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 > Avisynth Usage

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 19th November 2012, 19:32   #1  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
Weird effect on interlaced 1080i HDTV AVC

The title resumes the case very well hehe. Here are the frames (already deinterlaced) as the letters go upper:

http://www.mediafire.com/?2lt3ez3hs5pdug5

Info:

It's a HDTV capture from Spain, Europe, so it is PAL.
Is a DVB-S broadcast.
Is a 1080i AVC with MBAFF interlacing.
The show is SNL, which is american, NTSC, so maybe something went wrong in a possibly convertion to pal in order to broadcast here.

That's all the facts I can think about now. No matter which deinterlace filter I appy, the same effect always prevail.

Maybe is just the way the credits are done, but I post here just to make sure.

Thanks!
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2012, 20:08   #2  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
Post a sample of the unprocessed source.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2012, 20:59   #3  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
Here: http://www.mediafire.com/?3g0oztj9pzi2c33
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 00:31   #4  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
It' strange. The scrolling credits exhibit field blending that does not appear on the video itself. I can't think of anything useful you can do to this.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 09:24   #5  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
Could be because of the NTSC - PAL thing? Can you explain it again slower? English is not my navite language hehe.
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 14:29   #6  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
When you use SeparateFields() and view the individual fields, then you see blends of multiple pictures but only for the credits, not the video behind them.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 14:31   #7  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
So is it just the way it's ogirinally printed? Or a defect of something?
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 14:36   #8  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
It's in the source material, yes. How it got that way is hard to say, but crappy standards conversions are legion.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 16:23   #9  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
OK. Two last questions, any deinterlacing recomendation? Is it worth to make a 1080p version of the source?
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 17:15   #10  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
As I said, I can't think of anything useful you can do to this.

Regarding your second question, it depends on what you consider worthwhile, i.e., what your goals are.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 17:41   #11  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
My goal is to keep the video for myself trying to get the best compression and the best quality as possible. What I was actually asking is that if it is worth, in general, to make a 1080p out of a 1080i, or if it is always a waste of time.

With the recommentaion, I meant to ask if there is any special deinterlacing filter for MBAFF HDTV AVC sources, if not, I will just use one of the usuals.
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 19:06   #12  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
Personally I would leave the original untouched and deinterlace in my player. But as they say, different strokes for different folks.

There is no special deinterlacing for MBAFF AVC. Use whatever pleases you.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2012, 19:15   #13  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
Thanks for all your help.
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 04:55   #14  |  Link
Mole
Registered User
 
Mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Thailand
Posts: 260
I would also keep it as interlaced.

You might as well let your player deinterlace it during playback. With time, processing power as well as deinterlacers will improve, so in a few years time there may even be a QTGMC like quality (or better) real time deinterlacers.

So why bother with processing it now when it may potentially improve with time.
Mole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2012, 13:17   #15  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
I know you guys have told me to keep the original interlaced file. And I probably will do that. But in the meantime, just for experimenting and gain knowledge, I'm trying to create an encode that will weight almost the same as the source (for example from a 2.5 GB ts make a 2.4 or 2.45 mkv). These are the results I am having, after investigate a lot and making at least about 20 different tests:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/160092

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/160093

My question is, is that all the quality I'm going to have? Can I improve the encode even more to leave it almost exactly like the source?

Thanks!
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2012, 13:25   #16  |  Link
Mole
Registered User
 
Mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Thailand
Posts: 260
Well, in order to give you any answers, you should at least tell what you did. What deinterlacer did you use, and did you deinterlace to 50p or 25p?

Also, the quality can only be as good as the source, so I don't really know what you expect with a question like "is that all the quality I'm going to have?"
Mole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2012, 13:41   #17  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
Doesn't matter the deinterlacer I used, I'm comparing the encode to the avs applied to the source, not the raw source. With the quality I mean, if you look to the encode, some parts are smoother than the original video. This is the avs:

DGsource("Video.dgi")
YADIFMod(edeint=nnEDI3())
crop(2,2,-2,0)
spline36resize(1920,1080)

And it is at 25.000 FPS.

Thanks.
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2012, 13:47   #18  |  Link
Mole
Registered User
 
Mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Thailand
Posts: 260
Oh, you're talking about ENCODING.
Well, information of the codec and setting would be very useful.
What codec did you use? x264? With what program? MeGUI? What encoding settings did you use?
If you used x264, then encoding settings like
"cabac=1 / ref=5 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x133 blah blah blah" would be really useful.

It is kind of difficult to give pointers without these infos man.

But in a nutshell, most of the time it's the bitrate which is responsible for drop of quality. If you want better quality, crank up the bitrate.

Also, unless there are some kind of limitations, I would recommend to deinterlace to 50p. If you deinterlace to 25p, you are basically throwing away half the data.

Also, if your goal is to keep it as a personal collection, there is really no point in deinterlacing it. Keeping it unaltered will of course always be better than a processed one since the source is the source.

The only reason people deinterlace is because they may be converting to some other type of medium/format which doesn't support interlaced video very well or at all, or they need to manipulate it or put effects on it.

Last edited by Mole; 25th November 2012 at 13:56.
Mole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2012, 16:01   #19  |  Link
eXtremeDevil
Registered User
 
eXtremeDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
You're right, I forgot some things. Sorry.

I'm using MeGUI, x264, x264_64.exe being specific (MeGUI auto-chooses that one). After a lot of modifications now these are the settings:

program --level 4.1 --preset veryslow --crf 18.5 --deblock -1:0 --keyint 25 --min-keyint 13 --ref 9 --psy-rd 1.0:0.15 --no-dct-decimate --no-fast-pskip --output "output" "input"

Although some of them doesn't show on the command line, I think. I'm using crf, I tryed with const. bitrate but the encoding time was twice the crf one, so it wasn't useful to me. On my latests tests I'm having a 8200~ bitrate and the original ts has 8500~ bitrate so I'm not going to use more than that to make the encode look the same as the source.

If you need additional info please let me know.
eXtremeDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2012, 16:28   #20  |  Link
Mole
Registered User
 
Mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Thailand
Posts: 260
This is strange. Different encoding modes shouldn't take any longer time, unless you chose 2-pass, which naturally will take about 1.5 times longer. (First pass doesn't take as long as 2nd pass)
What will take longer time are other settings such as -me and -subme.
Mole 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 04:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.