I've searched high and low for NTSC<->PAL conversion software, but all I can find are either expensive products or companies offering the service. But I think with all the equipment we have for home video, this shouldn't be that difficult to pull off on our own...for free.
So, I have created an AVISynth script for converting between NTSC and PAL (both directions). [NOTE: This is not for converting film, only for actual 50/60 field video.] It's quite rudimentary, but I think it might be good enough for non-professional (like home movies) use. However, I don't have access to either any PAL footage to really test PAL->NTSC, or PAL video equipment to test NTSC->PAL. I'm sure the script will need tweaking (e.g. I'm not sure about PAL field dominance), so I'm looking for someone who would be willing to help me out.
What I would like to use is raw miniDV footage in order to have the highest quality source and to avoid as many compression artifacts as possible (yes, I know miniDV footage is compressed, but that's the best a mere consumer can hope for). I have 3 minutes of NTSC video captured directly from a tuner into my miniDV camcorder which has an S-Video input. It consists of a bit of a basketball game and a bit of a hockey game. The action, the crowd, plus the on-screen graphics are a great torture test (and this will be much more interesting than a bit of my home movies). Of course, at miniDV rates, this 3 minutes takes up a complete CD (650MB).
I would like to ask someone with PAL equipment to do the same on their end. The captured video should be actual video, not film converted to video. Then we can swap footage (probably via CDs through snail-mail). You can convert my NTSC to PAL and evaluate it on your end (I'll have to trust your eye on this). And I can convert the PAL to NTSC on my end and do the same.
And of course once we get the bumps ironed out, I'll release the script for everyone to use.
Any takers?
Xesdeeni
(xesdeeni2001 at yahoo dot com)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
-
-
I'm still looking for someone who would be interested in working on this with me.
Xesdeeni
(Xesdeeni2001 at yahoo dot com) -
Why don't you just download a Movie from Grokster that has been made in PAL. Ok I know the quality is not going to be what you want but lets face it, if it can be converted to and from PAL/NTSC at what ever quality it is, then the test would be good enough ?
Good results on bad movies will produce better results on good movies. Why not buy a PAL DVD ? most players play both ?
Why not convert a PAL to a NTSC using TEMGEnc ?
Why is the world round -
Please re-read my post...
To quote: "[NOTE: This is not for converting film, only for actual 50/60 field video.]"
If you are converting film source, you can do A LOT better than the technique I'm using. The film is inherently progressive and only 24 FRAMES/sec. As opposed to PAL and NTSC video which are interlaced and contain 50 and 60 FIELDS/sec, respectively.
This is meant specifically for home movies.
Xesdeeni -
Sorry I replied...
But seeing the post was here since "Posted: Mar 27 15:34" with no reply, I guess nobody was interested in helping.
And now I wished I had let it slip out of the listings -
That's nice....
I'm trying to provide a utility for someone to convert home movies (or live sporting events, etc.) for relatives in different regions of the world (and test it before doing so to avoid flame wars)...You neglect to read the post to which you are responding...I point this out (mostly so that someone following the thread doesn't think it really is a solution and ignore my request, and also avoiding pointing out that you are assuming I'm a complete idiot because I didn't think of such an obvious solution to what you thought was my problem)...And now I'm the bad guy?
The web is such a friendly place...
Xesdeeni -
I did read your post, and would like to comment on it, My reply was based on the information you gave, its obvious from the lack of response that this was very unclear.
On analysis I think the problem stems from the terminology you have used and shifting from one keyword to another perhaps because you don’t fully understand yourself ?
I've searched high and low for NTSC<->PAL conversion software
but all I can find are either expensive products or companies offering the service. But I think with all the equipment we have for home video, this shouldn't be that difficult to pull off on our own...for free.
So, I have created an AVISynth script for converting between NTSC and PAL (both directions). [NOTE: This is not for converting film, only for actual 50/60 field video.]
Well I guess quite a lot of people would know what that is, however the vast majority of people using PAL (UK) would probable call this "50Hz Composite Video" For those that do know that term, might not have the equipment anyway. So I guess your post was not for all PAL owners, but only for those im the US with PAL equipment ? Shame you never said this.
I have 3 minutes of NTSC video captured directly from a tuner into my miniDV camcorder which has an S-Video input.
Tuners, can be a radio Tuner, a Television tuner. Referred to as a RF TV tuner, and within this forum hundreds of people use capture cards with or without a TV tuner, most have RF or composite video input. Recording from a TV channel would be in RF, recording from the DIN plug would be in composite, or recording direct to the hard drive from digital out.
Feeding RF into a digital recorder does not produce a digital recording of high quality does it ? So converting an AVI into a digital recording would produce the same quality ?
I would like to ask someone with PAL equipment to do the same on their end. The captured video should be actual video, not film converted to video.
So I really think you need to explain yourself a lot better and in a language that countries that use Pal will understand more easily, if you want replies from the "Right" people.
But if you want replies from the wrong people then leave it as is...
However since this post has been here almost a week, I guess either the people reading it;
A, Don’t have the equipment
B, don’t know what your talking about
C, simply can't be bothered.
I have found the most people in this forum will do their best to help out, sometimes they reply with no help at all, sometimes a follow up will help, but people do help
Sometimes when people help, they might not have fully "translated" the question, especially if terms used are ones not used in other countries.
However, when people do reply to a post, they don’t expect a rude reply back, a simple follow up with a further explanation would serve to clarify the post, rather than say "read it again" or "You never read it correctly"
I did read it, and if I have not understood it, its because you have not made things very clear.
that you are assuming I'm a complete idiot because I didn't think of such an obvious solution to what you thought was my problem)(Just kidding)
Oh and out of interest I do have a Sony digital camera with Minidisc also a dual DVD player PAL/NTSC a VHS tape recorder (VCR) which also has digital out, composite out and RF out, both with 5.1 audio. -
To start with, I think the lack of response may have been due to either a lack of interest (understandable, since as you point out most people who frequent this site are interested in conversion of movie source), or a lack of desire to take the time to experiment (also understandable).
But you really must lighten up on your nit-picking. My post was actually quite clear, without going into needless details that can be understood without being explicitly stated in the context of this site. To whit:
Xesdeeni > I've searched high and low for NTSC<->PAL conversion software
letmeinforgodsake > So far this tells me nothing
Gee, I'm sorry I didn't get every detail into the first clause of the first sentence.
letmeinforgodsake > in fact in this forum 99.9% of people refer to converting to and from PAL/NTSC with movies (films) they have downloaded or made....
Yes, that is quite correct. But I specifically point out in the note that follows, that this is for converting between video sources, i.e. 50 field and 60 field sources. I suspect this note is precisely why I received only one response. But that's actually what I wanted: only responses from someone with an interest in converting video source rather than film source.
Xesdeeni > but all I can find are either expensive products or companies offering the service. But I think with all the equipment we have for home video, this shouldn't be that difficult to pull off on our own...for free.
letmeinforgodsake > Home video, is that just movies you make from a video camera, or can it be ones you have created with computer software.
You need a definition for "home video?" Why do you care what the source of the video is?
And what does that have to do with my comment? I am just pointing out that we can today process video on our home computers and do many things that used to be reserved for professionals and professional systems, many of them with free tools. Standards conversion should be one of those things.
Xesdeeni > So, I have created an AVISynth script for converting between NTSC andPAL (both directions). [NOTE: This is not for converting film, only for actual 50/60 field video.]
letmeinforgodsake > 50/60 Field Video ? Well I guess quite a lot of people would know what that is, however the vast majority of people using PAL (UK) would probable call this "50Hz Composite Video"
Who said anything about composite video? I don't care if the source is composite, S-Video, component, miniDV, or some other format. In order to be processed by every single tool listed in the Tools section on the left (site context), it must somehow be converted to digital format.
letmeinforgodsake > For those that do know that term, might not have the equipment anyway. So I guess your post was not for all PAL owners, but only for those im the US with PAL equipment ? Shame you never said this.
None of this has to do with someone in the US with PAL equipment. Why in the world would you make such an assumption? Every video professional I have ever met that worked in the PAL domain, all of whom were from outside of the US, were aware that PAL consisted of 50 fields per second. I can't claim that everyone working in that field would know this, but it seems likely.
Xesdeeni > I have 3 minutes of NTSC video captured directly from a tuner into my miniDV camcorder which has an S-Video input.
letmeinforgodsake> Most Pal equipment here has S-Video, Composite Video input as well as a Video/audio mix in composite form, I forget the name they call that. However you describe your capture coming from a "tuner" now using a Super VHS output, which makes you now think its source RF and not video at all.
Again, what does it matter where the video originates? It must be in digital format for all the tools discussed on this forum to work with it. And since I specifically mentioned one of them (AVISynth), it is obvious that this is true for my conversion as well. Only the input and output hardware works in the analog domain. In point of fact, the only reason I mentioned the S-Video connection was to relate that the quality was a bit better than pure composite. NTSC suffers from something called "chroma crawl," which is exacerbated by multiple composite video transfers. In this case, the video did come from RF, was converted to S-Video by a tuner and then captured into a miniDV camcorder via it's S-Video input. It was then transferred via IEEE-1394 into a Windows-based machine where it was stored in a DV AVI.
letmeinforgodsake > Tuners, can be a radio Tuner, a Television tuner. Referred to as a RF TV tuner, and within this forum hundreds of people use capture cards with or without a TV tuner, most have RF or composite video input. Recording from a TV channel would be in RF, recording from the DIN plug would be in composite, or recording direct to the hard drive from digital out.
Now you are just being contrary. I guess I could go on to expand that the RF was specifially from a 6MHz spectrum in the VHF range of US terestrial broadcast licensing (there were actually two different 6MHz bands used in the sample video) which was heterodyned by a local oscillator to an intermediate RF band where it was separated into its FM and AM portions. The AM portions were then further heterodyned to produce a color, interlaced, composite video signal of the NTSC standard, while the FM portions were decoded into stereo audio by a separate heterodyning and demodulation unit.
Is that the type of detail needed so that you can understand a simple statement?
letmeinforgodsake > Feeding RF into a digital recorder does not produce a digital recording of high quality does it ? So converting an AVI into a digital recording would produce the same quality ?
I think it is actually pretty good, but that's not really the point. It's arguable that the video is worse than video shot with the camcorder itself, but there is much more noise from the CCD than from my cable signal, while the camcorder footage has sharper edges and a bit more detail. And, it is certainly not of the same quality as the sources used to create DVDs. However, since the odds of someone having access to PAL video (not converted from film) in one of these formats, prior to a transmission step are fairly large, I opted for the best quality format that I know of to which a consumer may have access.
In any case, who wants to look at home videos of my daughter playing with her toys? A few seconds of a basketball game and a hockey game are more interesting for someone who doesn't know my family to look at while they judge the conversion. Besides, the quality of the camerwork is superior to my own, and the on-screen graphics add something to the conversion test that my home videos would not provide. The bottom line is that I don't want film source, and I want all the fields. The rest is up to the person generously donating their time to help.
Again, this was actually spelled out in the initial post.
Xesdeeni > I would like to ask someone with PAL equipment to do the same on their end. The captured video should be actual video, not film converted to video.
letmeinforgodsake > Film converted to Video ?, I guess you mean a RF recording verses a Composite recording, or did you want a digital recording now?..
Since when is film RF? And unless you have some seriously special hardware, you can't capture RF video without converting it to something, often composite. But again, regardless of the source or any intermediate analog formats, the format for any tools mentioned on this site must be digital video.
Obviously, what I wanted was for someone to do something like what I have done. Capture some video from a PAL source (RF, composite, S-Video, camcorder, etc.) into a digital format that can be put onto a CD like I did. In my case, I captured from RF through S-Video to a miniDV camcorder, and I think this represents as close to the best quality that I can get as a consumer.
letmeinforgodsake > However since this post has been here almost a week, I guess either the people reading it;
A, Don’t have the equipment
B, don’t know what your talking about
C, simply can't be bothered.
And those are exactly the people who I didn't want to respond. A, if they don't have the equipment, then they can't help, and of course they can't do the conversion themselves even if the quality of the technique is determined to be pretty good. B, if they don't understand, then they probably will have trouble getting me the source footage I need, and/or converting the footage I provide to them. And C, if they don't have the time, then I understand completely.
letmeinforgodsake > Sometimes when people help, they might not have fully "translated" the question, especially if terms used are ones not used in other countries.
I think you need to understand that not everyone speaks as you do. There are a number of ways to say the same thing, and if you spend your time correcting someone when you could just take a second to understand the overall issue, you will get more out of your time and things will go much more smoothly.
letmeinforgodsake > However, when people do reply to a post, they don’t expect a rude reply back, a simple follow up with a further explanation would serve to clarify the post, rather than say "read it again" or "You never read it correctly"
Rude? How exactly do I point out that you pointed me to a way to convert film-based content, when I specifically stated I wanted to convert video-based content, not film-based content, without sounding rude, if you want to take it that way?
letmeinforgodsake > I did read it, and if I have not understood it, its because you have not made things very clear.
No, I think you did not understood it because you made some blanket assumptions and responded without thinking. Then I think you got upset because I pointed out that you were in error. Of course, I can only go by what you have posted, but that's what I see...
letmeinforgodsake > Well at the time I read your post I thought you were quite intelligent, however now I think you’re a complete idiot(Just kidding)
I thought you were a complete idiot for a while. But you are a lot like my own father. He is extremely intelligent, but I often have to explain down to the littlest detail something that is inherently obvious in context. It is frustrating beyond comprehension. The same statement made to any number of other intelligent people I know requires no such disection. I have no idea why he is this way, and I have no idea why you are doing the same. But it is clear that you are no idiot.
But please do me (at least me, if not others) a favor. When you read a post that you don't understand, first assume that it is YOU that don't understand and read it again. If you respond and someone asks you to go back and read the first post again. Again, assume YOU misunderstood. I know you don't believe me, but you really didn't understand, even though all the information is really there.
letmeinforgodsake > Oh and out of interest I do have a Sony digital camera with Minidisc also a dual DVD player PAL/NTSC a VHS tape recorder (VCR) which also has digital out, composite out and RF out, both with 5.1 audio.
Ah well...unless you have a video capture card of some type, or some PAL DVDs that come from video source, I guess you can't help me. However, I'd be happy to send you the NTSC video converted to PAL using the script I created so that you can evaluate the quality. It won't be professional level, but I'm trying to see if it's "good enough" for home movies.
Xesdeeni -
To start with, I think the lack of response may have been due to either a lack of interest (understandable, since as you point out most people who frequent this site are interested in conversion of movie source), or a lack of desire to take the time to experiment (also understandable).
But you really must lighten up on your nit-picking. My post was actually quite clear, without going into needless details that can be understood without being explicitly stated in the context of this site. To whit:
Xesdeeni > I've searched high and low for NTSC<->PAL conversion software
So if you ask a question "NTSC<->PAL conversion software " you will be told the popular choice, being TMPGEnc. You really need to get the topic correct before you go anywhere else, people will read the topic and consider replying based an that and nothing else. Further explanation you give, did not serve to clarify your query.
None of this has to do with someone in the US with PAL equipment. Why in the world would you make such an assumption? Every video professional I have ever met that worked in the PAL domain, all of whom were from outside of the US, were aware that PAL consisted of 50 fields per second. I can't claim that everyone working in that field would know this, but it seems likely.
cycles, kilocycles megacycles (old stuff)
Hertz, Kilohertz, and Megahertz
We don't use "fields" to describe anything. 50Hz is our mains frequency at 240 volts nominal, since the most response would be from PAL country you should use those terms.
NTSC suffers from something called "chroma crawl," which is exacerbated by multiple composite video transfers. In this case, the video did come from RF, was converted to S-Video by a tuner and then captured into a miniDV camcorder via it's S-Video input. It was then transferred via IEEE-1394 into a Windows-based machine where it was stored in a DV AVI.
And that is the quality you are looking for ?, the same thing transferred from a DivX movie would produce something better, and you cannot do that yourself ?
Now you are just being contrary. I guess I could go on to expand that the RF was specifically from a 6MHz spectrum in the VHF range of US terestrial broadcast licensing (there were actually two different 6MHz bands used in the sample video) which was heterodyned by a local oscillator to an intermediate RF band where it was separated into its FM and AM portions. The AM portions were then further heterodyned to produce a color, interlaced, composite video signal of the NTSC standard, while the FM portions were decoded into stereo audio by a separate heterodyning and demodulation unit.
Gosh I built a super heterodyned radio 20 years ago out of scrap circuit boards, these day I don't build anything much the occasional slow scan transmitter, or RTTY terminal, or a microwave link now and then. But since the equipment off the shelf is far superior, its not worth the effort anymore, prefer to spend more time talking to people around the world using a commercial 10 element Yagi with 100 w pep.
I thought you were a complete idiot for a while. But you are a lot like my own father. He is extremely intelligent, but I often have to explain down to the littlest detail something that is inherently obvious in context. It is frustrating beyond comprehension. The same statement made to any number of other intelligent people I know requires no such disection. I have no idea why he is this way, and I have no idea why you are doing the same. But it is clear that you are no idiot.
But please do me (at least me, if not others) a favor. When you read a post that you don't understand, first assume that it is YOU that don't understand and read it again. If you respond and someone asks you to go back and read the first post again. Again, assume YOU misunderstood. I know you don't believe me, but you really didn't understand, even though all the information is really there.
letmeinforgodsake > Oh and out of interest I do have a Sony digital camera with Minidisc also a dual DVD player PAL/NTSC a VHS tape recorder (VCR) which also has digital out, composite out and RF out, both with 5.1 audio.
Ah well...unless you have a video capture card of some type, or some PAL DVDs that come from video source, I guess you can't help me. However, I'd be happy to send you the NTSC video converted to PAL using the script I created so that you can evaluate the quality. It won't be professional level, but I'm trying to see if it's "good enough" for home movies.
Well I have responded once again to a reply you posted to me, however I do have better things to do, so sorry I did not help you with my post, I guess I felt sorry for you because nobody took the time to reply. Since this message is constantly bumped with my response, I have now cleverly added the "What?" so that I can add these detail without bumping your message to the top. I do this as, the last thing people want to see in this forum is garbage like this being brought to the top each time someone replies with more sarcasm.
I wont respond again, this is fruitless -
Maybe I'm misunderstand something, but I know at least two tools that can convert video streams from PAL to NTSC format and vice versa.
Ulead DVD Movie Factory can convert from any (PAL/NTSC) AVI to any (NTSC/PAL) MPEG2 but cannot convert MPEG2 files.
TMPGEnc can convert AVI, MPEG1 and MPEG2 files to any MPEG1/2 format.
Each tool costs ca $50. -
I can't find anything on ULead's site about DVD Movie Factory being able to do standards conversion. Do you know this because you have this program? Does it support interlaced video conversion (as opposed to film-source)? (I tried downloading the trial version, but I'm having trouble with their web site.)
I don't see how you expect TMPGEnc to do standards conversion unless you are converting film source. It encodes the video it is given. Sure, you can change the frame rate and image size, but there is more to standards conversion that that, so the quality will be very poor if you don't massage the video data appropriately.
Xesdeeni -
You are right the Ulead site does not have info about that.
> Do you know this because you have this program?
Yes
> Does it support interlaced video conversion?
Have not tried, frankly, I do not know what's that.
> you can change the frame rate and image size
I think it does exactly this
> but there is more to standards conversion that that, so the quality will
> be very poor if you don't massage the video data appropriately
The quality is exactly the same as the original (for me
a regular non-professional user), however,
I noticed a slight distortion in aspect ratio, which may be the
result of the difference in size: 704x576 vs 720x480.
All I know about these stuff is from pure
experimenting, I lack any deep background knowledge about this
stuff.
I'd appreciate if you played with these tools and tell me your opinion
especially how to fix the aspect ratio problem when converting from PAL to NTSC or maybe vice versa. -
I have always been interested about PAL/NTSC conversion (maybe because I was living in the States for some time).
If you need some help to test out the script, I can try it. Normally, when I do conversion I use the digital TenLab converter, which makes excellent results.
If my system is something you are looking for to do the test, I'm happy to give a shot:
Athlon TB 1 GHz
Pinnacle DC10+ (PAL/NTSC)
SVHS Panasonic Camcoder (PAL)
JVC VHS (Multisytem)
Hitachi VHS (PAL)
Just let me know.
P.S. I'm not very professional with all the terms and stuff, but I'm learning all the time, so be patient with me. -
Rise,
Thanks for the offer to help. I've already been able to obtain some PAL home video source and test the PAL->NTSC direction. I've also converted NTSC->PAL, but I don't have any PAL equipment on which to test the results.
Anyway, I guess I'll make the script available here and anyone who is interested in giving it a try can see what they think.
Once again: THIS IS FOR INTERLACED VIDEO SOURCE. That means it IS NOT for movies/film. That means it IS NOT appropriate for most DVDs, DivX, etc. Even much prime-time content is shot on film. It is useful for HOME MOVIES shot on a camcorder or live sporting events mostly (OK, maybe soap operas), that you want to convert to SVCD or DVD (it's not needed for VCD, since VCD is not interlaced).
Cut and paste the text below into a text file (using something like Notepad), but use the .AVS extension instead of .TXT (the formatting is adjusted by posting the script this way, but it should still work). Once you have all the parts installed and have made the necessary modifications for your system (see the comments below), just open the .AVS file in your favorite video program (CCE, TMPGEnc, VirtualDub, etc.) and create your output file as desired.
Xesdeeni
(Xesdeeni2001 at the Yahoo mail server)
################################################## ############################
#
# Poor man's video standards conversion (NTSC to PAL and PAL to NTSC)
#
# This script converts one INTERLACED video format to another INTERLACED video
# format with reasonable quality.
#
# NOTE: This script is NOT meant to convert telecined films (that is, films
# in NTSC video format using 3:2 pulldown, or films in PAL video format
# speeding the 24fps to 25fps). It is best for content like HOME MOVIES shot
# with camcorders or live sporting events.
#
################################################## ############################
#
# This script is for use with AVISynth version 1.0 beta 3 or above.
#
# This script uses Gunnar Thalin's area-based deinterlace plugin for
# VirtualDub, available at http://home.bip.net/gunnart/video/#deinterlacearea.
#
################################################## ############################
#
# USE:
#
# 1. Modify the "global" line below for your environment.
# 2. Modify the last lines of the file for your desired conversion.
#
################################################## ############################
#
# For comments/suggestions email Xesdeeni2001 at the Yahoo mail server.
#
################################################## ############################
global PluginPath = "E:\VirtualDub\Plugins"
#
# VideoConvert()
#
# Function to convert one INTERLACED video format to another INTERLACED video
# format.
#
# The function works by first converting the input video from interlaced to
# progressive using an adaptive deinterlacer. Then the progressive frame rate
# is converted to a progressive frame rate that is the same as the output
# field rate. Finally the progressive frames are converted back to interlace
# for output. Scaling is also performed where appropriate.
#
function VideoConvert(clip clip, \
float OutputFrameRate, \
int OutputFrameWidth, \
int OutputFrameHeight)
{
LoadVirtualDubPlugin(PluginPath + "\DeinterlaceAreaBased.vdf", \
"AreaBasedDeinterlace", \
1)
#
# Get input video parameters
#
InputFrameRate = clip.framerate
InputFrameWidth = clip.width
InputFrameHeight = clip.height
InputFrameCount = clip.framecount
InputFieldRate = InputFrameRate * 2
#
# Get output video parameters
#
OutputFieldRate = OutputFrameRate * 2
OutputFrameCount = \
round(InputFrameCount * (OutputFrameRate / InputFrameRate))
# Input video is clip supplied
v1 = clip
# When the output frame count is greater than the input frame count, due to
# a problem with AVISynth, the output video is truncated so that it only has
# as many frames as the input video. Here we work around this issue by
# adding enough black frames to ensure all the frames are available on the
# output.
v2 = OutputFrameCount > InputFrameCount ? \
v1 + v1.Blackness(OutputFrameCount - InputFrameCount) : \
v1
# The deinterlacer will be set to interpolate missing lines instead of
# blending the fields, where motion is detected (I think this looks better).
# But the deinterlacer can only use one of the fields for this. If we
# leave this as-is, on video in motion, we'll only get one position for
# each pair of fields. Instead, we want one position for every field.
# To do this, we'll use the deinterlacer twice on the same pair of fields
# and interleave the results below. But in order for the deinterlacer to
# use different fields in each case, we need to effectively reverse the
# field polarity for one of our streams. The way I decided to do this was
# to add an extra line to the top of the image, moving each line down.
# The total number of lines must stay even, so I also add a line to the
# bottom.
v3 = v2
v4 = v2.AddBorders(0,7,0,9)
# Each of our two streams is deinterlaced here. Because the deinterlacer
# is a VirtualDub plugin, it requires RGB data.
v5 = v3.ConvertToRGB().AreaBasedDeinterlace(0, 0, 27, 25)
v6 = v4.ConvertToRGB().AreaBasedDeinterlace(0, 0, 27, 25)
# Now we have to remove the extra two lines we added above.
v7 = v5
v8 = v6.Crop(0,7,InputFrameWidth,InputFrameHeight)
# Here we alternate frames between the two streams we created above in order
# to produce a progressive stream with the same number of full frames as
# we originally had fields.
v9 = Interleave(v7,v8 )
# If we have more frames on the output than on the input, it is more
# efficient to scale here.
v10 = InputFrameRate <= OutputFrameRate ? \
v9.BicubicResize(OutputFrameWidth, OutputFrameHeight) : \
v9
# Using AVISynth's built-in filter, we either repeat or drop frames to
# get the appropriate output frame rate.
v11 = v10.ChangeFPS(OutputFieldRate)
# If we have fewer frames on the output than on the input, it is more
# efficient to scale here.
v12 = InputFrameRate > OutputFrameRate ? \
v11.BicubicResize(OutputFrameWidth, OutputFrameHeight) : \
v11
# Now we convert our video back to interlace by separating the fields,
# throwing out one from each progressive frame, and weaving the results
# together.
v13 = v12.SeparateFields().SelectEvery(4,0,3).Weave()
# When the output frame count is less than the input frame count, due to
# a problem with AVISynth, the output video is extended so that it has
# as many frames as the input video. Here we work around this issue by
# trimming the extra frames.
v14 = OutputFrameCount < InputFrameCount ? \
v13.Trim(0, OutputFrameCount - 1) : \
v13
return(v14)
}
#
# Convert INTERLACED NTSC video to INTERLACED PAL video
#
function NTSCToPAL(clip clip)
{
return(VideoConvert(clip, 25, 720, 576))
}
#
# Convert INTERLACED PAL video to INTERLACED NTSC video
#
function PALToNTSC(clip clip)
{
return(VideoConvert(clip, 29.97, 720, 480))
}
################################################## ############################
#
# Uncomment ONE of the following lines and replace the file name with yours.
#
NTSCToPAL(AVISource("LiveTest.avi"))
#PALToNTSC(AVISource("LiveTest(ConvertedToPAL).avi "))
Similar Threads
-
NTSC video with a film-like/PAL to NTSC conversion type of look that shouldn't
By Bix in forum RestorationReplies: 34Last Post: 8th Feb 2010, 15:17 -
PAL to NTSC, NTSC to PAL framerate conversion?
By Baldrick in forum Video ConversionReplies: 44Last Post: 5th Dec 2009, 23:31 -
how to test Pal/Ntsc converter box?
By spiritgumm in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 0Last Post: 4th Jun 2009, 10:28 -
NTSC to PAL, PAL to NTSC framerate conversion?
By Baldrick in forum Video ConversionReplies: 23Last Post: 23rd Apr 2008, 11:19 -
How 2 test a PAL DVD in a NTSC environment?
By Charmed in forum Video ConversionReplies: 6Last Post: 2nd Jul 2007, 20:32