|
| To: | xvid-devel@xxxxxxxx |
| Subject: | Re: [XviD-devel] Adaptive quantisation |
| From: | Dirk Knop <dknop@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 04 Aug 2002 18:12:20 +0200 |
| References: | <3D4D38CA.6090302@gwdg.de> <001701c23bcf$89166310$1702a8c0@michipc> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020731 |
new lumi masking algorithm?? I didn't even know that!Hm, I thought I read about this here on this list. But I can't verify this since the archive was built starting with the new website design.
Don't be angry, they were doing this with best intentions, I'm sure about that......ok, I just did some research and have to admit that I'm a bit angry now: uManiac seems to have overwritten my luminance masking code even while stating that the new code is "unoptimized". There are such nice things like "#ifdefs" to add experimental new code! Why does noone ask before overwriting code?
Nonetheless I've tested this new code and it seems total bogus:That's the problem why the people keep bugging me over at doom9... :)
my dogma test-clip, fixed quant 4:
25.442.304 Bytes, without lumi-masking 25.403.392 Bytes, with lumi-masking
I could do a "test build" with an edit box which edits this threshold. Let's see first if people can cope with it, I think it's too hard for them to get that right and if they fail, not to blame the codec. (Like in the new doom9-comparison, I could just give him some hints how to setup the codec correctly, but he failed. Since I don't have those DVDs I can't deliver optimized values [well, I lent the matrix now to see if those scenes aren't tweakable. I'm confident XviD can cope better with that.]. Too bad that he didn't mention that the "new" curve treatment improves the overall quality of an xvid-encode by a noticable amount.)Therefore I'll simply switch back to my "old" code. About the user adjustable values: There are pretty much values that are important and it's maybe no good idea to let the user adjust all of them. I'd suggest to allow the user to adjust how "aggressive" luminance masking should work (maybe a nice slider) and that we'll include this option in the upcoming API 3.0.
btw: thanks koepi for letting me know at all, elsewise I would have neverHm... you're welcome. I'm looking forward to redo the Matrix with this new old code :)
noticed that the code had been changed...
Best regards, Koepi
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |