collection of available AVC custom quant matrices [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : collection of available AVC custom quant matrices

Pages : 1 2 [3]

Oline 61

30th April 2006, 04:05

I've finally gotten around to testing out some matrices.
I'm starting with a 1000-frame clip of the lobby scene from The Matrix @ 1400 kbps.

AVS:
MPEG2Source("VTS_02_1.d2v",idct=3)
DoubleWeave().Pulldown(0,3)
Crop(0,62,720,354)
ColorMatrix()
Lanczos4Resize(848,352)
Trim(146423,147422)
x264 (rev.516):
#!/bin/sh
mkfifo raw.y4m

##########################################

wine "C:\avs2yuv.exe" ~/MATRIX/VTS_02_1.avs raw.y4m & \

x264 --pass 1 --bitrate 1400 --bframes 2 --b-pyramid --filter -3:-3 --subme 1 --analyse none --direct auto --me dia --cqmfile matrix/eqm_avc_hr.cfg --progress --no-psnr --output /dev/null raw.y4m

##########################################

wine "C:\avs2yuv.exe" ~/MATRIX/VTS_02_1.avs raw.y4m & \

x264 --pass 2 --bitrate 1400 --ref 5 --mixed-refs --no-fast-pskip --bframes 2 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -3:-3 --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse all --8x8dct --direct auto --me hex --cqmfile matrix/eqm_avc_hr.cfg --progress --output test.264 raw.y4m

##########################################

MP4Box -add test.264 -fps 23.976 test.mp4

rm raw.y4m

rm test.264
Create AVI for AVISynth+SSIM Calculation:
#!/bin/sh

mencoder test.mp4 -mc 0 -noskip -vf format=YV12 -nosound -ovc raw -ofps 24000/1001 -o test.avi

EDIT: DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THE NUMBERS BELOW. THEY IN NO WAY REFLECT THE ABILITIES OF THE QUANTIZATION MATRICES TESTED.
Results:
soulhunter_v2
PSNR: 43.458
SSIM: 75.73

eqm_avc_hr
PSNR: 43.311
SSIM: 75.04

soulhunter_v1
PSNR: 43.460
SSIM: 75.61

flat16
PSNR: 43.733
SSIM: 76.96

jvt
PSNR: 43.444
SSIM: 75.70

I WILL ADD RESULTS AS THEY COME IN!!

Sharktooth

30th April 2006, 04:12

EQM AVC-HR was not meant for best metrics...
it was meant to help blocking issues at mid-high bitrates and preserve a decent quality (as you can see from this post on: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=796300#post796300 )

Oline 61

30th April 2006, 04:34

Yeah, as I look at the videos, the highest metrics (flat16) often look like complete crap compared to eqm_avc_hr. I guess metrics are really a very poor way to compare matrices. I may move toward posting some screenshots.

Do you think that 1400kbit/s is a little low for eqm_avc_hr at 848x352?

Oline 61

30th April 2006, 04:43

Here we go, screenshots. I've chosen 3 specific frames to compare from each video. Prepare your browser for an assault of PNG's.

Shell Script:
#!/bin/sh
mkfifo raw.y4m
##########################################
wine "C:\avs2yuv.exe" ~/MATRIX/VTS_02_1.avs raw.y4m & \
x264 --pass 1 --bitrate 1400 --bframes 2 --b-pyramid --filter -3:-3 --subme 1 --analyse none --direct auto --me dia --cqm flat --progress --no-psnr --output /dev/null raw.y4m
##########################################
wine "C:\avs2yuv.exe" ~/MATRIX/VTS_02_1.avs raw.y4m & \
x264 --pass 2 --bitrate 1400 --ref 5 --mixed-refs --no-fast-pskip --bframes 2 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -3:-3 --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse all --8x8dct --direct auto --me hex --cqm flat --progress --output test.264 raw.y4m
##########################################
MP4Box -add test.264 -fps 23.976 test.mp4
rm raw.y4m
rm test.264
mencoder test.mp4 -mc 0 -noskip -vf format=YV12 -nosound -ovc raw -ofps 24000/1001 -o test.avi
rm test.mp4
rm x264_2pass.log

Okay, there are a lot of PNG's now. Too many to put in a forum post, so I refer you here. http://home.nc.rr.com/oline61/
Sorry, I don't feel like writing any HTML right now, so just download them and compare them in an image viewer.

*.mp4 guy

30th April 2006, 11:02

If your still doing testing could you include this high detail matrix that I've been working on.

INTRA4X4_LUMA =
12,16,22,28,
16,24,32,40,
22,32,48,72,
28,40,72,112

INTRA4X4_CHROMAU =
16,22,32,72,
22,24,41,144,
32,41,96,200,
72,144,200,255

INTRA4X4_CHROMAV =
16,22,32,72,
22,24,41,144,
32,41,96,200,
72,144,200,255

INTER4X4_LUMA =
16,20,21,24,
20,21,24,44,
21,24,56,80,
24,44,80,112

INTER4X4_CHROMAU =
16,22,22,22,
22,22,22,56,
22,22,72,96,
22,56,96,128

INTER4X4_CHROMAV =
16,22,22,22,
22,22,22,56,
22,22,72,96,
22,56,96,128

INTRA8X8_LUMA =
8,12,13,16,20,22,24,26
12,12,16,19,22,24,26,28
13,16,20,23,24,26,28,33
16,18,22,24,24,28,32,38
19,21,23,25,29,35,44,49
22,22,24,26,35,46,56,67
22,22,25,30,41,54,72,88
22,25,28,36,47,65,88,115

INTER8X8_LUMA =
12,16,17,19,20,21,22,24
16,16,18,18,20,21,23,25
17,18,18,18,19,21,24,26
19,18,18,19,19,21,24,28
20,20,19,19,20,21,26,32
21,21,21,21,21,23,26,38
22,23,24,24,26,26,32,46
24,25,26,28,32,38,46,58

Kurth

30th April 2006, 11:36

Audionut

30th April 2006, 12:10

PSNR & SSIM are metrics.

Just because the metrics say one is better than the other, doesn't always mean that, that is actually the case.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=110504

Sagittaire

30th April 2006, 12:29

If your still doing testing could you include this high detail matrix that I've been working on.

"high detailled matrix" with really agressive quantisation for high frequencies. It's hard for me to understand that (perhaps that I don't understand very well DCT transformation for H264). IMO simply placebo effect ...

All your matrix sound like old HVS quantisation (low coef for low frequencies and high coef for high frequencies) and this HVS repartition is exclusively fight again blocking. In fact this HVS tuning done better gradiant and certainely not better detail preservation (ringing effect is higher). This repartition is good for eyes if you use codec like ASP but be carefull AVC use inloop. HVS tuning for AVC can't be like for ASP. HVS optimisation is really complexe combinaison between inloop - and 8 CM inter/intra/luma/chroma/16*16/4*4 (and certainely other like curve quant compression, quantizer chroma offset AQ, ratio for I,B frame ...)

But perhaps that my opinion is wrong ... Manao, pengvado or other H264 dev will be certainly very better than me for explain this problem

Sagittaire

30th April 2006, 12:56

I dont really understand those PSNR values.
Did higher PSNR value mean better quality and lower PSNR mean worst quality?

eqm_avc_hr
PSNR: 43.311
SSIM: 75.04

flat16
PSNR: 43.733
SSIM: 76.96

Them those results mean that flat16 is better and eqm_avc_hr is worst?
Im confused :confused:
Can anyone explain this ?

If HVS matrix were indisputably better visually than the flat then this HVS matrix would be the default matrix in all H264 codec. Simply placebo effect here

Metric can't evaluate CQM quality optimisation simply because :

1) Metric done very similar result between these matrix (less than 0.3 dB for PSNR and less than 2 pt for SSIM). Conclusion here is impossible ...

2) Metric like PSNR are unable to evaluate pure HVS optimisation like adaptative quantisation, CQM ...

3) These comparison are funny. Personnaly I will wait real public blind test for evaluate these matrix. IMO flat matrix will be the best in most situation for this test ... lol

IgorC

30th April 2006, 15:30

I remeber when I tested Ateme HP beta different psy (aka AQ) opsnr failed badly but not SSIM. for SSIM (and my perception) psy 0 was almost always worse than psy1/psy2.
IMO it depends on video source. It is not real to probe each time 1000 matrices for different kind of sources to find best metrics.

Oline 61

30th April 2006, 15:51

For anyone confused by the PSNR and SSIM results, remember, they compare differences from the source. They don't determine how good the output looks. Please look at the screenshots, and surprise, eqm_avc_hr pwns flat16.

If your still doing testing could you include this high detail matrix that I've been working on.
Sure, the pictures should be uploaded in a few minutes.

And it appears I have run out of my 5MB of hosting space. ImageShack time :).
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4294/mp4guyhighdetail00oo.png
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/3271/mp4guyhighdetail13gv.png
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/7103/mp4guyhighdetail23sa.png

Oline 61

30th April 2006, 16:10

Following foxyshadis reccommendation I will now do a bitrate test. This scene would probably soak up a bunch of bitrate at --crf 40, but we will start at 18.
x264 --crf 18 --ref 5 --mixed-refs --no-fast-pskip --bframes 2 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -3:-3 --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse all --8x8dct --direct auto --me hex --cqmfile matrix/eqm_avc_hr.cfg --progress --output /dev/null raw.y4m

eqm_avc_hr 2673.82 kb/s
flat 2277.00 kb/s
jvt 2370.68 kb/s

Audionut

30th April 2006, 16:44

"high detailled matrix" with really agressive quantisation for high frequencies. It's hard for me to understand that (perhaps that I don't understand very well DCT transformation for H264). IMO simply placebo effect ...

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=109378

Read from post 12 onwards.

Pomyk

30th April 2006, 16:50

Oline 61

30th April 2006, 17:15

Allright, I think I might attempt to do a blind test, but if I do, I want to do it right. Here are thing to decide on:
- a commandline (lets go with something that you would use for transparent quality for the given bitrate. Speed is no object)
- bitrates
- provide test samples uncompressed
- where to host test samples
- use a poll on the forum, or something else
- source. My "The Matrix" source sucks, the DVD used a low bitrate, there is too much blocking for an accurate test. In contrast, I have a very good quality "Matrix Reloaded" DVD I could use. Should I use denoising like FluxSmoothT(2)? Should I use 720x304 or 848x352?
I can do all the encoding, but I may need help hosting and organizing.

*.mp4 guy

30th April 2006, 22:15

Allright, I think I might attempt to do a blind test, but if I do, I want to do it right. Here are thing to decide on:
1- a commandline (lets go with something that you would use for transparent quality for the given bitrate. Speed is no object)
2- bitrates
3- provide test samples uncompressed
4- where to host test samples
5- use a poll on the forum, or something else
6- source. My "The Matrix" source sucks, the DVD used a low bitrate, there is too much blocking for an accurate test. In contrast, I have a very good quality "Matrix Reloaded" DVD I could use. Should I use denoising like FluxSmoothT(2)? Should I use 720x304 or 848x352?
I can do all the encoding, but I may need help hosting and organizing.

1- I would let the people that designed a matrix set the used inloop filter, the other settings are all pretty strait forward and really are only about how long pwoplw are willing to wait.

2- I would use 1600 Kbps for High bitrate, and If you feel like doing a low bitrate comparison 750 Kbps.

3-this really depends upon space constraints.

4- rapidshare would probably work well enough.

5- Definately don't use a poll on the forum, people could vote without having seen the results, have people PM you results and post the averages when the test is over.

6- The matrix reloaded is a good source, the matrix Revolutions is harder though and it is what doom9 uses in his codec comparisons now, so If you have it it would probably be a better source. I wouldn't use filtering, X264 usually doesn't benefit from denoising.

Oline 61

30th April 2006, 23:11

Okay, Rapidshare looks good. I'll probably post the files as MP4's because an uncompressed/lossless AVI for a reasonable length test sample would probably be over 100MB.

I don't have Revolutions, but my Reloaded DVD is probably the best DVD source I have. Here is the script I plan to use:
MPEG2Source("VTS_01_1.d2v",idct=3)
DoubleWeave().Pulldown(0,3)
Crop(0,60,720,358)
ColorMatrix()
Lanczos4Resize(848,352)
Are there any specific sequences anyone would like to see?

I'll do a high bitrate 1600kbit/s test first.
I'll need deblocking settings from the matrix creators first though. If you would be so kind as to post them here :).

Does anyone have any more input on the commandline to be used? Here is something preliminary:
x264 --pass 1 --bitrate 1600 --filter -3:-3 \
--bframes 2 --b-pyramid \
--subme 1 --me dia \
--analyse none --direct auto --cqmfile matrixfile.cfg \
--progress --no-psnr --output /dev/null raw.y4m

x264 --pass 2 --bitrate 1600 --filter -3:-3 \
--ref 5 --mixed-refs --bframes 2 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb \
--subme 6 --me umh \
--analyse all --8x8dct --direct auto --no-fast-pskip --trellis 1 --cqmfile matrixfile.cfg \
--progress --output test.264 raw.y4m
The main question: Is this a commandline YOU would fell comfortable using to YOUR DVD? If not why not? I want to use a commandline that most accurately reproduces a high quality DVD backup scenario at 1600kbit/s.

Sagittaire

1st May 2006, 15:27

always useless: these CQM matrix use another relative balance between high and low frequencies. High agressivity for high frequencies and low agressivity for low frequencies. It's typicaly an anti-blocking method and with these matrix you can and you must use lower inloop strenght.

In fact compare these matrix is very complexe because if for your eyes is the best at inloop=-3:-3 then certainely that flat 16 will be the best for your eyes at inloop=-1;-1 or something like that. try to find best matrix is really complexe because most of these setting are no independant setting.

Developper like Manao or Pengvado are by far better than simple users likes us for find good HVS balance ... :(

nimitz

1st May 2006, 20:34

Probably a bit out of topic, but can anyone point me to the IEEE paper that ReferenceDivX and Sharktooth referred to when they designed the HVS matrices? I searched the forum but seems cannot find the exact paper title.

Here is the quote from the other thread by Sharktooth

"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."

Sharktooth

2nd May 2006, 00:10

the documents are available here: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org but they want $$$...

nimitz

2nd May 2006, 15:30

Hi Sharktooth,

Thanks for the reply. I have access to the IEEExplorer(well...my school has its subscription.) Do you have the title of the paper? Or it's a bunch of papers from which ReferenceDivX derived his HVS Good matrix? I have read Nill's 1985 paper and some other papers such as Ngan's 1989 paper and K.R.Rao's 1990 paper, but seems none would lead to the following weighting matrix as ReferenceDivX used in the other thread.

double hvsfwm[64]={ 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
1,1,.9599,1,.9571,1,.9599,
.8746,.9283,.8898,.8898,.9283,
.8746,.7684,.8404,.8192,.7617,
.8192,.8404,.7684,.6571,.7371,
.7371,.6669,.6669,.7371,.7371,
.6571,.6306,.6471,.5912,.5419,
.5912,.6471,.6306,.5558,.5196,
.4564,.4564,.5196,.5558,.4495,
.3930,.3598,.3930,.4495,.3393,
.2948,.2948,.3393,.2480,.2278,
.2480,.1828,.1828,.1391};

Thank you.

the documents are available here: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org but they want $$$...

Sharktooth

2nd May 2006, 20:31

Sorry i dont remember the paper title :(

NeD tHe OnE

3rd May 2006, 13:24

BTW, here is an archive with all the matrices listed in this thread. If you don't want your matrix in this archive, tell me so and I will remove it.
http://home.nc.rr.com/oline61/x264_custom_matrices.7z

I am currently planning to generate several clips designed to test for specific behaviors, and then encode with different quant matrices, and test PSNR and SSIM. What settings should I use to do this?

I don't think --qp or --crf will work because they produce different sizes with different matrices which is no good for SSIM and PSNR testing. Should I do 2-pass or 1-pass ABR? For 2-pass do I need to do a new first pass for each matrix? Should I use slow high quality settings, or faster settings? What bitrates would you like to see represented?

http://home.nc.rr.com/oline61/x264_custom_matrices.7z

I need this but its not there in the server

Oline 61

3rd May 2006, 22:53

http://home.nc.rr.com/oline61/x264_custom_matrices.7z

I need this but its not there in the server
Fixed.

Oline 61

4th May 2006, 00:16

Does anyone want to recommend deblocking settings for any of the matrices, or should I continue with -3:-3?

I am thinking of doing some clips of the Nebuchadnezzar, for high detail and motion, maybe some of the green text, although the source is blocky there already, and probably a few fighting scenes.

Sharktooth

4th May 2006, 02:07

not me... it really depends on the source and the quant/bitrate you use (i know deblocking is adaptive but it also influences compressibility, so...)

Oline 61

4th May 2006, 04:00

How about The Matrix Reloaded at 1600kbit/s. No processing, just IVTC crop and Lanczos4Resize(848,352).

NeD tHe OnE

4th May 2006, 05:33

Hey Oline! Wich matrix is better 4 movies like The Patriot .. n what bitrate should I go 4?

Sharktooth

4th May 2006, 11:09

How about The Matrix Reloaded at 1600kbit/s. No processing, just IVTC crop and Lanczos4Resize(848,352).
i would go anamorphic with no resize at all...

*.mp4 guy

4th May 2006, 15:10

-3:0 is a good setting most of the time, thats what I recommend for my cqm.

Sharktooth

4th May 2006, 15:15

Hey Oline! Wich matrix is better 4 movies like The Patriot .. n what bitrate should I go 4?
Stop asking what's best and what bitrate you should use.
:readguid: and :search:.
And FFS :readrule:

Desmodeus

19th December 2010, 23:11

I've been busy writing some custom matrices of my own :helpful:, and I decided I shouldn't keep them all to myself ...plus I'm kinda interested on an Expert opinion of them.

So without further ado, I give you:

#Superior Custom Matrix

INTRA4X4_LUMA =
8,12,16,24,
12,16,24,32,
16,24,32,40,
24,32,40,48

INTRA4X4_CHROMAU =
8,12,16,24,
12,16,24,32,
16,24,32,40,
24,32,40,48

INTRA4X4_CHROMAV =
8,12,16,24,
12,16,24,32,
16,24,32,40,
24,32,40,48

INTER4X4_LUMA =
8,12,16,20,
12,16,20,24,
16,20,24,32,
20,24,32,40

INTER4X4_CHROMAU =
8,12,16,20,
12,16,20,24,
16,20,24,32,
20,24,32,40

INTER4X4_CHROMAV =
8,12,16,20,
12,16,20,24,
16,20,24,32,
20,24,32,40

INTRA8X8_LUMA =
8,12,14,16,20,22,24,28,
12,14,16,20,22,24,28,32,
14,16,20,22,24,28,32,34,
16,20,22,24,28,32,34,36,
20,22,24,28,32,34,36,40,
22,24,28,32,34,36,40,42,
24,28,32,34,36,40,42,44,
28,32,34,36,40,42,44,48

INTER8X8_LUMA =
8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,
10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,
12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,
14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,
16,18,20,22,24,26,28,32,
18,20,22,24,26,28,32,34,
20,22,24,26,28,32,34,36,
22,24,26,28,32,34,36,40

And it's corresponding x264 commandline:

--cqm4i 8,12,16,24,12,16,24,32,16,24,32,40,24,32,40,48 --cqm4p 8,12,16,20,12,16,20,24,16,20,24,32,20,24,32,40 --cqm8i 8,12,14,16,20,22,24,28,12,14,16,20,22,24,28,32,14,16,20,22,24,8,32,34,16,20,22,24,28,32,34,36,20,22,24,28,32,34,36,40,22,24,28,32,34,36,40,42,24,28,32,34,36,40,42,44,28,32,34,36,40,42,44,48 --cqm8p 8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,32,18,20,22,24,26,28,32,34,20,22,24,26,28,32,34,36,22,24,26,28,32,34,36,40

Composing a custom matrix was not very difficult for me, a complete newbie, but not completely uncomplicated either.
I started with a base of eight for every string so I could be sure the resulting bitrate was properly divisible, them I set an end-quantitizer which was a direct multiple of eight (40 and 48 respectively)
Then I started subtracting binary values for each stair, doubling the subtracted value where i felt detail could suffer further compression (middle and end values), making sure that I included all other multiples-of-eight along the way (40, 32, 24, and 16 respectively)
The result... every value in those matrices gives an Integer when divided by eight, which greatly aids Compression IMO, hence the presumptuous "Superior" title.

