DV video to SVCD or VCD looses "video" look

[suerpflysocal]

I do have general intermediate knowledge of VCD and SVCD creation. I normally use either TMPeg or Mainconcept encoder. I have a more basic general question though. When I convert my DV Video to any form on the computer and then play it on my DVD player set top, why does it loses it's "video" look and now looks like film. Actually, this happens when I convert any DVD "video" to VCD or SVCD. What setting am I leaving out. What makes something look like video and others look like film?

By "video" I mean the look of most daytime television or old TV sitcoms like Three's Company.

By "film", I mean like any movies released today and most nightime TV shows.

Can I retain that "video" look on VCD or SVCD?

I notice that if I do not do any conversion but just editing and transfer back to DV tape, "video" is preserved.

[suerpflysocal]

anybody?

[Vejita-sama]

The problem is no one knows what you mean by 'video' vs 'film' look?!? The picture is less sharp, less bright, color saturation, etc. I mean you're talking about subjective terms here.

If you're asking why your video quaility looks less than the DV source, there are a LOT of reasons: capture options, filter options, encoding options, etc.

[Thorn]

Maybe your question is just a little to abstract. Is the difference in the color, the brightness, the aspect ratio... or is it the sound? Assuming you aren't converting from 29.97 to 24 (or even 25 for PAL) the closest thing I can think of is the difference between high quality DVD video and the DV film I cap - a little jerky, more background noise, etc. Some of the video pros here may have a better idea of the technical differences you talk about.

One question, though: you say DVDs converted to vcd suffer the same problem, so maybe I'm incorrect above. Is what you're missing something akin to warmth, or a quality difference, or what?

[4k4e4n4]

OK Suerpflysocal,
I know what you mean and agree with you, I have had similiar results (less sharp more 'filmy than video' ) even going DV to DVDR with TMPGnc.
Surprisingly enough , when I tried encoding with my Ulead Movie Factory 2 encoder....I got that 'video' look back. Now I am re doing all my home movies with this program. Why don't you experiment with the free trial and see if it helps. Of course, I haven't tried it for SVCD but it may be as good. If you try it, please post back results. I am beginning to think I am crazy in prefering this to TMPGEnc since TMPGEnc is the tried + true program on this newsgroup but MF2 looks better to me!
Ken

[suerpflysocal]

thanks 4k,

when you said you haven't tried SVCD with Ulead, what have you tried. These DV edit programs so far have proven to produce horrible pictures for me but I have only tried Videowave and Pinnacle Studio 8.

What do I mean video vs film?
Ok, take any video footage you record from an analog camcorder. Or if you don't have one, imagine what your local broadcast news or daytime soap opera like young and the restless looks like, or Oprah, Three's company, the cosby show, Who wants to be a millionaire, especially on regular analog TV...that's what I mean by video.

Now take a show like Scrubs, Friends, Will and Grace, Star Trek Next Generation, the Practice..that's film.

[Thorn]

Umm, so you want to convert an episode of oprah to an episode of Friends?

You're becoming even less clear. Try describing the footage... since I don't watch those shows (and there may be hundreds of differences between those shows that aren't related to this) your comparison doesn't do me mutch good. BTW I only have analog cable, so "on analog tv" doesn't narrow down anything. Do you have digital cable (and maybe you're describing qualities of different channels, some of which are analog and some are digital)?

[suerpflysocal]

In old school terms,

take footage from a VHS or 8mm camcorder home movie (video) vs. "35mm" projector (film)

Ok, how about this, tak blair witch project:
For the most part the movie is "film" but during the camcorder sequences, it is "video"

[Conquest10]

i think i know what you mean. it the sharpness of the film, right? it gets blurry? svcd and vcd have lower resolutions than dv. that's probably what is causing your problems. try making them into xvcd/xsvcd with the resolution of 720x480. you'll have to up the bitrate to compensate for the larger resolution.

[suerpflysocal]

i think i am just confusing everybody. It has nothing to do with resolution. It is just plainly:

film vs. video

i know you guys know what i am talking about, i just need to know the technical diference between them and why it looks the way it does, and why encoding with most methods remove this differnce.


btw, per someone suggestion, Ulead video factory does retain the "video" look but to me it is more pixelated at a given bit rate, likely due to lack of customization options.

[suerpflysocal]

i think the differnce has to do with fps but i need to know what to set to retain "video" look.

[yg1968]

Video is 29.97 fps. Film is 23.976 fps (with 3:2 pulldown). DV in North America is 29.97 fps. So you should use that.

[Conquest10]

what are you talking about? what is film and what is video? you just say this looks like this and that looks like that. frame rate is not what gives a video its look.

[pb]

DV id interlaced (normally), this gives the video look. Film is progressive, i.e. one whole frame at a time (at the relevent frame rate), interlaced is two frames , one slightly delayed behind the other. It is all to do with lines in a TV scan etc. there are very good descriptions about, just search on interlaced or progressive. My DV camera(PAL) can record in either normal (interlaced) or progressive mode. I can see the difference being talked about, progressive is 25 fps, interlaced is 25 fps, but really 50fps (two fields interlaced), hence motion is smoother. VCD is progressive, SVCD and DVD can be either. I have only just started making DVDR's etc and I use interlaced foootage now as its better for fast motion and panning scenes. I could not get satisfactory quality with interlaced firewire captured DV to mpeg at SVCD bitrates etc, so I encoded to progressive with de-interlace on the interlaced footage and just encoded progressive to progressive. If I captured my DV by the analogue inputs on my Canopus ADVC100 it was fine.

To keep the video look, encode at DVD bitrates and interlaced. This will reproduce the original footage as closely as possible.

[Faceman101]

what are you talking about? what is film and what is video? you just say this looks like this and that looks like that. frame rate is not what gives a video its look.

Sure it is.

[Anonymous65]

The difference between film and video is the range of contast, film has much higher contrast range. Frame rate or interlace/non-interlace will not be visible. Film is easier to shoot because it is more forgiving as far as exposure is concered. Also, of cource it has much higher resolution. Anyway, most of the TV shows are shot in 35mm film, and then transfered to video tape for editing and posting. In the film-to-video transfer process, you have much more control over the exposure, and can make controlled corrections for the limited video contrast range. New HD cameras can compete with the resolution (or details), but still have some way to go on the contrast range. A CCD chip does not have the contrast range of negative film.

[Conquest10]

Sure it is.

What?
what i was talking about is that frame rate does not make a video look more clearer or sharper. if done wrong it will make it jerky or slow or fast. but he aint talking about that. hes comparing oprah and friends.

[Faceman101]

frame rate is not what gives a video its look.

And I am saying to that, yes it is.

[yg1968]

I am not sure that there is a difference between Friends and Oprah but most Holywood movies are filmed at 24 fps. The lower frame rate gives it more of a "film look". Video is usually at 29.97 fps.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/products/story/0,24330,3408656,00.html

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/Htm/Articles/chazz24p_editorial.htm

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#filmlook

[Supreme2k]

suerpflysocal, I think that most people here get what you're saying. It's just that some want to nitpick, or are looking at it as "bits and bytes" rather than real-world terminology.

Whether you watch those specific shows isn't the issue. You can take probably 5 shows that you watch, and the difference between video and film can be pointed out between them.

I've used PowerVCR to import video to SVCD (using composite), and it gives it the film look. When I use MS Movie Maker (to avi, using firewire), it retains the video look. Converting to SVCD after MM, I can keep the video look (TMPEG using wizard).

[flaninacupboard]

The other thing to think of is that film has motion blur and grain, wheras video does not. also as mentioned interlaced video has smoother motion. MPEG by nature spoils motion, this is unavoidable with intraframe compression. this can often make motion look blurred, and noise in non moving parts will cause artifacts in MPEG, again producing something looking similar to film grain. The best way to combat this is to use a noise reduction filter, TMPGencs' built in one is great, i set it at 8 1 12 and it does a good job. obviosuly using the highest bitrate you can improves the situation too.

[Conquest10]

And I am saying to that, yes it is.

How?

[Faceman101]

Read the previous 3 posts. If you still do not think so, then there is no hope for you.