Video conversion guidance would be great

[_Al_]

exactly, I did not see coming that response ... same setting means same setting ...

also remarks about quality, you want quality you encode CRF 17 or CRF 18 , otherwise you get artifacts here or there,

HEVC, sure, we all look for it, because it is 10bit, just waiting for it to mature just a bit more, and weirdly enough Constant Quality in HEVC scenario is even more beneficial, better imho, because you do not get that banding and artifact issues encoding 8bit H264, so in H264 case you have to overkill settings for the most impossible scene or just using zones to boost bitrate in particular scene only



to back up VHS or DV I use QTGMC and CRF 17 or CRF 18, that's it, you want lower bitrates you'd need to de-noise, then you save again 1/3rd of bitrate but you must watch banding even more

just want to add,:
the reason I uploaded CRF 27 with veryslow setting is to prove that filesize gets smaller, so that 2pass VBR test would had to be re-done with smaller bitrate, so that CRF 27 should not be compared to that 2pass VBR that was posted in that ZIP, but anyway CRF 27, 26 or 25 etc. always bad quality, there is simply not enough bitrate for DV avi encoding ... CRF 20, perhaps lot of scenes would be alright, but some not, the ratio depends on type of video, I used to shoot with VX2000 and in decent manner, so it would be different to some cheap DV avi camcorder or VHS capture, and trying to capture night party for example , nobody can say this and that CRF is good in general manner, only the person working with particular type of video would find his satisfactory CRF number , for his video

[KarMa]

Otherwise, I find any test quite unfair. Although 2-pass VBR can be set to speedy, it's "somewhat" contradictory, since its necessary 1st pass requires... a good dose of patience anyway.

Implying the average user would make decision to use very slow x264 because they have the patience to use 2-pass but the CRF user is oblivious to these mystical presets. Also --slow-firstpass is pretty much placebo, you should be thankful encoding time was not considered in your tests.

"Plus", from average users' point of view again, 2-pass VBR being handicaped, why add the "--preset medium" extra and obvious handicap on visual quality?..

You don't have to ADD anything, it's medium by default in 2-Pass. Something you forgot. Seems like your average CRF user is a complete imbecile compared to your average 2-pass user.

I can understand these hypothetical scenarios of an average user, but this VideoHelp and we are here to find, prove, and spread the truth when it comes to video topics. Not play these what ifs, and then spread that to average users who come here looking for answers.

[bulgom]

.
Hi

1. Thanks for all the answers and advice.

And it's not advice that will "fly outerspace or to nowhere":

2. Since I'm trying to test * — in "real time" as much as possible — every advice, I cannot answer such an amount (of messages, hints, methods...) immediately, and will have to append answers once it's done:

[ ... including — you bet... — angry, anxious if not psychodramatic , sarcastic, etc., answers I receive from my so-called "average user" friends / all has to to with... wallet, flattening too fast, due to HDDs' prices / see below... ]

I know: that delay is somewhat tedious; and I hope it does not infringe the forum (rules or) usage.

* testing: not by myself only: also by those people I call "average users", as soon as possible, but that delays eveything some more — knowing, moreover, that they even + often come up with new questions, before previous ones are answered (some mess, I'd say)

& btw:

(...)Seems like your average CRF user is a complete imbecile compared to your average 2-pass user.

Come-on: I am not despising anybody. I'm open to any other and better "label" than... "average user", to describe better + in one word: quite an amount of people asking for (in the 1st place): · smallest possible fileweight that retains enough visual quality · & not always but often: predictable fileweight.


Should I "develop", on "smallest" and "predictable"?.. Although nobody complains about HD & Full HD in themselves strictly, now available from the least smartphone, there ARE more & more questions, + even complaints about their obvious, immediate "side effect":

Among others, I noted this remark (heard quite a few times + that I try to translate / summarize):

"(F)HD's great, but also: kind of a trick, played on (average...) consumers, if not a little trap: though ext. HDDs are relatively cheap, they're still too expensive: I mean, in regard of how fast they get filled anyway, especially with native (cellphone) (F)HD video...";

and:

"That forces me to 'switch back' to old CD/DVD, as additional storage space (after recoding, otherwise, forget it): until I find more money — and time: to avoid purchasing blindly..."


So, no wonder why "predictable fileweight" often ranks #2 or 3, among priorities. And:

(...) I can understand these hypothetical scenarios of an average user (...)

lastly, rather than any """hypothetical scenario""" , what I see in all that is definitely: typical & down to earth as can be, considerations...

Again: NO offense whatsoever. Being what I call an "average user", I have the same problems. Only difference: I take time to read miles of text, attempting to understand... what I can!, of digital video + industry.

[

You don't have to ADD anything, it's medium by default in 2-Pass. Something you forgot.

I forget... stuff... once in a while — I that's always: too often for sure — but didn't forget that one second. I know it defaults to "medium". Only, letting 2-pass VBR default to "medium" adds a handicap (to its 1st handicap: waiting duration). ]

.

[bulgom]

50i CRF 27preset very slow.mkv + mkv 50p CRF 18 preset veryslow.mkv

Thank you!

But... well... isn't the fact that you deinterlaced + doubled the framerate — using QTGMC * double FPS mode, I suppose? — somewhat confusing here?

I really don't know what to think about 50 FPS framerate, regarding compatibility with a wide range of players; I mean: including if not above all: standalone ones...

I found Yadif not good enough though. Edges are not smooth etc., remember today we watch those images on full HD screens, where everything gets blown up. The only double frame rate conversion quite usable is done by QTGMC (there might be some other softwares around, perhaps not free, not sure).

* I'd say if not using QTGMC better to keep it interlaced and make a DVD, just an opinion.

[_Al_]

Even 5 year old phones can play 50p, encoded with decent, by specs settings, and talking about standard definition here, but this subject double frame deinterlace or not to deinterlace is a topic on its own, there is no correct answer for this. QTGMC is very slow, but does its magic and interlace encoding , especially of H.264 footage gets kind of weird because it is encoded MBAFF with x264 encoder and you can see artefacts playing it on cheap TV or cheap player or even Windows Media Player does not do 100% job, like some expensive good TV's.
So you just pick interlace or double frame rate (good one , using QTGMC and not deinterlacing to 25p that ruins footage) - your choice, I'd rather not discussed what method is better than the other, those are heated topics. And there is a lot of choices even after that decision, resize to square pixel or not etc. As you can check out that CRF 18 using QTGMC was resized to square pixel 768x576, so any dumb player can play that and will always play it correctly.

One more thing, counter-intuitively, that 50p footage getting with QTGMC takes less volume as oppose to encoding it interlaced.

DVD can be 50i or 25p so there is no chice here, but make it 50i, the thing is everyone expects DVD to be interlaced, players whatever, ...., as I said my opinion.

I made batch programs that even make DVD right away , dropping DVavi footage on a BAT file, or possibly making double frame rate progressive mp4 or even interlaced mp4. In case of that interlace encoding , making mp4, there is no resize and aspect ratio is stored in video stream.
I uploaded it here for download about a year back or so , DV avi helper.zip
(I did not bother to troubleshoot it much so your DVavi without audio would fail, you'd need to fish out that h264 stream from temp folder or just use proper DVavi with audio)

About room and space discussion, there is no compromise for home videos, that's unique footage, as oppose movies , shows, etc.

[bulgom]

.
Hi,

Thanks for "DV avi helper.zip". First (very) quick test:

on a Windows XP SP2 (only) PC, with no "Net Framework" installed – my Win. 7 PC being busy, almost permanently recoding stuff (since it's faster):

—— I had "Celocida" installed, long ago. I can't remember if its warning — "Your DV codec will be replaced " — forced me, or not (?), to reinstall tedious stuff afterwards (I mean: to roll back). So, for now, I wonder what to do about that.

[ Or, since my "tweaked VitrualDub": made portable in order to use "Celocida" made portable along, works and displays that codec (though not installed at all in Windows), may be I could find a way to "portabilize" "Celocida" again, this time along "DV avi helper" — but more difficult (to me, anyway), since that kit relies on several "DOS" programs... ]

—— In that PC, I only use a portable version of "Net Framework 2", that "BePipe" seems to require. Or may be a higher "Net Framework" version? I didn't find the info., either googling or @ VideoHelp (but didn't explore your kit in depth, yet).

Anyway, dropping "BePipe.exe" on the "portable NetFramework 2 launcher" opens a DOSprompt window alright: no more missing component warning. So I guess (?) it requires version 2...


—— Is or are there any other tools, among that interesting kit, that require either some version of "Net Framework", or other components, not included in Win. XP SP2 (like "Java" or else)?


—— Since I couln't test thoroughly yet, I don't understand this default setting well enough :

SET direct_VIDEO_TS_burn=no
SET make_ISO_only=no

Say I don't want to burn a DVD and that I just want the ISO. Then, what do I get, when "SET make_ISO_only" is set to "no"? Nothing at all? Or do I still get the ISO? Or, should I rather set:

SET direct_VIDEO_TS_burn=no
SET make_ISO_only=yes

?

[_Al_]

—— Is or are there any other tools, among that interesting kit, that require either some version of "Net Framework", or other components, not included in Win. XP SP2 (like "Java" or else)?

java is not needed, but I don't know what software needs what, I use it with updated Win7, there must be Avisynth installed and dvsd DVcodec so Avisynth can load DVavi , Cedocida works.
these utilities are involved to create mp4: Avisynth, x264, BePipe (making wav out of avisynth script), NeroAacEnc (encoding AAC) , MP4box, mediainfo and QTGMC dll's (if encoded progressive)
these are involved creating DVD:
Avisynth, BePipe, Aften (creates AC3), Hcenc (creates m2v video) , muxman (muxes VIDEO_TS), imgburn, mediainfo
DV or general AVI joining is done by mencoder

SET direct_VIDEO_TS_burn=no , creates ISO in the process and then that ISO is burned to by ImgBurn
SET direct_VIDEO_TS_burn=yes ,does not create ISO, ImgBurn burns VIDEO_TS directly to disc
SET make_ISO_only=no , should be always no otherwisw program just makes ISO in OUTPUT folder, no burning by ImgBurn (if set yes)

Say I don't want to burn a DVD and that I just want the ISO.

SET make_ISO_only=yes , that is sufficient, there is a line in the script:

if %make_ISO_only%==yes call %create_ISO% & goto done_processing

so does not matter what %direct_VIDEO_TS_burn% is set to, it will only make ISO