#1  
05-12-2017, 11:07 AM
jt_retro jt_retro is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Hi Everyone

Please forgive the newbe questions. I've never really digitised any VHS footage before with any seriousness until recently.

I have a Hauppauge USB-Live 2. I captured my VHS tapes using a Panasonic 930 SVHS machine via a AVT TBC using VirtualDUB and HuffYUV (single thread). I had to use the Windows WDM interfaces as for some reason, DirectShow wouldn't work for my device.

I have some questions that I'd appreciate some help with:
1) Is using the WDM device any different from DirectShow from a quality/capture standpoint?
2) I use 25fps to capture my PAL VHS tapes. Is this correct? I'm aware that VHS-PAL is 50i
3) Are my recordings still interlaced? I see some "combing" artifact during playback, and I'm not sure where this de-interlacing happens
4) I used AVStoDVD to make a DVD from these captures. Is my DVD interlaced or progressive?

I appreciate your help

Thanks
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
05-12-2017, 09:57 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
I have a Hauppauge USB-Live 2. I captured my VHS tapes using a Panasonic 930 SVHS machine via a AVT TBC using VirtualDUB and HuffYUV (single thread). I had to use the Windows WDM interfaces as for some reason, DirectShow wouldn't work for my device.
You should be able to see both options. Sometimes this is dependent on the driver installation sequence. The software is normally installed before the capture device is configured for the first time -- or the other variation is to not allow the Windows software wizard to install Micrososft drivers, but to cancel the hardware wizard and use the OEM's install disc exclusively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
1) Is using the WDM device any different from DirectShow from a quality/capture standpoint?
WDM and DirectShow are similar, but I believe the DirectShow interface API offers more options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
2) I use 25fps to capture my PAL VHS tapes. Is this correct? I'm aware that VHS-PAL is 50i
PAL is 25 interlaced frames per second, "50i" is 50 de-interlaced fields per second. "50i" is technically incorrect and is a fancy marketing gimmick designed to suck you into thinking that you're getting twice as much of something. Technically it's more accurate with standard definition to say 576i for PAL/25fps or 480i for NTSC/29.97fps. PAL VHS is generally captured as interlaced 720x576 YUY2 with lossless compression using huffyuv or Lagarith. UT Video codec is also used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
3) Are my recordings still interlaced? I see some "combing" artifact during playback, and I'm not sure where this de-interlacing happens
You seem confused about combing. Playing interlaced video without proper real-time deinterlacing would show combing effects. Deinterlacing will not generate combing effects. You will see combing effects in editors and in media players that don't deinterlace during playback. If you are using VLC Player, VLC does not deinterlace by default and has to be more permanently set to do so in its "option" menus. If you are using Windows Media Player you're using one of the worst players available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
4) I used AVStoDVD to make a DVD from these captures. Is my DVD interlaced or progressive?
I don't use free software to create DVD's, but PAL/NTSC DVD is normally either interlaced or telecined. If you made a "normal" DVD it would be interlaced. If you see combing during TV playback of a DVD, something's wrong. If you see combing on TV playback of a progressively encoded DVD, you definitely have problems.

Mount your AVI capture or a VOB in VirtualDub. Add the deinterlace filter (use the yadif version available in the deinterlace filter's dialog window, using both fields for double frame-rate playback). After enabling the deinterlacer, play the video one frame at a time using the VirtualDub play controls, and observe motion differences between the input window and the output window. If there is motion in an interlaced frame, it will take two clicks of the frame play button to show the complete motion in the output window. If you don't know how to use VirtualDub, you should learn to use it as a quick and handy analysis tool.

If you like, you can post about 8 seconds of your original, unaltered huffyuv capture directly into the forum. Choose a short sequence that has motion of some kind (someone moving, camera pan, etc.). Cut the edit in VirtualDub and save it using "Video" -> "direct stream copy" mode to avoid altering the colorspace or compression. A few seconds of huffyuv YUY2 would be within the 99MB posting limit. Please do not post YouTube samples -- they are never interlaced and are always badly re-processed.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
05-13-2017, 07:34 AM
jt_retro jt_retro is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanks, I'll upload a small clip to show you.

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you could tell me if I'm correct/wrong with these:

1) Interlaced digital video is never designed to be distributed to average users for viewing on a computer. It is only really designed to be displayed on a TV where interlaced display is native (CRT) or has proper de-interlacing hardware (LCD TVs).

2) From a digital perspective, interlaced and progressive video is actually the same thing as far as the computer is concerned. All "deinterlacing" does is applies a filter to blend the combing effects (created by half of a frame being from a different moment in time) by predicting/analysing movement, for better viewing on a progressive display.

3) When viewing TV broadcasts (DVB in Europe, ATSC in the US), the "i" or "p" flag set in the stream just tells the TV to do it's blending or not as above.

Is that correct, or am I totally off?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
05-13-2017, 11:20 AM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
1) Interlaced digital video is never designed to be distributed to average users for viewing on a computer. It is only really designed to be displayed on a TV where interlaced display is native (CRT) or has proper de-interlacing hardware (LCD TVs).
That's a loaded question to which there is no simple answer. True, the old CRT era required interlaced video but so did the transmission cost technology of the day. Note that TV broadcasts are still interlaced today, and those that aren't interlaced are telecined. Another complication is that most decent TV's do well at deinterlace or telecine display, but many cheapo's don't handle double-framerate progressive video so well. The same is true for set top players. If you want to see your favorite modern cinema releases or older classic films on cable TV, you need a TV that can handle 23.976 or 24 fps progressive video without flicker or other adverse effects. As for PC playback devices, why do you think so many media players de-interlace on the fly but NLE editors do not -- factors that make the answer a little more complicated.

By and large, movie makers don't create films specifically for computer display except in some cases where a program has to be modified for the display characteristics of computer monitors, which differ from the display characteristics of TVs and projection devices. With most ordinary sources, interlaced or telecined vbideo is deintrlaced by removcing alternate frames for the chaopo online media players that can't deinterlace. This throws away half the spatial and temporal resolution of the original. The alternative is double frame rate deinterlace retaining all frames, but streamiung at twice the frame rate at normal frame size is a different proposotion. You would have to ask movie makers why they don't produce films specifically for TV screens that display at 24, 25, 48, 50, or 59.94 Hz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
2) From a digital perspective, interlaced and progressive video is actually the same thing as far as the computer is concerned. All "deinterlacing" does is applies a filter to blend the combing effects (created by half of a frame being from a different moment in time) by predicting/analysing movement, for better viewing on a progressive display.
That is not accurate. Deinterlacing by field blending is a no-no and only makes interlace effects look worse. Blending is responsible for some of the dumb-ugliest looking videos you'll ever see on YouTube, which is replete with examples of bad deinterlacing. Normal deinterlace separates even and odd interlaced fields into separate frames, resizes them appropriately and displays them in succession at twice the original frame rate. Some other misled monitor gimmicks are 120Hz and 240Hz frame timing, which blurs and produces a soap opera look to overcome the original design flaw with LCD displays, which by nature are poor at displaying motion video because of the persistence of human vision. The most effective way to reduce motion artifacts with digital TV is the same on/off lighting interruption used in cinema projection and the fading/repainting methods used in CRTs and plasma TV. But because normal flicker operation produces a dimmer image in store showrooms, you'll never see that simple device used for LCDs. You did see it in plasma TV -- why do you think plasmas were always displayed in a separate, low-light showroom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
3) When viewing TV broadcasts (DVB in Europe, ATSC in the US), the "i" or "p" flag set in the stream just tells the TV to do it's blending or not as above.
Not always, but others will have to address that because I'm not a broadcast engineer. ATSC in the US is generally broadcast as interlaced/telecined, and many set top players will play pogressive video as if it were interlaced anyway. Streaming services over cable or internet work differently and in many cases are not streaming interlaced or telecined material. But this can cause display problems with TV's that are set for 60Hz NTSC display. So someone with more engineering background will have to address that one.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
05-13-2017, 12:36 PM
jt_retro jt_retro is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Hi Sanlyn

Thank for your extensive reply. I've still got some questions but I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me.

Regarding me saying that interlaced vs progressive video is the same in the digital realm, perhaps I wasn't articulating my thoughts correctly. What I mean is, is that 25fps is 25fps period. The only difference between interlaced vs progressive, is that for a given frame, interlaced video has half of the rows from one instant in time and half another instant; whereas progressive has all rows from the same instant. Is this correct?

Regarding my de-interlace description, perhaps blending gives a poor result, but it's still one (albeit crappy) way of deinterlacing, right? I now understand that better methods are like the double-frame Yadif which split each field in to it's own frame. Am I correct in saying that the Yadif algorithm fills in the blank rows using some cleaver magicness? I assume this to be the case, as a field in interlaced video is only on alternate lines, so the other lines must be filled in somehow, right? Or does Yadif just simply stretch the field to fill the frame?

And now my final question: In computer video, is there a field in the metadata somewhere that tells the player if it's interlaced or progressive? I'm assuming not, as VLC needs to be explicitly told, right? I also can't find a way to tell if a video is interlaced or not without going frame by frame in Virtualdub.

Thanks!

Last edited by jt_retro; 05-13-2017 at 12:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
05-13-2017, 10:29 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
Regarding me saying that interlaced vs progressive video is the same in the digital realm, perhaps I wasn't articulating my thoughts correctly. What I mean is, is that 25fps is 25fps period. The only difference between interlaced vs progressive, is that for a given frame, interlaced video has half of the rows from one instant in time and half another instant; whereas progressive has all rows from the same instant. Is this correct?
Correct that all rows in a progressive frame have an image from one instant in time, and interlaced frames have images from two instants of time in alternating rows. However, a deinterlacing device or player doesn't show both instances at the same time; each of the two images is shown for 1/2 the standard full-frame rate, or 1/50 second for PAL. If a progressive image is deinterlaced by the device, the same instant is still shown for 1/50 sec but is shown twice. There are special processing methods available for creating interlace-encoded video from progressive images, both for 25fps PAL and for 29.97fps NTSC.

You are also aggregating standard definition algorithms with HD algorithms. HD formats have provision for double-frame rate video as well as for non-telecined film speed video, and interlaced/telecined formats as well.
https://www.videohelp.com/hd#tech. Meanwhile the internet is strictly progressive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
Regarding my de-interlace description, perhaps blending gives a poor result, but it's still one (albeit crappy) way of deinterlacing, right? I now understand that better methods are like the double-frame Yadif which split each field in to it's own frame. Am I correct in saying that the Yadif algorithm fills in the blank rows using some cleaver magicness? I assume this to be the case, as a field in interlaced video is only on alternate lines, so the other lines must be filled in somehow, right? Or does Yadif just simply stretch the field to fill the frame?
Field blending is not "perhaps" a crappy way, it is a crappy way and no pro will use it for decent broadcast because it looks pretty crappy, and because it's appearance is a dead giveaway of cheap and amateurish processing. Field blending cannot be repaired. I don't know what "blank lines' you're talking about. Alternating lines are assembled into two half-sized frames that are interpolated into full-sized frames. The resizing is imperfect and often blurry, sometimes with aliasing and other artifacts. Some players and playback devices are better at it than others. The yadif algorithm is in wide use in many devices, but many devices also use a simple bob technique (such as Cyberlink).

There are better deintelacers, such as NNEDI3 and QTGMC, depending on the effects you want, but they aren't real-time deinterlacers. QTGMC probably does a better job than any playback device these days, and includes some very good (as well as occasionally destructive) denoising and repair options that can be enabled or disabled. QTGMC's resizing and motion interpolation methods can be very sophisticated. But interlaced originals are usually archived as interlaced because future developments could eventually produce better deinterlacing with fewer side effects and greater speed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
And now my final question: In computer video, is there a field in the metadata somewhere that tells the player if it's interlaced or progressive? I'm assuming not, as VLC needs to be explicitly told, right? I also can't find a way to tell if a video is interlaced or not without going frame by frame in Virtualdub.
You're certai9nlky making this more complicated it should be. Yes, there are interlace as well as telecine flags in many video formats that tell a player how the video is to be processed. VLC player doesn't deinterlace by default because they offer the options to do it using several methods, or to use it automatically, or not use it at all, or force deinterlacing onto all input signals. Players like MPC-BE read file data to decide, but they still use various rendering engines with different deinterlace performance.

If you see interlace combing, you're looking at video that was interlaced, is interlaced, or could be telecined, or was telecined at one time and badly processed. If you find it too difficult to perform simple tasks with something like VirtualDub, I hasten to say that the usual NLE would be too advanced, a "pro" level app such as the over-hyped Premier PRO or Vegas would be a stern challenge (and neither deinterlaces that well to begin with), and Avisynth would be out of the question. Virtualdub offers many easy and quick ways to analyze the frame structure of many video formats and will accept more formats than simple AVI. VirtualDub can also offer some sophisticated color and levels analysis tools. Avisynth can do that as well as break down video by row and/or column, by color channel in YUV or RGB, and pull off a lot of other tricks. Usually you'd need only a simple subset of the available tools from either app. Here's an old guide in .htm format: Neuron2_How To Analyze Video Frame Structure.zip.

Last edited by sanlyn; 05-13-2017 at 10:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
05-13-2017, 10:46 PM
jt_retro jt_retro is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanks for your reply!

I'm not having any problems using virtualdub to deinterlace. It's working great - I'm just trying to understand how it works.

My blanks frames remark is directly related to your following statement:

Quote:
Alternating lines are assembled into two half-sized frames that are interpolated into full-sized frames
What data is used to turn a half frame in to a full frame?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
05-13-2017, 11:50 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
I'm uncertain about which methods various deintelacers use to interpolate frame sixes. Some are simple algorithms, others are complex motion-compensated interpolations. Most Avisynth and VirtualDub third -party filters are accompanied by their source code, which is usually C++ or assembler language or both. You will malso find more details in development threads on doom9 that are detailed discussions on the use and innards of AVisynth filters. I am not a programmer of filters, I just study how experts use them.

Attached is an avi with four side-by-side sections of the results of deinterlacing the same difficult video with four different deinterlacers, from left to right: yadif, MVBobMod, TempGaussMC, and TDeint/NNEDI. The sample shows how different deinterlacers handle different noise and object rendering problems.

TempGaussMC (aka "TGMC") is the predecessor of today's QTGMC and is still in use.


Attached Files
File Type: avi stockholma_0-520_q3_yadif_mvbobmod_tgmca4_tdtmm.avi (5.43 MB, 76 downloads)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
05-14-2017, 02:39 AM
koberulz koberulz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 453
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Is there anything specific to look at in that clip? They look largely the same. The outside two appear to bounce up and down a little, and BobMod seems a little blurrier?

Could you throw a field blend in there with the same clip?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
05-14-2017, 06:31 AM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
I wouldn't be able to modify that test avi because I don't have the original. And if I did I wouldn't throw a field blend into an interlaced original. It's easy enough to do -- encode an interlaced video as progressive or use Premiere's field blend option. Or resize a video horizontally without deinterlacing first, then restore the original frame dimensions.

One purpose of the test avi looks specifically at line twitter, aliasing, and moire created by various types of objects and interpolation methods. It's a shame you can't see that the TempGaussMC panel is far more stable and cleaner than the other three, and everyone has known for a long time that simple bob() or its derivatives are blurrier than other methods. But in fact all of the methods shown except TGMC are in wide use in one form or another in various desktop apps and in some Avisynth published scripts, and each has their particular uses and purpose. But it's beyond this discussion to get into field research on every aspect of their use, and is beside the point. The post and discussion appeared about 2008 in doom9 and elsewhere and the original has since been lost to the ages. Originally the discvuissions dealt with whether or not faster deintelace speeds were worth the results, with TGMC being the slowest and yadif and simple bob() algorithms the fastest.

The title of this thread no longer has anything to do with the discussion.

However, I did neglect to mention one issues from an earlier post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
Regarding me saying that interlaced vs progressive video is the same in the digital realm, perhaps I wasn't articulating my thoughts correctly. What I mean is, is that 25fps is 25fps period. The only difference between interlaced vs progressive, is that for a given frame, interlaced video has half of the rows from one instant in time and half another instant; whereas progressive has all rows from the same instant. Is this correct?
25 fps interlaced and 25 fps progressive are not "the same thing" due to one of the reasons mentioned but also because 25fps interlaced video shows a different image every 1/50 second, but 25fps progressive shows the same image for twice as long. If you wanted to maintain motion smoothness between the two you would deinterlace 25fps interlaced video into 50fps double-rate progressive video.

There are other differences in the digital domain. PAL video is often made from 23.976 or 24fps film originals. Various means are used to bring film speeds up to 25fps, including just speeding things up a bit (I hate that) or using various forms of pulldown (aka telecine). Some frames are configured into fields and interlaced periodically so that certain fields periodically repeat at certain intervals, or in some cases duplicate frames are inserted at intervals and played at an accelerated frame rate. In the restoration of silent films shot at anywhere from 12 to 20 fps, various duplication and telecine techniques are used to create the impression of 25fps playback. The same thing is done for NTSC, and for PAL to NTSC conversions. So, in many cases, "25fps" isn't nearly as straightfoward as it seems.

Last edited by sanlyn; 05-14-2017 at 07:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
05-14-2017, 08:21 AM
msgohan msgohan is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,323
Thanked 334 Times in 276 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
I wouldn't be able to modify that test avi because I don't have the original. And if I did I wouldn't throw a field blend into an interlaced original.
The Stockholm test sequence itself is here, but it's served as the native 720p YUV raw. Didee's 576i link is long-dead, so it would have to be re-created.

Quote:
resize a video horizontally without deinterlacing first, then restore the original frame dimensions.
Vertically. And by 1/2 specifically. Other factors would just corrupt the interlacing rather than blend it, as you know.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank msgohan for this useful post: sanlyn (05-14-2017)
  #12  
05-14-2017, 08:56 AM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
I once looked for didee's original for 3 hours. No wonder I didn't find it. Thanks for both notes.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
05-14-2017, 10:06 AM
jt_retro jt_retro is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
25 fps interlaced and 25 fps progressive are not "the same thing" due to one of the reasons mentioned but also because 25fps interlaced video shows a different image every 1/50 second, but 25fps progressive shows the same image for twice as long. If you wanted to maintain motion smoothness between the two you would deinterlace 25fps interlaced video into 50fps double-rate progressive video.
From the "input stage" of a computer, isn't that still the same thing though? As in, playing an interlaced video on a player that doesn't expect it would just show a frame with 2 fields (in different instants of time) - i.e. show combing.

A 1 second interlaced or progressive clip will both have 25 frames.

Surely, the "different image every 1/50 second" is down to how the computer handles the playback/processing of the video, rather than the video itself.

Why this mundane issue is important in my head, is that previously, I always though that interlaced video was of a totally different "format" (analog codec, if you will) to a progressive video. As in, fitting a circle in to a square hole. I always thought it was impossible to play back an interlaced video on a progressive screen without any form of deinterlacing.

But it turns out to not really be the case. It's just lots of pictures (25 a second) with alternating lines of each picture being from a different moment in time.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
05-14-2017, 10:18 AM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
I can't guess what would make anyone think that interlace was a strictly "analog" phenomenon. Today's digital broadcasts are interlaced, so is standard-definition interlaced/telecined digital DVD, so is high-definition BluRay at 25 or 30 fps, and so is PAL or NTSC digital DV tape as well as many of today's digital HD cameras and webcams. I don't know what video forums you've been frequenting, but I'd advise taking some of them with a hefty grain of salt. You might also want to consider various pulldown or telecine schemes, which are a mix of progressive and interlaced frames, along with some field duplication. Some pictures of various forms of pulldown for PAL and NTSC from progressive film sources are shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine.

Unfortunately you can't the internet. I saw a website that defined "telecine" as a way of bootlegging retail videos. Now, how do you suppose anyone came up with that line of total nonsense and B.S.? Sadly, many naive readers would believe it.

Last edited by sanlyn; 05-14-2017 at 10:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
05-14-2017, 10:31 AM
jt_retro jt_retro is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I never said it was just analog. Nor do I think it is. All I was saying was that I used to think they were totally different formats and that it was impossible to display interlaced video on a progressive display (without deinterlacing) when in reality it's just what a frame consists of. Very simple.

Although, I will admit, that since CRTs natively scan in such a way that tends well to interlaced sources, this is quite possibly where my confusion stemmed from.

Btw, in the UK, we have free OTA digital broadcasts in 1080p now

Last edited by jt_retro; 05-14-2017 at 10:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
05-14-2017, 10:51 AM
msgohan msgohan is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,323
Thanked 334 Times in 276 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
I saw a website that defined "telecine" as a way of bootlegging retail videos. Now, how do you suppose anyone came up with that line of total nonsense and B.S.?
It's a tag that movie pirates use in filenames when the source is a stolen film print that's telecined. I think they originate in Russia and China.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
Surely, the "different image every 1/50 second" is down to how the computer handles the playback/processing of the video, rather than the video itself.

Why this mundane issue is important in my head, is that previously, I always though that interlaced video was of a totally different "format" (analog codec, if you will) to a progressive video.
The technical structure of analog video does differ depending on whether an interlaced or progressive signal is being sent. Old video game consoles used different signalling to generate progressive 60fps / 50fps imagery at low-resolution (240p / 288p) and avoided interlacing flicker. VCR full-screen menus do the same thing, which is why they trip up some devices.

The technical structure of compressed digital video can differ depending on whether the data has been flagged as interlaced or progressive. Huffyuv, Ut Video, and others have thresholds or checkboxes to tell the codec you're compressing interlaced. This allows the codec to correctly compare across separated fields (half-height frames, 2x FPS) rather than trying to compare combed images for better compression ratio. Note that this flag is used internal to the codec only. The AVI container has no standard interlacing flag and so you must manually tell a player to deinterlace your captures to view them properly: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/news...nterlaced.html

In both analog and digital, it's nonetheless possible to send progressive images through an interlaced "container".
Reply With Quote
  #17  
05-14-2017, 11:15 AM
jt_retro jt_retro is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Looks like I'm learning even more new things

Quote:
The technical structure of compressed digital video can differ depending on whether the data has been flagged as interlaced or progressive.
Ok, but even with compressed formats like HuffYUV, aren't they still the same as far as the player's input stage is concerned? That is, the codec compresses the sources based on the intelligence given, but at playback time, a frame is a frame, right? (Which you then proceed to tell the player how to playback the video).

I believe this to be the case, as you are able to play back an interlaced HuffYUV video without deinterlacing enabled. (It just looks combed)



Quote:
The technical structure of analog video does differ depending on whether an interlaced or progressive signal is being sent.
This sounds like a tricky one. Does an analog TV received need to know beforehand what format the signal is in? Is a TV that expects usual interlaced analog programs able to receive, sync and display to a progressive input?

Thanks!

Last edited by jt_retro; 05-14-2017 at 11:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
05-14-2017, 11:56 AM
msgohan msgohan is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,323
Thanked 334 Times in 276 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt_retro View Post
regarding compressed video, does that actual end product structure vary fundamentally, or, is it simply compressed differently based on the intelligence provided at compression time? I was able to play back an interlaced DVD in VLC with no deinterlacing (and thus saw combing), so I feel it's the latter case.
Compressed video is always decompressed for display, so in the end you've just got a series of raster images. Whether the fields are woven together into frames depends on the decoder/settings used, but this "Weave" method to display a combed frame is standard when deinterlacing post-processing is not enabled. You could get a series of decompressed fields instead, though, so in that case the structure of your decompressed video would differ.

Quote:
Perhaps HuffYUV is a compressed format, and what you are saying is that you tell HuffYUV at capture time whether your source is interlaced or progressive so that it can handle its compression properly. Is that correct?
Yes. The original version of Huffyuv handles this itself, using a threshold value of 288 that is not user-configurable.

Quote:
Does an analog TV received need to know beforehand what format the signal is in?
Well, the signal itself is telling it how to draw the lines. The vertical synchronization portion differs.

Quote:
Is a TV that expects usual interlaced analog programs able to receive, sync and display to a progressive input?
I think the second link I included describes it better than I can, but yes, in the case of a lower-definition progressive scan.

480i CRTs can display 240p60 but not 480p60. (If they could do 480p60, interlacing never would have been invented.)
1080i CRTs can display 540p60 but not 720p60. They have to internally downscale 720p using digital processing before presenting it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
05-14-2017, 12:24 PM
jt_retro jt_retro is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 39
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
You could get a series of decompressed fields instead, though, so in that case the structure of your decompressed video would differ.
Under what scenario would a codec decompressor give a series of fields, instead of woven frames? I'd would have imagined that the de-interlacing stage would be after decompression, thus would require woven frames for deinterlacing to work? I am conceptually thinking of the codec decompressor as a seperate block from the de-interlacer (which I think is correct, as you can choose your deinterlacer in VLC regardless of video codec)

Quote:
I think the second link I included describes it better than I can, but yes, in the case of a lower-definition progressive scan.
I guess a 240p picture is just 480i, except that the 2 fields inside each frame are from the same instant in time (and also the vsync circuit is triggured at different times compared with a real 480i signal). Does that sound about right?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I know I'm asking really weird questions, but I'm so interested in how all of this works. The fact that I was able to view non-deinterlaced interlaced video on my PC blew my mind.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
05-14-2017, 04:29 PM
koberulz koberulz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 453
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
I wouldn't be able to modify that test avi because I don't have the original. And if I did I wouldn't throw a field blend into an interlaced original. It's easy enough to do -- encode an interlaced video as progressive or use Premiere's field blend option. Or resize a video horizontally without deinterlacing first, then restore the original frame dimensions.
Sure, but I was thinking in terms of a direct comparison with the four alternatives presented.

Quote:
One purpose of the test avi looks specifically at line twitter, aliasing, and moire created by various types of objects and interpolation methods. It's a shame you can't see that the TempGaussMC panel is far more stable and cleaner than the other three
It certainly is in some areas (the stairs at the end of the clip are probably the most blatant example), but there's a lot of information in that video and it takes a lot of viewing to see the differences if you don't know what you're looking for. And I vaguely recall reading that which is best depends on what your footage is, so the specific behaviours are relevant in that case.

Probably better off posting this in my own thread but the main reason for my interest, beyond my general unhealthy desire to know absolutely everything about absolutely everything, is I'm looking at encoding my restorations as progressive. At the same time, no point trying to copy across half this thread and jt_retro might get something out of it.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AVI capture problem! Huffyuv glitched playback? rocko Capture, Record, Transfer 14 03-17-2017 07:33 PM
Capture card differences when capturing with Huffyuv? will74 Capture, Record, Transfer 10 01-15-2016 12:30 PM
Huffyuv vs. Cineform video capture? qiko Project Planning, Workflows 4 08-30-2015 06:15 AM
Multiple video capture questions - Hi8, capture system, Huffyuv? Lightsword Capture, Record, Transfer 14 05-22-2014 11:53 AM
HuffyUV Settings with VirtualDub for capture naripeddi Capture, Record, Transfer 7 04-12-2013 02:50 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM