Capturing music videos (interlace question)

[prot0vision]

Hi All,

I've been capturing some music videos, but was wondering about deinterlacing options when converting to divx.

My capture card, Creative Digital VCR, captures in interlace, NTSC format. Does anyone know which is the best way to deinterlace/IVTC the captures?

I'm confused because I'm not sure how music videos are filmed (probably varies from video to video). Are they shot on film, telecined up to 29.97fps? If so, which filter should I use, field deinterlace, or IVTC? Or is Force Film an option, since the video might have been shot on film?

Thanks for any clues,

prot0vision

[aldonix]

The easiest way is to check it by yourself. Open the captured video in VirtualDub (if you captured not in avi, you may have to do some frame serving), find the fragment with a lot of motion, enlarge the picture to 2x or 4x. Then check the frame sequence. If they all appear to be interlaced - it is a genuine interlaced video, and you have to apply a de-interlace filter. There are tons of them out there. I personally use "deinterlace-area based" by Gunnar Thalin (VirtualDub filter). If the frame sequence looks like 3 progressive - 2 interlaced - 3p - 2i - ..., it is a NTSC telecined video. It has to be IVTCed. My experience indicates that for home-captured videos the best IVTC tool is TMPG. Forced Film is good only for movies which were transfered directly from film into digital format (most likely DVD). If they passed through VHS tape, Forced Film wouldn't help.
In an unlikely case of more complicated frame sequence (3p-3i, for example) you have to use telecide filter and decimate away duplicate frames (n=5 for FILM -> NTSC, n=6 for PAL -> NTSC).

Aldonix

[Swan]

I capture in PAL. I have not yet fully grasped how the videos I capture, those that clearly come from a film source, can be 100% interlaced. But they always are.
Examing an old music video from 1978, which has film grain, hair, dust, etc, frame by frame in VirtualDub, I see that every single frame is interlaced.

I'd love to know how that is done and if it at all possible to recover the progressive frames. When I deinterlace for DivX encoding purposes, I use Decomb in a Avisynth script, but it would be cooler to get the progressive frames back instead. :)

/Swan

[Guest]

@Swan

If it's PAL it might be just a simple one-field phase shift that you are seeing. That can cause progressive PAL to look interlaced. Try running it through Telecide() without Decimate(). (You might need a field swap afterwards as well.) If there are progressive frames, Telecide() should be able to recover them.

This is a lesser-known capability of Telecide(). :)

[Swan]

Thanks for the tip.
I just tested just telecide (),
but I still see "combing".
What does this tell you?
That the conversion from film to PAL 25 fps was badly made?
Or that I need to add more stuff in my avisynth script? :)
Swapping the fields, perhaps?
The video is not "jumping up and down" or anything, it still plays nicely.

Is there a function for Field Swap in Avisynth or should I use the internal "Field Swap" filter in VirtualDub?
I really appreciate your help.

/Swan

[Guest]

@Swan

I have to see a short source clip (unprocessed) in HUFYUV or high bitrate MJPEG to make a determination. Can you make a clip available for download?

Telecide() has a swap option built-in, IIRC. :)

But it would look stairstepped, not combed, if you needed a swap at the end.

Show me a clip and I'll be able to be definitive.

[Swan]

My ISP only gives me 10 MB space. :(
Hopefully, I can cut out a short sequence and put on my "web page" space. Will Mpeg-2 do? That's the original format of the clip.

Offering this type of help is really kind of you.

/SWan

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

Originally posted by prot0vision
Hi All,

I'm confused because I'm not sure how music videos are filmed (probably varies from video to video). Are they shot on film, telecined up to 29.97fps? If so, which filter should I use, field deinterlace, or IVTC? Or is Force Film an option, since the video might have been shot on film?

Thanks for any clues,

prot0vision

i think all videos are shot on film.....
what was done with them afterwards is another question........

[Guest]

Originally posted by Swan
My ISP only gives me 10 MB space. :(
Hopefully, I can cut out a short sequence and put on my "web page" space. Will Mpeg-2 do? That's the original format of the clip.
/SWan That will do nicely. Let me know.

EDIT: You may also have the dreaded blended fields (from NTSC<-->PAL conversion).

[Swan]

Okay :)
Here are three clips for download:

http://w1.837.telia.com/~u83704103/clips/

/Swan

[Guest]

@Swan

I looked only at the first one because it told me all I need to know.

