Lansing raises an interesting point, which is... [Archive]

manono

14th June 2016, 08:46

I never said anything about a television...

Television, computer monitor, same thing, 60 Hz.

If you really want to learn how to encode for VFR, then have at it. There are several ways. The TIVTC - Common Usage Examples.txt shows some ways:

5.) NTSC Hybrid, using vfr via mkv (not anime or cartoon). One pass.

mpeg2source("c:\oursource.d2v")
tfm(d2v="c:\oursource.d2v")
tdecimate(mode=3,hybrid=2,vfrDec=0,mkvOut="mkv-timecodesfile.txt")

6.) NTSC Hybrid, using vfr via mkv, anime or cartoon source. One pass.

mpeg2source("c:\oursource.d2v")
tfm(d2v="c:\oursource.d2v")
tdecimate(mode=3,hybrid=2,vfrDec=1,mkvOut="mkv-timecodesfile.txt")

7.) NTSC, two pass (enables use of conCycleTP parameter) mkv vfr for hybrid source.

First pass:

mpeg2source("c:\oursource.d2v")
tfm(d2v="c:\oursource.d2v",output="matches.txt")
tdecimate(mode=4,output="metrics.txt")

Second pass (not anime or cartoon):

mpeg2source("c:\oursource.d2v")
tfm(d2v="c:\oursource.d2v",input="matches.txt")
tdecimate(mode=5,hybrid=2,vfrDec=0,input="metrics.txt",tfmIn="matches.txt",mkvOut="mkv-timecodesfile.txt")

Second pass (anime or cartoon):

mpeg2source("c:\oursource.d2v")
tfm(d2v="c:\oursource.d2v",input="matches.txt")
tdecimate(mode=5,hybrid=2,vfrDec=1,input="metrics.txt",tfmIn="matches.txt",mkvOut="mkv-timecodesfile.txt")

I'm sure others can make other suggestions.

Katie Boundary

14th June 2016, 15:35

Whoa. I had always assumed that, because AVI files don't properly support VFR, AVIsynth wouldn't either. This looks like a very promising path. Should I assume that the d2v files are generated with "Ignore pulldown flags"?

filler56789

14th June 2016, 16:38

Whoa. I had always assumed that, because AVI files don't properly support VFR, AVIsynth wouldn't either.

That's what you get for NOT reading the documentation...

Katie Boundary

14th June 2016, 16:54

I read the documentation... just not all of it:D

manono

14th June 2016, 20:09

Should I assume that the d2v files are generated with "Ignore pulldown flags"?
As I mentioned before, I have no use for VFR encoding. So, I'm guessing here but an educated guess says 'no'. Make it using 'Honor Pulldown Flags'. Maybe if someone knows for sure (or you experiment trying both ways), he/she can chime in.

StainlessS

14th June 2016, 20:26

Not sure but I think tfm() can be used with Ignore Pulldown flags, works its magic by reading the d2v file.

Either way, the only difference between Ignore and Honor are that the Honor mode sets "Field_Operation=0",
and Ignore mode "Field_Operation=2" '[EDIT: in the d2v.file], rest of file binary identical.

EDIT: start of honor.d2v

DGIndexProjectFile16
1
D:\NTSC_Top_FORCEFILM-ReturnOfTheKing_NTSC_FORCEFILM.VOB

Stream_Type=1
MPEG_Type=2
iDCT_Algorithm=6
YUVRGB_Scale=1
Luminance_Filter=0,0
Clipping=0,0,0,0
Aspect_Ratio=16:9
Picture_Size=720x480
Field_Operation=0
Frame_Rate=29970 (30000/1001)
Location=0,0,0,28000

EDIT: And end of d2v

FINISHED 100.00% FILM

manono

14th June 2016, 23:07

You may be right that in this case it doesn't make a difference. It makes a big difference under ordinary usage since using 'Ignore Pulldown Flags' is a recipe for out-of-synch audio unless the D2V shows 100.00% FILM or 100.00% VIDEO.

I was just trying to be cautious.

Katie Boundary

14th June 2016, 23:32

100.00% FILM or 100.00% VIDEO.

100.00% video actually shows up as just "NTSC". Things are only labeled "video" if the film content is 0.01-50% of the total.

</autism>

EDIT: after looking at those TFM scripts more closely, I don't think they'd achieve what I'm thinking of. For one thing, I don't see any bob-deinterlacing for the NTSC segments.

StainlessS

15th June 2016, 03:13

100.00% video actually shows up as just "NTSC". Things are only labeled "video" if the film content is 0.01-50% of the total.

Actually that may be true for the GUI window but not for d2v file.

From DGIndex:gui.cpp

if (D2V_Flag)
{
// Revised by Donald Graft to support IBBPIBBP...
WriteD2VLine(1);
fprintf(D2VFile, "\nFINISHED");
// Prevent divide by 0.
if (FILM_Purity+VIDEO_Purity == 0) VIDEO_Purity = 1;
film_percent = (FILM_Purity*100.0)/(FILM_Purity+VIDEO_Purity);
if (film_percent >= 50.0)
fprintf(D2VFile, " %.2f%% FILM\n", film_percent);
else
fprintf(D2VFile, " %.2f%% VIDEO\n", 100.0 - film_percent);
}

Shows 'FILM' or 'VIDEO' depends which is greater.

manono

15th June 2016, 03:19

From the bottom of a D2V:

900 5 3 670205952 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2
900 5 3 670523392 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2
900 5 3 670836736 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2
900 5 3 671152128 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2
900 5 3 671469568 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 ff

FINISHED 100.00% VIDEO

EDIT: after looking at those TFM scripts more closely, I don't think they'd achieve what I'm thinking of. For one thing, I don't see any bob-deinterlacing for the NTSC segments.

Here's more information about how to create VFR encodes:

http://avisynth.nl/index.php/VFR

Katie Boundary

15th June 2016, 03:46

Actually that may be true for the GUI window

That's what I was talking about

From the bottom of a D2V:

900 5 3 670205952 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2
900 5 3 670523392 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2
900 5 3 670836736 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2
900 5 3 671152128 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2
900 5 3 671469568 0 1 20 32 32 92 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 b2 b2 a2 ff

FINISHED 100.00% VIDEO

Yeah, I was talking about what DGIndex itself shows you...

Here's more information about how to create VFR encodes:

http://avisynth.nl/index.php/VFR

THX, will investigate.

Ghitulescu

15th June 2016, 09:36

The easiest solution is just to bob the whole thing to 60p. I'll assume you're not reencoding for another DVD.

No, God forbid.

It's about VCD. :) :) :)

hello_hello

15th June 2016, 15:00

I'm strongly tempted to just strip those suggestions out so that people who don't understand English won't get confused and start completely irrelevant arguments.

Good idea, especially until you understand why the things you were arguing about aren't irrelevant.
Once the suggested "treatment" is removed, the whole thread can go, given you're probably the only person on the planet not using an appropriate tool for the job, such as TIVTC. Well.... you're testing it now, but only a few days ago it was bloated and it's processing was evil and UnComb was the ONLY tool.

If it wasn't so ironic, it'd be quite funny. Could I ask, has the English language changed since you argued about using TIVCT, or could it be the problem wasn't other people don't understand English, but rather it was your refusal to listen? At which point did you spot TIVTC's transformation to relevance? I'm curious, because not so long ago mentioning TIVTC was starting an "irrelevant" argument, until.... and hopefully my English is plain enough for you to understand.... until you were finally dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation it's not irrelevant after-all.

I'm mostly interested in a theoretical understanding and the option to screw around with new toys, and other forum members might have their own practical purposes for which VFR is a superior option. But thanks for thinking that these forums are all about me.

Wow.... the thanks manono gets for trying to help, bundled with the usual Katie attitude where gratitude should be. Maybe it's your inability to understand plain English again.

hello_hello

15th June 2016, 15:05

In case Katie is currently in ostrich mode again, could someone suggest (or has anyone suggested) she try Handbrake/Vidcoder in VFR mode?
That's the sort of thing it's designed for and it'd be much harder for Katie to change TIVTC settings and mess things up. There's not really anything to configure for Handbrake, aside from selecting the frame rate and frame rate mode. Although thinking about it, Handbrake doesn't have an mpeg1 encoder.....

In my limited testing, because Handbrake only de-interlaces the frames where combing is detected, it has a tendency to miss fine combing in just a small area of a frame, and if the video is interlaced, because Handbrake switches between no de-interlacing, blend deinterlcing and Yadif (depending on the combing detected), sometime there's a noticeable quality difference between frames if you look very closely (if for example, frame A wasn't de-interlaced because no combing was detected, and frame B was de-interlaced because there was). I'm not sure if Yadif de-interlaces a frame when no combing is detected, but I'm certain I've seen a quality difference between frames when de-interlacing with Handbrake and I'm pretty sure the de-interlacing caused it.

If Handbrake does leave residual combing behind now and then, which compared to Katie's current method would still be a massive improvement, the decomb filter might be tweak-able via it's "custom" setting in the GUI, but I'm not sure if that's a true story or what options are available. I'd research it myself, but I don't want to risk giving Katie the impression I think the forums are all about her, or however she thinks that works...

johnmeyer

16th June 2016, 05:11

I was not aware that DVDs supported variable frame rate. However, perhaps this term is being used in this thread in a unique way. Every definition I've ever seen of VFR is that it is video that can be any arbitrary frame rate at any moment in time. Streaming video is usually VFR.

A DVD is locked into a frame rate. For NTSC, it is either 29.97 or 23.976. You can add pulldown in order to accommodate material that was shot at some other frame rate, like 16mm amateur silent film, for example. Even when mixed with true 29.97 video, the DVD is still delivering only one frame rate.

So, the basic premise for this thread is based on a poor description of the problem. If what you are instead trying to do is deal with DVDs which have different forms of telecine, there are lots of solutions to that problem, and I suggest searching this forum for the answers.

hello_hello

16th June 2016, 08:51

I tend to think of NTSC DVDs as being a combination of different constant frame rates rather than being variable.

TIVTC has been mentioned for creating a VFR encode. I've never used it for that myself so I don't know exactly how it works, but my basic understanding of the way the Handbrake/Vidcoder decomb filter is that it can output something more closely resembling VFR, because it always drops any frames it detects as duplicates. You can force a constant frame rate output, but the decomb filter still works the same way. It drops any duplicated frames, so Handbrake then duplicates them again..... as required if a constant frame rate output is specified.

Handbrake's decomb filter has a Bob setting, which I think means it'll IVTC where required and de-interlace the interlaced parts to 60fps, dropping any duplicate frames along the way, and that may very well be the simplest method way to handle hybrid sources, or at least the most Katie proof method. I'm not 100% it works exactly that way but it seems logical and it's how I remember it. I don't use Handbrake myself though.

Katie Boundary

16th June 2016, 20:36

I was not aware that DVDs supported variable frame rate. However, perhaps this term is being used in this thread in a unique way. Every definition I've ever seen of VFR is that it is video that can be any arbitrary frame rate at any moment in time.

I've always interpreted it as "anything that isn't a constant frame rate". If a DVD switches haphazardly between 23.976 and 29.97 fps, I'd call that "not a constant frame rate" and therefore under the umbrella of "variable frame rate"

EDIT: the wiki agrees with my interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_frame_rate

manono

16th June 2016, 22:06

If a DVD switches haphazardly between 23.976 and 29.97 fps, I'd call that "not a constant frame rate"...
But it doesn't and it isn't. Every NTSC DVD ever made plays at a constant 59.94 fields per second. If you have a progressive scan DVD player and a progressive display, then the output is 'intercepted' and output at 59.94 frames per second.

What you might call the 'base' framerate (your 23.976fps and 29.97fps) within that 59.94 fields per second can be about anything and is padded out to 59.94 by repeating fields/frames (or by field blending).

Katie Boundary

17th June 2016, 05:00

Every NTSC DVD ever made plays at a constant 59.94 fields per second.

Field rate has nothing to do with frame rate, which is what we're discussing. Also, what it "plays" at is irrelevant when we're ripping and converting.

If you have a progressive scan DVD player and a progressive display, then the output is 'intercepted' and output at 59.94 frames per second.

That doesn't change the fact that film DVDs are encoded at 23.976 progressive frames per second.

Also, players and displays are completely irrelevant to a discussion about ripping and converting.

What you might call the 'base' framerate (your 23.976fps and 29.97fps) within that 59.94 fields per second can be about anything

Wrong. Last time I checked, DVD specs only permit 23.976 fps, 25 fps, and 29.97 fps.

You can fake lower or intermediate frame rates by just re-encoding the same frame over and over, or by rapidly switching between these three frame rates, but that doesn't change the actual frame rates.

poisondeathray

17th June 2016, 05:26

Field rate has nothing to do with frame rate, which is what we're discussing. Also, what it "plays" at is irrelevant when we're ripping and converting.

Wrong. Field rate has everything to do with frame rate if you want to discuss VFR, various pulldown patterns and cadences. Not all DVD's come "nicely" in perfect cadences. You can have bizarre patterns, and crazy stuff that some studios do for their releases

Wrong. Last time I checked, DVD specs only permit 29.976 fps, 25 fps, and 29.97 fps.

Wrong. (well 25.0 is ok for PAL DVD), but 29.976 is illegal , and 29.97 is an approximation. The actual NTSC frame rate is 30000/1001

You can fake lower or intermediate frame rates by just re-encoding the same frame over and over, or by rapidly switching between these three frame rates, but that doesn't change the actual frame rates.

Wrong. You need to talk about fields because of the repeat field flags (RFF) for DVD's . For example, that's what soft telecine uses. It's repeat FIELD flag, not repeat frame flag. For hard telecine / interlaced encoding it's the various arrangements of fields that you need to understand in order to get the underlying content frame rate

The bottom line for VFR discussion is content frame rate, that is what is really important. You need to distinguish between content frame rate, and how it's organized as fields for DVD. "Fields" wouldn't even be part of the discussion if it weren't for "DVD" - it would be a non issue. That's what manono was getting at (at least for NTSC DVD), the only reason everything is "packaged" into 60000/1001 fields per second is to make it compliant for NTSC DVD standards. You can have different underlying content frame rates, but various repeat FIELD combinations and cadences are used to fit them into that 60000/1001 fields/sec standard. And that's what VFR does - you want to get rid of all the repeat fields to recover the original content frame rate, so the various sections run at their native FRAME rate that they would have run at if not for DVD (and the 2nd common reason it's used is really bandwidth related - so you don't have to physically encode repeated frames. For example, some animations might have a base rate of only 12 or even 6 FPS in some sections which consist of encoded repeated fields on DVD. Timecodes are used to control the display time per frame so you encode fewer frames)

manono

17th June 2016, 06:22

Field rate has nothing to do with frame rate, which is what we're discussing.
Now you're just being silly in a failed attempt to prove your point. Okay, you don't like 59.94 fields per second? Another way of putting it is that all NTSC DVDs output interlaced 29.97fps (or 30000/1001 in pdr's more precise notation). But NTSC DVDs do really output a constant 59.94 fields per second. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's not a difference of opinion. It's a fact.
That doesn't change the fact that film DVDs are encoded at 29.376 progressive frames per second.
Well, most are, and they then have 3:2 pulldown applied to output 59.94 fields per second. But many films were made at different frame rates other than 24fps. Maybe you're not too familiar with silent films which may have been intended to play at framerates between 15 and 46 frames per second and which can be put on DVD in a number of ways. You can actually have 19.98fps stored on a DVD with 3:3 pulldown applied to output 59.94 fields per second. I know, I've done it. All perfectly legal. Animations are drawn and then put onto DVD at all kinds of framerates - 8fps, 12fps, 16fps, 24fps, 30 fps both progressive or interlaced. All are legal and this obsession of yours that anything not progressive 23.976fps with 3:2 pulldown is some sort of an abomination is ludicrous.

Wrong. Last time I checked, DVD specs only permit 29.976 fps, 25 fps, and 29.97 fps.

What? Maybe check again. Anyway, if, as you say, only 29.97fps is permitted for NTSC, isn't that a constant framerate?

You can fake lower or intermediate frame rates by just re-encoding the same frame over and over

By following that line of reasoning, for a progressive 23.976fps film, to get it to 29.97 every fifth frame should be a repeat of the one before. Which will make for a much more jerky-playing mess than what is really done - the application of 3:2 pulldown. So what is repeated is fields which is done in an attempt to smooth out the playback. It's explained in the article to which I'm about to link.

Have you ever come across this? It's worth reading four or five times until you understand it:

http://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

The middle part about the chipsets is less interesting, but the final section about what can go wrong with DVDs might be right up your alley, so-to-speak.

Katie Boundary

18th June 2016, 01:12

Oops, I made a typo. I'll go fix it before continuing further.

Katie Boundary

18th June 2016, 02:29

Wrong. Field rate has everything to do with frame rate if you want to discuss VFR, various pulldown patterns and cadences. Not all DVD's come "nicely" in perfect cadences. You can have bizarre patterns, and crazy stuff that some studios do for their releases

When you explain how field rate is in any way relevant to the definition of variable FRAME rate, and the fact that VOB files are often encoded in a way that qualifies as VFR, then you can continue with this insane gibberish.

Wrong. (well 25.0 is ok for PAL DVD), but 29.976 is illegal , and 29.97 is an approximation. The actual NTSC frame rate is 30000/1001

The typo has been fixed (I DID say 23.976 in a previous post, so you should have been able to recognize the typo as a typo and not a sincere belief that anything was encoded at 29.976 or 29.376... but whatever). Now address the actual point, please.

Wrong. You need to talk about fields because of the repeat field flags (RFF) for DVD's . For example, that's what soft telecine uses. It's repeat FIELD flag, not repeat frame flag.

So you admit that soft telecine does exist, and is encoded at 23.976 fps with flags. That's great. Do you ALSO acknowledge that this kind of content can exist interspersed with hard NTSC as part of the same video stream on a DVD?

For hard telecine / interlaced encoding it's the various arrangements of fields that you need to understand in order to get the underlying content frame rate

The frame rate of hard telecined content, or any kind of hard NTSC, is ALWAYS 29.97 fps. End of story, end of discussion. Even if it's the exact same frame repeated 29.97 times per second, that's still 29.97 frames per second; even if it's 59.94 distinguishable images per second, each of which contributes only a single field to the resulting stream, it's still 29.97 ugly combed frames per second.

The question is whether or not a DVD can contain a video file that switches between hard NTSC and soft telecine, and whether or not this counts as VFR.

The bottom line for VFR discussion is content frame rate, that is what is really important.

YES!

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

You need to distinguish between content frame rate, and how it's organized as fields for DVD.

Not for this particular chain of discussion.

You can have different underlying content frame rates, but various repeat FIELD combinations and cadences are used to fit them into that 60000/1001 fields/sec standard. And that's what VFR does - you want to get rid of all the repeat fields to recover the original content frame rate

Your syntax here is confusing. When you say "that's what VFR does", does the word "that" refer to the preceding sentence or the following one? Both are wrong but for different reasons. Both are also irrelevant to this particular branch of discussion.

Now you're just being silly in a failed attempt to prove your point. Okay, you don't like 59.94 fields per second? Another way of putting it is that all NTSC DVDs output interlaced 29.97fps (or 30000/1001 in pdr's more precise notation). But NTSC DVDs do really output a constant 59.94 fields per second.

What they output when hooked up to a DVD player and a TV set is NOT RELEVANT HERE. We're discussing how the discs are ENCODED.

Well, most are, and they then have 3:2 pulldown applied to output 59.94 fields per second. But many films were made at different frame rates other than 24fps. Maybe you're not too familiar with silent films which may have been intended to play at framerates between 15 and 46 frames per second and which can be put on DVD in a number of ways.

Irrelevant...

You can actually have 19.98fps stored on a DVD with 3:3 pulldown applied to output 59.94 fields per second.

What the...

(consults Internet)

...well, I did find evidence to support the idea that official DVD specifications only care about the final display rate, and are less picky about exactly how this is achieved. So, you are correct. However, this is all still irrelevant to whether or not DVDs can support VFR.

this obsession of yours that anything not progressive 23.976fps with 3:2 pulldown is some sort of an abomination is ludicrous.

WTF?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/0e/0e26f4bf405225765f825ca28fac53759ff53a84a776a8572ee14fc50991d534.jpg

if, as you say, only 29.97fps is permitted for NTSC, isn't that a constant framerate?

I never said anything about what is or isn't permitted for NTSC. Congratulations on victory over the strawman you have constructed! Nobody is impressed.

By following that line of reasoning, for a progressive 23.976fps film, to get it to 29.97 every fifth frame should be a repeat of the one before. Which will make for a much more jerky-playing mess than what is really done - the application of 3:2 pulldown. So what is repeated is fields which is done in an attempt to smooth out the playback. It's explained in the article to which I'm about to link.

It doesn't really matter whether you're duplicating every fifth field or every fifth frame. The result is visually indistinguishable on playback. And that STILL has nothing to do with whether or not DVDs can support VFR!

Have you ever come across this? It's worth reading four or five times until you understand it:

http://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

I'll read it when I get the time

poisondeathray

18th June 2016, 03:55

When you explain how field rate is in any way relevant to the definition of variable FRAME rate, and the fact that VOB files are often encoded in a way that qualifies as VFR, then you can continue with this insane gibberish.

You're correct, sorry for the confusion - it's poorly worded - but it's the the field pattern which is important. The field rate will always be double the encoded the frame rate - but that is irrelvant to the discussion. What you really want is the actual content frame rate. You're just "undoing" what was done to make the original compliant with DVD. That's all. That's your the whole topic in a nutshell. All this other garbage you're spewing is extraneous

The typo has been fixed (I DID say 23.976 in a previous post, so you should have been able to recognize the typo as a typo and not a sincere belief that anything was encoded at 29.976 or 29.376... but whatever). Now address the actual point, please.

What point?

So you admit that soft telecine does exist, and is encoded at 23.976 fps with flags. That's great. Do you ALSO acknowledge that this kind of content can exist interspersed with hard NTSC as part of the same video stream on a DVD?

Yes it can, but not on the same title

The frame rate of hard telecined content, or any kind of hard NTSC, is ALWAYS 29.97 fps. End of story, end of discussion. Even if it's the exact same frame repeated 29.97 times per second, that's still 29.97 frames per second; even if it's 59.94 distinguishable images per second, each of which contributes only a single field to the resulting stream, it's still 29.97 ugly combed frames per second.

Yes. Absolutely right. But the content is what matters. If you had the same frame repeated for (let' s just say 29.97 times in 1 seconds for simplicity sake, the effective framerate is 1). So the VFR decimated encode would only use 1 frame instead . But, if it was an interlaced video section, that 29.97 frames per second section would actually have 59.94 different pictures per second. That effective frame rate is 59.94

The question is whether or not a DVD can contain a video file that switches between hard NTSC and soft telecine, and whether or not this counts as VFR.

It can, but not on the same title. Hard is more "flexible" and can hold more variety of patterns. So far you only seem to be concerned with 23.976, 29.97, 59.94 (or those approximations), and those are the most common but there can be others

Your syntax here is confusing. When you say "that's what VFR does", does the word "that" refer to the preceding sentence or the following one? Both are wrong but for different reasons. Both are also irrelevant to this particular branch of discussion.

It means that's what creating VFR videos based on timecodes and decimation does. ie. your original topic. When you make a VFR encode , you're just trying to "undo" the field patterns to make it compatible with DVD. It doesn't matter if it's hard or soft, those are "red herrings" . The bottom line is you want to get back the original content

There are different types of VFR; again - the one you should be concerned about is the actual content frame rate.

poisondeathray

18th June 2016, 04:08

...well, I did find evidence to support the idea that official DVD specifications only care about the final display rate, and are less picky about exactly how this is achieved. So, you are correct. However, this is all still irrelevant to whether or not DVDs can support VFR.

There are different types of "VFR". Maybe that's what is confusing you.

DVD's do not support varying timecode VFR. Ie. the type where you decimate and control display time per frame with timecodes

DVD's do support the type of VFR that has different underlying content framerate packed in 59.94 fields/sec to make it compatible with DVD standards. This is done through pulldown (either hard or soft) in various cadences. You want to "remove the pulldown" or basically undo it to get back the original. You have examples of this in your various sci fi DVD titles. The encoded frame rate of NTSC DVD is always CFR 30000/1001, and the field rate of NTSC DVD is always 60000/1001. But that says nothing of what the actual content frame rate is. Hope that makes it more clear

manono

18th June 2016, 05:35

It doesn't really matter whether you're duplicating every fifth field or every fifth frame. The result is visually indistinguishable on playback.
Nonsense. That's what 3:2 pulldown is all about - an attempt to have progressive 23.976fps video play as smoothly as possible within the 59.94 fields per second DVD output. The page to which I linked earlier discusses that in some detail, but you're not interested in learning anything. And that's also what the 120Hz and 240Hz televisions can do - have DVDs with progressive 23.976fps content and soft pulldown play absolutely smoothly, with none of the pulldown judder.
However, this is all still irrelevant to whether or not DVDs can support VFR.
And that's how they support it - with hard and/or soft pulldown. Or repeated frames. Or field blending. Or all of them. It's already been said several times that the 'base' framerate or content can be just about anything. Yet you insist your questions aren't being addressed?

By the way, if you want to make VFR MKV encodes, and have the original DVD's interlaced 29.97fps parts be played as 59.94fps, I think your best bet would be to bob the whole thing to 59.94fps to begin with, followed then by removing the duplicate frames to create a true VFR encode.

hello_hello

18th June 2016, 06:05

I tend to think of NTSC DVDs as being a combination of different constant frame rates rather than being variable.

I now feel the need to clarify, although chances are the only person who'd misinterpret it has me on her ignore list, but obviously NTSC DVDs are constant frame rate at 29.970fps, or probably more correctly they're 59.940 constant field rate.
I was referring to the original frame rate(s) of the content. Possibly not the best way to look at it in the context of this thread, but it seems that's the perspective my brain was using when I first learned about IVTC and de-interlacing etc.

The frame rate of hard telecined content, or any kind of hard NTSC, is ALWAYS 29.97 fps. End of story, end of discussion. Even if it's the exact same frame repeated 29.97 times per second, that's still 29.97 frames per second; even if it's 59.94 distinguishable images per second, each of which contributes only a single field to the resulting stream, it's still 29.97 ugly combed frames per second.

I know some people have no clue, but has Katie managed to somehow achieve negative clue?

A few weeks ago, back when Katie knew everything, soft telecined NTSC was "film" with every fourth frame repeated using pulldown flags, "real NTCS" was film with hard-coded telecining for 29.970fps, and interlaced video was somehow created by recording at 60p before a field is removed from each frame for 60i.
When Katie changed her "typo" today to include 23.976 in her list of legal NTSC frame rates, she demonstrated she still doesn't get it.

The typo has been fixed (I DID say 23.976 in a previous post, so you should have been able to recognize the typo as a typo and not a sincere belief that anything was encoded at 29.976 or 29.376... but whatever). Now address the actual point, please.

Maybe..... and only maybe..... some time in the future.... it'll occur to Katie if 23.976fps was a legal frame rate for DVD, it wouldn't have to be telecined.... hard or soft, and then maybe she'll realise if you can shoe-horn "film" into NTSC using 3:2 pulldown, you can shoe-horn other frame rates into NTSC using different pulldown patterns too. Although I doubt Katie could then work out it'd either mean any frame rate is legal for DVDs, or 23.976 can't really be a legal frame rate. I suspect a new reality will have to be created to accommodate that one, unless she can be dragged there kicking and screaming while she tells everyone else they're wrong.

hello_hello

18th June 2016, 06:24

Nonsense. That's what 3:2 pulldown is all about - an attempt to have progressive 23.976fps video play as smoothly as possible within the 59.94 fields per second DVD output. The page to which I linked earlier discusses that in some detail, but you're not interested in learning anything. And that's also what the 120Hz and 240Hz televisions can do - have DVDs with progressive 23.976fps content and soft pulldown play absolutely smoothly, with none of the pulldown judder.

I submitted my last post before seeing yours, so sorry for the repeats, although I attempted to explain pulldown vs repeated frames a couple of times in Katie's now deleted thread, but all I proved was Katie is a virtual black hole for any form of clue.

I explained why 23.976 viewed on a 60Hz display doesn't look anywhere as horrible as repeating every forth frame (as you know, for 23.976fps, the frames display for a duration of two screen refreshes, the three refreshes, then two ect, for a kind of "progressive pulldown" on a 60Hz display), but at the time Katie was still struggling with 3:2 pulldown not using repeated frames, and she retreated into baby mode labelling everything irrelevant and refusing to listen. That's what got me onto her ignore list, as apparently sustaining her next reality required the aid of the forum ignore function.

How on earth she can claim 3:2 pulldown looks the same as repeating every forth frame is beyond me. I live in PAL-Land and I'm not really bothered by 23.976fps running on a 60Hz display, but when every fourth frame is repeated it's fairly obvious, and quite annoying.

filler56789

18th June 2016, 12:18

Katie's now deleted thread,

:confused:

Anyway, the moderators can "undelete" a thread, IF they think the topic is worth reading...

Sharc

18th June 2016, 13:59

....How on earth she can claim 3:2 pulldown looks the same as repeating every forth frame is beyond me.......
For comparison I uploaded a .zip with 3 files (http://www.mediafire.com/download/9zr564oi9d7mb1v/Judder_Test.zip):
File 1 is 24fps film (well, 24 slowed down to 24/1.001)
File 2 is file 1 but 3:2 telecined to 29.97
File 3 is file 1 but with every 4th frame repeated

Watch the moving white block .....

huhn

18th June 2016, 14:53

of cause 2:2:2:4 is worse than 3:2.

but they are both terrible.

Katie Boundary

18th June 2016, 17:49

Okay, it seems like we're all getting back to being on the same page in terms of what we're talking about, even if we aren't quite there yet.

You're just "undoing" what was done to make the original compliant with DVD.

Or, in the case of soft pulldown, just not doing it in the first place.

That's all. That's your the whole topic in a nutshell. All this other garbage you're spewing is extraneous

Johnmeyer's blurb about DVDs not supporting VFR did lead us down quite a rabbit hole, didn't it...

What point?

The range of frame rates supported by DVDs. Which brings me back to something Mano said, which I need clarification about:

You can actually have 19.98fps stored on a DVD with 3:3 pulldown applied to output 59.94 fields per second. I know, I've done it. All perfectly legal.

Just to be absolutely, 100% clear... you're talking about soft 3:3 pulldown, right? I have to ask because if this sort of thing is possible, then I can see no reason why the Region 1 Reboot and War Planets DVDs couldn't have been encoded at 25 fps with soft 2:2:3:2:3 pulldown, but if you're talking about hard 3:3 pulldown, then you're completely not understanding the conversation at all.

Also, if it's soft pulldown, then what the hell would DGIndex report it as when previewing or saving as a project?

Yes it can, but not on the same title

Title? I've seen it done on the same chapter. And it's stupidly common.

Yes. Absolutely right. But the content is what matters....

Let's agree to disagree on that. Motion can sometimes be slow or subtle enough that "smart" software can mistake genuine 29.97 or 23.976 fps content for a much lower frame rate, and let's not even get into the nightmares that might happen when 23.976 and 29.97 fps content get composited together at 60i and then "smart" software starts deleting the "duplicates" that are actually supposed to be there...

It can, but not on the same title.

So when I rip a single chapter of Darkwing Duck, Andromeda, Captain Planet, Star Trek, Stargate SG-1, Gargoyles, Farscape, etc. to my hard drive and create a .d2v project file from it, and DGIndex reports that it's a mix of film and hard NTSC, DGIndex is lying to me?

It means that's what creating VFR videos based on timecodes and decimation does. ie. your original topic.

Original topic mentioned nothing about timecodes OR decimation.

When you make a VFR encode , you're just trying to "undo" the field patterns to make it compatible with DVD.

Now you're really not making sense. VFR encodes can be generated from a wide variety of sources, including Cinelerra.

If by "make a VFR encode" you mean "make a VFR encode from a DVD source", then we need to straighten out the "VFR within a single DVD title" issue before we can proceed on that.

There are different types of "VFR". Maybe that's what is confusing you.

No, it's what was confusing Johnmeyer. I was always very clear on this point.

DVD's do not support varying timecode VFR. Ie. the type where you decimate and control display time per frame with timecodes

I never said they did.

The encoded frame rate of NTSC DVD is always CFR 30000/1001, and the field rate of NTSC DVD is always 60000/1001. But that says nothing of what the actual content frame rate is. Hope that makes it more clear

"NTSC DVD" is not a relevant concept. The relevant concept is DVDs that do the following sorts of trickery:

1) The ones that are mostly film but will switch to NTSC for literally half of a second in order to do a 60i credit fade-in, switch back to film for as long as the text retains a constant brightness, switch to NTSC for another half-second for the 60i fade-out, and then switch back to film until it's time for the next 60i or 30p effect (Gargoyles, Kim Possible, any sci-fi show made between 1982 and 2002...);

2) the ones that are literally pure film except for the first 1 or 2 frames, which are solid black anyway so you wouldn't even know that they were hard NTSC unless DGIndex told you (Battlestar Galactica, Defiance, Gotham... okay, Battlestar Galactica is more like the first 2 seconds than the first 2 frames, but it's still all black...);

3) the ones that could have been done as mostly film, but are instead done as something like 90-98% hard NTSC with random film parts thrown in just to f*** with anyone trying to decode them (I'm talking very specifically about Darkwing Duck here, but Disney probably does it with a lot of their shows);

4) Star Trek: the Motion Picture, which, despite being made for theater screens, had its opening credits hard-telecined on the DVD release for no reason (the rest of the movie is soft pulldown)

I'm NOT talking about stuff like Babylon 5 and Birds of Prey, where the live-action content was shot at 24p and the effects were done at 30p or 60i but then every episode was encoded as 100% hard NTSC because somebody was lazy. Those are a whole different discussion, and if I ever want to convert those to variable-framerate MP4s, I'll start a different thread for them

And that's how they support it - with hard and/or soft pulldown. Or repeated frames. Or field blending. Or all of them.

Uh, no. None of those have ANYTHING to do with VFR. When I talk about DVDs that support real VFR, I'm talking about the ones that switch between soft pulldown and hard NTSC as often as the author wanted them to, wherever the author wanted them to, numerous examples of which I gave months ago and have kept repeating on a near-daily basis ever since then.

By the way, if you want to make VFR MKV encodes

I'd prefer MP4 for its industry-standardness, but right now, we really need to iron out this confusion about the existence of blending soft pulldown with hard NTSC in a single DVD chapter before we go any further. Either you're all wrong and I'm right, or DGIndex has an extremely serious bug and I'm the only person in the world who has noticed it, or I've been having an oddly specific hallucination for over a decade.

For comparison I uploaded a .zip with 3 files (http://www.mediafire.com/download/9zr564oi9d7mb1v/Judder_Test.zip):
File 1 is 24fps film (well, 24 slowed down to 24/1.001)
File 2 is file 1 but 3:2 telecined to 29.97
File 3 is file 1 but with every 4th frame repeated

Watch the moving white block .....

Yeah, sorry, can't tell the difference. Also, what the hell is this unholy ".ts" format?

Katie Boundary

18th June 2016, 18:00

By the way, Disney is probably the biggest bag of dicks on the planet when it comes to finding new and increasingly sadistic ways to give people like us a hard time. They're even worse than Paramount.

poisondeathray

18th June 2016, 19:09

Also, if it's soft pulldown, then what the hell would DGIndex report it as when previewing or saving as a project?

Title? I've seen it done on the same chapter. And it's stupidly common.

Yes, you're right, I'm going to eat my words. You can have just about anything - mixed progressive / soft flags and interlaced encoding /hard in the same section along with interrupted cadences. You're not supposed to - it's bad practice to mix, but it commonly occurs when bad editing is done.

But the treatment is the same. Whether it's hard or soft is irrelevant if your intent of this thread was how to produce a VFR video from a DVD . You need to identify the underlying content rate and treat it accordingly to create VFR video.

Now you're really not making sense. VFR encodes can be generated from a wide variety of sources, including Cinelerra.

If by "make a VFR encode" you mean "make a VFR encode from a DVD source", then we need to straighten out the "VFR within a single DVD title" issue before we can proceed on that.

Yes, of course, from DVD. You can have VFR from camera phones. That type of VFR is timecode driven. Not the "VFR in CFR" stream that you get with DVD.

You already know you can get VFR content within a single DVD title. You already have examples.

The relevant concept is DVDs that do the following sorts of trickery:

1) The ones that are mostly film but will switch to NTSC for literally half of a second in order to do a 60i credit fade-in, switch back to film for as long as the text retains a constant brightness, switch to NTSC for another half-second for the 60i fade-out, and then switch back to film until it's time for the next 60i or 30p effect (Gargoyles, Kim Possible, any sci-fi show made between 1982 and 2002...);

2) the ones that are literally pure film except for the first 1 or 2 frames, which are solid black anyway so you wouldn't even know that they were hard NTSC unless DGIndex told you (Battlestar Galactica, Defiance, Gotham... okay, Battlestar Galactica is more like the first 2 seconds than the first 2 frames, but it's still all black...);

3) the ones that could have been done as mostly film, but are instead done as something like 90-98% hard NTSC with random film parts thrown in just to f*** with anyone trying to decode them (I'm talking very specifically about Darkwing Duck here, but Disney probably does it with a lot of their shows);

4) Star Trek: the Motion Picture, which, despite being made for theater screens, had its opening credits hard-telecined on the DVD release for no reason (the rest of the movie is soft pulldown)

I'm NOT talking about stuff like Babylon 5 and Birds of Prey, where the live-action content was shot at 24p and the effects were done at 30p or 60i but then every episode was encoded as 100% hard NTSC because somebody was lazy. Those are a whole different discussion, and if I ever want to convert those to variable-framerate MP4s, I'll start a different thread for them

Ok, for 1-4 what are you trying to do ? Don't you just want to create VFR video, obtain the original content framerate? Or are this just curiosity ?

For something like a few black frames does it really matter ? Why are you obsessing over 99.98% when you can't even tell the difference between something like sharc's test ? You probably shouldn't care about creating VFR encodes from DVD either

Hard/soft doesn't matter - they are just different methods of putting the content into a 59.94 fields/sec stream. It's the content framerate that is important.

wonkey_monkey

18th June 2016, 20:19

It doesn't really matter whether you're duplicating every fifth field or every fifth frame. The result is visually indistinguishable on playback.

This is absolute nonsense.

The relevant concept is DVDs that do the following sorts of trickery:

1) The ones that are mostly film but will switch to NTSC for literally half of a second in order to do a 60i credit fade-in, switch back to film for as long as the text retains a constant brightness, switch to NTSC for another half-second for the 60i fade-out, and then switch back to film until it's time for the next 60i or 30p effect (Gargoyles, Kim Possible, any sci-fi show made between 1982 and 2002...);

What? DVDs do not do this. They do not switch back and forth. Every individual video stored on a DVD has a single base framerate. It does not "switch to NTSC" because the whole thing is already "NTSC" (if any of it is). I assume at least this has already sunk in, so what you're doing above is a really bad description of the reality.

4) Star Trek: the Motion Picture, which, despite being made for theater screens, had its opening credits hard-telecined on the DVD release for no reason (the rest of the movie is soft pulldown)

It cannot be a mix of hard telecine and soft pulldown, unless they are separate clips on the DVD in which case there will be a pause while it seeks. It seems far more likely that you're mistaken. Again.

I'm NOT talking about stuff like Babylon 5 and Birds of Prey, where the live-action content was shot at 24p and the effects were done at 30p or 60i but then every episode was encoded as 100% hard NTSC because somebody was lazy.

Not because it was lazy, but because it is the only way to encode mixed content to DVD! How should they have done it?

manono

18th June 2016, 21:21

What? DVDs do not do this. They do not switch back and forth. Every individual video stored on a DVD has a single base framerate.
When pdr made a similar statement earlier I resisted saying something, figuring I was misunderstanding him. He's backtracked since then. Now you've said the same and you're just as wrong. NTSC DVDs can and do switch back and forth all the time. It's perfectly legal. As long as it's 59.94 fields per second that's being output, they can do anything they want, use any base framerate they damn well please. Unless I'm misunderstanding you. :)
It does not "switch to NTSC" because the whole thing is already "NTSC" (if any of it is).
She's using NTSC in the same sense as does DGIndex - anything not progressive 23.976fps with 3:2 pulldown is NTSC. NTSC can mean hard telecined film, or field blended crap, as well as true interlace (shot using interlaced video cameras). And no, it can be all NTSC, none of it NTSC, or any percentage it wants NTSC. Her examples are valid. It would be nice if it were one or the other but, sadly, it isn't.

Her example 3) includes a common mistake by the great Criterion Collection. They have this nasty habit of dropping to video for a few frames at chapter points. It's so brief that the DVD player doesn't adjust to deinterlace (or IVTC it if it's a cadence-reading player) and so you get a few frames of interlacing and it's both jarring and annoying.

It cannot be a mix of hard telecine and soft pulldown,

It most certainly can.

Not because it was lazy, but because it is the only way to encode mixed content to DVD! How should they have done it?

They could have encoded the film parts as progressive 23.976fps with pulldown, and the video parts as they did. I'm not saying they should have done it that way - plenty of DVDs are done that way. But it wreaks havoc when played on a DVD player. Most DVD players are flag readers and will deinterlace it where if the film parts had been done differently, a viewer would get the full and better resolution in those parts.

I can show you examples of these things to back up my points, if you like.

manono

18th June 2016, 21:34

Just to be absolutely, 100% clear... you're talking about soft 3:3 pulldown, right?
Yep.
I have to ask because if this sort of thing is possible, then I can see no reason why the Region 1 Reboot and War Planets DVDs couldn't have been encoded at 25 fps with soft 2:2:3:2:3 pulldown,
It could have been, if the NTSC DVD was made from a progressive 25fps source. Any framerate between 19.98fps (3:3 pulldown) and 29.97fps (2:2 pulldown) can be encoded as progressive and put on an NTSC DVD with the appropriate pulldown flags. However, I have yet to see any kind of pulldown on a retail DVD other than 3:2 (or 2:3) or 2:2.
Also, if it's soft pulldown, then what the hell would DGIndex report it as when previewing or saving as a project?
Video Type: NTSC
Frame Type: Progressive

Here's the D2V from a short one I made. Notice no 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3. Just 1 3 1 3 1 3:

DGIndexProjectFile16
1
G:\Buzdil\Menus\Menu.19.98.m2v

Stream_Type=0
MPEG_Type=2
iDCT_Algorithm=6
YUVRGB_Scale=1
Luminance_Filter=0,0
Clipping=0,0,0,0
Aspect_Ratio=4:3
Picture_Size=720x480
Field_Operation=0
Frame_Rate=29970 (30000/1001)
Location=0,0,0,2882

d00 5 0 0 0 0 0 d3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 71380 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 180812 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 320560 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 485928 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 652304 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 817812 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 986492 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 1152724 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 1320248 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 1485224 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 1647352 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 1810676 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
900 5 0 1974784 0 0 0 73 71 d3 f1 f3 e1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1
.
.
.
.
900 5 0 21144160 0 0 0 71 73 d1 f3 f1 e3 f1 f3 e1 e3
d00 5 0 21215952 0 0 0 d1 ff

FINISHED 100.00% VIDEO

hello_hello

18th June 2016, 21:44

For comparison I uploaded a .zip with 3 files (http://www.mediafire.com/download/9zr564oi9d7mb1v/Judder_Test.zip):
File 1 is 24fps film (well, 24 slowed down to 24/1.001)
File 2 is file 1 but 3:2 telecined to 29.97
File 3 is file 1 but with every 4th frame repeated

Watch the moving white block .....

If Katie can't spot the difference she should put away her DVDs and go back to video games.

#1 and #2 look the same to me. I assume #2 is being de-interlaced or IVTC'd on playback, but I'm not sure I can tell the difference.

#3 is obviously far less smooth and that's just movement in a small part of the frame. When it's a camera pan or there's far more movement it's horrendous.

I'm still not certain I can see an "judder" in the first two samples, and I'm connected to the TV at 60Hz. I think I'm predominantly seeing a "sample and hold" effect (I think that's the cause) due to the low frame rate and the high contrast between the moving image and the background. If there is "judder" then either I can't see it or it's being masked by the sample and hold effect.
I haven't tried using your samples, but I've done so enough to know if I remuxed your 23.976fps sample at 25fps and switched to 50Hz, it's still not going to look smooth. It would at 50fps/50Hz.
I have a sample somewhere I tested at both 23.976fps and 25fps a while ago. The camera is slowly panning across a dark object and the background is quite bright. The edge of the dark object "jitters" across the screen at 25fps/50Hz, and it may "judder and jitter" at 23.976fps/60hz, but it's a fair degree of horrible either way.

Would viewing this stuff on a Plasma make much difference? I'm not sure if there'd be a logical explanation for 3:2 "progressive" pulldown (23.976fps/60Hz) being harder to spot than it would using an LCD, but if I'm seeing it then maybe my brain isn't too offended by it for some reason.

wonkey_monkey

18th June 2016, 21:56

As long as it's 59.94 fields per second that's being output, they can do anything they want, use any base framerate they damn well please. Unless I'm misunderstanding you. :)

Even if that base framerate varies? So I could have a single DVD title which, for the first minute, had, encoded in the stream, 1500 frames at a base frame rate of 25fps (but played out at 59.94fps thanks to a pulldown flag), and then for the next minute has encoded in the stream 1798 frames at a base frame rate of 29.97fps?

How would such a hybrid clip rip, for example, to .mpg, and then subsequently how it would play in (for example) VLC? Badly?

NB: Katie, manono's post is a textbook example of the right way to correct someone (it also helps if you're right, of course).

manono

18th June 2016, 22:17

Even if that base framerate varies?
Yes, documentaries do it all the time. You might, in the same documentary, mix up progressive 23.976fps with pulldown, 23.976fps with hard telecine, 18fps 16 mm film sources (which will duplicate frames to make it possible to hard telecine), some PAL 25fps stuff (usually field blended), progressive 29.97fps and stuff shot on video (interlaced 29.97fps). I'm not saying I've ever seen all that in the same docu, but I've seen it in different docus. And you could do it all in the same docu, if your sources were as diverse as that.
How would such a hybrid clip rip, for example, to .mpg, and then subsequently how it would play in (for example) VLC? Badly?
If you're talking about 2 different framerate videos, both progressively encoded, they should play properly on both a hardware DVD player as well as any software DVD players. If they don't, then something's wrong with the player that it won't play a properly made DVD. And VLC player isn't really known as a very good DVD player but it should play a DVD made to those specs correctly.
So I could have a single DVD title which, for the first minute, had, encoded in the stream, 1500 frames at a base frame rate of 25fps (but played out at 59.94fps thanks to a pulldown flag), and then for the next minute has encoded in the stream 1798 frames at a base frame rate of 29.97fps?Yes. As I said, all it has to do is play at 59.94 fields per second and it's perfectly legal. I could even recreate that example quite easily and author it in Muxman. As you know, Muxman is very strict about keeping to the DVD specs.

wonkey_monkey

18th June 2016, 22:51

Yes, documentaries do it all the time. You might, in the same documentary, mix up progressive 23.976fps with pulldown, 23.976fps with hard telecine, 18fps 16 mm film sources (which will duplicate frames to make it possible to hard telecine), some PAL 25fps stuff (usually field blended), progressive 29.97fps and stuff shot on video (interlaced 29.97fps).

Yeah, but the ultimate output from an edit suite would be a single video with a single framerate, which you could encode to an AVI, MPEG, etc, and wouldn't require a VFR-capable container.

Katie's talk of DVD players switching between this and that sounded, to me, like she was talking about varying soft pulldown, not hard.

If you're talking about 2 different framerate videos

Nope, I'm talking about one video clip (or title on a DVD). That's where the confusion is, I guess. My point was that DVD players do not (or so I understood it) as Katie's post suggested, "switch back and forth." The 59.94i NTSC video which they display may have content which was originally some other framerate, but it no longer is.

Yes. As I said, all it has to do is play at 59.94 fields per second and it's perfectly legal. I could even recreate that example quite easily and author it in Muxman. As you know, Muxman is very strict about keeping to the DVD specs.

OK.. that more sounds like the kind of hybrid thing you had me imagining. I'd be interested to take a look, if you could do that.

manono

18th June 2016, 23:15

Nope, I'm talking about one video clip (or title on a DVD). Oh, sorry, me too. I apologize for not being more clear.
Yeah, but the ultimate output from an edit suite would be a single video with a single framerate, which you could encode to an AVI, MPEG, etc, and wouldn't require a VFR-capable container.
Right. If it's not for another DVD, the easiest and most obvious thing would be to bob it to 59.94fps and be done with it. She wants to learn how to make VFR videos so that solution won't work for her. I do think, though, she'll wind up bobbing her sources initially, before then converting them to VFR.
I'd be interested to take a look, if you could do that.
Sure, but it might be a while (several hours at least) as I'm busy at the moment.

Sharc

18th June 2016, 23:19

.....Yeah, sorry, can't tell the difference. Also, what the hell is this unholy ".ts" format?
.ts is a transport stream container format, similar to .m2ts for Blu-ray.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_transport_stream

When you can't see a difference between 2) or 3) against 1), then your player does IVTC, or you don't care about the combed frames or jerky playback.

Sharc

18th June 2016, 23:33

#1 and #2 look the same to me. I assume #2 is being de-interlaced or IVTC'd on playback, but I'm not sure I can tell the difference.
Your player does IVTC if #2 looks the same as #1. If it would jus deinterlace #2 you would see a jerky playback of the moving white bar. If you would watch #2 progressive you would see 2 combed frames out of 5.

manono

19th June 2016, 01:41

OK.. that more sounds like the kind of hybrid thing you had me imagining. I'd be interested to take a look, if you could do that.
I made one that's 25fps at the beginning and then switches to 29.97fps for the final 60% or so. I used the same 23.976fps source for both so the first part plays slightly too fast and the second part quite a bit too fast. You can easily tell the difference by comparing the ways the chorus girls 'flap' their arms - noticeably faster the second time than the first. Because I speeded up everything, the audio went out of synch so I didn't include it.

I'm also enclosing the D2V file. If you open it in a text reader (like Notepad), the opening part goes 0 1 2 2 3 0 1 2 2 3 before switching to 2 2 2 2 2. It's progressive all the way through, if you open a VOB in DGIndex and run the Preview on it. I zipped it because there were several DVD files, as well as the included D2V file.

https://mega.nz/#!vkomGC4Z!BkgZtAZg5WeIeAuDZDKpxFzDcZoS0GfmjfU7iuuFPZQ

If you can't find it when the download is complete (10.6 MB), check your desktop. That's where my Mega downloads end up.

huhn

19th June 2016, 03:54

Your player does IVTC if #2 looks the same as #1. If it would jus deinterlace #2 you would see a jerky playback of the moving white bar. If you would watch #2 progressive you would see 2 combed frames out of 5.

the main point is that #1 the 23p sample should be watch at 23p and will be smooth while watching this at 60 hz will result in a very bad 3:2 judder while #2 is only smooth if watch at 23p with realtime IVTC else you will see 3:2 judder again.

in theory #3 could be IVTC too and played at 23p but that is hardly supported and the file is not flagged interlanced so smooth playback is hard to achieve.

wonkey_monkey

19th June 2016, 11:34

I made one that's 25fps at the beginning and then switches to 29.97fps for the final 60% or so. I used the same 23.976fps source for both so the first part plays slightly too fast and the second part quite a bit too fast.

I don't get it. I don't see the speed changing. DGIndex reports a "field order transition" but I don't see any interlaced frames. I'm still not convinced we're talking about the same things.

It does seem to play back at different speeds in VLC vs VirtulDub, though...

manono

19th June 2016, 20:11

You can't tell that the women waving their arms at the end are doing it faster than at the beginning? You can't notice the change in the D2V from 0 1 2 2 3 0 1 2 2 3 (or 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3, the signs of 3:2:3:2:2 pulldown) to 2 2 2 2 2 (the sign of 2:2 pulldown)?

The field order transition means nothing here, except as a sign of where the speed change takes place. That's right, no interlaced frames. I believe DGIndex cuts on GOP boundaries and I used it to cut out the M2Vs before then running them through DGPulldown to reset the framerates. There wouldn't be any interlaced frames. I believe the illegal transition might be where it goes from a 0 to a 2 which isn't supposed to happen. But I'm not entirely sure of that.

hello_hello

20th June 2016, 05:02

the main point is that #1 the 23p sample should be watch at 23p and will be smooth while watching this at 60 hz will result in a very bad 3:2 judder while #2 is only smooth if watch at 23p with realtime IVTC else you will see 3:2 judder again.

in theory #3 could be IVTC too and played at 23p but that is hardly supported and the file is not flagged interlanced so smooth playback is hard to achieve.

This is possibly not the same thing I referred to earlier, as I think it's supposed to be a motion blur test, but it's the closest I've found. http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=2&background=none&pps=960
The top UFO should wonder across the screen smoothly at 60fps (60Hz) while the second 30fps UFO looks blurred. For me I'd not necessarily say it was blurred, but rather there's multiple images overlapping each other. Maybe that's the same thing.
There's no UFO in the test running at 23.976fps, but if the 30fps UFO looks as bad as it does viewed on my displays, I'm not sure slowing it down to 23.976fps could make it look much worse, or if it did add "judder" to the equation, if it'd be easy to tell.

If you're seeing anything similar to what I do see, it might illustrate why I say progressive 3:2 pull-down is not something I can easily see, and I think it's because there's already enough horrible going on to hide it.

#3 is a different story though because the extra refreshes aren't being spread out over four frames and repeating a frame instead is quite obvious.

Do any TVs really refresh at 24Hz? I can connect to my Plasma at 24Hz but the screen can't be refreshing that way or there'd be flicker for days. If not, then probably only higher frame rates or interpolated frames will produce truly smooth motion.

huhn

20th June 2016, 06:26

This is possibly not the same thing I referred to earlier, as I think it's supposed to be a motion blur test, but it's the closest I've found. http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=2&background=none&pps=960
The top UFO should wonder across the screen smoothly at 60fps (60Hz) while the second 30fps UFO looks blurred. For me I'd not necessarily say it was blurred, but rather there's multiple images overlapping each other. Maybe that's the same thing.
There's no UFO in the test running at 23.976fps, but if the 30fps UFO looks as bad as it does viewed on my displays, I'm not sure slowing it down to 23.976fps could make it look much worse, or if it did add "judder" to the equation, if it'd be easy to tell.

this test is there to test the motion blur added by a display device. on a lightboost hacked asus VS248QE you can see the squad white pixel razor sharp in motion like a CRT would display it.

all these UFOs are 2:2, 4:4 or something like that so they are kind of smooth unlike 2:2:2:4 or 3:2.

the ghosting is an other problem. and even with the ghosting proper image displaying like 2:2 is way more smooth than 3:2 and easily visible to the human eye.
If you're seeing anything similar to what I do see, it might illustrate why I say progressive 3:2 pull-down is not something I can easily see, and I think it's because there's already enough horrible going on to hide it.
it is trivial for me to see 3:2 judder vs real 23 hz.

try madVR SM on a PC display @60 HZ with a 23p source. it will make playback as smooth as it would be at 23 hz. don't even think to compare this to SVP.

#3 is a different story though because the extra refreshes aren't being spread out over four frames and repeating a frame instead is quite obvious.
2:2:2:4 is really really ugly no question. 3:2 is better than this but still terrible.
Do any TVs really refresh at 24Hz? I can connect to my Plasma at 24Hz but the screen can't be refreshing that way or there'd be flicker for days. If not, then probably only higher frame rates or interpolated frames will produce truly smooth motion.

yes but it depends on the brand. sony has absolutely no problem with that "all" w series or better can do that.

they do it at 120 HZ and because of sample hold the 5 images with the same content never ever change so it is the same as 23p/24p.

i try to make a proper VFR encode later with true 23p at 23p and true 29p at 29p using a source that needs this treatment.

Sharc

20th June 2016, 11:03

Here 2 sample NTSC DVD (http://www.mediafire.com/download/ewwpzivw1q8fsy3/NTSC_DVDJuddertest.zip), each containing 4 clips: 3:2 soft pulldown, 3:2 hard telecine, 2:2:2:4 hard telecine, true interlaced

DVD1 has all 4 clips included in the same .vob (is this compliant at all?)
DVD3 has the 4 clips in 4 separate titles (separate *vobs)

You can check how your actual playback device plays it, and how it handles the format switching in DVD1.

Katie Boundary

20th June 2016, 19:13

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13466425_1702864323311356_5994855343166660613_n.jpg?oh=28d5c2cd1c7755a62a8c174640179139&oe=57C75721

BTW,

She's using NTSC in the same sense as does DGIndex

Yes! We're finally speaking the same language!

anything not progressive 23.976fps with 3:2 pulldown is NTSC.

Well, there's also PAL. Why doesn't DGIndex have a PAL option in addition to Ignore Pulldown, Honor Pulldown, and Forced Film?

It would be nice if it were one or the other but, sadly, it isn't.

I actually prefer the mixed material to the pure hard NTSC stuff like Babylon 5. Interlaced frames drive MPEG crazy and produce macroblocking artifacts. This is especially noticeable on Mainframe's titles.

Her example 3) includes a common mistake by the great Criterion Collection. They have this nasty habit of dropping to video for a few frames at chapter points.

Example #3 was Darkwing Duck... I think you meant to refer to one of my other examples...

She wants to learn how to make VFR videos so that solution won't work for her. I do think, though, she'll wind up bobbing her sources initially, before then converting them to VFR.

Well, bobbing is the only way to clean up orphaned fields without just decimating them out of existence, so yes, bobbing is and always has been part of the plan. I'm not sure what you mean by "converting" to VFR, though. Isn't there some way of automatically separating the soft telecine from the hard NTSC, bobbing the hard NTSC without touching the film content, and then stitching them back together into a 60/24 VFR file?

When you can't see a difference between 2) or 3) against 1), then your player does IVTC

Player? You mean VLC?

or you don't care about the combed frames or jerky playback.

I'd have to see it to care about it.

manono

20th June 2016, 20:52

Well, there's also PAL. Why doesn't DGIndex have a PAL option in addition to Ignore Pulldown, Honor Pulldown, and Forced Film?

It doesn't need one as PAL sources are all handled with 'Honor Pulldown Flags'. If you had a separate PAL category it would do exactly the same thing. In the Field Operation section of the DGIndexManual (you might read it sometime as it's very good) it says:
Honor Pulldown Flags - The pulldown flags (if any) are obeyed and the fields are repeated. This means that the frame-served video will appear exactly as it is intended to appear on the final display device. Therefore, if you have a 3:2 pulled-down clip, you'll get the standard repeating pattern of 3 progressive frames followed by 2 interlaced frames. If you have PAL or MPEG1, you'll just get the encoded pictures with no repeated fields (because PAL and MPEG1 have no RFF flags to honor). The frame rate will always be the same as the display frame rate of the source.
Example #3 was Darkwing Duck... I think you meant to refer to one of my other examples...
Oh yeah, you're right. I apologize. For some reason I read it as 90-98% FILM and not 90-98% hard NTSC. Then it's a category you either haven't run across or didn't include - the ones almost all FILM but with little sections of NTSC here and there. Not just in the black frames at beginning or end or during fades, but during the 'meat' of the video.
Isn't there some way of automatically separating the soft telecine from the hard NTSC, bobbing the hard NTSC without touching the film content, and then stitching them back together into a 60/24 VFR file?
Not if you're going to reencode for MKV anyway, or whatever VFR container you go with. And not if you're not willing to separate them out manually and reencode just the parts that aren't FILM. However, I was specifically thinking of an earlier comment of yours that the TIVTC method of creating VFR videos didn't have the option of bobbing true interlaced material. And you were correct - material that by rights should be progressive 59.94fps when all done, won't be if using that method. Bobbing the whole thing initially and then creating VFR from that allows the 59.94 parts to remain that way. The anime guys have done most of the work in this and they typically start with what are called 'raws' - 119.88fps television captures - and can create VFR encodes from that if they want to. If you begin by bobbing using a good bobber - one such as QTGMC - together with a lossless AVI codec you might be very pleased with how it turns out as a source for then creating your VFR encode.

Sharc

20th June 2016, 21:42

Player? You mean VLC?

I'd have to see it to care about it.

VLC for example, or better perhaps MPC-HC. Watch in full screen and switch any deinterlacers or IVTC off, then you will see the difference in the moving block (#2 with 2 combed frames out of 5, #3 with ugly judder). If you see no difference, well, you are right, why care.
You can also download this (http://www.mediafire.com/download/yciih16fz7v2amj/NTSC_DVDJuddertest.zip) and watch DVD_3 with a HW or SW DVD player. 3:2 soft or hard pulldown should look the same (no combed frames) but with the typical slight 3:2 judder. For 2:2:2:4 (repeating frame 4) the judder will be really ugly - but again, if you don't notice, why care.

hello_hello

20th June 2016, 23:23

Here 2 sample NTSC DVD (http://www.mediafire.com/download/yciih16fz7v2amj/NTSC_DVDJuddertest.zip), each containing 3 clips: 3:2 soft pulldown, 3:2 hard telecine, 2:2:2:4 hard telecine

DVD1 has all 3 clips included in the same .vob (is this compliant at all?)

I don't know about compliant, but when I tried stepping through the frames one at a time it was bouncing backwards and forwards as though MPC-HC was trying to play all three at the same time.

DVD3 has the 3 clips in 3 separate titles (separate *vobs)

I still wasn't sure I was seeing any difference between the first two, but it was easy to pick #3.

As an experiment I opened your earlier 23.976fps sample via Avisynth and added AssumeFPS(30,1).
I may have to take back what I said earlier because there is a difference in smoothness at 30p/60Hz, although at 30fps the motion still "jitters" across the screen, so while there is a difference, maybe I have to pay attention to see it or my brain just sticks them in the same category.

In the past I've compared 23.976/60Hz with 25/50Hz which is probably a fairer comparison, and I suspect 25/50Hz will look more "jittery" than 30/60Hz and maybe that's why I've found it doesn't stand out as being hugely different to 23.976/60 in respect to smoothness.
I can't try your sample at 25/50Hz at the moment as this PC is currently only connected to the TV via VGA, but I'll connect it via HDMI later and try again, then report back as to whether I've proved myself wrong again.

Katie Boundary

21st June 2016, 04:05

It doesn't need one as PAL sources are all handled with 'Honor Pulldown Flags'. If you had a separate PAL category it would do exactly the same thing. In the Field Operation section of the DGIndexManual (you might read it sometime as it's very good) it says:

Oh. For some reason, I thought that applying HPF or IPF to a PAL source would speed it up to 29.97 (which is exactly what happens when you apply IPF to a film source).

Oh yeah, you're right. I apologize. For some reason I read it as 90-98% FILM and not 90-98% hard NTSC. Then it's a category you either haven't run across or didn't include - the ones almost all FILM but with little sections of NTSC here and there. Not just in the black frames at beginning or end or during fades, but during the 'meat' of the video.

You mean example #1?

Oh, that reminds me. I'm glad that you pointed me toward the "secrets of home theater" page. In addition to finally learning exactly what "progressive scan" meant, my eyes sharpened a bit at the mention of the redone special effects in the two-disc director's edition DVD of Star Trek: the Motion Picture. As it turns out, there's actually a reason why the opening credits were done as NTSC: although the credits themselves remained at 24p, the stars behind them were suddenly moving at 30p, and of course, they were composited together at 60i... and there were indeed little bits of NTSC throughout the rest of the movie too. So, when I went to make VCD-compliant MPEG-1 encodes of the first ten Star Trek movies (because OF COURSE I went and did that...), TMP ended up being 29.97 while the other movies were done as 23.976

Not if you're going to reencode for MKV anyway, or whatever VFR container you go with.

Probably MP4, for its industry-standardness.

And not if you're not willing to separate them out manually and reencode just the parts that aren't FILM.

Well that sucks. Maybe it's time for a new software toy that can detect the framerate changes in a VOB or d2v file and allow different filters to be applied to these different sections, or at least spit out the information in a form that another software toy (like an MP4 muxer) can make use of.

However, I was specifically thinking of an earlier comment of yours that the TIVTC method of creating VFR videos didn't have the option of bobbing true interlaced material. And you were correct - material that by rights should be progressive 59.94fps when all done, won't be if using that method. Bobbing the whole thing initially and then creating VFR from that allows the 59.94 parts to remain that way. The anime guys have done most of the work in this and they typically start with what are called 'raws' - 119.88fps television captures - and can create VFR encodes from that if they want to. If you begin by bobbing using a good bobber - one such as QTGMC - together with a lossless AVI codec you might be very pleased with how it turns out as a source for then creating your VFR encode.

Regardless of the bobbing filter that is used, this does require telecining the film parts, then bobbing them, and then trying to put humpty-dumpty back together without the benefit of proper IVTC.

Of all the options that can be done using software available today, the one that seems most similar to what I'm attempting would be "to encode multiple cfr avi files (some with 23.976 fps film and some with 29.97 fps video) and join them directly into one vfr mp4 file with mp4box and the -cat option (http://avisynth.nl/index.php/VFR#encoding_to_vfr_.28mp4.29)", but that would require going through a d2v file with "ignore pulldown flags" and guessing at where the framerate transitions are.

Sharc

21st June 2016, 07:28

Sharc

21st June 2016, 07:42

I still wasn't sure I was seeing any difference between the first two, but it was easy to pick #3.
DVD3: That's ok. You shouldn't see a difference between clip2 (hard telecined) and clip1 (soft telecine i.e. pulldown happens at playback time), because a DVD player should handle both soft and hard telecined film footage the same, means playback as progressive frames at 59.94fps with the familiar 3:2 judder.

P.S.
After all, my main point was to show that there is a significant difference between 2:2:2:4 (or repeat frame 4 out of 5) and the usual 3:2 telecine (hard or soft) for film footage on NTSC DVD, as somewhere farther up in this thread the opinion was expressed that it looks the same, or quite the same.

Sharc

22nd June 2016, 19:34

I don't know about compliant, but when I tried stepping through the frames one at a time it was bouncing backwards and forwards as though MPC-HC was trying to play all three at the same time.
Please re-download NTSC_DVDJuddertest.zip (http://www.mediafire.com/download/ewwpzivw1q8fsy3/NTSC_DVDJuddertest.zip). I double-checked the video stream of the *.vob in DVD1. It seems that all mpeg-2 flags (Picture_Structure, Progressive_Frame, Repeat_First_Field, Top_Field_First) are set correctly and change correctly at the transition from one clip to the next. So I think the stream is DVD compliant.
Did you try to play on TV?

manono

22nd June 2016, 20:54

You mean example #1?

No, since you defined 1) specifically for fades. If you want to broaden the definition to include any little bits of NTSC in an otherwise FILM video (logos at the beginning, chapter changes, any random NTSC, seemingly for no reason at all, black frames at beginning, end, or middle, etc.) then, yes.
Oh, that reminds me. I'm glad that you pointed me toward the "secrets of home theater" page.

It wasn't to enlighten you about hows and whys for Star Treks, but anything to get you to read it. There's a wealth of solid information there, and not just on that particular page but in the other related ones as well. Unfortunately, the 'Shootout' DVD tests have all been removed and they tested virtually every DVD player under the sun.
Maybe it's time for a new software toy that can detect the framerate changes in a VOB or d2v file and allow different filters to be applied to these different sections
The HCenc MPEG-2 encoder has the ability to keep progressive as progressive and interlaced as interlaced, but that's about as far as it goes. I believe DVD-Rebuilder can do the same.

Regardless of the bobbing filter that is used, this does require telecining the film parts...
Which you'll get just by making the D2V using 'Honor Pulldown Flags' - a hard telecined 29.97fps video (assuming it's a mix of hard and soft telecine to begin with).

...but that would require going through a d2v file with "ignore pulldown flags" and guessing at where the framerate transitions are.

I think much easier would be to play the video with the player deinterlacer turned off and note when the interlaced parts begin and end. I don't think you want to mess around with 'Ignore Pulldown Flags'.

Sharc

28th June 2016, 10:41

Here few more NTSC_DVD examples with various cadences (VFR) (http://www.mediafire.com/download/dbzawmu0ba3s8fb/NTSC_DVD_formats.zip).
Are there HW Players/Smart TVs which play all files smoothly (i.e. without judder), means without manual intervention or extra scripts?
The few I have tested perform well with the "common" formats (like #1: true interlaced, #3: 3-2 telecined, #5: 3-2 pulldown, #6: interframe, #7: 2-2-3-2-3 on PAL player), but judder more or less with #2 (worst), #4, #6, #7 (on NTSC player) although they can all be IVTCed if the DVD player/TV would be "smart enough" to IVTC automatically and adapt the monitor refresh rate (to multiples of 24Hz and 25Hz).

I think the clips are all NTSC DVD compliant, the flags seem to be correct and MuxMan which is usually pretty picky did not complain ....
The question may no longer be very relevant in the Blu-Ray age, but one still finds all kind of mixed formats and hacks for the extra material on Blu-Ray discs.

hello_hello

29th June 2016, 05:21

I had a play with your new samples (I hadn't relaised you'd replaced the first lot until now) but I still have a hard time telling apart what I call "jitter", which I think is due to the sample and hold effect (ie 25fps at 50Hz) that prevents objects from moving smoothly across the screen (where there's a lot of contrast between the moving object and the background) and 3:2 pulldown which to my brain just makes the "jitter" effect a little worse, but not noticeably worse. Repeating whole frames stands out though. I wonder if the test might be better conducted using a moving object with less contrast compared to the background?

One issue was MPC-HC didn't seem to be de-interlacing the interlaced sample (or not de-interlacing it properly) if there was already an instance of the player opening another sample. The 59.940i sample would bob up and down. An issue I couldn't repeat with any other interlaced video. In MPC-HC's settings for LAV, I had Cuvid enabled, but neither of the de-interlacing options checked. Disabling Cuvid didn't fix it, but enabling either of the de-interlacing options did.

"Enable adaptive hardware de-interlacing (Cuvid/Qs)" fixed the problem when checked, but that led me to wonder who's de-interlacing when it's not checked.
"Software deinterlacing (Yadif)" also fixed the problem, which still left me wondering who'd be de-interlacing when Cuvid isn't being used for decoding and neither options are checked.

That led me to comparing de-interlacing, which was interesting, or maybe not.... I'm not sure. I rarely watch interlaced video. 99.99% of what I watch is progressive, or progressive after having been de-interlaced or IVTC'd when I've re-encoded it, so I don't think about "what happens on playback" much.

Neither de-interlacing option enabled in the LAV decoder configuration (sharpest picture):
https://s31.postimg.org/vtjyb8ku3/No_deinterlacing_enabled_in_LAV.png

Hardware de-interlacing enabled (blurred, and number "6" on top right not de-interlaced as well):
https://s32.postimg.org/xir7dxmtx/LAV_Hardware_De_interlacing.png

Yadif De-interlacing enabled (similar to hardware de-interlacing with a "shimmer" around the top left text that can't be seen in the screenshot):
https://s31.postimg.org/ef63ygtpn/Yadif.png

Another oddity I noticed was when first opening any of the samples the text appears to be interlaced, or it's being de-interlaced when it shouldn't be, but only for a frame or two before normality returns. I couldn't work out why.

https://s32.postimg.org/kawn2w8np/progressive_1.jpg
https://s31.postimg.org/n7ptulqjf/progressive_2.jpg

After all that I've run out of time to look at the samples for the purpose for which they were actually intended at the moment. Hopefully I'll be able to have another look tonight.

Katie Boundary

29th June 2016, 20:34

No, since you defined 1) specifically for fades. If you want to broaden the definition to include any little bits of NTSC in an otherwise FILM video (logos at the beginning, chapter changes, any random NTSC, seemingly for no reason at all, black frames at beginning, end, or middle, etc.) then, yes.

I was using fades as an example of the NTSC bits that get sprinkled around.

It wasn't to enlighten you about hows and whys for Star Treks, but anything to get you to read it. There's a wealth of solid information there,

Yeah well aside from Star Trek and an explanation of Progressive Scan that actually made sense, it was the same stuff I read 10+ years ago in READFAG.

The HCenc MPEG-2 encoder has the ability to keep progressive as progressive and interlaced as interlaced, but that's about as far as it goes. I believe DVD-Rebuilder can do the same.

Noted.

Which you'll get just by making the D2V using 'Honor Pulldown Flags' - a hard telecined 29.97fps video (assuming it's a mix of hard and soft telecine to begin with).

Speaking of "stuff I read 10+ years ago in READFAG"...:p

I think much easier would be to play the video with the player deinterlacer turned off and note when the interlaced parts begin and end.

uhhh... no. Trying to find a specific frame in a normal media player's seek bar? That would just give me flashbacks of Adobe Premiere 6.0 failing to decode DivX AVIs with frame-accuracy

wonkey_monkey

29th June 2016, 20:55

uhhh... no. Trying to find a specific frame in a normal media player's seek bar?

Who said anything about using a "normal" media player?

I should think it's rather obvious than manono's talking about using VirtualDub or something of that ilk.

Sharc

30th June 2016, 16:33

.....Neither de-interlacing option enabled in the LAV decoder configuration (sharpest picture):

Clip #1 (interlaced): When any deinterlacing, bobbing or field separation is really disabled and you step through the clip on frame basis, you should see combing (mice teeth) of the moving white bar.... but apparently (from your screenshots) you got no combes at all so I suspect that you had still some deinterlacing activated, or we are fooled by the screenshot (?)

hello_hello

2nd July 2016, 07:31

Clip #1 (interlaced): When any deinterlacing, bobbing or field separation is really disabled and you step through the clip on frame basis, you should see combing (mice teeth) of the moving white bar.... but apparently (from your screenshots) you got no combes at all so I suspect that you had still some deinterlacing activated, or we are fooled by the screenshot (?)

I don't think the screenshot is foolin'.
When I step through the frames one at a time in MPC-HC, each number on the right displays twice (looking a tad different due to the de-interlacing) but as though I'm stepping through a 54.940fps video.

I have LAV decoding the video, and ffdshow processing that, so I can stop the video from being de-interlaced by unchecking ffdshow's "set interlaced flag in output media type" option, which I assume prevents ffdshow from telling whoever's doing the deinterlacing it needs to be done. With that option unchecked, the video displays like this and when I step through the frames one at a time, the numbers on the right only display for a single frame:

https://s32.postimg.org/475qxxwv9/interlaced.png

I assume the video card must be de-interlacing, but if it is I'm not sure why it appears to do a better job than the de-interlacing with either of the LAV de-interlacing options checked.

Anyway, I still haven't managed to try the samples for the purpose they were intended. Hopefully later today....

Sharc

2nd July 2016, 08:20

^^^
Now the picture looks ok, and you are watching non-deinterlaced frames. You see the mice teeth. They are short because the motion between fields is low (simulating a slow camera pan).
The number on the top right always indicates the (progressive) frame number, not the field number. When you would separate the fields the number would repeat.

You may want to re-download the latest version (http://www.mediafire.com/download/dbzawmu0ba3s8fb/NTSC_DVD_formats.zip). The picture is sharper. Otherwise nothing has been changed. For analyzing it is best to watch it at 100% original resolution, otherwise the upscaling will introduce its own artefacts, e.g. smearing the combes etc.

hello_hello

2nd July 2016, 14:49

My computer seriously dislikes your samples, although the problem of the 59.940i sample not being de-interlaced when there's another instance of MPC-HC open has gone away with the new samples. Now apparently, MPC-HC doesn't like resizing mpeg2 video. With or without hardware decoding enabled. FFS.....

Here's a video of DVDish resolution encoded with the x264 encoder running full screen (ie upscaled to 1080p). All is well.

https://s31.postimg.org/n32p9gqkb/madvr1.gif

Your sample at the original resolution. All is well.

https://s32.postimg.org/swtp84j4l/madvr2.gif

The same sample resized to fullscreen. Dropped and delayed frames for days (it happens with the progressive and hard telecined samples).

https://s31.postimg.org/4rr5w6lu3/madvr3.gif

I've no idea why I can't resize mpeg2 without issue (it's not just your samples, I've checked some others). I guess it shows how little of it I watch to not have noticed that's a problem. I've no idea why the MadVR stats show DXVA for mpeg2 given I'm using MPC-HC and it doesn't support DXVA on XP. Or maybe that's the cause of the problem. If I switch to an old renderer such as the "Overlay Mixing Renderer" the dropped frames problem appears to go away. Computers....

So after going through all that I'll take another break to let my eyes rest and come back to it again.
Now I've worked out resizing mpeg2 video is an issue I've checked the interlaced sample without resizing and it glides smoothly across the screen as it should when de-interlaced to 59.940fps. No "jitter" or "judder" to be seen. All the other samples are less smooth when it comes to motion, but I'll have a break and check them all again properly.

Sharc

2nd July 2016, 15:23

No rush!

Hmmm... strange with all the dropped frames when upscaling etc. I have not seen this here.
Perhaps there are sometimes just too many conflicting or competing settings and filters in SW players. Try with VirtualDubMod.

I still hope that I did not miss something when I prepared the clips......

hello_hello

2nd July 2016, 15:28

I might just give up and go mad. There's something odd happening. It's probably XP related, or something to do with my video card. I don't think it's your samples as I seem to be able to duplicate the dropped frames problem with other mpeg2 video (sometimes, at least). I've tried disabling IVTC in the video card's settings, but that doesn't seem to make any difference.

I can (usually) play any of the samples without dropping frames if they're running at their native resolution. Running fullscreen is a different story.

But why should I have dropped frames for days when running this fullscreen:

https://s32.postimg.org/e1y9qd7xx/madvr4.gif

While this one doesn't have that problem?:

https://s32.postimg.org/qalafgarp/madvr5.gif

Could it be to do with one being encoded as interlaced and the other as progressive, although I'm not sure why de-interlacing should effect resizing, unless the video card is doing both ands can't keep up?
Why does MadVR show DXVA for the first one and not for the second one?
Why is my computer torturing me like this?? :(

Sharc

2nd July 2016, 15:41

.....Could it be to do with one being encoded as interlaced and the other as progressive, although ....
Possibly yes. The purpose of the clip is also to check how players handle the transition between formats (glitches, stutter, temporary combing ...
Maybe you try with DVD_7 which has the 7 clips isolated in individual .vob's
Sorry, I didn't want to stress you unduly ;)

hello_hello

2nd July 2016, 16:40

I stopped thinking about it and went to bed, so naturally the penny dropped just as I was about to go to sleep and I had to get up again....

I think it's simply a matter of how many frames per second need to be rendered when de-interlacing is enabled. When it's not enabled it's in the range of 24 - 30fps. When de-interlacing is enabled it's twice that (double frame rate de-interlacing). Which probably also applies to hard telecined NTSC if it's encoded as interlaced.

To test that theory I enabled software de-interlacing and set it to "single frame rate" and the problem went away, so I think the issue was having to resize twice as many frames per second and the video card not keeping up, and not the de-interlacing as such.
Or the de-interlacing could be contributing, because I've got quite a bit of progressive video at 50fps and haven't noticed an issue with dropped frames, but then again most of it was resized to 640x480 for encoding, so the lower resolution might allow the video card to keep up with decoding and resizing without dropping frames.

This PC is also connected to the TV via VGA at the moment, although I don't know whether that should make displaying frames harder for the video card.

After all that, I think it comes down to a combination of interlaced video and slow hardware, combined with the user being a bit stupid and not realising sooner, so tomorrow I'll look at the samples again, trying to forget any of that happened and without resizing them.