|
:: DVD rebuilder & return of the king... dissapointing results...
|
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 07:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes
Donald
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 07:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 07:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
It was the same seperately and with different programs so that doesn't fly.
Win dvd and media player classics are the same.
What is your setup. Can you post the same exact comparison with stills like you did before. that should put it to rest.
Donald
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 08:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
I will be shortly making another frame-capture comparison, just for you. ;)
|
|
babelfish
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 08:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
on a side note i did a backup of (r2 pal) 12 monkeys in CCE the other night... keeping the 'hamster factory' hour long extra... i did a 25% steal on it - the quality is terrible... and so is the asctual 12 monkeys movie itself.. i think i need to do some research as DVDRB had taken it to 16:9 even tho the original on DVD is 4:3 (iirc)
any ideas?
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 09:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 09:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
P.S: using screen captures I can actually see a difference between the CCE backups.
The latest one (CCE 2.69 / Undot(); Deen(); quality_prec 32/50) is even noisier than the others.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. August 2004 @ 09:36
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 10:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
I didn't see any frames from the CCE smoothed sets from your last batch. What is on screen is nothing like your last posted results or my results.
You just screwing with me now.
Donald
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 10:37 |
Link to this message
|
I have simply added a capture from my latest test.
The quality_prec was set to 50 in CCE (which I think would correspond to 32 in DVD-RB).
The Undot and Deen filters were used.
The Progressive mode enabled.
Quote:
; Cinema Craft Encoder Basic -- Encoder Control List
; Created by DVD ReBuilder
[item]
title=V01003500002008
aud_out=0
vaf_file=H:\LOTR_ROTK_DVDRB\D2VAVS\V01003500002008.vaf
aud_file=H:\LOTR_ROTK_DVDRB\D2VAVS\V01003500002008.mpa
file_focused=0
packet_size=2048
width=720
height=576
frame_rate_idx=3
cbr_brate=6000
vbr_brate_avg=3435
vbr_brate_min=0
vbr_brate_max=9000
seq_endcode=0
dvd=0
half_width=0
half_height=0
lum_level=0
aspect_ratio=3
gop_m=3
gop_nm=4
gop_hdr=12
seq_hdr=1
all_closed_gop=0
fix_gop_length=0
samples_per_sec=44100
stereo=2
brate_idx=7
crc=1
progressive=1
alternate_scan=0
intra_dc_prec=2
aud_mode=0
tc_ref_frm=0
drop_frame=0
fix_vbv_delay=0
letter_box=0
pulldown_detect=0
offset_line=0
vid_file=H:\LOTR_ROTK_DVDRB\D2VAVS\V01003500002008.m2v
video_type=8
tc_offset=0
remove_vaf=0
pict_type=0
pict_complexity=2
filter_off=1
filter_on=0
pict_qchar=50
name=H:\LOTR_ROTK_DVDRB\D2VAVS\V01003500002008.avs
frame_first=0
frame_last=8054
encode_first=0
encode_last=8054
Quote:
#------------------
# AVS File Created by DVD Rebuilder
# VOBID:02, CELLID:08
#------------------
LoadPlugin("E:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\MPEG2Dec3dg.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\undot.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\deen.dll")
mpeg2source("H:\LOTR_ROTK_DVDRB\D2VAVS\V01.D2V",idct=7)
trim(166814,174867)
Undot().Deen()
ConvertToYUY2()
I didn't bother making captures from my previous test, with quality_prec at 18 in CCE (all other settings identical to the last test) because I thought it looked identical to the others.
I will do it though, and upload it to the same page, but after my dinner.
|
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 11:04 |
Link to this message
|
for anyone...
I've been trying to get a handle on what it is that ddlooping is trying to achieve right now with the different RB and/or CCE settings? My impression right now is that there is noise in the original DVD that he would like to smooth out (hide). Also, does this noise appear to be specific to only the PAL version of ROTK?
