Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Capturing and Editing Video > DV

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 29th February 2008, 18:51   #21  |  Link
scharfis_brain
brainless
 
scharfis_brain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,605
provide by evidence that DV shows non-ITU-compliant PAR!

take several DV-cams and record a sphere (maybe a globe)
then measure its width and height in pixels.

btw.: look at the DVB broadcasts today they are full of mixed content:all 720 pixels MPEG width. and mixed with 9+702+9 and full 720 pixels width active contents.
I doubt that the full 720 active pixels images are recorded by DV-equipment!
__________________
Don't forget the 'c'!

Don't PM me for technical support, please.
scharfis_brain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2008, 22:29   #22  |  Link
SixdeeBee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Luxemburg
Posts: 16
The attachment contents 3 images, based on a 1024 x 576 pixel testcard with PAR=1.0

* BT_601

It shows an anamorphic testcard, 8 + 704 active pixels + 8 pixels, it shows on a studio-monitor an exact round circle.

* Cropped_DV

The same testcard, 720 active rows, cropped on both sides and filled up with borders. Therefore it is a 8 + 704 + 8 image, too.
Borders are green to show the difference > green minus black < in the difference image. This testfile shows a geoid on a studio-monitor.

* Differenz (= difference)

Shows a nonanamorphic difference image Cropped_DV minus BT_601.

The pictures have been grabbed with a player, sources are AVI, 50 fps, progressive.

This is a simulation to show the principle. It is valid for all PC-internal 16:9-productions e.g. with

1. Bryce (landscape animations)
2. Fraps screen captures
3. Celestia space animations
4. Blender 16:9 productions
5. etc.


@scharfis_brain
provide by evidence that DV shows ITU-compliant PAR! ... please ...
Quote:
..look at the DVB broadcasts today they are full of mixed content...
I agree, there is much scrap on DVB stations today but it is their decision and not all stations must follow the low-quality-way ...


SixdeeBee
Attached Images
   
SixdeeBee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2008, 01:15   #23  |  Link
JohnnyMalaria
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 602
According to the official DV specification (IEC 61834-2):

Quote:
The sampling structure is the same as a sampling structure of 4:2:2 component television signals which is described in ITU-R Recommendation BT601-5. Sampling structures of luminance (Y) and two colour difference signals (CR, CB) are shown in table 20.
Attached Images
 
JohnnyMalaria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2008, 12:46   #24  |  Link
facialz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by scharfis_brain View Post
take several DV-cams and record a sphere (maybe a globe) then measure its width and height in pixels.
I don't think a sphere is absolutely necessary. Any rectangle test picture showing a circle or square would suffice. We only have to verify that the image of the test picture is a rectangle before going to measure the contained circle or square.
facialz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2008, 14:06   #25  |  Link
SixdeeBee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Luxemburg
Posts: 16
@JohnnyMalaria
Thank you for the hint.
Yes, I agree. The sample structure must be the same (or at least in the specs) to show DV on a TV-monitor. But there is already the tiny little difference between 702 active rows and 720 active rows.
Because BT-601 allows 720 rows, one can use the additional 18 rows in principle as you like but in any system which only accept 702 active rows problems are programmed.

But nevertheless: Unprocessed DV-clips show a geometric error.

@facialz

I agree. Therefore I recommend to use what I called "pseudo-BT". The images in the attachment in my last post show exactly what we get ... but e.g. on a 45" plasma screen the little error is visible even without having a reference.

@scharfis_brain

Could you please show us where you use PAR=1,4545 in this environment:

Source: 720 x 576 pixels DV

PAR-coefficient to show circles round on the editor preview-screen (PC)
PAR-coefficient to show circles round on the editing screen (PC)
PAR-coefficient to show circles round using BT-601-export.

Theese three cases are the standard in a video-editing-environment. Therefore this should be interesting.

SixdeeBee
SixdeeBee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2008, 14:20   #26  |  Link
scharfis_brain
brainless
 
scharfis_brain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,605
I need to get a DV-Cam to my hands first, so I can make test.
I currently have no suitable footage here...
__________________
Don't forget the 'c'!

Don't PM me for technical support, please.
scharfis_brain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2008, 21:54   #27  |  Link
JohnnyMalaria
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixdeeBee View Post
but DV unfortunately is not 100% ITU-BT-601 (rev. 5) compliant.
Yes it is.

It is software DV codecs that do not implement the DV specification properly.

A compliant encoder would take your earlier 1024 x 576 test card, resize to the correct 702 x 576 and then add the vertical black bars to create a 720 x 576 image.

Non-compliant (i.e., most) DV encoders blindly resize to 720 x 576.

Hence, you need to do all the resizing gymnastics that you describe. You are correct to state as such. But it isn't because DV isn't 601 compliant.

All my DV equipment (I have quite a bit) encodes S-video with the padding.

All my DV camcorders record images across the full 720 pixel width. i.e., more picture information is contained in the image. The camcorders could blank the edges but that would be unnecessary. The effective 1:1 PAR size of a full widescreen image recorded by the camcorder is slightly wider than 1024 x 576.

Given that a company like Sony is one of the major players in broadcast television production equipment, it is highly unlikely that they would get it wrong.
__________________
John Miller
Enosoft DV Processor - Free for personal use
JohnnyMalaria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2008, 16:46   #28  |  Link
SixdeeBee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Luxemburg
Posts: 16
I add an another image. It shows a sample of the difference between a 704 x 576 pixel BT and a 720 x 576 DV which has been cropped to 704 and got 16 black rows.
The yellow grid is BT, the white is DV.

In the middle of the active screen the difference is zero, the geometric error symmetrical adds up to both sides.

@JohnnyMalaria

Quote:
It is software DV codecs that do not implement the DV specification properly.
Sorry, I don't agree. A "pure" DV-codec should not process a source to another format but keep the original

For a conversion DV to BT one needs a DV to BT codec.

Quote:
A compliant encoder would take your earlier 1024 x 576 test card, resize to the correct 702 x 576 and then add the vertical black bars to create a 720 x 576 image.
Yes, I agree ... and one does not need a DV codec in such an environment, PAR = 1,45..

Quote:
Hence, you need to do all the resizing gymnastics ...
Hey ... gymnastics is healthy ...

Quote:
All my DV camcorders record images across the full 720 pixel width. i.e., more picture information is contained in the image.
This is exactly the question: Does a DV-camera show more horizontal information or does it show the same horizontal information as a professional camera does ?
Comparing DV-camcorders with portable-TV-studio cameras from Panasonic (the WV-E5xx and WV-E6xx production line) showed, that all DV-camcorders, we got for testing, spread the visible width therefore those camcorders did not offer more horizontal information.

Quote:
Given that a company like Sony is one of the major players in broadcast television production equipment, it is highly unlikely that they would get it wrong.
DV has not been intended to be for broadcast use ! Sony themselves spoke of it as a "semi-professional" system.
And their system is not > wrong < ... it seems to be slightly different.


SixdeeBee
SixdeeBee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2008, 14:16   #29  |  Link
2Bdecided
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,673
SixdeeBee,

At first I though you were coming here with new information.

However, I think all your posts are simply based on your own misunderstanding.

Most importantly, you didn't understand the significance of what JohnnyMalaria attached in post 23. It states the Y sampling frequency is 13.5MHz. This means is that 52us = 702 pixels (52us * 13.5MHz = 702).

Now, unless you believe that the DV format isn't designed to display correctly on any analogue TV, this proves that the centre 702 pixels in DV are the same as the centre 702 pixels in every other 13.5MHz based digital video system: they are the active line that defines the aspect ratio. The extra pixels, like in every other 13.5MHz based digital video systems, are just that: extra pixels.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SixdeeBee View Post
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/p...rds_london.pdf

Quote:
Active picture width is 52Ás/702 pixels. All aspect ratio calculations are based on this. Any process based on 720 pixels width may introduce unwanted geometry or save area errors.
Quote:
... It cannot be guaranteed that picture information in these samples will be displayed in either 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio images
Hey ... do you need a comment ??

... Well, it is a fact that something which cannot be guaranteed is not specified by a specification.
You don't seem to understand how this works! The analogue active line fills 702 pixels. 720 pixels are sampled to ensure the entire line is captured, even if the start and ends points are shifted somewhat (as they can be whilst remaining within the tolerance of an analogue PAL video signal). In digital systems, the entire 720 pixels are often filled with correct active picture, the extra 9 pixels each side being extra picture outside of the area defining the aspect ratio. Given that some studios still use analogue processing, and most consumers still use analogue connections, there is no guarantee that these extra pixels will be displayed, even if overscan is disabled.

Quote:
Well, there are this nonspeculation facts (again):

1. BT-601 compliant system use 52Ás and not 53,33Ás.
BT601 uses 13.5MHz sampling of an analogue video signal, filling 702 pixels with 52us active line. However, we sample 720 pixels, given 53.33us captured. Most older cameras will have black in this area. Some newer sources will include content in this area.

Quote:
2. DV is 720 pixels based and even if one crops it to 702 pixels, the geometry of the left overs are based on the "spread" horizontal dimension of DV. Therefore the geometric distortion stays.
DV is based on BT601. You have not proven that the extra pixels in DV are any different from the extra pixels in anything else 601 related. You keep claiming that they are, but you haven't posted any proof.


Quote:
Deinterlacing using bobbing does not loose any information. Of course one can take the deinterlacer he/she trusts.
Because deinterlacing was not the main theme of the post, I used bobbing as an example ... sorry if it was the wrong way for you ...
Yet again, you didn't understand. Firstly, bobbing can lose information if the wrong bobber is used (see the AVIsynth docs for coefficients to avoid this) - however, the point was that bobbing BFF content, and then grabbing the appropriate lines to deliver TFF content will grab only interpolated lines - all the original information is lost!



None of this is to say that DV camcorders definitively use 702, 704, 720 or anything else as the actual aspect ratio defining width. I am sure there are examples of equipment (hardware and software) that claims full BT.601 compliance that gets it completely wrong. DV camcorders may consistently get it "wrong" too.

We don't know, and apart from claiming "Comparing DV-camcorders with portable-TV-studio cameras from Panasonic (the WV-E5xx and WV-E6xx production line) showed, that all DV-camcorders, we got for testing, spread the visible width therefore those camcorders did not offer more horizontal information" you have not addressed this point. Given the technical inaccuracies that fill your posts, I can't rely on you simply claiming that something is true. I would like to see evidence.


I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but while what you say about the actual performance of DV camcorders may be true, most of the technical arguments you make are simply wrong.

Cheers,
David.
2Bdecided is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2008, 05:45   #30  |  Link
facialz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17
I attached relevant data from BT.601 for comparison.

Quote:
The specification (see Table 2) applies to the 4:2:2member of the family, to be used for the standard digital interface between main digital studio equipment and for international programme exchange of 4:3 aspect ratio digital television or wide-screen 16:9 aspect ratio digital television when it is necessary to keep the same analogue signal bandwidth and digital rates.

Table 2



Verification that data are consistent:
PAL : 864 * 625 * 50/2 = 13 500 000
NTSC: 858 * 525 * 60/2*1000/1001 = 13 500 000
facialz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2008, 20:20   #31  |  Link
2Bdecided
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,673
Did we scare him/her off?

I was hoping for some nice pictures of circles - though taking a perfect picture of something flat without introducing geometric distortion is harder than you would think.

Cheers,
David.
2Bdecided is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2008, 20:34   #32  |  Link
facialz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17
Such test may need some time. Even a studio may not get a new camera for testing every day. Especially when it's about an example of wrong design from Sony.
facialz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2008, 14:48   #33  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life looks better in HD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 11,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bdecided View Post
Did we scare him/her off?

I was hoping for some nice pictures of circles - though taking a perfect picture of something flat without introducing geometric distortion is harder than you would think.
I hope not. I really enjoy these kinds of debates!

Besides I was going to ask SixdeeBee if he could do me a favour.
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2009, 04:21   #34  |  Link
WorBry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedocida View Post
This (checkbox for setting the 16/9 flag in the DV encoded output) is allready implemented, but not released.
Any prospect of an update to build 0.2.0 incorporating this feature?
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be

Last edited by WorBry; 23rd February 2009 at 04:33.
WorBry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2010, 08:59   #35  |  Link
tartak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13
Cedocida mod: aspect ratio setting

One way to set the 16:9 flag in cedocida's output is to do a search and replace in any hex editor - search for all 613FC8FCFF and replace with 613FCAFCFF.

Adding the aspect ratio setting to the code is simple too. Since this feature has been asked for more than once, in a few forums I frequent, I thought I'd post my mod. The only new feature - selection of the aspect ratio, 4:3 or 16:9. Hope it might be useful to someone. cedocida is really the top dv codec around.
Attached Files
File Type: zip cedocida0201.zip (67.7 KB, 32 views)
File Type: zip cedocida_0.2.0.1_source.zip (124.8 KB, 3 views)

Last edited by tartak; 15th May 2010 at 03:12. Reason: wrong inf file in source package
tartak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2010, 09:17   #36  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life looks better in HD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 11,171
Nice one... And welcome to the forum
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2010, 15:22   #37  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,924
I have updated the version hosted at my web site.

Thank you for the contribution.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2010, 16:35   #38  |  Link
Midzuki
Unavailable
 
Midzuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offline
Posts: 1,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by tartak View Post
One way to set the 16:9 flag in cedocida's output is to do a search and replace in any hex editor - search for all 613FC8FCFF and replace with 613FCAFCFF.

Adding the aspect ratio setting to the code is simple too. Since this feature has been asked for more than once, in a few forums I frequent, I thought I'd post my mod. The only new feature - selection of the aspect ratio, 4:3 or 16:9. Hope it might be useful to someone. cedocida is really the top dv codec around.


Midzuki is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2010, 20:19   #39  |  Link
tartak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuron2 View Post
I have updated the version hosted at my web site.

Thank you for the contribution.
Thanks!

I noticed you deleted the ini file. But there was a simple reason I included it and changed the cedocida.inf script to copy the ini to the windows directory. The new ini is incompatible with the old, so if you install over the existing cedocida installation, the codec will read a wrong configuration instead of the default one.
tartak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2010, 20:39   #40  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,924
OK, I will fix that and link the source as well this evening.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.