PDA

View Full Version : How best to eliminate interlacing/combing effects?


godus
21st October 2003, 02:29
I try full backup an NTSC DVD-5 before adding a new subtitle, using DoItFast4U, ReAuthorist, Decomb, CCE 2.67.11, Scenarist, and the method in http://www.doom9.org/mpg/ra-guide.htm.

The resultant movie shows very pronounced combing effect. After encoding it, using MediaPlayer to play the .MPV file of the main movie, I already see the combing effect.

Look into the .AVS file, I see this line

ConvertToYUY2(interlaced=true)

When I change 'true' to 'false' and encode it again, the combing effect disappears, but the result is a few hundred MBs bigger and could not fit on a DVD-5 any more!

I redo the backup, clicking on the button "DeInterlace" in DoItFast4U. The result size is back to where it was, can fit on a DVD-5. The combing effect is not as bad as before, but is still apparent and annoying.

What could I do to completely eliminate the combing effect, yet keep the resultant DVD size roughly equal to the original DVD (about 4.01 GBs)? Right now, even with the combing, my DVD size already hits 4.3G. With 4.37G as the max size on a DVD-5, I don't have enough room to add another subtitle.

By the way, I wonder how the studio people could create the original DVD with high quality and relatively small total file size. Do they use better tools than CCE and Scenarist?

Please help. Any ideas are very much appreciated. Thanks.

Matthew
21st October 2003, 03:12
A subtitle stream is only a few megs, if the original is a DVD5 you should be able to extract the streams using vobedit and then reauthor. Should't need to re-encode, and you shouldn't need to use the big 3. Unless I've misunderstood your post.

Studio DVDs are authored using Scenarist, but for encoding I believe they always use hardware. Obviously that option isn't open to us mere mortals (after purchasing Scenarist we have no money left for a hardware encoder :D) so we use the best software encoder, which is CCE.

godus
21st October 2003, 04:00
Thanks, Matthew,

True, I don't need to use the big guns and reencode a DVD5. This is my attempt trying to practice the guns in order to prepare for more complex things to come. I have a bigger home movie that I like to repackage into a DVD5 by chopping off parts and reencoding. The problem is, how could we do that without suffering the combing effects?

HyperYagami
21st October 2003, 04:09
Originally posted by godus
I wonder how the studio people could create the original DVD with high quality and relatively small total file size.

for example?

godus
21st October 2003, 04:26
HyperYagami,

The movie I practice on is "King Of Masks". The size of the original DVD is about 4G while I still couldn't get a clean reencoded (i.e. without the combing effects) DVD with size less than 4.3G.

HyperYagami
21st October 2003, 04:31
Originally posted by godus
HyperYagami,

The movie I practice on is "King Of Masks". The size of the original DVD is about 4G while I still couldn't get a clean reencoded (i.e. without the combing effects) DVD with size less than 4.3G.

it has nothing to do with "quality". the original is interlaced and you're trying to deinterlace it and the deinterlace filter is destroying the material. just leave it as interlaced and encode it interlaced, and the general rule of thumb is don't deinterlaced since dvd mpeg2 supports interlaced material anyway (unlike vcd or divx).

hendrix
21st October 2003, 07:36
and you wont see the combing effect on tv anyways.

Eyes`Only
21st October 2003, 08:16
If you wanted to deinterlace, you should have just used the 'autodetect ntsc' feature. I don't think there would have been problems, especially using the new scripts in 1.3.3...

influenza
21st October 2003, 09:24
and you wont see the combing effect on tv anyways.

I would like to add that this applies to NTSC. If I don not deinterlace PAL material the combing effect is quite apparent on my TV ;)

Eyes`Only
21st October 2003, 09:39
/me ducks and covers to prepare for the backlash against influenza

influenza
21st October 2003, 09:43
/me thinks eyes 'only is already enjoying that

Well It's just my opinion. I just don't get good results id I encode interlaced material as being interlaced. So if anybody can clear that up for me I would be pleased. Could use that extra CCE speed when not having to deinterlace ofcourse :D

hendrix
21st October 2003, 11:15
Originally posted by influenza
I would like to add that this applies to NTSC. If I don not deinterlace PAL material the combing effect is quite apparent on my TV ;)

hmm..you learn something new everyday :D

influenza
21st October 2003, 11:17
Please correct me if I'm wrong ofcourse. I just don't get nice results by leaving interlaced material, interlaced :confused:

Kedirekin
21st October 2003, 14:34
I think it's a compromise.

Interlaced material isn't as compressible as non-interlaced material. If you don't deinterlace it, you retain the original structure of the image, but it might have more compression artifacts (especially mosquito noise). If you do deinterlace it, you might get fewer compression artifacts, but you introduce deinterlace artifacts.

When you're working with something that is truly interlaced (something recorded with TV cameras, like a talk show or sporting event), you have to choose the approach that irritates you least.

godus
21st October 2003, 19:35
HyperYagami, Eyes`Only, ...

Yes, in the first attempt, I didn't try to deinterlace it. Yes, at first, when running DoItFast4U I only used 'Autodetect NTSC' and didn't select the DeInterlace button. Yet I got the annoying interlaced result.

Possibly the same case as Influenza wrote,'I just don't get nice results by leaving interlaced material interlaced'.

The original movie, also interlaced, doesn't show the combing effect at all, while the backup copy, if left interlaced, shows it badly. What gives? :confused:

Thank you all who cares to comment.

Eyes`Only
21st October 2003, 19:50
I'm assuming this wasn't with 1.3.3. The new AVS scripts in 1.3.3 *should* have processed this movie correctly if Autodetect was left on.

godus
21st October 2003, 20:12
I used the 'stable' version 1.3.0. I'll get 1.3.3 and try it today. I'll report the result within a few days. Thanks.

influenza
21st October 2003, 20:16
The betas like 1.3.3 are pretty stable I can assure you ;)

godus
22nd October 2003, 23:59
I try 1.3.3. It works fine. Thank you all.