Digital Video High Motion Scenes

[paulb]

OK...I need help from the community. I have a DV camera capturing to AVI through a Dazzle 1394 card. I have used a lot of advice from this board using TMPgEnc to convert and used many settings. I still have horrible motion quality whether on VCD/XVCD/SVCD or XSVCD. All of this video is marching band competition with motion in every scene.

I don't want to start another storm of VCD vs. all other formats/rates etc.. since most of this board is DVD rips or VCDs. Please only respond if you have ACTUALLY converted from DV to AVI to ?? with great motion results. Templates or settings would be a great help.

Thanks everyone.
Paul

[paulb]

Er...forgot to mention that my goal is CDR played on my standalone Pioneer 440 DVD player.

Paul

[muddyshooz]

Sorry to get your hopes up, paulb. I'm in the same boat and interested in the same thing you are. If anyone replies to you via email, could you please keep me in the loop?

Thx.

[KoalaBear]

While I hate to be the one to bust the bubble here, I'm afraid it has to be done.

Home camcorder material (particularly DV, because of its high definition with respect to VHS) requires a higher average bitrate to reproduce than [S]VCD was ever designed to deliver. Ultimately this means choosing between VHS, PC-only CD, or DVD itself as a distribution medium: [S]VCD will simply not cut the muster.

I'm happy to discuss how and why this is true, and what you can reasonably do about it if you're genuinely interested in the topic, but first we must eradicate the notion that [S]VCD is a viable medium for anything except broadcast-quality sources to begin with.

Fair enough?

[muddyshooz]

Burst away, KoalaBear. Although I may not -like- the truth, better to learn it now than later.

I'm a bit cornfused, though. You seem to be saying that DV is pretty spiffy (high definition, etc.) and that SVCD should only be used for broadcast-quality sources. So, is DV -not- a broadcast-quality source? Maybe you're referring to "television broadcast quality" as opposed to the 720x486 digicam kind of stuff? And surely an SVCD made from DV source would be -nearly- as good as a VHS dub. No? (Be gentle...)

Obviously I'd rather get straight into DV-to-DVD as a distribution medium, but DVD's a little out of my price-range right now. Until then, I'm willing to take suggestions.

Tag. Yer it.

[paulb]

I'm with Muddy... I would like to know what is possible from someone who has done this sucessfully. I've spent two months trying and bought another DVD player just to view these "home movies"

Thx.Paul

[KoalaBear]

Television image resolution is measured differently than computer image resolution. With TV, you use a chart containing concentric lines of varying width to determine the point at which they merge together into a gray blob. This is the "lines of resolution" figure that manufacturers use to compare, say, the difference in resolution between VHS and DVD.

By this measurement, DV images are far sharper than VHS: recording the same resolution chart, the lines would converge to a gray blob at a higher spatial frequency with DV than with VHS. This is what I mean about about DV being a higher-definition format. It has nothing to do with computer resolution per se, except that VHS and VCD can both resolve a little better than 300 lines when measured in TV terms (this is why VCD is said to be "VHS quality" when in reality VCD suffers compression artifacts whereas VHS does not).

With respect to MPEG, high definition images obviously require more bits to reproduce than low definition images, but this is just an accessory to the crime. The perpetrator is extraneous motion, which is where "broadcast" vs. "amateur" quality really counts in terms of what [S]VCD is capable of.

MPEG achieves much of its compression using a technology known as motion compensation. Successive frames in an image are compared to a reference frame, and where there is no change, the blocks that compose the image in that region are discarded. The remaining blocks are then searched for within a certain radius of the target frame, with three possible outcomes: (a) an identical match, which is coded as a motion vector; (b) a near match, which is coded as a motion vector plus a pixel differential; and (c) no match, which is coded as a whole macroblock.

Home camcorder footage tends to be shot using a handheld rather than a tripod-mounted camera. MPEG has a search precision of 1/2 pixel in either direction. Any movement of the camera whatsoever in relation to the composition of the frame causes the MPEG encoder to spend most of its bits tracking the motion of the frame versus the motion of the objects within it. Only the remainder is spent coding important details such as edge boundaries between intra-frame objects, and that simply isn't enough to reproduce them faithfully.

A higher bitrate -- two to three times greater than [S]VCD -- solves the problem by ensuring adequate bandwidth left over after frame motion is subtracted, but the playback options become much more limited. You need a device like a CD-ROM which can spin a CD at 4X (excluding most [S]VCD-compatible DVD players), or a device like a DVD itself which can handle bitrates up to 9Mb/S.

Back to you, Mr. Shooz.

[muddyshooz]

Thanks for the post, K-Bear. I hope you type as quickly as I do.

Although I was aware (at least to some degree) about your first three paragraphs and had a fairly reasonable uderstanding about the 4th (motion compensation stuff) and MPEG compression in general terms (being a software developer this makes good sense), I hadn't considered how much "motion" was actually contained in normal hand-held frame-to-frame situations. I suppose a steadicam would help to some degree, but the subjects are still moving despite any steadiness of the camera. This makes good sense.

I've always wondered why the standard SVCD template would be 2520 kbps of video. Even at 480x480, it seems like that peak value would be reached pretty easily.

I had also always wondered why a DVD player (which, as you mentioned, can do 9 MB/s) would have trouble crunching a comparably-bandwidthed SVCD: the SPIN-SPEED! It's not that a DVD player can't decode 9 MB/s, but that it can't spin a CD-R fast enough to read it AND decode it. Read another way, you're telling me that a $40 CD-ROM can spin things faster than a $200 DVD player? If so, that's -very- disappointing to hear. Isn't there more to it than that? Just bit-density and spin-rate? I haven't actually tried a high-bit-rate CD-R in my computer ... maybe I will just for giggles.

Gimme more! Gimme more!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: muddyshooz on 2001-12-28 15:03:04 ]</font>

[KoalaBear]

Ultimately the bitrate you can reproduce from a disc of any kind is related to how fast the disc spins. VCD is 1X; SVCD is 2X; I'm not sure about DVD, but if the guaranteed bitrate is 10Mb/S it's somewhere around 13X by CD standards, anyway.

A 4X spin rate (well within consumer CD-ROM tolerances) gives you twice the bandwidth of SVCD to work with: about 5.2Mb/S at maximum. Assuming you make a "mini-DVD" disc respecting DVD standards such that a software player like PowerDVD will recognize it, you can have up to 30 minutes of artifact-free video per CD.

Of course, you'll be hard-pressed to find a standalone DVD player capable of the task. For all practical purposes it's a CD-ROM-only format, albeit one that can be directly upgraded to DVD when that technology is more affordable. It's a matter of delayed gratification, I guess.

As for Steadicam, yeah, that would help, but not as much as using a tripod to begin with. Software like Pinnacle Commotion Pro can stablize handheld footage so it looks like it was shot from a tripod, but it's a hit-or-miss proposition. Stabilizing motion does nothing to compensate for motion blur; the resulting shots are just as distracting, albeit in a different way, than the originals even of they're easier for MPEG to encode.

The upshot is that anyone telling you they have a "magic template" for TMPGenc that converts DV to [S]VCD with anything better than horrific quality is lying.

And yes, a $40 CD-ROM can spin a CD faster than a $200 DVD can spin the same disc, but a CD-ROM can never spin a CD fast enough to compare with DVD.

Better living through mathematics, eh?

[muddyshooz]

Wo is me!

I had no idea that standalone DVD players were using crap for all the mechanics. So I can go buy a $40 DVD player for my computer and it'll spin faster than my brand spanking new Pioneer-444?!? Ugh! Are there any standalones that'll do a higher CD-R spin-rate?

Interesting about the steadicam/pinnacle stuff. Does anybody make a tripod on a single leg (I guess that would be a unipod ) that has a nice smooth-moving caster on the bottom? This is probably for a different post ... It'd be educational to try out.

Not too familiar with "mini-DVD" but I assume you mean a CD-R that has similar file-structure as DVD and so forth. I wouldn't begin to know how to make one of those out of DV captured AVIs ... but I s'pose that's what the forums are for.

So, where oh where do I/we go from here?!? I'm guessing that the reason decent quality [S]VCD can be obtained from tv-broadcast sources is because those were likely shot with tripods (in the case of live action) or are inherently steadier (in the case of animation) than DV source?

Excuse me while I go find a kleenex ...

[KoalaBear]

It's not that standalone players use crap for their mechanics, it's more that manufacturers had no idea we'd be demanding as much from their players as we do.

Most manufacturers provide [S]VCD playback as a gratuity for their Asian markets. They had no idea it would become the de facto optical video standard for their North American customers -- it just sort of turned out that way, which is why guys like you want to know how to put your DV onto it with some semblance of quality, which due to the limitations of the format from the getgo, can't reasonably be done.

Yes, a "mini-DVD" is a DVD recorded on CD-ROM. The only thing that can be said for the format is (a) it offers a bitrate high enough to do what you need it to do without investing in proper DVD, and (b) it's essentially unplayable except for PC CD-ROM.

Where do you from here? Well, that's an entirely different question. I would ask myself whether I were making video for personal or commercial reasons and move forward from there.

[zx80]

Koalabear: My DVD player will play mini-DVDs BUT I've not been able to get rid of the artifacts from my home movie footage, despite the high bandwidth.
Any thoughts?

[muddyshooz]

This all came about because I was the only guy who took a camcorder to my highschool reunion (I'll let you guess on the number ). After all was over, I had at least a dozen people ask me for copies of my tape(s) (80 minutes spread out over 3 tapes, unfortunately). Oh sure, let me look like the geek and take advantage of me. So what else is new ... Obviously, I didn't want (and still don't want) to babysit a camcorder and VCR making lots of tapes. It'd wear out the originals! So, I thought it'd be interesting to give the whole video capture thang a try. I dived head-first into this world about four months ago. What I really want to do (and have, to some extent) is make the footage viewable by the most people possible. Whether that be sending out DivX files and require that they install the codec or send out VCDs (or SVCDs to special friends) is TBD.

I've captured, edited, split, converted/encoded and tried a number of formats. I'm fairly pleased with the DivX playback on my computer (but anything above about 2000 kbps or resized causes audio/video to lose synch, for some reason -- CPU bandwidth on my lowly Athlon 700, I guess) and I've tried making VCD and SVCD as well. I deinterlaced the original source AVIs before generating all the files (apparently I shouldn't have done this for the SVCD (?) so maybe I'll have to re-capture it all again ).

Anyway, so few people post anything having to do with or dealing with DV conversion that I'm grateful to you.

I'm guessing sending out mini-DVDs isn't really the way to go since it requires that everyone have: (a) DVD players in their computers and (b) a soft-DVD player (like PowerDVD). Correct? Most people have a stand-alone DVD player, but not necessarily one that supports CD-R (and VCD and SVCD, etc.)

Suggestions? Comments? Smart remarks?

Thanks, man.

[KoalaBear]

ZX80: in all honesty, if you encoded your footage at 352x480 using a decent MPEG encoder like CCE with a variable bitrate setting of 1331/2218/5073 (assuming 128Kb/S audio) I doubt you'd have any complaints.

[KoalaBear]

Shooz: What's wrong with VHS, then?

It has no compression artifacts, it's 100% compatible with the audience's playback equipment, and you can capture and edit it digitally.

[muddyshooz]

The reasons? Time, postage, and wear 'n tear on my originals.

I can burn a CD in 5 minutes and mail it out for a buck. I'm a nice guy, but not that nice.

Also, I've had no luck getting "Export to tape" to work in Premiere. My camcorder just coughs on it.

[KoalaBear]

What can I say?

[S]VCD is not an option for you, unless you're willing to accept low playback quality in return for high compatibility. You wanted to know the how and why, I explained it; good match between supply and demand as I see it.

Unfortunately I can't (OK, won't) support a particular product on a particular machine for a particular purpose without a hefty consulting fee in advance, but I did tell you what you needed to know, did I not?

As far as Premiere is concerned, keep working. You'll eventually get it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: KoalaBear on 2001-12-28 17:05:41 ]</font>

[zx80]

<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 2001-12-28 16:34:20, KoalaBear wrote:
ZX80: in all honesty, if you encoded your footage at 352x480 using a decent MPEG encoder like CCE with a variable bitrate setting of 1331/2218/5073 (assuming 128Kb/S audio) I doubt you'd have any complaints.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I've tried a variety of formats:

VCD, XVCD, SVCD, mini-DVD.
All encoded using TMPGEnc, various bit rates, resolutions, filters. I've has some sucess in low motion cases, especially on cleaning up noise (although it takes a LONG time).
BUT, I would have thought that mini-DVD *should* look like the original footage and not exhibit artifacts.
I haven't tried 352x480 as suggested.
Would this be as an XVCD, SVCD or DVD?
I don't have CCE, does that matter?

[KoalaBear]

ZX80: Yes and yes.

352x480 is VHS resolution. If you encode at that level you're not sacrificing anything in terms of what the audience will experience when they play it back.

TMPGenc is, I honestly believe, somebody's graduate thesis and not a proper MPEG encoder. It has alot of impressive-looking features, but apart from that it doesn't encode MPEG-1 better than Panasonic or MPEG-2 better than CCE.

What, then, is it really good for?

[muddyshooz]

Whoa there! I wasn't being snippy, I promise. And I certainly wasn't asking you to fix my Premiere problems. From what I've read in other Adobe forums, I'm the rule rather than the exception.

Maybe the original road I started down is okay. After all, it was intended for people who probably aren't as picky about what they look at as you or me. (thus the prevalence of NTSC, still alive and well after ... what ... 70 years?) But I'd still like a nice option for me. Maybe I'll just have to sit and wait for the price of DVD-R media to drop and then revisit the whole mess. Am I correct in assuming that no standalone DVD players will play mini-DVDs?

Thanks for your suggestions.

-Shooz.

[KoalaBear]

Shooz, there is very rarely a time you'll actually catch me being snippy with someone. And when I am, I recognize it and apologize and say what I should have said from the beginning.

With respect to this thread, facts are facts. [S]VCD doesn't have the bitrate you need, apart from precious few DVD players, none can play video back above 2600Kb/S.

That leaves you with VHS or DVD.

[muddyshooz]

Understood. Agreed.

Muchissimas Gracias.

Friends,
Shooz.

[bbb]

I encoded a digital-8 clip to 1/2dvd format (352x480) using VDub (for resizing), Tmpgenc beta 12 (with noise reduction filters), toolame (for sound), vcdimager, and fireburner.

When I transferred the video via firewire to my HD, I noticed that there were some blocks coming off the floor's reflection (blocks were present on the source). Using a slight temporal noise reduction and upping the range of noise reduction blurred out the blocks. Blurred blocks on a TV are a lot less noticeable than unblurred blocks.

While not 100% perfect, when I showed this clip to people, they were more than satisfied. I think your high school buds will be too. Just tell them to get a Pioneer dvd player.

[muddyshooz]

bbb: I'd love to hear some more details of the process you run through. I haven't ventured into the demux/process-with-toolame/remux process, yet, nor have I tried resizing with vdub. I've tried just setting to 352x480 in TMPGEnc but it squashes the picture. Silly me. What type of output did you generate? VCD or SVCD? And what do you use vcdimager for if you're already using TMPGEnc? I'm a touch cornfuzed. And not that it's that important, but I use nero to burn.

Any details to your suggestions would be groovy. And yes, I have told them to get a Pioneer player. Pretty sweet.

[dvd_for_me]

This thread is the best one I've seen here on the physical limitations of video conversion, a must read for anyone doing DVD or SVCD. Great info Koala!

[paulb]

BBB/Muddy,

Please let me know your details also. I'm not ready to give up and wait for DVD burner prices to come down. There has to be some happy medium where decent quality can be had. Thanks for the detail Koala, I may not like it, but I have a better understanding of the specifications.

Thanks,
Paul

[bbb]

Panasonic mpegs are less blocky but blurry. Tmpgenc mpegs are crisp but blockier. However, Tmpgenc can be tweaked with (Tmpgenc & or VD) filters to achieve the less blocky but blurry effect. You can make 4-5 (or more) small test clips using the various filters to find the perfect compromise between blurry (less blocky) and crispness (blocky). Generally, less tweaking is better (unless the source is really dirty) but all templates require some tweaking.

My experience from re-encoding dvd clips and digital video is that even these "clean" sources have blocks which are significantly amplified when re-encoded into mpegs/mpeg2s. If you notice lots of motion blocks in certain encoded scenes, re-view these scenes on the source dvd or digital clip. You will see fainter blocks in the same scenes. These original faint blocks standout when re-encoded. This re-encoding side effect can be lessened with blur, smart blur (personal favorite), temporal blur, and by darkening the colors. While filters slow down the process, certain videos require such proper filtering.

After making small test clips to find the best filters settings:
I process video by using VD to frameserve to Tmpgenc. VD has wonderful filters and good resizing options. Then I process audio with Tmpgenc using Toolame in the options. (I plan to start using ssrc for better 48 to 44 audio downcoversion). I mux together the video and audio with BBMPEG (to provide proper timing). With the muxed Mpeg/Mpeg2 file, I process with VCDImager to create a VCD image file. I open the VCD image file with Fireburner and burn DAO. This process has been wonderful for me.

* It's worth the time saved by buying/building a computer with the fastest processor you can afford.

* Also, DVD burners are not viable at the moment because there are still competing standards and more importantly, DVD media is quite expensive compared to 80 min CDRs.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: bbb on 2001-12-29 21:06:26 ]</font>

[EricB]

Just a couple of thoughts from a dedicated (and fairly satisfied) DV -> xVCD / SVCD user.

1. The results of almost any system using home video are not going to be perfect. The source is not perfect. Analog systems still handle less than ideal source material better.

2. I get very good results with Sony DV cam, TMPGenc, and Premiere. By very good I mean no blocks, no wierd artifacts, beautiful color and sound. A marching band recorded without a tripod is probably worst case due to constant motion in all areas of the frame. Still, I would try VCD at different data rates, and SVCD at different rates and sizes.

3. I primarly convert home video but in trying to encode Moulin Rouge this weekend, found that all my SVCD setting produced really bad motion artifacts. A VCD setting with bit rate of 1450 produced a 2 CD copy that looks great!

4. Muddyshooz - in case you haven't tried it, one key to getting video out to work in Premiere, is to turn off the display on computer. Project -> Project Settings -> General -> Playback Settings -> uncheck Playback on Desktop. That one setting change has cured all my export to tape problems.

[Stonecold420]

I am just trying to help so If you don't need this info thats kool.I would try this. I take my home movies from a regular vhs camcorder. Load up your avi in tmpeg and use the svcd template. Load unlock. change the encoding to 2passvbr. ave 2000 min 1500 max 2672. Change sound to 96kps. soften block noise to 45 each. I get a quality that has no blocks on most files. If you do see blocks change your rez to 352x240. Leave all other settings alone.

[paulb]

Thanks to all for your help. I finally have a happy medium to work with. Using TMPgenc standard VCD settings and changing the res to 352x240 Non-Interlace encoding VBR 1900 min, 2000 ave, 2100 max and using the De-Interlace "Double" filter. Soften block noise 35 and audio 224/44.1. This produces much better DV VCD's than any SVCD/Xvcd setting I could find with MPEG2 due to the low bitrates <2400 for my player.

One question for the group. When I can afford a DVD burner, and can re-encode the AVI with a higher bitware in MPEG2 at say 4500, can the standalone player handle that in DVD format?

Thanks,
Paul