Here's how that compression looks on the 8x8 matrices for I and P frames respectively:

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9074/superior.png

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/435/superiorstill.png

As far as i can tell, these matrices offer:

* slightly better compression than their flat counterparts (up to x3 on it's highest value 48)

* more stable streams than the default JVT due to better-divisible binary values (JVT uses multiples of three mostly)

* Medium-High signal-to-noise ratios which translate into better retention of detail.

But then again, these are rather presumptuous assumptions on my part, so i await further feedback, advice and constructive criticism from more experienced members of this community :p

Dark Shikari

19th December 2010, 23:36

* slightly better compression than their flat counterparts (up to x3 on it's highest value 48)How is this a good thing? You can get x16 compression by setting the HFs to 256, but that's not a good idea either.

* more stable streams than the default JVT due to better-divisible binary values (JVT uses multiples of three mostly)Why would even values be "more stable"?

Desmodeus

19th December 2010, 23:45

How is this a good thing? You can get x16 compression by setting the HFs to 256, but that's not a good idea either.

I've actually come across some matrices with high-frequency values of 128+ which nonetheless pertained to be "sharp" on this very Thread.
Also... I believe the maximal hexadecimal value is 255 (or FF), so wouldn't 256 be breaking that boundary O.o?

Why would even values be "more stable"?

I simply assumed even values which could be integrally divided by an octet would be easier to compress and/or quantify ...was I wrong?

Dark Shikari

19th December 2010, 23:52

I've actually come across some matrices with high-frequency values of 128+ which nonetheless pertained to be "sharp" on this very Thread.That doesn't have any bearing on whether high values are good or bad. "X happens to have a good Y" does not mean that X was related to the cause of a good Y.

I simply assumed even values which could be integrally divided by an octet would be easier to compress and/or quantify ...was I wrong?"Easier to compress"? No, it's pretty much irrelevant...

Lyris

20th December 2010, 00:53

AVC-HR at 1600kbps...
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain_example.png
grain is perfectly preserved... :)
I would struggle to call the coarse quantization inbetween the two actors "perfect".
Or is that what the already compressed DVD source looked like?

gioppatta

13th October 2012, 20:35

somebody knows these matrices? And what they do?

Custom intra4X4 luma:
6 7 10 16
7 7 11 17
10 11 12 20
12 13 20 16

Custom intra4X4 chromau:
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16

Custom inter4X4 luma:
10 13 28 41
13 14 32 84
28 32 41 111
41 46 111 16

Custom inter4X4 chromau:
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16

Custom intra8X8 luma:
9 9 10 10 11 16 21 29
9 9 10 10 11 16 21 29
10 10 10 10 11 16 22 31
10 10 10 11 11 17 23 33
11 11 11 11 11 19 25 36
12 12 13 13 14 20 27 40
15 15 16 16 21 27 31 45
20 20 21 22 36 40 45 16

Custom inter8X8 luma:
12 13 15 18 20 70 163 255
13 13 16 18 20 72 170 255
15 16 17 19 21 81 190 255
18 18 19 21 23 96 228 255
20 20 21 23 25 120 255 255
33 34 36 39 45 32 255 255
64 66 71 80 164 255 255 255
151 155 169 192 255 255 255 10

mp3dom

14th October 2012, 00:26

They comes from a Sony Blu-Code encode. It's one of those various matrices that the encoder may use (based on the type of footage).

mandarinka

14th October 2012, 18:53

gioppatta

19th October 2012, 15:40

Thank you!