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.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Last edited by brassplyer; 24th Apr 2014 at 01:16.
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.
send a video sample
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 06:20.
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.
This is the specific script I'm using:
ffmpegsource2("D:\Bathing beauty 2\Bathing Beauty.avi")
What those screen caps represent is the preview of NeatVideo chewing on the above avs script.
When the detail is similar to the noise, the detail will be eliminated along with the noise.
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.
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.
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.
Neat Video is not very good. It's excellent.
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
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 lordsmurfI hate VHS. I always did.