if anyone else has noticed that. Let me know!:sly:

Bye for now...:cool:

Well, in the post dragongodz pointed you to, Didée says (he even shouts it! :) ) : This is a sharpener. Of course the needed bitrate will grow noticeably. Be careful. Use a denoiser beforehand.

So.. yeah.. we all noticed this "effect". ;)

BTW, take a look at http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51320 and http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84481 posts.

Someone from this forum, who knows his shit very much, likes PixieDust.

Just something to play with:

Crop.Undot.PixieDust.LimitedSharpen.Undot

Gives excellent picture quality and pretty good compressibility!

PixieDust is one of a kind. FluxSmooth, VagueDenoiser, Convolution3D, Deen, etc... there are all good, but they don't approach what PixieDust can do.

Best thing to do is to compress a chapter from one of your DVD with all these filters and see which one gives you the best compromise of picture quality/compressibility...

Some people here find it despicable to even think about applying some kind of filter on your original video. To each is own. Like Soulhunter said, a sharpener is what makes it viable to use a denoiser... the denoiser will kill the noise (and invariably some of the film grain) but the sharpener will restore some of the detail back.

Anyway... words are no replacement to a moving picture. Denoise, sharpen, compare and judge! :)

edit: typos...

[Soulhunter]

Here is a example of the filtering I use...

http://img115.exs.cx/img115/6343/Source.th.png (http://img115.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img115&image=Source.png) http://img115.exs.cx/img115/7765/Result.th.png (http://img115.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img115&image=Result.png)


Bye

[SoundScape]

Thanks guys! :p You have been very helpful once again. Another question for you though...(I know, I am a pain in the ass :D )

Can anyone give an idea on how to use LimitedSharpen? I am pretty confused! If you can, give me an example script. I spent some time playing around with MaskTools but got no useful results. BTW, I saved the LimitedSharp script with the extension "avsi" and placed the file in the plugins directory of AviSynth so that it autoloads. Is this the right thing to do?

Thank you in advance. See you all around :p

[Didée]

Well, I never use auto-loading. Neither for plugins, nor for script functions :)

What's your exact problem? Is there an error message?

A basic usage would look as simple as
LoadPlugin("X:\path\MaskTools.dll")
LoadPlugin("X:\path\WarpSharp.dll")

Import("X:\path\LimitedSharpen.avs")

mpeg2source("X:\path\source.d2v")

limitedsharpen()

You need the WarpSharp package from here (http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-PaloAlto/2382/), and probably these (http://www.geocities.com/wilbertdijkhof/71.cab) C runtime libraries.

[krbo]

Originally posted by Didée
Well, I never use auto-loading. Neither for plugins, nor for script functions :)

What's your exact problem? Is there an error message?


hm,maybe you can help me Didee,I have an error stating there are
no "yv12lutxy" function

MaskTools.dll is v1.4.16

[Didée]

Originally posted by krbo
an error stating there are no "yv12lutxy" function

MaskTools.dll is v1.4.16

Well, the function description says
Notes

Required are MaskTools >= v1.5.1 and the WarpSharp.dll package.

Fortunately, the following expression is valid:

v1.5.5 >= v1.5.1 == true (http://jourdan.madism.org/~manao/MaskTools-v1.5.5.dll)

[krbo]

Originally posted by Didée
Well, the function description says

Required are MaskTools >= v1.5.1 and the WarpSharp.dll package



yes,yes , read that but during search for MaskTools found only
versions 1.4.15.x to 1.4.16 and wrongly presumed you omit that leading "1.4" in a version number.

Hopefully you were very kind to answer and include link.

Of course, now it works like a charm !

Thanks Didée !

[SoundScape]

Hello to all once again!

My congratulations goes to...(drums please!)...DIDIE!!! Man, you did a terrific job with LimitedSharpen. I gave it a try and the results were amazing. No other sharpener gave me satisfactory results. Combined with de-noising, the filter is able to restore some grain that was lost during de-noising. And the good thing about LimitedSharpen is that it does NOT amplify MPEG-4 artifacts like other sharpeners do, especially when encoding at low bitrates, e.g. around 900kbps. For your viewing pleasure, I've included some pics captured from a DivX encoding. Every encoding was done using Fast Psychovisual Enhancements and light de-noising using the combination TemporalSoften-FluxSmooth. For sharpening, aSharp and LimitedSharpen were used. You can view the pictures here: http://uk.briefcase.yahoo.com/nxanthis

Pay particulat attention to the areas of the picture from the original video marked with a white arrow.

Please do let me know what your thoughts are on the results and for the last time (hopefully) tell me if sharpening is really necessary! Thanks in advance and see you all around.

[PiXuS]

@SoundScape

The pics are from an encode with a bitrate of around 900kbps?

Hmmm.. I don't know but to me, they all look ugly. :( Sorry!

Have you tried PixieDust(limit=2)?

Are you using TemporalSoften and FluxSmooth(T|ST ?) with the default parameters?

p.s.: also you should post screenshots in PNG, not JPG. Maybe that is the problem!

[Ark]

Someone will strike me for this, but i still think good old Convolution3d() is the best at remove *noise* but not *film grain*, the only one that creates no temporal artifacts or pixelization, or too much "digital" look to the image.

So does Unfilter and undot (which makes me wonder if it even does something, but the increase in compressibility is always there!)

Try Convolution3d("movieHQ").undot()

it's quite light filtering, but should increase compressibility by a good amount without hurting fine detail like other denoisers do.

Also the Avisynt's built-in temporalsoften, well tweaked, can do miracles, expecially on static images.

All that's IMHO (naturally :))

[SoundScape]

PiXuS,

All encodings were done with an average bitrate of 900kbps. I don't know the reason you find the images ugly, IMHO I find them quite good for the given, low bitrate. I tried saving images using the .png format as you suggested, but no obvious difference was observed. The reason that I saved pictures in the.jpeg format is pretty obvious: size!!! :p I am using TemporalSoften as follows: Temporalsoften(2,3,3,6,2) and FluxSmooth as follows: FluxSmooth(5,7). This is of course light de-noising but it is sufficient for the encoded movie.

Ark:

I agree that Convolution3D is great but on its own it does not remove much noise, I think. If you have any suggestions on the parameters that should be used for light de-noising, please share them with us. I will try the combination Convolution3D-undot though.

Again, you can view the pics here: http://uk.briefcase.yahoo.com/nxanthis

Bye for now! :cool:

[Didée]

SoundScape,

your enthusiasm is a pleasure, but to my eyes too, your screenshots look ... not very impressing. Actually you're producing "sharp soup" - much weak detail is lost, the remaining is enhanced, and so there are overprominent isles-of-something, swimming in lakes-of-nothing.

Could partly be a problem of the video codec, too. DivX is mostly considered to cancel out detail earlier than XviD. Personally I would tend to use XviD, but that's another story ;)
And using JPEG for screenshots is only okay if you specify a very high quality index, say 98 or better. If you try to make the screenshots small through JPEG compression, then this compression will again loose detail, and nobody can tell from the pics what information was lost during filtering+encoding, and what was lost by the JPEG compression.
And your JPEGs are heavily compressed - they are in the range of 30~35 KB ... if they shall show what they're intended to show, they should be 5 to 10 times as big ;)

I like Flux for temporal smoothing, but rather not for spatial. It gets too soft for my taste.
If you don't mind a little longer processing time, you should really try out what PiXuS already suggested much earlier:

---------------------------------------------
Undot()
# temporalsoften(2,2,4,19,2) # try with or w/out
ConvertToYUY2().PixieDust(2).ConverttoYV12()
LimitedSharpen().Undot()
---------------------------------------------

[Heini011]

LimitedSharpen does a great job, but it's very slow. i think, it is not necessary in most cases. the usual overshooting ist not much disturbing for me.

i use for light-middle sharpening:
-------
[temporal filter]

sharpen(0.03)

deen("a2d",rad=1,thrY=2,thrUV=3,min=0.5)

MSharpen(threshold=2,strength=8-12,mask=false,highq=true)
-------

for strong sharpening:
-------
[temporal filter]
UnDot()

UnFilter(5,5)

[perhaps VagueDenoiser]
deen("a2d",rad=2,thrY=3,thrUV=5,min=0.5)

MSharpen(threshold=3,strength=10,mask=false,highq=true)
-------


temporal filter:
for light denoising:
FluxSmoothST(2-3,2)

stronger denoising:
MVTools 0.96.2

function mvdenoise2(clip) {
back_vectors = clip.MVAnalyse(isb=true, sx=4, sy=4, pel=1, lambda=1000)
forw_vectors = clip.MVAnalyse(isb=false, sx=4, sy=4, pel=1, lambda=1000)
return clip.MVDenoise(back_vectors, forw_vectors, thT=10, sadT=64, thmv=100, thSCD1=80)
}


greetings.

[SoundScape]

...your screenshots look ... not very impressing

Didie,

Since both you and PiXuS find the images...ugly :p , either I change codec (go from DivX to XviD) or stick with DivX or stop using jpeg compression when posting pics... :D So, for the last time, you can view the encoded movie's screenshots here (http://www.picjar.com/pub/SoundScape/).

you're producing "sharp soup" - much weak detail is lost, the remaining is enhanced, and so there are overprominent isles-of-something, swimming in lakes-of-nothing.

Although I didn't quite understand what you said (not your fault), allow me to guess: sharpening does not help much, does it? I mean in this particular case and with this particular video. Am I wrong here? Anyways, check out the pics and let me know if they still look ugly :cool:

P.S. Do you happen to know how I can use PixieDust with Avisynth 2.5.5? I've gave a shot to the link here (http://www.avisynth.org/LoadOldPlugins) but couldn't get it to work. Thanks!


Heini011,

Thanks for the suggestions, I will try these filter combinations :)

[PiXuS]

Originally posted by SoundScape
So, for the last time, you can view the encoded movie's screenshots here (http://www.picjar.com/pub/SoundScape/).


The PNGs look much better than the JPEGs. For instance, the unfiltered picture is the best looking one (much closer to the source!). In my opinion LimitedSharpen can't do much because you filter too much (I won't repeat Didée's argument because I wouldn't be as clear and it wouldn't add much).

Look at the left eye. In all the filtered (sharpened or not) pictures, the left eye is terribly distorted. I would say aSharp look better than LimitedSharpen on that one. I don't know how you used LimitedSharpen.

I can't comment on the DivX vs. XviD thingy because I never bothered with DivX.

Regarding PixieDust.. it is an AviSynth 2.0x filter. It works in the YUY2 color space. Here's is a snippet of my AVS template:


LoadPlugin("C:\AviSynthPlugins\LoadPluginEx.dll") # version 2003-11-03 (from "warpsharp_2003_1103.cab")
LoadPlugin("C:\AviSynthPlugins\DustV5.dll") # version 5.0.0.0

LoadPlugin("C:\AviSynthPlugins\RemoveGrainSSE2.dll") # version 0.6

...

DRemoveGrain(mode=1)
ConvertToYUY2()
PixieDust(limit=2)
ConvertToYV12()


RemoveGrain(mode=1) is really Undot() but without a small bug found in Undot(). Didée once recommended to use Undot() before a call to PixieDust to help PixieDust do it's work properly. (Undot() is really very fast and doesn't affect the picture (visually)).

Also, you could try BlindPP(quant=8,cpu=4,moderate_h=45,moderate_v=55) from the DGDecode.dll library after running PixieDust. It might help getting rid of some blocks. (actually, you could also call mpeg2source with the same cpu, moderate_? values...)

hope it helps

[Chainmax]

I already asked this several times and received no answer: some time ago, I read in a website that Dustv5 replaces the last frame with the penultimate one. Is that true? If so, is there a workaround for that?

[SoundScape]

PiXuS,

I am glad I didn't get an answer like the previous one...:D You are right, the pic where no filters were used looks better than all the filtered ones and is closer to the original. The left eye looks indeed distorted. Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, I have to use light de-noising on the source cause it contains visible noise. Therefore, some loss detail is expected. The way I see it, I use a sharpener to restore some lost detail and I think LimitedSharpen works well. I am suprised that you think aSharp looks better than LimitedSharpen :p

Haven't tried out PixieDust yet but I will and maybe post some new pics. That's all for now, thanks for the very helpful comments and thoughts. See you all around!

[hartford]

Originally posted by Chainmax
I already asked this several times and received no answer: some time ago, I read in a website that Dustv5 replaces the last frame with the penultimate one. Is that true? If so, is there a workaround for that?

I've used Pixie quite often. I've seen where it will "smudge" a "previous" frame, but since my cleaning attaches blankframes at the end I can't say that I've observed your problem.

[SoundScape]

Hello guys once again,

SoundScape (a.k.a. Pain In The Ass) hits again with new screenshots and awaits for your valuable feedback! :D

I encoded a short video from my favourite series 24 Season 3. This particular part of the video has a lot of noise in the background. This time I used PixieDust as suggested in previous posts but I unfortunately I can't say I am satisfied with the results this particular filter produces. It seems that it does not get rid much of the noise, so sharpening (done with LimitedSharpen) only enhances face details a lot and the result is not close to the source as you can see for yourself. IMHO, the combination RemoveDirt-MipSmooth gave the best results, while the combination TemporalSoften-FluxSmooth produced satisfactory results. Something tells me that your opinion will differ from mine but that's another story...:p

All encodings were done using an average bitrate of 900kbps and I say average because when sharpening was used the required bitrate was slightly higher, the codec used was DivX (I can hear shouts of dissaproval as most of you prefer XviD) and psychovisual enhancements were set to "fast".

As for the encoding time required, using TemporalSoften-FluxSmooth encoding was an average of 18-20fps while using PixieDust the encoding speed was droped to 4-5fps. Indeed a very slow filter!

You can view the screenshots here (http://www.picjar.com/pub/SoundScape), under the album "24 Screenshots Part 2.

Many thanks in advance for your helpful comments and thoughts. That's all for now, take care.:cool:

[Ark]

Erm... 24 Screenshots Part 2 "folder" is empty...

[SoundScape]

Sorry guys!!! :o First I posted my message, then tried to upload pics but website was down :mad:

The link should work now. Thanks.

[Ark]

For me all look almost identical, only the limitedsharpen ones are more detailed but also noise is more visible.

A question:

Is that frame an I-frame? It's too detailed to be a B or P frame for me. It has the classic look of a scenechange/I-frame. If that's an I-frame then it's not the best for viewing differencies, because I-frames are much more detailed than all other frames, so you have to use heavy filter to show differencies.

In fact all processed png's look almost the same to my eyes...

[SoundScape]

You are right Ark, this is an I-Frame. Thanks for pointing that out. :o

In fact, I changed my mind about the results (see my previous post). Now, it seems that PixieDust produced the best results, followed by TemoporalSoften-FluxSmooth and the least satisfactory results were produced by RemoveDirt-MipSmooth. The latter wiped out most of the face detail and sharpening didn't help much.

Try viewing the pics again here (http://www.picjar.com/pub/SoundScape), I posted new ones which are not taken from an I-Frame. Thanks for your patience :D

[Ark]

Well, PixieDust wins hands down... it retain much more detail than others.

Can you test it without LimitedSharpen?

This to test its *raw* performances...


...i wonder if someone will one day make an Avisynth 2.5 port to speed things up...

[PiXuS]

I am suprised because PixieDust(limit=5) seems to be the one with the least details. I would even say limit=8 is better than limit=2! Though, maybe the TemporalSoften+Pixie(2) didn't help (it isn't used with Pixie(8)).

But... it seems you want us to tell you what is better. ;) You should make up your own mind. If you think Convolution3D is the best denoiser out there for *you* well, use Convolution3D (just an example)...

[SoundScape]

Ark,

I will do a test without LimitedSharpen, as you requested. But I can't promise when...;)

Pixus,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the parameter "limit" in PixieDust control how much filtering is done. The higher the value the more filtering, right? If this is the case, then I am not suprised that limit=8 gave better results. In other words, more noise (and detail) were wiped out so that LimitedSharpen could bring back just the right amount of detail and the result looks much like the source. Am I wrong here? Also, I know I have to make my own mind up as to what filters I should apply to my videos. It's just too hard to decide with so many filters around...:D That's why I am asking your opinion. I also know that I bored you with so many questions, but that's me!!!

Finaly, could anyone suggest what parameters are best for light, medium and heavy filtering when using PixieDust and LimitedSharpen?

That's all for now guys, take care! :cool:

[SoundScape]

Hello once again...

It's good to see that no one replied to my last post...:rolleyes:

That means that you got bored with so many questions :D But I really need to know what settings you recommend for light, medium and heavy de-noising (with PixieDust) and sharpening (with LimitedSharpen). I need that info for one and only reason: Preview of the video is veryyyyy slooooooow when both filters are enabled in the AviSynth script, in my system it runs at 1-2fps!!! So, it is impossible to tell what's the best values for a given video, in real time of course. One solution would be to encode chunks of the video using the above filters but unfortunately this is a total waste of time...

So, if anyone could please help me with the settings, I would be very grateful. And finaly, do you know any good place where extensive help can be found for PixieDust???

That's all for now, take care :cool:

[Didée]

Light: FaeryDust(1).LS()

Medium:
/light: PixieDust(2).LS()
/+more: PixieDust(5~8).BlindPP(quant=16,cpu=4,moderate_h=40,moderate_v=50).LS(strength>100,Lmode=2,wide=true)

Strong: GoldDust().LS(strength>100,Lmode=1|2,wide=true)

SSStrong: BilinearResize(64,48).BicubicResize(width,height,1.0,.0) :D

- All "xyzDust()" must be enclosed like "ConvertToYUY2().[dust].ConvertToYV12()"
- Use the today updated version of LS(), since wide=true was a little b0rked :o


Info's on Dust:

original thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42749)
some more info (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65873)
much more info (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78959)
even more info (http://forum.doom9.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=996840&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending)

;)

[SoundScape]

Didie,

I hope you don't wave the finger anymore...At least not the middle one :D Since I wasn't receiving any replies in the current thread, I thought I start a new one. But it seems I got my answer. Thank you!

Now, I am back with some more screen captures from another TV series. I need you guys to take a look at them and share your thoughts with me. Encodings were done using different denoisers (combinations of TemporalSoften-FluxSmooth and PixieDust) and two sharpeners, LimitedSharpen and aSharp. Below is some explanation about the text found on the screenshots: GK Little is an alias of: Temporalsoften(2,3,3,mode=2,scenechange=6) & FluxSmooth(5,7). PixieDust(2) refers to UnDot().ConvertTOYUY2.PixieDust(2).ConvertToYV12.UnDot(). The number found in aSharp refers to the amount of sharpening. 4 is the filter's default. Also, the other parameters of the filter (2,4,-1,false) are the defaults. LimitedSharpen() refers to the filter's default values, while "strength=X" refers to the amount of sharpening. The screenshots can be found here (http://www.picjar.com/pub/SoundScape/), under the "Alias Screenshots" album.

Something else I would like to ask and I need Didie to answer this if possible, since he is the brains behind LimitedSharpen. The question is: When using LimitedSharpen with Smode=3 can the "Strength" parameter be set over 100? Like 200 or 500? Does it make any difference to the amount of sharpening applied or does the filter default to the value 100 when strength>100??? Also, (this one's for you Didie) when you said that I should download the latest version of the filter, which fixes a problem with the parameter "wide", do you refer to the version found in your "Here Is LimitedSharpen()" (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84196&highlight=LimitedSharpen) thread?

That's all guys. I hope you'll find the time to check out my new screenshots and provide some feedback. Thank you all in advance. Take Care! :cool:

[Wilbert]

Also, (this one's for you Didie) when you said that I should download the latest version of the filter, which fixes a problem with the parameter "wide", do you refer to the version found in your "Here Is LimitedSharpen()" thread?
Yes. If you read the last couple of posts of that thread, you will see that the corrected his script (given in the third post).

Sorry, I don't have time to look at your other questions.

[SoundScape]

Greetings my friends :sly:

No one replied to my last post (the one where new screenshots were available for comments), so I thought I give PixieDust and LimitedSharpen a try with a video, the length of which is an hour. Guess what...The results were stunning, very close to the original video but unfortunately it took my computer (build around an AMD 2000 XP processor, i.e. 1.7GHz) about 11 and a half hours to encode it!!! :mad:

Obviously this is a total waste of time and electricity. Even the best encoding results do not justify this insane amount of time. Therefore, I had no other choice but to ask you if you can suggest an alternative de-noiser or a combination of them, especially ones that work well with LimitedSharpen. If you look to the latest pics I posted, you will see that my favourite combination TemporalSoften-FluxSmooth produced quite good results when used with LimitedSharpen. Of course, PixieDust-LimitedSharpen were far better than the former, I believe. Even with faster de-noisers, LimitedSharpen can get quite slow. I tried encoding a short video using TemporalSoften-FluxSmooth-LimitedSharpen and the encoding speed was around 8fps. Quite slow obviously. Can anyone tell me why this sharpener is so slow? Maybe Didie could give me an answer, as he is the one who created it.

That's all for now, I am waiting for your suggestions and thoughts. Take care!!! :D

[Soulhunter]

Tss, you think 8fps @ a 2000XP is slow ???

I think 8fps @ my 3000XP is very fast... :D


Bye

[Didée]

SoundScape, SoundScape ...


from a member:

http://img34.exs.cx/img34/1954/Doh2.png


from another member:

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/9193/Creeepy.png


once he was a member:

http://img51.exs.cx/img51/9219/b8-encodingbrumdumdu.png

[Leak]

Originally posted by Didée
once he was a member:

http://img51.exs.cx/img51/9219/b8-encodingbrumdumdu.png

MF? ;)

np: Shadow Huntaz - Power Divine (Corrupt Data)

[Didée]

Sure ;)

[SoundScape]

Allright guys, I got the message...Buying a new processor won't do any good judging by Soulhunter's message. :D

But you didn't give me any suggestions concerning other de-noisers that might work well with LimitedSharpen. I guess I have to do some more tests to determine that...I hope that whoever made PixieDust could also make a faster version of it in the near future. And Didie please let me know when you make LimitedSharpen faster. Am I asking too much??? ;)

Thanks guys, bye for now...

[SoundScape]

Hello again my friends,

This is my last post for the thread I started, hoping that I would get some answers on sharpening and if it is really necessary. To tell you the truth, I am more confused now than when this thread started :D

Filtering is indeed an art (as someone said) and requires a lot of testing and patience. Well, I did a lot of tests and yes I've being very patient. My conclusions are: PixieDust and LimitedSharpen are two incrediblr filters. A huge thank you to the guys who created them. Thanks Didie!!!. I don't remember the guy's name who gave us PixieDust, sorry!!! No de-noiser and no sharpener come close to what these two filters can achieve, especially when they are combined. The result is extraordinary and very close to the original video. But, like most of the good things in life, they have a big drawback: encoding time!!! They are quite slow compared to other filters and this is the main reason I don't plan using them anymore...Waiting for 11 hours until the encoding is done for a video one hour long is not exactly what I had in mind :)

In fact, I decided not to use sharpening on my encoded videos anymore. I tested a lot of sharpeners (after de-noising was applied) and the results were dissapointing. Only LimitedSharpen satisfied me. I can make my peace with videos that look a little bit smoothed out. I watch them through my TV set anyway, so the difference between the original and the encoded is not noticable. I apologise for the so many questions I asked you guys and I really appreciate the fact that you spent enough of your time to give me answers and helpful ideas. I hope we could do that some other time. All over again!

I guess that's all, this thread should close if it is allright by you ;)

Again many thanks and enjoy encoding video as much as I do. Take care!!! Bye...

[dragongodz]

of course if you come across one that is too smoothed you can always add a little
Blur(-0.2)
to sharpen it just a touch. :)