VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 49 of 49
Thread
  1. Member mikesbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by MpegEncoder
    DV is 25Mbps, DVD (at most) is about 8Mbps
    This is why is really important not to waste bits encoding things you don't want, such as shaking from hand held use and noise. Taking up the recommendations above about reducing noise and movement will save the bits for what you want to see.

    If your current packages don't do it, then check out virtualdub and the deshaker filter.
    Have a nice Day
    Quote Quote  
  2. A guy on the AviSynth Usage Forum has created a very good denoiser filter which is still in development of course, but works very well. I wouldn't use VirtualDub anymore after seeing how efficient and sheer powerful AviSynth is.
    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85790

    After denoising, the image will be a tad blurrier, but not very much. The only reason is because noise makes video look "sharp". Anyway, after denoising, using one of the sharpening filters currently in development would compensate for sharpness just awesomely. The two ones that are really cooking up spice are:
    SSXSharpen - http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87514
    LimitedSharpen() - http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84196

    Cheers.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Член BJ_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    it is not just noise that makes video look sharp ...


    you do realize that sharpen filters are just subsets of convolution filters .... ?
    "Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Quote Quote  
  4. ??? Explain?
    Have you actually taken a look at these filters? They describe them quite well and even graphically.
    Quote Quote  
  5. I have TMPGEnc 3XP, CCE, Mainconcept, Procoder and Ligos encoders and every now and again, especially after reading that one is felt to be better than another, I do comparison tests among them.

    In those tests, every time CCE fails the test due to how badly it degrades the audio, necessitating spending more time treating the audio separately. Procoder and the MainConcept that comes with Vegas 5 do a generally good job but TMPGEnc 3XP always gives me a better result that compares best with my source and so I always end up going back to it. I haven't compared it to the earlier standard TMPGEnc that many use.

    When using TMPGEnc 3XP, to get an ideal result it's important to use the YUV CCIR601 expansion settings correctly depending on the source (even when frameserving into TMPGEnc as RGB). I made a preset out of my most-used settings and if in any doubt I check with TMPGEnc's in-built histogram.

    The setting gives you 2 controls, one for brightness and one for color and gives you range control for each between -255 and +255 so you can get the precise balance that you require. So far on my sources - which are usually DV or PicVideo MJPEG - I find that either setting both to +255 or having them both off seems to work best for my particular sources. A similar tool (with less range) is available in the standard TMPGEnc but there it is called YUV Descale CCIR601 and is in the custom color-correction section.

    Please note these tests are only valid on my particular system configuration and my sources so should not be taken as necessarily valid for anyone else. I've found considerable differences between the same software used on different systems in video work.

    You need to find what works best on the system that you have.

    Hope this helps.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    South Florida
    Search Comp PM
    Just dump the DV to your standalone DVR and go from there. My JVC does a great job coupled with VideoRedo.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by State Of Mind
    After denoising, the image will be a tad blurrier, but not very much.
    I have been corrected by a guy who posted facts about the denoiser I mention and another denoiser that will probably be better for my purposes (since I shoot bits and pieces throughout the day so brightness lessens gradually, therefore more nosie is present near the end of my tape than near the beginning. The following is a direct quote from the user names DarkFoon on the AviSynth Usage Forum in the "New Very Slow FFT Denoiser" thread:
    @ State of Mind, Your syntax when talking about denoisers is a little confusing: it doesnt blur after denoising, the denoising is the blurring.
    With this denoiser, it would process every frame equally, so the same ammount of denoising would be done in the beginning as well at the end. Peachsmoother, on the other hand, has a metric built in where it determines how much denoising there needs to be done, based on your parameters. So it will not process a scene that has no noise, but it will work on scenes that do have noise. This means you can set a general purpose threshold specific to the input video, and it will fluxuate with the ammount of noise present in the clip. If that's what you are looking for, PeachSmoother is an excellent filter. Get it from WarpEnterprises.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    @trock
    Quit using a video encoder to encode audio.
    Quote Quote  
  9. With DVD Authoring software, an AC3/MP2 file will be muxed/multiplexed in with a, for example, .m2v file; resulting in a .vob file. Also, treating the audio seperately is the best way to go about doing it, IMHO. I use TMPGEnc to extract the WAV (until I find whether or not there is a way to do this using AviSynth) and then transcode it to AC3 48000 Hz 128 Kbps with BeSweet.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member thecoalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by State Of Mind
    Originally Posted by tmh
    I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wouldn't now follow this method as it is usually as simple as : Open, insert DVD, Close, TV on, Channel select, Play, Watch. Takes all of 5 sec so why not watch on the tV. Plus, your lounge chair is more comfortable than your computer chair.
    Uhm, I'll clear that up for you right now. It is easier to compare on the PC because incase you're picky or did something wrong experimenting with the programs than to burn a mountainous number of DVD+Rs which can take a long time if you don't have a fast burner.
    Well that's not neccesarily the case, you have to work smarter not harder. What I usually do for experimenting is pick out maybe a 3 or 4 minute clip and encode it at different bitrates and author to the same disc. I use a RW so it's not wasted.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Hell, with DV I think anything over 2000 kbps is going to be good enough. I encode to 6000 kbps and get quality indistinguishable from DV.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member thecoalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by State Of Mind
    Hell, with DV I think anything over 2000 kbps is going to be good enough. I encode to 6000 kbps and get quality indistinguishable from DV.
    That's a very subjective statement..... You have to consider your source. DV from a VHS tape captured from my Canopus looks fine at 6000 VBR or even 4000 isn't too bad. Same thing with my Sony D8. On the other hand if you take DV from my Canon GL2 and drop it to 4000 you will see a signifigant drop in quality.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Ok, yes, I know that each source is different. Everything varies. I guess what I consider to be a general statement really isn't...my bad.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Quit using a video encoder to encode audio.
    TMPGEnc encodes AC3 just fine so I'll keep using it, thank you.
    Quote Quote  
  15. I use TMPGEnc to extract the WAV (until I find whether or not there is a way to do this using AviSynth) and then transcode it to AC3 48000 Hz 128 Kbps with BeSweet.
    Unfortunately BeSweet produces AC3 files that are not fully compatible with all machines. Many of my clients are selling the DVDs I make and so need to have broad compatibility which is one reason why I use the TMPGEnc AC3 encoder.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Well, to each his/her own.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Well, to each his/her own.
    Yep, everyone has different needs. I do sometimes extract and treat the audio separately but usually it's because I need a specific function in Samplitude Pro that Vegas/Sound Forge doesn't quite handle the same way.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by takeshi
    Scruge, the difference is that Hollywood employs people whose full time job is to encode video to produce these results. I'm not saying that you can't get good quality when converting DV to MPEG2, but it takes some work and there isn't a one size fits all solution.

    Yes I understand Hollywood has capabilities beyond ours.. But if Sony can figure a way to encode directly from ccd to DVD with their camcorders without the user having to fiddle fart around with infinite possible combinations of settings and get admirable results, then why can't the industry do the same for dv to dvd? I've got 500gb of video waiting to be encoded to dvd.. Seems a good 10x hardware encoder would sell like hotcakes. I don't think the development cost would be terribly expensive either if they used a programable gate array.

    Perhaps my patients and attention span have grown short in my older years..
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    [quote="scruge"]
    Originally Posted by ranabp
    Hi,
    ......I was thinking Dv to DvD would be very very little quality loss, unperceptable to the eye. ...quote]


    I agree, and if you find an answer let me know... I don't necessarily buy into all the noise about dv verses dvd... If you consider Hollywood can take the output of a million dollar camera which is producing frame sizes of 300k- 1mbit per, verses an average $500 dv camcorder thats producing only 100k -175k bits per frame. Seems to me the dv encoded results should look as good as the source.
    Plus I don't like this notion of watching it on a tv to check the result.. I assume they don't mean HDTV.
    I'd also like to think the energy I spent editing, encoding and authoring a DVD of home movies was well spent rather than something that was going to have to be done again later when technology changed.
    Perhaps what is needed is an encoder that is optimized for dv rather than the general purpose encoders available now.
    The DV standard can be very good quality and is commonly used for broadcast news gathering and most currently produced independent films. The better the camera the better it looks. But even consumer camcorders and TV captures will look better in DV than DVD on a good monitor.

    As for monitoring, it is common practice in everything from prosumer level editing/authoring packages (Premiere, Vegas,Avid Xpress) and up to monitor your project real time on a calibrated video monitor.

    The reasons are detailed here
    https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=253133

    At home I use Premiere or Vegas 5 and I do use a calibrated HDTV monitor because I want to see all 720x480 DV pixels to make a quality judgement. Small level changes are easily seen whether the camera is pro (Sony PD-150) or a digital8. With this kind of monitoring plus the scopes you can do very small color corrections and filtering that can make all the difference in the look of your project.

    In 5 yrs, most people will be watching TV on large screen HDTV monitors. DV still looks good in that environment but most amatuer DVDs will need to be remastered to look acceptable. For that reason I keep all edited material in DV format on tape so that it can be mastered on future encoders that will make it look good at HDTV resolutions.

    Ref:
    http://www.videouniversity.com/tvbars2.htm
    http://www.indianapolisfilm.net/article.php?story=20040117004721902
    http://www.videoessentials.com/DVD_NTSC.php
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads