decomb 2.5.1 and hybrid clips
Hey guys. I'm trying to encode the Babylon 5 region 1 NTSC dvd. DVD2AVI shows the film is NTSC Interlaced. Problem is, it's a hybrid film wth a mix of interlaced CG video material and film clips. I found the latest version of Decomb (2.5.1) with some very helpful documentation. I was able to follow it to get a good Telecide line, which is:
Code:
Telecide(order=1,guide=1,post=2,vthresh=23) Code:
Decimate(mode=3,threshold=1.0) |
Decimate's threshold parameter shouldn't be important in this case, because it'll use the hints set by Telecide (guide=1). It should just know which frames to pull out without running any analyses on the frames.
I might be wrong, but I think you can take out the threshold parameter in this instance. If you're getting blending, try adjusting your Telecide parameters. |
Sansgrip,
But it's the Decimate(mode=3) that is *causing* the blending. Without it I get 29.970 fps perfectly deinterlaced. But what I want is to be able to decimate it down to 23.976. Being a hybrid clip, the film portions have duplicate frames that can be dropped but the video sections do not. Deimate(mode=3) is supposed to detect which are film portions so it can decimate as needed, but add some blended frames in the video sections so it doesn't look choppy. Problem is that I'm seeing some blending in the film sections. The decomb manual says tweaking of threshold parameter may be required, and you can add the arguement show=true to decimate to help you. However the metrics that are displayed make no sense to me. The manual does a great job of explaining the metrics for Telecide(show=true) but not for decimate. Hoping someone can help me! |
Hmm, I've never used mode=3. I'll check the docs and get back to you.
|
I think mode=3 is new, perhaps for decomb 2.5.1. While mode=1 is intended for mostly video hybrid sources, mode=3 is for mostly film hybrid sources. I did a test with both parameters and while mode=3 did a pretty good job of smoothing out the video portions, I could still see unnecessary blending in the film parts. But I think I liked the result of mode=1 better. I preserved the 29.97 fps of the video portions, making the CG scenes extremely smooth. And for some reason, the blending of the repeated frames in the film section was not noticeable at all. Perhaps this has to do with the final encode being in 29.97 fps, and not pulldown 23.976? Anyway I'll take the performance hit of encoding in a higher framerate if the result means a smoother image.
Interestingly enough, I came across a couple links talking about using mode=1, and both sites mentioned the Babylon 5 DVD as an example! I'd still like to find some proper documentation on how to alter the Threshold param in decimate. Here are the links: http://www.inmatrix.com/articles/ivtcsynth1.shtml http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guid...deogetb3a.html |
Encoding hybrid content is usually a no-win situation. If you're going for DVD, encode as interlaced at 29.97fps, otherwise, choose the situation that looks best in your eyes.
|
I found another filter for hybrid clips called SmartDecimate. It claims to do a better job that decomb at making video sequences smooth (without blended frames) when decimated down to 23.976 fps. They're right, the result may be better than decomb but a slight jerkiness can be seen during fast video motion or camera pans. I think the verdict for me is to stick with decomb mode=1 and encode at 29.97.
Boulder, I think I might have read some previous posts by you about encoding at 29.970 interlaced. Can you explain this again for me? Wouldn't the interlaced/combing artifacts be very visible in the result? And wouldn't those artifacts have a very negative impact on compression? |
If you watch the result on a TV, you won't notice any combing provided that you have set the correct field order. The motion will be as smooth as it is in the source. Interlaced encoding does require a higher bitrate but IMO it is usually worth it. Personally I can't watch originally pure interlaced video streams that have been deinterlaced because the motion is so jerky compared to the original.
Filtering interlaced sources is not complex, you'll just have to add some items to the script. This is what I use myself, encoding in CCE as interlaced (my captures are always top field first): Code:
MPEG2Source("c:\temp\captures\pet.d2v",idct=7) NOTE THE EDIT, THE BORDERS WERE IN THE WRONG PLACE IN THE FIRST VERSION! |
I think that depends on the source. I believe DV standardized on BFF, for whatever reason.
|
Quote:
I edited my script, the borders were added in the wrong place. |
Boulder:
What kind of filtering would you recommend for DVD sources? The BAbylon 5 dvd has very clean video portions but the film sections are riddled with specks of film dust/dirt. Currently the only filters I use for dvd sources are: Code:
#Crop and resize |
I've recently discovered RemoveGrain and RemoveDirt.
I'd try Code:
#Crop and resize http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79751 |
WOW Boulder, *excellent* find! RemoveDirt did an excellent job of removing the film garbage. I then fiddled around a bit with the settings in RemoveGrain. Just like the documentation, mode=1 is comparable to Undot() except in my test, it compressed better. Mode=8 did have very good compression, but the result looked a little too soft on my computer screen. But when I compared the clips on my standalone, I could hardly tell a difference. I'll have to verify on the 53" widescreen in a sec tho :).
While the combination of Undot() and Deen() certainly didn't do a good job in getting rid of the film dust, it did a better job of compression that RemoveGrain(mode=8) and RemoveDirt() alone. Do you think there's any point in adding Deen, perhaps between RemoveDirt and DCTFilter? |
I wouldn't do that, it would probably start removing details. Try a slight TemporalSoften after RemoveDirt(), I've sometimes used TemporalSoften(2,4,6,6,2) , or TemporalCleaner(3,12).
|
This gave good results on my last few TV Caps.
STMedianfilter(8,32,0,0) ReduceFluctuations(limit=5)##included in latest removedirt.dll |
boulder: just looking at my avisynth docs. Have you read about the new mode parameter for temporalsoften?
Quote:
|
Probably not, I am just really interested in the potential of RemoveDirt and wanted to mention what I was using it for since Boulder brought it up.
|
Quote:
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.