It is indeed progressive PAL with a simple field shift. I don't know if it was captured from old tapes, or you have a crappy capture card, but there is a large amount of chroma shift between the two fields that make up each progressive frame. You can see all this by using SeparateFields(), my not-so-secret weapon. You can see that there is a simple phase shift because Telecide keeps picking the next frame for matching: [using n].

So, the fields get aligned correctly, but the chroma shift leaves residual combing. I got reasonable results by forcing deinterlacing as follows:

Telecide(threshold=5,chroma=true) # use Decomb 4.00 rc 6

The result is quite good given the horrible source material.

You might also consider using PAL guidance:

Telecide(threshold=5,chroma=5,guide=2,gthresh=50)

[Swan]

It is indeed progressive PAL with a simple field shift.
OK, good to know! I'd love to know more about this procedure; from film to PAL using a phase shift to create interlacing, how it's done, etc. If you don't have the time to explain it, I'd be really grateful if you could point me to a web page where I can read more. My searches on the web (Google) have not yielded any solid hits.

if it was captured from old tapes, or you have a crappy capture card, but there is a large amount of chroma shift between the two
A-ha! That's interesting. It's a Bt878-based card (AverTV Studio) with Btwincap drivers. The video (which is from 1976, BTW) was captured directly from live TV (Vh1 Europe). My setup is: satellite digital receiver's out to composite in on capture card.

The clip you selected to test was the one where the combing, after using telecide (), was the worst. I think I got a pretty good result on testfile #3.

Thank you for all this help, it's really interesting to read comments from a "pro" like you. ;)

/Swan

[prot0vision]

Thanks All!

I've done a little experimenting, and think I have a good grasp now.

One thing I noticed, on one video, I examined it, and it look like it was doing 2p/3i frames, so I tried both a simple field deinterlace and IVTC (ala Gordian Knot), and my results were very good, but different when viewed on my TV (forgot to mention viewing on TV in original message).

In my opinion, the deinterlace version plays the smoothest. The IVTC version didn't playback as smooth, a small stutter once a second, like one frame is being duplicated, most noticable on pans.

My results are probably due to playback on a TV, which I guess adds a whole different set on variables to the problem (29.97fps -> 60hz).

Since I'm playing back on a TV, I've considered leaving my videos interlaced, but decided against it for future compatibility (PC watching, etc)

Thanks everyone!

prot0vision

[Swan]

@Ivo

i guess that means that color information shifts (changes) between the fields creating undesired effects.....it should stay constant over the period of two consecutive fields.....(ie. same for 1 frame.....1 frame = 2 fields...)
Ohh! I misunderstood. Thanks for pointing that out, Ivo.

perhaps it's not the problem of the "over-the-air" PAL transmission but rather artefacts of poor vhs recordings or poor capture card a/d coversion
The clip Donald examined was the worst of the three clips I uploaded. It was one I selected because it had the most "combing", even after applying his telecide filter to it.
I am open to all the possibilities as to why the video displayed
"chroma shift". My Aver TV Studio card may be bad (the A/D converter is a Bt878), the satellite receiver is not top notch (I know it isn't, it's two years old and one of the first to be available in this country). I did not use the tuner when capturing, so we can rule that out. Also, the conversion from Film to 25 fps PAL may have been done by someone stupid. Who knows?
It'd be interesting to know if all the clips I uploaded show a chroma shift, or just the first one (Wild Cherry "Play That Funky Music").


that VHS' system of recording chroma (called "chroma-under") can introduce some unusual phase-shifts....(although i don't remember seeing any of that on my tapes or capturings..but then again i'm not analyzing all of my tapes for
OK. I can just say that no VHS was involved on my side. I captured the clip directly from the sat receiver, when it aired, live.

why can you reconstruct progressive frame from these two interlaced fields?
Yes, that's what I figured. It should be possible. I thought each progressove film frame was split into 2 fields, and that those fields are identical (shot at the same moment in time). So putting them back together into 1 progressive frame should not display any combing. But, I admit, I don't fully grasp Film to PAL conversion. I know it involves speeding the film up to 25 fps and pitching the audio. It's the interlacing, how that is done, I don't grasp.
Donald wrote in another thread something I interpreted as:

The signal looks like this when it airs:

1 frame = 2 identical fields (made up from 1 progressive frame).

It's the capture card that messes up fields. So that:
1 frame = 2 different fields (made from 2 different progressive frames)

But maybe I misunderstood that too. :)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34976



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jbk
Telecide is a great filter, but to the best of my knowledge it should only be used on NTSC material that was originally filmed at 24 fps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not correct. It is useful in any case where the fields of the progressive frames have become separated into different frames. Many capture cards, for example, produce a one field phase shift of progressive PAL material that makes it look interlaced when it is not. Telecide can correct that.


1frame(of film)---->2 fields of tv signal------>1 frame (captured by your capture card)
Yes, but one frame which looks interlaced. It clearly consists of two fields that displays combing on my monitor. I thought this was as it should be, that's how the signal was sent from the Tv station to the TV. But I think what Donald wrote contradicts that. I'd like to have this cleared up.

Thanks Ivo, I appreciate that you'll look into it. Knowing you, I'm sure you'll find something interesting.

/Swan

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

all right:it seems that i got it quite wrong!
[ i'm deleting previous post...so it won't introduce more
confusion than it's needed...]
i was mentioning chroma phase shifts,tv-standards,etc., but there was no need for that:

i've found something in "Luke's guide":
[quote]
"In the "good" PAL/SECAM telecine technique, all of the fields are placed in the correct frames. This means that there will be no interlacing artifacts.
In the "perverse" PAL/SECAM telecine technique, half of the fields are shifted by one frame. This means that fields that do not belong together are stuck into the same frame. For example, the film field 2T will be combined with the film field 1B to produce TV Frame #1 (see the diagram directly above). This telecine method looks fine on a television, but produces interlacing artifacts on a computer monitor."[end quote]


[click on link "Telecining"(left pane)....go to link:"5 ) PAL/SECAM Telecine".....sorry for this but i think Luke's page is constructed in a way that i can't give you exact link & i'm not online (to check that out ) -> i've dloaded whole web-site....]

so : it's solved:"pal field phase shift" means that 1 field has "timing-error" so its not where it should be!
instead of 2 fields making a perfect progressive frame,1 field is moved (time-wise) & it ends up in another frame!

also this from neuron2:
" You can see that there is a simple phase shift because Telecide keeps picking the next frame for matching"



why aren't fields an exact match of the frames?
obviously during the progressive (i think progressive scanning during the telecining is A MUST! ) to interlaced conversion errors can occur:
fields are being "taken" without much consideration where from they have been taken....(ie from which frame.. )



so i think you could say it's the problem of synchronizing interlacing system (even/odd fields) with the stuff on film.......
or better yet:syncronizing interlacing system with progressive stuff recorded from the film.....
1 film frame SHOULD make 2 tv fields which can then (in turn) be transformed back to 1 progressive frame on PC.....
although it can be reconstructed even when this phase shift occurs!
(see neuron2's qoute few lines above.....)


also his "the chroma shift leaves residual combing" & "there is a large amount of chroma shift between the two fields that make up each progressive frame. "

this is why even after "telecide()" you still had combing (it was chroma combing this time.....)

chroma didn't stayed the same over the 2 field period..(& it should)...
[that is what confused me:this "chroma shift" is completely another problem....
"pal one-field phase shift" & "chroma shift" are different things...although (obviously) they can occur in paralell....]



Swan>"But, I admit, I don't fully grasp Film to PAL conversion. I know it involves speeding the film up to 25 fps and pitching the audio. It's the interlacing, how that is done, I don't grasp."

_again according to the "Luke's guide",you're right:film is speeded up a little (4%) so audio also speeds up like that (4%) but when you change "pitch" (ie. you distort a sound lil bit so it gets deeper,with more bass...)
you make tones sound lower & everything looks & sounds OK....

how's interlacing done?sa far as i know (now i'm reading "Videomagazine" from April'96. article is "Copy Right"....)
"Telecine" machines are used (or used before...now there are "Datacine's" but it's the same principle!)
"flying spot" scans the film (in a way that we read books->left to right,down,left to right,down...etc)
(fl.spot is a beam of light that moves rapidly across each film frame to capture all there is on film.....i guess you can say that it misses something anyhow just like capture card misses something during the a/d conversion......capture card misses A LOT more than this pro telecine devices
telecine can miss when there's a spacing between scan lines that this flying spot creates..the larger the spacing between the lines the more is missed!..)

this light (from the flying spot) is then "collected" by the sensors which reside on the other side of the film--->flying spot is in front,sensors are on the back of the film.....

you end up with a VERY HI-QUALITY PROGRESSIVE images that are electronically or (now) digitally stored!
with that you can play:correst luma/chroma...clean scratches.....improve picture.
after all this you can make interlaced signal out of it-->take one progressive frame and just split it to 2 fields
(even lines 1 field,odd lines other field....)

that's it...

i guess we've nailed that one....



cheers

Ivo

[Swan]

i guess we've nailed that one....
No *you* did! :)
This is the most interesting post I've read in a very long time, Ivo. Thank you for taking the time, It's no piece if cake, researching as much as you did, thinking things through, and then sharing it in a text form on this forum. I really appreciate this!
It's fascinating stuff to me and your explanations are great.

For the shift in chroma, it remains to see if my capture card had anything do do with it. I've installed the Pinnacle PCTV Pro card that we talked about in another thread. :) I've used it for 4 hours non-stop (doing what I love: capturing from sat receiver to composite in, using Mpeg-2 in Ulead VideoStudio, he, he) and one thing is sure: the ugly interference lines I have with the Aver card are gone! I am so glad about that. Hopefully I can capture some more "stone age" videos tonight and check if the chroma shift is as bad as on the test clips I uploaded (captured with the Aver card). or if the Pinnacle card is better..:)

Ivo, thanks a billion for the explanations!

/Swan

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

i've expected SOME praise,but not so much...hehehe
yeah..... well it seems we share same passion for "interlacing secrets"

[Pinnacle PCTV Pro]
yes:better drivers mean better device!
also ...for the mpeg2....you can do it because of fast CPU!
so perhaps now you will understand why A LOT of us does mjpeg or huff (heheh outdated machines..)
if i had that software (Ulead) i would tested it...but i very much doubt that cel600 could chew that....
(hell, i'll test any format that saves space!)
(although i still presume mjpeg ("18" or "19" )or huff will beat mpeg2 direct capture...even with such a fast CPU as yours.....)

perhaps you could post some nice mpeg2 examples..i guess videos you uploaded aren't best example (old film,hair,scratched....etc!)

or if you say they are good quality i'll dload them..no problem.....

i hope new card serves you well!

"stone age" videos?
i only wish i can receive VH1!

cheers

Ivo

[Swan]

i've expected SOME praise,but not so much...hehehe
Well, you deserve it. ;)

yeah..... well it seems we share same passion for "interlacing secrets"
That's for sure! It's nice to know I'm not the only one whose captivated by learning as much as possible about the technical aspects of TV :)

yes:better drivers mean better device!
Yes. But I think it's more than that. The Aver card has a serious flaw, perhaps a grounding problem.
I uploaded a very short clip some time ago, which highlights the "interference" in large areas of blue and red I have with it. If you wanna check it out:
http://w1.837.telia.com/~u83704167/avertest/testfile.zip
It's very short, so play it on "repeat" in MediaPlayer. It doesn't show very well on a screen shot, but I'm sure you'll see if it you play the file repeatedly. The quality of it is bad! It is not the quality I get these days with VideoStudio and capturing interlaced. ;)

so perhaps now you will understand why A LOT of us does mjpeg or huff (heheh outdated machines..)
He, he. Well, I had a Pentium II 266 Mhz machine, 128 MB Ram until late December 2001. I know *all* about having a painfully slow machine and all the things I wanted to do, but couldn't, before I built this computer. :)
Also, I see clear advantages in Huffy capturing, for example material that needs to be edited and where one wants to have full control over the Mpeg-encoding. I mean, after all, you can test, and test again, the source material is not ruined by it.

(although i still presume mjpeg ("18" or "19" )or huff will beat mpeg2 direct capture...even with such a fast CPU as yours.....)
I'd be willing to give it a test. What should I use? Morgan or PicVideo? Will the demo versions allow me to capture in good enough quality to make a fair comparison?

or if you say they are good quality i'll dload them..no problem.....
I'd love to, but my ISP only gives out 10 MB and I have nowhere else to upload. A typical music video is about 250-300 MB.:(
Yes, I think they're of good quality. I see virtually no difference between live TV and the stuff I've captured. And I know I am picky, all my friends tell me so. :)

"stone age" videos?
Ha, ha. I'm into that. Are you?

i only wish i can receive VH1!
Ahh.. You can't get it via satellite or cable in Croatia?

/Swan

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

S>Yes. But I think it's more than that. The Aver card has a serious flaw, perhaps a grounding problem.
I uploaded a very short clip some time ago, which highlights the "interference" in large areas of blue and red I have with it. If you wanna check it out:
http://w1.837.telia.com/~u83704167/...st/testfile.zip
It's very short, so play it on "repeat" in MediaPlayer. It doesn't show very well on a screen shot, but I'm sure you'll see if it you play the file repeatedly. The quality of it is bad! It is not the quality I get these days with VideoStudio and capturing interlaced.


_i've seen it:looks like some kind of RF interference.....i don't know how's this possible if you have your satellite receiver as a source and use "video-in" chinch (or SVHS in) on your (ex) card.....
i could understand this if it was related to the use of tuner on the card....

and you say now with new card no such problems?
as far as i know only few components (few capacitors etc.) are included in the path of the signal from input connector to Bt8x8 chip->perhaps some of them are leaky......either that (or indeed drivers,but i doubt it...) or the signal itself is distorted when it reaches the card (and if you use the same setup with new card as with old one & don't have such problems with new one than you know it isn't that ie. source is clean on enetring the capture card....)...perhaps some sort of electro-smog or so....

i never had such problems even using very lousy (self made,uninsulated wiring ) chinch cables etc.

( btw. those girls look MEAN!....hehehe )


S>Also, I see clear advantages in Huffy capturing, for example material that needs to be edited and where one wants to have full control over the Mpeg-encoding. I mean, after all, you can test, and test again, the source material is not ruined by it.


_yes,it's better in the start than mpeg2.....
although i don't use huff.....10MB/s is pretty unacceptable!


[MJPG]

S>I'd be willing to give it a test. What should I use? Morgan or PicVideo? Will the demo versions allow me to capture in good enough quality to make a fair comparison?


_i'm using some ol' picvideo ( i registered on the site-for free offcourse-& got serial numbers so it's full working version....."lossles mjpeg" part of codec is different story,but then again...lossles means very hi-bitrate etc.
(however i should compare it with huff....i guess i will.....)

at the bitrates round 2MB/s ( 7xx x 576 ) you can get pretty decent quality (i see your mpeg2 has cca. 1,25MB/s....) it's even possible to set it to "15" but that way titles & graphics have more "mosquito" noise.....that can be filtered ( removed ) on post production & encoding.........

you can contact me for the details how to get codec etc.





S>I'd love to, but my ISP only gives out 10 MB and I have nowhere else to upload.



_mine ISP gives 5MB....still did'n used any of it ( no time for html..all is dedicated for encoding...remember slow CPU..heheh)

S>A typical music video is about 250-300 MB.
Yes, I think they're of good quality. I see virtually no difference between live TV and the stuff I've captured. And I know I am picky, all my friends tell me so.


_huh....too much!
in about 320MB i'll squeeze 43min of video ( divx ) at 528x400 ( or so )
looks mighty fine on monitor ,plays even better on tv-out....
i think you need dvd-r (if you haven't got one already...)
2 music videos on 1 cd? huh....

[although overall i'm not much into music videos....
more of an comedy-series guy.....Northern Exposure,Seinfeld,Simpsons,3rd stone from the sun....such stuff.....]

my experience tells me that i can differentiate live-tv (analog or satellite analog PAL) from any stuff i capture...(wether it's mjpeg or huff)
i think tv-out chips aren't so good,capture cards also....but then again i don't know what's you satellite receiver like & on what kind of tv you watch.....
usually i'll notice that live-tv picture is a bit sharper than stuff captured.....(it looks "softer" on monitor & on tv-out...)
i like it as sharp as it's possible!
[perhaps i'm even "pickier"(?)]

example:try capturing moto-race,& comparing results of capturings with the stuff you watched live....i would always prefer hi-quality analog devices
( such as analog pro-tv equipment ) than cheap digital capture devices (or even expensive digital capture devices...)
[after encoding things get even worse.....]

but that analog equipment is far too expensive.....

analog noise is a BIG problem for any capture/device and codec....



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i only wish i can receive VH1!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


S>Ahh.. You can't get it via satellite or cable in Croatia?


_i have analog satellite system and have some music channels (mtv germany,mtv2-pop,viva 1 & 2 ) but i guess VH1 beats any of that....
i'm not getting digital SATV just because of VH1....(and i don't think i could get legal smart cards for it if it was scrambled.....is it scrambled?)
i think digital SATV is overkill...too many channels........even this way it's more than i can grasp....all together 50-60 channels on few satellites is too much for me.....but even if i only had eurosport,3sat,arte,bbc world & DW-TV i would be pretty satisfied.......
( lot of nice stuff on terrestrial tv here.... )

bigger cities have cable systems, yes....


cheers

Ivo

[Swan]

@Ivo
i could understand this if it was related to the use of tuner on the card....
Yeah. it's a mystery. I have the *exact same setup* now with the Pinnacle card, as with the Aver card. So it has to be the Aver card that is the problem. With the new card: no problems at all.

btw. those girls look MEAN!....hehehe
he, he, he. Destiny's Child. yeah, they're mean. :)

i'm using some ol' picvideo ( i registered on the site-for free offcourse-& got serial numbers so it's full working
Ah, OK! Thanks for the offer on the "details". I might pick you up on that. ;)
I have a question: how large would a music video be, say, 4 minutes long, when captured with PicVideo Mjeg? Would it fit on a CD?
Is it essentially a lossless compression or? The name suggests the compression works like jpeg? Motion jpeg, perhaps?
Now, this is what I do:
Capture 1-2 hours. Cut out the music videos I want, throw the rest and then burn the good ones to CD.
How would I do that with Mjeg captured clips? I'd have to cut them out, and then save them in a format that keeps the resolution 720 x 576. That'd have to be Xvid, I guess? How do you do it?

mine ISP gives 5MB....still did'n used any of it ( no time for html..all is dedicated for encoding...remember slow CPU..heheh)
He, he. If there are any music videos or other programs on Vh1 you'd like to see, I have an idea. I could send you a CD via snail mail. We can chat about that in a PM or via e-mail if your interested?
I am into disco, r&b, soul, funk and reggae music myself, and that's the types of music videos I capture, but I'd be willing to capture other videos/music styles for you, of course. Or some motor racing on Eurosport? :)

at the bitrates round 2MB/s ( 7xx x 576 ) you can get pretty decent quality (i see your mpeg2 has cca. 1,25MB/
I use a bitrate of between 8000 and 9000 kbps these days. I only go to 10.000 with PowerVCR because it uses 2000 less than what you tell it to. Or at least it did, with the Aver card.

_huh....too much!
LOL! You know, I capture music videos because I want to view them on the TV. And keep them for the future. That's why I need the (720) x 576 vertical resolution (I love interlacing). ;) I only DivX encode a police series I capture each night, because I'd have to buy even more CD's than I do, if I were to fit those huge (4 GB) Mpeg on CD's. But with precious stuff, I keep the original Mpeg-2 file and I always, without exception, keep the Mpeg-2 file when it comes to music videos. I mean, 2-3 music videos a CD, that's OK with me. CD's are very cheap here. Just today I bought Memorex, 40 pack, 700 MB for about 10 euros. It's nothing! And then I get to keep the videos, in their original form. But you're right, I do need a DVD writer. :)

my experience tells me that i can differentiate live-tv (analog or satellite analog PAL) from any stuff i capture...(
You probably can! I can too, the captured clips are a little bit less sharp and if you look closely, you can see small artefacts on logos and so on. But all the pixelation I see on my clips come from the satellite receiver. It's an old Nokia. I do not introduce any pixelation when I capture. Of that I am sure. The blocks I get when I capture come from the receiver. I actually see Mpeg-artefacts when watching TV, sitting in the sofa, just watching live TV! I don't think VH1 broadcasts at a low bitrate, so the Mpeg-decoder in the sat receiver probably isn't very good. I need a new one. Sigh. :)

But I have a fairly good TV (a Sony Trinitron flat 29") which is also excellent at revealing artefacts. It's painfully honest. :) I had a different TV on loan (a budget, 400 euro's worth Samsung) for a couple of weeks recently. The picture was all smooth (nowhere near as sharp as the Sony) and the Mpeg blocks didn't show at all on the Samsung. So a good TV is also important, in order to see artefacts in Mpeg-2 videos. Or, the other way around: to avoid seeing them, buy a cheap TV. :)

_i have analog satellite system and have some music channels (mtv germany,mtv2-pop,viva 1 & 2 ) but i guess VH1 beats any of that....
The strange thing is that Vh1 Europe (www.vh1e.com, which is what I can see) and Vh1 U.K (www.vh1.co.uk) are not the same. I'd love to have the US version of Vh1, it's ten times better than the Vh1e version. Vh1 UK is also better. Even so, Vh1(e) is cool, if you like older music videos. They also show a lot of new stuff, though very little new R&B. Mostly hits, like Celine Dion, Bon Jovi, Sheryl Crow, etc. I like the station for the oldies videos.
I also have an analog sat receiver. :)
Viva can show some interesting shows, although I hardly understand anything that's being said between the videos. :)

i think digital SATV is overkill...too many channels........even this way it's more than i can grasp....all together 50-60 channels on few satellites is too much for me.
Well, of the 50-60 stations, there's only, say 20, you really watch. That's the situation for me. I'm not too interested in Travel Channel, Gospel Channel, etc. I mainly watch perhaps 15 stations.
I prefer satellite TV: better quality, many more stations. Still there are "500 channels and nothing on" evenings, even with 2 satellite dishes, capable of receiving 4 satellites. :)

lot of nice stuff on terrestrial tv here
Not here. Just 2 (state controlled) stations and one commercial.

/Swan

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

S>I have a question: how large would a music video be, say, 4 minutes long, when captured with PicVideo Mjeg? Would it fit on a CD?

_work it out!(Beyonce?hehehe)

2(MB/s) x 240sec(4min x 60sec)---->480MB
bitrate can fluctuate(depending on the motion,details etc.)

also:2,5(MB/s) x 240------->600MB.....etc,etc.

(compare that with round 10MB/s for same thing with huff)

(also if it's "dark" video,not much light etc. it'll go
down....PIC video at 17 stil gives ok picture....i would say round 1500kB/s...i usually use that for my 704x576 capturings.....why not 720?...more pixels bigger bitrate...heheh)

S>Is it essentially a lossless compression or? The name suggests the compression works like jpeg? Motion jpeg, perhaps?


_it's lossy...but included (in the pack) is "picvideo lossles compressor"....i think that has much bigger bitrate than the usual (lossy) one....as i've said didn't tried it....( i will though )
yes,you've guessed it:it's jpeg for "moving pictures"...

S>Now, this is what I do:
Capture 1-2 hours. Cut out the music videos I want, throw the rest and then burn the good ones to CD.
How would I do that with Mjeg captured clips? I'd have to cut them out, and then save them in a format that keeps the resolution 720 x 576. That'd have to be Xvid, I guess? How do you do it?

_so you keep it as simple as you can...
you would do the same with mjpeg as you do now with mpeg2 (picvideo installs decompressor too (decoder)....it's pretty fast too..even on my system no drops on hi-res playback etc.)
you can cut in vdub and just "direct stream copy" to the output file (.avi)....mjpeg is a codec just like mpeg2..no need to reencode to xvid if you have lot of space.....
also:it'll capture interlaced with no problems!

(default "cross-over" resolution for this is 288:everything above that is captured ( written to disk ) interlaced.....everything below isn't!you can input any number instead of 288....so theoretically you could capture interlaced at 240 if the capture device supported it..this "cross-over" resolution has nothing to do with the selected capture resolution..it just tells the codec when the "interlacing" capture mode will kick in...)

encoding to xvid or divx is done to save space!

how do i do it?

pretty simple->i'll capture avi,then deinterlace it,filter it,resize it & code it to divx.......i do it all with VDub...
(i resize because of bitrate saving & i can't play 704x576 divx311 on my cel600....too much for him..although it can 704x576 divx4,but it (divx4 ) blurs a picture more than divx311 )

if i capture lo-res ( with elsa combo card ) i'm not doing deint. or resize.....just filtering (& encoding...)

process of two steps:
1:capturing

2:filtering & encoding (all is done simultaneously by VDub->deint,filter,resize,encoding....that's why i need faster CPU...filtering is CPU intensive......if the signal is clear of noise you can skip filtering....)

saves A LOT of space when compared to your system...
results?
i'm satisfied!
if it looks fine on monitor (and it does) tv-out is also good....
interlaced output?who needs it....

you could also try xvid & encode interlaced (to put that later on tv-out...) but then higher bitrate is needed cause interlacing artefacts mean more details which means
more xvid bitrate needed......
[btw. i did few tests with recent xvid builds...didn't liked the results:old builds seemed to be better....]

i didn't tried encoding interlaced to divx & see if it's correct on tv-out.i guess if you're interested i could do it for you....

offcourse there are things you should learn (simple stuff ) when encoding but i can help you with that...

however you choose the codec that suits you best...i go with good old divx311...(actually i use divx320 which inserts KF's automatically on scene changes.....)


S>He, he. If there are any music videos or other programs on Vh1 you'd like to see, I have an idea. I could send you a CD via snail mail. We can chat about that in a PM or via e-mail if your interested?


_yes,i'm interested! please DO contact me.....i prefer email.....


S>I am into disco, r&b, soul, funk and reggae music myself, and that's the types of music videos I capture, but I'd be willing to capture other videos/music styles for you, of course. Or some motor racing on Eurosport?

_heheh yes some nasty races coming soon!

perhaps we could capture the same music video & compare the results?
(i can send you 10-15 variations (in filtering & encoding) of the same video.(on 1 cd).so you can pick the best one ! hehehe)

(good) analog satellite VS (lousy) digital satellite...hehehe


S>I use a bitrate of between 8000 and 9000 kbps these days. I only go to 10.000 with PowerVCR because it uses 2000 less than what you tell it to. Or at least it did, with the Aver card.

_LOL..i had the same problems with ancient combo card & on attempts to encode directly to divx (looong time ago....)
off course now i know better than "on-the-fly" divx.....

S>LOL! You know, I capture music videos because I want to view them on the TV. And keep them for the future. That's why I need the (720) x 576 vertical resolution (I love interlacing).

_both mjpeg & xvid preserve interlacing....for divx..i'll try it...


S>Just today I bought Memorex, 40 pack, 700 MB for about 10 euros. It's nothing!

_i prefer traxdata...50pcs(74min,no box)=cca. 13,5 EUR.......yes,cdr's are cheap....(cheaper than any medium i guess...)
i've tried some tdk's but didn't liked them.......my rewriter seems to struggle when reading them....no such problems with traxdata.......



S>But all the pixelation I see on my clips come from the satellite receiver. It's an old Nokia.

_LOL.....you take mpeg2 stream (from satellite to your digital receiver)
convert it to analog PAL (digital receiver does that too..) & in the end you capture that to mpeg2?
talk about generation loss....hehehe

S>I actually see Mpeg-artefacts when watching TV, sitting in the sofa, just watching live TV! I don't think VH1 broadcasts at a low bitrate, so the Mpeg-decoder in the sat receiver probably isn't very good. I need a new one.

_this is VERY INTERESTING stuff!i thought nokia makes good dig.satv receivers(?)..no matter how old are they.....
( perhaps you can "feed" it with better software?hehehe )

new one?send me the old one ( LOL )....

S>But I have a fairly good TV (a Sony Trinitron flat 29") which is also excellent at revealing artefacts. It's painfully honest.


_i too have simillar tv-set (sony super trinitron 29"..flat? sometimes it looks like tube is bended to the inside...doesn't it...heheh.it's bout 2years old...)
yes..it's hard to feed it with good-enough signal!
with some tv's it's hard to say what's VHS and what live-tv....no such "problems" with this one....the amount of contrast & sharpness always amazes me!

S>The strange thing is that Vh1 Europe (www.vh1e.com, which is what I can see) and Vh1 U.K (www.vh1.co.uk) are not the same. I'd love to have the US version of Vh1

_i would love to see Pip Dann again !( heheh )
just recently i stumbled on some ol' vhs recordings of "mtv-europe" while it was broadcasted from london.....those were the days....(i've recorded that in '91 or so....)
and there was Pip....( for a brief moment though...) i love her face i love her voice,i love what she speaks about....
( seems i'm in love.....hehehehe )

so vh1e is FTA (freetoair) channel ? how do you know vh1uk is better ? looked at the tv-schedules ?

S>Viva can show some interesting shows, although I hardly understand anything that's being said between the videos.

_obviously you're not german!heheh
( i usually get something of what they say...i love learning new languages.
swedish(?) particulary...hehehe )

S> Still there are "500 channels and nothing on" evenings, even with 2 satellite dishes, capable of receiving 4 satellites.

_i'm closer to what bruce springsteen said:"57 channels and nothing on...."
(heheh)

S>Not here. Just 2 (state controlled) stations and one commercial.

_here are 3 state (they'll sell one to private owners soon )
and 3 others ( 1 is "other state's" and 2 commercial......)

cheers

Ivo

[ note:i think we better convert to emails...it seems we're gettin "up close & personal" and drift from the topic for this thread....mod's might be conserned......hehehe ]