bitrate/dimension issue

[Skizzarz]

Hey everyone,

I just joined the forum after googling 'video forum', I hope you can help shed light on my issue.

I have DVD content that I would like to edit into a shorter video and quality is the main concern, I aim to keep it lossless.

VTS_01_1.VOB claims to be 720x480 with a video data rate of 7753 kbps and a frame rate of 29/second which I'm assuming is actually 29.97 but in the property details tab in Windows it just says 29.

I tried to edit and export the video with the same attributes. In Windows Live Movie Maker I set the dimensions to 720x480 but when the video was finished it had bars.

Next, I opened the original .VOB in VLC at original resolution and dragged it over-top the Vector Video Standards image guide to learn that the frame was actually 854x480. Upon more research I have found that most all DVDs are 720x480 but not square pixel, info found here: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/281799-DVD-resolution-is-720-x-480?p=1698625&viewfu...=1#post1698625

What I'm trying to make sure is correct is my video data rate, in changing the frame dimensions from 720x480 to 854x480 it seems the original data rate isn't enough to keep it lossless.

I tried something kind of dumb, 720/480 = 1.5 and 854/480 = 1.77917, the difference being 0.27917. Now add a 1 to that considering we want to work with the original frame plus the difference.

1.27917, why does this number seem useful to me, do you ask? Well multiply that with the video data rate and I was thinking everything would be all good, alas I think my logic is flawed.

How do I ensure lossless signal preservation? Thanks in advance

--
Edit:

Something tells me the data rate does not need to be changed, that being said finished project still looks compressed to me.

[Case]

I have DVD content that I would like to edit into a shorter video and quality is the main concern, I aim to keep it lossless.

I think you need an intelligent MPEG cutter to do your edits, so that you won't have to do anything about the dimensions and the bitrate. Keep everything as-is, and throw away what you don't want. Don't make it harder than it is.

[Nelson37]

Use VOB2MPG, then MPG2CUT2, then re-author with something like GuiforDVDAuthor. No loss, no re-encode.

You have 16:9 video, it is 854x480 stored as 720x480 and resized on the player end. It's confusing but don't mess with it as there is no need to.

[edDV]

What final output are you looking for? Another DVD? Why you you want square pixels?

DVD is encoded MPeg2 at 720x480. If you want to edit it down to a shorter "lossless" version you would use a smart render MPeg2 editor like Womble MPeg Video Wizard.
http://www.womble.com/products/

Any decode to square pixels followed by another encode will be lossy.

[budwzr]

The video is anamorphic. That means it gets stretched to 16:9 when played back. It's basically a hack that Hollywood does to squeeze their widescreen video to DVD dimensions (720X480).

[Skizzarz]

Use VOB2MPG, then MPG2CUT2, then re-author with something like GuiforDVDAuthor. No loss, no re-encode.

You have 16:9 video, it is 854x480 stored as 720x480 and resized on the player end. It's confusing but don't mess with it as there is no need to.

thanks for the well informative post, and to everyone else who threw in their 2 cents.

Another issue I've got with the original content is it being interlaced, I'll look into if mpg2cut2 has a deinterlace plug-in. Can anyone offer their best method to deinterlace giving the highest quality picture?

Thanks for the quick replies!

[edDV]

Use VOB2MPG, then MPG2CUT2, then re-author with something like GuiforDVDAuthor. No loss, no re-encode.

You have 16:9 video, it is 854x480 stored as 720x480 and resized on the player end. It's confusing but don't mess with it as there is no need to.

thanks for the well informative post, and to everyone else who threw in their 2 cents.

Another issue I've got with the original content is it being interlaced, I'll look into if mpg2cut2 has a deinterlace plug-in. Can anyone offer their best method to deinterlace giving the highest quality picture?

Thanks for the quick replies!

Software deinterlace is lossy in itself and forces a re-encode which is a second step of loss. Suggest you follow your original plan and do only lossless cuts. Two ways to do that. Cut on I frames (0.5 sec edit accuracy) or use a smart render editor that only recodes the GOPS at the edit point (frame accurate edits).

Is this camcorder video? Good that it has 7753 Kb/s bit rate which is good for camcorder or noisy broadcast source. Normal work flow for interlace is to maintain interlace to the DVD disc. That way the DVD player will play native interlace if set to 480i/1080i out, or will hardware deinterlace if set to 480p/720p/1080p.

[Nelson37]

Best de-interlace method to preserve quality in your situation? DON'T.

[Skizzarz]

Makes sense, thanks for being so helpful, finished product should be looking better

[Skizzarz]

I'm reading over this and one thing that is slightly unclear is how the finished project is guaranteed deinterlaced while keeping the video as high quality as possible. Where in the process would I deinterlace and what is the best method for picture sharpness with considerable motion?

Also, is mpeg2 better to work with than avi? It seems the process may be easier if the source is transcoded lossless to avi, I'm looking for an educated opinion

[jagabo]

Transcoding to lossless AVI will make your files grow tens of times larger. You could remux to AVI but why bother? The files won't be significantly smaller and you're just making playback more difficult (many players do not support MPEG in AVI).

The best deinterlacers are the TempGuassMC variants for AviSynth. You'll have a very steep learning curve if you want to use them. Just leave your videos as interlaced MPEG and let the player deinterlace on-the-fly. It won't look as good as TGMC's deinterlacing but you won't be locking yourself in to whatever errors TGMC gives.

[edDV]

I'm reading over this and one thing that is slightly unclear is how the finished project is guaranteed deinterlaced while keeping the video as high quality as possible. Where in the process would I deinterlace and what is the best method for picture sharpness with considerable motion?

Also, is mpeg2 better to work with than avi? It seems the process may be easier if the source is transcoded lossless to avi, I'm looking for an educated opinion

You started by saying you wanted to edit an interlace DVD without loss. We have explained how to do that.

Now you say your goal is to deinterlace your video for some purpose. Why?

I asked above what your goal was for this video. I assumed you wanted an edited DVD. Start over and tell us what you are trying to do.

All we have to go on is what you said

I have DVD content that I would like to edit into a shorter video and quality is the main concern, I aim to keep it lossless.

[Skizzarz]

I need to deinterlace to play properly on progressive scan systems, namely Youtube which does not automatically detect and deinterlace. I'm going to follow your advice and do this...

Use VOB2MPG, then MPG2CUT2, then re-author with something like GuiforDVDAuthor. No loss, no re-encode.

I think I found something out, looks like the video editor I'm using, Windows Live Movie Maker, does deinterlace automatically and keeps the frame rate at 29.97, exactly what I'm looking for... looks like I can throw the interlaced video into an editor and most editors will take care of deinterlacing?

[budwzr]

Also, the whole premise of keeping DVD material "lossless" by converting to uncompressed is a joke. DVD is not high quality worthy of handling like gold.

[Skizzarz]

I treat all material like gold, compression is for hosers.

[Skizzarz]

Everything is coming together painfully simple... I will post finished project

[manono]

I treat all material like gold, compression is for hosers.

Not when the output is destined for YouTube.

Everything is coming together painfully simple... I will post finished project

No one cares.

[Skizzarz]

I'm a donkey.

[Skizzarz]

Youtube.

[jagabo]

Was that deinterlaced by WLMM? Pretty poor deinterlacing.

[Skizzarz]

Yup, through WLMM, probably a blend deinterlace.

[jagabo]

More like a discard field and resize. Blend would give double exposure like images when motions are large.

[Skizzarz]

Knowing the quality of the original DVD isn't that good, I tend to lean towards what budwzr said... The mediocre quality isn't worth handling with that much care. I'm still interested in learning better intelligent deinterlacing methods that would give better quality...

When I tried to mess with the video in a certain program it told me it couldn't handle the AC3 audio...

[jagabo]

I'm still interested in learning better intelligent deinterlacing methods that would give better quality...

Here's a post where I compared several deinterlacing methods:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/292642-Deinterlacing-Tips-and-Good-news-that-i-foun...=1#post1784755

The source video wasn't the best for the comparison though.

[Skizzarz]

My source is mpeg-2. How could I use the TempGaussMC deinterlace method aside from AviSynth, which I'm assuming only handles AVIs?

[jagabo]

You can process just about any video with AviSynth. For MPEG 2 I would use DgIndex to build and index file then use Mpeg2Source() in your AviSynth script:

Mpeg2Source("filename.d2v")
QTGMC(preset="fast")

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=156028

[Skizzarz]

Thanks Jagabo, I'll look into all that. Somewhat confusing working with scripts but I should get the hang of it.

Thanks for the help everyone, especially Jagabo.

And Manono, I fart on your grave.

[manono]

And Manono, I fart on your grave.

That's rich. First you're all high-and-mighty about keeping it 'lossless', turning your nose up at any kind of compression. Next thing we come to find out you've used a crappy compression codec with an even worse deinterlacer, and you've uploaded it to the mother of all over-compression sites, YouTube. Since your posts from beginning to end have been riddled with false statements, inaccuracies, and misconceptions, you can imagine how much I care about anything you have to say.

[budwzr]

But the video is Badazz,,,,,

Nice work.

[Skizzarz]

And Manono, I fart on your grave.

That's rich. First you're all high-and-mighty about keeping it 'lossless', turning your nose up at any kind of compression. Next thing we come to find out you've used a crappy compression codec with an even worse deinterlacer, and you've uploaded it to the mother of all over-compression sites, YouTube. Since your posts from beginning to end have been riddled with false statements, inaccuracies, and misconceptions, you can imagine how much I care about anything you have to say.

This site is called videohelp.com, nuff said.