HQ or not?

by mUnduS • 28 Dec 2007, 12:52 • Journals
hi all!

im testing some cfg's any codecs....so would be nice if some1 watch his short clip and response with a serious comment belong to the quality!

rapidshare mirror :/

THX! =)
Comments
53
▼
NobAdI 28 Dec 2007, 12:53
downloading
▼
mUnduS 28 Dec 2007, 12:53
:) thx
Parent
▼
NobAdI 28 Dec 2007, 13:02
not bad but perhaps 1680*1050 pixels its HD then and much nicer for my 22" :) cfg looks fine
Parent
▼
im a tree 28 Dec 2007, 22:50
1680x1050 is not only 16:10, but even at 16:9, 1680x945 it is still a "random" resolution

1280x720 or 1920x1080 are HD standards
Parent
▼
Quazz 28 Dec 2007, 13:01
Looks a lot like my movie cfg :o
▼
adze 28 Dec 2007, 13:02
Well: If it's ur first clip then i'd say it's nice.

But:
cl_avidemo 200/300
Set to max the AA+AF
+add some color

Thats what i can say
▼
mUnduS 28 Dec 2007, 13:05
i converted the tga with pjBmp2Avi

my very first try was cl_avidemo 200 > frame rate at pjBmp2Avi also 200 but the clip was sooo slow?!

i took 50 atm :/ ... but now works for real time (hope u know what i mean)
Parent
▼
ag0n 28 Dec 2007, 13:08
bullshit. Nowadays record with 200/300 at ET without any change is like newbish? plz.. there is WRAP that can help you alot and get better results.
Parent
▼
hannes-` 28 Dec 2007, 13:22
u got to learn sooo much really. Before blaming other ppl pls learn the basics. Why is it so called bullshit to NOT use Warp and all those other tga tools?

Non of the uv movies ever used those kinda tools and yet they have been enjoyed by a huge part of the community. Now do the maths little boy :)

And if you are smart, dont try to piss me with haah zaigon sucks, the community knows better
Parent
▼
ag0n 28 Dec 2007, 13:28
i wont say zaigon or any uv movies sucked, because in fact they dotn sucks, but seriously, new tools (wrap and a new private one for now) are way better, smooth motion blur etc. There is no sense in take more time recording a thing that is uglier. If you compare a good wrap movie with zaigon, the motion blur is better on wrap one (in my opinion.. ofc its personal).
And you cant compare movies like this :P numbers says nothing. Zaigon is a movie with synch/edit etc.. isnt a "motion blur only" movie :P

http://www.beta-gaming.de/et/ag0n/Test%20clips/tj_radar.mp4 -> ex of a smooth motion blur (the 1st 16s) using 125 fps @ record only ;)


ps: Check maverick frag @Gr cp and check the motion blur. Compare then with a wrap / wtv movie :P
Parent
▼
hannes-` 28 Dec 2007, 13:30
do not post things that arent true, thats all! Really u know nothing about the techniques, but you use tool to gain better motion blur (which idd is personal). Really all im asking is:

do not tell the "newcomers" its newbish to NOT use tools like warp or anything equal. Thx
Parent
▼
ag0n 28 Dec 2007, 13:35
just get into the facts. Its way smoother to watch a wrap movie and its faster @recording :P.

ps: my clip didnt use wrap.
Parent
▼
hannes-` 28 Dec 2007, 13:43
ahm how can a personal opinion be a fact? Anyways maybe you can just get the fact! that it wont help newcomers to blame and laugh at them haha its newbish to do this use the uber tools ...

have a nice day
Parent
▼
Bitmap 28 Dec 2007, 14:32
It's not "warp". :)

Quoteit wont help newcomers to blame and laugh at them haha its newbish


Isn't that how this mature community works? It's a lot easier to call someone stupid than to write something helpful. :P
Parent
▼
hannes-` 28 Dec 2007, 14:38
not sure if it was sarcasm or not, but if not i def agree.

PS: never wanted to flame "wrap" :) just pointing out that "use this and that tool" wont help newcomers

EDIT: i finally realised i always tiped that tool wrong -.- wrap!!!
Parent
▼
Bitmap 28 Dec 2007, 15:04
It's a word joke on the phrase It's a wrap and the fact that it's a OpenGL wrapper, so it has nothing to do with warping. :)

And the "mature" part was sarcastic, this community is too much flame and too little love. <3
Parent
▼
Kito 28 Dec 2007, 15:19
any good wrapmovie? ::: D
Most-HatedHD?
Parent
▼
ag0n 28 Dec 2007, 15:23
is that a bad movie? :P wrap isnt that old
Parent
▼
im a tree 28 Dec 2007, 16:35
No motion blur is better than motion blur.
Parent
▼
ag0n 28 Dec 2007, 16:46
nah. Motion blur gives a smoother effect to eyes :P download the clip i post somewhere in the post. Its in the midle! motion blur is not in excess and is not disabled :P
Parent
▼
im a tree 28 Dec 2007, 17:03
I did, I still think without blur is better, it's just hard to encode.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1388470

Pez did it best, as always.

QuoteFact is that i wanted a clean and sharp image quality when i started this movie. So this meant no use of motion blur, then come the smoothness problem so that's why it's 40fps.
I've zoned as much as i could to gain bitrate on every parts and reduce the overall filesize. As in concern x264 after many tries and differents settings (and also sharing ideas with others moviemakers), the result was just giving me too much blurry big blocks which was not acceptable to me unless going into insane bitrate that not many pcs would be able to play.
Parent
▼
ag0n 28 Dec 2007, 17:10
dont agree at all :P @pez. Nowadays the filesize is not important since lots of ppl have unlimited downloads. I sugest you to watch a etclip without any blur. Looks rly ugly :<.
And yes, blur makes the encode harder, but its not a problem at all. Good settings can easly solve this.
Parent
▼
im a tree 28 Dec 2007, 17:13
No, blur is the easy way out, which is why I'll use it if I can't be bothered doing a real encode.

And thats the point, filesize doesnt matter, so why use motion blur? blur REDUCES filesize, which isn't needed anymore
Parent
▼
Bitmap 28 Dec 2007, 22:43
What Pez said is that high FPS without blur is better than low FPS with blur, and that's true to a certain point.

Higher FPS improves smoothness without sacrificing sharpness, and with high enough FPS it looks just like what we're used to seeing when we play (no motion blur). Not everyone can play 50 FPS HD movies though, and I think you'd find that file size still matters if it suddenly doubled.

Low FPS movies is a whole different matter, they look jerky without motion blur, and using some motion blur is a reasonable compromise between smoothness and sharpness. A lot of movies have way too much blur though, especially in 1st person view clips (smooth scripted cams can have a bit more motion blur imho).
Parent
▼
im a tree 28 Dec 2007, 22:48
I'm on an Athlon 3000+ and I can play 1280x720 x264 back perfectly, up to bitrates of over 10000.

People just have no idea how to properly setup codecs, like some people are still using ffdshow to decode x264/h264, no wonder it's laggy :D
Parent
▼
crook 28 Dec 2007, 13:29
thats a matter of taste anyways, i hate too much blur
Parent
▼
adze 28 Dec 2007, 13:31
oki mister. anyway u suck with ur all quality tests...
Parent
▼
ag0n 28 Dec 2007, 13:39
thx. Lots of ppl agre with you :XDDDDDDDd
Parent
▼
Quazz 28 Dec 2007, 13:22
Well , that would be impossible on my gear :)

The recording of a 10 sec frag scene at 250 FPS would take around 2 h

I dont have AA or AF

And Im not using AAE :D

But imo his scene looks a lot like mine (quality)

Im rendering 5:30 min now and I will convert it with megui too see the result
Parent
▼
Bitmap 28 Dec 2007, 14:39
This tool saves some time when recording with high FPS:
http://www.bitmap.se/itsawrap.html

Read what it does before deciding whether to use it or not. :)

There's also a lot of helpful stuff in the Tutorials section.
Parent
▼
Quazz 28 Dec 2007, 16:32
I already used it in the past and I decided not to use it :)
Parent
▼
Bitmap 28 Dec 2007, 19:29
Can I ask why?
Parent
▼
Quazz 28 Dec 2007, 20:31
I dont like motion blur
Parent
▼
HellKn1ght 28 Dec 2007, 13:05
Quality was quite good, but it could be better. Wouldn't call it high quality.
▼
mUnduS 28 Dec 2007, 13:06
thats why my title is: "hq or not?"
Parent
▼
HellKn1ght 28 Dec 2007, 13:08
Some time ago a guy posted a short clip recorded on railgun. Damn, that was high quality. Unfortunately I can't find the link anymore :(
Parent
▼
mUnduS 28 Dec 2007, 13:10
too bad .... would be a comparison
Parent
▼
smokey151 28 Dec 2007, 13:28
that was a sample of hannes his tutorial quality i think, maybe i still have it
Parent
▼
xfRd 28 Dec 2007, 14:14
was ag0n afaik.
Parent
▼
ag0n 28 Dec 2007, 17:10
it was me maybe :D

check bitmap.se comment
Parent
▼
lagg3r 28 Dec 2007, 13:19
cool frag :D
▼
smokey151 28 Dec 2007, 13:27
dlling

edit: higher resolution might be better i think
▼
Quazz 28 Dec 2007, 13:34
Why ?

Im using 1280x720 aswell :<
Parent
▼
im a tree 28 Dec 2007, 16:25
1920x1080 or GTFO!!11
Parent
Back to top