VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Okay, I've searched the forum and there is no shortage of discussion regarding upconversion. I do have a question of my own about this most arcane of arts, however.

    I'm running a Power Mac G5 Quad, highest-end model just before the Intel switch/"Mac Pro" line came out. 2.5GB memory, 300GB hard disk dedicated to video editing (FCP Scratch Disk) I mention this so you have a general idea where my system specs are.

    I understand certain DVD players can upconvert NTSC video to 720p/1080i HD. I understand that they do this on-the-fly via a dedicated hardware upscaler.

    Most of the threads I've read recommend going the route of an upscaling DVD player to upconvert NTSC to HD for display on an HDTV. There seems to be a general trend toward dismissal of offline/non-realtime/software/on-disk upconversion processes, either for reasons of impracticality by speed or lack of decent results.

    To that I say that I understand reluctance to dedicate large amounts of time to the process, but that I'd like to try anyway.

    My reasoning is this: If a DVD player can upconvert NTSC to HD, that means that in some way, shape, or form, that upconversion is possible. To me it seems that there should exist somewhere a software solution for achieving the same result, if a bit (or a lot) slower.

    So, that said, is anyone here aware of a software solution that runs on Mac OS X (or *nix, so it can be run in OS X's UNIX subsystem) and is capable of upconverting an NTSC-resolution video to some higher resolution?

    The material I work with most regularly is video extracted from DVDs and video imported from MiniDV camcorders.

    At this stage of the game, speed isn't really a concern to me, and I'm not currently worried about presentation on an HDTV or projector or what-have-you for an audience. Really it'd be just me examining the result on a 1280x1024 LCD monitor, big enough for 720p but not 1080i/p. I do have an HDTV that can do 1080i if that helps at all.

    Thanks a ton for any tips or leads. I do appreciate it.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Член BJ_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    shake (by apple)
    "Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Quote Quote  
  3. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    ffmpegX can do it. Pretty much anything that can scale up can do it. I know of very few programs, for either the PC or the MAC that actually use motion estimation techniques however. NeatVideo is one for the PC. It is about as slow a piece of software as you will find, and the results are only marginally better than using avisynth and a few filters. Given NeatVideo takes 3 - 4 times longer than the aviynth route, it is no wonder software solutions aren't being considered seriously.

    Give ffmpegX a try and see what you get.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Член BJ_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    PHOENIX TOOLS TIMEMASTER used motion est. , was also slow and now the company seems to have disappeared (prob. bought by apple)

    but worked well .....

    there are plug ins for xsi, fusion and the like also .....
    "Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    There is more to "upscale" than simple upscale.

    480p/23.976 progressive to 720p/59.94 progressive upscale is easy but you need to do the 3:2 frame repeat as well.

    480p/23.976 progressive to 1080i/29.97 interlace first requires upscale to 1080p/23.976, then telecine field picking is needed to get to 1080i/29.97.

    480i/29.97 interlace to 1080i/29.97 needs separate upscale for each field.

    480i/29.97 film telecine to 720p/59.94 first needs IVTC to 480p/23.976, then upscale to 720p/23.976 then frame repeat 3:2 to 720p/59.94.

    480i/29.97 DV to 720p/59.94 requires a bob* to 480p/59.94 followed by upscale to 720p/59.94.

    * Actually this only works for stills. Interlace video (DV or other) to 720p or 1080p is the most difficult of all. The deinterlace processes can and should be motion adaptive and use even more sophisticated adaptive techniques. This is where software solutions bog down and hardware performs real time.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Okay, FFmpegX and Timemaster. Does Timemaster still actually exist (i.e. the final released version) or is there no download/purchase available anymore?

    edDV: Good to know, I'll keep those in mind when I'm picking destination modes. I'm really interested in just playing around, so efficiency/practicality isn't much of a concern to me. I'm currently in it for the self-education and experience of the task.

    Thanks, guys. Keep the suggestions coming if you have them. You're a terrific bunch.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Член BJ_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    "Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Quote Quote  
  8. Член BJ_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    "Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Y HELO THAR, TIEM MAZTUR.

    Excellent, I believe I shall be bookmarking that link ASAP.

    As for the Shake page, was Algolith the tool I should be looking at there?
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by edDV
    There is more to "upscale" than simple upscale.

    480i/29.97 interlace to 1080i/29.97 needs separate upscale for each field.

    480i/29.97 DV to 720p/59.94 requires a bob* to 480p/59.94 followed by upscale to 720p/59.94.

    * Actually this only works for stills. Interlace video (DV or other) to 720p or 1080p is the most difficult of all. The deinterlace processes can and should be motion adaptive and use even more sophisticated adaptive techniques. This is where software solutions bog down and hardware performs real time.
    edDV--

    Assuming similar configuration specifications to this thread's original author (I'll be getting an extremely high-end Mac Pro once OS X 10.5 is released,) how would I go about an upconversion from 480i/29.97 DV to 1080i/29.97 HD? You mention 720p from DV and 1080i from an interlaced source, but isn't DV interlaced, or is the above reference to an interlaced source other than DV, such as MPEG-2?

    Any help is, as always, appreciated and very much welcomed. Thank you again for your time.

    Current tentative Mac Pro specifications:
    - 3.0Ghz Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" 8 core processors.
    - 8GB RAM
    - 4 750GB HDDs in two RAID 1 arrays for a total of 1.5TB logical space (3TB total.)
    - Final Cut Studio 2
    - Adobe Creative Suite Master Collection

    Yes, this machine is overkill, but I'm specifically waiting for the fall so I can purchase it with OS X 10.5 loaded on it in October.

    Thanks again for your time.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cyrax9
    Originally Posted by edDV
    There is more to "upscale" than simple upscale.

    480i/29.97 interlace to 1080i/29.97 needs separate upscale for each field.

    480i/29.97 DV to 720p/59.94 requires a bob* to 480p/59.94 followed by upscale to 720p/59.94.

    * Actually this only works for stills. Interlace video (DV or other) to 720p or 1080p is the most difficult of all. The deinterlace processes can and should be motion adaptive and use even more sophisticated adaptive techniques. This is where software solutions bog down and hardware performs real time.
    edDV--

    Assuming similar configuration specifications to this thread's original author (I'll be getting an extremely high-end Mac Pro once OS X 10.5 is released,) how would I go about an upconversion from 480i/29.97 DV to 1080i/29.97 HD? You mention 720p from DV and 1080i from an interlaced source, but isn't DV interlaced, or is the above reference to an interlaced source other than DV, such as MPEG-2?

    Any help is, as always, appreciated and very much welcomed. Thank you again for your time.

    Current tentative Mac Pro specifications:
    - 3.0Ghz Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" 8 core processors.
    - 8GB RAM
    - 4 750GB HDDs in two RAID 1 arrays for a total of 1.5TB logical space (3TB total.)
    - Final Cut Studio 2
    - Adobe Creative Suite Master Collection

    Yes, this machine is overkill, but I'm specifically waiting for the fall so I can purchase it with OS X 10.5 loaded on it in October.

    Thanks again for your time.
    All this relates to the video source spec or camcorder used. DV is interlace as it travels through Firewire but all sorts of tricks* are used to move progressive source through 480i/576i DV with ways to restore progressive at the other end.

    Why upscale 480i to 1080i when that is usually the job of the display chipset?

    I need to better understand your project goals.


    * understand this http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by edDV

    All this relates to the video source spec or camcorder used.

    Why upscale 480i to 1080i when that is usually the job of the display chipset?

    I need to better understand your project goals.
    edDV, the camcorder used to shoot the master MiniDV tapes was a Sony DSR-PDX10 in 16:9 Mode. My goal is to re-cut a project I originally edited as standard def 16:9 DV in an HD format that'll be suitable for output to DVCProHD as data. I'll likely store the finished video on an external hard drive for the time being.

    Since I'm working from the master tapes for restoring a 17-minute piece, and would have originally shot it in HD had I had the equipment to do so, I'd like to remaster the whole video into HD, cleaning up a few mistakes and re-cutting a couple of scenes that need some work and then have an HD master than I can easily downconvert if need be.

    My goal is to be able to play this video on an HDTV and store it in the DVCProHD format, and eventually on either an HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc (or both depending on how long this format war continues,) since I originally wanted to shoot HD but wasn't able too.

    I'm also going to be (heavily) restoring the audio, so a 5.1 mix will be an option and I can always work with the audio without the video at the same time. My goal is basically to restore the whole video, but I want to take an extra step and do it in HD, especially since it's FX intensive, and my FX can easily be recreated for HD meaning that the footage itself is just a small part of what's being upconverted.

