VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5
FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 125
Thread
  1. sanlyn, you're incredibly persevering
    I'm so grateful for everything you did on this video!!

    While you're trying new tweaks, I'm testing each step of your script. The thing that makes me curious is RemoveDirt().. I compared carefully but I can't see its contribution Please check the following frames:

    before:
    Name:  before0000.jpeg
Views: 74
Size:  139.8 KB

    after:
    Name:  after0000.jpeg
Views: 70
Size:  138.6 KB
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Deter's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    This picture is so bad that I would record it to VHS and than filter it in hardware. You can also make it in B&W, that sometimes helps on horrible videos.

    The 640x480 is another sign for me on a crap video.....Maybe it is just me.....

    You can more than likely find a better quality recording of this video somewhere else.

    Yea I would be interested in finding out how to fix these motions problems. Downloaded a few FLV files from the NET of super rare recordings.

    Was going to restore them, because they are rare. Did a few of them with ok results.

    TWO recordings had major motion problems.

    As you know FLV files pretty much suck.

    A few of them have random moving digital pixels (which is really bad compression), one of them is so bad, that I can't fix it.

    Because the quality of these videos suck so much, pretty much do this backwards and re-record many of the videos using hardware and hardware filters to fix some of the problems.

    The audio for the most part is terrible. Actually created an audio adjustment for these junk FLV files.

    Back to the motion problem:
    For the life of me, could never figure it out. It is kind of weird, cause on the PC, you can watch them ok, but on the TV, it is point blank horrible. Tried everything from progressive video to changing the frame rates, to merging frames to whatever, nothing worked. The two videos are PAL recordings, it really doesn't matter, cause who ever created the online video had no clue what they were doing and wrecked the motion on the video.

    ALRIGHT I WILL HAVE A GO AT THIS VIDEO, I AM DOING IT MY WAY AND HOW I SEE FIT IT WILL BE IN B&W, AND I AM NOT RESTORING THE SOUND ON IT. HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE UNDER 100 MEGS SO I CAN UPLOAD THE FULL VIDEO.

    EDIT: IT IS A 5 MINUTE VIDEO NO WAY IT WILL BE UNDER 100 MEGS, NO IDEA HOW TO DO THIS, CAN SPLICE THE VIDEO UP & YOU COULD PUT IT BACK TOGETHER....GRANTED YOU HAVE TO RE-CODE IT BUT WHATEVER.....OR I CAN UPLOAD IT AS A WINDOWS MEDIA FILE.....
    Last edited by Deter; 21st Mar 2012 at 22:56.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member Deter's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Ok whatever can't upload the NEW video cause the file is too big, had to create a YOUTUBE account. On a side note kind of ticked at YOUTUBE couldn't create a custom name for the channel. Was going to do like a Video Help YOUTUBE channel. Anyway, I recorded the video to VHS and decided to work from that. To me it got rid of many of the un-natural artifacts in the video. The quality of this video is never going to be good cause the source was horrible. This was what I was able to do with the video, not going to waste any more time on it. Also cause I thought the colour was terrible converted it to a B&W video.

    Not really sure what you guys meant about motion problems. In the video I saw one of the sections was edited with a crossfade which creates a weird motion and a in a few other sections it looks to have dropped frames. That was my take on it.

    Please note cause we are using YOUTUBE compression on an already bad video, please watch this in 720p. The reason why it was upconverted was to get slightly better compression.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_k__WpfzVc
    Last edited by Deter; 22nd Mar 2012 at 10:05.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:05.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member Deter's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Sanlyn,

    You asked if I would give this a go. Did you watch the video I posted above? The picture quality on this video is terrible only so much you could do, plus it was recorded on someone's home camera. Worst of all it is an internet file. Didn't use any filters or Remove Dirt, just recorded it to VHS and it cleaned up some of the digital destruction done to this video. The pixelation to the colour is just flat out terrible. One thing I learned from Lord Smurf, you need to capture the video using the best possible hardware, if it is not done somewhat correct the video is destroyed. This took 20 minutes of actual work to do. I deal with tons of videos and you need to decide weather or not it is a good idea to waste time on it. Something like this video is a waste of time, cause it is never going to be good. The video I did above is more than acceptable considering the source quality. Yes I did make it B&W but the colour sucked on this video.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:05.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member Deter's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Yes Lord Smurf has said in his forums he has used that method before. You don't do it all the time. A few years ago, got in a rare recording from a crapy VCR on a crapy DVD recorder. It was also recorded in 4 hour mode. The picture was a nightmare and had a lot of "digital destruction". The Macro Blocking was really bad also. Was like what the hell am I going to do with this.

    Found using some of my hardware as a passthrough was able to alter or fix the picture a tad. Now having some pretty nice VCR's decided to try re-recording the video back to VHS. Played back the DVD and sent the picture through a Time Based Corrector. Recorded in SVHS mode in SP on a JVC deck.

    It was able to clean up the video enough and not have it look like something fake. However it tends to dull some of the detail a bit. Sometimes with horrible videos bluring the problems helps.

    Because VHS is analog it got rid of all the MACRO BLOCKING. Than took the video again and played it back on a high end VCR and ran the picture through filters. Was able to rid myself of a lot of the problems with the video. This video turned out really well.

    Started messing around with this method to restore some FLV files. However was able to get better results just using hardware and re-cording it again in digital. However it depends on the recording. In some cases the VHS re-record looked a lot better.

    This Michael Jackson video is terribe, so the results are going to be blah...Last night when I was testing this out it looked better on VHS.

    As far as re-colouring video, last year did like 30 recordings from the 1960ties it was a nightmare. The videos had way too much red....

    Have an FTP server that I use but not posting it in a public forum......
    Quote Quote  
  8. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:04.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:04.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:04.
    Quote Quote  
  11. I'm looking forward to see your new version sanlyn

    I agree that QTGMC() might also cause the cartoon unnatural effect.. and anyway you could get rid of the combing artifacts with other filters.. But did you think of using more simple deinterlacers like TDint()? Although we'd still have the loss of information due to interpolation..

    So you think they removed a field to make the video progressive? Why would that make the YV12 pixels apart from 4 to 8? Are you talking about the fact that in YV12, a pixel carries the chroma information for its neighbor? But to remove one field shouldn't mess the chroma samples since they are assigned one line over two on interlaced content... Not sure what you meant here though..

    I'll check the contribution of removedirt on motion, looking carefully at the details you mentioned. But on still, I agree that there is not much different.. to tell the truth, I have to stick my nose to the screen to see the differences.. so I think such improvement is meaningless.

    I had a look at smoothlevels and I wondered why you used the parameters : TVrange = false, Lmode=1, brightSTR=1,DarkSTR=5. Could you elaborate?

    I'm also curious to see your settings for the colors on each scene. When they are on the room in front of the mic, the colors really look dull. What you did so far was above my expectations and I'm so glad you didn't drop the video just because it was so bad. I think that it's on poor sources that we can make the best improvements!
    Quote Quote  
  12. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:04.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date: Jul 2009
    Location: Spain
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
    If you separate fields, each set of fields has 50% of the original data. Data Pixels that were originally 1 to 2 pixels apart are, in each set of fields, effectively twice that disatance.
    Perhaps I misunderstand you, but surely after separating the fields, pixel distances are halved, not doubled?
    Pixels that were two lines apart are now on adjacent lines.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Thank you for your answer.

    Earlier in the thread, you said that 16-235 was for DVD standard and out of this range, colors would look saturated and washed out on TV screens...
    I just wonder that now because I'm not going to put this file on DVD and it'll only be played on PC. So maybe it would be ok to let the video in a 0-255 range..

    It's still not very clear in my mind in which cases I should work between 0-255 or 16-235..

    I have to leave my PC soon so I couldn't observe and think deeply about the field removal issue.. I'll look at it later today.
    Last edited by mathmax; 29th Mar 2012 at 05:24.
    Quote Quote  
  15. All digital video should be Y=16-235, RGB=0-256.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:03.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:03.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member Deter's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    This is why my 20 minute work on this project is the answer. You have spent like the last month on this project. Is it really worth it? You can only do so much with a crapy FLV file.

    Deter
    Last edited by Deter; 30th Mar 2012 at 09:32.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member 2Bdecided's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2007
    Location: United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Deter View Post
    Because VHS is analog it got rid of all the MACRO BLOCKING.
    No, because VHS has a low luma bandwidth it blurred away most of the macroblocking!

    There are perfectly good filters to remove macroblocking without resorting to VHS. You could add the same blur as VHS digitally (maybe similar noise too?).

    And, of course, there are better quality analogue formats than VHS (pro and semi-pro ones) that would preserve bad macroblocking perfectly well.


    But it's an interesting approach. I hope I never have a source so bad that I feel the need to try it though!

    Cheers,
    David.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:03.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Hi Sanlyn

    I just go back to your previous post. Thank you for taking the time to explain in detail.

    Midstream was a little better but just a little, and still with new artifacts.
    what is midstream? A deinterlacing filter? I don't know it..

    About Smoothlevels, you said TV_range made no difference if it's true or false... but the parameter has a meaning? What about the other parameters: TVrange = false, Lmode=1, brightSTR=1,DarkSTR=5 ?

    In which case do we leave a final video to RGB 0-256?

    Looking forward to see your new version..
    Quote Quote  
  22. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:02.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
    Most TV's reproduce the color range as RGB 16-240. Objects outside that range on tv will look a little weird; below-16 would display on most tv's as heavy blacks void of detail, and 240-255 looks burned-out on most tv's.
    A properly set up TV can properly display RGB 0-256. It's Y that's limited to 16-235, and U/V limited to 16-240. And not all combinations of those are legal.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:02.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:02.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:01.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:01.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    Okay, it's been a long haul . Many interruptions, including the Easter bunny. The result isn't a quantum improvement, but it's...well, an improvement but not of quantum class. At least most of the horrible grainy gunk is gone.

    Name:  old_new.png
Views: 83
Size:  825.0 KB

    version 8 preview (NTSC MPEG2 AC3, 127-MB, 2-min 44-sec) 23.976 fps progressive - Not DVD compliant.
    NOTE: This video is no,longer available

    The Whole Thing (NTSC MPEG2 AC3, 262-MB, 5-min 38-sec) 23.976 fps progressive - Not DVD compliant.
    NOTE: This Video is no longer available.

    The scripts are in 3 steps. I used 3 scripts to avoid freezing-up my pitiful 2.4GHz PC. Steps 1 & 2 are saved as YV12. Step 3 is simply a conversion to RGB24 for VirtualDub and NeatVideo. NeatVideo used mostly as a temporal filter. RemoveDirt() not used, but I think I should have kept it anyway for some green chroma noise. I ran NeatVideo (Step 3) by itself. There's really a "Step 4" for the color filters.

    The video has 20 scenes, each color-fixed individually in VirtualDub. How you break up the AVI into 20 scenes is up to you. I used Avisynth and Trim() + Lagarith. Each scene was encoded to MPEG with TMPGenc Plus 2.5, which allows me to cut each AVI so that the first frame in each scene is a key frame, with some 30 frames of the foloowing scene retained for audio sync with the next shot. The scenes were assembled into one continuous video with TMPGenc MPEG Editor v3. How you want to arrange this edit/join is up to you, but TMPGenc made it very easy assemble the 20 MPEG's.

    Scenes 3 and 4 were joined with a dissolve in Avisynth. If you start counting frames from frame 0 in scene 3, the dissolve begins at frame 391. My version of Scenes 3 and 4 had extra frames, but basically the trick is to trim Scene 3 from frame 381 + 50 extra frames. Trim Scene 4 from the frame that starts the dissolve. The dissolve is 50 frames (about 2 seconds). Here is the script I used. You'll have to fiddle with the frame numbers. I used an Excel spreadsheet to figure it out. In a folder called sc3_4 I joined scene 3 and scene 4 = "sc3_4":

    Code:
    sc3c=AviSource("J:\forum\AllIn\post8\sc3_4\sc3.avi").Trim(0,464)  
    sc4=AviSource("J:\forum\AllIn\post8\sc3_4\sc4.avi").Trim(28,0)
    Sc3_4=Dissolve(sc3,sc4,50)
    Return sc3_4
    The attachments include a .zip with NeatVideo .dnp and .nfp files and VirtualDUb .vcf for all 20 scenes. There is no scene 13. Another .zip has the avs scripts.

    Later I'll make a 3:2 pulldown 29.97fps version -- Which means I'll have to join all these AVi's in Avisynth to avoid interrupting the 3:2 pulldown sequence. Gimme a little time on that.

    Still not satisfied. Check back in a few weeks after I learn more about mvtools and masktools.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 16:00. Reason: Trim statement modified
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date: Jul 2009
    Location: Spain
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
    Code:
    sc3c=AviSource(...).Trim(0,-465)  # <- second number is negative so the trim will include frame 0)
    ...
    Not sure what your comment means, since frame 0 would be included regardless of 2nd number being positive or negative.
    Trim(0,-465) is the same as Trim(0,464).

    Perhaps you're thinking of the need to use Trim(0,-1) instead of Trim(0,0) to get the first frame, since 0 has a special meaning for the second number.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: New York, US
    Search Comp PM
    -30-
    Last edited by sanlyn; 21st Mar 2014 at 15:58.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads