VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 24 of 24
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Hi there! I see MKV files all of the time, ripped from Blu-Ray discs, but the framerate is such that the motion doesn't come out smooth. It looks slightly blurred. Same with regular DVD rips. I just tried ripping a DVD (I will have my Blu-Ray burner in a few days) with "MakeMKV Beta", and I found no adjustment for framerate. The result was the same as I have seen thus far - lousy motion. I think the trick is to rip at double the framerate, but I can't find a program that will do that for MKV files. Anyone know of a program with such settings?

    Thanks!
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Hollywood movies released on NTSC DVD have a frame rate of 23.976, with pulldown applied to produce 29.97 fps.

    If you are seeing blurring, perhaps you are viewing the 29.97 frame rate, where 2 out of every five are blurry due to interlacing?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: Jul 2001
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Due to interlacing, when it's natively (for most films) progressive? What does that even have to do with pulldown?

    To OP:

    MakeMKV doesn't do any re-encoding, simply changes containers. If your seeing blurring/macroblocking, then its probably a lack of bitrate when the move is re-encoded. Generally, if it's simply ripped from disk with no re-encoding it should look just fine.

    It could also be your playback software. What are you using, assuming this in on a PC? If not, what are you using for a player?
    Have a good one,

    neomaine

    NEW! VideoHelp.com F@H team 166011!
    http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=166011

    Folding@Home FAQ and download: http://folding.stanford.edu/
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    QUOTE=neomaine "Due to interlacing, when it's natively (for most films) progressive? What does that even have to do with pulldown? "


    I was just thinking out loud, however, the point may be valid if the DVD source is not handled properly.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I use any of these for viewing:

    VLC Player

    UPlayer

    WMPlayer

    When I recode a video from an AVI to say - a WMV file, it won't look good unless I encode it at double the framerate. Only then will it have that same natural motion. If MakeMKV doesn't recode the video, why does it come out looking different?

    Thanks again.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Post a sample of your output, they may help the diagnosis.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    A sample of MKV output? Or a sample of WMV, in normal then double framerate?

    Here's two WMV clips, with identical settings, except framerate:

    http://xtremed63.com/Video/samples/29.97.wmv

    http://xtremed63.com/Video/samples/59.94.wmv

    If you watch even a little carefully, you'll see the blur in the first (29.97 fps) clip, and fluidity and no blur in the second clip (59.94 fps).
    Last edited by xtremeD63; 9th Jan 2014 at 02:01.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by xtremeD63 View Post
    A sample of MKV output? Or a sample of WMV, in normal then double framerate?
    Neither. A VOB or M2V sample from your DVD, 10 seconds with steady motion. OK, maybe the same sample as extracted by MakeMKV also.

    Originally Posted by neomaine View Post
    Due to interlacing, when it's natively (for most films) progressive? What does that even have to do with pulldown?
    Quite a lot since most films on DVD have either hard or soft pulldown.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I edited my post a minute ago to show exactly the difference I was talking about.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    To be honest, both of them look pretty poor.
    Can you post the same shot from the ource?
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    They look poor, yes - as far as the picture quality goes. That's not what I'm referring to, though. I'm referring to the motion. If you look at the number 12 on the blue car as it goes past the screen in the 29.97 fps clip, you'll see a blur in the numbers. You won't see the blur in the 59.94 fps clip.

    As far as posting the shot from the source - the source is a DVD... how do I do that?
    Quote Quote  
  12. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2000
    Location: Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    You can cut out a sample from the mkv with solveigmm avi trimmer (it supports mkvs...not sure if mkv with mpeg2 though).
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Have you looked at the clips yet that I posted? Am I the only one who can see the difference in motion quality? This is baffling... I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone or something, where I'm the only one who sees this.
    Quote Quote  
  14. vanished El Heggunte's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: Misplaced Childhood
    Search Comp PM
    FYI: unless you know very-well what you're doing,
    converting anything to "WMV" normally means A LOT OF dropped frames + duplicated frames.
    And increasing the framerate because of Micro$oft's narrow-mindedness is not a good idea either

    And yes, even your problematic MKVs must have been created "improperly".
    Perhaps you still don't know the difference between remuxing and reencoding
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Indeed - I don't know the difference between the two terms.

    Does that mean no one else can see the obvious difference in those two clips I posted? WMV or otherwise, they illustrate my point perfectly. I can't seem to get an answer on the matter. If the answer is 'no', okay then. If it's yes - great. But no answers at all is confusing.

    I simply cannot be the only one who sees it.
    Quote Quote  
  16. With those WMV samples your source was 30i and the WMV files converted (poorly) to 30p and 60p. So there's an obvious difference in the smoothness of motion. But movies are shot at 24p. They should be converted to 24p. Converting to 30p will make them jerky (5 little jerks every second). Converting to 60p will generally have no benefit over 24p (depending on your playback device).

    See 24v30v60.avi in this post:
    http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/307004-Best-framerate-conversion-%28eg-23-97-to-30-...=1#post1888926
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I wonder why the clips are assumed to be converted 'poorly'... no one has seen the original DVD video. Here's the background on it: Original recorded format was DVCam - Firewire from a Playstation 2 into the DVCam's input. From there - recorded onto an S-VHS tape. Then through a capture card, onto my PC in NTSC DV format. THEN to the DVD after editing in DV format, THEN last night - to WMV format for comparison. That DVD of the race is only medium I have of it. The 59.94 fps clip looks almost identical to the DVD.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Copy the DVD to the hard drive it it's not there already. Open the main vob set with DGindex,
    use the [ and ] controls to select the bit you want,
    File/save project and demux video.

    Put the m2v file in this thread.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by xtremeD63 View Post
    I wonder why the clips are assumed to be converted 'poorly'... no one has seen the original DVD video.
    Whether the poor conversion happened on your conversion to WMV or earlier, you've been told why some videos are smoother than others. 24p, 25p, 30p are inherently jerky. 50p and 60p are much smoother.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Okay, great! That's settled. So now, I guess it's back to my original inquiry: is there a program that will create MKV files at double the framerate so they look like the original disc? MakeMKV certainly has no such setting to achieve that smoothness. Maybe I'll have to find a good program that will do this, but in MP4 format. I don't know.
    Quote Quote  
  21. MakeMKV simply muxes the source videos streams into an MKV container. If you see differences in playback there's a problem with your player, not the MKV file.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Interesting. I use both uPlayer and VLC Player to view MKV files. Same results. I have a Radeon HD 6850 graphics card, so I doubt the problem lies there. The search continues...

    Thanks, guys.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Set VLC to Yadif 2x or bob. Make sure it's deinterlacing while you play.

    Since you aren't posting the samples people have been asking for it's difficult to help you further.
    Quote Quote  
  24. I disable all software de-interlacing myself and let the TV do it (I assume the TV's doing it and not the video card?). If you're using a PC monitor rather than a TV that mightn't be an option. For some reason enabling de-interlacing in LAV filters (software or hardware) either doesn't work well or there's more frames dropped than not.

    Thinking about it..... video is still de-interlaced when viewing it using my CRT PC monitor, and de-interlacing is disabled in MPC-HC, so I guess my video card must be de-interlacing.

    Once the video is muxed as an MKV, if it's interlaced, maybe the interlaced flag isn't being passed on so it's not being de-interlaced. Or maybe it's being de-interlaced to 25/30fps instead of 50/60fps, which would be a software/hardware issue.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads