In defense of the built-in Bob() filter...

[johnmeyer]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

Explain why nobody torrents anything at 640x360, but 624x352 is common.

Do you just make this stuff up? 624x352 is common? Common ??

I don't think so.

Reading this thread is, as others have said, like taking a trip in a time machine back to before the millennium, when people actually did make VCDs. In 2016, I can think of no reason whatsoever -- including wanting to carry around your movies -- that would ever justify this crazy workflow. MPEG-1 is a horrible encoder compared to modern codecs. There is no reason to ever, ever use it.

Period.

You do understand, don't you, that reducing resolution has zero (that is 0.0000) impact on file size? Instead, file size is 100% determined by bitrate, and nothing else. So, if you want small files, use a low bitrate.

I have all sorts of movies I've created for portable devices, but the only time I created anything at these absurdly low resolutions was 4-5 years ago when the gen1 devices only supported 640x480.

My recommendation would be to ditch everything you are doing and instead standardize on 720p. This still looks great on a laptop (or larger display), and if you encode with MeGUI or Handbrake, you can get wonderful quality at really low bitrates, especially with commercial movies.

[filler56789]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

Then explain why the VCD standard is 352x240 instead of 360x240

Explain why nobody torrents anything at 640x360, but 624x352 is common.

1) Because someone decided so, of course
Look, I have already successfully encoded to mod-EIGHT resolutions with TMPGenc Plus.
I serious doubt that the programmer who wrote it didn't know what he was doing.

2) Because most "releasers" are even more clueless than you are?

Probably they used (Auto)GK, which apparently is pickier than it had to be.
Hell, there still are people who proudly use VirtualDubMod

[Katie Boundary]

Originally Posted by Nevilne

Downsizing DVD resolution videos, why have nobody thought of this brilliant idea before.

It's extremely common...

Originally Posted by Nevilne

A time traveler, 15 year from the past.

http://www.1337x.to/torrent/64087/St...e-Scambioetico

Uploaded 6 years ago, resolution 624x352.

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

Do you just make this stuff up? 624x352 is common? Common ??

I don't think so.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=624x352+torrent&t=ffnt&ia=web

And that's not even a good search engine...

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

Reading this thread is, as others have said, like taking a trip in a time machine back to before the millennium, when people actually did make VCDs. In 2016, I can think of no reason whatsoever -- including wanting to carry around your movies -- that would ever justify this crazy workflow. MPEG-1 is a horrible encoder compared to modern codecs. There is no reason to ever, ever use it.

Please take your pointless bitching about VCDs to the appropriate thread. This is not it.

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

You do understand, don't you, that reducing resolution has zero (that is 0.0000) impact on file size? Instead, file size is 100% determined by bitrate, and nothing else. So, if you want small files, use a low bitrate.

What resolution DOES have an effect on is how low you can set the bitrate before the video starts to look like a realmedia file that was made from a captured VHS tape. that's pretty important.

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

My recommendation would be to ditch everything you are doing and instead standardize on 720p.

Yes... upscaling all of my DVD footage to 720p will totally increase the amount of real detail that it has. That's brilliant. Why didn't I think of it first?

Originally Posted by filler56789

I have already successfully encoded to mod-EIGHT resolutions with TMPGenc Plus.
I serious doubt that the programmer who wrote it didn't know what he was doing.

And people have made JPEGs in which the horizontal and vertical resolutions were both odd. That doesn't make it a good idea. Your argument is invalid.

[filler56789]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

And people have made JPEGs in which the horizontal and vertical resolutions were both odd. That doesn't make it a good idea. Your argument is invalid.

That WORKS, period. The people who wrote the JPEG and MPEG specs are smarter than you, granted. A compliant encoder is required to deal with NON-mod16/mod8/mod4 frame dimensions. A compliant decoder is required to deal with NON-mod16/mod8/mod4 frame dimensions. The firmware of the ancient standalone DVD-players was not fully spec-compliant; this was one of the reasons why encoding to mod-16-only WAS important. But today, encoding video to mod-16-only frame dimensions does not make sense.

[huhn]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

I'd argue that the "most accurate" results are the ones that most closely resemble what you'd actually see at a resolution and bitrate that are suitable for Internet distribution.

and that would be? even youtube is mostly 1080p or higher and is using codecs way better than mpeg1 so better for internet distribution.

and more important why does internet distribution matter to you?

USE VIRTUALDUB.

i use what ever i want and it is unlikely i will use that program anytime soon.

Babylon 5 was shot at 16:9 and pan-and-scanned for broadcast. the DVDs restored the original aspect ratio. I needed a target resolution that was exactly 16:9. I also needed both the horizontal and vertical resolutions to be divisible by 16, because the MPEG gods are quick to anger. This leaves me with very few choices. 256x144 is far too small, though it would have been fun to post such images and watch all of your heads explode. 512x288 is acceptable and quite common. the next one is 768x432, which is very close to the same number of total pixels as NTSC DVD resolution (331,776 vs. 345,600), putting it in the "why bother re-encoding at all?" range.


I also wanted it to be the same resolution as my files derived from letterbox widescreen DVDs, wherein the relevant part of the image is only 720x360, and therefore upscaling to 768x432 would be as pointless as upscaling to 1920x1080.

so quality doesn't matter?

You're adorable.

i just have some respect for picture quality.

[johnmeyer]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

Yes... upscaling all of my DVD footage to 720p will totally increase the amount of real detail that it has. That's brilliant. Why didn't I think of it first?

If all of your input is DVD, then I agree that up-scaling makes no sense. But, if you have DVDs, just encode them using the MeGUI "One Click Encoder" and be done with it: no need for all the weird things being discussed in this thread. If you aren't familiar with this MeGUI feature, it really does let you encode a DVD with one click, and it works remarkably well.

As for 720x480 looking worse at a given bitrate than would 352x240, that is true, but the tradeoff is not a linear one, and depends a lot on, well, a lot of things. In particular, if you go to your 1/4 DVD resolution, it does not mean that you will get equivalent "quality" (blockiness, mosquito noise, etc.) at 1/4 the bitrate. The tradeoff doesn't work like that.

One other thing that matters is the size of the display on which you will be watching. You have said you are doing all of this so you can carry around your all of your movies (why you would need to do this is another question). So, since you want to have them with you at all times, it sounds like you are going to watch the movies on some sort of portable display, and it will therefore be a pretty small display, something you can hold in your hand.

When viewing on a small display, you can go to pretty really low bitrates at 720x480, and it will still look fine.

Have you done comparison tests? I sure have. A two hour movie at 720x480 encoded to a file size of about 800 MB looks near-perfect on an iPhone or small iPad. And, 800 MB is about the size of a VCD, burned on an 80 minute CD, using Nero overburning (yes, I did make quite a few VCDs, back in the 1990s, when this technology was cutting edge).

And, let's face it: if you are willing to watch movies on a small device, using VCD technology, you are not someone who really cares about the quality of the video. If you did, you'd watch Blu-Ray on a big screen.

One thing for sure: you will get far better quality using H.264 than MPEG-1. No comparison.

One more point: I have no idea what the links to various low-res videos is supposed to prove. Yes, they still exist, but I haven't seen a modern movie or TV show encoded using MPEG-1 in years, and most of the stuff I've looked at is at least DVD resolution.

[StainlessS]

I found MeGUI to be not the easiest s/ware to come to grips with (you seem to go around in circles in the menus), its easy when you know it,
but till then is a little bit opaque.

Handbrake on the other hand I found to be extremely easy to use, I was quite amazed that a mate of mine (not any kind of even noobie at video processing), could produce rather good results.

[Katie Boundary]

Originally Posted by filler56789

That WORKS, period. The people who wrote the JPEG and MPEG specs blah blah bitch whine irrelevant crap

Let's get back to the important part. I was asked why I chose 512x288. My answer was "I needed a target resolution that was exactly 16:9. I also needed both the horizontal and vertical resolutions to be divisible by 16, because the MPEG gods are quick to anger. This leaves me with very few choices. 256x144 is far too small, though it would have been fun to post such images and watch all of your heads explode. 512x288 is acceptable and quite common. The next one is 768x432"

So unless you have some extraordinarily compelling case for why I should have picked 640x360, this part of the conversation is over.

Originally Posted by huhn

and that would be? even youtube is mostly 1080p or higher

LOL. No. 1920x1080 is Youtube's hard upper limit at the moment, and most Youtube videos aren't even 1280x720.

Originally Posted by huhn

and is using codecs way better than mpeg1 so better for internet distribution.

Keep all bitching about MPEG-1 to the relevant thread. This is not it.

Originally Posted by huhn

and more important why does internet distribution matter to you?

Well, it's more a matter of versatility. Internet distribution is the ultimate fate of many, ahem, "backups"...

Originally Posted by huhn

so quality doesn't matter?

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

If all of your input is DVD, then I agree that up-scaling makes no sense. But, if you have DVDs, just encode them using the MeGUI "One Click Encoder" and be done with it: no need for all the weird things being discussed in this thread. If you aren't familiar with this MeGUI feature, it really does let you encode a DVD with one click, and it works remarkably well.

Anything that "works" with only 1 click will screw something up that I would have otherwise diagnosed and corrected or otherwise adjusted for.

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

As for 720x480 looking worse at a given bitrate than would 352x240, that is true

Only at low enough bitrates. At high enough bitrates, the higher-resolution image will look better. In between, you're in the Weird Zone, making a tradeoff between macroblocking (high resolutions) and dot noise (low resolutions).

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

In particular, if you go to your 1/4 DVD resolution, it does not mean that you will get equivalent "quality" (blockiness, mosquito noise, etc.) at 1/4 the bitrate.

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

One other thing that matters is the size of the display on which you will be watching. You have said you are doing all of this so you can carry around your all of your movies (why you would need to do this is another question). So, since you want to have them with you at all times, it sounds like you are going to watch the movies on some sort of portable display, and it will therefore be a pretty small display, something you can hold in your hand.

Why carry a display with me at all, when they already exist everywhere I want to go?

(Let's not go into the fact that I've been known to carry mini-ITX desktops to McDonald's in my backpack, complemented by a 20-inch LCD that I carry around in a cardboard box with the other peripherals...)

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

if you are willing to watch movies on a small device, using VCD technology...

Please tell me how many VCDs you've seen that were encoded at 512x288.

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

One thing for sure: you will get far better quality using H.264 than MPEG-1. No comparison.

Please keep all random bitching about MPEG-1 to the relevant thread. This is not it.

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

One more point: I have no idea what the links to various low-res videos is supposed to prove.

It's to prove that 624x352 is quite a common resolution for... "backups"...

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

I haven't seen a modern movie or TV show encoded using MPEG-1 in years

Please keep all random bitching about MPEG-1 to the relevant thread. This is not it.

[johnmeyer]

Originally Posted by StainlessS

Handbrake on the other hand I found to be extremely easy to use, I was quite amazed that a mate of mine (not any kind of even noobie at video processing), could produce rather good results.

Yes, I think you are right. I've heard this same thing expressed by others. I got started with MeGUI instead of Handbrake because it accepted AVISynth scripts natively and Handbrake didn't. I don't know if that's changed.

[johnmeyer]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

Keep all bitching about MPEG-1 to the relevant thread. This is not it.

Between the repetition of this statement, and the obnoxious and totally irrelevant "straw man" graphics, it is quite obvious that you actually do not want any help achieving some goal. In fact, it appears that you do not want any help at all, since you have rejected virtually every bit of advice given in this thread (and in other recent threads as well).

You don't want to listen, so you'll never learn.

Since you don't want help, I'll be glad to oblige.

[filler56789]

Let's get back to the important part.

As you wish. I just pointed out that MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 encoders DO support mod-8 resolutions, period. But just like every good troll, you never know when to stop.

this part of the conversation is over.

I agree. Welcome to my IgnoreList (again).

[StainlessS]

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

because it accepted AVISynth scripts natively and Handbrake didn't. I don't know if that's changed.

Dont think it does (2+ years since I tried it).

Think it will even recreate DVD menus in MKV, was real impressive but cant remember exactly what it was that took my breath away.
EDIT: Not sure, think you may have to give Handbrake an ISO to be able to replicate DVD menus in MKV.

Was looking for a suitable smiley, but found this instead, luv it

[Katie Boundary]

Originally Posted by johnmeyer

Between the repetition of this statement, and the obnoxious and totally irrelevant "straw man" graphics, it is quite obvious that you actually do not want any help achieving some goal. In fact, it appears that you do not want any help at all

...it took you 3 pages to realize that this thread had nothing to do with asking for help with anything?

Wow.

[huhn]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

LOL. No. 1920x1080 is Youtube's hard upper limit at the moment, and most Youtube videos aren't even 1280x720.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMQ_rl7WiTA most of there videos are UHD.

and that's nothing special anymore...

Well, it's more a matter of versatility. Internet distribution is the ultimate fate of many, ahem, "backups"...

i see...

[Katie Boundary]

Originally Posted by huhn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMQ_rl7WiTA most of there videos are UHD.

Well, I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by huhn

and that's nothing special anymore...

Sorry but it most definitely is. I have folders on my external hard drive dedicated to the hundreds of vids that I've downloaded from youtube or other sites via Keepvid.com, Video DownloadHelper, etc., and I always grab the highest-resolution copy. 1080p is ultra-rare; slightly over half go as high as 720p.

Regardless, unless someone gives JMS a hundred million dollars to literally re-shoot all the live-action content in Babylon 5 and re-render all the CGI, Babylon 5 will never have more detail than it does at 480i. The same is true of Andromeda, Farscape, Birds of Prey, most of the Star Treks and Stargates, or literally any TV show that was produced after editing on tape became a thing but before about 2002. Ergo, there is absolutely no point in talking about the suitability of such high resolutions for the distribution of these shows over any medium.

EDIT: prepare your anuses, because I'm about to double the amount of butthurt in this thread. You want DVD-level resolution? You got it.





Even though I chose this frame specifically for the amount of fine detail in the blond character's hair, there's still no difference that can be seen there without actually flipping back and forth between the images in something like Windows Photo Viewer. The only place in the whole image where there IS a noticeable difference is on Garibaldi's left (your right) shoulder.

So, with almost no noticeable difference between AVIsynth's built-in Bob() filter and an actual proper field match, why should I believe that there's a huge difference between Bob() and more computationally intensive, easier-to-screw-up bob-deinterlacers like Yadif and NNEDI?

[Sharc]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

Even though I chose this frame specifically for the amount of fine detail in the blond character's hair, there's still no difference that can be seen there without actually flipping back and forth between the images in something like Windows Photo Viewer. The only place in the whole image where there IS a noticeable difference is on Garibaldi's left (your right) shoulder.

So, with almost no noticeable difference between AVIsynth's built-in Bob() filter and an actual proper field match, why should I believe that there's a huge difference between Bob() and more computationally intensive, easier-to-screw-up bob-deinterlacers like Yadif and NNEDI?

Visible differences also depend on the nature of the picture. You wrote that low bitrate encoding matters to you. Keep in mind that jaggies will eat up bits for encoding which could better be spent elsewhere.
But to each his own...

[huhn]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

So, with almost no noticeable difference between AVIsynth's built-in Bob() filter and an actual proper field match, why should I believe that there's a huge difference between Bob() and more computationally intensive, easier-to-screw-up bob-deinterlacers like Yadif and NNEDI?

source?

and this JPG is bob(): https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...50&oe=5801F91B

[feisty2]

Well just do whatever the phuck you want with your freaking vids, since no one really agrees with you apparently, and you won't take any idea from others, what's the actual point of keeping this you against everyone else thing going?
Your vids, your call, do anything you like to them and be happy with it, no one else gives a phucking crap.

[Sharc]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

Even though I chose this frame specifically for the amount of fine detail in the blond character's hair, there's still no difference that can be seen there without actually flipping back and forth between the images in something like Windows Photo Viewer. The only place in the whole image where there IS a noticeable difference is on Garibaldi's left (your right) shoulder.

If you are keen in spotting differences you may want to use a script like (again using your scripts of the first post):

a=tfm(pp=0).bilinearresize(512,288) #or the field matcher of your choice
b=bob(b=0,c=1).selecteven().bilinearresize(512,288) #bobber
return subtract(a,b).Levels(127, 1, 129, 0, 255)

When there are no differences, the picture is just grey.
You can also use the script to visualize the differences against the original (original resized to same resolution of course).

[wonkey_monkey]

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

Well, I stand corrected.

Get ready for a shock because you're about to be corrected again.

Originally Posted by Katie Boundary

Explain why nobody torrents anything at 640x360, but 624x352 is common.

It's extremely common...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=624x352+torrent&t=ffnt&ia=web

And that's not even a good search engine...

Google search results for "624x352 torrent": 367,000 results
Google search results for "640x360 torrent": 465,000 results

640x360 wins!

there's still no difference that can be seen

The only place in the whole image where there IS a noticeable difference is on Garibaldi's left (your right) shoulder.

Right, so you've contradicted yourself there, for a start. And the problem is also noticeable on her nose and in her hair.

Secondly, this is a still image. Bob's artefacts will be far more noticeable in motion because of all the shimmer. How about you post an animated, looping gif of just two frames, from a relativity still scene, using both tfm and bob, and see which is worse?

And what about those other images you (failed to) post? The bob artefacts were strikingly obvious in those, even at half resolution. So it looks like what you've done is cherry-picked an example where the artefacts aren't so bad (yet still very obvious in a particular place).