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
Page 2 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 87
Thread
  1. Originally Posted by Weef View Post
    Which one...the extration of the episodes or the credits (Intro/Outro)?
    Episodes = chinese DVDs
    Intro/Outro= US DVDs as well as prolog
    All of the sequences you used in premiere

    If you IVTCed correctly, the framerate should be 23.976 (or more precisely 24000/1001) .

    Did you use that weird dimension ? 752x480??

    Did you do any editing of sequences in premiere? or was it only for the credits ? or intro too?

    I don't know what the credits were supposed to be - I was just mentioning some DVD's have slightly different credits than the main content. Manono might know

    You're actually ok doing this on an interlaced 29.97 frames per second / 59.94 fields per second timeline, if you don't make any cuts or edits (keep everything hard telecined) . But if you do make edits - there can be problems with disrupting the cadence. You have to either cut on special points or preferably, IVTC to progressive frames before editing. But if your desired goal is to output a computer file for PC playback, you should IVTC before encoding that file
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 17th Apr 2013 at 16:50.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    I don't know what the credits were supposed to be - I was just mentioning some DVD's have slightly different credits than the main content. Manono might know
    No, it was a long time ago, back in my anime days, and I can't remember. But the fact that such an otherwise outstanding anime video was hard-telecined makes me suspicious that the opening song or end credits might have some real 29.97fps stuff in there. Maybe another sample would tell the tale.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    I haven't done any final export now, that's why I'm asking.
    Till now I worked with 752x480 just in Premiere to see how the position and blending fits in etc.
    Just the Intro and Outro... because the font choice...wasn't optimal for the feeling
    Actually the two sources end up after the same time... at least during those 23.976fps and throughout the whole times of the length I'm editing on.
    I usually put them on the timeline as 4episodes in a row.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    So you guys want the infos of the intro and outro? The read-outs?
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    Hmmm, so I'm having only the problem tht Premiere is not generating adequate output!?
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    What I don't understand is why the MPG plays as 2.40:1. Is it because of the sequence display extension, and related to him having made an MPG out of it rather than uploading a VOB or M2V? I don't think the DVD would play this way.
    Which player was that in manono ?
    MPCHC is playing it 2.4;1. It's flagged incorrectly. Either it should be flagged with 4:3 DAR with the 540x480 sequence display extension, or it should be flagged 16:9 and not include the sequence display extension. The video is obviously 16:9 DAR.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Well you can't append different dimensions sections together, that's a big problem



    Just answer the questions asked above:

    Exactly what are you doing in premiere (are you making some sort of edits), and to what sections, and what were the sequence settings used in premiere for those?

    You might be able to salvage some of the work already done, or you might have to redo some depending on your answers


    Actually the two sources end up after the same time... at least during those 23.976fps and throughout the whole times of the length I'm editing on.
    Original 29.97 and IVTCed 23.976 will have exact same time duration , because the duplicates are removed in the latter
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    So do I get you right?
    I'm not sure if I can follow o.o
    You are concerned because of the different structure that comes with the wrong flag?
    N
    And no, in the Videostream itself I did no edits except for trademark icons that come after each 2 chinese episodes, because the DVD ends with 2 episodes. So in the length of 4 episodes I'm working there is just this one cut after 2 episodes to get that filler out of there :/
    the sequence settings are the 29,xyz fps and 752x480
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by Weef View Post
    So do I get you right?
    I'm not sure if I can follow o.o
    You are concerned because of the different structure that comes with the wrong flag?
    This is not an issue, because you are re-encoding this anyway (for a video file playable on a computer)

    And I think everyone can agree it's supposed to be 16:9 .

    It was more of a curiosity



    And no, in the Videostream itself I did no edits except for trademark icons that come after each 2 chinese episodes, because the DVD ends with 2 episodes. So in the length of 4 episodes I'm working there is just this one cut after 2 episodes to get that filler out of there :/
    the sequence settings are the 29,xyz fps and 752x480
    Is that 29.97i or p ? What was the AR of the sequence? square pixel or some other AR interpretation ?

    It should be mostly Ok for the main content , except the resolution 752x480 . It's not ideal to scale, then scale it again, especially with premiere, since I think you are using an interlaced timeline (interlaced scaling is very poor in premiere, very bad quality) . Since you're not doing any big edits, I would just redo that part properly

    It sounds like you put most effort into the credits ? Did you actually redo the text ? Exactly what did you do ? Because another potential problem is the AR of the text in the credit sequences. If you did this 752x480 square pixel, the text won't look right
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    It's using square pixels.
    I had to use a custom setting... NTSC wouldn't allow square pixels in the pre adjustments in Premiere.
    Set to progressive.

    If you mean by "redo the text", if I choose another font, then yes.
    No the text is still in the NTSC non-widescreen standard in 0,91xyz pixels... I left it this way because Premiere lacks of a lot of text tools and it looks that little narrower even better.

    Is that scaling in one dimension worse than in two (752x480)???
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by Weef View Post
    It's using square pixels.
    I had to use a custom setting... NTSC wouldn't allow square pixels in the pre adjustments in Premiere.
    Set to progressive.
    Yes, you can use custom settings

    I don't know what the credits are, because I haven't see a sample (other than a few stills in your other thread about thin text)

    But to be clear, there are sequence settings, and file interpretation settings (if you right click the file in the clip bin) . Each of these will have a big consequence

    eg. If you have a progressive 29.97p 752x480 sequence setting, BUT the file is interpreted as interlaced (which is probably the case), then premiere will apply deinterlace (will reduce effective resolution, fine details will be destroyed), especially bad if there is vertical scaling





    If you mean by "redo the text", if I choose another font, then yes.
    No the text is still in the NTSC non-widescreen standard in 0,91xyz pixels... I left it this way because Premiere lacks of a lot of text tools and it looks that little narrower even better.
    Ok, I just wanted you to be aware, depending on what you want to do with this, text is going to look distorted

    If you mean 4:3 NTSC, that is still off. If you mean square pixel 752x480, that is still off.

    e.g. if you want to merge it with the proper 16:9 sequences, if the current text looks ok now, it will look "fat" later


    Is that scaling in one dimension worse than in two (752x480)???
    No scaling in 2 dimensions is worse, but 752x480 is only 1 dimension (from 720x480 source)

    Progressive scaling is ok in premiere, but any vertical interlaced scaling in premiere is terrible. I mean terrible. At least you are not scaling vertically, so it won't be as bad - but it would still be better to do this properly as progressive




    The BEST way to do this is IVTC beforehand in avisynth, and treat everything as progressive 23.976p 720x480 with 16:9 DAR . You can decide to resize to square pixel (or not) at the very end of the project . I personally dislike the AR distortion.
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 17th Apr 2013 at 18:52.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    Ahhh, now I see the whole picture.
    But leaving the text at these 0,91xyz pixels will only have an effect on the dimensions of the render in the video... not like do anything else, right!? >.o

    I could upload the credits....but what codec to use....and will it even make sense to extract it from Premiere - I dunno if I would deliver what u are searching for.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by Weef View Post
    Ahhh, now I see the whole picture.
    But leaving the text at these 0,91xyz pixels will only have an effect on the dimensions of the render in the video... not like do anything else, right!? >.o

    If the text is at 0.9 AR (4:3 NTSC) 720x480 , it won't fit your current sequence of 752x480 square pixel properly, and it won't be the correct AR for the other main sequence 720x480 16:9 (letters will be too "fat", when displayed at 16:9)

    The way titler text works in premiere - it's a transparent overlay layer

    If you want to do everything properly 720x480, I think you might be able to adjust the AR by right clicking the title in the clip bin and interpeting the AR to 16:9 NTSC

    EDIT: yes that works. Just right click the title in the clip bin, interpret footage, conform to NTSC widescreen 16:9




    I could upload the credits....but what codec to use....and will it even make sense to extract it from Premiere - I dunno if I would deliver what u are searching for.
    No, there is no need to do this

    I was interested in original credits (from the DVD)

    But If you've replaced them entirely, it doesn't matter what they look like from the orignal DVD . Because if you're completely redoing them, you can make them any way you want.

    In that case, I would make them match the proper 720x480 16:9 main content, 23.976p
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 17th Apr 2013 at 19:16.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    Jup, ok if I would use the AR of 16:9....then it probably would...or most certainly
    Nonono, I kept the video of the intro and outro just choose different fonts, other alignment and added some blend ins and outs to better fit the music
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by Weef View Post
    Jup, ok if I would use the AR of 16:9....then it probably would...or most certainly
    ok, but if you *know* that your only output destination goal is going to be a square pixel 16:9 format, it might make more sense to do the text credits that way in the first place. Text (titler) within premiere scale as a vector (no quality loss due to scaling). But if you output as 720x480 then scale it, the titles will be rasterised and scaled (quality will be slightly worse)
    Quote Quote  
  16. Is this something like what you're looking for?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	856x480.jpg
Views:	113
Size:	86.6 KB
ID:	17355
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    No...no, the clothes pattern has already lost the strong contrast it still has with 752x480, I could probably even go up to 784x480.
    If the outlines were a little stronger in their appearance I would probably say: "I would like to know how u did it?". ^^

    http://www.file-upload.net/download-7485205/cobras.zip.html
    I think he is the one with the costume where differences in contrast and precision stand out the most
    at least these are shapes that are familliar...in some way
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by Weef View Post
    No...no, the clothes pattern has already lost the strong contrast it still has with 752x480, I could probably even go up to 784x480.
    If the outlines were a little stronger in their appearance I would probably say: "I would like to know how u did it?". ^^
    The coat collar pattern is changed because I'm guessing he used EDI based resizing . It connects lines, and works as antialiaser, at the risk of reducing small details . You can choose something else if you want, there are many options

    You can thicken dark lines with awarpsharp2(depth= negative number) , or darken lines using various line darkeners (e.g. toon, fastlinedarkenmod etc...) . It depends on the "look" you are going for.

    You can use edge enhancement to enhance the aliasing present in the source (it's really false detail, but if you like that "look" - it's really up to you - It's very subjective

    e.g
    Click image for larger version

Name:	105.png
Views:	100
Size:	549.0 KB
ID:	17371
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    No....what I meant was, I want to have the lines saturated more strongly, not thicker in their dimension. I'm quite fine with the thin strong lines in 752x480
    I myself looked it first on some kind of bootleg back in...05/2006? (each DVD 6episodes or so....maybe more)?! So I know, what I want to achieve is just a personal preference.
    Which filters would u recommend then? I have no idea how many filters are out there :/
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by Weef View Post
    No....what I meant was, I want to have the lines saturated more strongly, not thicker in their dimension. I'm quite fine with the thin strong lines in 752x480
    "lines saturated more strongly" implies color ; did you mean only the black/dark lines ? or colored lines ? or something else

    If you meant black/dark lines, then use one of the line darkeners

    Which filters would u recommend then? I have no idea how many filters are out there :/
    There are hundreds, thousands of filters, and many different ways or techniques to get the same or similar results

    I can't recommend anything because I have no idea what you want ???

    I get the general impression that you want to sharpen it a bit, but that's it...

    I know English probably isn't your first language, but you have to describe more clearly and specifically what you want. At least then people here can make suggestions as to some filters or techniques you might try out
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    To recap, I choose the 752x480 as a target format because I know of no real filters that would let me keep the outlines as saturated as in this format close to the source in 720x480.
    2. I want to maintain the strong contrast in the clothes and don't want the patterns to end up blurry.

    That's actually it.
    If anyone could recommend, from their personal experience, any good filters with which I could maintain or improve these in 856x480, I would happily go for that target render dimensions. ^^
    Quote Quote  
  22. "outlines as saturated" - I am confused by this

    Do you really mean saturated ? or sharp, high contrast outlines ? "saturated" implies strong, intense color
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    You got the background in video processing :/
    Good chance I mix up words, because I don't know the whole process
    So I with yours "sharp, high contrast outlines"
    Quote Quote  
  24. The simplest way - you just add sharpening

    But the potential problems with "just add sharpening filter" , is that noise in the source will become enhanced too, also you will get edge enhancement halos . So you might consider some preprocessing with some mild denoiser before using some sharpener

    Look at the picture in post #48, is that something similar to what you want ?

    Anime is very subjective. Fans like completely different "looks" . Sharpening it too much moves it away from how the original director wanted it - many scenes are soft, diffuse. (I think post #48 is oversharpened, again, just my opinion)
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    I tired to upload antoher sample....which might have had characteristics we didn't have in the other scenes - didn't work.
    So I simply say, I like poison's way better.
    It feels slightly less exposed.
    Last edited by Weef; 18th Apr 2013 at 14:48.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Jagabo did that on purpose as an illustration of oversharpening . You can see "halos" or outlines on the line edges
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by Weef View Post

    Why was this uploaded ? What are we supposed to be looking at ?






    A quick look shows some sequences are oversaturated , obscuring details . Looks like somebody made a mistake when producing this dvd

    original
    Click image for larger version

Name:	659orig.png
Views:	97
Size:	389.2 KB
ID:	17378

    tweak(sat=0.6, coring=false, dither=true)
    Click image for larger version

Name:	659sat0.6.png
Views:	87
Size:	373.3 KB
ID:	17379


    (I'm not saying you should use those values, just for demonstration purposes that they made this scene too saturated)
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    That could very well be.
    Till now I only noticed some gradients in the US version, that's why I got myself another version in... 2009?.
    Still not sure....the differences are minimal.
    Here the same in the US version.
    Snapshot out of Mpg2Cut

    Click image for larger version

Name:	poly.png
Views:	99
Size:	1.50 MB
ID:	17380
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads