Hello video gods.
So I'm in the process of importing all of my DV tapes onto my hard drive
I have about 40 in total spanning 2001 - 2011
I have two concerns:
I'm noticing some wicked interlacing effects when I play back the resulting .avi files using the latest version of VLC
Turning on the de-interlacing feature seems to fix the problem, and some other media players seem OK, but I'm still concerned
I'm going to be transcoding the files to H.264 anyway in order to save space, and I want to de-interlace the video while I'm at it
Was planning on using Handbrake
Any suggestions on settings? There seem to be a lot of options
I don't care how long the transcoding process takes...quality of the image and efficient use of storage space are my top priorities
2) Frame rate?
I want to say that the frame rate on the captured .avi files seems lower than when I observe the playback on the LCD camcorder right off the tape
The .avi files aren't choppy; they look fine. But not as good or smooth as the video on the LCD panel on the camcorder itself.
On there, it feels like 48fps or even higher (I'm a video quality nut...am loving the 60fps mode on my new HD camcorder)
Does anyone know what frame rate is typical or even possible on a standard mini DV camcorder? (mine is a JVC GR-DVL620U)
I'm concerned that the original video is high frame rate and that I'm somehow losing this when I import into my PC
I'm using the Movie Maker app which comes with Windows 8.1 to capture the video (I know...not exactly optimal...but to be honest it's doing the job. I'm about 10 tapes in and so far zero dropped frames)
Your wisdom and input is highly appreciated
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 72
My advice is to capture all your tapes lossless and interlaced, then to archive them (for eternity and in two different and safe locations).
If you want to create a deinterlaced copy of that archive that you want to render in H264 that's great but use a good deinterlacer and do frame double the video otherwise you lose too much information. You can actually deinterlace lossless but if you have your original capture archived you may be better off not doing that.
Last edited by newpball; 13th Dec 2014 at 23:21.
My advice is NOT to capture all your tapes lossless, as they are ALREADY lossy-recorded (as DV on tape).
So, transfer them via DV/Firewire (which is a lossless transfer process, even if the pre-encoded stream is already lossy). At least, that way, they do NOT have to go through a conversion to Analog and then back to Digital, which in and of itself incurs loss.
Once transferred, I recommend you save (archive) those original DV files, for later editing, or just re-visiting for some other reason. Then I would convert from 29.97i -> 59.94p (by interpolating lines). This has the effect of frame doubling (and maybe this is what newpball was referring to: if so I agree with that part).
DO--NOT--USE--WindowsMovieMaker for this job!!!
Use something like Scenalyzer Live or WinDV or similar. Then use something like AVISynth+MeGUI or Cedocida+Virtualdub+ffmpeg-external-encoder with settings to get you an x264-encoded MP4.
Deinterlaced 29.97fps video plays at 59.94fps. I'm assuming that either PC-only playback, Web playback, or an external a/v drive-player is all you're interested in at that frame rate. The only valid format for any authored disc playback at 59.94fps progressive is 1280x720p 16:9 BluRay/AVCHD. All other commercial and standard video disc formats in SD or HD except 24fps film-based originals are expected to be interlaced.
I'll second this: Windows Movie Maker = no-no.
I'll second this one, also: don't re-record DV. Copy via Firewire for a 1:1 unaltered archive.- My sister Ann's brother
Thanks for the feedback guys.
Just to be clear, since the data source is already digital, I would only ever use Firewire to transfer the data (perhaps "transfer" is a better word to use than "capture" here)
So I've switched to WinDV to do my captures...I'm dumping tape #11 with it now and so far, so good
I'm a little lost with the Avisynth + MeGUI or Cedocida + Virtualdub + ffmpeg part
In the past, I've used Handbrake to do most of my transcoding and been relatively happy with the results, although I'd bet this would make you guys collectively shudder.
So I'm still left with my two goals:
1) Transcode to H.264
2) Get rid of the horrific interlacing
Is Handbrake "good enough"? (I'd rather stick with what I know than have to learn multiple new programs, but if it means an inferior quality final product, then I'll switch)
So does Avisynth do the de-interlacing, and MeGUI does the transcoding?
Any recommended settings for them? (especially Avisynth...)
Handbrake makes excellent re-encodes (it uses x264 to encode to h264). So, are you saying that what you want for final output is video that plays at 59.94 frames per second progressive? That pretty much limits you to PC playback. What output format do you want for this h264 encode? Standard def BluRay? Standard def AVCHD? Do you want to play these videos on TV, share it with others, etc? What do you want to do with the output?- My sister Ann's brother
Don't crop, keep the original frame size.
Encode interlaced by adding "bff" (without the quotes) to the Extra Options box in the Video tab. Any decent player/TV will deinterlace on the fly during playback.
If really want to deinterlace use the Bob option (smoothest motion) in the Deinterlace pulldown. Change the frame rate to double the source (59.94 fps NTSC, 50 fps PAL). Then encode progressive.
I'm not a video guy per-se, but more of a technology enthusiast
My own personal opinion is that video is on the cusp of being "liberated" from media like Blu-ray, tape, etc (we're largely there already)
My wife wants me to burn all of this stuff to DVD, but I'm thinking the most common way that we'll ever watch this stuff in the future is going to be on PC, or tablet, or on a set-top media player. I can't imagine my great-grandchildren popping a DVD in the player 50 years from now. Rather, I'm amassing a video and photo archive which just consists of files. Over time, as hard drive formats evolve, I'll simply transfer the files to increasingly large and sophisticated storage mediums.
Having said that, I don't know enough about the ins-and-outs of video formats to have a very specific opinion about what output formats I should be concerned about. In layman's terms, I want:
-video which looks good
-video which is reasonably compatible with most standard players (PC, set-top boxes, tablets, etc)
-video which does NOT take up monstrous amounts of storage on my hard drive (and subsequent cloud backup)
-video which does NOT have the "lines" which I currently see when I play back the raw .avi files that I'm getting from the firewire dump using WinDV
What do you think is a logical way forward if Bluray / DVD / optical media is not top of my priority list?
Seriously: whether we like it or not, the only universally playable final delivery digital format today is still DVD. You can play a DVD disc on even the cheapest and oldest DVD player. If you encode to any h264 format, whoever gets your video will need a BluRay player, and you cannot encode as 59.94 fps progressive SD or 1920x1080 for those players. Logically, keep your unaltered and original archives for future use, when your grandchildren can encode them to h994 and watch them on their graduation class rings. In the meantime, you might consider dealing with the way most people use and view video, unless you simply want to view them by yourself and techy-savvy peers or in your own home and invite others over for a look. The future is certainly on the way, but it's not here just yet.
Last edited by LMotlow; 14th Dec 2014 at 20:49.- My sister Ann's brother
As it happens, jagabo's advice to use Handbrake with the bff option worked out really nicely and I'm happy with the results.
I'm ignorant, am aware of my ignorance, and am seeking advice from subject matter experts. It's self-evident that if I understood this stuff, I wouldn't be here seeking advice, would I? And I can assure you that I'm paying attention; I'm just stupid, that's all.
@newpball, I don't think jagabo's remark had any anger in it. However, your post on which he was remarking, was unusual in the fact that it seems to be re-iterating something you've already acknowledged is not the most appropriate for this workflow.
I think we can ALL agree that VHS (or similar analog) -> Digital file can be done at the highest quality by capturing to uncompress/lossless file format (whether RGB4:4:4, YUV4:4:4, YUV4:2:2 or YUV4:2:0 - and this all depends on your further intended workflows). A rung or 2 down the quality ladder, but still quite worthy way of working, is to use DV. Yes, it is lossy, and there is reduced color accuracy, and there may be a few DCT artifacts, but given the source, it is very capable of providing a good equivalent.
However, that quality preference argument is really moot if one has ALREADY started from a point of existing loss. The tapes were recorded in DV format and so the DCT & color blurs, etc are already "baked in" to the image. And it is already in digital format.
One of the prime directives of good professional video stewardship is to do the least harm. That means not adding on unnecessary losses. Some losses (such as Telecine) are fully reversible, some are not. For reversible ones, it makes sense to go to the extra effort to undo the damage. DV is one of those that is not truly reversible. In processing (and certainly if editing or compositing) it might make sense to do some adjustments (such as colorspace upsampling) to alleviate the inherent problems of DV, but in the CAPTURING (aka transfer) you are compounding the problems that already exist if you attempt to go DV -> Analog Out -> Analog In -> Lossless capture. That is multiple steps of D->A->D conversion, re-subsampling, and possible colorspace conversions. None of which improve on the existing loss inherent in the already-encoded DV footage. You now have Generation #2 file, even if it is stored "lossless".
However, the firewire transfer of the DV stream to the PC is already a lossless process (the equivalent of downloading a streaming file off the web). What is on the PC is still now Generation #1 DV. That is doing the least harm, "in general terms".
You might actually already be in agreement with all this, but it might make sense to be clearer about the difference between a lossless/lossy-compressed stored format and a lossless/lossy process, and to which one(s) you are referring to at certain points.
Last edited by Cornucopia; 15th Dec 2014 at 00:14.
My second 'lossless' was simply in response to MiniDV_newb general question related to the 'liberation' of video from optical disks. Let's face it interlaced video is a nightmare compared to progressive, MPEG-2 is an inefficient compression method compared to newer methods. Best format to play is one that does not compress or mangle the source any further. The storage method should not be in the way as it does with current optical specs.
Frankly I do not see anything controversial about this.
Funny, I have seen this "liberation" theme a couple of times recently, but what is it being liberated to? It's not like there will be one, universal, über-perfect free format. On the contrary, you now have even more competing forces, more resolutions, more varying types of applications for video and sub-formats that really only cater to those needs, and less universality. Liberation indeed!? Kind of like how many middle-eastern countries were recently "liberated" but now face even further turmoil. Not trying to start getting political (that was just an analogy), and not trying to start a flame war, but it is controversial, because I hate to say this, but there are LOTS and LOTS of people in this world who:
1. Don't have and may not ever get (access to) the technology to cover all the bases for video, including broadband streaming & 4k smartphones.
2. Don't understand, probably will never understand, and may not even want or care (or have the time/energy) to understand about the complexities of so many sub-formats & their compatibility matrices.
3. Can't afford to (repeatedly) RENT every VOD, subscribe to Netflix/AmazonPrime/Hulu+/etc. that they feel like.
4. Can't afford to upgrade their devices (PCs, tablets, phones, TVs) to handle "the most efficient codecs" every 18 months.
5. Consider BD, or even more likely, DVD "good enough".
Sounds to me like you want to liberate these videos from the people. Not controversial at all.
You and some others are proponents of the newest & latest, but to the detriment (and at your own "accelerated" trajectory) of existing/current or even legacy formats. I hope to think that I like both the newest and the older forms and can sympathize with the haves & the have-nots.
Let me ask you this...
Assuming your vision of newest/best-codec, streaming-only connected lifestyle is ascendent and eclipses all previous, wouldn't there NOT be any incentive on major H'wood producers to maintain those old forms? And without those PHYSICAL formats (DVD, BD), how do you think you will be able to get and share your "backups"? From P2P? - Not likely, as they would have been getting them from physical formats which are no longer available. From screencaps? Not with newer "trusted platforms". From hacked streaming services? That is patently illegal and strongly surveilled & enforced and ultimately has been ineffective (do you know of anybody who has decrypted a silverlight stream?). And with online-only service, they can "cut you off" if they feel like it, constantly upgrade the security/encryption, or not give you all the options you'd really like, or raise the rates without recourse, or require continual hardware upgrades.
You better HOPE people DON'T give up on physical discs! Please let us be shackled to them a little longer - at least we know how to easily decrypt & backup those formats. Those standards you are eschewing have helped make the technology as democratic & economical as it currently is, to our enjoyment.
Be careful what you wish for. Pandora's box, anyone?
Remember what happened to music (from Wikipedia):The music industry has been undergoing drastic changes since the advent of widespread digital distribution of music. A conspicuous indicator of this is total music sales: since 2000, sales of recorded music have dropped off substantially...
Last edited by Cornucopia; 15th Dec 2014 at 14:01.
Handbrake), that lossy re-encoding itself never makes anything look "better", that MPEG and h264 both have their pros and cons (and MPEG is still used in BluRay encoding, it's not always h264), or that common experience shows most of us that some things work OK and others just don't -- if we say stuff like that, then are we addressing popular marketing myth or inexperience, or are we saying you're stupid? I guess you'll have to be the judge of that. All anyone here can do is post caveats or details. You can ignore it, or you can take it the wrong way. Etc., etc.
Last edited by LMotlow; 15th Dec 2014 at 02:29.- My sister Ann's brother
- My sister Ann's brother
As long as it's not taken out of context.
No way. Quoting out of context isn't discussion or debate, it's just politics (LOL!).- My sister Ann's brother
So if I make some 1080/24p video I should really butcher the video on BD with the added 'benefit' that 5 years down the road 3745 topics on this forum need to be created to answer how to actually restore this video?
The utter mess in video is not due to its 'liberation' but due to engineers resisting change, perhaps as a form of job security who knows. Who in his right mind in the digital age would still insist on MPEG-2 or on forcing footage to be interlaced or requiring frame rates like 23.976 or that the dynamic range is reduced by 8%?
The trend is clearly that more and more media is streamed. Furthermore 'the people' tend not to focus on quality, remember the 'liberation' of audio, no more spinning vinyl but better technology? 24bit audio, 96kHz sampling speeds? So what happened? People listen to remastered CDs where the life is compressed out of or listen to badly encoded mp3 files.
Last edited by newpball; 15th Dec 2014 at 09:05.
Hmm. An interesting flow of conflicting ideas. Most people feel that liberation isn't license for chaos. It's also revealing that you don't respect the creative efforts of others by paying them for their work ("archaic copyright laws"?).
The o.p. is dealing with MiniDV. Seems that this fact has somehow eluded newpball's attention. The owner is allowed to process those originals for streaming if he wants (and if he has any business sense, he'll copy protect the stream and charge money to watch it). At this point it's not quite 2196 just yet, nor would I think he'll bother with streaming his MiniDV personal videos to his friends, neighbors and relatives. His intentions were posted in #9 as "video which is reasonably compatible with most standard players (PC, set-top boxes, tablets, etc)". That alone precludes h264, which is not playable on a great many standard players unless they're BluRay players -- and of course, they will be 2014 "standard" BluRay players that comply with today's spec rather than work in anticipation of 2196 machines, which seem to be taking their own sweet time arriving on store shelves. He's also allowed to process and distribute his material any way he wants, spec or no spec, which is what he'll likely do, and take his chances on how they're received or how they'll perform.
One of the o.p.'s posted requirements is "video which does NOT take up monstrous amounts of storage on my hard drive (and subsequent cloud backup)". Well, first, by deinterlacing interlaced source, the number of frames is doubled. I don't see how a video of 100,000 frames expanded to 200,000 frames would take up "less space". He could always reduce clarity and definition by re-encoding to lower bitrates, in which case he would no longer have an archive of the original but a more or less bowdlerized edition of what used to be the original.
The line that most impressed me and sort of boggled my mind was "-video which does NOT have the "lines" which I currently see when I play back the raw .avi files that I'm getting from the firewire dump using WinDV". I don't believe he'll be viewing those videos thru WinDV. That seems a clunky way of doing it. Wouldn't it be better to use a display device that deinterlaces properly? After all, most media players and decent HDTV's do a better job than our current software does in that respect.
Or, as newpball suggests, he could store them on permanent media and wait for 2196 to take another look. The idea of storing them on cloud doesn't really appeal to me, but it likely is something that makes many people giddy to think about because it sounds hi-tech and, of course, it's "new". It does mean, though, that the ongoing storage fees will buy that archive many times over, and there's always the higher chance that putting your stuff in the hands of others who don't care that much increases the likelihood of Murphy's Law making a score, in which case all that will remain will be a corporate form letter of sincerest apology. But that's just an extreme case from me, ye olde country pessimist.
This thread is getting really screwy. As I read post #1 I keep thinking it just started that way, as the O.P. seems to have made up his mind from the start. But I could be wrong about that. Let's hope so. It's his videos. He can do whatever he wants with them.
Last edited by LMotlow; 15th Dec 2014 at 10:36.- My sister Ann's brother
VLC, but with the deinterlacing mode set to either "Linear" or "Yadif (2x)" (if your computer can reliably handle that second one). My bet is that both issues are no longer a problem.
Why would this be? Well, computer monitors and television screens display video in very different ways, especially when it comes to good old-fashioned SD recordings. Those "interlacing effects" you mention are not visible if you view the vids on a TV - go ahead and plug your DV camcorder into yours and check if you like - so deinterlacing to fix those "lines" could be seen as attempting to mend a problem that simply isn't there in the first place.
So, where to from here? My primary advice would be that, if there's even a 1% chance that these videos will ever be viewed on a TV ever again, don't deinterlace them. When watching on a computer, they're SD files, so you should be able to deinterlace quite comfortably on playback. If you really want to compress them into mp4s or whatever, keep the frame size the same and double the frame rate - but also keep backups of your originals.
threads like this can go weird simply because there is no right answer, ..., if originals are kept (13GB for an hour or so) then for re-encoding there are choices, mentioned above, and if they are done right who says what is better,
-encoding interlace - choosing aspect ratio flag, and not resizing
-encoding progressive - double frame rate is necessary (25i to 50p or 29.97i to 59.94p) using possibly best deinterlacer there is - qtgmc
observations: qtgmc double farme rate generaly gives 20% bigger size that interlace using x264 (not even close to say 50% more), so size does not matter, but encoding time is much longer (3-4 times, some medium presets, without using MT in avisynth?) , so it is up to anybody ....no right solution
TVs are designed to handle interlaced video. For CRT based TV fields were displayed one at a time (you never saw an entire frame at once). Modern TVs are all progressive so interlaced video is deinterlaced before being displayed. The quality of that deinterlacing varies from TV to TV. It ranges from a simple bob to something like VLC's Yadif 2x.
Precisely. Viewed on a device not designed to play interlaced or telecined video as intended and then to complain about unwanted effects is nonsense. Yes, indeed, there are now some purely progressive formats and hardware designed to accommodate it. Suit the device and the processing to the source. In the future things will change. Either wait for it, or use what we have and prepare for the fuiture. Why is this so complicated?- My sister Ann's brother