VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 59
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Hi all the ****,

    please can you download this HD file?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/kqxojm4hu3188ni/ORIGINAL.MXF

    this is original recording of the camera.




    Now I have also this 2 files:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ojiid25v37ugio/ORIGINAL.avi

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l6azz4f24jpv6i/ORIGINAL.wav

    they are the video part, but in MJPEG, and the audio part (ch1 and ch2 only) but in wav

    Please can you encode using as source original.avi + original.wav - with FFMPEG (strangely ffmbc don't work with hd files) - so that if possible obtain anhother original2.MXF "similar" at the original.mxf?

    thanks thanks thanks
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    There isn't a way that will make it "readable" in camera with ffmpeg - because there is metadata and MXF intracacies that are not emulated by ffmpeg to sony specs

    Of course there are certain NLE's that do export spec compliant XDCAM derivatives that play in camera
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    but it's strange that with ffmbc (-target imx50) works (but not with the -target xdcamhd422) and the author of ffmbc seems cannot resolve.
    FFmpeg is up to date for all, but not for the cats
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by marcorocchini View Post
    but it's strange that with ffmbc (-target imx50) works (but not with the -target xdcamhd422) and the author of ffmbc seems cannot resolve.
    FFmpeg is up to date for all, but not for the cats
    You mean he cannot resolve it "quickly" - it probably takes more time to debug this issue than a quick fix. I bet Baptiste can resolve it if you pay him as a consultant to do it.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by marcorocchini View Post
    but it's strange that with ffmbc (-target imx50) works (but not with the -target xdcamhd422) and the author of ffmbc seems cannot resolve.
    FFmpeg is up to date for all, but not for the cats
    You mean he cannot resolve it "quickly" - it probably takes more time to debug this issue than a quick fix. I bet Baptiste can resolve it if you pay him as a consultant to do it.
    good idea: I have send a email to Batipste Coudurier

    In the meantime, do you know if exist a program that can encode in mxf xdcamhd422? Thanks
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by marcorocchini View Post

    In the meantime, do you know if exist a program that can encode in mxf xdcamhd422? Thanks
    Most professional NLE's can. Sony Vegas, Premiere Pro etc.... "Sony" makes your camera too, so it makes sense they would be compatible

    Standalone programs would be Mainconcept / Rovi Totalcode, Telestream Episode



    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/ffmbc-discuss/gEdJiVjcOks/lzOzUezkUX4J
    I've been trying to fix that for quite some time now. There is some difference for sure but isolating it will take time and I'm not sure Ill have any free.
    You can "free up" some time if you hire him
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    poison can I ask you a catkindness? p

    please can you tell me the commandline to convert the original HD mxf file in SD.mxf ?

    time ago semms to me you purposed:

    ffmpeg -i input.mxf -vf crop=1440:1080:240:0,yadif=1:0,scale=720:576,color matrix=bt709:bt601,interlace -pix_fmt yuv422p -an -f rawvideo - | ffmbc -f rawvideo -pix_fmt yuv422p -s 720x576 -r 25 -i - -tff -target imx50 -aspect 4:3 output.mxf

    but I wonder: are you shure to use the 1440 setting? (input source is 1920x1080) because of the hd-->sd conversion I ask what is for you the best commandline that keep quality high at the minimun artefacts

    And, for second, the commanline to convert the HD .avi (https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ojiid25v37ugio/ORIGINAL.avi) in SD mp4?

    I can hipothize the commanline but I'm afraid I do not set the correct parameters for the maximum preservation of quality


    thanks
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    If you recall, the crop was for 4:3 conversion. If you want to keep 16:9, leave the crop out, and change the -aspect to 16:9 instead of 4:3

    The only reason for piping was ffmbc didn't have a re-interlace filter. There is a new ffmbc out, it might have it now
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    FFmbc-0.7-rc9 does not have jet a version for cats, but really I cannot understand why ffmbc don't "merge" with ffmpeg ..^^
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I am testing it now, there is a -vf tinterlace filter which ffmbc has (note that Tinterlace, not interlace like ffmpeg), but the -vf yadif filter in ffmbc is problematic, missing a frame (you need to double rate deinterlace to 50p before you scale and re-interlace to 50 fields /s interlaced ) . I would stick with the pipe method for now which produces correct output


    Originally Posted by marcorocchini View Post
    FFmbc-0.7-rc9 does not have jet a version for cats, but really I cannot understand why ffmbc don't "merge" with ffmpeg ..^^

    I read somewhere Baptiste thought ffmpeg was too bulky full of junk or something along those lines (not streamlined enough, full with bunch of redundant code and filters, and everything with the kitchen sink and cat litter boxes)

    But nothing is stopping you from doing a custom ffmbc build of specified filters and codecs of your own, since all sources are available
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 14th Jul 2014 at 14:40.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Code:
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i "%CD%\%~n1.mxf" -map_channel 0.1.0 -map_channel 0.2.0 -c:v libx264 -profile:v main -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1:colorprim=bt709:transfer=bt709:colormatrix=bt709 -filter_complex crop=out_h=1080:y=0,scale=interl=1:in_range=tv:out_range=tv -pix_fmt yuv420p -c:a libvo_aacenc -b 256k -aspect 16:9 out.mp4
    poison a kindness

    this commandline convert mxf to mp4 hd-->hd

    and If I want convert to an mp4 sd, but using a mix of filters that can "detail" a little the image but not too, or do you know a best method to convert from hd to sd with this type of file? but with no loss of detail, or aliasing, considering that in this case my source is not the .mjpeg avi file but the original mxf file recorded by the camera
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Anhoter question, can I say to ffmpeg that C0001.mxf and C0002.mxf and C0003.mxf and C0004.mxf have to encode alltogheter to obtain a unique out.mp4?
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    interlaced hd to interlaced sd ? or interlaced hd to progressive sd ? progressive 50p sd will have more vertical detail

    you can't really compare image of sd to hd . You can sharpen it a bit, but will produce ringing artifacts if you do it too much. Especially bad for interlaced content (line twittering) . Or you can use a different resizing kernal, like lanczos3 or spline36 - but again sharper resizer is usually "bad" for interlaced sd .
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    interlaced hd to interlaced sd ? or interlaced hd to progressive sd ? progressive 50p sd will have more vertical detail

    you can't really compare image of sd to hd . You can sharpen it a bit, but will produce ringing artifacts if you do it too much. Especially bad for interlaced content (line twittering) . Or you can use a different resizing kernal, like lanczos3 or spline36 - but again sharper resizer is usually "bad" for interlaced sd .
    interlaced hd to interlaced sd, how have I change the commandline to optimize the HD-->SD conversion?

    my (your) commanline was correctly?

    and, a little question:

    Name:  M3.JPG
Views: 69
Size:  31.3 KB

    if I check the "invert field order" get I a loss of quality?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    interlaced hd => interlaced sd . Not much you can do. If you sharpen too much , will produce artifacts on especially with interlaced content will be "twittering" artifacts. This is not an ffmpeg issue, it's a more general issue with interlaced SD. In fact , many people apply a vertical blur or low pass filter to make it smoother. Too much fine detail is bad for interlaced SD

    I don't know what invert field order does with morgan. It might change TFF => BFF, that sounds like what it might be doing
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    interlaced hd => interlaced sd . Not much you can do.

    I don't know what invert field order does with morgan. It might change TFF => BFF, that sounds like what it might be doing
    ah ok, so starting from


    Code:
    Code:
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i "%CD%\%~n1.mxf" -map_channel 0.1.0 -map_channel 0.2.0 -c:v libx264 -profile:v main -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1:colorprim=bt709:transfer=bt709:colormatrix=bt709 -filter_complex crop=out_h=1080:y=0,scale=interl=1:in_range=tv:out_range=tv -pix_fmt yuv420p -c:a libvo_aacenc -b 256k -aspect 16:9 out.mp4
    what I have change to do the coversion hd-->sd?
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Technically all you need to do is add to -filter_complex is w=720:h=576 , because you already have interl=1 (which is interlaced aware scaling) , but I'm not sure if the end result is as good as deinterlacing, scaling, re-interlacing. If it's just separating the fields, resizing the fields , and weaving, the result will be worse. You can run some tests and compare

    And you should convert HD to SD colors 709=>601 using colormatrix; you can add it to filter_complex: colormatrix=bt709:bt601

    And the flags should be bt470bg for SD, not bt709 for x264 opts
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 14th Jul 2014 at 15:27.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    so the first commandline, the one that use filtercomplex should be:


    but I'm not able to insert the w=720:h=576, I don't know the correct sintax, in the red part the error, please can u correct me?^ thanks

    Code:
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i v:\galvanina\c0015.mxf -c:v libx264 -profile:v high422 -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1 -filter_complex crop=out_h=1080:y=0,w=720:h=576,scale=interl=1:colormatrix=bt709:bt601:in_range=tv:out_range=tv -pix_fmt yuv422 -aspect 16:9 out.mp4
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by marcorocchini View Post
    so the first commandline, the one that use filtercomplex should be:


    but I'm not able to insert the w=720:h=576, I don't know the correct sintax, in the red part the error, please can u correct me?^ thanks


    So you are encoding AVC 422 ?, not 420 ? . Should be -pix_fmt yuv422p , not yuv422

    You don't need to specify in/out range, because this is XDCAMHD422 source

    Add bt470bg flags for SD (not important, just metadata)


    Code:
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i v:\galvanina\c0015.mxf -c:v libx264 -profile:v high422 -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1:colorprim=bt470bg:transfer=bt470bg:colormatrix=bt470bg -filter_complex scale=w=720:h=576:interl=1,colormatrix=bt709:bt601 -pix_fmt yuv422p -aspect 16:9 out.mp4



    And I think deinterlace, resize, re-interlace is better method quality wise, but you can compare with your own eyes
    Code:
    -filter_complex yadif=1:0,scale=w=720:h=576,colormatrix=bt709:bt601,interlace





    If you want sharper scaling, more detail, but higher risk of interlaced "line twittering", you can use lanczos scaling with -sws flags lanczos . But for interlaced content, sharp = no good
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 14th Jul 2014 at 16:14.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Code:
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i v:\galvanina\c0015.mxf -c:v libx264 -profile:v high422 -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1 -filter_complex yadif=1:0,scale=w=720:h=576,colormatrix=bt709:bt601,interlace -pix_fmt yuv422p -aspect 16:9 out.mp4
    thanks poison, so this is the final first commanline: the one that are using the filtercomplex set


    and so if would like try-compare the "old" method of deinterlacing, scaling, re-interlacing how I have change the line^?
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    That last one already uses deinterlacing, progressive scaling, re-interlacing

    The only difference is before you used ffmpeg pipe to ffmbc, because you were using XDCAM preset to encode, which ffmpeg doesn't have
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Code:
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i v:\galvanina\c0015.mxf -c:v libx264 -profile:v high422 -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1 -filter_complex yadif=1:0,scale=w=720:h=576,colormatrix=bt709:bt601,interlace -pix_fmt yuv422p -aspect 16:9 out.mp4
    poison it's a little bit "softer" is there a way to add e.g laczos filter to have image a little more detailed?
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post

    . But for interlaced content, sharp = no good
    I know but in the case of downscaling the broadcats television wants intelaced ..
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    see post 19, use -sws_flags lanczos
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Code:
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i v:\test\c0027.mxf -c:v libx264 -profile:v high422 -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1 -filter_complex yadif=1:0,scale=w=720:h=576,colormatrix=bt709:bt601,interlace -sws_flags lanczos -pix_fmt yuv422p -aspect 16:9 v:\out2.mp4
    I have try adding the -sws_flags lanczos but I cannot see any differences
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    mm no I think I'm not able
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i v:\test\c0027.mxf -c:v libx264 -profile:v high422 -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1 -filter_complex yadif=1:0,scale=w=720:h=576,colormatrix=bt709:bt60 1,sws_flags lanczos,interlace -pix_fmt yuv422p -aspect 16:9 v:\out2.mp4

    but this don't work
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    add "flags=lanczos" to filter_complex

    Code:
    -filter_complex yadif=1:0,scale=w=720:h=576:flags=lanczos,colormatrix=bt709:bt601,interlace
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Note ffmpeg's -vf interlace always applies vertical low pass (ie. blurring)

    A vertical lowpass filter is always applied in order to avoid twitter effects and reduce moiré patterns.
    http://www.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html#interlace
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2013
    Location: Italy
    Search PM
    Code:
    ffmpeg.exe -y -i v:\test\c0027.mxf -c:v libx264 -profile:v high422 -level:v 4.1 -g 33 -bf 1 -crf 18 -flags +ildct+ilme -top 1 -x264opts tff=1 -filter_complex yadif=1:0,scale=w=720:h=576:flags=lanczos,colormatrix=bt709:bt601,interlace -pix_fmt yuv422p -aspect 16:9 v:\out.mp4
    it works, but is also jet a little bit "softer" is there a way to add little respectable more details?
    Quote Quote