DV encoding

[Baltazar]

Hi! I have a question regarding DV and encoding.

What I have is 38 minutes of DV: 768x576, 25 FPS, Codec 4CC IV50 (Indeo Interactive), Bitrate 5934, PCM Audio 44100 Hz (Bitrate 1411) - Filesize 4.06GB.

I don't know if I encoded it the right way (I wanted the smallest and best file possible).

This is what I did: 768x576, 25 FPS, Codec 4CC xvid (XviD), Bitrate 2000, MPEG-1 Layer 3 (MP3), 44100 Hz (Bitrate 224) - Filesize 621MB.

I encoded in Virtualdub and added deinterlaced (blend together).

The result was ok (maybe I should have had a higher bitrate for that resolution? But I didn't want a larger file). I tried the resize filter to 640x480 but the file didn't get smaller for some reason, why?

I have a borrowed Sony DCR-TRV33E.

[BJ_M]

Codec 4CC IV50 (Indeo Interactive) is not a DV file

768x576 is not a DV resolution

Audio 44100 Hz is not DV


so what are you trying to do ?


why are you trying to de-interlace ? what are you going to show this on ?

[Baltazar]

The 38 minutes AVI (768x576, 25 FPS, Codec 4CC IV50 (Indeo Interactive), Bitrate 5934, PCM Audio 44100 Hz (Bitrate 1411) - Filesize 4.06GB) is my exported Premiere movie (sorry for not mentioning that).

The original DV (transferred via FireWirecable to my PC) is: 720x576, 25 FPS, Codec 4CC dvsd (DVC/DV Video), Bitrate 28805, PCM Audio 32000 Hz (yea, I know, I encoded in 44100 Hz, bare with me on this, it's the first time I'm doing this) (Bitrate 1024).

Why I encoded was because I need to distribute this movie on the internet in a file which is as small and with a most possible high quality as possible.

I also tried this guide: https://www.videohelp.com/tmpgencsvcd.htm to convert the exported Premiere AVI to an SVCD but somehow TMPGEnc cuts the left and right so some of the footage is lost, why?

[junkmalle]

Hi! I have a question regarding DV and encoding.

What I have is 38 minutes of DV: 768x576, 25 FPS, Codec 4CC IV50 (Indeo Interactive), Bitrate 5934, PCM Audio 44100 Hz (Bitrate 1411) - Filesize 4.06GB.

Be careful with your teminology: IV50 may be a digital video file but DV usually refers to the specific format used by DV camcorders. IV50 is an old codec from Intel.

I don't know if I encoded it the right way (I wanted the smallest and best file possible).

You can't have both the best file and the smallest file. The smaller you make it the worse it will be. What you want is some happy medium between the two.

This is what I did: 768x576, 25 FPS, Codec 4CC xvid (XviD), Bitrate 2000, MPEG-1 Layer 3 (MP3), 44100 Hz (Bitrate 224) - Filesize 621MB... The result was ok (maybe I should have had a higher bitrate for that resolution? But I didn't want a larger file). I tried the resize filter to 640x480 but the file didn't get smaller for some reason, why?

The reason the file didn't get any smaller when you reduced the frame size is because you used the same bit rate for Xvid encoding. With a contant bitrate the bitrate determines the file size, not the frame size.

With Xvid, I recommend using "target quantizer" mode rather than contant bitrate. This is akin to asking for constant quality rather than a fixed file size. Constant bitrate will waste a fixed number of bits on a frame that's exactly the same as the one before, even a completely black frame. Constant quality will use fewer bits when not needed, more when needed. The down side is that you won't know the size of the file until it's done. VirtualDub does give you a running estimate of final file size as it's working.

Given your low quality source, you can probaly use a targe quantizer of 4 or more (1 is the highest quality, 31 the lowest) and get better visual quality and a similar or smaller file size. (I'm guessing you want a file that will fit on a CD.)

I encoded in Virtualdub and added deinterlaced (blend together).

VirtualDub's deinterlace filters are all pretty crude. Don't use them unless you have to. Check out this thread for some examples:

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=230828

It seems doubtful that an Indeo file would be interlaced. If possible try to inverse telecine instead.

[Baltazar]

Ok I see, thanks. And what about the SVCD conversion cutting right and left of the movie?

[Baltazar]

I tried the XviD Quantizer with a value of 5 and the file became huge 1,23GB (eventhough I resized down to 640x480) instead of as earlier 621MB.

Also I didn't use that deinterlace filter but did the telecine inversed (http://neuron2.net/LVG/telecining2.html) instead. Ok, there might not be any interlace lines, it's motion lines (appearing only when there are alot of motion). Don't know how to get rid of them though (except for when adding the deinterlace filter in VirtualDub), the telecine inversed did not help.

Any suggestions?

[junkmalle]

What exactly is your source? In your first message you said it was an Indeo file but also mentioned a mini DV camcorder. Are you trying to convert live camcorder footage? Are you using the camcorder as a capture device to convert VHS tape to xvid files? If so, is that VHS tape a movie (which you might be able it IVTC)?

If you're converting VHS tape to Xvid use the spacial and temporal filters to remove noise (which doesn't compress well).

[Baltazar]

No the source is my second inlay here: "The original DV"........ (Live footage recorded on a Sony DCR-TRV33E).

[BJ_M]

you can't inverse telecine live DV footage

[Baltazar]

Cannot like in "it's not technically possible" or like in "it's no good, therefor not possible"..

In either case, should I use the VirtualDubs deinterlace (blend together) filter as I did in the first place to get rid of thoose motion lines?

[junkmalle]

Since your source is a DV camera what you have isn't really 25 FRAMES per second, it's 50 FIELDs per second. There never were any complete frames so there's no way piece two fields together to make one. The best you'll be able to do is deinterlace.

I don't like Virtual Dubs "blend" method of deinterlacing. It makes motions blurry. I prefer to use one of the "discard field" methods followed by a Resize back to full height. Discarding a field gets rid of one field but leaves you with a half height video. Resizing (Lanczos3, bicubic, or bilinear) restores the full frame height.

Back on the Xvid compression, you can try going to higher quantization values or the 2 pass method. As it's name implies the 2 pass method requires two passes but if gives you a fixed file size. In the first pass it anaylyzes all the frames. In the second pass it decides how best to fit the video into the desired size. That should be much better than using a constant bitrate since it won't be wasting bits where they're not needed.

One last thing, you should probably use MP3 audio rather than PCM. 38 minutes of 16 bit, stereo, PCM audio, even at 32 KHz, is something like 300 MB. 41 KHz MP3 at 256 won't sound any worse and will reduce the audio size to about 70MB -- leaving that much more room for the video.

[Baltazar]

Well, what I was interested in was if I could get my file even smaller or approximately the same size and maybe even with a higher quality. The encoded filesize (as I mentioned earlier) is 621MB (if I choose higher quantization values or the 2 pass method the file willl surely be much larger then 621MB. I tried quantization with a value of 5 and file became 1,23GB).

Didn't I mention that I encoded in MPEG-1 Layer 3 (MP3), 44100 Hz (Bitrate 224) already?

[junkmalle]

if I choose higher quantization values or the 2 pass method the file willl surely be much larger then 621MB

No, higher quantization numbers make smaller files. With 2 pass, you tell it what file size you want and it allocates bits to make the file that size. Both of those methods will give you better visual quality at a given size because they don't waste bits where they're not needed. (Constant bitrate uses the same number of bits for every frame. A thousand identical frames in a row, even a thousand completely black frames, will use just as many bits as a thousand high motion, high detail frames.)

Re MP3, sorry, I misread the earlier messages.

[Baltazar]

I'm confused...

I did try "1 Pass quantizer" - "Quantizer 5" (XviD) and got a 1,23GB file. With "1 Pass CBR" - "Bitrate 2000" I got a 621MB file.

By the 2 Pass method you mean "2 Pass -2nd pass Int."? What desired size should I then choose to make it if I want a better looking (better quality) and smaller file then the one I did with bitrate 2000 and 621MB?

[junkmalle]

I did try "1 Pass quantizer" - "Quantizer 5" (XviD) and got a 1,23GB file. With "1 Pass CBR" - "Bitrate 2000" I got a 621MB file.

