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.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 90
Thread
-
-
- My sister Ann's brother
-
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.
-
- My sister Ann's brother
-
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 -
-
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 -
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. -
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:Last edited by _Al_; 17th Dec 2015 at 01:43.
-
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
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.
-
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 SourceLast edited by hello_hello; 17th Dec 2015 at 02:00.
-
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)
Last edited by _Al_; 17th Dec 2015 at 01:56. Reason: forgot about colomatrix change from HD to SD!
-
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 -
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.
-
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.
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. -
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 -
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.
-
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 ?
-
I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black:
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. -
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 -
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. -
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.
No, I'm apparently completely oblivious to that one. How is it modified?
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.
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.
-
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.
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? -
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)
That is a great link. Thanks.
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.
-
-
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
-
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.
-
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. -
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.
Similar Threads
-
Need some encoding advice
By sanzo778 in forum EditingReplies: 2Last Post: 27th May 2014, 21:00 -
Program Advice
By abescalamis in forum Video ConversionReplies: 4Last Post: 5th Apr 2014, 06:54 -
Need advice on new laptop!
By djluis48 in forum ComputerReplies: 9Last Post: 5th Feb 2014, 17:32 -
New TV: Need Some Advice
By Tom Saurus in forum ComputerReplies: 20Last Post: 29th Jan 2013, 15:28 -
Need advice
By Nator in forum ComputerReplies: 2Last Post: 29th Mar 2012, 11:06