PixieDustPP by Didée (was: Dust and blocks, or making dust even slower) - Page 4

Didée · 25th October 2005, 12:07

Quite possible. On the other hand:

source:

PixieDust():

PixieDustPP(s=1,q=35,fullDB=49)

Look at the background, on the right ...

edit: compared to a simple PixieDust().Deblock(quant=30):

, which is obviously softer ... after compression, quite muddy.

Soulhunter · 25th October 2005, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didée

Waiting for our famous block-spotter Soulhunter...

Hehe, still have this Gladiator chapter on my HDD... ^^

If I find the time I post some samples in the course of the day, or night!?

Bye

Didée · 25th October 2005, 14:11

Sure, Soulhunter, go on. Much appreciated. Only practice can (dis)prove theory ...

Some notes for testing:

s=1 should be always good, against "PixieDust softness" (minor enhancement before PD, max. change is +/- 2).

s=2 (and 3, which is 1 + 2) is meant to combat "Deblocking softness" (small enhancement after deblocking, max. change is +/- 2). Seems not always that good, probably better to use it only when fullPP >= 51.

fullPP = 0 --> Only those pixel changes achieved by Deblock() are used that have different "sign" than the pixel changes achieved by PixieDust. Consequently, this will (should) do nothing to a frame except for reversing changes PixieDust has made. (Assuming that PixieDust has not left any noise that Deblock could reduce any further, it should only be blocking created by PixieDust that will be reverted, while the achieved noise reduction should be kept.)

when fullPP>0 then: all changes from Deblock() that would not be used with fullPP=0 (i.e. those changes having the same "sign" as PixieDust's changes) are applied with a percentage of [fullPP].

Since most changes of (reasonable) Deblocking will be very small (numerically), the rule of thumb is: (simple matter of rounding)

fullPP=100 -> full deblocking of PixieDust & Source (propably too blurry)

fullPP=49 -> full deblocking of PixieDust. Source deblocking results will be applied as 1->0, 2->1, 3->1, 4->2

fullPP=51 -> full deblocking of PixieDust. Source deblocking results will be applied as 1->1, 2->1, 3->2, 4->2

"reduce" parameter: probably not worth to use. (Perhaps on strong grained sources with fullPP=100.)

Soulhunter · 25th October 2005, 18:28

Source

PixieDust(5)

PixieDustPP(Limit=5,FullDB=75)

Well, seems to work... ^^

Next I try to find a sharp scene with blocks!

Bye

Soulhunter · 25th October 2005, 18:55

Source

PixieDust(5)

PixieDustPP(Limit=5,S=2)

Dallemon · 19th January 2006, 05:16

ehm im getting some weird artefacts using this filter/script combo :/

AVS-script:

Code:

loadplugin("C:\Programmer\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\old\loadpluginex.dll")
loadplugin("C:\Programmer\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\old\dustv5.dll")
mpeg2source("d:\fc1080i.d2v",cpu=0,ipp=false)
crop(2,0,-0,-8,align=true)
lanczos4resize(1488,1080)
pixiedustpp(limit=5,s=3,smode=19,smode2=19,fulldb=0)
limitedsharpenfaster(dest_x=1280,dest_y=720)

Screenshot:

hartford · 19th January 2006, 05:27

Pixie will do a "pre-ghost" frame at times; ie, it's temporal compensation will
show itself by "ghosting" in a "previous" frame.

I have seen it do this, but whenplayed on TV, it is not noticable. However, your requirements may differ.

I cannot say with certainty that the artifacts that you see are as a result of the way that the filter works without posting some "without Pixie" frame.

Dallemon · 19th January 2006, 05:47

well i've also tried using iip for resizing and that gives the same result :/ (if i just use limitedsharpen then i dont get the lines)

EDIT: requirements are 1280x720 projector without scaling =)

Didée · 19th January 2006, 09:10

PixieDust will start to behave strangely on big framesizes above a certain limit, and will totally b0ork out on even bigger framesizes.
I'm not sure anymore what the exact limits are, but IIRC it gets dangerous above 1024x1024.

BTW, although technologically absolutely different, FFT3DFilter is a (more than) adequate alternative to PixieDust.

zlab · 25th March 2006, 15:41

Hi,
I hv a problem of loading dustv5.dll in the script, it response with ... not a avisynth 2.5 plugin, any solution? it there any possible link to dustv6.dll?
Thanks.

Didée · 25th March 2006, 16:14

dustv6 does not exist. (Not that we knew of.)

dustv5 has to be loaded via LoadPluginEx or LoadPluginEx2.

zlab · 25th March 2006, 16:26

Thanks a lot, now working like a fluid.

_leech_ · 23rd June 2006, 02:51

PixieDustPP works great, but not perfectly...

DeepDVD · 23rd June 2006, 04:12

@ _ leech_

Look on upper side. There's a screenshot with the same problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didée

PixieDust will start to behave strangely on big framesizes above a certain limit, and will totally b0ork out on even bigger framesizes.
I'm not sure anymore what the exact limits are, but IIRC it gets dangerous above 1024x1024.

jeffy · 24th February 2008, 17:42

Correction for PixieDustPP (Division by zero):
http://forum.gleitz.info/showpost.ph...1&postcount=26

Amateur · 3rd February 2011, 16:15

is pixiedust still a useful filter? has it been updated/improved? if so, what is its successor?

25th October 2005, 12:07	#61 \| Link
Didée Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 5,391	Quite possible. On the other hand: source: PixieDust(): PixieDustPP(s=1,q=35,fullDB=49) Look at the background, on the right ... edit: compared to a simple PixieDust().Deblock(quant=30): , which is obviously softer ... after compression, quite muddy. __________________ - We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood - My little flickr gallery. (Yes indeed, I do have hobbies other than digital video!) Last edited by Didée; 25th October 2005 at 12:28.

25th October 2005, 14:11	#63 \| Link
Didée Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 5,391	Sure, Soulhunter, go on. Much appreciated. Only practice can (dis)prove theory ... Some notes for testing: s=1 should be always good, against "PixieDust softness" (minor enhancement before PD, max. change is +/- 2). s=2 (and 3, which is 1 + 2) is meant to combat "Deblocking softness" (small enhancement after deblocking, max. change is +/- 2). Seems not always that good, probably better to use it only when fullPP >= 51. fullPP = 0 --> Only those pixel changes achieved by Deblock() are used that have different "sign" than the pixel changes achieved by PixieDust. Consequently, this will (should) do nothing to a frame except for reversing changes PixieDust has made. (Assuming that PixieDust has not left any noise that Deblock could reduce any further, it should only be blocking created by PixieDust that will be reverted, while the achieved noise reduction should be kept.) when fullPP>0 then: all changes from Deblock() that would not be used with fullPP=0 (i.e. those changes having the same "sign" as PixieDust's changes) are applied with a percentage of [fullPP]. Since most changes of (reasonable) Deblocking will be very small (numerically), the rule of thumb is: (simple matter of rounding) fullPP=100 -> full deblocking of PixieDust & Source (propably too blurry) fullPP=49 -> full deblocking of PixieDust. Source deblocking results will be applied as 1->0, 2->1, 3->1, 4->2 fullPP=51 -> full deblocking of PixieDust. Source deblocking results will be applied as 1->1, 2->1, 3->2, 4->2 "reduce" parameter: probably not worth to use. (Perhaps on strong grained sources with fullPP=100.) __________________ - We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood - My little flickr gallery. (Yes indeed, I do have hobbies other than digital video!)

25th October 2005, 18:28	#64 \| Link
Soulhunter Bored... Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Unknown Posts: 2,812	Source PixieDust(5) PixieDustPP(Limit=5,FullDB=75) Well, seems to work... ^^ Next I try to find a sharp scene with blocks! Bye __________________ Visit my IRC channel

25th October 2005, 18:55	#65 \| Link
Soulhunter Bored... Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Unknown Posts: 2,812	Source PixieDust(5) PixieDustPP(Limit=5,S=2) __________________ Visit my IRC channel

19th January 2006, 09:10	#69 \| Link
Didée Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 5,391	PixieDust will start to behave strangely on big framesizes above a certain limit, and will totally b0ork out on even bigger framesizes. I'm not sure anymore what the exact limits are, but IIRC it gets dangerous above 1024x1024. BTW, although technologically absolutely different, FFT3DFilter is a (more than) adequate alternative to PixieDust. __________________ - We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood - My little flickr gallery. (Yes indeed, I do have hobbies other than digital video!)

19th January 2006, 05:27	#67 \| Link
hartford Registered User Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 324	Pixie will do a "pre-ghost" frame at times; ie, it's temporal compensation will show itself by "ghosting" in a "previous" frame. I have seen it do this, but whenplayed on TV, it is not noticable. However, your requirements may differ. I cannot say with certainty that the artifacts that you see are as a result of the way that the filter works without posting some "without Pixie" frame.

19th January 2006, 05:47	#68 \| Link
Dallemon Registered User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 38	well i've also tried using iip for resizing and that gives the same result :/ (if i just use limitedsharpen then i dont get the lines) EDIT: requirements are 1280x720 projector without scaling =)

25th March 2006, 15:41	#70 \| Link
zlab Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 21	Hi, I hv a problem of loading dustv5.dll in the script, it response with ... not a avisynth 2.5 plugin, any solution? it there any possible link to dustv6.dll? Thanks.

25th March 2006, 16:14	#71 \| Link
Didée Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 5,391	dustv6 does not exist. (Not that we knew of.) dustv5 has to be loaded via LoadPluginEx or LoadPluginEx2. __________________ - We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood - My little flickr gallery. (Yes indeed, I do have hobbies other than digital video!)

25th March 2006, 16:26	#72 \| Link
zlab Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 21	Thanks a lot, now working like a fluid.

23rd June 2006, 02:51	#73 \| Link
_leech_ Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 31	PixieDustPP works great, but not perfectly...

24th February 2008, 17:42	#75 \| Link
jeffy Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 943	Correction for PixieDustPP (Division by zero): http://forum.gleitz.info/showpost.ph...1&postcount=26

3rd February 2011, 16:15	#76 \| Link
Amateur Registered User Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 140	is pixiedust still a useful filter? has it been updated/improved? if so, what is its successor? Last edited by Amateur; 5th February 2011 at 06:31.