 |
VSO Software Forum
CD, DVD, Blu-ray Burning Software, Video Converter, AVI to DVD, Photo Slideshow, DVD Copy
|
  |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
deadlyshadow
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 110
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
hello
I had have this problem.
i had converted a great quality MKV(1280 x 534) file using Lanczos filter,result was too blocky in dark scenes.I've changed encoding option to Short Project plus two pass encoding, result was great, no blocky scenes.
I always use Short Project and two pass encoding and i'm satisfied.
two pass encoding calculate bitrate very good, by my exprience it considers movie's time for calculating bitrate too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ckhouston
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 2023
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
HQ (Short Project) setting may be the best setting for 85Min to 100Min movies? It's the hard evidence that really counts. If people get the best results with the HQ setting, even when converting movies which are about two hours long, then that setting is definitely the one to use. I guess that two-pass is the best choice when converting long movies and files which are 4Gb to 8Gb in size. But if it improves the picture quality also with shorter clips/movies which does not fill the full DVD, then these settings might be the optimal ones. I might do some testing with other filters too. "Gaussian", "Blackman", "Hann", "Hamming"...etc.
By the way, I have a multicore processor, but didn't notice much or any difference at all during the conversion. Movies still take about 80-120 minutes to finish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ckhouston
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 2023
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | HQ (Short Project) setting may be the best setting for 85Min to 100Min movies? It's the hard evidence that really counts. |
You couldn't be more right. But what is hard evidence? Is it the perception of one person which may be different from that of others because of bias based on experience with encoders that are more traditional than the constant quantization encode done by CX2D? Or is it objective evidence presented such as bitrate and quantization plots and comparison of frame captures such as I have done after doing at least 200 tests and spending hours objectively analyzing results?
If you read, not just scan, the link above, you will find that 2 pass makes NO DISCERNIBLE DIFFERENCE when the conversion does not fill the DVD because of CX2D's unique encode. It does make a difference when the DVD is filled because CX2D's constant quantization encode can't be maintained in that case and the encode essentially reverts to a more traditional VBR encode that most are familiar with. But the 2 pass encode when a DVD is filled is still generally inferior to one using 1 pass and another encoding option that will not fill the DVD-- the size of the source file has little or nothing to do with it as you imply.
There are always exceptions to any generalization though and I mention two in that link. One is the case of video less than about 110 minutes long that is composed of mostly simple scenery including dark scenes and the other is when the project is so long that no encoding option can keep from filling the DVD. Read the link to find the proposed suggestions.
And, if you read the first page of that link and many others you can find with a forum search, you will find that the optimum time to switch encoding options varies mostly because of differences in scenery content among videos . One way to find that optimum for a particular video is to do a conversion and, if it fills the DVD meaning 95% occupancy or more, switch to a longer project option.
But how many will go to that trouble? So the general guidelines represented by the option descriptions were developed. They try to keep from filling the DVD in order to get the best result in most cases. And they are conservative, meaning many videos can use a lower project setting. But it was also found that there is typically little quality loss if a setting for a project length longer than the optimum for a particular video is used, but much quality can be lost if a setting is used for too short of a project -- another justification to keep the general rule of thumb conserative.
So it is generally best to use the Automatic encoding option with 1 pass except in the two cases mentioned in the above link.
And it is generally best to do some reading to understand how CX2D encodes differ from what most are familiar with before deciding not to follow that advice! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadlyshadow
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've read it so many times, but i prefer to use my experience instead of others.
I have tried both medium and high settings for encoding on several movies and notice that i won't lose any thing while using high but I do when use medium.because of I'm using Higt (Short Project), 2 Pass is so helpful for me.
I prefer to set encoding option by my self depend on movies.I don't use short project for all movies but most.
Thank you for your advice |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ckhouston
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 2023
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone has different preferences and I respect them, but I want to make a few points so new users won't think they should use yours instead of doing enough tests to form their own or instead of following my advice in the post above. I also want to stress that that advice is not based solely on my prefernces. It is based on many tests with extensive comparison of bitrate and quantization factor (a measure of quality) distribution for different scenes. But the final judgement was based on comparisons of frame captures for different types of scenes that were zoomed to magnify differences. And my personal preferences were not the sole factor in deciding which was best. Those frame captures were also compared by other people. Most of the comparisons showed such big differences when magnified that personal preferences couldn't influence opinions anyway.
Briefly, the encoding options do not directly set a quality level. They set the minimum quantization factor to be used in the encode so they are actually a choice of encoding profiles.
The Short Projects option uses a minimum Q of 1 which in effect tells the encoder to put as much emphasis on simple scenes as on complex ones. It can mimic a constant bitrate encode in many case, so it generally has the same strengths and weakness. It will give the best result as long as the conversion does not fill the DVD. But, if the conversion does fill the DVD, it tends to reduce bitrate for all scenes by about the same amount, so complex scenes begin to suffer. If the bitrate is reduced enough, the reduction of quality in complex scenes can be very noticeable while that in simple ones is still high
That is where the Medium Projects setting has the advantage. It uses a minimum Q of 2 which is more aggressive in distributing bitrate, it uses less for simple scenes which makes more available for complex ones. Because less is used for the simple ones, they will show a slight softening of edges and maybe, but usually not, more pixelation in dark scenes. But quality of the complex scenes will be much improved compared with using Short Projects if that setting causes the DVD to be filled.
The Long Projects is even more aggressive in distributing bitrate so becomes better than Medium for long enough projects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadlyshadow
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello
I accept you and your statement is logically correct but there are several scenarios that may change your statement.
I've tested several kind of movies using Short Projet or SP.when using SP (medium), in most situation dark or simple scenes are blocky or soft and complex scenes are high quality, when switching to Short Project, simple or dark scenes are not blocky while complex scenes didn't lose any significant quality or may be no quality lose that can be understood normally.I prefer to have equal quality in all duration of my movies than some part good some bad.
All of these statements are my own opinions and are not rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JJ
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 3149
Location: Under the bed in Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can compare only same movies converted.
Some movies are encoded with variable bitrate and very often they use so heavy packing on dark scenes that all detail gets lost in blocks. Conversion result can never be better quality than original. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ckhouston
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 2023
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deadlyshadow wrote: | Hello
I accept you and your statement is logically correct but there are several scenarios that may change your statement.
I've tested several kind of movies using Short Projet or SP.when using SP (medium), in most situation dark or simple scenes are blocky or soft and complex scenes are high quality, when switching to Short Project, simple or dark scenes are not blocky while complex scenes didn't lose any significant quality or may be no quality lose that can be understood normally.I prefer to have equal quality in all duration of my movies than some part good some bad.
All of these statements are my own opinions and are not rules. |
Of course there are always exceptions to any rule of thumb because of differences in scenery content of source files.
For example, I said in the thread linked above
| Quote: | | If pixelation in dark scenes is a problem for projects less than about 110 minutes, try SP 2P (shorthand notation for Short Projects and 2 pass). |
Type of scenery content in a file has a big effect on that suggested 110 minute project length, or any other for that matter but it is given as a conservative suggestion. In other words, there are few sources with an extraordinary amount of complex scenes that the suggestion will not hold true for. But many sources with more than half of the scenes being simple ones can benefit from using 2 pass with the Short Projects setting for projects maybe as long as 140 minutes, again depending on the scenery content.
That is probably what you are experiencing.
I can't stress enough that any rule of thumbs always has exceptions, but that doesn't mean that they are not good rules of thumbs for the average user who will not go to the trouble you have to experiment and find the best settings for their particular sources.
And please understand that I'm not trying to debunk your conclusions for your particular sources. But I am trying to show other readers that your experiences don't necessarily apply to their usage, and that most of them are better off sticking with the rules of thumb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoeB
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2871
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deadlyshadow wrote: | Hello
I've tested several kind of movies using Short Projet or SP.when using SP (medium), in most situation dark or simple scenes are blocky or soft and complex scenes are high quality, when switching to Short Project, simple or dark scenes are not blocky while complex scenes didn't lose any significant quality.... |
| ckhouston wrote: | | [If pixelation in dark scenes is a problem for projects less than about 110 minutes, try SP 2P (shorthand notation for Short Projects and 2 pass). |
May I comment on how some of this type of discussion is confusing?
Deadlyshadow talks about using both Short Project and SP (medium). The first letters of Short Project are SP, and it's easy for the brain to start interpreting Short Project as SP. In the program, Short Project is the description for the HQ setting.
And, of course, ckhouston's quote used SP 2P, where he means for the SP to stand for Short Project (which is identified by the initials HQ in the program). But when a person sees SP they're likely to equate it to SP in the dropdown box of the program, which is actually medium project.
It would be much less confusing if people would either use just the identifiers (HQ, SP, LP) in any particular post, or alternatively use the full description (Short Project, Medium Project, Long Project). I believe the identifiers are holdovers from the VHS days (but could be wrong) but they are familiar.
Regards,
JoeB
Last edited by JoeB on Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:43 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadlyshadow
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JJ wrote: | You can compare only same movies converted.
Some movies are encoded with variable bitrate and very often they use so heavy packing on dark scenes that all detail gets lost in blocks. Conversion result can never be better quality than original. |
yes, I've compared same movies with diffrent quality settings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadlyshadow
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ckhouston wrote: | | deadlyshadow wrote: | Hello
I accept you and your statement is logically correct but there are several scenarios that may change your statement.
I've tested several kind of movies using Short Projet or SP.when using SP (medium), in most situation dark or simple scenes are blocky or soft and complex scenes are high quality, when switching to Short Project, simple or dark scenes are not blocky while complex scenes didn't lose any significant quality or may be no quality lose that can be understood normally.I prefer to have equal quality in all duration of my movies than some part good some bad.
All of these statements are my own opinions and are not rules. |
Of course there are always exceptions to any rule of thumb because of differences in scenery content of source files.
For example, I said in the thread linked above
| Quote: | | If pixelation in dark scenes is a problem for projects less than about 110 minutes, try SP 2P (shorthand notation for Short Projects and 2 pass). |
Type of scenery content in a file has a big effect on that suggested 110 minute project length, or any other for that matter but it is given as a conservative suggestion. In other words, there are few sources with an extraordinary amount of complex scenes that the suggestion will not hold true for. But many sources with more than half of the scenes being simple ones can benefit from using 2 pass with the Short Projects setting for projects maybe as long as 140 minutes, again depending on the scenery content.
That is probably what you are experiencing.
I can't stress enough that any rule of thumbs always has exceptions, but that doesn't mean that they are not good rules of thumbs for the average user who will not go to the trouble you have to experiment and find the best settings for their particular sources.
And please understand that I'm not trying to debunk your conclusions for your particular sources. But I am trying to show other readers that your experiences don't necessarily apply to their usage, and that most of them are better off sticking with the rules of thumb. |
OK.I got it.
My settings are diffrent in various situation
let me exemplify.
first of all, almost all of my sources are high quality HD movies.
I wont use HQ for "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", but I use HQ for movies like "proposal" or "saw" because for Proposal i don't lose quality, all the movie is simple scenes, or for movies like saw using HQ will improve all over quality.
yes, you are right average or novice users better to use recommended setting that provided by the program and my Opinion can't be generalized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ckhouston
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 2023
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JoeB wrote: | | deadlyshadow wrote: | Hello
I've tested several kind of movies using Short Projet or SP.when using SP (medium), in most situation dark or simple scenes are blocky or soft and complex scenes are high quality, when switching to Short Project, simple or dark scenes are not blocky while complex scenes didn't lose any significant quality.... |
| ckhouston wrote: | | [If pixelation in dark scenes is a problem for projects less than about 110 minutes, try SP 2P (shorthand notation for Short Projects and 2 pass). |
May I comment on how some of this type of discussion is confusing?
Deadlyshadow talks about using both Short Project and SP (medium). The first letters of Short Project are SP, and it's easy for the brain to start interpreting Short Project as SP. In the program, Short Project is the description for the HQ setting.
And, of course, ckhouston's quote used SP 2P, where he means for the SP to stand for Short Project (which is identified by the initials HQ in the program). But when a person sees SP they're likely to equate it to SP in the dropdown box of the program, which is actually medium project.
It would be much less confusing if people would either use just the identifiers (HQ, SP, LP) in any particular post, or alternatively use the full description (Short Project, Medium Project, Long Project). I believe the identifiers are holdovers from the VHS days (but could be wrong) but they are familiar.
Regards,
JoeB |
Yes it does get confusing.
I refuse to use the present shorthand indentifiers because they are not coordinated with the descriptions as you point out.
And you are correct in saying those shorthand indentifiers are used for VCRs and camcorders. In those cases, they are used to set recording quality levels so they can mislead users into thinking the encoding options actually set quality level.
You know the struggle we had before convincing users that is not the case, but we may be right back where we were unless VSO decides to change them.
A suggestion to change them was made in the bug tracking system but no action has been taken so far, and I'm pretty sure that it won't happen without a lot of user feedback. So I'm going to ask users to express an opinion.
Which is preferable:
The present wording:
Automatic (recommended)
HQ (Short projects) --> Up to 80 min.
SP (Medium projects) --> Up to 160 min.
LP (Long projects) --> 160 min or more.
Or this suggested wording:
Automatic (recommended)
SP (Short Projects) --> Up to 80 min.
MP (Medium Projects) --> Up to 160 min.
LP (Long Projects) --> 160 min or more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoeB
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2871
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ckhouston wrote: | you are correct in saying those shorthand indentifiers are used for VCRs and camcorders. In those cases, they are used to set recording quality levels so they can mislead users into thinking the encoding options actually set quality level.
You know the struggle we had before convincing users that is not the case, but we may be right back where we were unless VSO decides to change them.
A suggestion to change them was made in the bug tracking system but no action has been taken so far, and I'm pretty sure that it won't happen without a lot of user feedback. So I'm going to ask users to express an opinion.
Which is preferable:
The present wording:
Automatic (recommended)
HQ (Short projects) --> Up to 80 min.
SP (Medium projects) --> Up to 160 min.
LP (Long projects) --> 160 min or more.
Or this suggested wording:
Automatic (recommended)
SP (Short Projects) --> Up to 80 min.
MP (Medium Projects) --> Up to 160 min.
LP (Long Projects) --> 160 min or more. |
I would agree with your suggestions. VSO is definitely not tied to the old VHS format, and it would likely be a very good idea to make the identifier shorthand represent what the definition of them means - eg., SP for Short Prijects, MP for Medium Projects, and LP for Long Projects. And adding the general runtime at the end is also a very good idea.
It has my vote. I'm a firm believer of the KISS principle, and keeping it simple - i.e., making the acronym fit the description - is about as simple and logical as it gets. It also has the advantage that if people post about Short Projects, Medium Projects, or Long Projects (instead of using the program's identifiers of SP, MP or LP), the long term would correspond to the short identifier, minimizing any confusion.
I can't see why this wouldn't be easy to implement in the next build of v.4 beta.
Regards,
JoeB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
murilo_meteora
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can I use it for a short time without buy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We need a setting for HD movies and also better HQ setting for longer than 80 min projects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoeB
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2871
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| murilo_meteora wrote: | | Can I use it for a short time without buy? |
You can use the trial version to experiment with and get used to the features. However, you won't want to burn your converted files to disc because the trial version puts a large watermark on the video at various intervals reminding you to purchase a license if you want to be able to convert without the watermark. However, you can preview your converted files using a software player on your computer - with the watermark, of course.
And if you do purchase a license key, this will not remove the watermark on projects you did with the trial version. You'll have to convert those projects again.
Regards,
JoeB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vlad_59
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:27 pm Post subject: new version |
|
|
link does not work  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 16777215
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sorry it is fixed now, but this version doesn't bring anything new |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sala
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 63
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | sorry it is fixed now, but this version doesn't bring anything new |
Why then the update ? :confused: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
Register
Log in
Profile
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
