(XviD) Statsreader

Well, after some experiences, i came to the conclusion that koepi's settings and using his new tool for external 2nd pass, gives us lower absolute quantizers. But using milan's simulation mode and choosing alt cc. parameters from there, but still using koepi's external 2ns pass tool, i can achieve higher number of frames with lower quntizers. I didn't thought that the alt cc parameters still had influence in the encode, but they do. I will explain: ##### koepi's settings:------------- milan simulation alt cc. quant2 -- 92 ------------------------- 79 quant3 -- 36 ------------------------- 71 quant4 -- 112 ------------------------ 319 quant5 -- 365 ------------------------ 540 quant6 -- 595 ------------------------ 742 quant7 -- 873 ------------------------ 577 quant8 -- 795 ------------------------ 450 quant9 -- 383 ------------------------ 248 quant10 -- 212 ----------------------- 231 quant11 -- 81 ------------------------ 125 quant12 -- 25 ------------------------ 68 quant13 -- 1 ------------------------- 40 quant14 -- 0 ------------------------- 33 quant15 -- 0 ------------------------- 14 quant16 -- 0 ------------------------- 10 quant17 -- 0 ------------------------- 8 quant18 -- 0 ------------------------- 8 quant19 -- 0 ------------------------- 3 quant20 -- 0 ------------------------- 2 Now, all of you will say that using milan's simulation, i got much higher quantizers. True, but look at the number of 4, 5 and 6 quantizers i got. Using both koepi's 2nd pass external tool and milan simulation, i got much higher values for those quantizers. The quantizers from 13 to 20 are there, but in low numbers. Probably one doesn't notice them. So, i believe is a personal choice. If you want a safe encode, one that doesn't use high quantizers, then use koepi's settings. If you want to be brave :D, and take some chances, use koepi's tool with simulation mode to get the alt cc parameters. You probably can get access to much higher numbers of frames using lower quantizers, in spite of having also some frames that will use higher quantizers. As always, critics are welcome.

I assure you, the high quantizers will be visible. I thought so too first, but I came to the conclusion that even on frames with "few" information the high quantization is visible. This is especially true because that information is used to show the next picture... But thanks for the test! :) regards, Koepi

Ok, i have to correct some data that i posted in my earlier post. In the test using koepi's tool and milan simulator, i had enabled i-frame boost. Now i remade the test without i-frame boost, and the results are: ##### koepi's settings:------------- milan simulation alt cc. quant2 -- 92 ------------------------- 95 quant3 -- 36 ------------------------- 57 quant4 -- 112 ------------------------ 327 quant5 -- 365 ------------------------ 528 quant6 -- 595 ------------------------ 650 quant7 -- 873 ------------------------ 583 quant8 -- 795 ------------------------ 539 quant9 -- 383 ------------------------ 271 quant10 -- 212 ----------------------- 231 quant11 -- 81 ------------------------ 122 quant12 -- 25 ------------------------ 72 quant13 -- 1 ------------------------- 33 quant14 -- 0 ------------------------- 33 quant15 -- 0 ------------------------- 18 quant16 -- 0 ------------------------- 6 quant17 -- 0 ------------------------- 2 quant18 -- 0 ------------------------- 3 quant19 -- 0 ------------------------- 0 quant20 -- 0 ------------------------- 0 It uses a little lower quantizers, but still there are some high quantizers. According to the expert (none other than our Koepi :D), these can mean trouble.

About quantization modes: lately i am only using MPEG, even on dificult movies. I prefer the extra detail, and don't mind the little increase in blocks. For smooth videos, i would go to divx5 ;)

Hi- I also came out a bit oversized (aimed for 1301MB and got 1304MB-nothing important) on a movie with no end credits. But perhaps it's also due to having used Modulated Quant for the 2nd pass. I didn't know about switching Quant type adding size either. Assuming that the Modified Stats File is created as a straight percentage of the frame sizes of the original first pass Stats File, with no Motion or Luma Correction applied (unlike theWEF's DivX 3.11 version), then this is just what I've been waiting for. Thanks a lot Koepi.

ALL PEOPLE, FULL STOP _NOW_! :) Just talked to foxer again and we came up with some issues. Seems like we're getting closer to our target ;) Ok, this is what is most important: DON'T use MV hints. Second: DON'T use alt CC. OR set it like this: altCC of mrq100 or str0. Third: IF you don't use altCC, SET "old" CC low/high to 0 (!!!) I prefer "payback proportionally". Set the payback delay to something like 10-12 times your framrate (thus 10-12 seconds payback delay). I'm redoing the matrix _again_ now with second pass h263 quant. All my problems with stacked up overflow are gone (shame on you, MV hints! why do you have to produce an error which has to be compensated? ;) ) Well, ok, at least that's the reason for _slightly_ worse quality, the mv hints stuff. This is a known issue, but with our games we play here it becomes severe - the effect isn't that bad when doing just straight-forward encodings. The scene based keyframe overflow treatment is active anyways, so you get the most linear curve possible this way for now. Ok, if you're not "stuffed up" already, please change your test settings ;) Thanks again for all your help, best regards, Koepi EDITED: to reflect that altCC can achieve that, too. the important point is NOT to use MV hints.