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. |
13th January 2017, 14:05 | #21 | Link |
Anime addict
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 673
|
Code:
DGDecode_mpeg2source("C:\Users\Isra\Desktop\212 - Ouroboros.demuxed.d2v", info=3) ColorMatrix(hints=true, threads=0, interlaced=true) assumebff() animeivtc(mode=2)#mode=3 works fine too.
__________________
Intel i7-6700K + Noctua NH-D15 + Z170A XPower G. Titanium + Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 2x8GB + Radeon RX580 8GB DDR5 + ADATA SX8200 Pro 1 TB + Antec EDG750 80 Plus Gold Mod + Corsair 780T Graphite |
13th January 2017, 14:09 | #22 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 366
|
I told you there is something wrong with the Gargoyles credits. The sun jumps back a bit as the background moves, but it's not something a filter can fix. The sun is at one position before the background shifts, then it moves a little further forward, then the background shifts and the sun moves back to it's previous position.
The fact is those moments in time are incompatible. That little bit of forward movement before the background shifts can't exist in any sane timestream, since the sun exists in it's previous position AFTER the background has moved, it CAN'T exist in the next position BEFORE it moves. Or are you referring to something else in the credits? |
13th January 2017, 19:34 | #23 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,821
|
Quote:
Or TFM().TDecimate will make the CGI stuff progressive at 23.976fps, but with or without TDecimate(), if the "video" is 29.970fps progressive that'll make motion jittery. It's hard to tell from the sample as there's no background movement, so TFM() only has to field match the CGI. If there was lots of background movement I doubt it'd be fixable that way. The closest compromise you'll probably get is QTGMC as it won't do much damage to progressive video, but you'll still need SelectEven() to delete the frames where the CGI moves in the wrong direction. I can't see converting that to 59.940fps short of QTGMC().SelectEven(),ChangeFPS(60000,1001), or adding motion interpolated frames, but that'd probably be pointless. Last edited by hello_hello; 13th January 2017 at 21:29. |
|
13th January 2017, 20:18 | #24 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,685
|
It sure is helpful to have a clip to look at.
First of all, I doubt very much this is simply a "rip" of the original material. If you put the clip into a simple script containing only "separatefields()", you find all sorts of retrograde field behavior (i.e., where the movement stutters backwards and forwards) no matter whether you add an AssumeTFF() or AssumeBFF() before the separatefields statement. Also, at the very beginning of the clip, the figure in the center of the screen has totally different luma/chroma values for one field than in the other field, and this persists for several frames. Thus, I must conclude that this clip has already undergone some sort of processing prior to being uploaded and that this processing has significantly altered the clip. The field matching solutions offered in the parallel (redundant?) thread started by the OP at about the same time as this thread seem to sort out the field order issues, so all you need to do is figure out the correct decimate logic. Last edited by johnmeyer; 13th January 2017 at 20:19. Reason: added "as this thread" |
13th January 2017, 21:14 | #25 | Link | |
Formerly davidh*****
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,492
|
Quote:
But then I see the two shot changes - the first one is BFF and the second is TFF. So who the hell knows. A longer clip with more action would have been useful. If this is the only problem bit I'd say it's just shoddy work at the studio. Last edited by wonkey_monkey; 13th January 2017 at 21:36. |
|
13th January 2017, 21:16 | #26 | Link | ||||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,047
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm talking about everything, but especially the TITLE CARD: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And no, the threads aren't redundant or even related. One thread is about fields being encoded into the video stream in an incorrect order. The other is about double-rate field-matching.
__________________
I ask unusual questions but always give proper thanks to those who give correct and useful answers. Last edited by Katie Boundary; 13th January 2017 at 21:19. |
||||||
14th January 2017, 00:21 | #28 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,997
|
Quote:
Frame 0 to 13: Interlaced, BFF Frame 14 to 146: progressive film with 3:2 pulldown (+ video overlay with messy field sequence) Frame 147 to 149: Progressive, TFF Frame 150 to 153: Interlaced, TFF Frame 154 to 155 (end): progressive film with 3:2 pulldown (probably, sequence too short) |
|
14th January 2017, 04:33 | #30 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 366
|
Being deliberately vague at what the hell you're talking about then throwing tantrums when people don't automatically get it really doesn't help progress the thread along.
Other than that they've switched to 60i in order to produce a flickering effect on the logo and the sun is animated wrong, what exactly do you think is wrong it the credits? What are we supposed to be fixing? |
14th January 2017, 05:07 | #31 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 366
|
According to dgindex the flags in Gargoyles 1x2 and 2x1 are all fine.
I even loaded the d2v files into TFM, if there was any problems with the flags TFM would have created a "-Fixed" d2v file. Are we complaining about the animation? The bad frames with the sun should probably be removed, and unless you want 60p output or VFR video you should probably convert both the sun and the logo to 24p anyway. It you don't want to do that then that's your call, but encoding a 20 minute file as 60p just for the sake of a few seconds of minor effects seems overkill, and VFR can be problematic for some players. Of course I have no idea what kind of output you want so there's no point in continuing until you explain what's going on. |
14th January 2017, 05:33 | #32 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,047
|
Quote:
I wasn't vague at all. I was EXTREMELY specific. It's not my fault if you and John are illiterate. Those two things should be enough, but if you want a third example, the fades are also done incorrectly.
__________________
I ask unusual questions but always give proper thanks to those who give correct and useful answers. |
|
14th January 2017, 06:02 | #33 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 366
|
And you didn't answer what you expect us to do about it.
We all come across this kind of crap on pretty much a daily basis, and we don't feel the need to blurt it all over the forum. As far as I can tell, the top fields and bottom fields of the 60i sections were animated in separate streams, and as you can tell from the sun in the beginning the result actually makes no sense whatsoever. There's nothing you or anyone else can do about that unless you plan on reanimating the frames. Other than that, video special effects plastered over telecined film elements is actually so common as to be meaningless as far as this forum is concerned. If it's so obvious where this thread is supposed to be going, maybe someone other than Katie can explain it to me, since all she's capable of doing is claiming how obvious it is? |
14th January 2017, 10:06 | #34 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,997
|
Speculating that she wants a smooth playback at 23.976 fps progressive, one could try as follows:
1. Remove the pulldown flags from the stream 2. then deinterlace 1. Pulldown flags can be removed with the DGPulldown tool. Select the custom framerate option, and select source and destination equal to 23.976 2. deinterlace e.g. with QTGMC(preset="fast").selecteven() It should give a progressive 23.976 stream. |
14th January 2017, 10:27 | #36 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 366
|
Quote:
The fields orders are 100% correct and it DOES NOT look fine using separate fields. It's an animation error, pure and simple. The only way to deal with it is to remove the illogical frames and deal with the rest to your own personal taste (and there's no right way of choosing that). It's not something that needs to be discussed, other than as a curiosity or an FYI. |
|
14th January 2017, 11:14 | #37 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 366
|
Here:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/4dv0788q0v0a7u4/Wolf.m2v Weird random crap from a DVD if anyone wants to ogle. Last edited by ndjamena; 14th January 2017 at 11:36. |
14th January 2017, 14:31 | #38 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,821
|
Quote:
A new thread was created to mark the commencement of the post Bob Tuesday reality, which I remember fondly, as after being insulted for days for trying to explain NTSC is an 59.94i interlaced format, I discovered in the newly created timeline that didn't happen and I'd really been denying 59.94i NTSC existed. Within days of Bob Tuesday and the end of the previous "separate fields" reality, where 60fps and VFR video weren't very useful, Katie thought of an idea for 60fps & VBR encoding, an attempt was made to re-invent Bob, and orphaned fields became a protected species in an attempt to deter the use of automated, more intelligent tools, especially de-interlacers. Last edited by hello_hello; 14th January 2017 at 21:17. |
|
16th January 2017, 11:11 | #39 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,047
|
Quote:
Quote:
Did you forget to add Doubleweave? I bet you forgot to add Doubleweave.
__________________
I ask unusual questions but always give proper thanks to those who give correct and useful answers. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|