How to achieve "film look" on PAL DV source

[actionman133]

Well, having some filmmaking experience myself, I've always been taught (and believe in it too) that you should always white balance correctly and grade it warm or cool in post. It gives you the cleanest and purest signal to work with and you have more control with colour in the editing room than on location.

Film generally records reds slightly more than greens, which in turn record more than blue. It lends a warm orangey tint to the image a little when shooting on film, which video doesn't do (unless you trick the white balance). Of course you could choose to cool the image as well, which is a common choice (eg Minority Report), but the warming happens on 'conventional' celluloid.

I don't know how any clipping might occur as that wasn't part of the curve. It had only two points and they were were well within the 0-255 range, one at (64, 48) and another at (192, 216). If it is indeed clipping, then surely it must be a bug, as no curve that I've seen with those inputs ever approach clipping. And tint doesn't touch the luma channel at all, so it can't be that... any idea where the clipping might originate?

[bananacreamandpeca]

Hi,

I like to try some of the things posted in this thread.
But I am new to avisynth and its workings.

Can someone point me to a step-by-step that tells me how to make use
of those scripts?

I want to movie-look my dv-content (sony d8 cam) first,
Before I convert all my videocam material to xvid.
This, because editing my cam-material to look more movielike with de-jitter etc.
, ll hopefully bring down the bitrate during encodewith xvid
(I use autogk)

Right now, xvid just sky-highs the bitrate for my dv-content during encoding.
It lowers the resolution, degrades details and pumps up the bitrate.
While the source material looks shitty anyway.
And the end result in xvid will look even worse lacking detail.

Can someone give me directions or maybe some ready2go avisynth-scripts?

I can also post some 1 minute video material if you'd like.

[actionman133]

Well, these scripts we're coming up with aren't miracle workers. Rubbish in = Rubbish out is the commonly accepted term. They also aren't designed to improve compressibility, so chances are that XviD won't improve on file sizes.

Having said that, if you still want us to provide recommendations, we need to see samples, and we need to know what you want it to look like as well.

[zambelli]

This a good thread - let's not let it die out now. :)

I just recently got a PAL camera (Canon Elura 100, aka MVX-460i), even though I live in NTSC land, pretty much for the sole purpose of shooting stuff at 25i and then converting it to 24p.

Here are my first impressions:

Getting color to look filmlike is really, really difficult - perhaps the most difficult aspect of this. So if it's not absolutely necessary for your project, why bother with color? Just go black-and-white. It's much easier to achieve a convincing film look with grainy black-and-white. Think Darren Aronofsky's "Pi". That was shot on very grainy 16mm B&W reversal stock (Kodak 7278 and 7276 according to IMDb), yet, it looks like something that could easily be achieved artifically by shooting on digital.

Another huge DV giveaway are jaggies in deinterlaced diagonal lines. It's very indicative of DV's low resolution and the interlaced nature of the source. If you're getting jaggies after deinterlacing, either find a better deinterlacer or smooth out the picture until you get rid of them.

Artifical grain is a great way to hide DV's imperfections and simulate film stock grain. TrBarry's AddGrain plugin works great for this. Add it last after everything else is done.

Use the image stabilizing feature in your camera whenever you're shooting handheld. I know many people disable this feature to get extra resolution, but I really don't think the extra resolution is worth the trouble of trying to stabilize the image in post-processing. DeShaker is a great tool and I love it, but it can't perform miracles. One of the biggest problems with having shaky interlaced footage is that the shakes exist as movements between fields. So stabilizing such footage in post requires bobbing the video to 50fps, deshaking it, re-interlacing it to 25i, and finally deinterlacing it to 25p. The result, though stable, is rarely sharp. So do yourself a favor and let the camera do the stabilizing so you don't have to. :)

I'm working on some PAL DV videos right now that I'll try to post when I'm done with them, along with the Avisynth scripts.

[Pookie]

Depth of Field always gives it away. There are some interesting lens attachments, like the rotating quartz Brevis35 that look pretty authentic, but that obviously isn't an Avisynth function. Some clips:

http://www.cinevate.com/index.php?page=demo

[anton_foy]

As a real fan of filmlook I have been up all nights the past year making my own "look"-presets in various programs and the best way for me is to grab a still from two or three of your favourite films/looks that has been shot in similar conditions as your footage and trying to imitate that.

My upcoming film is a horror movie wich take place in London in the 1890s, filmed in HDV (Sony HC1e) 1440x1080 anamorphic 25i, I later deinterlace and upconvert (1920x1080 25p) in Avisynth...my favourite program btw.

Here are some still downconverted because of filesize problems on the server:

http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/HDV-butler.jpg
http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/HDV-night.jpg
http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/HDV-face.jpg
http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/HDV-table.jpg
http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/HDV-drkroom.jpg
http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/S-V_con.jpg
http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/SV_nature1.jpg

The two last ones I fiddle a bit to make it look like silent film from the 20s. Gaussian blur was used thats why they are a bit blurry/smooth.

Edit: I have built two DOF adaptors for my camera and I plan to make a third. The present adaptor is a spinning cd construction wich is used on the butler pic and S-V_con.jpg.

[smok3]

anton_foy, cool, what commercial dof adaptor would you pick if you would have to? (movietube, redrock, ....?)

[anton_foy]

Hi there Smok3!

Personally I like the G35 because it looks so portable and it is static which prevents artifacts. Spinning constructions like mine and Redrock gives mpeg compressed material some bad artifacts on the vertical plane. BTW. redrock doesn't even give you the full area of 35mm, mine does ;)

[smok3]

this one http://cinemek.com/ ? (movietube is static as well)

[anton_foy]

Yeah thats the one.

Movietube cant stand heat I think and after a while the groundglass get distorted. The example footage I've seen isnt very good IMHO.

[smok3]

ic, but uhmm, g35 doesnt seem to be buyable?

[anton_foy]

The G35 is byable I think if you contact them by e-mail. Though I suggest you check out if they have any samples in HiDef before you buy.

Completed a Saving Private Ryan Bleach bypass-filter last week. I can add some screenshots if someone is interested to see the results :)

[DSP8000]

Completed a Saving Private Ryan Bleach bypass-filter last week. I can add some screenshots if someone is interested to see the results

Please do :)

DSP8000

[scharfis_brain]

Use the image stabilizing feature in your camera whenever you're shooting handheld. I know many people disable this feature to get extra resolution, but I really don't think the extra resolution is worth the trouble of trying to stabilize the image in post-processing. DeShaker is a great tool and I love it, but it can't perform miracles. One of the biggest problems with having shaky interlaced footage is that the shakes exist as movements between fields. So stabilizing such footage in post requires bobbing the video to 50fps, deshaking it, re-interlacing it to 25i, and finally deinterlacing it to 25p. The result, though stable, is rarely sharp. So do yourself a favor and let the camera do the stabilizing so you don't have to.

This is wrong.

Digtal deshakers of cameras are much worse than deshaker, cause they produce a kind of jumpy movement, if you reach their correction limits.

also deinterlacing 50p -> deshaking -> reinterlacing 25i -> deinterlacing 25p is nonsense.
just go for:
HQdeinterlacing 50p -> deshaking -> remove every 2nd frame.
and you are done.


Anyways, optical image are preferrable, cause they won't introduce shaking motionblur.

[anton_foy]

Here are a few bleachbypass-filtered pictures in different strength of bleach.

http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/transylvania.jpg

http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/Butt-ler.jpg

http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/SC.jpg

http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/MOTCAM.jpg

enjoy!

[Backwoods]

:script:

[anton_foy]

:) @Backwoods: You like them? Im sorry but this filter is made in either Photoshop and or After Effects, the only thing I do for the footage in Avisynth is deinterlace, deblock, denoise, and that stuff. I use levels, color balance, curves, grain to make this look and can be achieved quite easily.

The filtering isnt fully optimized for different kinds of lightning conditions yet.

edit: and the filter is based on the look of the Sony hdr-hc1e model so if its used on a different source the image get a very different look but I will check into that ;)

[Backwoods]

Levels, color balance, Photoshop curves (saved from PS and loaded with a plugin) and grain can all be done in AVISynth.

On one of your images give a basic rundown of the settings used and we can do it in AVISynth.

[zambelli]

This is wrong.
Digtal deshakers of cameras are much worse than deshaker, cause they produce a kind of jumpy movement, if you reach their correction limits.
The problem with shaky footage is the motion blur between fields/frames due to slight rapid movement. Even when deshaked properly, you will still end up with a video that constantly goes out of focus, seemingly for no reason.

I think that built-in camera stabilizers are suitable for most scenarios. Deshaker can be additionally used for really difficult footage, but shooting everything handheld w/o stabilization and Deshaking in post is going to be really time-consuming. It can take 6-8 hours just to deshake 10 minutes of footage.

also deinterlacing 50p -> deshaking -> reinterlacing 25i -> deinterlacing 25p is nonsense.
just go for:
HQdeinterlacing 50p -> deshaking -> remove every 2nd frame.
and you are done.
Do you have empirical proof to back up this claim? Why do you think removing every 2nd frame wouldn't cause the footage to be overly jumpy?

Anyways, optical image are preferrable, cause they won't introduce shaking motionblur.
Optical image what? Stabilization? Like SteadyCam? Yes.

[Mug Funky]

a cheap deshaking:

make the camera heavier. if motion is considered to be a noise-like wave, making the camera heavier will be like a lowpass filter :)

of course it'll make you tired of shooting quicker...

[scharfis_brain]

The problem with shaky footage is the motion blur between fields/frames due to slight rapid movement. Even when deshaked properly, you will still end up with a video that constantly goes out of focus, seemingly for no reason.This will happen with electronic image stabilizers builtin in Camcorders, too.

I think that built-in camera stabilizers are suitable for most scenarios.
It can help for big zoom factors, to be able to track an object at all. But I don't like the look of these inbuilt electronic image stabilisators.
Deshaker can be additionally used for really difficult footage, but shooting everything handheld w/o stabilization and Deshaking in post is going to be really time-consuming. It can take 6-8 hours just to deshake 10 minutes of footage.
Who cares. Making the filmlook is time consuming, too.


Do you have empirical proof to back up this claim? Why do you think removing every 2nd frame wouldn't cause the footage to be overly jumpy?
It seem like you didn't understand reinterlacing and deinterlacing properly.
three examples:
1) DeInterlacing 50p -> Deshaking -> ReInterlacing 25i -> DeInterlacing 25p
2) DeInterlacing 50p -> Deshaking -> ReInterlacing 25i -> DeInterlacing 50p -> remove every 2nd frame
3) DeInterlacing 50p -> Deshaking -> remove every 2nd frame.

examples 1 & 2 are bit indentical. But exanple 3 has much better image detail, cause you aren't deinterlacing twice.
Fluidity of motion is exactly the same in all thress examples.

Optical image what? Stabilization? Like SteadyCam? Yes.
Optical Image Stabilization is not steadycam.
OIS uses different tecniques to compensate hand movement within the optics.
commonly used tecniques are lens shift or sensor shift.
A gyro sensor notices all your hand movement and forces the movable part in the optices (lens or sensor) to compensate your hand movement. This results in steadycam like look, cause therre isn't any false motionblur due to (de)shaking.

[anton_foy]

I have noticed that if shutter is on 1/50 on the camcorder (PAL that is) the motion blur doesnt look the same as if it would be shot on film. Dont know if this is correct but it looks to me as if film motion blur has got a thicker blur somehow while digital feels more transparent. Maybe Im wrong about this, the eye can often get tricked by knowing its digital from the beginning.

[zambelli]

It seem like you didn't understand reinterlacing and deinterlacing properly.
three examples:
1) DeInterlacing 50p -> Deshaking -> ReInterlacing 25i -> DeInterlacing 25p
2) DeInterlacing 50p -> Deshaking -> ReInterlacing 25i -> DeInterlacing 50p -> remove every 2nd frame
3) DeInterlacing 50p -> Deshaking -> remove every 2nd frame.

examples 1 & 2 are bit indentical. But exanple 3 has much better image detail, cause you aren't deinterlacing twice.
Fluidity of motion is exactly the same in all thress examples.

