View Full Version : Deen/UnDot on grainy source


Kwark
9th November 2004, 13:05
I'm going to reencode Monty Python and the Holy Grail (PAL, dutch) tonight and I'm wondering if I need additional filters.

It's a DVD9, but only 5.5gig total and 2 audio tracks will be removed so the movie reduction will only be about 90%. The actual video reencoding will be done with CCE.

Do I need additional filters like Deen and/or UnDot for this one?
The source is pretty grainy, but since I have a high bitrate for the movie I'm in doubt if I should use the filters.
Does anyone have a suggestion? Or has anyone done this movie before?

Boulder
9th November 2004, 13:50
I wouldn't use Deen() when the reduction is that small. I'd try UnDot().TemporalSoften(2,3,3,6,2) or RemoveGrain(mode=2).TemporalSoften(2,3,3,6,2).

Teegedeck
9th November 2004, 15:58
And BTW, at 90% you'll probably reach worse quality with CCE than with Pinnacle Instant Copy or Shrink. And waste time.

Check whether the denoised encode actually looks better than a compressed domain transcode (Instant Copy) - which doesn't have to do motion-estimation again and thus isn't much bothered by the noise.

As for denoisers, RemoveDirt is my favourite, despite its problems. For less easy denoising, a combination of depan and despot was reported to reach fine results.

Kwark
9th November 2004, 17:01
Hmmm I was under the impression that a CCE reencode was always better than a DVDShrink encode.
Wasting time is no problem, but the quality is very important.
So you recommend to use Shrink? I want to keep the menu+extras so I'll remove the 2 audio tracks myself before shrinking..

Teegedeck
9th November 2004, 21:15
On very noisy sources Instant Copy works very fine, and I guess Shrink, too. I think at 90% for a big portion of the movie the original frames (including the original noise) might get used without any recompression. There is no form of recompression (not even CCE's) that could be more true to the original than NOT recompressing at all.

Unless of course you just decide that the source is too noisy and you like your own, denoised version of it better.

edited: awkward use of English grammar

Kwark
9th November 2004, 22:50
It's a bit offtopic for this forum, but which program is better? Shrink or Instant Copy?
Qualitywise, for low compression..

[addition]
Ignore this question, don't want to violate the rules..
IMO Shrink is better (for me) because it's free...

Teegedeck
9th November 2004, 22:59
Asking such things actually violates a forum rule... :D

There have been heated arguments about this; but I don't think there will be much of a difference in this case.

Kwark
10th November 2004, 18:59
Ok, I'm going to do another movie, Disney's Robin Hood..
It's quite old, looks pretty grainy. It's definitely not as smooth as recent animations..

Which filter(s) do you suggest for this one? Both Deen and UnDot?
This movie needs lots of compression, shrink wants to do about 67%.

And I'm not sure which CCE template to use for this movie, natural picture/CG/animation.. Unless someone has a better suggestion I'll try natural.

Boulder
10th November 2004, 19:05
I suggest you disable all filtering in CCE and try with UnDot().Deen() . CCE's filter really are no good.