VideoHelp Forum

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 61 to 78 of 78
Thread
  1. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    Skiller's point, as I understand it, was that this is technically a distortion of the original signal. An accurate presentation of the video as seen on some theoretical, perfectly-calibrated CRT of the time would have the horizontal center precisely in the center of the horizontal sync pulses, no? And once digitized, the picture center is defined by spec. He's speaking of the center as originally "framed up", not in terms of where the edges of blanking sit in a final broadcast after it's passed through many signal chains
    Again, it's theory vs practice. First of all, CRT cuts off more than just blanking area. It literally takes a big chunk of the active area, I use to alter CRT TV's back in the day to get more picture out of them by re-adjusting the Hsync and Vsync, Second of all, tapes are not always original masters, dubs are always made and things can change quite a bit. 3rd, Video recorders and cameras don't have the exact same blanking intervals. 4th, Telecine machines and graphics generators have weird black borders all around the frame.... I can go on and on but this is what textbook vs practice means.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Hey guys- sorry for the absence but been busy. I now have all my Video8 tapes transferred to my PC as AVIs via the DV/Firewire from my Digital8 camera (using WinDV). All files are approx. 25GB (for the tapes that were full at least). If I want to do some simple edits in Premier Pro like splice things together, remove blank sections, do slight color and exposure correction, etc.., what is my best bet for Sequence settings and Export settings? What output format/settings do I want for videos that I will be sharing either via flash drives or via uploading to YouTube, Drive, Vimeo, etc?

    I have tried several formats with different settings so far and I either get an output that is reasonable size but doesn't look great compared to the detail that the original AVI had (like H.264 with adaptive med. bitrate), or I get an output that is fairly close looking to the original/good detail, but at a similarly humongous size to the original (like Quicktime>DV25 NTSC or Apple ProRes or GoPro Cineform), which is just too large for sharing/viewing.

    End goal is to apply my edits and export these to a common format that will look close to or the same as the original AVIs at a more reasonable size and also be playable on most PCs/devices and/or uploadable to a video site like YT.

    Any help is appreciated!


    EDIT: Also, all of the original DV captured 720x480 AVIs all have very thin black borders on the left and right sides (approx. 7 pixels wide on each side) as well as an ever moving/changing scrambled bar/segment at the bottom throughout all the videos also about 7 pixels (tall) - I would like to also deal with all of these things while doing the editing/exporting if possible, keeping in mind the ideal resolution/dimensions I would want to have for the methods that these videos will be watched that I mentioned above. For the bottom scrambled bar, I know I can crop that out during the Premier export, but I'm sure that will mess up my dimensions if I don't account for that and the left/right side bars as well - so I really need your advice please! Thank you
    Last edited by just4747; 17th May 2022 at 01:28.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by just4747 View Post
    I have tried several formats with different settings so far and I either get an output that is reasonable size but doesn't look great compared to the detail that the original AVI had (like H.264 with adaptive med. bitrate), or I get an output that is fairly close looking to the original/good detail, but at a similarly humongous size to the original (like Quicktime>DV25 NTSC or Apple ProRes or GoPro Cineform), which is just too large for sharing/viewing.
    Any re-compression/re-encoding for obtaining a lower file size (i.e. lower video bitrate) will in general reduce the quality. You will have to find the balance what is acceptable for you. Also, when you convert NTSC DV to H.264 AVC YV12 you will get some minor loss due to the 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 color subsampling conversion. Did you deinterlace or keep it interlaced?
    I don't use PremierPro so someone else may give better advice re. its export options and settings, but basically one can cut left and right 8 pixels (720, 480 -> 704,480), resize to square pixels 640,480 which is 4:3, and leave the bottom head switching crud alone or mask it (cut and replace by clean black such as to keep the 480 height intact). This should play correctly on any player.
    Last edited by Sharc; 17th May 2022 at 07:55. Reason: typos
    Quote Quote  
  4. Originally Posted by Sharc View Post
    Originally Posted by just4747 View Post
    I have tried several formats with different settings so far and I either get an output that is reasonable size but doesn't look great compared to the detail that the original AVI had (like H.264 with adaptive med. bitrate), or I get an output that is fairly close looking to the original/good detail, but at a similarly humongous size to the original (like Quicktime>DV25 NTSC or Apple ProRes or GoPro Cineform), which is just too large for sharing/viewing.
    Any re-compression/re-encoding for obtaining a lower file size (i.e. lower video bitrate) will in general reduce the quality. You will have to find the balance what is acceptable for you. Also, when you convert NTSC DV to H.264 AVC YV12 you will get some minor loss due to the 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 color subsampling conversion. Did you deinterlace or keep it interlaced?
    I don't use PremierPro so someone else may give better advice re. its export options and settings, but basically one can cut left and right 8 pixels (720, 480 -> 704,480), resize to square pixels 640,480 which is 4:3, and leave the bottom head switching crud alone or mask it (cut and replace by clean black such as to keep the 480 height intact). This should play correctly on any player.
    Thank you for the info. Going to look more into this tomorrow with the above in mind.
    As far as deinterlacing, I don't know much about that. Is it something I should be dealing with? How/when do you deinterlace and do I want to do that?

    Also the resizing info you gave makes sense to me and I will attempt to do that and see the outcome. I think I def do want to crop or mask the bottom as it's pretty distracting.

    As far as format for exporting, do you have any other suggestions on what format and general settings to try in order to get something closer to the look of the original AVIs with a reasonable file size that is better looking than the H.264 format?
    While it's watchable, there is noticeable detail lost with H.264 and I would think that for digitized footage from a Video8 tape, it shouldn't be too difficult to get pretty close looking quality in a smaller file size (though I may be wrong). I'm not sure if I need to be looking more at different format, or bitrate stuff or what...just so many settings.

    Thanks!
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by just4747 View Post
    As far as format for exporting, do you have any other suggestions on what format and general settings to try in order to get something closer to the look of the original AVIs with a reasonable file size that is better looking than the H.264 format?
    While it's watchable, there is noticeable detail lost with H.264 and I would think that for digitized footage from a Video8 tape, it shouldn't be too difficult to get pretty close looking quality in a smaller file size (though I may be wrong). I'm not sure if I need to be looking more at different format, or bitrate stuff or what...just so many settings.
    As I said I can't help with Premier Pro, and I dont see your result.
    So here a H.264 (x264) reencode of your sample: deinterlaced to 60p, cropped, slight filtering, resized to square pixel, padded to 640x480 frame size, encoded with x264 (H.264). The file size is reduced from 56 MB to about 10MB. Would this be accepatable for you, or do you still see too much loss of details?
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by just4747 View Post
    What output format/settings do I want for videos that I will be sharing either via flash drives or via uploading to YouTube, Drive, Vimeo, etc?
    Originally Posted by just4747 View Post
    As far as deinterlacing, I don't know much about that. Is it something I should be dealing with? How/when do you deinterlace and do I want to do that?
    For uploading to YouTube preserving the original image rate you need to deinterlace to 60p and upscale to at least 720p. YouTube allows non-widescreen HD videos. I suggest switching to square pixels as they are easier to work with, and YouTube will re-encode into square pixels anyway. Anything else I can say on the topic is in this video. Oh, this one too, regarding interlacing.
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	deinterlaced-and-not.jpg
Views:	10
Size:	188.9 KB
ID:	64872  

    Quote Quote  
  7. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    720p is SD per youtube, If quality is important the minimum is 1080p. 720 lines has no purpose nowadays, display panels are increments of 1080 sets of resolutions (2k, 4k, 8k ...).
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Dellsam
    If quality is important the minimum is 1080p
    If what you're referring to is H264 encoding verses the better VP9, then you currently need to upload at least 1440P to Youtube. 1080 will not get you VP9 (although I have read a theory that if you have many many thousands of subscribers, you'll get VP9 at 1080, and I see very popular videos are now AV1).
    Quote Quote  
  9. This thread has gradually run off topic ....
    @ just4747: if you want help for post processing and editing of your Video8/DV captures (with Premiere Pro or similar) you may get more focused responses with a new thread which adresses this subject specifically, or maybe Adobe has a support forum for Premiere Pro?
    Last edited by Sharc; 20th May 2022 at 05:46.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member Skiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    720p is SD per youtube, If quality is important the minimum is 1080p.
    They removed the "HD" badge from 720p but that doesn't make any difference to the encoding. If you want to upload SD content to YouTube, upscaling to 720p is still way better than uploading at the video's native SD res.
    Of course the (currently) best encoding quality would be archived by 1440p, but that makes for some huge files to upload. 720p always was and still is an acceptable compromise.


    Actually, I very rarely I select 1080p or even higher in YouTube because it makes jumping on the timeline too sluggish.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    720 requires resizing twice, once in software and another during displaying contents, It doesn't make sense to me. But if you are talking about the majority of people who watch on the tiny phone screen or a reduced window on computer I guess it won't matter. sluggish jumps in 1080p sounds like a personal problem to me.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member Skiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    There is going to be more than one instance of resizing in most playback scenarios anyways, as you pointed out. Scaling artefacts are an issue with detailed content that approaches the resolution of the video not so much with upscaled stuff where the actual amount of detail is miles below the resolution of the upscaled video. With a blurry video, there is not much potential damage a rescaling algorithm could introduce. Compression is much worse of a quality drop in almost any case of online videos anyways.


    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    sluggish jumps in 1080p sounds like a personal problem to me.
    It's because more data needs to be buffered first before playback may continue. Although with a very fast internet connection speed the difference may drop into insignificance, but not for me.
    Last edited by Skiller; 22nd May 2022 at 18:01. Reason: typo
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by Skiller View Post
    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    720p is SD per youtube, If quality is important the minimum is 1080p.
    They removed the "HD" badge from 720p but that doesn't make any difference to the encoding. If you want to upload SD content to YouTube, upscaling to 720p is still way better than uploading at the video's native SD res.
    Of course the (currently) best encoding quality would be archived by 1440p, but that makes for some huge files to upload. 720p always was and still is an acceptable compromise.
    Actually, I very rarely I select 1080p or even higher in YouTube because it makes jumping on the timeline too sluggish.
    I couldn't say better than this, co-signed
    Quote Quote  
  14. To me the major reason to upscale is getting 60 fps. I saw many videos shot with HD cameras but uploaded at 480p that looked very good, better than VHS upscaled to HD. If there is no information to begin with, upscaling is pointless.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Skiller View Post
    They removed the "HD" badge from 720p but that doesn't make any difference to the encoding.
    It does, based on my personal tests which anyone can do by the way, I took a raw SD file and made two upscaled versions, one 720p and one 1080p both were still lossless (HuffYUV) and uploaded them to youtube and downloaded them back to computer, comparing them frame by frame the compression artifacts were more pronounced in the 720p version especially in bright to dark transition scenes and fast moving objects. Results may vary based on contents off course.

    But again, 720p is a useless middle man, there is no native display panels support it and a resize will eventually happen during displaying the contents which could be horrible in low end display panels so may as well do it in software with better tools and be done with it once and for all.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member Skiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    comparing them frame by frame the compression artifacts were more pronounced in the 720p version especially in bright to dark transition scenes and fast moving objects.
    Yes, of course the 1080p encoding looks better than 720p. It has always been like that. It was the same when 720p still had the HD badge. Nothing new here. YouTube has always had this unfair behaviour of increasing bitrate penalties the lower the resolution. So for anything to change, the 720p encoding would have to have dropped in quality when the HD badge was removed, but that is not the case. Nothing changed, except the HD badge was removed for 720p.

    It doesn't change the fact that 720p is a substantial upgrade in bitrate compared to 480p which is why it makes upscaled SD look better. I never said it's the pinnacle in quality. It's a fair compromise.



    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    But again, 720p is a useless middle man, there is no native display panels support it and a resize will eventually happen during displaying the contents which could be horrible in low end display panels so may as well do it in software with better tools and be done with it once and for all.
    How would a display have to do the resize? Isn't it always done in software with online video, unless I'm missing some playback scenario here?
    Quote Quote  
  17. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by themaster1 View Post
    Originally Posted by Skiller View Post
    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    720p is SD per youtube, If quality is important the minimum is 1080p.
    They removed the "HD" badge from 720p but that doesn't make any difference to the encoding. If you want to upload SD content to YouTube, upscaling to 720p is still way better than uploading at the video's native SD res.
    Of course the (currently) best encoding quality would be archived by 1440p, but that makes for some huge files to upload. 720p always was and still is an acceptable compromise.
    Actually, I very rarely I select 1080p or even higher in YouTube because it makes jumping on the timeline too sluggish.
    I couldn't say better than this, co-signed
    This has been my stance for years now.

    Youtube isn't my yardstick for quality. It does what it does, I do what I need to do.

    I reserve 1080p for mixed-source documentary-style work. That's becoming more common, and as a result I have to upload more HD. But for samples and snippets, 720p shows all that is needed.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Skiller View Post
    Yes, of course the 1080p encoding looks better than 720p. It has always been like that. It was the same when 720p still had the HD badge. Nothing new here. YouTube has always had this unfair behaviour of increasing bitrate penalties the lower the resolution.
    Fair enough.

    How would a display have to do the resize? Isn't it always done in software with online video, unless I'm missing some playback scenario here?
    I don't know, I guess resize and upscale can be used interchangeably for either a software or a screen display. Do they have official definitions?
    Last edited by dellsam34; 22nd May 2022 at 19:39.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads