AVS Syntax Question (Resize after Kerneldeint)

[wiz]

I have the following script


LoadPlugin("kerneldeint140.dll")
DirectshowSource("DV-Type-1-Movie.avi")
KernelDeint(order=0,threshold=0,map=false)
LanczosResize(720,388)
AddBorders(0,88,0,88)

The purpose of the script is to get a 720x576 encoded 16:9 Format DV Video to be displayed in 16:9 format, but encoded in 720x576 with borders, so the (old) TV can display this right.
All I get is an error in Line 4 - is there something I have to do to get to resize the output of the first three lines? Add Borders without Resizing seems to be no problem, only the resizing part screws my script up.
Any suggestions?

Greets
wiz

[wiz]

Some (further) testing revealed, that the problem seems to be the directshowsource line. When I use AviSource, there doesn't seem to be a problem - the thing about that is, I can't use AviSource, because my Type 1 DV Avi can't be used with it. I tried using the DV Type 1 to Type 2 converter and such, but no use. Can't convert it to Type 2.
Any help would be gladly appreciated.

EDIT:
I tried the Canopus DV Converter and the type1 to type2 conversion seems to be working with this one (process currenlty still running, so I will know soon! ;))
Guess this will circumvent the DirectShowSource Problem.

[scharfis_brain]

btw. to get a correct AR, you have to resize to 720x432 otherwise you'll get a sqeeezed image.
why do you set the kerneldeint-threshold to 0?
I think that values about 4 to 8 are really good. eventually remaining combing will be washed out by resizing from 576 to 432.

[wiz]

I tried it with 1 and there were still parts not deinterlaced. But I will look into the difference after resizing the video. Thx for the tip.

[scharfis_brain]

did you set the order properly?

[wiz]

I used 0 for the order, which is what I need to use when using CCE SP (2.67) for DVD encodes of my DV material.

[scharfis_brain]

the order of kerneldeint doesn't matter to CCE. because Kerneldeint pushes out progressive video that has no need for setting a fieldorder.

try to juse order=1 and increase the threshold. it should work

[wiz]

I didn't mean I use 0 in that particular encode, but whenever I want to encode directly from DV to DVD, so I think it should be right with 0. But as its no real hassle, I'll try using the order=1 too.

[mf]

If you want to encode to Interlaced DVD, InterlacedResize (http://www.wideopenwest.com/~trbarry/SimpleResize.zip) might be of interest to you.

[Si]

Order is important to KernelDeInt and should be set to 0 as all DV is bottom field first. It won't work correctly otherwise.

On a more subjective point, I don't believe the output of KernelDeint to be truely progressive as is still contains motion information from two fields. This won't matter on a progressive display such as a PC monitor but could matter on an interlaced display such as a TV if the correct field order is not set in an MPEG-2 encoded DVD.

regards

Simon

[wiz]

Originally posted by siwalters
Order is important to KernelDeInt and should be set to 0 as all DV is bottom field first. It won't work correctly otherwise.


Hm.. I thought so too, but the DV material I copied from a Sony TCR-50E has to be set to filed order 1 in cce sp - is this a simple bug in cce, or could it be that sony made one of their models change the line order?!

@mf: Thx for the tip with simpleresize, might just be what I was looking for.

[stickboy]

I think some programs define field 0 and field 1 differently. Perhaps CCE defines field 1 to be the odd scanlines (the bottom field) and 0 to be the even ones (the top field).

I always thought it odd that AviSynth has the numbers associated the other way...

[Si]

Hm.. I thought so too, but the DV material I copied from a Sony TCR-50E has to be set to field order 1 in cce sp - is this a simple bug in cce, or could it be that sony made one of their models change the line order?!

Don (neuron2) could have used anything to represent field order. And so can CCE and so can Sony.:(
There is no universal nomenclature that's used to describe field order but I personally prefer to use top field first/ bottom field first.
Then all I to do is define what a top field is :) (its easier to describe a bottom quark :) )

regards
Simon