VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 51 of 51
  1. Try:
    Code:
    TFM(mode=0, pp=0)
    vInverse() # remove a little residual combing on a few frames with very little motion
    TDecimate()
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    thanks, jagabo. I forgot to mention I'm cropping this for MKV. and the miceteeth are prominent in the larger picture.
    crop(26,112,-24,-114)
    Quote Quote  
  3. There are no interlace comb artifacts left after TFM() and vInverse(). There is still a lot of horizontal jitter from time base errors. Is that what you're looking to fix?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    ugh, I guess so.
    When I did a different sample with the line below, I get fine miceteeth on the edges of everything. It looks better than IVTCing.
    QTGMC(preset="fast").srestore(23.976)
    Quote Quote  
  5. Post a sample that shows the problem you're talking about.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I was about to post a sample when the server disconnected (probably weather-related).
    I get miceteeth in edges like the nurse's uniform. You probably only need the first and last script lines.
    Then again, maybe the miceteeth are more prominent after it's cleaned up so you do need a cleaner.

    QTGMC(preset="fast").srestore(23.976)
    Greyscale()
    MCTEmporalDenoise(settings="medium")
    smoothLevels(10,1.1,255,0,255)
    crop(26,112,-24,-114)
    Image Attached Files
    Last edited by spiritgumm; 25th Jan 2015 at 09:55. Reason: script cleaner to better see miceteeth
    Quote Quote  
  7. I guess you're complaining about the line jitter from horizontal time base errors. I'd do something like this:

    Code:
    crop(24,112,-24,-112)
    TFM(mode=0, pp=0)
    vInverse()
    TDecimate()
    QTGMC(preset="fast", InputType=1, EZDenoise=2.0)
    Greyscale()
    smoothLevels(10,1.1,255,0,255)
    That will get you most of the edge smoothing of QTGMC() and will reduce noise in one step. It will give fewer artifacts on the horizontal stripes of the bed and the guys shirt It will also run much faster.
    Last edited by jagabo; 25th Jan 2015 at 10:26.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I ran both (with cleaner in mine) and see the opposite - more aliasing on the guys shirt in your script. However, the bed (between nurse and guy) is bouncy in mine. And there's miceteeth on the edge of the nurse in both, noticeable if you fullscreen video playback.

    I see adding the progressive indicator to QTGMC(InputType=1) gets rid of the bouncing bed issue in my script. Adding MCTEmporalDenoise to your script improves it, I think. But as you say, very slow.
    Last edited by spiritgumm; 25th Jan 2015 at 13:14. Reason: inputtype=1 for progressive video
    Quote Quote  
  9. I don't know what you're seeing but this is typical in what I get:

    Frame from the source M2V:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	source.jpg
Views:	369
Size:	44.6 KB
ID:	29926

    Result of my script (TFM) and yours (QTGMC):
    Click image for larger version

Name:	comp.jpg
Views:	319
Size:	46.8 KB
ID:	29927

    TFM keeps almost oll of the horizontal stripes in the man's shirt and doesn't produce any strobing on the bed. QTGMC (from your script in post #36) loses many of the stripes and the lines in the bed are strobing. You can't see the strobing in a single frame but you can see that the details on the bed are different in QTGMC.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by spiritgumm View Post
    I see adding the progressive indicator to QTGMC(InputType=1) gets rid of the bouncing bed issue in my script.
    But then it doesn't deinterlace and you get combing.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    ah, you're right about the combing, I thought my media player was just playing the sample badly.
    I ended up using your script with the denoiser to reduce the miceteeth - noticeable along the nurse's uniform if you play it full screen. At least that's how it looks to me.

    I'm perplexed by the filter order, and the TFM PP setting. Of the many permutations, I first started with TFM(pp=0).tdecimate, but the aliasing (caused by time base errors?) made it look terrible.
    Why does telling TTM not to look for combing help?
    Why crop first?
    I actually wanted to crop more than in your script - is there a reason you changed the left crop value?
    Are all the fields picked by the time QTGMC is called, so it's only function is cleaning up the video?
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by spiritgumm View Post
    I'm perplexed by the filter order, and the TFM PP setting. Of the many permutations, I first started with TFM(pp=0).tdecimate, but the aliasing (caused by time base errors?) made it look terrible.
    Why does telling TTM not to look for combing help?
    mode=0 is telling the filter only to look at the immediately adjacent fields for a match. If you don't use that option it may look at further away fields to find a match. Time base jitter or flickering brightness may confuse the filter into selecting the wrong field.

    pp=0 turns off the post processing filter. If there isn't a perfect complementary field for the current field there may be some comb artifacts with whatever field is chosen to complete the frame. The post processor blend deinterlaces those artifacts by default.


    Originally Posted by spiritgumm View Post
    Why crop first?
    To speed up the processing of later filters.

    Originally Posted by spiritgumm View Post
    I actually wanted to crop more than in your script - is there a reason you changed the left crop value?
    Later filters didn't work with the frame size left by your original crop.

    Originally Posted by spiritgumm View Post
    Are all the fields picked by the time QTGMC is called, so it's only function is cleaning up the video?
    Yes.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Good script, jagabo. I somehow overlooked the pp=o factor. The script kept me up half the night with this POS sample2 video. Wonder what the maker used for that recording, looks like a horrible DVD/VHS combo.

    I don't know why I bother taking up horrible video like that sample. Must have a bent gene thread somewhere. You can fiddle with it forever and come back with even less. Not worth it, IMO.
    Image Attached Files
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    thanks, Jagabo!
    Quote Quote  
  15. Oh, by the way, the post processor of TFM() sometimes mistakes true details for comb artifacts and messes them up. That's the main reason I used pp=0 it in this script.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Oh, by the way, the post processor of TFM() sometimes mistakes true details for comb artifacts and messes them up. That's the main reason I used pp=0 it in this script.
    this sounds different than the earlier reason mentioned - unnecessary deinterlacing of best-matched fields which might seem to have combing. Can you mention a simple example of a true detail which might seem like combing?
    Quote Quote  
  17. Run the following script on your sample:

    Code:
    Mpeg2Source("sample2.d2v", Info=3) 
    StackHorizontal(TFM(mode=0), TFM(mode=0, pp=0))
    Then compare the lines on the bed. Interestingly, if you crop the video first it doesn't show the same problem.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    The distortion and lack of sharp detail in my sample means that TFM wont be matching perfect fields, and will see combing, correct? That's what I thought was implied by the first explanation for disabling PP. When you said another reason was that TFM might mistake true details for combing, I was thinking you might mean something else - such as horizontal or vertical objects. I'm not sure what "true details" means in my sample.

    Btw, I tried your script for the movie with my Crop settings and it worked. Adding MCTEmporalDenoise required the frame size to be cropped to a certain dimension.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by spiritgumm View Post
    I'm not sure what "true details" means in my sample.
    Thin horizontal lines that are part of the picture sometimes confuse the post processor and it tries to deinterlace them. Like the thin lines on the bed. Even on the progressive frames the the post processor blends them.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member spiritgumm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    and I would imagine the lines in the shirt. Makes sense.
    So would you say more often than not, (mode=0,pp=0) are more appropriate than the defaults?
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by spiritgumm View Post
    and I would imagine the lines in the shirt.
    Yes.

    Originally Posted by spiritgumm View Post
    So would you say more often than not, (mode=0,pp=0) are more appropriate than the defaults?
    I usually use just TFM() or TFM(d2v="..."). But when I notice problems (not very often) I'll try pp=0, then mode=0.
    Quote Quote  
Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!