If someone could provide a general, conceptual overview, I would appreciate it. This would help me get the technical aspects of this discussion into perspective. Thanks.
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 11:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
24. August 2004 @ 11:34 |
Link to this message
|
It's not specific to the PAL version, although at first glance it doesn't appear to be as bad on my NTSC copy. Assuming the same maximum bitrate (which I haven't verified), that makes sense considering that the PAL version has ~2081894 pixels more per second (NTSC = 720 x 480 x 23.976 / PAL = 720 x 576 x 25). Believe it or not I'm almost done with a DRM guide, so I should be able to look at this more closely later on.
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 11:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's a very interesting point, vurbal.
At a given bitrate, PAL would have to deal with more pixels than NTSC.
Hence, less data per pixel. Hence a lesser quality!?
Edit: I believe macroblocks are 8x8 pixels.
So that would make for a difference of more than 32500 macroblocks per second.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. August 2004 @ 11:49
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
24. August 2004 @ 11:57 |
Link to this message
|
As long as you're dealing with film based sources I believe that's correct. I do know that with interlaced sources they're supposed to come out even, because interlaced NTSC has more fields than PAL, which compensates for the lower resolution. But since film sources aren't actually encoded at 29.97fps, just telecined to read that way, there should be more bits per pixel, and therefore higher quality for the same encoder bitrate.
Just out of curiosity, does the PAL version have a lot of audio streams? I'm still stumped at why they used such a low max bitrate, but if there were enough audio streams it would make sense bcause the highest bitrate available is 10,080kbps minus the total bitrate of all audio streams.
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 12:10 |
Link to this message
|
Only one AC3 5.1 EX audio stream.
|
|
ddlooping
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 12:44 |
Link to this message
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. August 2004 @ 12:46
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. August 2004 @ 14:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
The reason why I wanted you to do the 3 files from the previous post is because it mirrored the results I got in which the additional quality_prec in rebuilder came out with almost no sign of the artifact.
I figured we could get on the same page since they were your clips. The difference was apparent to the most casual observer.
Anyway, I'm satisfied that you did those clips correctly which bring my part in this to a close.
With 50% compression CCE does a very good job with the exception of a minor artifact from the original not properly represented but better than the same clip from shrink sharp.
With both on smooth setting cce still remains sharp but has less artifact than Shrink smooth.
Neither is likely to get better than the original so I think this is a good stopping point.
This was thankfully verified by your own clips so there can be little argument.
From here it is just your preference.
Donald
|
|
matt67
Newbie
|
19. September 2004 @ 08:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
So, can anyone tell me HOW to IMPROVE the quality of LOTR burn? Even with all the suggestions, I still get quite a bit of pixels during battle scenes. Perhaps I should start a new post?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
19. September 2004 @ 08:28 |
Link to this message
|
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
matt67
Newbie
|
19. September 2004 @ 19:18 |
Link to this message
|
For those lucky enough to stick to the title of this thread I found what I was looking for. To truly preserve the quality of such a long movie (LOTR0, I opted to use the "re-author" function within DVD Shrink and put it on two disks.
I'm sure the previous method posted would also work, but the key to using some of these programs is the word "free." Afterall, they're just backups.
|
Senior Member
|
19. September 2004 @ 21:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
matt67 ... Very interesting approach. It takes the shrink out of Shrink.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. September 2004 @ 06:09
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
20. September 2004 @ 03:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
DVDdoubler maybe.
They are just backups so I prefer use 1 disc. It isn't free but it's half the price of 2.
Matt67
If you were getting pixelation from one of the higher quality backup methods I would be looking at media or burner problems.
Donald
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
20. September 2004 @ 05:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have my backup split across 2 discs, which is my normal method for very long movies. After seeing the encoding artifacts in the original I can't say I'd do it any differently if I had to do it again. OTOH when I get the extended edition I'm sure I'll compress each disc to fit on 1 blank.
|
