Confuzing 425 MB

AML

aka Aston Martin Lagonda
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
511
sns2015 said:
What really matters is that mathematically 512x288 is a true 16:9 ratio. Also, 288 is a mod16 resolution (meaning absolute best compression possible). And one more thing is that when using 288 as the vertical resolution it is exactly 1/2 of the source vertical resolution which means de-interlacing algorithms become optional and mostly unnecessary. (Assuming PAL animorphic widescreen is the source)
So why the picture is stretched and not quite so briliant than a RIVER recode? :unsure:
 

Buba

Wants Rick Astley's Babies
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
7,089
Location
Rottal-Inn
Car(s)
BMW M235i
Renesis said:
Buba said:
You could use the + a couple of time in Bsplayer, but then I guess you are joking... ;-)
who, me?

well

1. I don't have BS player
2. I'd rather have black bars and no distortion
3. My screen really is 16:10, no PC monitors I know of are 16:9
What I meant is, get rid of the small black bars on top and bottom by sacrificing a bit of left and right of the picture. No distortion or eggheads, just a bit of Zoom... Only a suggestion ;-)
 

sns2015

Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
72
Aston Martin Lagonda said:
sns2015 said:
What really matters is that mathematically 512x288 is a true 16:9 ratio. Also, 288 is a mod16 resolution (meaning absolute best compression possible). And one more thing is that when using 288 as the vertical resolution it is exactly 1/2 of the source vertical resolution which means de-interlacing algorithms become optional and mostly unnecessary. (Assuming PAL animorphic widescreen is the source)
So why the picture is stretched and not quite so briliant than a RIVER recode? :unsure:
Actually, its the RIVER (700mb) encodes that are stretched a bit and the VUK rips are the proper aspect ratio. Those are at a resolution of 640x352 (Actual 16:9 would be 640x360). However, due to mod16 resolutions, 352 on the vertical has to do as it is the nearest resolution. Also, the RIVER encoders must use a de-interlacing algorithm at that resolution (big deal...) and the reason their rips look so much better is because they have twice the filesize to use with higher bitrate audio and video...
 

Dygear

Active Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
366
Location
Levittown, NY
Car(s)
1992 Ford Mustang LX
... Where did that damn program go? Oh fi, I'll make one give me like 4 days ...

Anyway, what the program does it looks at two image files and displays their differences. Now, any difference in the image will effect it. So if one pixel is #ffffff in one image and the other image has that pixel as #fffffe then that is a difference. Anyway, I'll see if I can't find the program, if I can't I'll just make one. So there's your independent adjudicator a non-discriminatory computer program. The program will imploy the mathematical "diff" operation.
 

AML

aka Aston Martin Lagonda
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
511
sns2015 said:
Actually, its the RIVER (700mb) encodes that are stretched a bit
That's strange, I also had other example of this stretching.
VUK rip with the test of F430, and a resized River rip, there was a shot at the steering wheel, you could saw the difference perfectly.
River rip had the wheel perfectly circular while the vuk rip had the wheel a bit oval, now that shows that rivers rips aren't stretched.
To check this start both rips in separately opened VirtualDub, use the filter on the river rip and resize it to 512x282 and now compare them, you can compare this ferrari steering wheel, it shows my point. 8)

and the reason their rips look so much better is because they have twice the filesize to use with higher bitrate audio and video
But the recode is 400 MB and still looks better. :roll:
 

VUK

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
434
Location
UK, Grays
Car(s)
2001 BMW M5 CARBON BLACK
any useful info comming out of all this?

any tips?
 

AML

aka Aston Martin Lagonda
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
511
Yes it is better, quality is now ok but video is still verticaly stretched. :(
 

AML

aka Aston Martin Lagonda
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
511
VUK, is the resolutnion still 512x288?
Anyway I'm glad that you improoved 425 rip and my efforts didn't ended up in the bin. 8) :thumbsup:
 

VUK

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
434
Location
UK, Grays
Car(s)
2001 BMW M5 CARBON BLACK
Aston Martin Lagonda said:
VUK, is the resolutnion still 512x288?
Anyway I'm glad that you improoved 425 rip and my efforts didn't ended up in the bin. 8) :thumbsup:
nope, 608xXXX
 

AML

aka Aston Martin Lagonda
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
511
ooo, interesting, so I shall check it out soon 8)
 

pulsi

New Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
1
The 350MB-Versions run absolutely smooth on my Yamaha DIVX-DVD-Player, the 425 Rips are more like a very fast slideshow.
Therefore I vote for the 350 Rips.

Greetings from Germany
pulsi
 

Popolou

New Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
6
Location
London, UK
If file sizes are of such a concern, may i suggest the use of the Realmedia codec. Most of the stuff by Real is utter trash, but their codec would allow Divx/Xvid encoded video become a fraction of their original sizes and suprisingly, is very good/efficient. For example: -

A 350MB XviD Mpeg4 runing for 43mins at 624x352 @ a vid rate of 956 kb/s and audio at 170kb/s variable becomes 155.7MB at a vid rate of 500Kb/s with similar audio.

The quality is identical and with the use of the Real Alternative codec, you can continue to use your standard media player instead of using the Real player.

If the intention is to use it on home DVD players, then thats a different story.

Regards

Popolou
 

sns2015

Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
72
^^ I say you get a new DivX-DVD player... Mine can play almost anything I throw at it, as long as its not HD. Plus, mine only cost me around $60... I haven't tried it yet with the 425mb rips, but I doubt that it would have a problem with them.
 

Viper007Bond

Chicken Nugget Connoisseur
STAFF MEMBER
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Messages
31,051
Location
Portland, Oregon
Car(s)
2008 Dodge Viper, 2006 MB CLS55 AMG
I despise anything made by RealMedia and yeah, we prefer for our rips to be DVD player compatible. :)
 

nweibley

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
60
Location
Tampa/Gainesville, Fl
I promise you this:
The quality of the rips will increase if you crop the black edges of the video of just slightly. It is essentially like overscanning the video feed to ensure that the entire fram e is filled with video. Otherwise Divx wastes precious bandwidth trying to ensure that sharp contrasty black edge stays that way! :oops:

Try it and see for yourself, be sure to of course crop off the uncompressed and then compress. That is self explanatory though.

-----Nate
 

Viper007Bond

Chicken Nugget Connoisseur
STAFF MEMBER
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Messages
31,051
Location
Portland, Oregon
Car(s)
2008 Dodge Viper, 2006 MB CLS55 AMG
On a semi-random note, here's RiVER vs. Vuk for 350MB Fifth Gear rips.

Vuk is first, RiVER is second. His is obviously lower resolution, but it looks like even though the RiVER one is higher res, it's the same quality if not worse (i.e. it looks just stretched of Vuk's or something).

I dunno, I'm a noob at this kinda stuff, so compare for yourself:





I'll have Top Gear once Vuk gets his out.
 

fbc

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
11,804
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Car(s)
2006 MY07 Astra SRi Turbo
^ Interesting comparison - the size difference makes it tricky, but Vuk's certainly looks noticeably better - sharper, more colour depth, higher contrast. I suppose the fact I'm waiting for Vuk's TG rip shows where I stand...
 
Top