Which Looks Better?

[anonymez]

[anonymez]

which do you think is of higher quality? (would've used png compression, but you try it on dialup, 1mb each) i need unbiased opinions

[Chewy]

screenshot 2, I cheated, downloaded(2 sec ea) open with ifraview
blew up 300% less grain

but I still like the sig picture more

[anonymez]

yeah i thought the second pic too, but needed more opinions.

the first shot is the original HDTV mpeg-2 PS (1440x1088, the image has been lanczos'd to 1280x720) bitrate: ~13,000 kbps

the second is a x264 encode (!!!!) (1280x720, cause that's all my second core could handle 90-95% cpu load) bitrate: 2,100 kbps ( )

i've been doing a lot of x264 lately, trying to find just the right amount of alpha & beta deblocking to apply. might've found the right combination

more opinions please!

[Chewy]

grain really starts to show at 300% around her lips

[anonymez]

yup cropped & resized:

screenshot 1:

[anonymez]

and screenshot 2:








the thing is, you could argue the x264 encode loses detail/sharpness, even though, when viewing at the original resolution, IMO looks better

[blutach]

The 2nd - but only by a whisker.

Regards

[anonymez]

lol guess it really is possible to increase quality, as we perceive it, with the right source and settings.

i never really believed in sharpening & denoising with DV, i guess it works to some extent, even if its being used on a source that doesn't really need it (on still images, however, sharpening & denoising make a world of difference)

[UncasMS]

the pics did not need to be magnified to see that #2 shows less grain but is slightly less sharp

no doubt i'd trade in the little loss of sharpness for a much cleaner picture

#2 is my winner

[anonymez]

thanks for your input uncas,

lol i just muxed the audio (nero digital LC aac @ 192kbps) & played it, my second core is completely maxed out at 99%-100%. guess i'll either have to encode at a lower res (that won't be happening!) or start using mplayer+libavcodec instead of MPC

[LT. Columbo]

not sure how much merit my opinion is worth, but the second definetly anon.

[anonymez]

thank LT, your opinion is worth a lot here, i assure you

really odd, the first is the original source, yet the encoded stuff, less than 18% of the original's file size, looks better

really looking forward to giving xvid's avc (edit: not yet released) a spin!

[jeo]

not sure how much merit my opinion is worth, but the second definetly anon.

hahaha.let me start with a big lol!..dear LT.Columbo,your opinion have the weight of gold in the whole forum.when you say yes,means yes.when you say no,means no. the end,all clear!!

anonymez
i agree with UncasMS

...(everything wrote)...#2 is my winner

and was my first impression comparing the first and second post,don't need any "zoom" to show it!
in the other thread when i asked you about the "unknow" pictures i could feel that had some "spice" inside.

very cool!

[anonymez]

x264 has been my codec of choice for some time now, been using(testing) it shortly after it was first released. amazing improvement since then

i've been using it exclusively (instead of xvid) for the last 4 months or so, and its multithreaded too!