Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
28th November 2015, 22:09 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 100
|
Variance masking V Luminance masking in Xvid!
Anyone out there who can kindly tell me which one has the greater benefit for an Xvid encoding and if they should be turned on or off in the 1st pass and left on for the 2nd pass only? There isnt much info on variance apart from some dated info on luminance. With not using Xvid for a few years due to H264(now getting to grips with H265!)and having to encode a file up for a friend's old standalone my old noodle is working overtime again. Cheers guys for any help!
Last edited by datauser; 28th November 2015 at 22:11. |
29th November 2015, 12:55 | #3 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 100
|
I think it was an old thread here on Doom a few years back that with older versions of xvid the 1pass for luminance was counter productive, so enabled only for 2nd one, but regarding the newer variance no idea at all. Thanks for your reply.
|
3rd December 2015, 10:33 | #4 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
|
If it means anything, I checked and I'm pretty sure the last version of AutoGK enables VAQ for both 1st and 2nd pass.
Initially Xvid's adaptive quantisation = luminance masking. Then when VAQ was first introduced it replaced luminance masking, so adaptive quantisation = variance masking. Given VAQ is supposed to be much better than luminance masking I'm not sure why later versions of Xvid let you choose either type. Anyone know? Last edited by hello_hello; 3rd December 2015 at 17:50. |
4th December 2015, 22:27 | #5 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 100
|
I've been testing out the new Xvid build 1.3.4 and getting really excellent quality at higher bitrates and enabling luminance masking in both 1st pass and 2nd one. Though I'm well used to h264 now and prefer it for lower bitrates, from my own tests I notice that at higher bitrates(1800+) Xvid retains much more facial detail(preserves film grain?) while h264 seems to still produce a glossier/smoothed over effect. All subjective of course and others may disagree!
|
29th January 2018, 00:19 | #7 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 709
|
lumimasking => increased quality in medium macroblocks, at cost of more compression in dark and bright macroblocks, useful in the 1cd xvid rip era, no good for high quality, nor for today quality standard
variance masking or vaq => port from x264 of Dark Shikari's VAQ, useful for RL content, bad for animation as it can't be tuned both => worst quality than each one/no one in my experience both are to avoid when using a hvs/custom matrix
__________________
powered by Google Translator |
|
|