Can KDVD be interlaced?
 

I have mini-DV camcorder. I'd like to make my home DVD. I like "notch"-matrix on DIVX2KVCD-made movies.
But DV-video is allways interlaced. And no way to make good deinterlaced picture from home-made video - because trim of hands.
So, how i can made interlaced KDVD if all published here templates all for progressive source?

That's strange but 30 minutes ago you wanted to do KDVD and Kwag closed your thread ;-).
But I already answered to your question, so you can still go to see the posts :

http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9338

There is no difference to DVD to contane any type of video. The difference is only can sourse video be deinterlaced, or no.
Last evening i check my DVD and must agree with you - really very often the DVD is progressive inside, and most computer programms show wrong info. Before i was beliving such programs as DVD2AVI, but now i understand, that there is no way to determ if sourse is progressive exept my own eyes.

So, if we make KDVD from usual DVD, sourse MUST be deinterlaced, or NO KDVD we'll get - i understand.

But! If you make your own movie at home you can not deinterlace DV-video without serious destroing sourse picture.
Let image: i trying to make video in wich my child ride the bike - his movement so fast so you can not deinterlace picture. And, of course, you can not ask such "actor" to make "second try".
And, of course, you allways will try to make the best DVD from such video.
So am i trying to find the way to make the best MPEG2 video as i can. As it seems to me now, i can sometimes to make it with help of "notch" matrix.

Think - there is no need in KDVD to make usual movie - i have it on usual DVD already. You need KDVD and it has reason only to make your own home video. May be it can give quality compared to hollywood :D :D :D
And there is no reason to hollywood to use KDVD, because usual "standart" DVD is fully satisfied it.

Yeah. That's why I asked you how you determined that your DVD were interlaced. The only efficient tool that can tell that are our eyes as you said :-)

Must, perhaps not, but is better to do that as the making of the KDVD will be easier.

Not at all. Deinterlacing is difficult but surely not a no way. Go there : http://www.100fps.com
But you're right, there are some case where deinterlaing is barely possible.

Are you kidding ? Nothing is never fully satisfied. The next generation of codec (WM9 HD for instance) is already in the shop and if the DVD makers have used the KDVD technologies, need of such codec would have been less hurry.

The main purpose NOT to encode a KDVD in interlaced state is the bitrate beside framerate !!!
In interlaced mode you need much more bitrate, sometimes up to 3times more in avg, so thats not only a question if NTSC 29,97 or 23,976 (less frames & more bitrate needed). So in PAL countries we still stuck with more bitrate needed even if we got less frames in interlaced mode.

That has been discussed here up to 10times.

And thats the bullshit on bad converted pirate copies in interlaced mode:
They wheren't in the mood to do a qualitative IVTC on NTSC telecined material and doing a speedup to 25fps. They just converted the 29.97 to 25 using converting the fps including blending etc.
Trash these disks and if you tell me you like more interlaced encoded pirate copies, then you should see a nice orig PAL (speedup) DVD. Then there dark comes into light! :wink:

My main goal is not to reduce bitrate (make smallest files), but i try to have more quality picture.
Please, answer: is KDVD the way to encode DIVX to DVD or it is a tool to reach maximum quality encoding?
Must i discover another ways to improve quality? Or i'm on right way and all that i need - try and try to study KDVD?

The less the filesize is, the more you can increase the quality to fit completly your disc !

You want an answer ? you REALLY want the one and only answer to your question ?
DO NOT DO KDVD FROM DIVX
Period :!:

I really must have a discussion with Vmesquita as his tool (DIKO) starts to boring me a lot. Too much quality issues and far too much message about this. I'm pissed off !

Note: you were talkign about DV and now you switched on Divx ?

I am try to understand for why KDVD was born. I'd like to know for that cases use KDVD is better.

I ask - is it for DVD - you wrote NO
I ask - is it for DV - you wrote ... seem NO because DV is interlaced
I ask - is it for DIVX - you ... pissed off !

So: for that type of source the KDVD is better choise?

I don't know where you read something from me that let you think I said no, but there is surely a misunderstanding between us :-)

For sure KVCD/KDVD are made to make DVD !
(but it's better to do progressive ones ;-))

I don't understand why you are pissed off, Dialhot. If you don't like my tool, it's simple: don't use it. And let the people that find it useful enjoy. If a lot of people is finding it interesting, I belive that's great. Actually you indirectly did a great contribution to DIKO by releasing the v4 script.
And about the quality issues, I don't know what exactly you're talking about. Lots of people are happy with quality, and so am I. Yes, a DVD source would give better results. But if I want to convert DivX, and improve and automate this process, it's my problem. Of course, everyone that wants can help. Other like you may consider a waste of time. Personal preference. Again: If you don't like, just don't use it. But don't flame me in public for releasing to everyone a tool I created for personal use , which took me months to develop.

Hum hum, you dindn't understand me.
The problem is not the tool itself (that I don't use anyway ;-)). The problem is that by making a tool to do Divx->KDVD you create hope in the head of newbies. The hope that a KDVD issued from a Divx will be nice and beautifull, as a KDVD should be.

BUT IT IS NOT !

When using your tool they (the newbies) are never awarned about the fact that DIVX ARE CRAP AND CAN'T BE TURNED INTO KDVD decently.

What piss me off it is not your tool at all, it's all the message asking for help because of this false hope of a result that they'll never reach.

For instance a newbie can't understand by himself that enlarging a video is not good. He can't understand that strating from a badly compressed source, the result never be better than what is in the input. He can't. And WE have to explain it to him.

When I do a KVCD from an avi, I know in which maze I am entering. I do it fully aware, and on purpose. But a newbie discovering Diko is like a tobacco-addict when he reads "Smoking kills" : he just thinks"If they sell it, that can't hurt".

I agree with you : the tool is great (didn't I help you to do the french part ?) but there is not enought "Smoking kills" warnings put on it ;-)

For sure, but as told above you know where you are walking. I do not blame you. For sure not !

I'm just concerned about "the others". When you tell that people are enjoying the quality, for sure these are not the ones that post a lot of messages recently ;-)

Where did you see I flame you ? I told exactly the opposite in this thread :
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic....lame+vmesquita

Flaming anyone works is the last of my habits. But that not prevents me to discuss with you about what I find "annoying" in the whole process. And this is what I explained above 8)

I think I misunderstood you... This rule "destination will always be worse than source no matter what" is so clear in my mind that it became near obvious. But it's not clear for newbies, I now see that. People out there may be expecting DIKO to turn their DivX back in real DVD quality, what of course can't be done no matter what.

About the quality: I belive that a good 2 CD rip of a 2h widescreen movie, or even a 1 CD rip of a 1h30 AR 1:2.35 movie with 128 kbps MP3 generally have good quality. Yes, worse than DVD but yet good at least for my eyes. Of course, 2 hour movies compressed down to 700 Mb are generally awful.

And about the posts, people are not complaining about the quality of the video. The most commom problems latelly in the thread has been some codecs issue and (mainly) besweet problems. Still improving... :D But I don't remembet anyone posting complaining about the quality, at least in the thread.
So I definatelly should post a warning about the "golden rule of quality". :D I'll think about how to do it.

Edit: I forgot you did the french translation, sorry. :D It's even in the changelog... :oops:

Check the thread now, I added a disclaimer:

http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59230

[]'s
VMesquita

Very nice :-D

Phil I know your intention by saying not enlarge videocontents so noobs wont get confused! And I do underline that as I saw what could happen if someone does enlarge wrong ;-)

But your "not enlarging" logic only keeps healthy until you let the encoded CD/DVD playback using the SAP.
Because latest at that point your stream WILL be enlarged to fit the 4:3 proportion at 768x576 (PAL for example).

An Example: I use a mpeg4 640x480 and now I (PAL) should use the next possible resolution to encode and still avoiding enlarging, that would end up in a 352x288. BUT later the digital routines in my TV/DVD set will enlarge that stream to 768x576! And thats the point! How do we know how that equipment does enlarge according to the quality of their enlarging routines?

Do you remember my "how funny" thread? Where I scaled down the width - performing - filters :arrow: and enlarged back to 704 width.
Thats because I can use AVS routines which do make a better enlarging (optical) then the TV/DVD set afterwards. If this would not be I could let the filtered 352x576 as it is, but the "well" re-scaled to 704 width stream looked better afterwards on the Tv Set.

PS: Caution to the newbies: This is not a free ticket to "enlarge" as enlarging is not the same as enlarging!

:wink:

just an opinion here to the thread originator

if your source is interlaced keep it that way, unless you have a digital , or plasma or whatever of the most expensive tv i really see no reason for you to DEINTERLACE, your player will interlace it back to be able to play it in your tv.

well except for the part of fitting a litle more video on a dvd i wouldnt deinterlace it.

You are right... and a little bit wrong.

Deinterlacing is a pain in the ass, so if you can avoid it, just avoid it :-)
But...

MPEG1 KVCd are far better than MPEG2 ones. And unfortunally, MPEG1 does not support interlacing.

So it's really hard to choose between the two solutions.

:!:

Hold it ;-)

interlacing in PAL also sometimes can result of a simple phase shift and that can be restored EASELY using telecide(guide=2,post=false).

In case of NTSC you very often deal with a telecined stream which also is treated by a simple pulldown which also can be restored by
Telecide().decimate()

The player doesn't really re-interlace the video! As that video not have been shot on 60fieldspersecond originally.
So the player just performs a phase shift:

In avisynth that would be:

Separatefields()
Trim(1,0)
Weave()

voilá.

But in case of REAL video content, means shot on video material (documentations, tv station trailers, etc.) you should leave it as it is IF you want to keep max quality ... in this case I do agree.

I always deinterlace and my results have always been better than the times I experimented with keeping interlace..

If one has doubts about deinterlacing, one should just make a test encoding... See with your eyes.

Related to deinterlacing (not IVTC!):

Its a technical fact and also (if interlaced encodings are done correct) its proofed that deinterlacing interlaced parts of the source ALWAYS produces Quality loss! As these parts by that do get interpolated.

Deinterlacing is JUST a compromise to on the other hand getting better compressibility, thats all. But if you got enough Mediaspace as with that you can use higher AVG bitrates, the output will be for shure better as you keep the full fieldrate and its unique field image information.

Not mention if deinterlacing i.E. Music Videos from the NTSC USA brought to 25.fps for the PAL market. That would end up in a blending mess.

I was reading that today... well it's a compromise. I used it especially to convert NTSC to PAL kvcd. I liked the results as seen on my tv..
Now with KDVD, well so far when I backup an NTSC dvd the
destination is an NTSC KDVD (playback pulldown) and I am not deinterlacing this source at all (I use forced film in these cases).
I was thinking whether it would have been worth it to deinterlace and convert to PAL KDVD. Probably not at all - it would take more time and
due to the increased PAL resolution less would fit on a dvd-r.

Recently I did some PAL KDVD encodes and I did deinterlace them, one was a PAL DV source. The result was excellent. I'll have to experiment next time without deinterlacing to see if I can get better results on kdvd.
I'm not sure about non-NTSC film sources, deinterlacing might be better for those, or perhaps not, this would be interesting to experiment and see the results.

Because the KVCD matrix is what makes the difference.
Any KDVD will be better (or at least equal) to any DVD, but at less bitrate which results in less file size.Compared to a regular DVD target, KDVD will always be better, be it progressive or interlaced.

-kwag

Regarding stuff of NTSC origin, then transferred to PAL:

If you have sources that were originally shot at 23.976fps, the PAL version should be progressive. If it's not, someone has screwed up something during the NTSC->PAL transfer, often resulting in a fieldblended (=ugly looking) material. In this case it might be useful to do a 25fps->24fps conversion with Restore24 and then do a 24fps->25fps conversion via AssumeFPS(25.000). I had to do this on a Citizen Kane version and my creation looks a lot better than the original (now who said that you can't get better results than the source is :lol: )

If the original material was shot at 29.97fps (mostly the stuff meant for TV, also most concert footage), the PAL version should be pure interlaced video. This means that deinterlacing it will result in less smooth motion, and you'll also lose sharpness and details!

Regarding stuff of PAL origin:

Most (all?) PAL movies (that is, material which is not created primarily for TV broadcasting) are progressive so no need to deinterlace.

Most material meant for TV broadcasting is pure interlaced video, which means that on TV the motion looks very smooth. If you deinterlace this material, you'll lose the smoothness along with some sharpness and details.

Then there's also the phase shifted stuff inc mentioned.

another Phil's phrases to my "hall of fame"!
8O :rotf:

:dunce:

I recorded some music videos from satellite (dvb-s card, 25fps pal interlace source) and encoded them in pal kdvd encoded format. Well the result was lots of ugly interlacing lines on my 100hz widescreen tv. I decided the best thing was to deinterlace using kerneldeint so I rencoded today and wrote another kdvd (non-interlaced however). The new kdvd looks better on my tv, no visible loss of sharpness or details. The other one looks plain terrible, with visible interlace lines. The music videos did have lots of motion in them, I might add, and this made it worse.

I had two avisynth scripts for this kdvd (2 different files), one which did nothing but resize and add black borders, and another one which did some filtering.

On my pc the interlaced dvd looks ok with media player classic's built in mpeg2 deinterlacer. But for my tv and/or dvd player the story seems different. I guess the best thing is to test and see what results you get with your equipment.

Then you've got something really wrong either in your setup or your source. Did you check that you had the correct field order set in your encoder? TV should never show combing!

Also you should never directly filter or resize interlaced sources, they must be treated in a special way (there are threads on the forum about that).

And thats the point!!

IF you capture (or stream via DVB) Musicvideos in PAL areas, 90% of these videos where produced in the US., means in NTSC area.

Now, those Music-Videos often are even shot on 24fps film (not concerts!), but they will be telecined to 29.97 where at THIS State the cutting/postprocessing will be done. So the interlacing pattern will change! Well if you would IVTC such captures at this 29.97 state, that would be no problem as you would end up easier in a 23.976 progressive restored music video.
BUT: These 29.97 Music Videos will be ported to the PAL market, and they wont do a IVTC before and then a speedup to 25.000, no! They do perform on that 29.97 source a direct norm-conversion to 25.000fps PAL interlaced!
THATS why 90% of all PAL captured US Videos will come out incl. blendings when performing a simple deinterlacing on such material.

The (IMHO) only "automatic" way to get US Music Videos on PAL DVDs or PAL captures back to their orig. progressive state is to treat them via Restore24().
But restore24() is still in developing phase and (for my personal taste) the treated streams still come out incl. some doubled Frames etc. as the blending recognision of restore24() is still not optimal. But anyway a GREAT funtion/approach by Didée.


And the story continues:

Last year 95% of all my movie captures came as 25.000fps progressive (speedup) on my HD. And I could directly convert them to mpeg1/mpeg2.
NOW the broadcasting stations (here in Germany) changed their way:
50% of all movies now do come out treaten by such fps conversion boxes!
They do use that way to compensate cutted adult scenes or if they want to "stretch" the movietime to get more allowed commercials into it. This will be compensated by using such horrible fps conversion techniques.

Like yesterday, when I tried to capture "HotShots". The result was a progressive/interlaced mixture, incl. pattern changes and so on.

And I (IMHO) do think, that "they" know that many users do capture and burn to DVD-R .... and thats also a way to make it harder for "us". So "they" maybe want us to inverst more in buying orig DVDs :lol:

My setup was correct (except for the interlaced resizing of course), it was the source basically as incredible said. I even recorded mostly from an fta german channel too... so that hits it on the nail I would say.
I'll try to find the threads you mentioned.
What comes out of this is that it helps to test with a small bit of the source to see what the result is..
I found some interlaced resizing scripts so next time I'll experiment a bit with these...

With interlaced encoding, you should get as good (or as bad) video as the material that was broadcast, provided that you've got enough bits to use. That's why it's usually best to encode as interlaced if you have a very bad source.

Have you tried to revised version by scharfis_brain?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75432

Yep for shure ... much better quality, but still some frame doubling ( very few) ... but if you got a camera move along a landscape for instance, you will notice such "jerks" (if they do appear) ;-)

So the detection of blendings has to be still dveloped so that this function will become even more acurate :)

I tried, for fun, running restore24 on one of the clips (an american music video) and the result was lots of colour bleeding and rainbows.. not very useful.

Separating the fields, processing and weaving back (keeping interlace) gave me a better result, so I think I'll go that way for the moment..