Anamorphic deinterlacing DV in Handbrake?
I am trying to deinterlace a video in Handbrake and I have the choice between strict and loose anamorphic. With loose anamorphic the dimensions are preserved, but will this convert the video to square pixels from non-square pixels? I intend to upload this video to YT. Or it loose not worth the width reduction?
When I uploaded an interlaced video and a version deinterlaced via handbrake, the deinterlaced video appeared wider than the interlaced version, despite having smaller dimensions than the interlaced video when played on my computer? |
Handbrake is great for files you are using on mobile devices and computers, but if you are going straight to youtube, there are programs that will do the conversion before you upload and it will upload exactly as it plays. Youtube's online conversion is meant for efficiency over quality.
I would use xmedia recode instead. It will do a better job than youtube and is more suited than handbrake for this. |
If not using MainConcept (Rovi), I would highly suggest Avidemux instead.
It's one of the guides I'm working on right now. I'm working on several, based on current issues from members. It's why I've been MIA this month. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think its all square pixels, I use a Mac too but have parallels installed.
I always default to yadif if its there. Not necessarily the best, but its predictable. |
Quote:
But isn't anamorphic only useful for tv outputs? Since I am converting dv I am dealing with non-square pixels. For some reason the decomb bob in handbrake didn't make a discernible difference. I then tried the TDeint and Yadif filters (separately) in Avidemux. I could not tell any difference between the two, and they were very similar to my original. Nevertheless, because Avidemux does not take .mov files, I had to first output an mpeg file, which Avidemux deinterlaced. By that point I could see slight blocking artifacts. Overall I could not tell the difference between the interlaced and deinterlaced Youtube versions of my video. I'm thinking my best bet is just to upload pro res to Youtube, and hope their deinterlacing improves with time. |
- QTGMC is best.
- Yadif next best. - Some Yadif mods exist to improve of Yadif. TDeint is like a Yadif mod. Most mods are the deinterlacer + a NNEDI version. (By itself, NNEDI is mostly useless.) - This is all scripted. Something like Avidemux is just a GUI for the filters. Yes, DV is non-square. I would convert .mov to lossless, either in Mac native software, or with VirtualDub in Wine. A Yadif mod is likely how Youtbe is doing things these days, as its probably using a custom ffmpeg server. So DIY vs letting Youtube do it for you may have the same results. Only something like QTGMC -- especially a QTGMC with the switches -- would truly be better. It may seem like "wasted effort" in some ways, but at least you now know, with your own eyes, what the loss difference is between the methods. And to me, that's never wasted effort! |
Quote:
|
It seems that QTGMC is only available via Avisynth. From reading it appears the best deinterlacer for Virtualdub is Yadif, but I don't know whether Virtualdub's Yadif is much better than Handbrake's or Avidemux, the latter two of which I have used.
Some indicated that MSU deinterlacer for VD is better than Yadif, but does anyone have experience with it? |
Quote:
MSU has a bad habit of using math to "prove" their scripts are better, yet it's not the case. The filters may be better mathematically, but not visually. And I watch video with my eyes, not a calculator. |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.