It's very clear in the video samples
The trend is macroblocking but more detail retention with Mainconcept, less macroblocking but more blurring and detail loss with Sony. It's easy to see that the details like pant folds are gone, textures like granite on the walls, ashphalt road textures are reduced . It looks like Sony is applying a NR pre compression .
Of course, to your average viewer, you won't notice these sorts of things in motion
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 91 to 105 of 105
Thread
-
-
Wow, you are right. My editing program (Vegas) reported it (the Lagarith version) as TFF. MediaInfo punts and doesn't report anything. I just checked using a separatefields() script, and it is definitely BFF.
I just re-did the render and field/bob capture, and it looks identical when I do it using BFF: same exact artifacts.
I also just did a render using the free Cineform/GoPro codec set to "medium" quality. It produces almost zero artifacts, and is only 10% larger than the DV codec. Something to think about, depending on your workflow.
Of course the original intent of this thread was to capture VHS analog video, and much of the capture hardware is hard-wired to work with DV, and it works so well in so many other ways that I still recommend it for capturing old analog video.Last edited by johnmeyer; 9th Jun 2015 at 12:35. Reason: added "Lagarith version"
-
The lagarith is 4:2:2 also - so no problem there, false alarm. Interesting that it was larger than the ut video version, that almost never happens unless there are duplicates and the null frame option is selected
Vegas treats lossless codecs like lagarith as RGB. The DV encoded versions look like the range was expanded
I agree cineform is a great option, for other scenarios too -
It is always interesting to look at these things. I see what you are seeing: the flat walls of the columns show less detail with the Sony encoder. However, the vertical "fluting" in those columns, on their left edge, holds up much better in the Sony version than the MainConcept.
The more I look at each encode, comparing them to the "original" lossless, the more I see parts of the image where one encoder does a better job, and the other does a worse job. For instance, since we're looking at the left side of the image, go to the right of the woman where a man in sunglasses is smoking a cigarette, and then look at the bald head on the man behind him. The details on that head and the hairline get degraded substantially by the MainConcept codec, but far less by the Sony DV codec.
As always, the question is how it looks when you are sitting in your couch watching the result. If I look at first-generation 1080p AVCHD video (straight out of the camera), frame-by-frame (which I just had to do when trying to capture a still image for a runner), it is amazing how horrible each frame looks when analyzed as a still, even though the video looks remarkably sharp when viewed in motion. -
As is Grass Valley (Canopus) HQX IMHO. Used with their free AVCHD2HQ conversion utility it produces excellent intraframe intermediate files to work with, both for SD and HD (and even 4K!) and with pretty reasonable files sizes (especially when the 'online standard' resolution is selected).
Desigend to work originally with Edius of course, but now freeware and usable outside Edius as well... -
-
Some frames are better than others, this is true for all compression tests in general. But the trend I mentioned is very strong here. It's just one sample, but from what I see I'm willing to bet money it will be very similar on other samples. I have quite a bit of experience evaluating codecs - normally I would refrain from making a broad statement from 1 sample, but when I see something this clear it's a very strong predictor. It's funny, because this is almost a 180 on what Mainconcept does with their AVC codec. That has weak texture retention on flat areas, dark areas
The question I had was how "bad" are the artifacts and losses. It definitely will be satisfactory for some people in some situations, but definitely not for others. I just wanted some quantification or hard examples -
Speaking of it this is the best I could get out of the sample while maxing out the DVD specs at 9600 CBR (so there's still room for stereo audio). Not surprising with this particularly extreme kind of material Procoder produced the least artefacts.
Like vaporeon800 I used SeparateFields() and LanczosResize(width*2,height*2) for these screenshots.
I also tried HCenc and CCE SP3. I confirm, no matter what I tried, HCenc pretty much fails at this sample.
Here's a HCenc screenshot (same frame as the 2nd one above).
Last edited by Skiller; 9th Jun 2015 at 14:22.
-
Thank you Skiller. It's what I've been seeing for years.
HCenc isn't very good with high quality detailed interlaced camcorder footage either. TBH MPEG-2 itself isn't really; the "better" encoders start to throw away details and sharpness to avoid artefacts. If you're going to look closely at individual frames, you're going to be very disappointed.
If you're going to print out screen captures to photographic paper, or upscale your VHS captures to Full HD, burn them to high-bitrate BluRay, and then press pause to look at individual frames, then maybe you'll see the advantages of lossless capture. But if your VHS captures are heading to DVD, I just can't see how you'll ever see the difference. DV is far from the weakest link in that chain.
Cheers,
David. -
Skiller: Excellent. What about compounding losses from a trip through DV prior to MPEG-2? I've uploaded the Cedocida sample, if you still have your Procoder settings available.
johnmeyer: Thanks for those. Not to be a bother, but any chance you can work around the RGB crushing/clipping issue noted by poisondeathray to make new samples (in BFF)? Perhaps if you write out the Lagarith sample to uncompressed YUY2 using VirtualDub, Vegas would treat the uncompressed one appropriately?
I've found that Ut Video is smaller any time I've tested on my own VHS captures. It turns out I used an outdated Lagarith version (1.3.20), but the newest (1.3.27) only reduces the size of this clip by 2.2MB. It's still almost 12MB larger than the Ut Video.
Aren't most of us watching on 1080p screens even if we burn to DVD specs? I know some people keep a CRT just for viewing old material, but I don't think it's typical.Last edited by Brad; 14th Jun 2015 at 15:30.
-
Good idea! Thanks for the DV sample.
Since Procoder needs YUY2 input I requested Cedocida to decode the DV source to YUY2 via pixel_type="YUY2" in AviSource.
Here's a roundup:
Lossless
MPEG2 encoded from Lossless
DV (Cedocida)
MPEG2 encoded from DV
Lossless
MPEG2 encoded from Lossless
DV (Cedocida)
MPEG2 encoded from DV
Lossless
MPEG2 encoded from Lossless
DV (Cedocida)
MPEG2 encoded from DV
Now I wasn't really expecting much of any difference between the MPEG2 sample that was encoded from the lossless original and the one that went through the DV trip (except for the artefacts to "look different"). However, especially in the first set of screenshots the one that was encoded from the lossless original does exhibit quite a bit less mosquito noise – have a look at the building in the background at the top of the picture, the skyline and the building on the left.
This made me suspicious about really using the same settings in Procoder that I used a few days ago (there aren't that many settings in Procoder anyway). So I double checked by encoding the lossless original again today using the settings I just used for the DV one... and I got bit idential output compared to what I got a few days ago, so any difference is really down to the DV encoding!
In the second set of screenshots there is more mosquito noise around the guard's stick (sorry, don't know what's it called).
In the third set there is blocking in the DV sample that made it perfectly all the way into the MPEG2 encoding of it and is barely there in the losslessly sourced MPEG2 encode! Look at the gate in the top right corner.
So, there's a difference, even when encoding for DVD. I'm surprised. But let's put it into perspective: we are looking through the magnifying glass at a single field we would normally see for 0.02 seconds. Also, this is a very very hard to encode video, the differences may be amplified because of that, or maybe not. Something else to test.Last edited by Skiller; 15th Jun 2015 at 11:10.
-
Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
I was thinking the way to actually see a difference is to capture to lossless, upscale, and then encode to BluRay specs. I was thinking this could be (slightly) visibly better than capturing to DV, upscaling, and encoding to BluRay specs.
I was thinking that the DVD encoding stage would hide the difference. However, I'm willing to admit I was wrong. The first comparison in Skiller's post shows some of the mosquito noise from the DV encoding making it through to the MPEG B-frame.
In the second comparison, there's blocking on the guard's arm in the MPEG-2-from-DV encode that's absent in the MPEG-2-from-lossless encode. This is especially strange because that blocking isn't visible in the DV version, but obviously something else in the DV version is upsetting the MPEG-2 encoding - probably the increased noise overall.
I'd rather watch the DV version than the MPEG-2-from-lossless version (the damage done by MPEG-2 encoding on B-frames is much larger than the damage done by DV encoding), but if you have to create a DVD, this example shows it can be visibly better to create it from lossless than DV.
I've seen this effect with high quality sources, but this is the first time someone has proven it with a VHS source. Thank you Skiller. In thinking this couldn't matter, I was wrong!
I have to admit though, even when I know what to look for, I can't see the difference when I'm watching the video normally.
Cheers,
David.Last edited by 2Bdecided; 16th Jun 2015 at 06:48.
-
It's called a baton. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baton
- My sister Ann's brother -
Similar Threads
-
Capture lossless but also capture closed captions?
By Brad in forum CapturingReplies: 0Last Post: 21st Mar 2013, 13:07 -
Capture Lossless with WinTV-PVR-150
By rudolf016 in forum CapturingReplies: 50Last Post: 28th Feb 2012, 12:39 -
Recommend a <$100 capture card for analog to lossless AVI codec
By Cheesyii in forum CapturingReplies: 8Last Post: 27th Dec 2011, 09:49 -
VHS to DVD (editting or lossless conversion?)
By fvnesscafe in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 2Last Post: 20th Sep 2010, 23:37 -
Modern consensus on best sub-$250 lossless AVI-capable analog capture card?
By Mini-Me in forum CapturingReplies: 31Last Post: 9th Jul 2010, 06:18