Intresting huffman stuff

[baker]

edit caues I am a prick

Huffman is kind of lossless. Put in a very noisy source and watch what happens.

Pic video can be made to give quite good results, I reccomend it.

sub sampling at 1/1/1 and no luminace quailty.

Baker[/u]

[kitty]

Hmmm - many people use this with good results.

As the prophet said: Knives don't kill people, people kill people.

[Truman]

don't drink and post

[mickle]

So what is exactly wrong with it?

I use it all the time and find the results much better than picvideo mjpeg codec.

Mike

[snowmoon]

huffyuv works much better than all other codecs.... presuming you have the space and bandwidth. I would use it all the time if I had more than a 5400 rpm DMA33 drive.

[baker]

It depends on your source.

I was capturing from a noisy vcr source and coulodn't believe how crap it was, mjpeg clearly beat it. I think it may depend on your source. But I will be deffenetly be giving pic vid anther chance.

Baker

[vhelp]

evening baker, others.

basically, the pic is just another form of filter (in addition to) it being
a codec - and a pretty decent one at that. I've use it a few times in
the past, but continued w/ huffy, because huffy is lossLESS, while pic
or shall I say, MJPEG IS LOSSY! I have used the DC10+, and in fact will
be for now, for VHS captures. It's great! But, then, I capture at it's
maximum, which for ME is 6150 (though I'm still testing this)

Remember, that PIC codec of MJPEG, though may be comparable to the
DC10+'s MJPEG, they are both optimized and coded differently - which is
better depends on ones eyes at the time and the source, in all levels
of issues etc.

Perhaps you should visit this thread. It may enlighten or open up your
eyes to some facts about noisey captures - well, at least for some people.
...since you did say some of your source is VHS - here:
--> Line Noise - mostly from VCR sources...
This will pretty much explain a lot on some issues. Well, it's pretty
interesting reading anyways.

In any case, I find that the while MJPEG is on the soft side (though still
good quality mind you) Huffy provides richer color quality. And, yes,
for VHS source like store bought movies. I've done VHS capture and
encodes of:
* SP - store bought movies - better
* SP - good or better
* EP - fair to good (but just as good as SP or close depending on source
quality, in every level know, if you know what I mean, etc)
* even noisy signal like cable and antenna as source
.
.
and all w/ huffy. But, until the issue (see above link) surfaced,
huffy was what I use in ALL my capture endeavors.

* Huffy = lossLESS ...yeah!
* PIC (mjpeg) = LOSSY ...boo

-vhelp

[snowmoon]

If you are having trouble with noise, filter it AFTER. There are great and fast filters availible that are much more reliable than using JPEG style compression. Vdub has a built in noise reducion filter for captures that would "take the edge off".

So I still re-iterate that your best bet is to capture 100% and worry about filtering AFTER your done. Remeber that MJPEG can introduce mosquito noise into your capture that will just be magnified by any mpeg style encoding later.

[Betamax]

Use something like mjpeg, huffyuv should not be reccomended

Like the name's say's : "huffyuv" is for YUV source.

If your capture-card outputs YUV streams (most does), this is an excellent codec (and for this reason, MJPeG wouldn't be a good choice).
If your capture-card outputs MJPeG streams (some does, like the Miro DC-10+ and Miro DC-30 -- Miro = Pineacle), the MJPeG would be the best choice (and "huffyuv" isn't).

If your capture-card comes with its own codec, naturely it would be best if you use that codec.

[troyvcd1]

Cool betamax. Sounds like you know a lot about this stuff. Can you reference any good books to read about this whole digital media creation.

[Valnar]

Baker,
MJPEG smoothes it out as it captures, so your MPEG encoder doesn't have as much work to do. But HuffyUV is closer to the true source. As another recommended earlier, add filtering and cleaning in the post processing for best results.

Most of us only uses these codecs for capturing analog, but if you used it for digital captures (which of course is pointless), you'd see the superiority in a lossless codec like HuffyUV. However, since analog does tend to have some noise in it, you've found the partial benefit of lossy compressing it during capture.

-Robert

[SatStorm]

Also, Huffyuv is TMPGenc Friendly, much more any MjPEG codec!
This is another reason which explains the popularity of the CCE encoder. CCE don't have probs with mjpeg in generall, so the combination of virtualdub/mjpeg/cce requaries much less HD space during the encoding proccess!

If you want to exparience more, I suggest start using xvid for capture, if your PC can handle it. In high bitrates (same as picvideo's for example) I find this codex amazing! It also supports interlace which is SO important with sources from any VCR/analogue TV broadcast!

[jeremymiller]

If you use xvid, can the resulting avi be encoded into mpgs? What would the settings be? Thanks.

Jeremy

[baker]

Has anybody got any links for any good lossless codecs for capture?

I am going to give huffyuv another chance as I think I may have found a flaw in my tests involving the picture from my digital sattellite more on that later.

Anyway has anybody got any other codecs for qucik compression?

Baker

[vhelp]

Good morning all.

baker,
ah, finaly smomeone waiking up to the smell of coffee, oh, that's me
w/ my coffee, he, he... Well, in your case. . .

>> I may have found a flaw in my tests involving the picture from my digital
>> sattellite more on that later.

Anyways, yes, you missed that point. W/ Satalite, and any other source, but
mostly w/ Sat as I work w/ it mostly these days, ...you have to pay attention
the the quality of it. No, not the quality, THE QUALITY of IT. The...
ie, say you are watching an MTV video. And you see a wide screen clip, and
it looks good/great on your TV set, now you capture it (experimentally, in
your case, w/ various codecs) and to your surprise, it don't quite look the
same. Why is that? you may ask? Well, it all boils down to:
* how may hands THAT one clip passed by in
* how many TIME it was proceessed or preprocessed
* how many TIME as it ben FORMATED to adhir to TV spec, etc.
* QUALITY of it when passed on
* SPECIFICATION of it when passed on
* EQUIPMENT used in the making
* The DIRECTORS VISION of HOW the vidoe was to be seen/portraide, etc.
* other, just fill in here

If I missed out on anything important to this list, its cause I just woke up.

All these are nonsense factors (or anal) that most people are ablivious to,
but not me. I factor this in in my video endeavors. Because this IS
important, in order for me to alter my Video Processees - I have learned to
see what is doable, and what is alternative'able (processe'wise) in other
words, ie, maybe its better to use an different codec, or maybe just require
a Color filter, etc. But, what ever it takes to overcome the STATE that
the Video clip was/is in at the time of Airing, and Capturing. Very anal,
but true. I could go on, and on, but only those w/ good experience would
agree w/ me on this issue on SOURCE, that what I say above IS true.

Ok, give the above, a good example of what I'm talking about is w/ two
videos that come to mind. (if I can find the miniDV tapes I recorded them
in, i'll post them maybe, for an explanation)
* the MTV video on the Scorpion King ok, the them to that movie
where biker gets bitten by the scorpion - WS version
* and, the latest one by Pink - WS verion
Did you notice how Pink's video was a bit WASHED out?
And, how the Scorpion King's one WASN'T??
This is one analigy of quality, in addition to the Quality of the
video source at the source (broadcaster station)

So, to recap its:
* quality of the source ie, noise, condition, re-processed, ect.
- - - vs. - - -
* Quality in the MAKING, how it was ment to be shown in quality,
and the equipment used during the MAKING and so on and so forth.

So, in taking the above two videos into a video process project, one would
utilize whatevre knowldege he/she has and process each as his/her knowledge
will dicktate. On the other hand, both videos would/could come out as
expected IF NOT tweaked. Sometimes, it's best to just LEAVE the source alone
and proceed to process anyways.
I remember doing both these videos, and I remember playing w/ Pink's
video a bit to tweak it.

You also have to KNOW how to use your equipment. Know its shortcomings and
so forth. You have to know HOW to USE your OWN tools. If you don't, you'll
be here again, asking for another codec, and/or which is better, etc.
The short is, PIC is softer and will help on some noisy videos, while Huffy
will produce as-is video but w/ EXACT colors, etc. to name a few.
Or, for calification:
* PIC/MJPEG = LOSSY !!
* HUFFY = LossLESS

If your video has lots of noise try the softener, I mean, PIC/MJPEG and see
if that helps. else stick to HUFFY and strengthen'ize your filtering skills
hint, hint, start developing your Filter Chain for VARIOUS quality
sources!

Some facts to digest:
----------------------------
Also, the following are SOURCES to take into consideration, in order of
quality:
* Anttena
* VHS++ - not including SVHS
* Cable
* LD
* Satalite
* DVD
* Other(s)

++ VHS has some surprises, as well as undocumented facts that are not readily
known. I'll leave it at that - it's old technolegy, and is not worth the
arguments.

Your Capture Equipment:
------------------------------
* 1, if you can't learn how to utilize your own tools, well. . .
* 2, take into consideration each tool. They have WEAKNESSES. As a video
buf, you should know to factor this in - Some tools work better, w/out the
use of other tools or resorting to a completely different tool, OR resorting
to agents, which I call filters.
* 3, sometimes, it's not the video quality that is the problem, but the
limiting factor in your tool - didn't I just say that in "2" above?

So, DID Huffy fail you?? answer, yes or most likely NO. Re-read the above
paragraphs.

It takes a trained eye to be able to see these and other anamilies in a
video project. What is a TRAINED eye, you may ask? Good quetion. There
really isn't an answer, other than that as a video producer, you have to
sub/unconciously be on alert (remembering w/out trying to remember) your
previous video processing experience, each day. The only way to strenthen
this is to do, do, do. I anal'ly run umph'teen times tests over and over
that I develop a sense of detection. I've developed an eye for "what will
work well with..., and what will not" I know..., pretty anal, but then
again, I'm the one sitting here typing this for you to read and learn about!
...Just as a son embarks on a camping experience w/ his dad. ...he learns
the process, in addition, picks up other techneques such as, picking his
nose or his ass, farting in a consistant manner, etc. - - piss first, THEN
poop, NOT the other way around! in other works, we learn through
trial and error, in the process, we pick up skills.

-vhelp

[baker]

Thanks for all that vhelp.

Anyway I got a bit of a problem here. wanted to sset up a capture machine and got :

30 gigs
450mhz
win tv go
a lot of patient.

When I try using huffyuv on this its clear I don't have enough diskspace for it.

Mjpeg is crap looking. Strnge things hgappen to lighting effects. (look at the start of voyuager in mjpeg,ugh)

So any codecs I have missed or other soloutions for me?

I am a bit quailty obsesed and the slightest block annoys me.

Thanks for the help.

Baker

[snowmoon]

Baker,

Your comment about capturing from a satellite service? What service? The sun sequence at the end of the voyage intro is a difficult sequence to encode without a) softening the image b) getting blocks. If you are seeing blocks in your huffyuv or PIB mjpeg 18-20 capture then there are defenatly problems with the SOURCE signal.

[vhelp]

Afternoon.

baker, and others. . .
Ah, Voyager. ...starting ta realize what's going on there, now. Ah?
Ok, first, the reason for the (sun sequence) I beleive is PART of the
source's quality or JIMMY. Nothing you can do to change that. It's
permanent until they release the DVDs. They already are doing this
for the ST-N ones. Believe me, you can't fix it. And, you don't
want to soften it, as that will only make it blurry! If you want to
retain as much of the original detail and quality of the source, you
MUST encode them all W/OUT filtering! The side affect is larger MPEG
file. You decide what you want to weigh. Anyways. . .

I've said this a YEAR ago. ...about MJPEG*1*. w/ Voyager and the now
new (or old now) ST-E (Enterprise, which I no longer watch at this time)
I've said on a number of occasions, that they JIMMY some of these shows
for obvious reasons, just like they MacroVision everything on DVD.
Some shows are just Standardized as JIMMY*2* (or MV'anize)

The best thing you can do for these shows is this.
If you are using a DV cam (for the DV route) DON'T use it!! That is,
don't transfer it via firewire to your harddrive, as again, DV** is LOSSY,
and you're right back where you started w/ MJPEG. I feel that in some
way, DV is a cusin to MJPEG in some way or another. Anyways, because
DV compresses (throws out colors that the eye can't see) for JIMMYs, you
will loose even more quality. That is why I am sayng to not transfer
via firewire to a DV avi file. Capture it instead.
** talking about thoes shows that are JIMMYed in this case.

A:
Instead, use Analog Capturing. I have found that this route (though now
heading in the Dianosours route) is STILL the best for quality.
So, if you capture via analog, you will get better quality. That is,
if you recorded to miniDV tapes, and later, Analog Capture it and encode
it. Somehow, the colors are not washed out like the DV's are. And,
the CODECs like MainConepts and Canopus can only do so much in bringing
back the correct color space through re-mappng or something like that.
B:
Asuming you have Satalite, cause it's the best quality you can get vs. Cable
or worse, Antenna.
Capture it via Analog. Not DV via thouse passthroughs. I know... you're
gonna argue me. But, that's ok. I know what it's going to end up like.
You're fighting (Voyager sunburst) something that's already gone, for
nothing.
C:
It only gets worse if you tape it via VCR. Some VCRs don't reproduce the
full color on those shows that they JIMMY. They tend to come out worse
when you capture from them. And, going the DV route from the VHS as
your source, adds even more to the loss.
D:
If you really want to iron out the quality issues on a give source, then
your best method is to utilize your (or a) DV cam and record the shows to
miniDV tapes. This way, later, you can work on them via Analog Capturing.
Also, TIP, you can replay them over, and try various CODECs w/out the
quality loss. Sort of your onw studio or mini TIVO, as I call mine.
This is the best route in ironing out all thoes CODEC issues. Finding
which is the BEST to use among other issues ie, Resolutions; Audio etc.
note, if your SOURCE if VHS, and not MV'ed, again, record it to miniDV
tapes, and use those tapes as your mini TIVO (as I do when needed)

If you don't have a DV CAM, then you're basically out of luck, cause the
DV Bridge and others like them don't supply you the opportunity to replay
or as they say, try again as many times as you like. You're basically
stuck w/ your Broadcasters airing times, and if memory serves me, they
only show a given show ONCE! You can't call them up and ask them, "Oh,
I didn't get it right the first time... could you re-air it again in 5
minutes?" With a mini TIVO you can (or MY mini TIVO via DV CAM)

I have found my mini TIVO indespensable for finding the right CODEC to
use for various Analog Capturing projects. So, in getting back to which
CODECs are best, it requires an EYE for judgment - and that takes time!

-vhelp

*1* the DC10+ has a slitely better MJPEG quality.
*2* are clips that have their color space altered or video quality reduced.

[NeVeRLiFt]

Huffyuv works much better than all other codecs.... if you have the harddrive space. If you dont have the harddrive space stick to PicVideo Mjpeg.

And if you have a noise source thats gonna effect any codec.

[NeVeRLiFt]

The best way to capture so as to get the best quality.... use S-video in

[uteotw]

Most of us know that S-Video provides better quality than compiste but the debate is about which capture codec is better for which source, which capture hardware...etc...

Anyhow... someone asked for another LossLess Codec.

I know LCL(Loss-Less Codec Library) 2.23 which is pretty old.
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown-Denei/2837/LRC.htm
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown-Denei/2837/prg/LCL223.ZIP

I never came around trying it as I'm happy with all the other solutions around Huffyuv, PicVideo and DV.
So I don't know how good it is and how performant it is. The readme says it's multi-threaded which can be nice for multi-cpu machines.

uteotw

[snowmoon]

s-video is only a better option when the source equipment has a batter comb filter than your capture card.

vhelp:

I have one beef with your post. DV is lossy, but once in DV format it does not have to be re-encoded when transfered over firewire. If your setup has been done properly the only compression is on aquisition ( miniDV camera ). To re-capture via-analog is surely going to be a hit in terms of quality. The problem you might be having is that not all DV codecs are created equal and some provide better quality than others. If you are advocating miniDV over a VCR, I'll agree with that, but that's all.

[baker]

Vhelp-

Good'day to ye all.

Now a few things I think I should point out about my capturing system.

1. the source:
The source is a sky digital system. Let me point out that all digital video transmissions in ireland and the uk are,how should i say.. Variable.This means that certain channels look great others lokk like a low bitrate vcd. Now its not the major one that look great, its actualy quite the oppisite!! The main channel (sky 1) owned by a multi-billion companie is pretty crapo!! Ukgold, I suspect has an encoding blunder and is doing everything at 2500 bitrate alright, but res looks to be about 720x576(I can tell from the pixel size of the macroblocks.)!!! TCM a FTA chanel which must make **** all cash looks fantastic compared to the kind of dirty noisy films it encodes! And BBC 1 & 2 look great and detailed but seem to have a random noisy blok affect. This means noisy block appear randomly over dark areas.Now this causes problems as if you have ever made a cvd with my dvd->cvd guide and seen how "good" (not great) the quailty is then you will see what I am aiming for. I know shit in->shit out. Now the reason I picked the sun seen as this points out the "only" problem I have with pic video and if you guys can't see that then I may have some good news coming my way. The singal passes through 20meters of low loss video cable and 5 meters of ordinary aerial cable to get to my room and their is almost no signal lost.(composite video of course)

(update: Just found that the "subsapling" on my mjpeg codec was at 4/1/1. after reading the instructions on the codec I found that by switching the sapling to 1/1/1 will produce less compression (mjpeg gets me 4 hrs on quailty 20 anyway!) and may get rid of the affect I am talking about!!! I may post a still picture here of the effect so you can see what I am talking about. The effect is hard to explain but I will post it here if I get a still of it)

2. my hardware:

A 50gig hardrive of which I have 30gigs to my capturing. A 451 mhz pentium III and of course, favour virtual dub. I was told my sattellite company broadcasts at 480x576 so thats the res i capture at. I am actuall resizing to cvd res of 352x576 but find that capturing at 480 then resizing down to 352 gives a more detailed sharper picture than just capturing at 352.

3. whats my output format:

My output format will be mostly cvd and like a audio of 48htz for future dvd conversion.

NOTE:
Just discovered the simpsons season 2 boxset has very bad quailty, and is very hard to encode. If you are encoding it I reccomend using high noise filters.

Baker

[energy80s]

Totally agree about the shite quality off Sky Digital. Was just talking to a friend in the Beeb as I was reading your post. The quality of some channels is worse than VCD MPEG1, I don't know WTF they are using to encode the stuff with but it's bloody dreadful! It should be interesting to see the quality of the new DTT service from the Beeb as the tx powers and bitrates are to be a lot higher than ITV Digital.

Do Sky tx everything at 480x576? I normally capture at 720x576, would it be better to drop down to 480? I tried 352x576 but the quality of the conversion was poor compared with the higher resolution capture.

[yg1968]

vhelp,

We have discussed this colour issue before but I find that using the Canopus codec with TMPGEnc gives me fairly good results with DV. I agree with Snowmoon, I can't imagine going from digital to analog back to digital will give you better results than staying digital all the way when transfering DV.

Here are some links on the DV colour issue. The use of the 4:1:1 colour compression (as opposed to RGB) should not be noticeable to the human eye. Besides mpeg uses 4:2:0 compression:

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html
http://www.rtproductions.net/home/documents/DVCAM.htm
http://www.rtproductions.net/home/documents/Executive%20Summary.htm
http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/frame/research/mpeg/mpeg2faq.html

[baker]

@ energy80s-
Sky standard is 480x576 2500 the reason for not uping their bitrate is because they need the files to be small for sky + (i believe.) This is why they don't look that great.

I reccomend capturiong at 480x576 then bicubic resizing down to 352x576. It gives good results.

Baker

[SatStorm]

Sky Digital channel use the well known 544 X 576 resolution. The bitrate goes up to 4000kb/s (VBR). The problem is that most of the sky digital channels, are doing a realtime analogue to digital convertion before the multiplexx on the uplink.
German channels are using 720 X 576 @ 4000kb/s but they send ready digital signal to the uplink stations. So, no real time analogue to digital convertion needed, and the picture is perfect, even if the bitrate for pixel allocation is less than the sky digital channels.

Viacom channels (MTV/VH1) unfortunatelly use realtime convertion @ 352 X 576 resolution and that sucks! The box, smash hits, etc use 480 X 576 resolution with an average of 3500 and they look excellent! Why? Because they are full digital!

FTV channels (BBC, Ch4,Ch5) are using 544 X 576 resolution with variable bitrate @ to 5000kb/s. The problem with those channels are that they have their own transponders and they also have interactive services (BBC text, iBBC etc). Well, those services use bitrate. This bitrate is lost from the channel. So, when the interactive services are used a lot from BBC (like the hour with news and the local versions of BBC), then the bitrate for the channels suffers! But when all BBC regional versions transmit the same program (movie, a soap for example), then all share the same transmission and the bitrate can get really hight (8000kb/s!).
The same problem occurs with all the sky digital channels. When a provider add an interactive sevice and don't pay for extra TP, then the the data must transmit from the same TP with the channels, so the channels loose bitrate!
The last victim was the UK channels (gold, play, drama, etc). They add interactive services a month ago and -suprise- the quality degrade a lot!

Sky one includes 2 services: The new improved sky teletext and the sky interactive. Both are huge and need much bitrate to work. So, who gonna loose bitrate? The channel itself.
A tip: Sky One Ireland have better picture than Sky One UK. You can easily add it on the "other channels" menu, manually.

Also, the last months many interactive services added to your Sky Digibox. Who gonna give bitrate for them?

[baker]

hey satstorm, thanks for the info. I talked to you a while back but you hadn't got this much info at the time. Seeing that sky one and most other sat channels are using svhs as their source wouldn't 480x576 make much more sense??? THnalks for sheding light on the ukgold problem I was wondering what was going on. And as for the sky1 ireland vs brits I aiont sure your right. I have sky 1 tuned in with twoseperate feeds. I have my normal irish one and one I tuned in myself, not sure if its the british one but it loooks the same (the ads are different).

Once again I think 480x576 is the answer to all our problems what do you think???

As for the germans at 720x576 4mbps!! I would love to see that.

Baker

[SatStorm]

Well Baker, Yes and No the same time...
I grabb 352 X 576 and I for me there is no difference than grabbing 480 X 576 with TMPGenc. But with CCE it might be different!
A general practical rule, is to grabb multiplies. I mean grabb 720 X 576 to encode to 352 X 576 or 352 X 288. That helps the resize.
With CCE you always use frameservers to resize, so it is possible to do 480 to 352 with no problems. But the way I encode (direct the avi to tmpeg or standard frameserving with virtualdub), don't give me better results! I would say, the rescale distroy in my opinion the quality!
With CCE (and procorder, which is a very promising encoder) it might be different!

[baker]

Well Baker, Yes and No the same time...
I grabb 352 X 576 and I for me there is no difference than grabbing 480 X 576 with TMPGenc. But with CCE it might be different!
A general practical rule, is to grabb multiplies. I mean grabb 720 X 576 to encode to 352 X 576 or 352 X 288. That helps the resize.
With CCE you always use frameservers to resize, so it is possible to do 480 to 352 with no problems. But the way I encode (direct the avi to tmpeg or standard frameserving with virtualdub), don't give me better results! I would say, the rescale distroy in my opinion the quality!
With CCE (and procorder, which is a very promising encoder) it might be different!

When I said 480x576 looked like it should be used I meant sky should be using this as their broadcast resouloution. Then even at 4000 it would look great. probaly better than their current. As for capturing, did you know CCE has an inbuilt reiszer!!! Anyway tha dosn't matter.

The main thing is 352x576 IS crap. When used properly however it can get great results (like my cvd guide) now capturing at 352x576 is a big no no as this would be very undetailed and crappo looking in general. Now capuring at 480x576 looks great!!! sharp, detailed etc.. the using bicubic resize to downsize I keep a god lot of detail and I get added sharpness!!!!

Capturing at 720x576 is a no for me as i aint got the hd space but even if I had I think it might be useless.

I think its time for a 480x576 vs 720x576 when encoding to 352x576 showdown!!!

I have loads of work to do so would you plz do it if you aint buzy? It shouldn't take too much of your time just capture a few clips of buffy or something at 720x576 and 480x576 then use virual dub and CCE to do the enocding at 352x576 and see which looks better or even if their is a difference.

Baker