VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 90
Thread
  1. I just finished authoring my first Blu-ray, but now it looks like I need to author a DVD. The masters are ProRes HQ 1920x1080p29.97. I have already written out Lagarith lossless intermediates. So before I dump them from my hard drive, I would like some advice the best way to downrez them to be DVD compliant.

    I am guessing a simple Avisynth script using Spline36 (or something similar) to 480p? Then encode using HCenc? I don't really want to interlace the content. But then again, maybe that is preferred?

    So maybe someone could suggest a Avisynth script? Thanks.

    EDIT: I want to keep the 16:9 AR.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    I guess BD and DVD specs don't mean jack around here. Thank god people here don't work on my family's stuff.

    Use a low-pass filter (mild blur) and Spline36Resize.

    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    EDIT: I want to keep the 16:9 AR.
    DVD is 720x480 NTSC or 720x576 PAL, whether you like it or not. Encode at 16:9 DAR.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post

    I am guessing a simple Avisynth script using Spline36 (or something similar) to 480p? Then encode using HCenc? I don't really want to interlace the content. But then again, maybe that is preferred?
    Just do a straight resize to 720x480 using whichever resizer you want and encode as 16:9. Don't forget to change the chromaticity to Rec.601 since at the moment it's hi-def's Rec.709 and you're going to std-def.

    As for reinterlacing it, if it's progressive now I don't know why you'd want to do that. However, most progressive 29.97fps sources are encoded as interlaced for NTSC DVD. Me, I usually encode progressive 29.97fps sources as progressive. Doesn't seem to make any difference.
    Last edited by manono; 16th Dec 2015 at 19:21.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    As for reinterlacing it, if it's progressive now I don't know why you'd want to do that. However, most progressive sources are encoded as interlaced for NTSC DVD. Me, I usually encode progressive 29.97fps sources as progressive. Doesn't seem to make any difference.
    Not at videohelp, it doesn't. They write new specs here by the hour.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Yeah, I'm tired of getting drowned out by newbies who don't even want to understand, and yet still think they know better/more. I only partly put up with that from my own kids!

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    Not at videohelp, it doesn't. They write new specs here by the hour.
    Are you just being your usual cranky self, or are you trying to make a point here? And, if so, what is it? That all 29.97fps material (progressive or interlaced) is required to be encoded as interlaced? Can you point out a place where it says that?
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    OMG, I forgot, this is the wrong forum for that kind of thing. Let's stick to the new mass consumer business model here and keep YouTube and Walmart as the local quality standards. You do what you want. Non-clique posting is disregarded anyway. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154533
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  8. So just encode progressive and add 2:2 pulldown flags.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    Unless I overlooked something, that nice chart applies only to H264/AVC and Blu-Ray and not MPEG-2 and DVD, which is what SameSelf is asking about.

    I wasn't trying to be confrontational with the question (only about your holier-than-thou attitude) but truly want to know. Muxman accepts progressively-encoded 29.97fps video as input and I know of no authoring program more strict about following the specifications. In addition, interlaced encoding means flag-reading players (the vast majority) will deinterlace, something not wanted or needed for progressive video.
    Quote Quote  
  10. This was discussed here before already from time to time, 29.97p source after downsizing in Avisynth could be encoded as progressive (HcEcoder), in INI file:
    *PROGRESSIVE
    or in HcEncoder gui:
    Settings1/interlacing options - progressive and select also TFF. It has to have that TFF or BFF flag, even if it is not.TFF and BFF selection must be selected even if progressive encoding is selected.
    Muxman indeed makes VIDEO_TS no problem. ImgBurn would make DVD. I did my DVD's mostly like that, nobody ever complained.

    I happened to post here VIDEO_TS sample of downcorverted HD 29.97p video to DVD. Made by HcEncoder and muxed with Muxman.

    For DVDArchitect you'd need separate mv2 and AC3 strams, DVD Architect does not seem to re-render that video again, I just used demuxed video stream from VOB of that DVD but it should be the same with original m2v:
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	248
Size:	170.0 KB
ID:	34869  

    Last edited by _Al_; 17th Dec 2015 at 01:43.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    OMG, I forgot, this is the wrong forum for that kind of thing. Let's stick to the new mass consumer business model here and keep YouTube and Walmart as the local quality standards. You do what you want. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154533
    Even if the topic was about Bluray encoding, why not read your own link?

    --fake-interlaced
    Since 25p or 30p video is not allowed for Primary Video, encoding progressive video that meet Blu-Ray specification is only possible with this option. If use this option you also need to specify --pic-struct
    (I think --fake-interlaced implies --pic-struct these days, so no need to specify it)
    http://www.x264bluray.com/home/480p-ntsc

    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    Non-clique posting is disregarded anyway.
    No, rather questions/comments regarding non-clique posting tends to be ignored by non-clique posters.
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/375770-Ripping-Encoding-old-4-3-TV-shows-%28Aspect-...=1#post2423079
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/375299-Feeling-Lost-with-Interlaced-Video?p=2423418...=1#post2423418
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/374407-Optimal-480p-resolution-for-HEVC?p=2412187&v...=1#post2412187

    If you can put 23.976fps progressive video on a DVD with the appropriate 3:2 pulldown flags, why couldn't you do something similar for 29.970fps progressive?
    Last edited by hello_hello; 17th Dec 2015 at 05:56.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Yeah, I'm tired of getting drowned out by newbies who don't even want to understand, and yet still think they know better/more. I only partly put up with that from my own kids!
    Do you tell your kids they can't put 29.970fps progressive video on a DVD (or Bluray)?

    Encoding NTSC DVD from Progressive 29.97 Source
    Last edited by hello_hello; 17th Dec 2015 at 02:00.
    Quote Quote  
  13. I forgot to include Avisynth script, not sure exactly, you have 720p29.97p intermediate avi I think, where frames are duplicated , if I remember, then you need load that avi, get rid of every other frame, use blur (called as low pass filter), downsize ,then you load that into HcEncoder, script could look something like this:
    Code:
    AviSource("1280x720_59.94p.source.avi")
    selecteven()
    Blur(0,0.5) #low pass filter, value is up to you, for progressive source you do not have to bother at all
    Spline36Resize(720,480)
    #ResampleAudio(last,48000) #if you also make AC3 from this script, not sure what your audio is
    ColorMatrix(mode="Rec.709->Rec.601", clamp=0)
    the way how to resize or how to execute low pass filter could be perhaps done in or elaborate or sophisticated way, my videos are not that sharp, so I guess it is more than enough, that 0.5 vertical blur, even if I do not do that , nothing major would happen at all, never bother to investigate it really, this is more problem for interlace resizing (not your case), where was trying different variables and methods, ..., for progressive original from HV30 camcorder shot progressive (blurred anyway somehow) perhaps not that important and using 720p perhaps even less important
    Last edited by _Al_; 17th Dec 2015 at 01:56. Reason: forgot about colomatrix change from HD to SD!
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Do you tell your kids they can't put 29.970fps progressive video on a DVD (or Bluray)?

    Encoding NTSC DVD from Progressive 29.97 Source
    It's my guess the O.P. ain't concerned with any of this.

    I don't have kids. I have a bunch of nephews and god knows how many Italian cousins. I spoke with some of them last nite and today. They don't know video from beans and couldn't care less how they look or play. So there you have a pretty typical response. I have one nephew at a Fox station in the midwest who works with production. He says his outfit won't accept progressive video for broadcast without modifying it in some way. I mentioned the link you posted, and he said they do something similar with progressive source -- that is, if the source seems worth the effort, which most of it isn't. He gave several technical reasons for this policy, which is common in the industry and which I'm sure you already know about.

    His personal take is that progressive video at the usual 30 or 25 fps loses clarity every time something moves and often looks jumbled during pans and fast motion. Progressive video displays the same image for twice the duration of interlaced, while the latter changes the image twice during the same interval. You can try disabling or discounting the behavior of the persistence of human vision, but I think you'll have to wait a few million years for that to get cleared up. His is my personal take as well, even with 23.976fps BluRays that don't "move" as cleanly as they would on a movie screen or as interlaced (telecined) video.

    Yeah, interlace has its own problems, especially with sloppy processing or the typical bargain player or TV. LCD's don't handle motion so well anyway, interlaced or not. Some have no talent at all for it. This don't mean I think interlace or telecine are perfect either. With a good source and player, problems are rare. But you see those bad interlace and blend glitches in broadcasting all the time, because somebody in the lab didn't pay attention, didn't care, or had no choice.

    My nephew's other take, and mine too, is that reprocessing rarely improves anything, given a clean, proper source. This is an idea that smacks head-on against the current fad of recompressing and resizing everything in sight because some marketing myth or bozo website claims that some codecs and containers are always magically "better" than others, and the idea that digital video can't be damaged. We both use interlaced source for interlaced final delivery formats and progressive source for progressive formats. Instead of inflicting recompression or other re-processing loss for videos that don't meet any of those specs, what he and I do is keep that stuff as-is in appropriate containers for players that can handle them. In this case I realize a downscaled DVD version is needed -- I'm not arguing that a modern player won't "play" that conversion. Playing and looking the way it ought to with the given formats when not created to spec are two different things.

    I wonder how this 1080p BluRay got that way and what encoding and authoring apps passed it as-is with no complaint. I see a lot of 1080p 30fps videos in forums and the 'net. But most of it isn't "BlooRay", it's just generic 1080p video.

    You guys do what you want, which is what you'll do. Debates like this are a waste of time in general consumer forums.
    Last edited by LMotlow; 17th Dec 2015 at 11:45.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  15. A lots of judging and morals of how to thinking that others are stupid, kind of.
    I shoot 30p HD, it has more like "movie" feel, everyone is happy, I am restricted though, using ND filters and not be able to pan like crazy, but that is entirely a choice. To be explained by third party that this is wrong doing and not worthy to discuss this on general forum makes no sense at all. It needs to be discussed and explain it again and again what the restrictions are.

    Op uses 720p60, doubling frame rate for his Blu-Ray, again, who is going to judge who, that is very good decision if you ask me to get 30p source on Blu-Ray. What is the real resolution of camcorders and cameras anyway. His DVD/Blu-Ray authoring tool does not accept 1080p flagged as interlace. Even it should. It is about compromise , all the time. Broadcasters do it to us all the time, one has to forge a video footage that you frown upon folks do for whatever reason. Should we take out DV avi camcorders for them because:

    You could give broadcaster a perfect interlaced DVD, still not working in HD, burned by imgBurn, properly authored, have proper leading 1kHz sound at the beginning etc., and they can send it back to you saying that it is wrong, because their equipment (100 years old perhaps) for some reason could not read it. You have no problem with this DVD elsewhere. I'm talking about real interlaced DVD, not "progressive scan-interlaced flag DVD" , that is being discussed here. Then lecturing you how DVD should be done properly! So you start to give them DV tapes because of it! They do not accept simple mp4 for their broadcast. Things are changing now, theirs old equipment's finally giving up perhaps so they start introducing new techniques like , drum roll .... ftp so you can download something for them. 10 years after people use it on regular basis. Hopefully not needing it interlaced again.
    Last edited by _Al_; 17th Dec 2015 at 14:15.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    I have one nephew at a Fox station in the midwest who works with production. He says his outfit won't accept progressive video for broadcast without modifying it in some way. I mentioned the link you posted, and he said they do something similar with progressive source -- that is, if the source seems worth the effort, which most of it isn't. He gave several technical reasons for this policy, which is common in the industry and which I'm sure you already know about.

    His personal take is that progressive video at the usual 30 or 25 fps loses clarity every time something moves and often looks jumbled during pans and fast motion. Progressive video displays the same image for twice the duration of interlaced, while the latter changes the image twice during the same interval. You can try disabling or discounting the behavior of the persistence of human vision, but I think you'll have to wait a few million years for that to get cleared up. His is my personal take as well, even with 23.976fps BluRays that don't "move" as cleanly as they would on a movie screen or as interlaced (telecined) video.

    Yeah, interlace has its own problems, especially with sloppy processing or the typical bargain player or TV. LCD's don't handle motion so well anyway, interlaced or not. Some have no talent at all for it. This don't mean I think interlace or telecine are perfect either. With a good source and player, problems are rare. But you see those bad interlace and blend glitches in broadcasting all the time, because somebody in the lab didn't pay attention, didn't care, or had no choice.

    My nephew's other take, and mine too, is that reprocessing rarely improves anything, given a clean, proper source. This is an idea that smacks head-on against the current fad of recompressing and resizing everything in sight because some marketing myth or bozo website claims that some codecs and containers are always magically "better" than others, and the idea that digital video can't be damaged. We both use interlaced source for interlaced final delivery formats and progressive source for progressive formats. Instead of inflicting recompression or other re-processing loss for videos that don't meet any of those specs, what he and I do is keep that stuff as-is in appropriate containers for players that can handle them. In this case I realize a downscaled DVD version is needed -- I'm not arguing that a modern player won't "play" that conversion. Playing and looking the way it ought to with the given formats when not created to spec are two different things.

    I wonder how this 1080p BluRay got that way and what encoding and authoring apps passed it as-is with no complaint. I see a lot of 1080p 30fps videos in forums and the 'net. But most of it isn't "BlooRay", it's just generic 1080p video.

    You guys do what you want, which is what you'll do. Debates like this are a waste of time in general consumer forums.
    You keep going on about interlaced, how your nephew prefers interlaced, and I guess you think OP should go interlaced. To my knowledge, all FOX stations broadcast at 59.94fps 720p. They say this is because of the sports games they like to air, and they feel 720p does a better job at sports. So even though they broadcast in progressive, they probably want interlaced stuff so they can bob it from 29.97-->59.94. Otherwise they have to insert duplicate frames to get to 59.94. Something they certainly have to do for film frame rates.

    Bringing up FOX was silly, considering they don't do what your selling.

    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    We both use interlaced source for interlaced final delivery formats and progressive source for progressive formats.
    Odd because FOX only airs progressive.

    ------

    On a side note, ABC also does 59.94fps 720p and my local ABC station likes to air the old show "Forensic Files" at night. Anyway someone is completely screwing that show up. It's certainly an interlaced source but they are just re-sizing down(or maybe up) without deinterlacing. Damaging the video badly. No one seems to notice, even though this has been happening for a few years.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    You failed Reading Comprehension 101. Par for the course.
    I never said anything about 720p, which is valid for BluRay.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  18. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    You failed Reading Comprehension 101. Par for the course.
    I never said anything about 720p, which is valid for BluRay.
    Never said you did. But we are talking about putting progressive video on a DVD.

    Before I was just mentioning that FOX, which broadcasts at 59.94fps 720p ONLY, doesn't use interlacing. Yet your nephew who works at a FOX station, in production, seems to only like interlacing and likes to keep it interlaced. Which is odd.

    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    He says his outfit won't accept progressive video for broadcast without modifying it in some way.
    Quote Quote  
  19. btw. that 720p topic, that intermediate 720p , that was my presumption, I could be wrong, op can have 1080p29.97 intermediate, as he stated in his previous thread there was talk about 720p60 intermediate, or now perhaps there is another source or intermediate render, I don't know, he knows what to do with it now, but there were other parts of that question also ... already answered, except how to make 2:2 pulldown if he goes that way, btw. how common it is, 2:2 puldown, and how players are reliable to read those ?
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    You failed Reading Comprehension 101. Par for the course.
    I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black:
    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    I just finished authoring my first Blu-ray, but now it looks like I need to author a DVD. The masters are ProRes HQ 1920x1080p29.97.
    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    I guess BD and DVD specs don't mean jack around here. Thank god people here don't work on my family's stuff.
    Where did he say he authored a Blu-Ray of progressively encoded video? His source was a Pro-Res 1080p video. Obviously it had to be reencoded for Blu-ray, and just as obviously it had to be reencoded as interlaced (keeping the same progressive content), perhaps flagged as hello_hello suggested a few posts up. Or else it shouldn't author, right? But there you were, jumping in to criticize something with no evidence at all to support your disdain.

    You put in a lot of time helping people. Your input is invaluable sometimes. Your suggestions in that same post about resizing and low-pass filtering were helpful. Your snide comments littered throughout this thread are not.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    You guys miss the point. I talked to someone in TV production about 1080 and 420, not 720. Using round numbers:
    1080i 30fps = 60 unique fields (images) per second.
    720p 60fps - 60 unique frames (images) per second, at about the same power and transmission requirements as above.
    480i 30fps = 60 unique fields (images) per second.
    All three have the same temporal resolution.

    1080p encoded as interlaced is a neat trick. It outputs 60 images per sec, but 30 of them are alike. I don't say it won't play. But it's not 60 unique images per second.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  22. But how is it good for OP, that 1080 flagged as interlaced when he cannot author that stream?
    There is always something behind scenes, but to just give out there , oh you are stupid because I do not do it that way, it is not quite right.

    Nobody records footage for Blu-ray streams or broadcast exclusively , there is a huge array of devices that cannot even record like that. That was a last century thing. Blu-Ray is not here for fellow videomaker, home videos, it is here for Hollywood or as a back up of data (that can be played also today). Most, if deciding making Blu-ray, have to compromise at some point and forge his/her footage if deciding producing Blu-Ray or DVD. You started to mock that, if not who did you refer to? You were quite way off, not even admitting that he got his answers.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    It's my guess the O.P. ain't concerned with any of this.
    On what do you base that guess?
    Mind you, your original claim was encoding 29.970fps progressive video would be to ignore the DVD specs, and none of your post addresses the fact that claim appears not to be true.

    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    I have one nephew at a Fox station in the midwest who works with production. He says his outfit won't accept progressive video for broadcast without modifying it in some way. I mentioned the link you posted, and he said they do something similar with progressive source -- that is, if the source seems worth the effort, which most of it isn't. He gave several technical reasons for this policy, which is common in the industry and which I'm sure you already know about.
    No, I'm apparently completely oblivious to that one. How is it modified?

    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    His personal take is that progressive video at the usual 30 or 25 fps loses clarity every time something moves and often looks jumbled during pans and fast motion. Progressive video displays the same image for twice the duration of interlaced, while the latter changes the image twice during the same interval. You can try disabling or discounting the behavior of the persistence of human vision, but I think you'll have to wait a few million years for that to get cleared up. His is my personal take as well, even with 23.976fps BluRays that don't "move" as cleanly as they would on a movie screen or as interlaced (telecined) video.
    My question would be though, because I honestly don't understand, is how do you take progressive video and make it truly interlaced? For truly interlaced video, each field is a unique moment in time. For progressive video, they're not. So how do you take a 29.970fps progressive video and make it truly interlaced? Even if you can encode it as interlaced, when it's de-interlaced does that somehow give you 60 unique frames per second?
    I'm just trying to understand how you wouldn't end up with 30fps progressive, with every frame repeated for 60fps progressive, only a little blurred due to the interlacing/de-interlacing.

    I'd agree with some of what you said. Some modern TVs have a slow response time, blurring movement. For TVs with very fast response times (ie my Plasma) motion can sometimes look "jittery" which is due (I believe) to the sample and hold effect. Video with higher frame rates (50fps or 60fps) usually look much smoother, if you don't mind what some describe as the "soap opera" effect, and I'd always de-interlace to "full frame rate" using QTGMC for that reason. QTGMC does a much better job of de-interlacing than consumer players/TVs can though, so it's a reason to re-encode.
    I think that's mostly a result of display technology though, and not only frame rate. Film projected at 24fps on a screen looks smooth (well motion can be subject to a strobing effect) but it's not interlaced, and each frame is flashed two or three times on the screen.

    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    My nephew's other take, and mine too, is that reprocessing rarely improves anything, given a clean, proper source. This is an idea that smacks head-on against the current fad of recompressing and resizing everything in sight because some marketing myth or bozo website claims that some codecs and containers are always magically "better" than others, and the idea that digital video can't be damaged. We both use interlaced source for interlaced final delivery formats and progressive source for progressive formats. Instead of inflicting recompression or other re-processing loss for videos that don't meet any of those specs, what he and I do is keep that stuff as-is in appropriate containers for players that can handle them. In this case I realize a downscaled DVD version is needed -- I'm not arguing that a modern player won't "play" that conversion. Playing and looking the way it ought to with the given formats when not created to spec are two different things.
    I don't think you'd get much argument when it comes to "recompensing rarely improves anything" from anyone here. Thread after thread contains advice not to re-encode. There's still a plethora of reasons for re-encoding though that don't involve simply "recompressing" and nothing else. Even something as simple as cropping black bars. I watch 99.99% of video via a player connected to my TV at 1080p. That means 4:3 video isn't overscanned and the player adds pillarboxing (the TV has a 4:3 mode that does overscan but it's a pain to have to keep switching display modes). As a result, if there's ugly crud around the video I can see it, so I prefer to crop it, however with the application of filtering 90% of my encodes, especially of interlaced DVD sources, look better than the original.

    And what about the DVD aspect ratios you're so fond of? You do realise that players probably don't use the ITU/mpeg4 aspect ratios when connected to a TV over HDMI, because the HDMI spec is for exactly 16:9 and 4:3. No point arguing over pixel aspect ratios in forums if you're using a player that's going to display the video using the wrong PAR. The only way to ensure anamorphic video always displays with the correct aspect ratio (or the aspect ratio you believe is correct) is not to burn it as a complaint DVD/Bluray video disc. I've tested my TV in 16:9 mode (ie 720x576 or 720x480) and 4:3 mode and I'm pretty sure it resizes to exactly 16:9 and 4:3.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 17th Dec 2015 at 21:53.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    1080p encoded as interlaced is a neat trick.
    Not 'neat' at all. It's been common practice for many years. Just look at 99% of the PAL DVDs floating around. Progressive 25fps encoded as interlaced. And now with Blu-Ray, 1080p25 encoded as interlaced. Or 29.97fps NTSC DVDs with progressive 29.97fps content encoded as interlaced. And the same is possible with Blu-Ray Hi-Def progressive 29.97fps sources. Yes, only 30 unique images per second.
    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    But it's not 60 unique images per second.
    Yeah. So what? And since when was home video supposed to mimic broadcast practices? Did Blu-Ray screw up by allowing 24fps as part of the standard?
    Quote Quote  
  25. Sorry guys. I got a little busy and sort of forgot about this thread. I appreciate the discussion. Some good advice/links in there.
    I need to clarify a few things which will hopefully be useful. You can skip to the DVD workflow section if you want.

    Here is my (sometimes) HD workflow:
    I have a Canon Vixia HV40 that I set to HDV 29.97p native progressive Cine mode. Some of the time I record to tape in HDV 1440x1080p29.97. But most of the time I record via the HDMI out to an Atomos Ninja 2 which bypasses the in-cam compression and captures the 30p footage in ProRes HQ format as 1920x1080p29.97. I then dynamically link this footage as AE comps to PP timelines. For 2-pass encodes, I write out the timelines to Lagarith lossless intermediates in the same format, that is 1920x1080p29.97. The goal here is to use Avisynth filters for getting the footage in a compliant format and use AE/PP for post-production effects like grading, NR, transitions, etc.

    My HV40 is capable of other modes, but I don't like interlaced footage; I am not a broadcaster. I don't care for 24p footage either; I am not a film maker. I put myself more in the camp of a documentary maker.

    As some of you correctly recall, I recently came here looking for advice on how to get my 29.97p footage into a BD compliant format. The workflow I settled on involves using Avisynth to downrez to 1280x720, double the frame rate to 59.94p, then encode using x264 cli. The project had its ups and downs, but with everyone's help here, I powered through the difficulties and I am quite satisfied with the results.

    There is one problem, some people don't have the ability to play BD-Rs (e.g. xbox one owners). So now, I am faced with providing a DVD for them. Fortunately, I still have the Lagarith intermediates. But once again, I am faced with what to do with a non-standard format, i.e. 1920x1080p29.97.

    I know I have made my life unnecessarily difficult. However, thanks to you guys, I have the confidence to be obstinate about these sort of things because I know I can always turn here for solutions .

    Here is the DVD workflow I am currently testing:
    I did a quick test on my motion menu the other night using the following script:
    Code:
    Sharpen(0.5, 0)
    BlackmanResize(704, 480, taps=4)
    Blur(0, 0.6).Sharpen(0, 0.4)
    AddBorders(8,0,8,0)
    This got it into a 720x480p29.97 16:9 format when selecting the 40:33 PAR in vdub. Then I did a quick encode using HCenc and checked the boxes for progressive. When I imported the .m2v into Encore, the .m2v didn't trigger the Transcode flag. So I was pretty happy. I didn't test it on DVD Architect but will soon. Will it play on all players? That I don't know. I am also thinking that the Sharpen and Blur commands are really only necessary for interlaced material. I need to run some more tests. I have just been too busy to find the time. Maybe this weekend.

    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    That is a great link. Thanks.

    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    So just encode progressive and add 2:2 pulldown flags.
    Is this really necessary? Or maybe HCenc does it for me?

    Again. Thanks guys for all the help.
    Last edited by SameSelf; 18th Dec 2015 at 11:29.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    I did a quick test on my motion menu the other night using the following script:
    Code:
    Sharpen(0.5, 0)
    BlackmanResize(704, 480, taps=4)
    Blur(0, 0.6).Sharpen(0, 0.4)
    AddBorders(8,0,8,0)
    Since you are aiming for 16:9 you need all the horizontal resolution you can get, and I think those boarders would screw with the displayed aspect ratio. I would just resize down to 720x480 without addboarders(). Maybe someone can add to this if I missed anything.
    Quote Quote  
  27. I'd say, just resize Spline36Resize or that BlackManResize (perhaps sharper, it is just anyone's preference), especially Canon HV camcorder (not some helmet camera or cheap camera or something) , it is kind of soft image, shooting progressive, not sharp, I shoot 30p but with HV30, not Cinema mode though. That blurring afterwords seems too much. Footage doesn't not flicker as oppose to what would cause resizing of interlace HD, or better to say what would flicker after de-interlacing - resizing - re-interlacing it again
    Quote Quote  
  28. I wouldn't worry about flicker since your source is progressive and nobody watches on a CRT anymore. But watch out from oversharpening halos, buzzing edges, aliasing, moire artifacts, increased noise, and the other ills of too much sharpening.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member Skiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    Resizing to 704 and then adding borders for 720 is in line with the ITU Rec.601 spec. Some people say this spec does not (should not) apply to DVD-Video, while I think the true thing is it applies whenever video is converted between analog and digital (either direction) which nowadays with HDMI and modern TVs is of course not the case, so I admit there is a point in calling it wrong (but then again I could say the HDMI spec is wrong).

    Anyways, to avoid the whole hassle of it I would skip the borders and simply encode at 704x576, because that is just as DVD-compliant as 720x576.
    704x576 with 16:9 DAR, easy, no sweat and in line with all specs.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Also aspect ratio is not important at all in VirtualDub, lossless avi does not store aspect ratio anyway, how do you flag it anyway? You interpret footage (in properties for clip - if loading it into Vegas for example), give it aspect ratio in software that you load it into, 16:9. like HcEncoder. It goes without aspect ratio through Avisynth, no need for that.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!