screenshots 2b - so stop crying, blu

[blutach]

I reckon there's a special Q matrix tiger. It's too good for just regular BR matrix, don't you think?

Regards

[UncasMS]

i used HC015 + Best profile in rebuilder 1.0 pro rc 5.1

extras were reduced to half d1 resolution and steal space from extras set to 25%

matrix used: very low birate


but the important difference this time: avisynth filtering
undot + fluxsmooth (7/7)


now, of course the picture is smoother this time but way cleaner (in terms of noise + macroblocks) and all done with a tool and encoder, that hardly cost any money!

i must admit, an encoding like this will take some time (349 min for the encoding process only) but then i had it run while working and coming home to find a very nice result is the kind of reward, i really appreciate

i just wanted to show how much can be done and what user interaction might lead to with the right tool

[blutach]

So under what conditions do you recommend putting the undot and fluxsmooth on?

Bit rates of <3000?

Regards

[UncasMS]

a smoothing filter likes fluxsmooth does not only *clean* (and of course slightly blur) your picture but by removing hard edges it also improves/increases compressibility

so fluxsmooth might be useful, when the source is very noisy and in this case bitrate is not the decisive factor when to make use of fluxsmooth

then on the other hand it might prove useful when it comes to very low bitrate scenarios in order to reduce blockiness

so very long titles or movies with a lot of extra material and thus lower bitrate might gain from a little less sharp but way cleaner picture

maybe ~2000kbps can be a bitrate when matrices alone will not prevent your output material from showing a macroblock here and there and this might be the right time to use something like undot + fluxsmooth

of course it'll always be very subjective and strongly depending on the source

[Chewy]

i must admit, an encoding like this will take some time (349 min for the encoding process only)

Only 6 hours, you might cut that to 5hours with this setup,
but the ram would be expensive.

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMjU1JnVybF9wYWdlPTQ=

[UncasMS]

impressive overclocking, rbrtpl

800mhz increase isnt bad at all ^_~

[Chewy]

996.4

[UncasMS]

damn, you're right

the 939 runs with a 1800 core - confused it with the other athlon3000+ i have had for some time

3000+ - 754 - 2000mhz core

[Chewy]

I am still trying to grasp the concept of asynchronous ram running
at cas 2 to optimize memory bandwidth with overclocked venus cores.
And I thought the winchester 3500 was fast. 50% overclock on air(venus)
must bring back celeron memories for some(before my time), late bloomer.

[2COOL]

i used HC015 + Best profile in rebuilder 1.0 pro rc 5.1

extras were reduced to half d1 resolution and steal space from extras set to 25%

matrix used: very low birate


but the important difference this time: avisynth filtering
undot + fluxsmooth (7/7)


now, of course the picture is smoother this time but way cleaner (in terms of noise + macroblocks) and all done with a tool and encoder, that hardly cost any money!

Hmmm....this is my subjective opinion but looking back at your samples, I still say the LOW/FASTEST profile looks better.

Original > HC015 - DVDRebuilder 0.94 FREEWARE - LOW/FASTEST profile


Original > HC015 & DVDRebuilder PRO 1.0 RC 5.1 w/ BEST Profile + Matrix "Very low Bitrate""

[UncasMS]

here are the frames from HC 016 test release:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=54761

[rahzel]

hi,

old thread, but when you used Matrix "Very low bitrate" did you use Very low bitrate - Very Low bitrate? because there are "very low bitrate" settings for the main feature, low bitrate, very low bitrate and the extras. which one was used?

im new to DVD-RB (ive used shrink for everything in the past) and ive tried both HC and CCE, and ive noticed a lot of blockiness compared to shrink and the source, but the sharpness and detail is definitely better than shrink.

[UncasMS]

very low set everywhere

[rahzel]

hmm, interesting. id have to agree with 2COOL here. i was just comparing the HC and CCE with matrix "very low bitrate", but looking at the LOW/FASTEST HC encode, i have to say that it looks the best in all 3 comparisons... anyone else think so?