|
|
| Dowlphin |
 Posted: Dec 8 2014, 07:41 PM |
 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 37864
Joined: 9-April 14
|
First, so that I don't make a mistake: If a material is filmed in 30fps for TV and stored on a DVD, you will not get that crazy 3:2 stuff, right? When I see that alternating between interlaced and progressive, it means that material that was filmed in 24 was telecined and then put on the DVD, right? I've read that this is being done, but I don't understand (thus my question) why anybody would do such a thing? After all, DVD players are all capable of telecining on the fly.
Some background info: I just had such a case, and after some experimentation, I figured out that for some reason teleciding in VirtualDub resulted in frames that still retain some striping from the interlaced source - roughly 30% of the interlacing intensity, more blurred and such - you know - not a clean job. Despite it being Donald Graft's filter, and his very same filter worked when I used it in AVISynth. I also realized, quite the opposite problem now, that applying deinterlacing post-processing, even if blending instead of interpolating, produced pixelated artifacts across the screen whenever interlacing had been processed. So I ended up using AVISynth for telecide and VirtualDub for blend deinterlacing. And I had to do it on the whole thing, because the source material was a weird mix of mostly just telecine and some parts of fully interlaced. |
|
| dloneranger |
| Posted: Dec 8 2014, 08:03 PM |
|
|
Moderator
Group: Moderators
Posts: 2366
Member No.: 22158
Joined: 26-September 07
|
You've just made the most basic mistake possible, assuming there are rules that people follow and it'll all make sense 
Turn the question around
Take...
a wide range of fps
interlaced
progressive
variable frame rate video
mixing different fps source to make a final video
repeating every 5th or 6th frame to change fps
add 1001 video editors
then give all that to many different undertrained and rushed producers who all seem to work a different way
It's surprising we get videos that are watchable at all ;-)
For real fun get a dvd of an old scifi series with film (outside), video (inside) and early digital effects - you can have a wonderful mix of 3 different frame rates all munged together into a hideous mess
---------
For what it's worth, I used to find DGIndex with it's force-film option useful for getting the real footage at 23.97 - but that's only if it doesn't have other content mixed in to it
--------------------
MultiAdjust JoinWav WavNormalize FFMPeg Input Plugin v1827 UnSharpMask
Windows7/8 Codec Chooser
All FccHandlers Stuff inc. Installers for acm codecs AAC, AC3, LameMp3 |
|
| ALbino |
| Posted: Dec 8 2014, 09:09 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 101
Member No.: 26983
Joined: 9-February 10
|
dloneranger is correct, DVD is a nightmare to work with. I gave up a long time ago in trying to use Virtualdub's built in IVTC/deinterlace features because of the annoying chroma color problem, especially with reds. Nowadays if I have to deal with DVD I just convert it with Handbrake to a super high quality virtually lossless h264 file using detelicine/decomb in there, and then open it in Virtualdub to edit. |
|
| Dowlphin |
| Posted: Dec 9 2014, 12:53 AM |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 37864
Joined: 9-April 14
|
Yeah, you're right. Mandatory expertise in a paid job is a myth. Talk about getting aspect ratios right, hah.
I just watched my created videos more intensely and there's one camera pan where they messed up the telecine somehow; It's impossible to get it fluid. Just that one scene so far.
I have Handbrake and XMedia Recode, and the first one weirds me out a bit, but it kinda frustrates me that both have some annoying shortcomings.
I'm very economically-minded, but also being a perfectionist means that I unavoidably have a whole range of tools all involved in getting the job done right.
The latest project felt less like a video conversion and more like media restoration/repair. ... And then add to that that the source material (a TV show) looks like a VHS recording AND often very strong noise when lighting is bad AND tons of compression artifacts that shouldn't be there even with MPEG-2, especially not in well-lit scenes.
But then modern video isn't any less complicated, apparently. The challenges merely shift. In the digital age, color standards and such are still confusing me a little.
But back to the original question, I'm still not getting why anybody would apply an extra process that every DVD player does. It seems like too much of an act of idiocy to not realize everything works fine without it. |
|
| dloneranger |
| Posted: Dec 9 2014, 06:18 AM |
|
|
Moderator
Group: Moderators
Posts: 2366
Member No.: 22158
Joined: 26-September 07
|
I'm not sure all dvd players could - at least, not when they came out?
It may have been part of the original specs (no idea) but the early players were a bit crappy for the most part
Or it could just be ingrained workflow - we do it like this because we have always have done it like this?
A lot of single clips to watch are made of multiple parts that may be different - you can't just keep changing fps through 1 clip, so they're usually normalized to the higher fps out of the lot of them and then edited/compressed to make 1 final video
In the uk, you'd see the difference of sections recorded on film and video in the studio
These would all be edited together to make 1 thing, but the film clips were 25fps progressive and the video clips could be 25fps progressive or interlaced. The video clips could also be from cameras that captured at 25fps full height or 50fps half height (ugh, can't think of the right terms)
Anyhow.... those damned video clips at 50fps could throw everything into chaos, and with the crappy equipment available back then, about the only thing you could do was make everything match that and then compress the lot into a final file
Deinterlacing those would hardly ever work properly if eg you had two people walking towards each other - it'd look horrible on tv, but keeping it all interlaced was fine, as that's what all the broadcast equipment and tv's played anyway
In the states, the source may have originally been a mix of three different fps as well - so they have to be converted to the same format/fps/etc for joining and compression into 1 thing
Or something like that - hard to say, it's 6am, I have a head cold and am rambling like a drunk on the bus :-)
--------------------
MultiAdjust JoinWav WavNormalize FFMPeg Input Plugin v1827 UnSharpMask
Windows7/8 Codec Chooser
All FccHandlers Stuff inc. Installers for acm codecs AAC, AC3, LameMp3 |
|
|