I disagree. Deinterlacing 25i to 50p is bobbing. You can do it dumb (Avisynth Bob, EEDIBob), you can do it smart (TDeint, LeakKernel, MVbob). In both cases, the full frame is reconstructed from ALL of the lines in the current field. In the former case, missing lines are interpolated only from the current field. In the latter case, missing lines are interpolated from adjacent fields too.

On the other hand, when you're deinterlacing 25i to 25p, lines from both fields are used to construct a full frame and which pixels get used depends on the quality of the deinterlacer and the nature of the video sequence.
I don't think 1) and 2) are bit identical because 25i->50p and 25i->25p function in a completely different manner.

I agree the deinterlacing twice (regardless of the method) is not good for quality. However, I don't think throwing away every other frame from a 50p video is going to give you superior quality either.

Sounds like it's time for some Avisynth scripts and demos? :rolleyes:

[actionman133]

zambelli, I believe he was trying to say the examples 1 & 2 will produce the same output. Deinterlacing (25i -> 25p) is basically the same as bobbing (25i -> 50p) then dropping every second frame (50p -> 25p).

@anton_foy
Film and video do record slightly differently. Film actually records several film frames. It opens and closes the shutter three times for each frame, basically recording three similar (but slightly disconnected) images into one frame. Video is continuous, recording one long blur.

PS, for an example of seeing the individual images that can be recorded in film, scan frame by frame through a scene shot on film with a strobe light (or simulated lightning). Lethal Weapon IV is very good with that and the final fight in Matrix Revolutions might also be interesting.

I think the only way video could truly simulate that would be to shoot with a 1/144 shutter (1/120 for most cameras), then use MVConv () to interpolate in between frames and merge them together... I might look into this actually...

[anton_foy]

@actionman133

What!? I own a Bolex 16mm camera (which I have rebuilt to Super 16) and the mechanism is a simple shutter system that opens only once to let the negative catch light. The shutter however can be set minus three steps for shorter exposure which would be about 1/700 at the lowest step. But I have never heard of a camera that will catch three frames in one.

@Zambelli & Scharfis

I think I understand Scharfis examples, what I dont get is what one would win by reinterlace an already deinteraced clip?
And However, I don't think throwing away every other frame from a 50p video is going to give you superior quality either. as I understand it the deinterlacer just deinterlaces every field (2 fields per interlaced frame) and if you only want 25 fps every second frame (that is deinterlaced by now) is discarded. Perhaps I get this wrong?

[actionman133]

I *may* actually have my facts mixed up. I do *know* that projectors close the shutter 72 times a second when displaying a film (3 shuts per frame... helps to avoid flickering), but I thought I also read that the camera shutter does a similar thing.

Take a look at the attached picture... you can clearly see three defined images of Jet Li's hand and sleeve. None of those images has motion blur, it looks like three non-blurry stills were blended together. Unless the lightning flickered on and off three times while the frame was exposed, I can't think of how this may happen. But in all the frames where I can see it, I can usually see three distinct frames. Could this explain that look?

[Mug Funky]

@ actionman133:

electric lights in the USA go at 60Hz...

you'll get 2.5 flashes per frame (looks pretty much like 3), in the same way 24fps to 60hz gives you a 3:2:3:2 pattern.

notice that the same strobe effects in european originated films will be 2 flickers instead of 3 per frame.

[scharfis_brain]

@zambelli:
deinterlacers vs bobbers

kerneldeint(oder=1) is a deinterlacer,
the current field (the even one) is leaved untouched, the missing information is getting weaved or interpolated.

kernelbob(order=1) is a bobber,
even and odd fields are passed untouched to the output while interpolating or weaving missing information.

interleave(kerneldeint(order = 1), doubleweave().selectodd().kerneldeint(order = 0)) is the same like kernelbob(order=1)

so I conclude
kernelbob(order=1).selecteven() is bit identical to kerneldeint(order=1)

also, a proper deinterlacer NEVER should mess up with the current field, as you are describing it.

and even is this would be the case my claim is still right, cause
bobbing is nearly always* chaining two deinterlacers:
interleave(deinterlacer(), doubleweave().selectodd().deinterlacer())

you may try that with any deinterlacer out there. you won't find a difference!

*some bobbers aren't dividable into a deinterlacer due to their architecture, but that doesn't mean, that a following selecteven will harm quality.

[zambelli]

@zambelli:
deinterlacers vs bobbers
Sir, I stand corrected. I should've known better than to argue with a person who's written more deinterlacer scripts than I've had hot meals. ;)

interleave(kerneldeint(order = 1), doubleweave().selectodd().kerneldeint(order = 0)) is the same like kernelbob(order=1)
Ah! I was not aware of the fact that bobbers only interpolate missing lines from the other field in the frame. I had always assumed that advanced bobbers used the previous field as well. So if frames 0 and 1 had fields 0a, 0b, 1a and 1b, I thought 1a would be bobbed to 1A (full height) by using all lines from 1a, and then interpolating the rest from 0b and 1b - if both fields are proven to be similar enough to have been recorded a moment before and after field 1a.

I suppose we do in fact learn something new every day. ;)

also, a proper deinterlacer NEVER should mess up with the current field, as you are describing it.
I didn't mean to imply that. I understand that one field always needs to be fully preserved in order to preserve the parity and thus fluidity of motion.

you may try that with any deinterlacer out there. you won't find a difference!
I did indeed. This proved your theory:
AVISource("720x480_29.97i_900f.avi")
AssumeTFF()
v1 = TDeint(mode=0, order=1).Subtitle("v1")
v2 = TDeint(mode=1, order=1).SelectEven().Subtitle("v2")
Interleave(v1, v2)
Both v1 and v2 were identical.

OK, I stand corrected. Reinterlacing after deshaking bobbed video is unnecessary (unless, of course, one is looking to deliver interlaced video, I suppose).

[zambelli]

I *may* actually have my facts mixed up. I do *know* that projectors close the shutter 72 times a second when displaying a film (3 shuts per frame... helps to avoid flickering), but I thought I also read that the camera shutter does a similar thing.
Anton is right. Only projectors use shutter blades, cameras don't. Shutter blades are used in projectors to improve the stability of the image. An image projected at 24Hz would look very choppy. With shutter blades, the image is "refreshed" on the screen 2-3 times (48Hz or 72Hz) at the expense of reduced light output, but with much improved stability and decreased eye strain.

Take a look at the attached picture... you can clearly see three defined images of Jet Li's hand and sleeve. None of those images has motion blur, it looks like three non-blurry stills were blended together.
Easy. It was shot at 72fps, and then every 3 frames were blended together into a single frame.

[anton_foy]

I cant see actionmans picture of Jet Li, would be interesting to examine it. :)

edit: now It shows! I would guess that light is simulated lightningflash (thunder) using an electric lightsource like Mug said.

[scharfis_brain]

Zambelli, one last correction regarding deinterlacers:
any deinterlacer/bobber can use as much previous/future fields it like. Whether this is godd or not I don't want to judge now.

Anton is right. Only projectors use shutter blades, cameras don't. Shutter blades are used in projectors to improve the stability of the image. An image projected at 24Hz would look very choppy. With shutter blades, the image is "refreshed" on the screen 2-3 times (48Hz or 72Hz) at the expense of reduced light output, but with much improved stability and decreased eye strain.
A cinamatic Film displayed with only one small shutter blade (for the time interval of the film transport) will look smooth and not choppy, but it will flicker awully cause you'll get a 24 Hz flicker with maybe 1:10 dark to bright ratio.
with two or three shutter blades you get 48 or 72 Hz, as you described :)

Easy. It was shot at 72fps, and then every 3 frames were blended together into a single frame.
Unlikely. I think it is the artificial lighting of the set.
In some movies they use standard 60Hz or 50Hz current to light up a set. In the case of 60Hz power you get a 120Hz pulsing light. This causes a patterned strobe effect in the film:
even frames: three strobes
odd frames : two strobes
(or vice versa)
Of course, it could be a special effect, too.

[DSP8000]

Hi guys,

is it somehow possible to do pre/post contrast, gamma in one avisynth script?
Or, maybe lens filter based on color/gradient?
If it is, can someone post a sample?
I'm trying to figure it out how MagicBullet works internally.

anton_foy, I had a look at your pictures, nice:)
here's my before and after:
source: KodakEasyShare CX7300 3.2 mega pixels, 37mm KODAK Lens, 15FPS, 320,240.
Clip recorded by my daughter :).
source converted to 25FPS, 720,576.

before (http://members.iinet.com.au/~isdmultimedia/files/before.png)
after (http://members.iinet.com.au/~isdmultimedia/files/after.png)

[anton_foy]

@DSP8000

Hello! Thats a cute baby. :)
Have you used Magic Bullet on this pic?
Magic Bullet I think is absolute crap and can't be used properly to make digital look like film. Although MB can be good to use on already scanned film to get a certain stock look but if you want a good film look the only way to get it really authentic is to do it yourself actually. I have tried almost every known film look program/plugin there is and all of them still gives a very digital look.

I made a new look yesterday in the look of 400 kodak stock I think :p
Not the best picture to begin with but I wanted to show the colour change and this had a quite nice motive to :rolleyes:

http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/House_copy.png

top=after
below=before

BTW. what do you mean by prepost contrast? The source is better of having a low contrast (hope I didnt put that wronlgy) by that I mean it should look like you drag the contrast to the min. Then you wont have problems with clipping after the filmfilter is applied. The are some optical filters for this but I can't remember what its called right now...try looking up low contrast filter. :) cheers!

[actionman133]

I've come up with a general list of filters to apply that seems to look really good in Paint Shop Pro. First, I apply a diffusion/bloom/glow filter (if I want to soften the image a little). Then I apply a curves function for more contrast, desaturate 10-15%, and apply a 10-15% colour cast (for film warmth, RGB - 255, 64, 0).

I really like the look of the result of the photos I've tested. I'll post a before and after when I get a chance (too busy, atm).

By the way, I've used Magic Bullet and I think it's great. One thing it can do that I love is the ability to use two casts. The tint works like the colour cast I use above, but it can then additionally warm or cool. It gives the colour pallette a slight complexity and I like it. It also just simplifies the process for you as well (I don't understand how they can call it a filmizer without a curves function, though). I get past that by using AfterEffects' internal curves filter before applying the Magic Bullet.

[anton_foy]

I don't know how it is possible but I can't see your pics actionman :p

When you use MB for the purpose of colour grading I can agree with you but it needs other adjustments before to make the look of real film stock. I guess many here are used to look at unprocessed films even in HD. There is a great difference between scanned and unprocessed film from negative to the encoded versions (often).
Many films are denoised and broadcast (colour/contrast) adjusted to make it compatible for Television and when comparing a screenshot from a DVD to the original scan can look very different.

I use the glow func in almost all of my scenes because the built-in sharpening in my camera can't be turned off entirely. Glow removes the edge or contour of for example a lit candle.
Would it be possible to tint the glow towards the faded areas of it? I mean where the blur takes of into fully transparent.

[actionman133]

@anton_foy,

I believe the pictures need to be approved by a moderator before they can be viewed by everyone, so perhaps you're just getting in too quickly. I can see them in my own post, so have a look now.

I use the glow func in almost all of my scenes because the built-in sharpening in my camera can't be turned off entirely. Glow removes the edge or contour of for example a lit candle.
Would it be possible to tint the glow towards the faded areas of it? I mean where the blur takes of into fully transparent.

I don't know what you mean by this? Sounds like a regular diffusion algorithm to me... layering a blurry version of an image over itself, using the blurred frame as a mask. I used this method on the pic in my previous post... is that what you're talking about?

[anton_foy]

@actionman

Actually what I meant was that I only use the glow in areas where the light is clipping. Such as the flame on a lit candle, a lightbulb, the sun light peeking between leaves of a tree for example. Anywhere the light is too strong so that it will create an outline (because of the built-in sharpening), thats why I use the glow effect to make the outline covered by the glow. I like your glow in the last picture but it wont make it look more like film. More like a dream feeling or a better quality "Sunset Beach" -look. Filmstock has a greater resolution and uses no extra sharpening as many digital formats. Thats why I use the glow only at the very bright areas of the picture. Because they are the only spots that will get this outline or halo side effect. In my earlier post my question was if it is possible to tint the glow slightly. But I dont want the glow to be tinted towards the middle where the white should be, only towards the outer areas. See pic.

Glow (http://www.xtreem.nu/jonas/Glow_tint.jpg)

the tint I made by putting in RGBadjust in the Glow script but gives tint all over the light. Without tint it gives a grey and artificial glow. Zoom in to see more clearly.

[zambelli]

Zambelli, one last correction regarding deinterlacers:
any deinterlacer/bobber can use as much previous/future fields it like. Whether this is godd or not I don't want to judge now.
Which bobber would you recommend for a deshaking scenario such as this? I'm currently using TDeint because it gives me the sharpest results without any interlacing artifacts, but I'm wondering... would switching to MVBob have any benefit? Would its motion compensation get canceled out by the extraneous camera shaking?

[FredThompson]

sidebar: Try shooting PAL DV with a combination of 60 Hz and natural lights or NTSC DV witha combinaiton of 40 Hz and natural light. You get the strobe and constant levels...

[scharfis_brain]

@zambelli: always deinterlace using no motion adaption (thresholds <= 0!).
for mvbob that means to disable the motion adaption of the internal deinterlacer, too.
mvbob will still gain quality, even with shaky footage.
but IMO it is not worth the cost of the processing time...
just bob the source using
assume?ff().separatefields().eedi2(field=-2)

[zambelli]

@zambelli: always deinterlace using no motion adaption (thresholds <= 0!).
Interesting. Does that mean that the interpolation is then based only on current field and the next field is disregarded?
for mvbob that means to disable the motion adaption of the internal deinterlacer, too.
Is that only bobth=0, or also th=0 and ths=0?

[gatekeeper_007]

I've just read this thread 2 days ago... -Great stuff !!!

Well I won't pretend to understand much, because I don't.
Even though I've made some tests... messing around with the curves (via the GIMP),and I must say I had very nice results.

Now I would like to test with an (.amp) file (via the adobe photoshop) since it has more options, but I'll need some help
with it because I never had to create an '.AMP' file before and it seems that 'adobe ph.' save's the curves in (*.AVC) format.

I've searched the guied (of adobe photoshop) but I couldn't get nothing out of it, I even made some attempts to create one but nothing... the .amps I've created from a layer had nothing to do with the ones I should be creating.

Could anybody pls explain to me how I could create this (.AMP)file...
...or point me to a tutorial for it ? (I couldn't find one)


pc. I know, I'm stupid :P but I have to ask...

- is it possible to create an .amp file with a compilation of settings :P (curves,+...,+...) all into one file? or 'GiCoCu' can only handle curve parameters ?
cause that would be @#^*Great! {^_^}

Thx.

[gatekeeper_007]

I've just read this thread 2 days ago... -Great stuff !!!

Well I won't pretend to understand much, because I don't.
Even though I've made some tests... messing around with the curves (via the GIMP),and I must say I had very nice results.

Now I would like to test with an (.amp) file (via the adobe photoshop) since it has more options, but I'll need some help
with it because I never had to create an '.AMP' file before and it seems that 'adobe ph.' save's the curves in (*.AVC) format.

I've searched the guied (of adobe photoshop) but I couldn't get nothing out of it, I even made some attempts to create one but nothing... the .amps I've created from a layer had nothing to do with the ones I should be creating.

Could anybody pls explain to me how I could create this (.AMP)file...
...or point me to a tutorial for it ? (I couldn't find one)


pc. I know, I'm stupid :P but I have to ask...

- is it possible to create an .amp file with a compilation of settings :P (curves,+...,+...) all into one file? or 'GiCoCu' can only handle curve parameters ?
cause that would be @#^*Great! {^_^}

Thx.

You're so stupid m8.... just use the 'pencil'

ok I got it!

[actionman133]

Hey guys,

I've gone back and improved my old glow filter and I've also written a new one which is giving stellar results... Diffusion.

Function Glow (clip original, int "radius", int "minlevels", float "opacity") {

LoadVirtualDubPlugin ("BoxBlur.vdf", "BoxBlur")
radius = Default (radius, original.width/32)
opacity = Default (opacity, 1.0)
minlevels = Default (minlevels, 224)
minlevels = Default (minlevels, 224)

blurred = original.ConvertToRGB32 ("pc.601").BoxBlur (radius, 3, 1000).ConvertBackToYUY2 ("pc.601")
blurmask = original.ConvertToRGB32().Levels(minlevels, 1, 255, 0, 255).BoxBlur(radius, 3, 1000). \
ConvertBackToYUY2 ("pc.601").Greyscale()

Overlay (original, blurred, mode = "lighten", mask = blurmask, opacity = opacity)

}

This glow filter differs from my old one (which was pretty dodgy, to be honest). This one doesn't lay white haloes over bright areas of the frame. Rather it isolates the bright areas and adds halos that correspond to the colours in the image, creating a more realistic glow.

You probably won't have to touch radius, but if you do, remember that bright objects tend to have large halos, so start with larger radii. The main determining factor here is minlevels. Use VDub's levels filter and adjust the input minimum so that all areas that WILL NOT glow appear black in the preview. Set minlevels to that number...

And diffusion...

Function Diffusion (clip original, int "radius", float "opacity") {

LoadVirtualDubPlugin ("BoxBlur.vdf", "BoxBlur")
radius = Default (radius, original.width/80)
opacity = Default (opacity, 1.0)

blurred = original.ConvertToRGB32 ("pc.601").BoxBlur (radius, 3, 1000).ConvertBackToYUY2 ("pc.601")
blurmask = original.ConvertToRGB32().BoxBlur(radius, 3, 1000).ConvertBackToYUY2("pc.601").Greyscale()

Overlay (original, blurred, mask = blurmask, opacity = opacity)

}

This one is awesome!! I love this one. This works like a diffusion filter placed over the lens, softening the image without really losing too much detail. It's default setting is pretty strong, so reduce it by lowering the opacity to 0.5-0.7.


NOTE OF WARNING:
I have only tested these with YUV test samples. I've always had problems with RGB material in Overlay, so I've since not bothered. Ensure that your input is either YUY2 or YV12 (or Y8/YV24 for the smart alec's with v2.60! :rolleyes: )...

Test images will be up soon, probably tomorrow...

[anton_foy]

@Actionman133

Wow man this is just what I have been looking for! Can't wait to try it out :)

I made some changes to your old Glow script because it was very slow, will see if I can make this faster by modifying the same lines.
...If its not already fater I mean;)

[actionman133]

Actually, this glow script will probably be much slower, because it now does two box blurs for each frame. The old one only did one boxblur per frame. This is necessary for the filter to work properly...

The results of this Glow () are completely different to the old Glow (), so don't just replace the function and expect it to look similar. I was actually thinking of calling it Halo () or AddHalo () just to make sure people didn't get confused by it...

[anton_foy]

I get an error saying: "invalid argument to function BoxBlur"
Have got the boxblur.vdf I even tried the boxblur for avisynth with the same result.

[actionman133]

One 'mistake' in the function I posted is that it loads the BoxBlur VirtualDub plugin from an unusual location. Did you change it to where you have BoxBlur stored?

Also, make sure you have the latest version downloaded, v1.5...

If those don't solve the problem, then I'm stumped!

[anton_foy]

yes I changed the path but I dont know which version of boxblur Ive got.