|
|
Just used pixiedust on a tv capture for the first time yesterday - the results were outstanding. Never seen anything like this before. It not only seemed to smooth but retained all the detail and the image looked very sharp! The only downside - 11 hours to encode instead of 5 hours using Fluxsmooth and TemporalCleaner. Oh well ... if you want the best.
The only question i have though, is dust still being developed? In the notes it mentions about a faster version being available by April - will this ever happen. I hope so - this is one amazing filter?
Jim
p.s - is it possible to get the same results from pixie dust using Spacedust and another temporalsmoother like temporalceaner?
Steady hasn't posted anything about dust in awhile, but im sure he is still working on it. Probably making large changes / testing different algorithims and that's why it's taking a bit, but Im sure Steady is working hard either way . As for your second question, im not sure but I'd say probably not. Reason being is that when using 2 seperate filters, a spatial and a temporal, well.. the 2nd filter in the chain would filter already processed frames, and that's why hybrid filters are now becoming quite popular.
Originally posted by jamesp
The only question i have though, is dust still being developed? In the notes it mentions about a faster version being available by April - will this ever happen. I hope so - this is one amazing filter?
JimI am glad you found it useful. Dust is currently dissablemled and lying in pieces on the garage floor. Actually it is suffering from growing pains and undergoing a major rewrite. I am currently debugging a 1/8 pel bicubic subpixel interpolation routine. I am not going to try to guess when version 6 might be released. Rest assured I have many more ideas to try out so it will continue to be developed for quite a while. It is still in early development so I am more looking for testers/comments rather than encouraging mainstream use.
p.s - is it possible to get the same results from pixie dust using Spacedust and another temporalsmoother like temporalceaner?
No. Dust is fundamentally different. It actually tracks movement across the screen (much the same as an encoder does). All the other temporal averagers that I know of use a fixed position. This works well in still scenes, but where there is motion they cannot average properly. I wrote a fixed-position temporal smoother in 2001 and finally realized it would never work properly without motion tracking.
SpaceDust is actually a pre-filter that is the difference between FaeryDust and PixieDust. (PixieDust uses this as the reference frame). Since it was already 'there' and pretty fast, I thought I would make it available as a separate filter.
Steady
Originally posted by Steady
I am glad you found it useful. Dust is currently dissablemled and lying in pieces on the garage floor.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo
Actually it is suffering from growing pains and undergoing a major rewrite. I am currently debugging a 1/8 pel bicubic subpixel interpolation routine.
Ah goody Id be even more impressed if i had a clue what that meant!It is still in early development so I am more looking for testers/comments rather than encouraging mainstream use.
Count me in! I was going to give up on tv captures before trying this. My wife thought we were watching a dvdrip the results were so sharp. Anyway, i'm really happy things are still be developed and that the concept hasn't be abandoned. Cheers for the reply steady!
Jim
Originally posted by jamesp
I am currently debugging a 1/8 pel bicubic subpixel interpolation routine.
Ah goody Id be even more impressed if i had a clue what that meant!
Hopefully it will mean FaeryDust (and PixieDust) will produce sharper images, like the difference between BilinearResize and BicubicResize, only more so because it is averaging several frames together.
I was wondering, since you have alot of modes in your filter, that if you would like to try doing a wavelet denoiser w/ temporal influence too?
Should I be using Pixiedust on DVD to SVCD rips as well and forget about the rest?( Flux, C3D, Temporal...) or is this really for home movie conversions?
, they are saying people are getting good and fast results using a combination of SpaceDust and TemporalCleaner.
Jim
@Holomatrix
It's about testing and personal taste. I've seen very weird combinations and others may think the same of my choices but if it does what you expect then it's up to you to decide what to use.
edit: pixiedust is also my filter of choice for almost every source except for high guality anime like CG and then I use fluxsmooth .
Cheers
@Holomatrix
I wouldn't suggest using a combination of flux, dust, c3d, etc....
A. Very slow speed B. detail loss C. Possibly other artifacts.
Those 3 filters are basically a main filter you would use in conjunction with something like warpsharp, etc...
I'll also volunteer myself to testing the new version whenever it comes out. I do a lot of TV captures and have been using numerous filters in my quest for Better Encodes(tm). FaeryDust works wonders but it's been too slow on my machine for anything over an hour so I've used SpaceDust with slight temporal smoothing by FluxSmooth. If I had an extra room in my apartment, I could leave the computer running 24/7 so the speed wouldn't be a problem.
For any 30..60-minute episodes FaeryDust is simply the sliced bread of analog TV capture and encode. Keep up the good work, Steady
Ok, thanks, I'll have to do some tests |
|
Post at 2011-4-15 14:53
| This Author's Posts Only
