VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread
  1. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I find that the setting that gets rid of most of the artifacts in other places kills detail in jets of water as seen in the pics below.

    Notice how the ripples in the water jets get washed/smoothed out. The setting that seems to make the biggest difference is noise reduction level in the Y channel but if I lower it, artifacts get introduced in other areas. I also run into this problem with video of waves at the beach, where it interprets the foaminess at the edge of the breaking waves as noise.

    Any suggestions? Thanks.

    Before:

    Name:  before.jpg
Views: 233
Size:  143.2 KB

    After:

    Name:  after.jpg
Views: 226
Size:  119.1 KB
    Last edited by brassplyer; 24th Apr 2014 at 02:16.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    No surprise. Fast moving water has much visually in common with noise. NeatVideo's job is to smooth the noise, so of course it is going to smooth fast moving water in the video.

    That is one reason waterfall shots are REGULARLY used in test suites to objectively compare the load & loss in quality when working with compression.

    So, the only real way to limit loss of detail there is less compression/higher bitrate/better compression efficiency.

    Scott
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member themaster1's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2006
    Location: France
    Search Comp PM
    send a video sample
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    No surprise. Fast moving water has much visually in common with noise. NeatVideo's job is to smooth the noise, so of course it is going to smooth fast moving water in the video.

    That is one reason waterfall shots are REGULARLY used in test suites to objectively compare the load & loss in quality when working with compression.

    So, the only real way to limit loss of detail there is less compression/higher bitrate/better compression efficiency.

    Scott
    Not sure what the compression is going to change. This is a screen shot directly off Virtualdub working from an avs file before it's been saved to any particular format. The original video referenced in the avs file is a DV avi capture from VHS.

    Are you saying there's really no way to avoid this in using Neatvideo?
    Last edited by brassplyer; 24th Apr 2014 at 07:20.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    An AVS file is just a script that references one or more source media files. That media file(s) is/are likely ALSO already compressed. "HD avi" just means it is higher resolution, and "avi" is just a container for whatever codec was used (you didn't specify that anywhere, but it probably IS compressed). Water motion that is compressed, decompressed, processed and then re-compressed will probably be excessively artifact-y.
    However, note also that HD used on a VHS capture is already a waste of resolution (and bitrate) resources, since VHS only has an effective resolution of ~352x480. You are using precious bits per pixel on pixels which just have noise or interpolations from neighboring pixels.

    Yes, that's what I'm saying. In fact, have already said that.

    To get better quality, I'd start over and capture correctly. At least that would up the bpp (bits-per-pixel) quality level.

    Scott
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    An AVS file is just a script that references one or more source media files. That media file(s) is/are likely ALSO already compressed. "HD avi" just means it is higher resolution, and "avi" is just a container for whatever codec was used (you didn't specify that anywhere, but it probably IS compressed). Water motion that is compressed, decompressed, processed and then re-compressed will probably be excessively artifact-y.
    However, note also that HD used on a VHS capture is already a waste of resolution (and bitrate) resources, since VHS only has an effective resolution of ~352x480. You are using precious bits per pixel on pixels which just have noise or interpolations from neighboring pixels.

    Yes, that's what I'm saying. In fact, have already said that.

    To get better quality, I'd start over and capture correctly. At least that would up the bpp (bits-per-pixel) quality level.

    Scott
    I made a typo. I meant to say it's a capture to DV avi from VHS using a Digital8 camcorder as a firewire pass-through box. So the "original" file - i.e. the first file in the digital realm is DV avi, which is what the avs file is referencing.

    This is the specific script I'm using:

    SetMemoryMax(768)
    SetMTMode(3,4)
    ffmpegsource2("D:\Bathing beauty 2\Bathing Beauty.avi")
    ConvertToYV12()
    SetMtMode(2)
    AssumeBFF
    QTGMC(Preset="slow")
    Crop(24,0,-4,-8)

    What those screen caps represent is the preview of NeatVideo chewing on the above avs script.
    Quote Quote  
  7. When the detail is similar to the noise, the detail will be eliminated along with the noise.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by brassplyer View Post
    The setting that seems to make the biggest difference is noise reduction level in the Y channel but if I lower it, artifacts get introduced in other areas. I also run into this problem with video of waves at the beach, where it interprets the foaminess at the edge of the breaking waves as noise.
    Apply different settings for different sections of frames

    If you want more accuracy within frames, you have to use masks to be more selective
    Quote Quote  
  9. Turn off or lower the temporal component of Neat Video.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by themaster1 View Post
    send a video sample
    Someone always says this and it's proved to be a waste of time. My conclusion is if someone doesn't comprehend what the issue is and how to deal with it from screen shots and a description, video samples aren't going to provide further enlightenment.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    This particular instance notwithstanding, you couldn't be more wrong. I can think of a score of threads where video samples, over descriptions (very subjective) and screenshots (1 gen down and not able to convey nuances of motion), and even mediainfo readouts (lacking qualitative measurements), is preferable and makes all the difference.

    Scott
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2006
    Location: Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    When using Neat Video, what you define as your noise profile makes a WORLD of difference, and I say that with CAPS with no intention to be overly loud without reason.

    Which is why, in this case, a video sample would be more than ever helpful for us to help you. And if, in your clip, you have a segment that has a big piece of "flat" background - all the better to set the noise (and ONLY the noise) benchmark.
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2003
    Location: dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Contrary to some of the members here, NeatVideo is not very good. It's overly simplistic and aggressive, and mostly softens and smears to correct videos.

    Granular AVISynth scripts are far better. Even many VirtualDub filters do better.

    Samples are VERY important, if somebody want help from certain members. I'm the same way -- but only from Dropbox or attached to a forum. I'm not waiting on sites that require JS.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2006
    Location: Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Contrary to some of the members here, NeatVideo is not very good.
    Yes indeed, and contrary. Neat Video is not very good. It's excellent.

    Originally Posted by lordsmurf
    It's overly simplistic and aggressive, and mostly softens and smears to correct videos.
    If you set up a bad noise profile, and overly aggressive settings, which is likely to happen if users assume Neat Video is simplistic, then you would be correct. If you can find a nice flat background (as was mentioned in my last post, and is KEY with Neat Video), or three or four different ones in the stream for your overall profile, set correct parameters for the Y and Cr/Cb, practice it to tweak and learn its rich assortment of settings, then Neat Video will induce very minimal damage to detail - at the compromise of removing a heck of alot of noise and chroma dancing, and other ills.

    Originally Posted by lordsmurf
    Granular AVISynth scripts are far better. Even many VirtualDub filters do better.
    Which?[/rhetorical question]

    Better or not, good or excellent, I would like to see a perfect noise filter that will not do any damage to video (and video detail) after removing alot of the real noise.


    Originally Posted by lordsmurf
    Samples are VERY important, if somebody want help from certain members.
    Which is why I'm eager to try a sample here. However, if there's not any flat background to work with in the sample, then Neat Video will not be impressive.
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Contrary to some of the members here, NeatVideo is not very good. It's overly simplistic and aggressive, and mostly softens and smears to correct videos.
    Dunno, I think you just have to learn to nuance it. I consider myself to still be in the learning curve stage.
    Quote Quote