megui detects this as progressive but i think its telecinded?

[poisondeathray]

DAA3 should come after IVTC (move it after tfm line)

You can actually use force film instead of tfm.tdecimate if the film % is very high, like >99% - the processing will be faster => this is probably better idea (ie. don't use TFM or TDecimate at all, just force film)



You don't need colormatrix (but it doesn't affect this particular problem, you're just shifting the colors incorrectly, it's a remenant of processing when people though differently about DVD's, the megui maintainer hasn't removed it yet but should)

You should learn to preview your scripts before encoding (Otherwise, you waste a lot of time and will continue to do so...) . If something looks wrong, take steps to fix it instead of wasting time encoding a bad video

[mmbwdpnz]

I dont know how to use force film. I've tried. The percentage is 99.94%. I'll remove ivtc and colormatrix though

[poisondeathray]

It's still messed up. You're inducing blends from something . DAA3 doesn't cause that

Post your full script, and/or post your log file

Haha famous last words ... It should say "DAA doesn't cause that when used properly". I guess I shouldn't assume anything

To explain what's happening, you're using an AA filter before IVTCing (ie when it's still has 3:2 pulldown, as fields). You're destroying that field relationship by using an AA filter before IVTCing

As as general rule, you IVTC before any other processing for telecined material. When you IVTC you get back the original progressive frames. The notable exceptions to this are some dotcrawl filters which are sometimes applied before IVTC

[poisondeathray]

I dont know how to use force film. I've tried. The percentage is 99.94%. I'll remove ivtc and colormatrix though

Don't remove IVTC. You want to apply IVTC. (inverse telecine is done in your script by that TFM TDecimate line)

You can learn to use DGIndex instead of having MeGUI go through the analysis and creating the script (not only does it waste time - sometimes it takes a few minutes examining the video, that adds up if you encode a bunch of videos, it makes mistakes) . There are instructions included , documentation and examples in the DGIndex package

If you don't have time to read or learn about that right now, and just want to fix what you have, just move the DAA3 line below the TFM line (and remove colormatrix, but it doesn't affect the blends/cadence, just the colors)

[mmbwdpnz]

DGindex showed the field order as top, but then changed to bottom?

[poisondeathray]

DGindex showed the field order as top, but then changed to bottom?

You have to use your eyes to determine the field order

Start with this mini guide
http://neuron2.net/faq.html#analysis

You normally use video => field operation => honor pulldown flags . This means it will obey the TFF/RFF flags (it will have repeat fields, and it will be 59.94 fields per second)

If it's >99%+ film then you can use video=> field operation => forced film ; then file=>save project. That new d2v will have "force film" applied, so it will be IVTCed 23.976 frames /second

[mmbwdpnz]

Do i even need to know the field order for this source since i'm using force film?

[poisondeathray]

Do i even need to know the field order for this source since i'm using force film?

No, it doesn't matter


Learning how to determine field order becomes important when you look at other patterns like interlaced for example

[mmbwdpnz]

I would like to use the undot filter, but will it work correctly since i used force film?

[poisondeathray]

I would like to use the undot filter, but will it work correctly since i used force film?

yes


Use RemoveGrain(mode=1) instead of undot , it does exactly same thing but is faster if you have SSE2 or SSE3 instructions for you computer and use the SSE2 or SSE3 dll's of RemoveGrain (basically any computer within the last 5-6 years)

[mmbwdpnz]

my newest encode. question for colorspace should I leave it alone, or convert to yv12. I've heard yv12 is better. Also, is the aspect ratio correct now?

[poisondeathray]

You don't need to convert to YV12, because all DVD's will be YV12 to begin with . The "best" is whatever the original was. Any changes will cause some quality loss.

It's a big topic, but basically there are 2 different ways of doing it: ITU and non-ITU. You used --sar 10:11 for DAR of ~1.36 . The other method is --sar 8:9 for DAR ~1.33 . The 1st method is based on 702px width (usually rounded to 704) , the 2nd uses the full frame 720px . The AR difference between the different methods is tiny, most people don't care about it

[hello_hello]

My 2 cents regarding aspect ratios.....

Unless I think something looks a little stretched, I've always used non-ITU for DVDs. I'm also very careful not to add any aspect ratio distortion when resizing, even back in the days of resizing to mod16 dimensions. As I've replaced some of my old encodes with HD versions, I've compared them first to see what the differences are (aside from definition, of course). In my experience, at least 95% of DVDs use non-ITU resizing, probably more. DVDs produced back when the format was fairly new are more likely to use ITU, but even then, non-ITU seems to be far more common.

Of course I base that assumption on the fact HD versions are going to have the correct aspect ratio, but at least 95% of the time when I've compared the two, my old non-ITU DVD encodes match the HD aspect ratio pretty much exactly. There's probably only been 2 or 3 occasions when I've compared them and thought "well that one should have been ITU".

I should add I live in PAL-land so I can't be certain NTSC DVDs are the same, but I have encoded enough of them to think non-ITU is likely to be the norm there too. Every software player I'm aware of uses non-ITU resizing for displaying DVD video.

[mmbwdpnz]

Thank you to all of you! without you guys my encodes would suck.