De-Interlace, ONCE AND FOR ALL.

[homerpez]

I've got an ATI AIW Radeon, just trying to capture NTSC 29.97 frames, and NO INTERLACE.

I use ADPCM audio, works fine. I can use either Huffy or Divx-4 to capture video, I can capture up to 640x480 speed-wise, no problem. Synch is fine.

I CAN'T SOLVE DEINTERLACING!

320x240 works, since too small to see the lines. Anything bigger (480x480, 640x480), and there they are.

I've tried to crank resolution wide, but leave the vertical at 240 (640x240 for example), it captures no interlace lines, but at the same time the quality is... strange.

I've tried the V-Dub interlace filter, and some others, but I can't get the settings right at all. Absolutely none work, I see lines every time.

THERE MUST BE A WAY TO MAKE INTERLACED --> PROGRESSIVE!

What's so maddening, is the ATI MMC software makes near-perfectly Progressive video, and nothing else can. But on XP I'm stuck with Virtualdub. I also like that V-Dub keeps video/audio in synch when there's dropped frames, ATI does not.

Help!

[vhelp]

homerpez,

What's your source? ...cable/satalete/dvd/vhs ?
What's your encoder? Or, are you using one at all or
the real time mpeg capturing?

If you're refering to encoding with tmpg, and lets say that
you are caping tv, then your source (no matter what) (and
no matter what anyone else says) is interlaced!! I, personally
don't like using tmpgenc to do my de-interlacing. I frame
serve via virtual dub and use the filters (deinterlace) and
send to tmpg. When I do this, natually I (you) MUST turn
off (uncheck) the boxes that say [] Interlace or in the advanced
box, make sure it selected as Progressive or non-interlace.
Cause that what it is when tmpg is being served from virtualdub.
However, if you're not frameserving from virtual to tmpb, but you
are encoding straight from your avi file to tmpg, then you have to
turn on interlace under source because that is what your source (avi)
is! Next you have to (under Advanced tab) [x] check for De-Interlace
and choose Blend (is the best - no matter what anyone else says here)
Yes, unfortunately, you loose some (minor) detail. Will be just a tadd
blurry, but you have to learn how to use other filters to overcome that
and re-gain the sharpness in your video - see my samples link way below
and judge for yourself. Now, I wont go into detail how to achieve the
quality I have in my videos (samples), that deserves it's own thred here.
But, I know exactly how you feel. I've ben there! Noone here could
really help me find the answers to some of my problems. So, what I'm
saying is don't give up, even if you don't find the answers here! None
of us a BRAINs. We all stumbled here and there. Just keep trying, you'll
figure it out. ...if my response doesn't help ya!
And Please remember, that these clips I provide on my site
is not ment to be viewed on your monitor. They are ment
to be BURNed to CD (SVCD) and played on your TV. Just
BURN to CD.
Ok. . . . . .anyway. . .


Course not. . . Anything at (n X 240) will look strange or awlful.
You best bet is cap at 352x480 period. 480x480 is just extra
work or bagage. . . even at 640x480 is even more extra work,
but for some (like myself, my DC10) we have no choice but to
cap at, ie., 640x480. But, if you card supports it, cap at 352x480
and avoid all those issues everyone seems to have. Lets just
get it straight for everyone. Cap at 352x480. 704x480 and/or
720x480 is DVD source, ...not is dvd for my caps. All those
dvd's are sourced at that higher resolution, so the quality will
obvisouly be their. But, I think that people hear DVD quality 704x480
or 720x480 and right away, they think that if they CAP at those
res. they'll get the quality - RUBISH!! However, it doesn't hurt
to cap at those higher res. to get as much info detail as posible.
Just bare in mind that along with the higher res. caps, you:
* add extra to your encoding
* extra work on your dvd and/or tv to compinsate for the extra
detail for >352

The best thing anyone can do is run a series of TRUE capture
tests at 352x240 / 352x480 / and 704/720x480 and judge for
quality. True quality. Be totally honest with yourself. Of course,
that/these test will depend on the source being captured. My guess
would be to cap Cable, Satalete and DVD (maybe even VHS) and
compare each source. Pending on each source, you make the
decision as to which resolution is best for capping for which medium.
ie, cable/satalete/dvd/vhs. Don't just go blindly and assume that
just because someone says that when they cap at higher res. that
their quality goes up. May be true for their source. But you got ask
the question then. What's your source that you're capping? before
assuming.

I've learned that capturing at 352x480 yeilds the best overall in
quality and time to process. Try and experiment. cap at 720x480
and then at 352x480 (but the exact same material) and test or time
just how long it takes to encode each. You'll be surprised!! Then,
maybe you'll be more true or honest with yourself and come to the
best conclusion.

I have several samples captures I did with my DC10+ and with another
card I've ben experimenting with, the Hauppauge Wintv PCI card I got
back in 96.
* On the DC10, you'll noticed my source capture is 640x480
* on the Haup, you'll noticed my source capture is 352x480

Given the above, can you tell if there is much difference in quality?
I'm listening! You be the judge!! Oh, and be honest! he, he...
Tell me how these come out if you dare! he, he... I'll come back
to this post much later on - just in case you do dare, he, he....
GOOD LUCK!!!

--------------------------------------------------------
DC10+ Samples to taste (some Hauppauge too)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: vhelp on 2001-11-22 21:45:45 ]</font>

[homerpez]

My source, it either TV or Composite (the composite coming from a digital cable box and/or an SVHS VCR, so that's also TV source)... so, therefore interlaced...

Where I'm trying to accomplish the de-interlace is with V-dub filters. I've tried every concievable setting with the "area based" filter, I see no difference. Tried plenty of other filters...

What v-dub filters do you use, in what order specifically?

I need to know because whether or not I capture at 320x480 or 640x480 or anything above 320x240... I NEED DE-INTERLACE!

Maybe if I try your filters and settings, maybe I can figure out the "WHY" afterwards...

Thanks...

[mpack]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-11-22 15:44:13, homerpez wrote:
THERE MUST BE A WAY TO MAKE INTERLACED --> PROGRESSIVE!
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

You would think so, but actually, there isn't. If the source is interlaced and truly 50/60Hz field based then that source *does not contain the information* needed to faithfully reconstruct a full resolution progressive scan equivalent of one field.

No deinterlacing filter can do more than *hope* to be a good approximation of the original scene - the algorithm it uses will tends to work well on many sources, but very badly with some. If you are not satisfied with the results from all the filters you have tried then I'm afraid there is little you can do...

ps. If you are lucky the source was originally recorded on film from which an *interlacing* filter has generated the video for television. In that case it *is* possibly to reconstruct the original frames, provided they have'nt been too savaged by all the analog video copying in between.

[nick1977]

Maybe completely wrong here, but I had a similar porblem to this. Try using the field swap filter in virtualdub before applying the deinterlace filter. Somone told me about this - I don't know why the hell it works, but it eliminates all the horizontal lines I kept getting.

Nick

[homerpez]

I'll try the Feild swap/deinterlace in that order, see what happens...

Does anyone have any insight into how ATI MMC software does it? I ask because as I said, MMC makes nearly 100% Progressive output, out of what is definitely Interlaced source from the card...

But I can't use MMC on XP, and even if I could the frame drop roblem is murder (onle lost frame means corruption of the whole stream)...

I'll try that first, maybe it's the ticket?...

[vhelp]

homerpez,

nick1977 is right. Sorry, I FORGOT to mention that.
I think/believe that this is you problem. You didn't
say what you capture device was.
I belive you have one of those broken cards!
I have one. It's the Wintv pci card from 1996 that I
currently messing around with right now. I have to
check off "swap field order" and then those lines or
slitely double-lined-image go away. I know what you
ARE talking about though. If your video clips have ANY
logos on the bottom right, (ANY), you can see the double
or blocky kind of look. Even though you captured correctly
at any res. when you encode to mpeg (or play the avi),
it'll not display with correct quality!

Currently, I know two ways around this, but I'd like to know
what capture card you were using - wintv pci??? he, he....

Weather I'm wrong or not, did you at try any of my sample
to see if you get the same affect when played on your tv, or
does it not apply to your situation?

Let me know here! I'll be around!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: vhelp on 2001-11-23 15:22:16 ]</font>

[homerpez]

...uh...

I did say the card I was using, read first sentence in first post.

Anyway, I tried 'field swap', then the filter, it doesn't come close to working. Nor does "field bob"...

Is there any real problem with capping TV shows using 320x240?...

[vhelp]

....hmmmm!

This sounds like you're gonna need some images!
NOTE: I will take link to image off when finished!


This is my system and how I have it setup for capturing
to AVI. Since i'm currently using avi_io, this is what it looks
like on my screen:



Next, go into "File/Captures Settings" and try these values:


Next, when you select "Video Settings/Format", try these values:


Next, this is my huffy settings:


Oops, I forgot to uncheck the swap fields box.
But you could experiment and keep it [x]checked.
It worked on mine, but I use other settings, and
this box did not need to be checked.

See if the above helps in any way, else I don't know what else to
tell ya. Except, get another card, and try it out and see if you stil
get the same results. If you do, then its probably your Video Card
setup/configuration with your MB.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: vhelp on 2001-11-23 17:40:41 ]</font>

[homerpez]

.... you're capping at 160x120?...

I don't see any difference between yours and mine, except the program used. I've swapped fields, I've used filters. All do nothing to improve the problem!

I've also capped using "2:1 vertical reduction", linear mode.

So far, this is the closest I have come to achieving my goal:

cap at 640x480, 2:1 Reduction (Linear), NO FILTERS.

I noticed that there was serious ghosting, etc. when I used any filters whatsoever, or compression (like Divx). When I use uncompressed Huffy, no filers, it's smoother on re-encoding.

The result is squashed (it mashes 480 down to 240 pixels), but looks better than if I simply select it as a capture size.

Not ideal, but so far this is the only way working for me...

[vhelp]

homerpez,

Don't get confused with the 160x120 size in that box above.

It's just a glich. Noticed the the "Capture settings" box. . .
where I changed the res. to 352x480. This HAS to work for you!

In the "Video Format" box, Just chang it the "24 bit RGB"
you're probably using the wrong Image Format. Heck, plug in
those same values that you see in the images above.

Oh, wait, you have an ATI AWI Radeon board. I thought they
only have support for the WDM drivers. Are you using the
VFW Wrapper? I did this with my ATI Rage Fury board, and even
though I was able to capure at 352x480, the quality of the cap
was awful. Something like 8 or 16 colors in the AVI alone.

Ok, here's the only other suggestion I can give you. If you have
another capture card try it! If not, go out and get one! Period!

Do you really need your ATI Radeon? IMO, any capture card capable
of caping to AVI (if that's your goal) will pretty much produce the
same quality across the board, be it an ATI-TV wonder, Wintv, DC10
new name it! It's knowing how to use it that brings out its true colors.
If you got the Radeon for the capture capability, then forget my
suggestion, because that would only be adding insult to you and I
am not wanting to nor have desire to do so. Or, amybe you got the
Radeon for its real-time caping, but now you wanna try the AVI thing.
I don't know. I'm just speculating. Where I was getting at with the
getting another card, was to see if you get those same results. Thats
all. They're pretty cheap. Get the Wintv GO $49 bucks. DC10 is $59
or $69 in some places, but $99 is its normal price tag. This is only
if you wanna do AVI captures.

Well, if you are using a wrapper, then maybe that's your whole trouble.
People here have ben posting there complaints about the wrapper thing.

I wish I could help you further with your interlace problems, but it would
be helpful to see some samples of your clip or a piture of it at least.
See what you can do! I'll be around!

[homerpez]

Actually, I'm using the WDM drivers only... is that a problem?

The 352x480 doesn't work, simply because when I cap at that res, 480 tall is tall enough to see scanlines, which are the whole problem...

Color is fine, synch is fine, and speed is fine using V-Dub and Huffy. I'm almost certain it's 24-bit.

The ATI MMC software, which is NOT fast, needs a dual-Athlon 1.9Ghz to operate, and drops frames like an SOB, the only thing it does right is the thing I require: De-Interlacing.

I'm curious why any video capture software would even allow Interlaced capturing... it's virtually useless! Even if you are aiming for a DVD and MPEG-2 video for a final product, you still can't convert Interlaced source without any conversion program thinking it's extra dirty video, or extra motion! Macroblocks everywhere!

UGH!!!!

I guess for now, what I'm doing will just have to work...

[vhelp]

homerpez,

Ok, so you say that you can capture at 640x480?

I've ben doing this with my DC10 for ages. Then, I resize downto
352x480. At first, I was resizing down to 480x480, but until
recently, I've discovered that my quality is the same or better AND
my encodes go a lot faster (simply because there's less compression
per area)

But, now I use 352x480.

So, what I"m not understanding is your de-interlace problem.
You need to send me some images of this, cause I just don't see
what you can't have great looking encodes with 640x480 resized
down to 352xnnn and what-not!

Are you looking for great looking video?
Or, are you just looking for decent looking video, but for VCD?

I stil say, send some images of your problem so we can try and
better help you. K?

[homerpez]

End source is for SVCD video, on a TV. I'm used to knowing what quality you can "get by" with as far as low bitrate and all that, but capping and worrying about interlace lines is new to me (as when I did capture, I used the ATI MMC software, and 640x480 MPEG-2). Now I'm on XP, the ATI software doesn't work, and the beta floating around doesn't bode well (there's a reason it's taking them months to complete... they can get it to speed up!)

As for what it looks like? Try any picture on any interlacing tutorial anywhere.

Oh, and I found out something... both CCE and TMPGEnc can work with inetrlaced source (so long as it's 480 tall or better), just with the frame rate I have to cap at (29.97), I need higher bitrate than I'm used to using...

Interlaced IN (as AVI) --> Interlaced OUT (as MPEG-2) actually works!

Problem solved.... I think...