Quantizer 7 will probably give you a file about 600 MB. Quantizer 10 around 300 (although this might look worse than your CBR file).

By the 2 Pass method you mean "2 Pass -2nd pass Int."? What desired size should I then choose to make it if I want a better looking (better quality) and smaller file then the one I did with bitrate 2000 and 621MB?

With 2 pass you first run with "Twopass - first pass". During the first pass it creates a small file with information about each frame of the video. Then you run "Twopass - second pass" and specify the desired size with the Target Size field (Target Size/Target Bitrate button). The down side is that it takes twice as long since you have to run VirtualDub twice.

Pick whatever size you want. If you choose to make a 621MB file you should have better video quality than your first attempt with CBR.

Keep in mind that the size you specify is the size of the video portion only. Since your MP3 audio is probably around 50MB you will have to specify 570 MB to get a 620 MB file.

[Baltazar]

Ok, thanks

Now, I only have to figure out why my AVI (768x576) to SVCD conversion cuts left and right side of the screen when watching the burnt SVCD on my DVDplayer on my TV. It doesn't cut anything when watching the SVCD in WinDVD...

[Baltazar]

Just for the record, I tried:

Quantizer 10: Filesize = 443MB - Terrible quality
Quantizer 7: Filesize = 664MB - Good quality, a bit better then my 621MB file but too large filesize.
Quantizer 8: Filesize = 554MB - Good quality, a tiny bit better then my 621MB file but I did only gain a 70MB smaller file.

Conclusion: So despite what everyone says "it makes a much better quality using quantizer then CBR" it's not true. It's just not worth distributing this file instead of my original 2000 CBR 621 MB file.

[junkmalle]

Conclusion: So despite what everyone says "it makes a much better quality using quantizer then CBR" it's not true. It's just not worth distributing this file instead of my original 2000 CBR 621 MB file.

It will depend on the content. For example, most movies have a mix of static (talking heads, still shots, etc) and active (action, panning, zooming, etc) scenes so a variable bitrate can use fewer bits in the quite scenes and more on the active ones. If you want an average of 1000 kbps over the entire movie, and half of it can be encoded with 300 kbps, that leaves 1700 kbps of the other half. The half at 300 kbps won't look any better than when encoded at 1000 kbps CBR but the other half will.

If your footage is all action (a shakey picture from a handheld camcorder may count as action in the sense that it doesn't compress well) there's nowhere to "steal" bits from to use elsewhere. Conversely, if it's all one long static shot there's no need to.

Another place you can look to reduce overall bitrate is noise. VHS recordings and DV scenes shot in low light conditions can have a lot of video noise. Noise doesn't compress well so filtering some of it out can make your video more compressible.

[Baltazar]

Yes I see...

And was it the "right choice" for me in my case to choose a resolution of 768x576 and not going for a smaller?

[junkmalle]

was it the "right choice" for me in my case to choose a resolution of 768x576 and not going for a smaller?

I assume you did this to give a 4:3 aspect ratio on a computer screen. The final resolution is up to you. Some people say you should never enlarge the frame size but I don't have any problem with it. At your fixed 2000 kbps bitrate a larger image means xvid has to encode more pixels per frame. Shrinking the image means you lose resolution off the top but then xvid has fewer pixels per frame to compress. It's hard to say which will look better in the end. Since you're deinterlacing I suspect reducing from 720x576 to 640x480 will look a little better than enlarging to 768x576.

By the way, did you convert directly from your DV file in VirtualDub or did you go through that intermediate Indeo file? It's best to avoid multiple conversions. Convert to Xvid directly from your DV file if you can.

[Baltazar]

Yes I understand and I tried doing a 640x480 (with quantizer 8 ) and it looked worse then my 768x576 (CBR 2000). Ok, I gained 132MB but it just isn't worth going for a smaller resolution either.

Yes I enlarged the DV from 720x576 to 768x576 since I did some editing in Premiere and then exported the movie in 768x576 so it was enlarged a bit. But as you said "some people say you should never enlarge the frame size but I don't have any problem with it". So I guess such a small enlargement doesn't affect the result too much anyway. And so yes, I did use the intermediate Indeo file when I encoded it into XviD since this was the file I got after having edited the movie in Premiere although I do know that it's best to avoid multiple conversions but this was no possible option for me to avoid.

Thanks for your help/input

[BJ_M]

you should have frame served it from premiere with the satish frame server or saved it as huffyuv or even DV ..

Indeo is a terrible quality really

[Baltazar]

Indeo terrible? Really?

Not according to this: http://www.swin.edu.au/bsee/HET229/premiere.htm

"we will be using the Intel Indeo 5 CODEC. This is the best compressor on offer in the Swinburne Labs"

I've heard so much gibberish lately: "you should do quantizer instead of CBR it's much better quality". Seemes like folks are a bit exaggerating when trying to convince that something is better sometimes...

[BJ_M]

Indeo terrible? Really?

Not according to this: http://www.swin.edu.au/bsee/HET229/premiere.htm

"we will be using the Intel Indeo 5 CODEC. This is the best compressor on offer in the Swinburne Labs"

I've heard so much gibberish lately: "you should do quantizer instead of CBR it's much better quality". Seemes like folks are a bit exaggerating when trying to convince that something is better sometimes...

maybe it is the best compressor they have - but NO studio would EVER use it for an intermediate file .. or really use for much of anything , as there are far far better codecs available. And anyway, as i said - frame serving it is usually the best option.

many many many tests of codecs have said the same thing ...

[Baltazar]

I just tried frameserving from Premiere to VirtualDub but the deinterlace filter in VirtualDub took no affect... Also tried to deinterlace in Premiere but nothing happens....

[junkmalle]

I don't have Premiere -- can't you save directly to Xvid from Premiere? Is there some other reason why you have to go through VirtualDub? Just curious...

[Baltazar]

No it's not possible to export to XviD from Premiere. In early versions of Premiere you could but then it wasn't really good because you couldn't do the XviD settings you wish for as you can in VirtualDub.

[BSR]

Indeo terrible? Really?

Not according to this: http://www.swin.edu.au/bsee/HET229/premiere.htm

"we will be using the Intel Indeo 5 CODEC. This is the best compressor on offer in the Swinburne Labs"

I've heard so much gibberish lately: "you should do quantizer instead of CBR it's much better quality". Seemes like folks are a bit exaggerating when trying to convince that something is better sometimes...

That website was written 3 years ago. Technology changes fast.
I think you said you were going to distribute this on the web, an easy way to get a smaller file is to save at a smaller size like 320x240, not 768x576. I would definatly never resize DV larger if quality was a concern. Why not use one of the default outputs in premiere before you resize with XVID and Vdub.
I would not resize in premiere and try doing your resize in VDUB or XVID to see if that makes a difference. DV is interlaced, and resizing up can't be doing anything good in quality concerns for the video.

In Virtualdub, I have found Smoothdeinterlacer to be a better option than the default deinterlacers that Vdub comes with. Might want to give it a try.

I my case 2pass has always given me better quality and compression than CBR when done properly. The people in this forum aren't trying to screw you, just inform you. Until you get the hang of it though, I would stay away from 2 pass.

I tried the XviD Quantizer with a value of 5 and the file became huge 1,23GB (eventhough I resized down to 640x480) instead of as earlier 621MB.

Also I didn't use that deinterlace filter but did the telecine inversed (http://neuron2.net/LVG/telecining2.html) instead. Ok, there might not be any interlace lines, it's motion lines (appearing only when there are alot of motion). Don't know how to get rid of them though (except for when adding the deinterlace filter in VirtualDub), the telecine inversed did not help.

Maybe the inverse telcined is the reason for creating such a huge file of 1.23GB. You didn't use this inverse telcine when you did your CBR of 621meg.

SVCD cutting off sides on TV, but OK on computer. Maybe overscan issue on TV which is normal if its just cutting off a little from the left and right. Not sure though.

[junkmalle]

No it's not possible to export to XviD from Premiere. In early versions of Premiere you could but then it wasn't really good because you couldn't do the XviD settings you wish for as you can in VirtualDub.

Thanks for the info Baltazar.