    I originally wasn't sure if I could just capture my SD source into an HD project and have real-time upscaling as I capture, or if further steps need to be taken, but my goal is to convert my DV master tapes into HD footage for the final video. I know it's time consuming but with a machine like the one I'll have I figure it's worth it for what I'm trying to do. I don't have to muck around with the AR since its already 16:9 and I'm really just remastering the entire video so this is just another step in the overall project to me.

    Basically I don't have a DVD Player capable of upscaling, but I will have an HD Display attached to my new computer and can simply play back the file that I'll have stored in a DVCProHD format. As always, any help is appreciated.

    Finally one more question: I'm going to be shooting another project in mid-july. This one's going to be edited on a PC and done as a 3-camera shoot, but the cameras only output to 4:3. Assuming that I want to edit the video so that I can eventually upscale it as well, would it be best to output my final DV-AVI files in an animorphic aspect ratio such as 352x480, or would it be better to leave the video as 720x480 4:3 and pillarbox it? I'm just curious since I don't want it to look distorted, and I'd like to be able to upconvert it when I get my Mac Pro as well. The initial editing will be done in Adobe Premiere, and I'm really hoping that the Premiere files for the PC are compatible with the new Premiere program on the Mac since it'd make my life a lot easier for said project. As always, any help is appreciated.


    The reason I want 1080i on the first video is that I'm not sure upconverting to 1080p would make much sense since the footage is already interlaced and 1080i is a "legal" standard for HD, furthermore, I'm really looking to upconvert the resolution and remix the sound, archive my HD Master in a DVCProHD data format on a hard drive for the time being, and subsequently downconvert that if I need another standard def copy of the 16:9 video. Basically I'm really just trying to upconvert the video so that I have it in HD for the final project, and since the FX are an easy upconversion, I don't see a reason not to upconvert the video right now. Plus I'll be using my new HD Monitor (30" Apple Cinema Display) for HD viewing until I can purchase an HDTV, but my goal is to make it suitable for viewing on an HDTV. I'll let the playback software deinterlace the video for me rather than convert it to 1080p unless there's a reason that I shouldn't use 1080i. I hope this information is helpful.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    OK, the Sony DSR-PDX10 is 720x480i and your edited project is 16:9 480i DV?

    By re-edit do you mean going back to the camera tapes and re-editing from scratch? If so you can set a 16:9 1080i project and import the 480i.

    Or you can work on each clip to be used with filters as a pre-step before the final edit.

    DVCProHD 1080i is a 1280x1080i format. Bumping 720x480 up to 1920x1080 only to output to 1280x1080 seems wasteful. I haven't edited a DVCProHD optimized project yet.

    The new Premiere Pro CS3 may include a 1280x1080i DVCProHD project mode. I can't find the format list at the Abobe site. Apple's Final Cut Pro 6 claims support for DVCProHD but I can't speak to it from experience.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by edDV
    OK, the Sony DSR-PDX10 is 720x480i and your edited project is 16:9 480i DV?

    By re-edit do you mean going back to the camera tapes and re-editing from scratch? If so you can set a 16:9 1080i project and import the 480i.
    That's pretty much what I was intending on doing. Since I save all of my masters, as well as my "archival master," I figured that it'd be possible to "capture" the footage into a 1080i project, but I wasn't sure. This pretty much answers my question though, and yes, the tapes are 16:9 480i DV. This will probably be the easiest way to do most of the work.

    Originally Posted by edDV
    Or you can work on each clip to be used with filters as a pre-step before the final edit.
    This might also be useful as a "guide" when editing so I can see how I had originally laid out certain scenes and what I do/don't want to change in them. It could also be useful for the project I'm working on in July.

    Originally Posted by edDV
    DVCProHD 1080i is a 1280x1080i format. Bumping 720x480 up to 1920x1080 only to output to 1280x1080 seems wasteful. I haven't edited a DVCProHD optimized project yet.
    I've been quite curious, is there any common/popular digital tape format that can handle true 1920x1080? From what I understand DVCProHD is the most commonly used format in the industry, so doesn't that mean that most video is ultimately "stored" at 1280x1080i/p and subsequently upscaled to 1920x1080i/p via hardware anyway? I'm just curious, is there any standard sans data that's used for HD recordings capable of handling true 1920x1080i/p?

    I've always wondered why sets are capable of 1920x1080i/p display capabilities when the HD tapes are only capable of 1280x1080i (and p?) recording anyway. I'd assume this has to do with 4K and 4k+ film downconversion, but it seems strange. Ahh well... I haven't heard of a digital tape format that surpasses DVCProHD yet, nor have I heard of a relatively common data standard, hence the use of DVCProHD.

    Originally Posted by edDV
    The new Premiere Pro CS3 may include a 1280x1080i DVCProHD project mode. I can't find the format list at the Abobe site. Apple's Final Cut Pro 6 claims support for DVCProHD but I can't speak to it from experience.
    Looking over a friend's copy of FCP from Final Cut Studio, I did see a DVCProHD output setting, and multiple input settings so I'd say there's support. I don't know about CS3's Premiere Pro -- I know Premiere Pro 2.0 for the PC required a plug-in for HD, but this was supposed to be solved with the release of CS3, so I'd be quite surprised if DVCProHD wasn't supported, especially since Adobe is looking to compete with Avid and FCP as one of the "big three" NLE programs available to studios -- neglecting DVCProHD support would be working against what they're trying to do. Right now Premiere Pro 2.0 (the last version I used,) is about where FCP 2.0 was when it was new, and Avid is slowly losing footing as the de facto standard for video editing simply because it was A) Never truly optimized for Windows (it still runs faster on UNIX-based platforms, even though its primarily run on Windows now,) and B) Adobe Premiere Pro is gaining on Avid for PC use and use in Newsrooms while FCP has pretty much reached the same level -- if not a higher level of support for new video formats and optimization, of course FCP's greatest advantage is also its largest drawback of being Mac-only since not all studios are Mac-only. Adobe realized that to truly beat Avid, they're going to have to also compete with FCP on the Mac which is is where Avid ironically was most often used, prior to the development of FCP.

    I need to do further research into Final Cut Studio 2 now that it's out. I believe it contains the latest version of FCP and all the HD presets that one would expect in a studio environment -- Final Cut Studio (1) did, so I don't see why 2 wouldn't. The only program out of the three A's that's iffy on HD is Premiere Pro, and that's only because version 2.0 required a plug-in, but I think that's something that Adobe realized was annoying to studios anyway and subsequently corrected. I've seen edited HD from FCP in the past, I know it works well with the HVX200 and the P2 Flash cards that camera uses, but I'm not sure if the person I know who was shooting on the HVX200 was shooting 720p or 1080i. I'd assume 720p given the "five minute time limit" with 1080i on P2 Flash cards right now.

    I'm really waiting before I purchase a DVCProHD camera -- I know that the HVX200 is great, but I want to see how its successor is going to handle, and I'd think that there will be competition from other brands in the future using the DVCProHD format, so I'm still shooting standard def on the PDX10 for now.

    Eventually I want to move all of my finished footage to DVCProHD and then just shoot using that format or whatever replaces it, but for it's more than suitable for what I'm trying to accomplish right now.

    From what I understand, you're saying that I should be able to simply capture 1080i footage from my master tapes without having to do any additional filtering beyond what's normally required, correct? If that's the case, it'd make my life a lot easier come October when I wind up running two NLEs. In truth, I'm only using Premiere in a pinch or for projects I've edited in the past since all of my work from college so far was done in Premiere save for a few projects where I had access to FCP which I preferred over Premiere Pro for various reasons, the least of which being that FCP has native HD support, and seems to be a bit more stable than Premiere. As much as I like Avid, it seems to make certain simple tasks (such as importing a picture,) seem ridiculously complex, which is a drawback to me, especially when I keep hearing about studios switching from Avid to FCP. Don't get me wrong, I like Avid, I just like FCP the most out of the three editors. Premiere... I have a weird relationship with Premiere, I love that it's simple to use for some things, but I hate that features I expect (like native HD support,) were relegated to plug-ins on the last version I used. I'm looking forward to getting my new NLE this fall, especially since my "old" NLE (the computer was a joke,) which died in late-06 was running Pinnacle Studio 7, Windows ME, and had a dead capture card. In addition to what's considered one of the worst versions of Windows ever, it also had a myriad of hardware issues, and took two days to render 22 minutes of standard-definition footage on occasion. I've never had that problem with my Macs, hence why I'm using a Mac as my new NLE. (I also like Apple DVDStudio Pro's motion menu capabilities, and having seen some discs authored with that program -- bundled in Final Cut Studio/Final Cut Studio 2, I can honestly say that it's my favorite authoring tool for OS X.)

    Thank you again for helping me out, as always, it's appreciated.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads