NTSC (29.97) to PAL

[cd090580]

Hi,

I have a music video in vob format but in NTSC instead of PAL.

SO I'd like to convert it to PAL to include in on a dvd with other PAL videos.

I looked here: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic228149-30.html but on the last page, there are lot of scripts for NTSC to PAL but only for a 23.976 fps not 29.97

So, whats the best way to convert my video ?

Source is interlaced NTSC, target is interlaced PAL (if possible with Top field first and not bottom field first).

Here is the infos given by DGIndex:
Aspect Ratio 4:3
Frame Rate: 29.97
Video Type: NTSC
Frame Type: Interlaced (really interlaced, I can see the interlace artifact while moving in the video)
Frame Structure: Frame
Field Order: Bottom


I can use Avisynth, and for the encoder I have TmpgEnc Xpress and CCE SP.

Thanks.

[guns1inger]

There is no good way to convert 29.970 fps NTSC to PAL. You have a couple of choices using consumer tools, but all will create substandard output.

1. Drop frames. This will cause jerkiness.

2. Blend frames. The results are smoother, but you get blurred and blended frames throughout.

It is much easier to go up from 23.976 than it is to come back down again.

One thing to consider before committing to a conversion - is the source truly 29.970 fps ? Can it be IVTC'd back to 23.976 fps, then converted ?

If it cannot (and if it was shot directly on video and is a few years old then it probably cannot), re-encoding with avisynth and ConvertFPS() is probably the best way to go. Remember to resize in an interlaced aware manner first, then convert the framerate and re-encode.

Further reading : http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/ConvertFPS

[manono]

In addition to the ConvertFPS method as outlined by guns1inger, the other way is by dropping fields (not frames):

AssumeTFF()#if TFF
Yadif(Mode=1,Order=1)#or your favorite smart bobber
ChangeFPS(50.00)
LanczosResize(720,576)
AssumeTFF()
SeparateFields()
SelectEvery(4,0,3)
Weave()

Neither is all that good, and only you can decide whether you prefer your video blurry or slightly jerky. Me, I prefer jerky, especially given that many music videos, with all the quick cuts, are by their very nature fairly jerky to begin with.

This assumes it was shot using interlaced 29.97fps video cameras, and can't be IVTC'd.

[lordsmurf]

PAL players all play NTSC content.

[manono]

Yeah, but he says he's mixing it with other PAL videos on a DVD, which may be problematic if he keeps it NTSC.

[cd090580]

One thing to consider before committing to a conversion - is the source truly 29.970 fps ? Can it be IVTC'd back to 23.976 fps, then converted ?

The original source they used is PAL. It's a french video from France but here it's a remix (with special effects in the video) made by an US TV Channel.

I'll try with dropping fields to see what I can get

[SatStorm]

29.97 fps to 25 fps it is possible and "close" to perfect.

The secret is to convert 29.97 to 23.97fps. So you inverse telecine your original source.
If 29.976 is a result of a 23.97/24fps pull down process, then things are easy: Just speed up the source from 23.97 to 25fps. resize to a PAL framesize and adjust the audio or use a technique called 2:2 pull down. That is the "perfect" convertion.

But this is rarely the case and you usually end up with an interlace 23.97fps file. In that case you have some alternatives:
1 - You can just deinterlace and speed up (some use blending, some drop a field, some use temporal de-interlacers)
2 - You can try to find a pattern to remove interlacing and do some progressive field deconstruction.
3 - You can speed up your source, add 96 black lines on top / bottom of the screen and encode to PAL. The aspect ratio is messed up but the motion remains smoother: it's a nice alternative for animation / cartoons.
4 - You speed up your source, split the fields, resize them from 240 to 288 lines, combine them back to 576 lines and encode. Doesn't look always OK, but when it does, is the best method

[cd090580]

Satstorm is that a good script ????

Assumebff()
Telecide(order=0)
decimate(5)
AssumeFPS(25)
separatefields()
lanczos4resize(720,288)
interleave()
weave()

[Gavino]

is that a good script ????

...
separatefields()
lanczos4resize(720,288)
interleave()
weave()

Remove the interleave(), it is doing nothing.

[manono]

And unless it can be IVTC'd (not likely, given what you've said about it already), it's a damned stupid thing to do as it'll play very jerky. And once it's made progressive none of that field separating nonsense is necessary. You can do a straight resize to 720x576.

Satstorm is that a good script ????

No, actually it couldn't get much worse.

How about a sample so we can see what you're dealing with?

[AlanHK]

I have a music video in vob format but in NTSC instead of PAL.

SO I'd like to convert it to PAL to include in on a dvd with other PAL videos.

If your TV and DVD player can play both PAL and NTSC, you can make a mixed-format DVD.
This is strictly not allowed, however it works on the several setups I've tried.
No conversion necessary.

Just use an authoring app that will let you do it -- such as GuiforDVDAuthor, ignore the popup telling you you're being naughty, and add both PAL and NTSC features.

[SatStorm]

Manono, it's also about personal taste:
I do much NTSC to PAL convertion myself and I prefer messed up 23.97 speed up to 25fps than 29.97 converted straight to 25 fps.

29.97 to 25fps by dropping frames make it look like a 17fps old cinema film. Terible flickering. It's like watching people moving with a strobolight.

Interlace 29.97 to 23.97 using IVTC does play jerky compared the original if there is no pull down to remove. But still, it looks far better - IMO - that way, than doing the "streight" convertion. And if you manage to keep the interlace field that pops up every now and then, you won't ever really notice jerkyness if you are not experienced with video. When the backround is static, the human eye forgive many things.

Just FYI, here in Europe many music channels - especially those broadcasting 16:9 - do have this jerkiness on most music videos imported from US/Japan. It was always that way, so we get used to it.
Actually, the first time I saw Madonna's "La Isla Bonita" music video in it's true NTSC form, it looked to me wierd because I always watched it on the MTV / VH1 European, in a bad converted NTSC to PAL version, with HUE colour problems and colour bleed.

[manono]

29.97 fps to 25 fps it is possible and "close" to perfect.

The secret is to convert 29.97 to 23.97fps. So you inverse telecine your original source.
If 29.976 is a result of a 23.97/24fps pull down process, then things are easy: Just speed up the source from 23.97 to 25fps. resize to a PAL framesize and adjust the audio or use a technique called 2:2 pull down. That is the "perfect" convertion.

That's what you said, a 'perfect' conversion. Assuming an interlaced NTSC source that can't be IVTC'd, not only is it not perfect, it's absolutely horrible looking. IVTC's aren't used on pure interlaced sources. It's not about personal taste at all, it's about trying to do the best given what you have to work with, and dropping frames isn't one of the accepted ways to do it. Guns1inger outlined one of them (field-blending) and I outlined the other (field-dropping). Have you ever tried either? Until you have don't try and tell me an IVTC followed by speedup is the best way to accomplish this.

29.97 to 25fps by dropping frames make it look like a 17fps old cinema film. Terible flickering. It's like watching people moving with a strobolight.

Apparently you didn't follow the script. No frames are dropped.

And if you manage to keep the interlace field that pops up every now and then, you won't ever really notice jerkyness if you are not experienced with video.

Yours not only drops whole frames, but deinterlaces it as well (using the IVTCs at default settings). There shouldn't be any interlacing left after your method gets done butchering it. Mine keeps it interlaced. and way smoother playing.

Just FYI, here in Europe many music channels - especially those broadcasting 16:9 - do have this jerkiness on most music videos imported from US/Japan. It was always that way, so we get used to it.

Not being from Europe, I haven't seen very many of those things, and I know they can be done badly, given an incompetent standards conversion. Apparently cd090580 has the opposite, an NTSC video that started life as a PAL video. I don't guess either one of us can really know how to convert it to PAL unless and until we can get a look at the thing.

Maybe we can have a conversion contest.

[cd090580]

Here is a sample, I think it's the best way...

sample.mpg

[jagabo]

That's some really sad video. Throw it away.

[nic2k4]

I just converted an NTSC DVD to PAL last week and I didn't see anything wrong with the results once I figured it out. I followed this guide:

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic228505.html

On the first try I'd set the video to progressive scan and the motion search as in the guide in TMPEGEnc (on the first tab) and got jerky video. Tried again with interlaced video and motion search to normal and it worked great. I can't remember if I'd set the filter to de-interlace or not, I'll have to look at the settings in the template. One thing I did different than the guide, in Besweet I used the preset for film to PAL instead of entering 24000 to 25000.

[jagabo]

The sample clip doesn't look too bad at normal playback speed with this script (which is pretty much the same thing manono suggested earlier).

MPEG2Source("C:\Documents and Settings\John\Desktop\sample.d2v")
TempGaussMC_Beta1() #or your favorite BOB deinterlacer
ChangeFPS(50)
WhateverResize(720,576)
SeparateFields()
SelectEvery(4,0,3)
Weave()

You don't notice all the ghosting (some of which is intended) and blended chroma channels. It looks terrible when you look at single frames though. And other parts of the video will look more jerky.

Repal() did a much better job than I expected. It still has the chroma blending problem but otherwise looks good:

MPEG2Source("C:\Documents and Settings\John\Desktop\sample.d2v")
Yadif(mode=1, order=0)
RePal()
WhateverResize(720,576)

repal.avi

[cd090580]

Thanks. I'll try that on the full clip tomorrow.

[manono]

Kind of 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other, eh? There may be a couple of things to consider. The field-dropping-keeping-it-interlaced method requires a larger file size for the same 'quality' (about 20% more). And RePAL leaves it at 24.975fps, which might not be all that desirable if the output is intended for PAL. There's a modded version of RePAL floating around somewhere that gives 25fps, but I might recommend SRestore at default settings which gives 25fps if you want to go the unblend route:

Yadif(Mode=1,Order=0)#or your favorite smart bobber, and the sample is BFF
SRestore()
LanczosResize(720,576)

This way you don't have to stretch the audio as you might if using RePAL (although DGPulldown can get around that problem).

[SatStorm]

That's what you said, a 'perfect' conversion.

Yes, I wrote "perfect" conversion and the way I wrote it, shows obviously sarcasm! I used " ".
The alternatives I mention, are "perfect" visually for the average Joe. Far from perfect for us, the enthusiasts.

Apparently you didn't follow the script. No frames are dropped.

I'm a well know avisynth hater. I use only virtualdub and avidemux. Yes, I didn't follow your script. I hate scripts. I thought you knew that about me. I always try to find ways to do my job with anything else than avisynth. Long ago, I even post a guide here about how to convert NTSC to PAL with virtualdub and other freeware tools in 12 steps.

Yours not only drops whole frames, but deinterlaces it as well (using the IVTCs at default settings). There shouldn't be any interlacing left after your method gets done butchering it. Mine keeps it interlaced. and way smoother playing.

I mention various methods here, I didn't say that mine are better. Of course and you method is better.
Mine is easier for stupid people like me. And indeed it DOESN"T look so bad. Practically, it doesn't shows on anime, rarely shows on taped live music consents (with static plans, etc), typical soap and daily tv dramas and overall video with static backgrounds. Jerkiness appears mostly when the camera move left to right, up & down and vice versa, so that means it may look bad on action movies, some music videos or sports.
The good thing that happened the last years, is that if you keep the interlace messed up result, on the 100 and 200hz LCD screens today we have and use, it doesn't even shows. The methods those TV use, add additional fake frames so they enhance things and manage to correct many flaws.

Basically, I know that in real life, only when you pointing the video faults to the others they might notice them. You see, we grow up with with those kind of flaws and they are natural for us in Europe. Don't mention the fact that anything upscaled converts first PAL to NTSC (an obvious picture downgrade) on the fly so to match the algorithms and the maths are needed to upscale. Neither the fact that the LCD and the Plasma panels are not PAL friendly and they are made with NTSC in mind (only Sharp once produced PAL friendly LCD panels (the 5 LCD series) and the market reject them).
So, when you watching upscaling content in Europe, you probably watching something messed up - especially on those el-cheapo DVDs made in China (the majority of the DVD players today).

Not being from Europe, I haven't seen very many of those things, and I know they can be done badly, given an incompetent standards conversion. Apparently cd090580 has the opposite, an NTSC video that started life as a PAL video. I don't guess either one of us can really know how to convert it to PAL unless and until we can get a look at the thing.
Maybe we can have a conversion contest.

No, I gonna loose for sure. But beyond the two of us (and the rest of the video enthusiasts around) nobody gonna understand the difference. And if I use a couple of filters to sharp the picture and boost the colours in the wrong way, many gonna say that mine look better.
People tent to be pleased by sharpness and colours than motion.

But I repeat: IVTC 29.97 to 23.97fps whatever the source is, deinterlace and speed up to 25, looks better than the simply convertion from 29.97 to 25 that most people do. And I mean here: "Load avi to TMPGenc, load the PAL DVD template, hit encode". Most people this is what they do (many even use Super to do this...)

You can do that IVTC/Speed up on a 3 step process with virtualdub, and without having to deal with that evil called avisynth. And when (and if) someone port MSU's framerate conversion filter to virtuldub, things gonna turn even better (and simpler) for all those that hate avisynth (the majority as you probably know).

Anyway, our friend here is willing to use avisythn, so he gonna have the best results after all.

[manono]

Yes, I wrote "perfect" conversion and the way I wrote it, shows obviously sarcasm! I used " ".
The alternatives I mention, are "perfect" visually for the average Joe. Far from perfect for us, the enthusiasts.

The sarcasm may have been obvious to some, but not to me. In that case I apologize for thinking you were claiming a perfect conversion.

However, when dealing with difficult sources (meaning anime, poor standards conversions, these screwy music videos, etc.), one had better know some AviSynth or forever be crippled when trying to work with these things.

But I repeat: IVTC 29.97 to 23.97fps whatever the source is, deinterlace and speed up to 25, looks better than the simply convertion from 29.97 to 25 that most people do.

Knowledgeable AviSynth users wouldn't be caught dead dropping frames by going from 29.97fps to either 23.976fps or 25fps. Doing that takes a difficult source and makes it much worse.

...and without having to deal with that evil called avisynth.

I don't see any parenthesis' this time, so I don't guess you're being humorous. I repeat, it's the only way to deal with this and many other sources. All you're doing here is parading your ignorance.

[AlanHK]

Is my post marked "Hidden" or something?

While it's great fun to play with scripts, if you just want to watch the video in its original quality (whatever that is), just bend the rules and use it as-is.

At least try before spending hours on what can only produce a lower-quality conversion.

[ZQX]

AlanHK's right, you know. Technically, it may be wrong practice. But practically, it is technically correct.

I have to ask, however: Satstorm, why do you hate avisynth so much? It is quite easy to use, it's not as if you need to learn a programming language or anything. Avisynth is easy to use! I would agree with you if you think doom9 forum is unfriendly and unhelpful - they tend to be elitist and snobby (IMO). But Avisynth itself is a very friendly way to go about video processing, if you just bother to spend 5-10mins to understand some basic rules/syntax (IMO). And with AvsP you have real-time tweaking of filter parameters and previews etc... It's not rocket science. IMO.

[AlanHK]

avisynth ... is quite easy to use

Well, it isn't "easy" at the beginning.
But it saves huge amounts of time: It provides a way to concisely and in a readable way store settings (VDub can store settings, but good luck trying to edit its files). Easy to post scripts in forums and to glean advice.

After a while when you see a video problem you recall a similar one you had before; copy the old script, change the filenames and you are 90% done.

Use VDubMod with its built-in text editor for simple tweaks, or for more power, AvsP with its "sliders" to adjust numeric settings.

[manono]

I would agree with you if you think doom9 forum is unfriendly and unhelpful - they tend to be elitist and snobby (IMO).

Hey! As a Doom9 moderator I [s:8c8909f71e]resemble[/s:8c8909f71e] resent that remark.

[turk690]

After bothering with scripts and stand-alone programs and whatnot to convert that one-off odd clip from NTSC to PAL and vice-versa, I realized Sony Vegas did it all along, high quality, no stuttering, no juddering, without fuss. I had grown accustomed to (older versions of) Premiere's rule that all included clips in a project be of the same frame rate, barring the akward interpret footage command. So when I tried Vegas out for the first time I wasn't looking for or expected that 29.97/23.97 to 25 and vice-versa was built-in, let alone without complex hidden menus and restrictions. It just works.
Vegas may not be free but for anyone in this site who is serious about tinkering with video, investing in it is your swiss-army knife, and doesn't hurt that all the PAL to NTSC and vice-versa issues are ironed off neatly into oblivion.

[jagabo]

If I remember correctly, Vegas does something similar to AviSynth's ConvertFPS() -- blending fields/frames. Since the OP's video has already been through the equivalent of that once he definitely wants to avoid doing it again.

[zenzen1]

Hello turk690

I have Sony Vegas 9 and want to convert some of my NTSC music clips to PAL.
Can you give me a brief overview of how it's done in Vegas.
Thanks in Advance
Zen

[zenzen1]

Anyone ????

I have Sony Vegas 9 and want to convert some of my NTSC music clips to PAL.
Can you give me a brief overview of how it's done in Vegas.
Thanks in Advance
Zen

[manono]

You're trying to hijack someone else's thread and it's not looked upon very kindly. It would be better if you started your own thread.