Particular vid looks worse Blu-Ray to HDTV than on computer monitor

[brassplyer]

A particular video I'm working on doesn't look the same when played off Blu-Ray to a 1080p HDTV as it does played on a 1080p computer monitor. It's upscaled SD but I don't think the difference can be explained just due to being viewed at a larger size. Using an LG Blu-Ray player going to the tv via HDMI.

Where it's really noticeable is on longer shots - when viewed on the TV off Blu-Ray it takes on a sort of "Impressionist" blotchiness. On the computer monitor while obviously there's no more detail there's at least a smoothness to the image even when zoomed in - which is why I think the issue is something other than just being viewed larger on the tv. It's not a high-dollar tv but commercial Blu-Ray, homemade HD video Blu-Ray, OTA HD broadcasts, retro-TV channels that broadcast SD shows, commercial DVD that's been encoded with enough bitrate, video games all look fine on the tv.

Playing the raw m2t file through the Blu-Ray player has the same issue. Progressive or interlaced no difference. Upscaled to 720 or 1080 same. Using what I'm sure is an overkill bitrate - 20mbps. The file started as a VHS capture to DVD I got from someone else. De-noised with Neat Video, deinterlaced with QTGMC, upscaled with Avisynth Lanczos4resize, rendered as m2t in Vegas Pro 9.

Since I can't screen shot what it looks like on the TV on my end, I'm including a link to a short 29 meg sample m2t you can burn to disk and see if you get the same results. Both a distant and closeup shot. The closeup shot of the trumpet player looks decent, the more distant shot of the band is where the problem is really obvious.


960 x 720 m2t file:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0zvAZXgfLgiOFhPcUotVDZmakk/view?usp=sharing


Is there some fundamental difference in how the Blu-Ray player and/or TV handles the file vs. the computer? What if anything can I do to make it look the same on the TV as it does on the monitor?

Thanks for all input.

[LMotlow]

No matter how it's played it looks like crap.

[poisondeathray]

In terms of the file itself, the levels are "illegal" full range 0-255 . This might have something to do with the discrepancy but that should be fixed eitherway . Different equipment handle "illegal" levels slightly differently . Perhaps one or more of your display setups are not calibrated correctly or at least differently

Also it would need to be pillarboxed for authored BD, but not as a file for playback (from usb)

[jagabo]

Levels are wrong, it's been poorly bob deinterlaced, too much noise reduction has been applied, and colors are washed out. It probably should have looked more like this (original on the left, adjusted on the right):


[Attachment 40101 - Click to enlarge]

As to why it looks different on your TV, TVs are usually set up to increase contrast, saturate colors, reduce noise, and sharpen the picture -- because that caricature sells in the showroom. If you go through the controls on your TV and turn off all those over-processing filters the picture will look a lot like your computer monitor (assuming both are otherwise not set too far out of whack, and neither your blu-ray player, graphics card, or media player is set up incorrectly).

[brassplyer]

Levels are wrong, it's been poorly bob deinterlaced, too much noise reduction has been applied, and colors are washed out. It probably should have looked more like this (original on the left, adjusted on the right):

It was deinterlaced with QTGMC.

What are you seeing that leads you to say it was poorly deinterlaced?

As to why it looks different on your TV, TVs are usually set up to increase contrast, saturate colors, reduce noise, and sharpen the picture -- because that caricature sells in the showroom. If you go through the controls on your TV and turn off all those over-processing filters the picture will look a lot like your computer monitor (assuming both are otherwise not set too far out of whack, and neither your blu-ray player, graphics card, or media player is set up incorrectly).

The levels on the TV are set middle of the road - I played with them somewhat but nothing made a difference in the fundamental issue described above. Haven't done any setup on the player, I'm not aware of what setup is even possible on it.

[brassplyer]

No matter how it's played it looks like crap.

So you woke up today and decided you needed to add noise to a thread without contributing any useful information - how about that. Apparently there has to be at least one in every thread. Not a big surprise why you have PM's turned off.

[jagabo]

Levels are wrong, it's been poorly bob deinterlaced, too much noise reduction has been applied, and colors are washed out. It probably should have looked more like this (original on the left, adjusted on the right):

It was deinterlaced with QTGMC.

First of all, why did you not upload the original video? You've complicated matters by reencoding. Nobody can say for sure what problems were in the original BD video and what problems you created.

What are you seeing that leads you to say it was poorly deinterlaced?

Because the picture is bouncing up and down with each frame. It looks to me like the original source was 480i and it was bob deinterlaced then reencoded as interlaced 1080i on the BD. Then you deinterlaced with QTGMC and downscaled to 720p.

As to why it looks different on your TV, TVs are usually set up to increase contrast, saturate colors, reduce noise, and sharpen the picture -- because that caricature sells in the showroom. If you go through the controls on your TV and turn off all those over-processing filters the picture will look a lot like your computer monitor (assuming both are otherwise not set too far out of whack, and neither your blu-ray player, graphics card, or media player is set up incorrectly).

The levels on the TV are set middle of the road - I played with them somewhat but nothing made a difference in the fundamental issue described above. Haven't done any setup on the player, I'm not aware of what setup is even possible on it.

You're looking in the wrong place. Find the settings for things like auto brightness, contrast, color, skin tone, noise reduction, etc. Turn all those automatic adjustments off. All they do is screw up the picture.

[JVRaines]

Where it's really noticeable is on longer shots - when viewed on the TV off Blu-Ray it takes on a sort of "Impressionist" blotchiness.

Maybe the firmware decoder in your Blu-ray player doesn't do as good a job as the software decoder in your computer. Or maybe it's the TV. I would try playing the file from your computer to the TV.

[LMotlow]

No matter how it's played it looks like crap.

So you woke up today and decided you needed to add noise to a thread without contributing any useful information - how about that. Apparently there has to be at least one in every thread. Not a big surprise why you have PM's turned off.

You're the one who's creating video noise and posting it in public, not me.

No matter how it's played it looks like crap.

[brassplyer]

Levels are wrong, it's been poorly bob deinterlaced, too much noise reduction has been applied, and colors are washed out. It probably should have looked more like this (original on the left, adjusted on the right):

It was deinterlaced with QTGMC.

First of all, why did you not upload the original video? You've complicated matters by reencoding. Nobody can say for sure what problems were in the original BD video and what problems you created.

BD = Blu-Ray Disk? I'm not sure what you mean when you say the original video? The m2t file is the file I create in Vegas Pro from the .avi file that then gets processed to Blue-Ray in DVD Architect. That's the way I've been doing it.

Do you mean the original .VOB/MPEG file as it came off the DVD before deinterlacing, noise reduction, trimming? Or are you referring to the HuffYUV .avi file that the m2t file was made from?

To cover both bases -

A 22 sec sample of the original .vob file right off the DVD as I got it - about 24 megs. Trimmed with Mpg2Cut2. It's unaltered as far as I'm aware. I just discovered Mpg2Cut2 as a result of this thread.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0zvAZXgfLgibFlWaVhLc0REdDQ/view?usp=sharing

Here's 10 seconds of the HuffYUV file - about 233 megs. No audio. This is the result of processing the above with NeatVideo, trimming and deinterlacing.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0zvAZXgfLgiTXZxZHpkblBYX2s/view?usp=sharing

[theewizard]

maybe he means the source AVI , before you do 'anything' to it

[brassplyer]

maybe he means the source AVI , before you do 'anything' to it

It's been a while since I created it but I'm pretty sure I went directly from the original .mpg file off the DVD to either deinterlacing or noise reduction. IIRC trying to do both at the same time didn't work. But I'm pretty sure I didn't make an avi off the mpeg that was otherwise unprocessed. How I create the mpeg in the first place is by extracting the DVD content with Pinnacle Studio, which is about the only thing I use Pinnacle for these days.

[awgie]

No matter how it's played it looks like crap.

So you woke up today and decided you needed to add noise to a thread without contributing any useful information - how about that. Apparently there has to be at least one in every thread. Not a big surprise why you have PM's turned off.

You're the one who's creating video noise and posting it in public, not me.

No matter how it's played it looks like crap.

He's asking for help with his video. You're not helping. If you can't contribute anything useful to the discussion, then keep your pie hole shut. Your comments on other threads show you have a history of being a jerk, and your "participation" in this thread isn't helping your image any.

[LMotlow]

He's asking for help with his video. You're not helping. If you can't contribute anything useful to the discussion, then keep your pie hole shut. Your comments on other threads show you have a history of being a jerk, and your "participation" in this thread isn't helping your image any.

Point taken, awgie, but you do get tired of going over the same material with the same member for several years now. As far as I can tell in all that time it's going over the same processes again and again. I find that annoying, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you feel as if you re wasting your time, responding to a wall, and reading the same posts over and over? Valid video levels, color balance, working with a calibrated monitor.....Forget it. Maybe it's entertainment to some.

[awgie]

Point taken, awgie, but you do get tired of going over the same material with the same member for several years now. As far as I can tell in all that time it's going over the same processes again and again. I find that annoying, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you feel as if you re wasting your time, responding to a wall, and reading the same posts over and over? Valid video levels, color balance, working with a calibrated monitor.....Forget it. Maybe it's entertainment to some.

In case you haven't noticed, each person has a different learning speed and capacity. In fact, I have dealt with people who never get it. If you don't understand that simple fact, you probably shouldn't be offering anyone assistance.

It's not like he's calling you up on the phone and asking you personally for advice (and even if he were, unless you're bound by a contract to try and help him, you could just hang up). This is a public (more or less) forum - he's asking everyone. If you're annoyed by what seems like the same questions just asked in a different way, then just ignore him. No one's going to fault you for not joining the conversation when you don't feel it will do any good. But making useless comments instead of giving helpful advice is still wasting your time, and it also makes you look bad.

[LMotlow]

Let's cut it short. You'll get the idea eventually, as well. Just keep paying attention.

[brassplyer]

He's asking for help with his video. You're not helping. If you can't contribute anything useful to the discussion, then keep your pie hole shut. Your comments on other threads show you have a history of being a jerk, and your "participation" in this thread isn't helping your image any.

Point taken, awgie,

Lol - you don't take the point at all, not even a little. Simplest thing in the world to simply not participate. Who the fvck are you? Who made you the arbiter of forum content? If your psyche is so delicate that you simply can't deal with seeing a thread title - too bad. How empty is your life, how miswired and shriveled is your psychology that this is how you seek stimulation? I have never once, in my entire life felt motivated to do what you're doing. I don't participate in topics that are of no interest. You're one of these a$$holes who's devoted to not recognizing that you're an a$$hole, compelled to hurl your bu11sh!t by nothing other than your own dysfunctionality. Your presence in this thread serves no purpose whatsoever. Take your personality disorder elsewhere.

[LMotlow]

brassplayer, I've been reading your posts and watching you make a mess of videos for some years now, and you just have a way of repeating the same mistakes and omissions over and over, getting the same results but expecting something else. Every time you get a critique of your stuff all we see is a "Yes, but--" reply and the same crap shows up again a few weeks or months or years later. Boring.

My life has plenty to keep me busy. One of life's bennies is having a site like this one, where there are plenty of examples of how not to work with video. If you really value criticism I'd offer it, but you've successfully ignored almost every critique. I don't agree that it's just a matter of catching on. It's more like you keep trying to re-invent the wheel but you keep getting rectangles and don't accept the reasons for it.

[brassplyer]

Boring.

Uh huh. I refer you to this.

[brassplyer]

What are you seeing that leads you to say it was poorly deinterlaced?

Because the picture is bouncing up and down with each frame.

Going back to the original VOB file as per the link above and applying this deinterlace script

SetMemoryMax(1024)
SetMTMode(3,4)
FFMpegSource2("W:\sourcefile.VOB")
SetMTMode(2)
AssumeTFF()
ConvertToYV12()
QTGMC(Preset="slow")

I see the frame to frame image bounce when scrolling in Virtualdub. MediaInfo confirms the file is TFF. I assumed it's related to the offset of the fields.

I can make it stop doing it by adding

SelectEven()
convertfps(59.94)

As I understand it this retains half the original fields and creates interpolated fields that aren't offset. Is it possible to retain all the original fields and still eliminate the bounce? Is there a reason to care about retaining the original fields?

My reason for deinterlacing in the first place would be to either to create progressive video or to facilitate cropping without screwing up the interlacing, going back to interlaced after cropping.

[jagabo]

Going back to the original VOB file

So you are starting with a DVD?

as per the link above and applying this deinterlace script

SetMemoryMax(1024)
SetMTMode(3,4)
FFMpegSource2("W:\sourcefile.VOB")
SetMTMode(2)
AssumeTFF()
ConvertToYV12()
QTGMC(Preset="slow")

You should use ConvertToYV12(interlaced=true) instead of just ConvertToYV12(). But I don't think that's causing your bounce. And I would use DgIndex/Mpeg2Source instead of ffmpeg. It's much more reliable for DVD MPEG 2.

I see the frame to frame image bounce when scrolling in Virtualdub.

MediaInfo confirms the file is TFF.

I wouldn't blindly trust MediaInfo. Use your own eyes. The result from QTGMC() appears to confirm it's TFF. Though, with the bounce problem, I'm not sure I'd trust that either.

I assumed it's related to the offset of the fields.

Yes, but QTGMC() is supposed to "fix" the bounce. It's not clear why it isn't doing so here. The sample you have provided is too far away from the source to give adequate analysis.

I can make it stop doing it by adding

SelectEven()
convertfps(59.94)

As I understand it this retains half the original fields and creates interpolated fields that aren't offset.

It produces blended frames between the remaining original frames. The blended frames look very blurry when there is motion -- as they are basically double exposures. I'd probably use ConvertFPS (exact duplicates, jerky but maybe acceptable) or motion interpolation instead.

Is it possible to retain all the original fields and still eliminate the bounce?

There is something unusual going on here. You'll have to upload a short segment of your original MPEG 2 video (not re-encoded) for analysis.

Is there a reason to care about retaining the original fields?

You'll get smoother motion.

[brassplyer]

In case you haven't noticed, each person has a different learning speed and capacity. In fact, I have dealt with people who never get it. If you don't understand that simple fact, you probably shouldn't be offering anyone assistance.

I do this as a sporadic hobby along with audio recording. I'm not possessed of a learning disability, what I've never had time to do is really make an in-depth study of video tech. So I get it in dribs and drabs quite conscious that there are gaping holes in my awareness. One of the areas I'd really like to understand better is color spaces which is a murky topic to me.

What flew over Boy Genius's head preoccupied as he is by his zeal to indulge his psychopathology is that clearly I'm aware there's a problem - otherwise I wouldn't be here asking questions.

I appreciate those who take time to offer input, I have no patience for those participants that for whatever reason seem to lurk in tech forums who have a compulsion to be uncivil assclowns. I have to laugh - years ago SNL actually did a skit about a-hole IT guys - apparently they tend to be afflicted by social autism. No one who the shoe doesn't fit should be offended.

What I've ended up doing is starting over with this particular file. Went back to the original DVD but redid how I'm reinterlacing it since Jagabo brought up the issue with the image bouncing. Also being conscious of frame order and specifying exact frame rates - i.e. 59.94 instead of 60, etc. One thing I have learned is there can be a narrow path to getting it right - forget or be unaware of one parameter change on one app in the chain and the whole thing can be screwed up. I'll see if it looks better on the tv.

[brassplyer]

Going back to the original VOB file

So you are starting with a DVD?

Correct. It was sent to me, I didn't make the capture.

as per the link above and applying this deinterlace script

SetMemoryMax(1024)
SetMTMode(3,4)
FFMpegSource2("W:\sourcefile.VOB")
SetMTMode(2)
AssumeTFF()
ConvertToYV12()
QTGMC(Preset="slow")

You should use ConvertToYV12(interlaced=true) instead of just ConvertToYV12(). But I don't think that's causing your bounce. And I would use DgIndex/Mpeg2Source instead of ffmpeg. It's much more reliable for DVD MPEG 2.

Okay, thanks! Taking notes.

Is it possible to retain all the original fields and still eliminate the bounce?

There is something unusual going on here. You'll have to upload a short segment of your original MPEG 2 video (not re-encoded) for analysis.

That's this which is a segment of the original, unprocessed VOB file from the source DVD trimmed with Mpg2Cut2.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0zvAZXgfLgibFlWaVhLc0REdDQ/view?usp=sharing

[jagabo]

I'm getting the same bounce with QTGMC. I'll look into it more later but here's a workaround. Instead of using QTGMC(preset="slow") use:

SeparateFields()
nnedi3(dh=true)
QTGMC(InputType=1)

SeparateFields and nnedi3 do the double frame rate deinterlace and QTGMC does some cleanup.

I don't know if it will help with your TV display issue. Maybe the TV was getting confused by the bounce?

[LMotlow]

Cool. Now if we can convince the O.P. yo dyop wrecking the aspect ratio by6 stretching the 9mqge horizontally....
That stretch put 40 pounds onto Doc Severinsen and turned those lighted background circles into ovals. Those were dead giveaways that the image proportions were distorted.

[_Al_]

that bouncing is weird, first op's 960x720 m2t, it is just depends on area or object in a frame, like caused by wrong chroma resize or something

[LMotlow]

I didn't get a bounce from the VOB and QTGMC. Maybe because I demuxed the thing first ? (NIC audio gave me an error about missing header info in the audio track). Maybe. But don't you think Doc looks better at his natural weight without his head stretched out, and those lights in the background should be circles, not eggs. Maybe something like the attached mp4. I didn't do all the denoising, just QTGMC. But cropping off the sides and then stretching the results out to 960 is, uh, well, looks a little strange, like a processing mistake, don't it?

Cut off the stuff on the borders you didn't want, and then crop off the bottom and top noise, gives you a 662x468 image:

Crop(22,2,-36,-10) #image is 662x468

The aspect ratio of that image if displayed as "4:3" won't be 1.3333:1, it would be about 1.2906:1. To upsize that to 720p square pixels and keep the same image ratio so that the humans could recognize themselves would be a resize to 930x720. Then add the side pixels to give you the regulation frame size for 1280x720 @60p (and don't forget the color matrix):

Spline36Resize(928,720).AddBorders(176,0,176,0)
ColorMatrix(mode="Rec.601->Rec.709")

[jagabo]

I didn't get a bounce from the VOB and QTGMC. Maybe because I demuxed the thing first ?

It's not the demuxing. It looks like it's the preset. Very Fast and Faster don't show the bouncing (but suffer from worse aliasing). Faster, Fast, Slow, etc. do.

[brassplyer]

MediaInfo confirms the file is TFF.

I wouldn't blindly trust MediaInfo.

Btw, I'm glad you mentioned this - as it happens as part of the process I've been first converting the VOB into a MainConcept DV .avi file since the deinterlace, resize & reinterlace script was choking if the starting file is HuffYUV. When I looked at the DV file MediaInfo was saying it was BFF even though the VOB is TFF.

Sure enough, when I verified the field order with the internal Virtualdub deinterlacer looking for the back and forth mambo when the field order is set wrong, it verified it as TFF. I hadn't been aware that MediaInfo could be in error like that - good to be aware of. Thanks!

Is there an info utility that's more solid?

[JVRaines]

I hadn't been aware that MediaInfo could be in error like that - good to be aware of. Thanks!

Is there an info utility that's more solid?

Try ffprobe from the ffmpeg package.