NTSC DV to H264 MP4: Vegas renders wrong aspect ratio

[zigmond]

Hi,

I am trying to edit my old family videos.
My aim is to produce updated and compact videos, playable on the Media PC and modern display devices (LCD, Plasma, etc).
When I play the rendered videos they show in the wrong aspect ratio.

The source videos were captured to AVI files as NTSC DV - interlaced, 720x480 pixels, 0.9091 PAR, and 3x4 display aspect ratio.
I am rendering the edited videos to MP4 files as AVC H264 - progressive, 720x480 pixels, 0.9091 PAR.

To play the videos I use MS Media Player, GOM Player, KMPlayer, and more - all show the wrong aspect ratio - 3:2 instead of 4:3.

I use the 'Vegas Movie Studio HD 10' to edit and render videos.
I have tested a great deal of combinations of project settings, stream properties and render settings. But the videos are still rendered as 3:2.
I also checked out Vegas for SAR settings, but found none.

After a week of consultation and research I am still baffled-
Is there no support for non-square pixel ratio with H264 or MP4?
Does the problem lie in the latest Vegas Movie Studio I am evaluating?
Is this a gimmick to push me to buy the Pro version?
Or maybe I still did not get the right configuration/setting for rendering such a video?

If you know of the correct settings to render the videos properly then please elaborate.
BUT - I wish to avoid resizing the video frame itself. I much prefer setting the SAR/PAR/DAR properties.


Thanks

[poisondeathray]

Is there no support for non-square pixel ratio with H264 or MP4?

Yes there is, with other encoders and multiplexers, but maybe it's not an option with vegas

Assuming you've already exported it, the quickest way would be to re-wrap it with yamb and set the PAR

[zigmond]

Is there no support for non-square pixel ratio with H264 or MP4?

Yes there is, with other encoders and multiplexers, but maybe it's not an option with vegas

Actually, if you check the image below you'll see that Vegas support PAR settings.
But I just don't see it in the rendered files. I checked it using the MediaInfo and the video players.

[Munster1]

Did a quick test render in Vegas Studio using the default Mainconcept AVC rendering template. Here is the mediainfo for it:

General
Complete name : C:\Users\****\Documents\Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10.0 Projects\test\Renders\test.mp4
Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : Base Media / Version 2
Codec ID : mp42
File size : 741 KiB
Duration : 6s 540ms
Overall bit rate : 928 Kbps
Encoded date : UTC 2011-05-14 23:03:18
Tagged date : UTC 2011-05-14 23:03:18
Video
ID : 2
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Main@L3.0
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 5 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 6s 540ms
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 795 Kbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 480 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 4:3
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Standard : NTSC
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.077
Stream size : 635 KiB (86%)
Language : English
Encoded date : UTC 2011-05-14 23:03:18
Tagged date : UTC 2011-05-14 23:03:18
Audio
ID : 1
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile : LC
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 6s 501ms
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 128 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 102 KiB (14%)
Language : English
Encoded date : UTC 2011-05-14 23:03:18
Tagged date : UTC 2011-05-14 23:03:18

It played back in MPC-HC as expected at the correct aspect ratio.

[poisondeathray]

Well, like you said.... it doesn't work for you

If you want something that works for sure, use x264 and SAR settings , or re-wrap with YAMB

EDIT: well it looks like it works for Munster

[Munster1]

A few further tests reveal the issue could be caused by using the Sony AVC templates for SD content with non-square pixels. They seem to render the file at 3:2 ratio. HD content seems to render ok, but I haven't gone through all the template combos.

[zigmond]

Munster1 - you got it!

For some reason the Main Concept AVC writes the aspect ratio correctly.
All this while I was trying the Sony AVC templates, or custom settings based on them.

Why does Vegas offer two AVC template bases ?
Which one is better ?

[Munster1]

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/24/927083#927090 may answer your questions.

[zigmond]

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/24/927083#927090 may answer your questions.

So, I guess with my NTSC DV being SD resolution I can proceed with the Main Concept coding.

One thing though- what bitrates does John Rofrano refer to when writing "lower bitrates" and 'higher bitrates" ?
Is an avarage bitrate of 3000KBps high or low ?

Thanks again for your help.

[budwzr]

Deleted

[edDV]

Hi,

I am trying to edit my old family videos.
My aim is to produce updated and compact videos, playable on the Media PC and modern display devices (LCD, Plasma, etc).
When I play the rendered videos they show in the wrong aspect ratio.

The source videos were captured to AVI files as NTSC DV - interlaced, 720x480 pixels, 0.9091 PAR, and 3x4 display aspect ratio.
I am rendering the edited videos to MP4 files as AVC H264 - progressive, 720x480 pixels, 0.9091 PAR.

This sends chills up my spine. This is a serious downgrade. Are you preserving the originals?

Why are you doing this? For net distribution? For portable devices? Deinterlace is destructive.

Above all else, preserve the originals.

What are the target devices? Some mobile devices will require square pixels. HDTV sets will be happy with DVD spec or higher bit rate interlace. Blu-Ray players can handle SD interlace up to 35 Mbps, some up to 50 Mbps. It comes down to your quality expectation. In my experience, DV to h.264 interlace doesn't allow much additional compression vs. MPeg2, at most 2x for similar quality.

[Munster1]

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/24/927083#927090 may answer your questions.

So, I guess with my NTSC DV being SD resolution I can proceed with the Main Concept coding.

One thing though- what bitrates does John Rofrano refer to when writing "lower bitrates" and 'higher bitrates" ?
Is an avarage bitrate of 3000KBps high or low ?

Thanks again for your help.

I think he's talking about about blu-ray type bitrates when he refers to high. 3000Kbps falls in the low category.

[budwzr]

I tested Vegas too, and it seems OK.

[zigmond]

I tested Vegas too, and it seems OK: http://youtu.be/xSQJXQOf_h0?hd=1

errr... a commercial.. and one that has nothing to show about PAR or SAR...

[zigmond]

Hi,

I am trying to edit my old family videos.
My aim is to produce updated and compact videos, playable on the Media PC and modern display devices (LCD, Plasma, etc).
When I play the rendered videos they show in the wrong aspect ratio.

The source videos were captured to AVI files as NTSC DV - interlaced, 720x480 pixels, 0.9091 PAR, and 3x4 display aspect ratio.
I am rendering the edited videos to MP4 files as AVC H264 - progressive, 720x480 pixels, 0.9091 PAR.

This sends chills up my spine. This is a serious downgrade. Are you preserving the originals?

Why are you doing this? For net distribution? For portable devices? Deinterlace is destructive.

Above all else, preserve the originals.

What are the target devices? Some mobile devices will require square pixels. HDTV sets will be happy with DVD spec or higher bit rate interlace. Blu-Ray players can handle SD interlace up to 35 Mbps, some up to 50 Mbps. It comes down to your quality expectation. In my experience, DV to h.264 interlace doesn't allow much additional compression vs. MPeg2, at most 2x for similar quality.

DON'T PANIC!
I am keeping the original videos

The target devices are:
* my home PC,
* my media PC hooked up to LCD TV,
-AND-
* copy some videos to friends via Disk-On-Key etc.


- I do not want to produce or burn DVD.
My experience shows that *burned* DVD media fails after some years - even if you do not touch it.
I do not believe in media survival past 10 years.
- My home is set up so that HDD + Backup HDD array are the best options for survival of media accessibility and availability.
The source videos will remain on disk. But Since interlaced video looks bad on PC (or media PC) I'd rather watch the de-interlaced version.
- I think H264 is superior to MPEG2 in terms of quality/compression.

[edDV]

Hi,

I am trying to edit my old family videos.
My aim is to produce updated and compact videos, playable on the Media PC and modern display devices (LCD, Plasma, etc).
When I play the rendered videos they show in the wrong aspect ratio.

The source videos were captured to AVI files as NTSC DV - interlaced, 720x480 pixels, 0.9091 PAR, and 3x4 display aspect ratio.
I am rendering the edited videos to MP4 files as AVC H264 - progressive, 720x480 pixels, 0.9091 PAR.

This sends chills up my spine. This is a serious downgrade. Are you preserving the originals?

Why are you doing this? For net distribution? For portable devices? Deinterlace is destructive.

Above all else, preserve the originals.

What are the target devices? Some mobile devices will require square pixels. HDTV sets will be happy with DVD spec or higher bit rate interlace. Blu-Ray players can handle SD interlace up to 35 Mbps, some up to 50 Mbps. It comes down to your quality expectation. In my experience, DV to h.264 interlace doesn't allow much additional compression vs. MPeg2, at most 2x for similar quality.

DON'T PANIC!
I am keeping the original videos

The target devices are:
* my home PC,
* my media PC hooked up to LCD TV,
-AND-
* copy some videos to friends via Disk-On-Key etc.


- I do not want to produce or burn DVD.
My experience shows that *burned* DVD media fails after some years - even if you do not touch it.
I do not believe in media survival past 10 years.
- My home is set up so that HDD + Backup HDD array are the best options for survival of media accessibility and availability.
The source videos will remain on disk. But Since interlaced video looks bad on PC (or media PC) I'd rather watch the de-interlaced version.
- I think H264 is superior to MPEG2 in terms of quality/compression.

Software deinterlace of DV home video can be destructive to quality. Also, typical noisy and shaky footage needs more bit rate than normal. Figure 9-15 Mb/s for MPeg2 or 6-8 Mb/s for h.264. This assumes target is a large screen HDTV.

I'm not happy yet with software deinterlacers for DV source. I get better results maintaining interlace to MPeg2 or h.264. Hardware deinterlacers in Blu-Ray players or HDTV sets get the best quality result. MPCHC does an ok Yadif deinterlace for computer playback. I deinterlace for internet upload.

[Deter]

I never understand any of the stuff people do....

"I think H264 is superior to MPEG2 in terms of quality/compression."

When you purchase a DVD what format is it in?

MPEG2 - Interlaced

You should create your videos the same and use similiar Bit-Rates to what is used on Your Store Purchased DVD's...That way you get a nice picture with very little to no macroblocking.....

Mpeg2 Videos are fine as long as your don't keep re-rendering the bloody thing.....


Your VHS stuff is 240 Lines....THAT IS IT....


If you want it on a DVD to give to people, mpeg2...You want to play it on anything mpeg2


This entire capture to the PC or whatever the hell is done in getting the recordings to digital is not a good method in my opinion.

At the same time you need better hardware than some normal VHS player, you need a high end machine with external hardware to filter and improve the source recordings...


Here is the deal....

If you follow some of the steps which have been laid out in these forums or even over at Lord Smurf's forums. You will find the correct way to do this to get the best possible results.

I am no expert however if you sent me your videos, the quality of the completed recording would be at least 50% better and if the video had issues aka Oxide Pixel Dropouts, Scan or Tracking line errors or problems with the sound, maybe the end product would be 100% to 200% better...

They would also look fine on a LCD in being play back on a DVD or just the straight mpeg2 file....

Hell you don't need a computer to play the files either......

Your Methods = Not very good results..... That is just my opinion.....

If you want 16:9 or 4:3 you can pick......

Personally think Sony Vegas is a bad program and don't like the quality of the files after rendering...

[poisondeathray]

Your screenshots show that you're single rate deinterlacing (throwing out 1/2 the temporal information) - so motion will look relatively choppy

Ideally, NTSC DV (59.94i) would be bob deinterlaced to 59.94 frames/second , not 29.97 frames/second

You will get better results with other deinterlace methods like qtgmc in avisynth, and better encoders like x264 . You can do a search - this topic has been covered in numerous threads with comparisons

I think H264 is superior to MPEG2 in terms of quality/compression.

I would be careful with such blanketed statements. It has potential to be better, but potentially worse. There are many different profiles, levels and kinds of h264, and different implementations of encoders. Some are excellent. Some are very poor.

For example, Vegas' MC encoder is licensed from the MC SDK but only has a limited subset of features. Quality isn't that great - there are problems with retaining shadow detail, banding, keyframe popping. You don't have control over important parameters like b-frames, GOP size.

Vegas' SonyAVC implementation doesn't use B-frames and is 1pass , so it's not a very efficient encoder (if you use high bitrates, it can look ok). Those are the primary reasons why it doesn't do so well at "lower" bitrates

Neither has quality based encoding rate control, only bitrate. Choosing a bitrate should be relative to the content complexity. Eariler you asked is "4000" high or low? Well, "4000" might be high for some scenarios, low for others. For most DV-AVI sources it would be "low". Sources with high motion, noise, sharpness & details will require more bitrate than those that are static to achieve similar level of "quality" - for example interview shot on a tripod will take up much less than a run and gun shot. Arbitrarily setting a ABR bitrate isn't necessarily a good way to encode. Complex areas that need higher bitrate don't get it and fall apart, those that are simple get allocated too much (wasted bitrate). 2pass VBR (such as MC) improves upon this but is still limited by the bitrate entered. Quality based methods allocate bitrate so the end result is the quality you choose.

[budwzr]

I never understand any of the stuff people do....Personally think Sony Vegas is a bad program and don't like the quality of the files after rendering...

It can be frustrating to many, like the OP, who spent a WEEK trying to figure out how to render a home video.

Blaming the software doesn't solve the problem though.

[Deter]

It doesn't really matter what the source recording format is: VHS,VHS-C,8mm,Betamax,Betacam

The hardware methods are pretty much the same, you may just need to do extra steps.....

Now with home recordings you normally get some damaged frames, color bleeding, poor lighting, messed up chroma & luna channels and poor sound....

Captured to AVI format (what codex?), you may get dropped frames and audio / video sync problems.......

Than u need to render the video......AVI to mpeg4 or AVI to mpeg2

AVI can be a pain to render correct...If you don't do it correct you can get motion problems or other issues that goes with AVI to another format....If you don't know what you are doing, you can also damage the interlaced fields....

I don't use Sony Vegas cause it renders recordings poor in my opinion......don't like the final product.....

Yea I own the software but don't use it....The SONY DVD arch is ok to make DVD's with, but you also need to play around with some of the settings to get best results out of the DVD. It burns Duel Layer Disks well...Only a few problems with them every once in a while but only use Verbatim Disks....

[poisondeathray]

I think vegas is a good editor, but both it's h264 encoders suck, and it's deinterlacing sucks. It's mpeg2 encoder is ok.

[Deter]

I think vegas is a good editor, but both it's h264 encoders suck, and it's deinterlacing sucks. It's mpeg2 encoder is ok.

Personally find the editor not the easiest to use. It is kind of a pain going though the frame table to be honest and making hundreds of edits to a video. Than frame replacement or frame edits, really never figured out how to pull out damaged frames.....

Tested out the mpeg2 coder vs other mpeg2 coders and found the video to smear just a little bit more. The end quality of a VHS to DIGITAL video is ok, but it can be better....

Also tested out other mpeg2 coders that are a lot worse than Vegas......

[poisondeathray]

I think vegas is a good editor, but both it's h264 encoders suck, and it's deinterlacing sucks. It's mpeg2 encoder is ok.

Personally find the editor not the easiest to use. It is kind of a pain going though the frame table to be honest and making hundreds of edits to a video. Than frame replacement or frame edits, really never figured out how to pull out damaged frames.....

You can't really "pull out" a damaged frame. You have to worry about audio as well. And to be fair, vegas (or any NLE) isn't meant for that kind of "editing".

I would fill that in with an interpolated frame or even a dupe or blend

It sounds like you're looking for restoration software like pfclean, davinci revival, hs-art diamant... more expensive and not NLE class software like vegas or premiere . Even something like after effects is much easier to do single frame edits

Tested out the mpeg2 coder vs other mpeg2 coders and found the video to smear just a little bit more. The end quality of a VHS to DIGITAL video is ok, but it can be better....

Also tested out other mpeg2 coders that are a lot worse than Vegas......

Yes, there is a lot worse, like ffmpeg , but better as well, like cce. But overall the mainconcept mpeg2 encoder is fairly good

[budwzr]

Personally find the editor not the easiest to use. It is kind of a pain going though the frame table to be honest and making hundreds of edits to a video. Than frame replacement or frame edits, really never figured out how to pull out damaged frames.....

In Vegas, you have to drill down to the single frame tick marks, and set thumbnails to ALL, then you got yourself a Moviola. You can ungroup the audio and then timeshrink it with control key while resizing. It will maintain the pitch.

You can chop the whole timeline into scenes, use multiple tracks to repair or composite a fill-in section, add effects, color correct, subtitle, etc.

I would think Vegas would be a restorer's dream tool.

[budwzr]

What bugs me is the painstaking detail and hair-splitting some people go through working on an old video tape conversion.

An old movie is an old movie, it's nostalgic, it's SUPPOSED to be crappy, that's part of the experience. If you want to make it into a big deal project, go ahead, but nobody's going to appreciate it or watch it more than once, guaranteed.

My wife's daughter's 3-DVD wedding/honeymoon extravaganza is still in the drawer since day one. It got a quick flip through the first day and that's it.

[Deter]

budwzr,

The points is once you learn this stuff. The end results speak volumes of what can be done to a video. It doesn't matter what the source is.

(however the better the source recording, normally = better results)

Technogolgy is always changing and usually things keep getting better...

Plus your skill set is never capped you can always learn more and get better at the trade.....


Not all stuff is digital (in the term of recording video) Digital is pretty new......

Archieved footage can be in different formats, and most have tons of errors.

For example you take a photo from 1927, you can restore that. - More than likely it would need it....


You take a movie from 1927, it is possible to restore and fix many of the damaged parts of the recording and even removing lines or scratches from the video itself.


You can even clean up the soundtrack (removing tons of hiss)

Film over time gets dirty plus it can have errors in the frames...VHS, Betamax, Betacam can have playback issues.......

In the darkages (before these high powered computers) a lot of this stuff couldn't be done.....

Now it is possible to turn your home in to a production studio.....LOL

Vegas is not a dream more like a nightmare......

AviSynth and Virtual Dub are a restorers Dream....The costs are pretty much free......

You can use those tools to do amazing things........

"My wife's daughter's 3-DVD wedding/honeymoon extravaganza is still in the drawer since day one."

If they don't care about it what is the point of fixing it up?

However you find a 16mm film from your family tree of old achieved home footage that you have never set eyes on. The film is also damaged & has major problems....You may pay a pretty penny to get it fixed up....It is all what the value is to you or who ever owns the material......You may not even care......

For me it has been like another college degree, spent about 3 years learning this stuff and still learning.

It is also fun taking professional released material and restoring it. I purchased the 1981 Super Bowl from NFL films (it was a DVD set). Watched it and saw a lot of errors in the frames. It was an old recording more than likely archieved on tape. Later converted to digital by NFL films.....

Took the recording and did what I call, full frame digital restoration work (fixed all the bad frame errors) Cleaned up the picture. To me that was fun....Cause now I have a better copy of it than NFL Films....Have done this with a bunch of old material....

At the end of the game one of the cameras has like a red streak on it. The problem is only from that camera.. Taking that and removing the streaks and making it look like it was never recorded on the tape / DVD, was pretty freakin cool....

It is all about the details......

[budwzr]

Myself, I see video as an art and communication medium, not as a way to document and rewind to the past. But I know there are those that want to preserve and/or live the past, and I don't get that.

The daughter's wedding DVDs are only 4/5 years old, don't need restoring. It's just that we're not that interested in the wedding, we're more interested in the success of the marriage and grandkids.

Peace though

[zigmond]

Software deinterlace of DV home video can be destructive to quality. Also, typical noisy and shaky footage needs more bit rate than normal. Figure 9-15 Mb/s for MPeg2 or 6-8 Mb/s for h.264. This assumes target is a large screen HDTV.

I'm not happy yet with software deinterlacers for DV source. I get better results maintaining interlace to MPeg2 or h.264. Hardware deinterlacers in Blu-Ray players or HDTV sets get the best quality result. MPCHC does an ok Yadif deinterlace for computer playback. I deinterlace for internet upload.

What do you think about Handbrake for deinterlacing ?
If you had to choose the to 3 deinterlacing programs - for rendering/converting - which ones would you choose ?

[zigmond]

budwzr-



Not everyone share your perspective.
The fact is I DO care about old family videos. I do not want to see them lost forever just because the technology-race has outdated them. As it is, MS and SONY “forgot” to update their drivers for my old SD DV camera with Vista and 7. I had to install an old XP just to be able to capture them.
Playing SD NTSC the tapes on an HD LCD device suck, and there is no way to share it with friends who want copies!

[zigmond]

Deter-
I use Virtual Dub when I can. But this is not the case. Virtual Dub cannot capture the videos from this camcorder, nor can it process the captured videos. I spent enough time trying to resolve the problem, installing and testing mods, codecs, drivers, plug-ins, etc.
The captured videos will remain in the archive as is.
I do not need to go over the videos to find and fix damaged frames.

What I do need is:

a) to edit the videos: cut or combine scenes, add a few effects and transitions, clean the sound a bit, stretch the contrast a bit, add some background music, etc
b) Render a high quality video (not HD) to a format playable from PC to be displayed on LCD screens, and portable via disk-on-key or portable HDD.
(preferably without interlacing – it looks really bad)
c) Settle for a one or two programs – no more – to achieve the above

Based on your experience, what would be the best program setup you can recommend ?