Top Gear Screen Comparisons - Scene Release PDTV Xvid Vs My Analog Capture x264

narf said:
Your encode isn't good with motion, which makes it unwatchable for me. Observe what it does to the US flag (prepare to get nuked surgically):
Click to expand...

Good comparisons. I can see artifacts in those screenshots, but that's fast moving motion, just viewed same section with both encodes and can't see any difference, but I can see a sharper picture, just wish I had the TS files then I could encode with perfect picture and knowing it's perfect motion. It would be so cool if someone who had the original TS files could encode with x264 with the encode mode set to CRF 18 and upload them. With bigger tvs now the quality difference becomes more apparent. Glad all future releases will be available with original HD TS files :)
 
Last edited:
Simmo10 said:
I can see artifacts in those screenshots, but that's fast moving motion, just viewed same section with both encodes and can't see any difference
Click to expand...

I do see the flag artifacts while playing the video at regular speed :cry: guess why I looked at that segment frame-by-frame - not to find irrelevant flaws, but to show what made me not like it while watching. While watching the first appearance of the Challenger the motion looks weird as well, here's why:

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/06/10/7.png



https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/06/10/8.png



https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/06/10/9.png

Not only are there tons of compression artifacts, the cable car tracks continue well into the poor Civic's bumper.
You say your image is sharper - I wouldn't say the license plate is more legible in your video than in the half-size scene release.
 
narf said:
I do see the flag artifacts while playing the video at regular speed :cry: guess why I looked at that segment frame-by-frame - not to find irrelevant flaws, but to show what made me not like it while watching. While watching the first appearance of the Challenger the motion looks weird as well...

You say your image is sharper - I wouldn't say the license plate is more legible in your video than in the half-size scene release.
Click to expand...

Yes but that's fast motion, unfortunately a capture problem, it looks awful with a still picture, but I can't see it on playback, just compared them 2 aswel. Also CRF encoding uses higher quantizers for fast motion scenes for precisely that reason, it's harder to see it. Not saying that's why there's artifacts but the same applies to CRF encoding, worse picture at fast scenes. My picture looks at least equal at the faster motion scenes, but at moderate motion or less my version looks much sharper, just look at this screenshot and that's what you would see for longer than a quarter of a second lol. Even if i do half the size mine looks better than the scene release.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/61854

f334cad91ac523c4.jpg
6c9507b83621e2a5.jpg


7bab26274b93bf33.jpg
a169747ed82a8baa.jpg


Not trying to say your points aren't valid, just putting my point across and I suppose it depends on what each individual can see while it's playing. If you can see the artifacts at fast motion scenes I don't blame you, I wouldn't want to watch that but I can't and do notice the picture looks better, sharper on my 32 inch TV :) there's nothing wrong at all with the scene releases, just wanted better if I could get better and I think weighing it up mine are better.
 
Last edited:
My point is this: No point in replacing something with one flaw (lower level of detail) with something with many flaws (huge size, less compatible codec, screwed up motion, no distribution).

In order to replace the season packs we'd need something that is better in every way. That's the same reason why there are no iPlayer files in the season packs, a while back we had a discussion about that as well. Yes, the iPlayer offers greater resolution. It does not utilize bitrate variability well though because it is intended for streaming, and it cropped off a bit of the picture. Same result - it's better in some ways, but not in all ways.
 
narf said:
My point is this: No point in replacing something with one flaw (lower level of detail) with something with many flaws (huge size, less compatible codec, screwed up motion, no distribution).

In order to replace the season packs we'd need something that is better in every way. That's the same reason why there are no iPlayer files in the season packs, a while back we had a discussion about that as well. Yes, the iPlayer offers greater resolution. It does not utilize bitrate variability well though because it is intended for streaming, and it cropped off a bit of the picture. Same result - it's better in some ways, but not in all ways.
Click to expand...

I never said it was to replace the season packs, I said "just for fun here's a comparison", as in anyone who's interested in my capture vs the scene releases here you go.

Lower level of detail, you can see artifacts with fast motion in mine but not moderate to no motion in the scene releases! Have you looked at the screenshots I just posted, mine's definitely got a higher level of detail.

Twice the size, it's twice the quality, could be the same size as the scene releases and look better. I could use a higher CRF value and dramatically lower the bitrate and it would probably still look very close to the CRF 18 encode. But as it's for me my choice is CRF 18. The HD rips are close to my filesize but are heavily compressed just like the Xvid releases only with a better codec, if the original HD TS was encoded at CRF 18 it would be much bigger and look better.

Less compatible codec, not for me which is who it's for, directshow playback or Xbox360,PS3,Popcorn Hour... H.264 is the future, well present, Xvid is an old, less efficient codec but obviously appeals to the masses so I agree it should be priority for releases, but mp4 for me works for me and looks better so i'm happy with it.

Screwed up motion, I don't agree, maybe there's something wrong with your decoder or you have fantastic slow motion eye sight or something, but i've even shown other people and they can't see a problem with the motion, but can tell which 1 looks the best.

No distribution, as I said I encode these for personal use and just wanted to share what my picture quality looks like compared to scene releases, never said this should be the standard.

Thank you for all your comments even though they are all negative, your entitled to your opinion. My opinion is I don't agree with any of your points and i'm still happier with my encodes.
 
Simmo10 said:
I never said it was to replace the season packs
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but every time we get some kind of potentially-higher-quality versions of TG there are people considering replacing the packs. I like to remind everyone, not just you, of the drawbacks to avoid bad decisions.

Have you looked at the screenshots I just posted, mine's definitely got a higher level of detail.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have. That's why I wrote the version that would be replaced has lower levels of detail.

Less compatible codec, not for me which is who it's for, directshow playback or Xbox360,PS3,Popcorn Hour... H.264 is the future, well present, Xvid is an old, less efficient codec but obviously appeals to the masses so I agree it should be priority for releases, but mp4 for me works for me and looks better so i'm happy with it.
Click to expand...

Personally, I prefer x264. Not packed as mp4 though, ???????? ftw.


Screwed up motion, I don't agree, maybe there's something wrong with your decoder or you have fantastic slow motion eye sight or something, but i've even shown other people and they can't see a problem with the motion, but can tell which 1 looks the best.
Click to expand...

My decoder is fine, playing it with VLC - if anyone can do x264 it's them. My eyes are very fine as well, I've been doing nothing but finding flaws for a few years a while back... on the other people, everyone looks for different things. Motion issues usually are subconscious, so some people may notice them less than others, or you may have to pay attention to these things to notice it. Take the location burns in cinema - some people don't notice them, for others (including me) it ruins the entire movie.

even though they are all negative
Click to expand...

They're not. I've acknowledged multiple times that your version does provide a higher level of detail in some cases. That's positive.
 
narf said:
Yes, I have. That's why I wrote the version that would be replaced has lower levels of detail.

They're not. I've acknowledged multiple times that your version does provide a higher level of detail in some cases. That's positive.
Click to expand...

Sorry I take that back, I misunderstood your comment. So you agree mine shows more detail :) It's ashame you don't like the motion but as I say if you can see the artifacts fair enough I can understand why you wouldn't want to watch it. Thank you for taking the time out to compare thoroughly for potential scene replacement but to be honest, that was never my intention. That's why I didn't understand why you was saying they're not good enough to replace the scene rips, now knowing you thought they might have potential I'm glad you thought that. Maybe an addition would be x264 rips from the source as an extra choice or just for season packs. But I do agree the way I encode isn't potentialy replacable for the scene rips, it's just my preference for the files to be that file size for me & unfortunately it has to be analogue source to a get a file I consider better quality. I want to convert them to DVD next for my mates with proper menus etc :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I checked out the thread about that and don't you think the Xvid are better? I think there's less blocking, less cropping, more variable bitrate & no logo. What's your thoughts? I haven't seen a BBC iPlayer rip. How do you get them?
 
Last edited:
I just download them via get_iplayer. I think the xvid are better for the "mass market" because they're easier to use. You appear to be looking for image detail, and the iPlayer versions beat the xvid ones on that. While the encoding itself may not be ideal, it has one important benefit when you are looking for level of detail: It did not suffer from being broadcast before encoded.

Here's an example of the American Special: http://rapidshare.com/files/3977457..._USA_Special_b0074gdc_default.partial.mp4.flv
 
Last edited:
I've looked at it it and it does look pretty decent, how do you download the highest quality version (832x468, 1404 Kbps) through get-iplayer?
 
get_iplayer downloads the video but I don't think it's saving it. I looked inside this location (C:\Program Files\get_iplayer\Downloads) and there was nothing there and i've looked in other folders. Do you have any idea where they would be or why there not saving? :? Appreciate the help :)
 
Did it ticker through the percentages and take a couple of minutes for an episode? If yes, then search your computer for .flv and .mp4 files. If no, then it did not download the file.
 
I've solved the issue with the ghosting during motion. I converted the capture directly to mpeg2 with out deinterlacing and burnt it to DVD and the motion looked perfect with the dvd player doing the deinterlacing. So deinterlacing was the issue, I was deinterlacing top field first instead of bottom field first.

Before

c8e5f6f1d7635854.jpg


After

ec0c34df0870c96a.jpg


I also encoded at a lower resolution to see if there was any quality loss, instead of using an anamorphic resolution of 704x572 (1001x572) I encoded the max resolution with out it being anamorphic, after the black bars had been cropped the width was 704 and height was 572 and had a ratio of 1.75 so with out it being anamorphic it's max resolution was 704x402. There is no quality loss so I can get away with the file being a lot smaller.

These we're encoded with the wrong deinterlacing mode but you can see there's no difference in picture quality, I think the higher resolution looks worse but might be the deinterlacing.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/66233

Before 704x572 (1001x572)

7b3e374c570284cc.jpg


After 704x402

0dea9e7436e3c81e.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top