"bad quality" even with 2 cd rip

[khp]

Originally posted by Enchanter

Do you have an idea how this can come to be? Both results were excellent anyway, just that the vFAPI-framerserver gave slightly better result.

Sorry, I can't offer much of an explanation there, problems with the colorspace will be more than slightly noticable, so I don't think this is your problem.

There are a number of differences between using vfapi and avisynth, so slight difference in the output is to be expected, but I doubt that one is consistently better than the other.

[volkl23]

Hi Techno, I actually did use 3.11a with Gordian Knot as well. This was using the 2 pass technique. Overall, I still get that annoying p
ixelation effect when viewed full screen. Overall, I liked the 4.12 just a little bit, but that's not saying much.

OK, so the problem only shows up when you resized to fullscreen durring playback ?

I wonder why I get this when viewing full screen. Well, I just finished a 2 cd rip of "Don't Say a Word." I must say that I have never encoutered a movie as compressible as this. This was definetely on the other extreme end of compressibility. Even at a resolution of 704x288, I had a compressibility of 113%!!!! I a compress of this high is not that good, so I tried increasing the resolution, but I started to go over 100% W-zoom and I heard that's even worse. Do you guys agree with this and what would you have done in this case with the resolution setting? I used sharp bicubic by the way.

Results:

The overall file came in at around 1.09 Gb, which is rather small. I guess I can increase the bitrate setting a little higher to use the slack.

Well, the quality was pretty good even when viewed full screen. There were still a lit bit of that pixelation effect around contrasting edges, but this was less than the highly uncompressible Knight's tale.

I am going to rip 10 things i hate about you and include some screenshots containing this pixelation I'm telling you about.

Before I do so, I want to get everyone's own personal opinion. Is there an ideal compressibility number we should strive for? In the Gordian guide, it said aim for 45-55% while I've heard others say they won't do anything below 60%

Another related question is this.. how far would you trim the resolution in order to get these ideal compress numbers? Is it too bad to go below a certain resolution, even if doing so is the only way to reach 45-55% compress? Some of these numbers I've heard going around are 512xxx and some higher. Your thoughts on this?

you might try using the bicubic resize Direct show filter, you can find this in the download section at www.doom9.net , but be aware that this is a real hog for cpu power.

Can you tell me more about this filter? I tried searching for it at Doom 9 under the dls section, but was uable to locate it. I would rather make a movie that didn't require this- I want to make a movie as stand-alone as possible, but I will use it if it's the only way to get decent results.

thanks again everyone,
volkl23

[techno]

hmmm

weird, completly weird.

Maybe it has to do something with the DVD encryption? (just a guess)

Techno

[khp]

Originally posted by volkl23
I am going to rip 10 things i hate about you and include some screenshots containing this pixelation I'm telling you about.

Great, if you can also note the frame numbers, or at least the time of the image, I will be happy to compare them with my rip.

Originally posted by volkl23
Before I do so, I want to get everyone's own personal opinion. Is there an ideal compressibility number we should strive for? In the Gordian guide, it said aim for 45-55% while I've heard others say they won't do anything below 60%

Another related question is this.. how far would you trim the resolution in order to get these ideal compress numbers? Is it too bad to go below a certain resolution, even if doing so is the only way to reach 45-55% compress? Some of these numbers I've heard going around are 512xxx and some higher. Your thoughts on this?
[/B]

Sorry I never use compressability check, I'll just go by bits/pixel numbers and my general impression of the movie. For very long uncompressable movies (like pearl harbor) I'll go for a 3 CD rip.
If I get a movie that is too compressable to fill 2 cds at full res
I would probably resize to 640*X or 576*X and go for a one cd rip.

Originally posted by volkl23
Can you tell me more about this filter? I tried searching for it at Doom 9 under the dls section, but was uable to locate it. I would rather make a movie that didn't require this- I want to make a movie as stand-alone as possible, but I will use it if it's the only way to get decent results.
volkl23 [/B]

In the dl section at doom9's scroll down to the filters section, and click 'show me more' the Direct Show filter is the second on the list.

Originally posted by techno

hmmm

weird, completly weird.

Maybe it has to do something with the DVD encryption? (just a guess)

Techno

Why do you think this is wierd ?, did you seriously think this was a codec problem ?, what made you think that ?

The fact is that there are very few problems that are truely codec related. One of the few exceptions is divx3.11 producing shitframes. As descriped in this thread which is why I never use divx3.11.

[volkl23]

Great, if you can also note the frame numbers, or at least the time of the image, I will be happy to compare them with my rip.

Cool! That would be nice of you! I'm curious to see other people's rips of the same movies

Sorry I never use compressability check, I'll just go by bits/pixel numbers and my general impression of the movie. For very long uncompressable movies (like pearl harbor) I'll go for a 3 CD rip.

What sort of bits/pixel number do you usually strive for in a 2 cd rip? How many rips do you usually do on average before you like the quality of the movie? Just curious.

[khp]

Originally posted by volkl23

What sort of bits/pixel number do you usually strive for in a 2 cd rip? How many rips do you usually do on average before you like the quality of the movie? Just curious.

I usually try to stay just above 0.2 bits/pixel, but you have to allow for ajustments, depending on the amount of action in the movie.
I generally only rip the same movie once. But I also do a lot of testing, to figure out which codec looks better and which set of features works best. Some movies I have done more than 15 times.
Actually I have not done any rips, that I plan to keep, in the last 2 months.

[volkl23]

I usually try to stay just above 0.2 bits/pixel, but you have to allow for ajustments, depending on the amount of action in the movie.

Do you even pay attention to the compress then? I use Gordian and a lot of times, I can't reach .25 let alone .20 without either getting a really horrible compress (like .30-.35) or a resolution that is more than 100% of the original.

For example with "10 things i hate about you," at bits/pixel of .299, I get a resolution of 704x384, W-zoom of 99%, but an H-zoom of 111% which is a lot higher than the original resolution.

I've read from other people that they only look at compressibility and not bits/pixel. Your view seems to be on the other extreme.

Now I'm totally confused

When you test.. how do you usually go about it? This is what I do and I think it's flawed, but I don't know anyother way to do it.

Basically, I first get the avg. bitrate for the movie for a 2 cd rip (1600kb for example).

I then go to dvd2avi and create a short clip (10 minutes or so that includes many different types of scenes). I input the average bitrate I got from the whole movie and use it for the short clip.

Now comes the part where I think my methods are flawed. When I do a compress check for the shortened movie, it is usually drastically different then from the whole movie. For example .55 vs .40.

I basically run different resolution settings and resizing filters on the different short clips to find the "optimal" settings, but this is sort of wrong, because I usually get different qualities with the final movie, because the compress was so different.

Can you khp or anyone else clue me in on a better way to "test" settings?

Thanks again everyone

[khp]

The problem with the compressability check, is that it only tests a fraction of the movie (10% or so). Ofcause trusting bits/pixel values is not enough either, I do make adjustment depending on the amount of action, but how much is always a guess.

When I do test it's usually to test the features that impact compressability, like how much you gain by chopping off the black bars, how much it costs to use imbedded subtitles, what kind of effects the new features in divx5 has, and so on.
The way I do this is that I use 1-pass quality based encoding (at max quality), and use filesize as a measure for how well it works.

[techno]

KHP, u should have better knowldge on DIVX 3.11alpha. Why do u insult everyone that is trying to help????

What I meant by weird was that maybe the DVD disc has been encrypted in a special way, as we all know, DVD ripping is illegal.

Techno

[khp]

Originally posted by techno
KHP, u should have better knowldge on DIVX 3.11alpha. Why do u insult everyone that is trying to help????

I do have quite an extensive knowledge of divx3.11.

And I don't insult everyone who tries to help. I very much prefer to let people make the their own minds about which codec to use. That means that I really hate to advice people to use one codec instead of another, unless it really is the codec that is at fault.

My point is that all you advice, people using anything but divx3.11, is to use divx3.11, regardless of what the problem is.
If you don't know what the problem is it's kind of silly to just blame divx4. I am sorry if I have become a bit rough with you, but telling people doing DVD rips to use divx3.11 fast motion is rather silly, and you have done so on numerus occations, maybe you were thinking about TV captures, but you completly fail to make that distinction clear.