Quantcast Can KDVD be Interlaced? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
03-01-2004, 09:43 AM
rmax rmax is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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?
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
03-01-2004, 10:05 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
03-02-2004, 02:18 AM
rmax rmax is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
That's strange but 30 minutes ago you wanted to do KDVD and Kwag closed your thread .
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
And there is no reason to hollywood to use KDVD, because usual "standart" DVD is fully satisfied it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
03-02-2004, 04:19 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmax
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
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

Quote:
So, if we make KDVD from usual DVD, sourse MUST be deinterlaced, or NO KDVD we'll get - i understand.
Must, perhaps not, but is better to do that as the making of the KDVD will be easier.

Quote:
But! If you make your own movie at home you can not deinterlace DV-video without serious destroing sourse picture.
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.

Quote:
And there is no reason to hollywood to use KDVD, because usual "standart" DVD is fully satisfied it.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
03-02-2004, 04:39 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
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!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
03-02-2004, 08:04 AM
rmax rmax is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
03-02-2004, 08:59 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmax
My main goal is not to reduce bitrate (make smallest files), but i try to have more quality picture.
The less the filesize is, the more you can increase the quality to fit completly your disc !

Quote:
Please, answer: is KDVD the way to encode DIVX to DVD or it is a tool to reach maximum quality encoding?
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 ?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
03-02-2004, 09:37 AM
rmax rmax is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
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?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
03-02-2004, 10:05 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmax
I ask - is it for DVD - you wrote NO
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 )
Reply With Quote
  #10  
03-02-2004, 11:14 AM
vmesquita vmesquita is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,726
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
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 !
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
03-02-2004, 11:55 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmesquita
I don't understand why you are pissed off, Dialhot. If you don't like my tool, it's simple: don't use it.
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".

Quote:
I belive that's great. Actually you indirectly did a great contribution to DIKO by releasing the v4 script.
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

Quote:
But if I want to convert DivX, and improve and automate this process, it's my problem.
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

Quote:
But don't flame me in public for releasing to everyone a tool I created for personal use , which took me months to develop.
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
Reply With Quote
  #12  
03-02-2004, 12:17 PM
vmesquita vmesquita is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,726
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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... 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". I'll think about how to do it.

Edit: I forgot you did the french translation, sorry. It's even in the changelog...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
03-02-2004, 12:42 PM
vmesquita vmesquita is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,726
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Check the thread now, I added a disclaimer:

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

[]'s
VMesquita
Reply With Quote
  #14  
03-02-2004, 12:44 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmesquita
Check the thread now, I added a disclaimer
Very nice
Reply With Quote
  #15  
03-02-2004, 01:41 PM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
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 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!

Reply With Quote
  #16  
03-24-2004, 07:08 PM
arana arana is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
03-24-2004, 07:20 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
03-25-2004, 04:23 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Quote:
Originally Posted by arana
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.


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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
06-11-2004, 08:16 AM
cweb cweb is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 85
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
06-11-2004, 08:26 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Quote:
Originally Posted by cweb
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
29.970 Interlaced Murdoc Conversão e Codificação de Vídeo (Português) 19 07-10-2004 09:31 PM
KDVD: NTSC-interlaced source vs Force Film? J-Wo Video Encoding and Conversion 5 10-26-2003 12:47 AM
KDVD: VHS to DVD interlaced? and filters? m0rdant Video Encoding and Conversion 2 07-16-2003 08:02 AM
Why use KVCD for interlaced source instead of KDVD? FredThompson Video Encoding and Conversion 4 07-02-2003 03:28 PM
TMPGEnc: Interlaced vs. Non-Interlaced? gonzopdx Video Encoding and Conversion 6 12-22-2002 01:01 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd