Analog Remastering process, where to start

[ifb]

You want the BBC transform decoder (http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/pal/) for PAL, but I don't think it was ever generally available outside of the BBC. I doubt it's applicable, but I evaluated NTSC decoders for use with 1" and the differences (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zqdIKomo0qgmD9OtUw81h65_7nAVYqrk?usp=sharing) were not subtle (IMHO).

You could capture raw composite with a Domesday Duplicator (https://www.domesday86.com/?page_id=978) and use the PAL transform decoder in ld-decode (https://github.com/happycube/ld-decode/tree/master/tools/ld-chroma-decoder), but I don't think it would be feasible at scale. Maybe for very high value content it would be worth the effort.

Good luck. I hope you have plenty of spare parts for your VTR and means to replace/refurb the heads as they wear.

[FranceBB]

Second, when sound film is transferred to PAL, for broadcast in Europe, it is often simply sped up to 25 fps, sometimes pitch-corrected for the sound, sometimes not. Most people would not consider this "speeding up a lot."


I know that, I've done plenty of 4% speed-up + pitch adjustment from 23.976p materials to 25p to air them, what I was saying is that by the way they move fast (as if they were running), there's NO WAY that those extremely old contents were 23.976p, as they've been speeded-up way more than 4%, hence they had a way lower framerate. I was referring to those transfers only, I have no problem at all with modern 23.976p movies as I speed 'em up all the time and pitch adjust them to play at 25p and then just flag them as interlaced so that playout ports don't complain ;)



Third, silent film can be any speed. Really old stuff was hand-cranked, so there was no standard. I have transferred 1928 film which I timed to play at 12 fps, and even that may have been too fast. You have to look at the date on the can, if any, to determine what speed is going to work best. Most silent 16mm film from the 30s and 40s is 16 fps, as is most 8mm film.


This makes sense and that's exactly what I wanted to know. So they're with no real standard and between 12fps and 16fps, so yeah, this is exactly why I said that they were speeded up a lot (16fps or 12fps to 25 is a very big jump).



However, Super 8 film is always 18 fps, NOT 16 fps. That actually IS a standard and there is no exception. Hopefully you know the difference between 8mm and Super 8. They have the same width, but sprocket and frame size are totally different. The two standards are actually quite different.


I see! 18fps, thank you for that! All these things are from technologies that were available before I was born, so no, I didn't know that and all of this is pretty much new, so thank you very much for that insight!



As for "blending it to 50p and dividing it into fields to 25i" I have no clue what you mean by that, but it doesn't sound like the right thing to do, at all.

Just transfer the film, save it as progressive, and time it to play at 16, 18, or 24 fps (for most film). Don't do anything else until and unless you have to broadcast it.

I have to save as a mezzanine file that is ready to be broadcasted as it might be used by journalists etc, which is why it has to end up as 25i. I'm saving it as v210, so 10bit lossless at 220 Mbit/s in SD 720x576, but I have 3 choices:

A) leave it as it is, which is essentially speeded up a lot (probably from 12/16/18fps) to 25p by some people that were working in the 70s and did the transfer from the original support to BetaCAM and be ok with people running instead of walking.

B) slow it down to the original framerate (12/16/18fps or whatever the original framerate was) and then choose a better way to bring it to 25i (as I *must* bring it to 25i for standard purposes with the playout ports that have to be able to play it and also 'cause I can't leave to the editors the conversion, each and every mezzanine has to be ready as it is). My option would be to get a 25i by blending from the original framerate like:

AssumeFPS(16)
ConvertFPS(50)
assumeTFF()
separatefields()
selectevery(4,0,3)
weave()

I would rather not use linear interpolation on such an old content as it has all kind of issues that can make linear interpolation misbehave and create tons of artifacts.


C) The other choice would be to just duplicate frames to 25p and flag it as interlaced or 50p and divide it in fields like:

AssumeFPS(16)
ChangeFPS(50)
assumeTFF()
separatefields()
selectevery(4,0,3)
weave()


Which one would you suggest?

Hold on, blending? No, please! There ought to be a law! :p

For 16 and 18 I would keep that at the original (or cadence that at 50/60p as an intermedia (easy to undo). Optical flow is just too hard at those slow framerates and is to be avoided.

For a playable version I would create a copy that is properly repaired, denoised and deinterlaced to 50p/60p unless it is film-based.

Here is an example of a 16p film played at 60p using a AAA,BBBB,CCCC,DDDD cadence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHYaYOMc4eo

Yeah, I don't wanna risk it with linear interpolation/optical flow. Anyway, now that you showed me a 16p duplicated to 60p, I gotta say that it doesn't look too bad, I guess I'm gonna duplicate frames as well to get a 25i, so Option C ;)

Much to learn from there John, many thanks.

Indeed! I can just learn from people who dealt with these legacy supports and have a lot of experience in this field. So a big fat "thank you" to both John and Cary! ;)


Good luck. I hope you have plenty of spare parts for your VTR and means to replace/refurb the heads as they wear.

Thanks. As to the refurbished parts, it's gonna be a zombie-like VTR at the end of this huge task as we're gonna use old spare parts from more than 100 unused VTRs lying in the lab.

[Frank62]

You have content with a slow framerate (16 or 18fps or something else).

You have specifications to fulfill: PAL 25i, ok.

You wrote some time ago that the original copies of your cassettes or whatever are NOT going to be stored. But if someone in the future would need the original, he/she could go back to the original cassette. I answered (if I remember correctly) that you never know if those cassettes will be ok in a few years - or maybe weeks. Maybe it's the last chance to copy without too many errors.

Alltogether, in my opinion the most sense would be to convert to 25i in a way that is REVERSABLE. That means: No blendings, only frame/field doubling.

You have a high responsability, and I am sure you know it.

[FranceBB]

You have content with a slow framerate (16 or 18fps or something else).

You have specifications to fulfill: PAL 25i, ok.

You wrote some time ago that the original copies of your cassettes or whatever are NOT going to be stored. But if someone in the future would need the original, he/she could go back to the original cassette. I answered (if I remember correctly) that you never know if those cassettes will be ok in a few years - or maybe weeks. Maybe it's the last chance to copy without too many errors.

Alltogether, in my opinion the most sense would be to convert to 25i in a way that is REVERSABLE. That means: No blendings, only frame/field doubling.

You have a high responsability, and I am sure you know it.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with duplicating frames to get 25i, I just encoded a test file after Cary Knoop suggested it and it doesn't look bad. I thought the stuttering would have been unwatchable, but honestly, it's fine. Duplicating it is.

[Frank62]

Sounds good! Somehow a great relief for me.

[johnmeyer]

Which one would you suggest?None of the above.

If you are dealing with original film material, and if you are saving to a "mezzanine" format, by which I think you mean that it isn't going to be broadcast tomorrow, your choice is clear and obvious and I already gave you the answer: you save as progressive and set the playback speed using Assumefps() so it plays at what you think is the correct speed. I gave you the guidelines for that.

Then, when it comes time for broadcast, you or the person in charge of that broadcast takes the 16 fps progressive file (or whatever it is) and decides on what will look best, given the technology available to that person and at that future point in time.

I also must point out that you clearly have one additional confusion about interlaced vs. progressive. In particular, film can be stored inside a video which is interlaced, but that doesn't make the result interlaced. The header in a video file means nothing, and the way in which the playback equipment outputs the file means nothing.

Simply put: if there is no temporal difference between even and odd fields in a video, it it progressive. Period. This is an extraordinarily important point to fully understand before you continue what you are doing. You NEVER need to deinterlace or inverse telecine progressive material stored in an interlace format unless it has been telecined.

In my workflow I happen to use an interlaced codec for many of my film transfers. My NLE thinks it is interlaced, and Mediainfo reports it as interlaced. However, it is not, and I can resize it without deinterlacing and I can do anything else I want, without regard to interlacing because it is, in fact, progressive.

[FranceBB]

None of the above.

If you are dealing with original film material, and if you are saving to a "mezzanine" format, by which I think you mean that it isn't going to be broadcast tomorrow, your choice is clear and obvious and I already gave you the answer: you save as progressive and set the playback speed using Assumefps() so it plays at what you think is the correct speed. I gave you the guidelines for that.

Then, when it comes time for broadcast, you or the person in charge of that broadcast takes the 16 fps progressive file (or whatever it is) and decides on what will look best, given the technology available to that person and at that future point in time.


That would be ok if I could save it the way I wanted, but I can't keep the v210 and store it or re-encode to any other codec with any arbitrary framerate, it has to be 25i (either truly interlaced or progressive flagged as interlaced) due to our specs. Yes, it's a mezzanine file, but this mezzanine must be complaint to our specs, hence the requirement to bring everything to the very same framerate...
TL;DR I'm level 4 out of 10 in the company, I'm worth nothing, if our boss wants everything to be AVC Intra Class 100 25i, I can't argue whatsoever; if it was for me, I would have kept the lossless file as well at the original framerate.



film can be stored inside a video which is interlaced, but that doesn't make the result interlaced.


Of course, as I said, files can be progressive but flagged as interlaced to make them play on devices like DVDs or to Broadcast 'em, it's normal, I know that. I live and work in PAL land where the only two options are 25i (truly interlaced) or 25p flagged as interlaced, but I think that in NTSC land it could be 29.970 which can contain a 23.976 which has been telecined, OR a 29.970 progressive flagged as interlaced OR a 29.970 truly interlaced which is 59.940, so it's pretty much the same, you use the very same "trick" we use. ;)


Simply put: if there is no temporal difference between even and odd fields in a video, it it progressive. Period.
In my workflow I happen to use an interlaced codec for many of my film transfers. My NLE thinks it is interlaced, and Mediainfo reports it as interlaced. However, it is not, and I can resize it without deinterlacing and I can do anything else I want, without regard to interlacing because it is, in fact, progressive.

I know that. For instance, there are tons of movies and TV Series which I encode as 25i even though they're 25p. In other words, progressive flagged as interlaced to make the playout port that has to play it happy. It's like your NLE that sees the interlaced flag and doesn't complain about that even though the content is effectively progressive; you just encoded a progressive file and then flagged it as interlaced. It's fine, it's something I have been doing ever since I began encoding for broadcast usage in 2015 (after I left Viewster).

[feisty2]

That would be ok if I could save it the way I wanted, but I can't keep the v210 and store it or re-encode to any other codec with any arbitrary framerate, it has to be 25i (either truly interlaced or progressive flagged as interlaced) due to our specs. Yes, it's a mezzanine file, but this mezzanine must be complaint to our specs, hence the requirement to bring everything to the very same framerate...
TL;DR I'm level 4 out of 10 in the company, I'm worth nothing, if our boss wants everything to be AVC Intra Class 100 25i, I can't argue whatsoever; if it was for me, I would have kept the lossless file as well at the original framerate.




ur boss and whoever made the specs dont know shit, fire them!

[StainlessS]

I'm level 4 out of 10 in the company, I'm worth nothing ...

Please dont feel like that FrancBB, of course you are of worth.

FLM, FranceBB Lives Matter.

[johnmeyer]

When videos get posted in this forum, people often ask, "how did it ever get so screwed up?" This thread gives everyone one answer.

Taking all the time to transfer, and possibly restore, various films, and then be forced to store the results as 25 fps interlaced is stupid. There is no other word for it. You seem to know what you are doing, but you are degrading the film by adding pulldown because, even though that pulldown can later be removed, the video will have to then be re-encoded, and that will introduce additional degradation.

It saddens me to see things done wrong, especially when the proper way has been described, and when the person doing the work knows better.

You should point out that while the files you create can indeed simply be "taken off the shelf" and broadcast, there are dozens of other uses that are becoming increasingly likely where your current workflow will not only force additional degradation, but also more work. In particular, should you ever need to stream the result (which IS the future), you'll have to undo all the garbage you added, and restore the file to 16, 18, or 24 fps progressive.

[manono]

...even though that pulldown can later be removed, the video will have to then be re-encoded, and that will introduce additional degradation.
I don't know if this is relevant or not, but soft pulldown can be easily removed without reencoding. I've done it a number of times. Of course, hard pulldown has to be IVTC'd and reencoded in order to restore the original framerate.

[johnmeyer]

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but soft pulldown can be easily removed without reencoding. I've done it a number of times. Of course, hard pulldown has to be IVTC'd and reencoded in order to restore the original framerate.I'm not sure soft pulldown can be used for the OP's broadcast application. AFAIK, soft pulldown is primarily a DVD/BD technique. Do other formats provide for pulldown flags in the header? If so, that might be an alternative: store the video as progressive 16, 18, or 24 fps, but add a pulldown header to bring that to 25 fps for PAL broadcast.

I don't think that can be done, but if it can, I'd love to know the technique.

[Cary Knoop]

That would be ok if I could save it the way I wanted, but I can't keep the v210 and store it or re-encode to any other codec with any arbitrary framerate, it has to be 25i (either truly interlaced or progressive flagged as interlaced) due to our specs. Yes, it's a mezzanine file, but this mezzanine must be complaint to our specs, hence the requirement to bring everything to the very same framerate...
Wow, unbelievable!

So you do not make any digital masters at the original framerate and in interlaced condition (if applicable)?

If so, that is an incredibly short-sighted policy of the corporation you work for!

It should be a two-step double source archiving:


Convert the analogues to digital masters without making any changes (except for things like procamp, setup, sync adjustments, etc). Copy the masters (with verification) and have at least one second copy stored at a distinct geographic location.
Create readily viewable versions from the masters doing anything to prepare it for immedia distribution or viewing (deinterlace, denoise, candences, framerate conversions, rec 601 conversions etc)

The reason step one is essential is that the analogues will degrade over time also over time it will be increasingly difficult to play those sources due to the fact those devices are no longer manufactured.

[Navetek]

use nnedi3, don't use nnedi3, I don't even care, it's not my videos

but, I can't decide if you guys are trolling or viewing pics on a flip phone or there's something wrong with your display device, as I find it simply incomprehensible to say
https://i.imgur.com/fRHSA0s.png
looks not bad compared to
https://i.imgur.com/KBRPIF5.png

I have no words

How exactly did you accomplish this? Excellent result!
I mean, the fine native-HD look is just like magic.
Mind if posting a little script for our reference?:stupid:

[johnmeyer]

Feisty has posted quite a few sharpening scripts. Just do a search using his user name. Be forwarned that you'll have to install and learn VapourSynth. Also be aware that Feisty makes no compromises in order to get his quality and this means that the performance of his scripts are often measured in seconds per frame rather than frames per second. The results, however, are often amazing.