Cant get rid of dot crawl?

[killerteengohan]

I don't see how it's useless. All that's different is it's 640x480 instead of 720x480.

You are cutting the resolution before you do processing by more than 10%, why do that?

Always process first!

Any video player worth its salt can handle anamorphic video so the question is why resize anyway?

Alternatively you can scale to 720x540!

Thats for PAL sources, I'm using NTSC and its playback is anamorphic 640x480 so there was no harm in what I did. If I made it 720x540 I would be upscaling it. If you open the VOB file it plays at 640x480. If you put the DVD in it plays at 640x480 resolution.

"Any video player worth its salt can handle anamorphic video so the question is why resize anyway?"

Because the resulted output file of mine would not be anamorphic anymore like the DVD VOB is, thats why. You would have gotten a non anamorphic 720x480 file and the aspect would be off when played back. If its going to play back at 640x480 anyways from being anamorphic on the DVD, then there's no harm in doing it or not anyways. Either way its going to end up the same resolution on playback.

Not only is he cutting the resolution he's performing an IVTC and re-encoding with a lossy codec. Each of those things makes dot crawl harder to remove. IVTC filters rely on the spacial and temporal properties of dot crawl artifacts. For example NTSC dot crawl alternate with every frame and repeats every other frame. If you IVTC you no longer have that pattern. And he (or someone else) did IVTC even though he claims not to have. How else did the samples become 23.976 fps?

I did not use IVTC in the sample. The only thing in the script was LanczosResize(640,480) and crop(4,4,-4,0) to get the black bars off the side, which is not a problem at all because it plays back at 640x480 NTSC resolution anyways on the DVD. I would not have said it was unfiltered if I had added any filters to the script other than a resize or crop off of black bars, and I am not a liar.

Ill give the entire VOB to prove it if needed. Perhaps its the DVD that did it. Whats weird is episode 1 says its progressive which is the one the sample came from and all other episodes on the disc need IVTC and scan as interlaced. There is one episode on disc 2 that does the same thing. When I get to disc 3 and 4, they don't have that dot crawl issue in them at all.

I used Mediainfo on the episode 1 VOB and it says 23.976fps. Some of this information looks incorrect/false to me. I never seen video at 217Mbps before, that would be HUGE and more than Blu-Ray video is if Im not mistaken.

General
Complete name                            : C:\Users\Zander\Desktop\Encoding\Bump In The Night\Disc 1\Episode 1\VTS_01_1.VOB
Format                                   : MPEG-PS
File size                                : 784 MiB
Duration                                 : 29s 630ms
Overall bit rate mode                    : Variable
Overall bit rate                         : 222 Mbps

Video
ID                                       : 224 (0xE0)
Format                                   : MPEG Video
Format version                           : Version 2
Format profile                           : Main@Main
Format settings, BVOP                    : Yes
Format settings, Matrix                  : Custom
Duration                                 : 29s 630ms
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 217 Mbps
Maximum bit rate                         : 9 800 Kbps
Width                                    : 720 pixels
Height                                   : 480 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 4:3
Frame rate                               : 23.976 fps
Standard                                 : NTSC
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Progressive
Scan order                               : 2:3 Pulldown
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 26.219
Stream size                              : 767 MiB (98%)

Audio
ID                                       : 189 (0xBD)-128 (0x80)
Format                                   : AC-3
Format/Info                              : Audio Coding 3
Mode extension                           : CM (complete main)
Format settings, Endianness              : Big
Muxing mode                              : DVD-Video
Duration                                 : 29s 600ms
Bit rate mode                            : Constant
Bit rate                                 : 192 Kbps
Channel(s)                               : 2 channels
Channel positions                        : Front: L R
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 KHz
Bit depth                                : 16 bits
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 694 KiB (0%)

Menu

[killerteengohan]

Here is the entire VOB file, go ahead and look at it.

https://mega.co.nz/#!RgZw1DqY!bfJP9ie4vAKlWU3qFoFIf_fwUw__zEX_aYd-rMluNOg

[ndjamena]

I'm working on the assumption it was someone else, he's insisting it's progressive, even though it's agreed the fades are still interlaced...

I'm not insisting it's progressive, that's just what the scan says and what MediaInfo says as well.

Yes, you're saying the original video is progressive, but the fade demonstrates that it WAS interlaced at some point, which is where the "someone else" comes from.

[jagabo]

"Any video player worth its salt can handle anamorphic video so the question is why resize anyway?"

Because the resulted output file of mine would not be anamorphic anymore like the DVD VOB is, thats why.

It would still be anamorphic if you flagged it as such.

The only thing in the script was LanczosResize(640,480) and crop(4,4,-4,0) to get the black bars off the side, which is not a problem at all because it plays back at 640x480 NTSC resolution anyways on the DVD.

Only if you play it in a 640x480 window. At the DVD player's analog outputs the 720x480 frame is output directly to the DAC. At the upscaled digital outputs it is scaled directly from 720x480 to the upscaled resolution, e.g. 1440x1080 in a 1920x1080 frame. By downscaling from 712 to 640 pixels wide and upscaling from 476 to 480 pixels tall you have destroyed the precise detail of the dot crawl artifacts.

Attached is an MPG file. See if you can resize it to 640x480 without creating very obvious artifacts. Play the original and your resized video full screen on your computer or TV. Which shows more artifacts? Included is an anamorphic encoding as h.264 in MP4. How does it compare to the MPG file when played full screen?

[newpball]

I don't see how it's useless. All that's different is it's 640x480 instead of 720x480.

You are cutting the resolution before you do processing by more than 10%, why do that?

Always process first!

Any video player worth its salt can handle anamorphic video so the question is why resize anyway?

Alternatively you can scale to 720x540!

Thats for PAL sources, I'm using NTSC and its playback is anamorphic 640x480 so there was no harm in what I did. If I made it 720x540 I would be upscaling it. If you open the VOB file it plays at 640x480. If you put the DVD in it plays at 640x480 resolution.

"Any video player worth its salt can handle anamorphic video so the question is why resize anyway?"

Because the resulted output file of mine would not be anamorphic anymore like the DVD VOB is, thats why. You would have gotten a non anamorphic 720x480 file and the aspect would be off when played back. If its going to play back at 640x480 anyways from being anamorphic on the DVD, then there's no harm in doing it or not anyways. Either way its going to end up the same resolution on playback.

I really don't know what you are talking about, 720 is not the same as 640.

Would you agree that 720 is not equal to 640 and that if you reduce 720 to 640 you destroy information?

[manono]

The VTS_01_1-1.VOB is just a standard 29.97i VOB file. I couldn't get it all downloaded but the 3:20 of it I have is mostly (93%) soft telecine. The rest is hard telecine and some pure video, I think, and needs to be IVTC'd if it's going to be reencoded anyway. It looks like a lot of animation - created as film but edited as video. The interlaced parts are found around scene changes and during some effects.

The fades and dissolves that I saw didn't look like standard interlacing and the IVTC doesn't remove it. The best way to handle it, in my opinion, is to make a D2V project file using 'Honor Pulldown Flags' followed by a script something like this:

TFM(D2V="Test.d2v")
Tdecimate(Mode=1)

[killerteengohan]

I don't see how it's useless. All that's different is it's 640x480 instead of 720x480.

You are cutting the resolution before you do processing by more than 10%, why do that?

Always process first!

Any video player worth its salt can handle anamorphic video so the question is why resize anyway?

Alternatively you can scale to 720x540!

Thats for PAL sources, I'm using NTSC and its playback is anamorphic 640x480 so there was no harm in what I did. If I made it 720x540 I would be upscaling it. If you open the VOB file it plays at 640x480. If you put the DVD in it plays at 640x480 resolution.

"Any video player worth its salt can handle anamorphic video so the question is why resize anyway?"

Because the resulted output file of mine would not be anamorphic anymore like the DVD VOB is, thats why. You would have gotten a non anamorphic 720x480 file and the aspect would be off when played back. If its going to play back at 640x480 anyways from being anamorphic on the DVD, then there's no harm in doing it or not anyways. Either way its going to end up the same resolution on playback.

I really don't know what you are talking about, 720 is not the same as 640.

Would you agree that 720 is not equal to 640 and that if you reduce 720 to 640 you destroy information?

Apparently your too slow in the head for me to try and describe it and its pointless to get into an argument over it, so I'm done trying to describe it.

You got your VOB so use that instead of the sample video. It doesn't get anymore untouched than that.

[killerteengohan]

The VTS_01_1-1.VOB is just a standard 29.97i VOB file. I couldn't get it all downloaded but the 3:20 of it I have is mostly (93%) soft telecine. The rest is hard telecine and some pure video, I think, and needs to be IVTC'd if it's going to be reencoded anyway. It looks like a lot of animation - created as film but edited as video. The interlaced parts are found around scene changes and during some effects.

The fades and dissolves that I saw didn't look like standard interlacing and the IVTC doesn't remove it. The best way to handle it, in my opinion, is to make a D2V project file using 'Honor Pulldown Flags' followed by a script something like this:

TFM(D2V="Test.d2v")
Tdecimate(Mode=1)

You guys are the only ones that seem to care about those fades.

I don't care about nor do I want/need to fix those title card fades. Im caring about the moving dots that are in the episodes and removing them with little damage to the footage. The title cards mean nothing to me and the fades on those dont bother me like the moving dots do during the episode footage.

[manono]

Yes, the dotcrawl is pretty bad. That's not my 'thing' as I hardly work on anime. I was addressing your somewhat misguided belief that the episodes are progressive as shown by a MediaInfo text grab, that they don't need to be IVTC'd (even your first samples show interlacing - real interlacing), and that it's somehow a good idea to repackage these things into a different container in order to work on them or to show them to others:

I didn't deinterlace or use IVTC in the samples, nor did I plan to in the final output.

I don't think using a deinterlacer on a source that doesn't really need to be deinterlaced is a good thing is it? My scan says its progressive or mostly film.

If it's really a must, I guess I can get you the VOB file or something.

It's not only a 'must', but no one should have to wade through more than a page of bad information from you to get at the 'source'. You want help you post a sample from the source. You don't repackage it and then claim it's as good as a VOB. It's not. Me, I couldn't care less about the fades, since they're not real interlacing. What I do care about is you claiming the files you posted earlier are the same as a VOB. I also care that you contradict good advice. Why ask for help in the first place? As I said, I don't know much about dotcrawl but others have taken the time to look at your samples, to work with them trying to find a solution, and to offer help. Did anyone get a word of thanks in reply? Or just more attitude?

[killerteengohan]

Yeah I know what you mean, if this were on an anime I could get rid of it with no trouble, but this is clay footage and I never worked on it before. Stuff I could use on an anime would harm this far too much for me to want to accept.

Well Megui was also saying it's progressive when scanned. I didn't even know Mediainfo said progressive until I pasted it here and I wasn't going off that. I was going off what Megui was saying and I know it's not always 100% correct.

Thanks for your time Manono! I know how to get rid of the interlacing in the episode footage no problem, the title card fade I could care less about. I didn't want or ask for help with that, I wanted help with the moving dots only so need to worry about the interlacing. Not to mention it wouldn't bother me even if there was a little bit left as long as it wasn't a lot like an anime that wasnt IVTC'd.

Did anyone get a word of thanks in reply? Or just more attitude?

They were getting plenty of thanks back when they were actually giving possible solutions to try and not arguing about resolution. Jagabo is usually always a good help and appreciated. The only one who got any attitude from me was mr newpball about 1 or two posts ago when I got tired of it turning into an argument over resolution and never a possible solution even after the VOB was given to use instead of the sample he wanted to complain about.

Ive given samples from DVD's the same exact way or by a screenshot tons of times on here and or doom9 and every time (Mostly Jagabo) manages to give perfectly good help without a complaint about the source. It's quite simple to just nicely ask me for an uncompressed copy because it would be easier or better for them to work with and let me know how I can get it for them without it being a giant VOB instead of complaining about whats wrong with the one I gave, along with questions about why I did what I did to it in a 'your an idiot' manner, and Id have gladly right away given it.

It could have been a "I need you to work with me in order for me to help, please get me this by doing this because of ??? reason" start off, but it ended up a "You've given a useless sample, and what you did to it was stupid and destroyed it" and a "You did this to it, I know it!" even when I didn't do it.

[manono]

Okay, for future reference, no one even needs a VOB (and certainly not a complete VOB), just the video portion. Open a VOB in DGIndex, use the [ and ] buttons to isolate a small section, one with steady motion, or one with the problem about which you're asking, and then File->Save Project and Demux Video. Upload the resulting M2V as a sample. Often 10 seconds or so is enough. I, for one, have no interest at all in seeing an MKV made from a DVD VOB and this source of yours is a prime example why not. Had a VOB or M2V been uploaded from the beginning it never would have raised all those questions unrelated to your real problem. I know LMotlow feels the same way.

Also, to really understand what you have, don't rely on an automatic analysis from MeGUI or anything else. Use your eyes. Also, make a D2V project file using DGIndex and open it and look at the very bottom. Unless it says it's 100% film, there might be possible problems. Then use that D2V project file together with the DGDecode.dll and MPEG2Source in an AviSynth script to open your video for viewing in VDub or a player. I believe that's the way MeGUI does it. Not positive because I've never used it.

And you're right - I was wrong to call it anime. Animation was what I should have said. Good luck with the dot crawl. Glad it's not my project.

[jagabo]

Of course, you can fine tune the script I gave in post #16 to your liking. Change thrY2 in mt_edge() to make it more or less sensitive to chroma edges, mt_expand() and mt_inpand() to cover wider or narrower bands around edges, use a different "filtered" version of the video with more or less filtering.

[killerteengohan]

Okay, for future reference, no one even needs a VOB (and certainly not a complete VOB), just the video portion. Open a VOB in DGIndex, use the [ and ] buttons to isolate a small section, one with steady motion, or one with the problem about which you're asking, and then File->Save Project and Demux Video. Upload the resulting M2V as a sample. Often 10 seconds or so is enough.

Thanks, I did that just today with something I was asking for help with and it's no problem at all.