About static frames

[shon3i]

What about this frames

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7417/megui8wz.jpg

Did i use some filters for this

[berrinam]

Ok, let me explain. Source Detection uses a function called IsCombedTIVTC to determine for each frame wheter it is combed. It analyses this data in groups of 5 in order to pick up patterns: if there are 2 consecutive combed frames out of 5, then it is declared film; if there are no combed frames it is declared progressive, and everything else is declared interlaced.

However, even if you have a purely interlaced source, if there is no motion (which means it is static) in some frames, those frames are going to look progressive. So as not to be tricked by that, Source Detection also measures the motion from frame to frame, and if it is below a certain threshold, it is declared a static frame, from which nothing useful can be gleaned. Now, it becomes very hard to deal with a group of 5 frames in which some of them have no information, so any group of 5 frames with static frames is declared a partially static section, and simply ignored. The idea is that we are analysing enough of the video to make up for the fact that some sections are being ignored.

So, basically, there is nothing to worry about the fact that you have 98 partially static sections. It was the best name I could think of for the extensive description I gave above. If someone can think of a better one, that would be great.

I hope that clears it up.

Cheers,

berrinam

PS. For screenshots, it would be better to save as GIF or PNG so that you don't get that ringing on the text.

[shon3i]

@berrinam very good explanation, but sometimes this frames get very blockly in encodes. What's heppend if i have more this frames.

[berrinam]

I don't understand.

[shon3i]

What happend if i have more this static sections. I think that static frames looks very terible in encoding.Sorry about my speling did understand now.

[berrinam]

I think you misunderstand me:

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=static
static - Having no motion; being at rest; quiescent.

A (partially) static section is simply one which has some frames in which there is no motion on screen. Why does that look bad?

[shon3i]

I know what static means.

Why does that look bad?I don't so i ask you why, my teory is: becouse this frames have big grain and frames is not much different so need less bitrate and sometimes looks whrose, example wall's.

[berrinam]

So you are saying that frames with small amounts of motion look bad in encodes?

a) This has nothing to do with deinterlacing. Do you want to continue this conversation in the relevant forum (say, MPEG-4 AVC)
b) I haven't seen what you are talking about. Do you want to upload a sample somewhere?

[shon3i]

So you are saying that frames with small amounts of motion look bad in encodes?
Exactly, but not all static only single colored like i say walls especially red,green, gray, light yellow and black.

a) This has nothing to do with deinterlacing. Do you want to continue this conversation in the relevant forum (say, MPEG-4 AVC)
I am not start took abut interlace, progressive, combed and other frames i started for this static frames. I will continue about this problem but same problem is with XviD/DivX/x264 and other encoder, and i think is not encoder problem than avs.

b) I haven't seen what you are talking about. Do you want to upload a sample somewhere?Yes i post later when i finish encoding.

[Daodan]

Yes, shon3i, the problem you speak is true but as berrinam said it's because of the encoder. If you save as lossless you will not see that problem. This is one of the things I'm confronted with atm, unless you give a lot of bitrate you will get this problem. One solution is to add grain (in case you used some temporal smoother, the result will be a little better than using the original), unfortunately this produces other problems, like blocking in other areas since they will require more bitrate in those places. I don't have a solution to this problem yet.

[shon3i]

If you save as lossless you will not see that problem.Yes that true but i wanna put movie to 700mb.

One solution is to add grain (in case you used some temporal smoother, the result will be a little better than using the original)I tryed everything but movie is very noisy to add more grain can't help right. With denoisers things looks so whrose.

[foxyshadis]

You're basically saying you want a great looking encode at half the bitrate it would take to make it look great. Bad sources simply can't be turned into 1-cd encodes and still look good. So take your pick between moderate denoising and heavy blocking.

[shon3i]

You're basically saying you want a great looking encode at half the bitrate it would take to make it look great. Bad sources simply can't be turned into 1-cd encodes and still look good. So take your pick between moderate denoising and heavy blocking.
Exactly, but my source is DVD so what you sugest for denoising.

[Daodan]

Depends (not all DVD's are the same). Try removegrain, some temporal smoother (ttempsmooth for example). For a bit more noise degrainmedian. These are the ones I use, there are loads of others, try to see which one makes you happy. But for 700 mb you'll never get rid of the blocking if you also want to keep detail (also as i said for high bitrate the problem persists in small amounts).