Best way to convert MPEG2 to deinterlaced MP4 on PC?
 

I have done som testing. Here are my notes. Comments are highly appreciated.

Background
I want to convert interlaced MPG2 (from my VHS-captures) to interlaced MP4. Many capture devices can capture directly to interlaced MPG2, and it is the ideal source for making DVD-records. (Because the files on DVD is similar to interlaced MPG2). However I want MP4 for distributing on USB-RAM (for playback on computer), because not all computers support MPG2. I also want deinterlaced because not all players deinterlace by default on playback. It means I want deinterlaced MP4

Deinterlacing with Handbrake
Setting deinterlace = slower ( "yadif" ). Handbrake deinterlaces much better than "AnyVideoconverter" and other "converters" I have tried. AnyVideoconverters built in interlace seems to be like "fast" in Handbrake. A time saving alternative to making non-interlaced MP4 could be just distributing MPG2 interlaced files, almost directly as captured. And then let the player on the computer do the interlacing.

Deinterlacing by player software
Windows Media Player: MPEG-2 format video isn't supported by default on Windows 8.1. You can install the free "ffdshow" encoder. It seems then to deinterlace automatically. However the quality is lower than VLC Player.

MPC-HC: MPC-HC is a light-weight, open source media player for Windows. It deinterlaces MPG2 by automatically, seems to be in "blend" mode, which is fast, but not the best way.

VLC Player: VLC Player is a good player, however it does not interlace automatically. You have to turn it on ("video", "deinterlace", "yadif" ) or permanently under "tools", "settings". Deinterlace quality is good.

VLC is the best player for deinterlacing MPG2 at playback. However it is complicated for many users to set deinterlacing up, and the player must be installed first.

Handbrake vs. Player deinterlacing
Handbrake vs. deinterlacing by playback in VLC Player ( setting = yadif ). Handbrake is visible better. It means that you cannot depend on players deinterlacing on a computer if you want the best quality.

A note on playback by smart-tv
My experience by testing two identical filmclips in MP4 (deinterlaced) and MPG2 (interlaced - from capture ): MP4 needs a fast smart TV for good playback ( seems like it needs more computerpower). If not MPG2 will look better. TV´s seems to handle MPG2 more easily. However not all models cut off the overscan area, it means you will see the headshifting noise in the bottom 10 pixels and the black sides 4-8 pixels. On a fast TV there seems to be no difference between interlaced MPG2 and MP4 deinterlaced by Handbrake.

Conclusion
I find that the best is to make a good deinterlaced MP4 file for computer playback. Of the converters I have tried Handbrake is far the best, and the result is that MP4 interlaced look considerably better at playback than MPG2 deinterlaced during playback on pc.


It means my workflow is
* Capture in MGP2
* Trim the ends by a simple non-destructive "edit"
* In Handbrake: Convert to MP4, deinterlace and crop the overscan area ( eg. 8 pixels at the bottom)

I have read about Avisynth, and plugins for editors like Vegas. However time and simplicity in workflow is also important for me. What is your opinion, do you prefer MP4 or MPG2 or both distribution on USB-RAM?

Everything posted above poses serious quality issues and contains what amounts to fictional claims of high quality from certain software products and methods, as well as more inaccuracies and misconceptions than I would find time to correct. Others can chime in as they wish, but digitalfaq usually aims for much higher quality work than you're aiming for, and I feel that the unsupported claims you're making will mislead and/or disappoint others who look for more and better. Cropping overscan? That one alone is a dead giveaway.

MP4 is not a format. It's a container. Please be more careful and precise about your terminology.

Best = QTGMC, or a complex Yadif-based method. That's been true for a few years now, and will probably not change in the near future.

Best lazy method = Yadif alone. You'll notice many interlace artifacts with animation, anything high definition, or anything with lots of geometric shapes (especially linear diagonals). For SD(ish) live-action material, Yadif will not be overly noticeable. There will be quality loss, so don't trash the master. I sometimes do a quick-and-dirty Yadif for testing or quickly showing a clip to somebody online.

Most encoders/etc have crap deinterlacers -- everything from the expensive payware Premiere Pro CC, to the freeware Avidemux or Handbrake.

MP4 isn't a format, but a container. I'm going to guess that you're referring to H.264 or XviD, though format doesn't really matter for this conversation. It was just extra details. That said, both support interlacing poorly.

The statement "files on DVD is similar to interlaced MPG2" is false. DVD-Video *is* using MPEG-2 (interlaced or progressive).

I have no idea what a "USB-RAM" is supposed to be. Did you just add "-RAM" on reference to thumb/flash drives? aka small solid-state USB sticks.

Junkyware/Chinaware like AnyVideoConverter is based on freeware. So the fast deinterlace setting in Handbrake is probably what they used.

WMP sucks at deinterlacing, and just blends. For players, VLC's Yadifx2 is currently the best, outside of hardware. VLC is not complicated; some users are just lazy dullards (that spend too much time on Facebook and Youtube). If you want complicated, that's Avisynth or PFclean.

And MP4 has nothing to do with a TV. The specs of the player determines what can be played. But honestly, most are standardized, and it's badly-encoded video that makes those barf -- it's not the fault of the player.

Why are you deinterlacing?

Regarding the TV, the OP may be plugging the USB drive directly into the TV. In that case the TV is the player, and thus becomes relevant to playback.

The container and codec are irrelavant, in that smart TV can play MPEG2 and mp4/h.264 alike whether they're interlaced or not (as long either is encoded within standard specs). The dubious aspect here is deinterlacing for no apparent reason other than the O.P. is using software and hardware that doesn't deinterlace well. This comes down to the owner having to deinterlace and re-encode everything that comes over the cable channels or is sold as commercial video in stores.

Lossy capture followed by lossy re-encoding involves quality degradation especially with an SD source that's inferior to begin with, and poor deinterlacing and unnecessary rescaling have a cost as well. Many sources aren't interlaced to begin with, as the number of tapes and animation that are telecined, field blended, and work with frame duplication cannot be deinterlaced without serious damage. Multiple stages of degrading a source is a bad idea from the start. Processing like this looks no better than sloppy UTube work and is a long way from "ideal". There is nothing new about any of this, which no reputable tech forum would recommend.

Thank you for your response.

"Fictional claims" I do not know exactly what you mean. If you refer to my comments on deinterlacing methods in Handbrake vs. different players, it is not fictional but based on hours of testing on the same short clip. My conclusion is that deinterlacing by the player is not as good as deinterlacing by Yadif in Handbrake. Among the players VLC is best ( but unfortunetely it does not deinterlace by default ). And because deinterlacing by player software is not so good I want to deinterlace for computer-viewing, instead of keeping it interlaced.

"Cropping overscan?" Well I do not like that too, but why is it so important, if it is for computer-playback or smart-tv playback only, and not for making a DVD?

But anyway I got the point, the quality should be better. So in the last days I have startet experimenting with AVisynth and MeGUI, not easy for me, but now I have managed to understand Avisynth a little and I tried to modify the standard Avisynth script in MeGUI with a crop + addborder command and the QTGMC deinterlacer script. And yes it looks much better. I hope to make it even better, when I learn to use more scripts.

My experience ( based on testing the same clip on an old and new smart tv) is that MPEG2 interlaced plays more easy than MP4 deinterlaced on old slow smart tv´s. More fluently, loads quicker, less pixelation. I maybe wrong but I imagine that the deinterlaced MP4 needs more processing. Some old smart tv´s cannot even play MP4 but only MPEG2. My MP4 is made with Handbrake Codec is named "H.264 (x264)". I still just dont get that codec - container - difference.

Thank you for your response and for this great forum.

In the last few days I have tried Avisynth a little (I find it complicated) an also tried the QTGMC deinterlace script. I see what you mean, it is much better, especially with small moving patterns like, in my test-video, the red white squares on an italian restaurant style tablecloth. And yes Yadif in eg. Handbrake is not so bad, and maybe the best choice if you just find Avisynth scripting too difficult.

I guess I do not fully understand this. Is MPG2 and MPEG-2 different things? I have just noticed that it is very easy to make the vob files on a DVD-video to MPG2 files, it seems like almost no conversion is needed.

Yes :) thats what we call it here

It is also my experience, that VLC is the best of the players, however I think I used only Yadif and not Yadif (2x). Maybe it can be even better. I think that MPC-HC also was not much better or similar to WMP.

Good Question. My case is that I used to make videotape to DVD, but now many people want video on a "USB-stick". If I just give them interlaced MPEG2, some cannot even play MPEG2, and others only interlaced. I guess I could instruct them to install VLC, but many has no clue about players, they just want to click on the file and then it should play. Also the MPEG2 files meant for DVD has the overscan area and headswitching noise.

It means I need to do something with the files at least crop the overscan area and at the best add some black borders. I like MP4 (H.264, x264) because it plays on all computers. I like deinterlaced becaues the players (except VLC) deinterlace poorly. But If I give them deinterlaced MP4, I have problems about the quality degrading in the interlace process.

What would you give to people who want video on a "USB-stick"?
Can I just crop and add border to a MPG2 file and tell people to use VLC player?
Can I use MP4 interlaced (only MPG2 to MP4 conversion) or MPG2 deinterlaced? (only deinterlacing MPG2)
Or will I have to make a better deinterlaced MP4 (when I get to know Avisynth)?

MPG and MPEG, when referring to video file names (aka "containers") means a video file that has been encoded using one of two codecs: MPEG2 or MPEG1. DVD cannot be created using any other codecs. MPEG-2 is the codec standard for retail DVD and is a standard used in digital TV broadcasting. When MPEG2 is authored for DVD disc, the .mpg or .mpeg containers are reorganized into .VOB containers.

MP4 is a container whose contents can be encoded using several codecs, including MPEG-2 Part2 for BluRay/AVCHD, h.264/AVC (aka "MPEG-4"), MPEG-4 ASP, h.263, VC-1, and others. It was designed with progressive internet streaming in mind. The MP4 container cannot be used for commercial standard formats such as DVD, BluRay, or AVCHD.

Nonsense.

I don't know how you have time to watch videos if you're so busy re-encoding and deinterlacing everything you buy in DVD and BluRay and everything you watch from cable TV on bad TV sets and rare media players that don't how to play interlaced or telecined video. Consider getting a better computer and learning to work with low-quality sources to make them a little better, or at least viewable by people with two good eyes and some sense of visual discrimination. Dumbed-down mediocre video for dysfunctional users who are already irretrievably dumbed-down is being done worldwide, 24/7/365, by anyone who can click a couple of icons. There's nothing new here.

The files I refer to when i write "MPG2 files meant for DVD" are the files I capture from VHS video. They (at least mine) have the overscan and headswitching noise area.

The appearance of the side borders and head switching noise has nothing to do with the codec used to capture, and nothing to do with overscan that would be unique to MPEG2. You shouldn't be capturing to lossy codecs if you wish to modify your image. Not recommend anywhere in this forum. Also, your recommendation to remove borders and head switching noise by cropping and then resampling the image size is idiotic. Only a rank beginner with very little knowledge would resize frames in that manner.

I know that the side borders and head switching noise has nothing to do with the capture codec.

I know lossless would be better, but my capture program can only capture MPG2 or AVI. Some day I will try Virtualdub or whatever it takes, but that is the next step. I like MPG2 because it does not take much space and is easy to convert to DVD.

I do not resize the frame, just crop it. Eg. from 720x576 to 704 x 556

I have now installed Avisynth and MeGUI and QTGMC deinterlacer script, so now I can crop and add borders, and deinterlace in a better way with QTGMC. It already looks a lot better, but it is very slow.

I should know by now not to have gone deeper into this thread, but every time you go into detail there are more revelations about sloppy or incorrect processing. Sorry to have to have to keep after this but.....

Not just better; lossless is as accurate and as versatile as you'll get, given decent playback hardware and capture cards. Lossy codecs like MPEG for capture are not the "ideal" you advertise, especially at mainstream or lower bitrates. As you learn more about video you'll realize how difficult it is to repair lossy compression noise and artifacts while maintaining any level of the original image integrity. At the outset you throw away a large percentage of visual data, yet you already know that there will be another stage of more re-encoding loss. So this method is a long way from ideal. It's self crippling from the start.

Wait a minute. You can't say at one point that "I like MPG2 because it does not take much space and is easy to convert to DVD", and then say that you crop to a non-standard frame size that's not valid for DVD. If you're trying to un-confuse users who are already clueless about video, then you are confusing other users who are more advanced. What do you mean by "DVD"? The DVD format has rigid specifications not open to free-for-all processing. If by "DVD" you just mean an mpeg file, that's not a DVD. It's just an .mpeg file of dubious specification.

704 x 556 is a non-standard frame size for both PAL and NTSC. It's a mod-4 dimension, meaning that filters, software, and players programmed for mod-8 or mod-16 standard frame sizes will have to do some special processing if you expect to get a 4:3 display aspect ratio from 704x556. What most software will do -- that is, "most" software that will even attempt to handle it correctly -- will be to stretch the image vertically in order to display it at a 4:3 display aspect ratio. So your nonstandard frame size is distorting the original image proportions. As for users who are too clueless or too lazy to disable overscan on their TV, you have just moved 15% to 20% of the image into the masked overscan area on their TV's.

What if your projected image is supposed to be 16:9, not 4:3? Again, you'll have some distortion. And for standard definition BluRay you cannot use a 704 frame width for DAR 16:9 video. But these odd-size mpeg's are a far cry from BluRay, which has even tighter specs that DVD has.

There are other problems. Player devices accustomed to standard frame specs are making exceptions with this material because it's an unexpected pixel aspect ratio (PAR). More specifically, many encoders/decoders, players, and Avisynth filters expect at least a mod-8 image ratio (pixels that can be processed and even encoded in 8-pixel blocks). If you don't know what "MOD" means, you should have looked it up before now. Look at the standard frame sizes in SD and HD video: 352x576, 352x480, 704x576, 704x480, 720x576, 720x480, 1280x720, 1440x1080, 1920x1080, 3840x2160....these are all mod-16 frame sizes (except for the last three formats, which are mod-8 vertically). Does this tell you something about the way many encoding, filtering, decoding, and playback devices are optimized? What it tells me about your methods is that your criticism of various players really talks about the way they handle nonstandard pixel aspect ratios, not the way they handle properly processed and formatted standard video.

Of course it's slower. It's trying to clean up your noisy lossy capture, which you shouldn't be using in the first place. You could speed it up by using a faster QTGMC preset. But at least it's an effort at progress, although undone by a second lossy encode.

What are you going to do about incoming VHS sources that are not interlaced? What if they're telecined or use various pulldown setups? What about blended-field NTSC-to-PAL conversions? What about film sourced vidoes that were shot at 24fps progressive and speeded up to 25fps for PAL, and are already progressive but encoded as interlaced (and which if deinterlaced will give you two duplicate frames for every original frame)? What about animation, which is seldom interlaced and which already consists of many duplicate-frame progressive sequence techniques? What about non-PAL users who have NTSC, which has even more production permutations on tape that PAL does? I realize you haven't mentioned these but have focused only on interlaced home-video tapes made with consumer cameras -- which pretty much abandons a great many users and tape formats. So, again, your suggested method isn't "ideal" for many people.

Besides, you miss the major point. With any input source -- but especially with horrible noisy typical VHS tape -- one lossy encode at capture before denoising or cleanup is bad enough. But two lossy encodes are always worse. Always.

@sanlyn: calm down, be nice. He means well, but just has some wrong info. I don't detect any degree of stubbornness (which also gets my dander up), but just lots and lots of bad understandings.

So let's educate him. :)

FYI: He's posting from Denmark, so there may be some slight terminology differences. USB-RAM, for example, seems to be the local reference. And I'm betting English isn't his first language, though he has a definite command of it. Something to consider.

I want to read this over later, but something caught my attention while skimming: MPEG capture. I do it all the time, be it to DVD with a JVC recorder, or 15mbps with an ATI AIW card. In fact, I'm doing the latter this very minute. I'm not, nor have I ever been, an AVI purist. (In fact, I'm capturing DV over s-video, which would put some purists into fits.) You use the right tool for the need.

I get your point, lordsmurf, and hope I'm not seeming too strange here. Perhaps I'm using some of the wrong terminology myself and looking as if I'm sitting here smoldering in my chair.

If so I apologize to jnielsen and will be more careful.

I myself have made some VHS transfers directly to DVD at average bitrates , but not with the clear intention of filtering and then re-encoding to another format. Those few DVD recordings were made on a recorder with an LSI chip, played with high-end JVC and Panasonic "AG" players, and were recorded from pristine Hollywood retail issues. But they were not cropped and re-encoded to nonstandard dimensions. A couple of them are favorites that I've watched again. When I do, I wish I had kept the tapes so that i could capture, clean, and process those movies properly.

Principally, I object to the use of the word "ideal" to describe this method as being a wonderful way to archive video that we know beforehand is going to be re-processed and re-encoded. Perhaps "ideal" is not the best description. Expedient or utilitarian, yes. I agree that if we all tried to rework everything along perfect lines, none of us would live long enough to see our own projects completed.

sanlyn,

Hi, it has been a while since the Michael Jackson video days.

Yea, it amazes me to no end how people have no clue. A guy wanted me to convert a VHS tape to 4K, What? Than I had another guy who captures everything in AVI fully uncompressed and stores the videos and never converts them to mpeg2. What is the point of this madness....

I had to learn from Lord Smurf I used to do WMP files and convert them to 720x576 cause it had more lines, that was my thinking. It took a good few years to get a grasp on how to do this stuff, Lord Smurf can't say enough good things about. he helped me through everything.

To the guy in this post, keep the videos in the format it is in. If you need to mask the overscan you can do that a few different ways, the picture here is just an example of a chroma key boarder for normal NTSC.

VHS you keep them interlaced and you capture the video as such 720x576 25 frames per second. Than you make them mpeg2 videos. Use AC-3 audio 384kbs.

Not sure if you do top field or bottom field first on PAL video, I usually do top field, don't see much difference.

That amateur masking technique is more damage than I'm willing to inflict on a video.

Are you referring to deter's mask? What's wrong with it? :question:

The mask has nothing to do with the image content. It's set up for CRT overscan (sort of), which on most CRT's is not adjustable. It discards 12 pixels of the top of the image for no apparent reason, it assumes that there are 12 pixels of head-switching noise (sometimes there are none, usually 4 or 8), it cuts off 16 pixels from each side (that's 8 lost pixels of image content from each side for no apparent reason). The resulting image is cut to 688x456, which is needlessly destructive. And it forces a lossy re-encode of a lossy encode. It's a sledgehammer technique.

Just keep on lowering that bar, folks.

I think you're confused there. :hmm:

In VirtualDub, you
- Use the Resize filter -- but don't resize, simply change the letterbox/crop to the source resolution. Don't change anything else.
- In VirtualDub filters view, with Resize highlighted/selected, Crop
- Crop by 2 pixels increment (2,4,6,8,10,etc)

After this is done, the image will re-center in the mask. If the above image was 12 per size, then it could have been 24 from the bottom and 0 from the top. Or, more likely, something like 20 and 4.

The mask may look lopsided if you ONLY cut off bad pixel zones, so balancing it is left to artistic interpretation. Most often, you'll crop/mask about 4 more from each side.

I play it safe, doing to jitter concerns (thus overscan seeping into an already-bad sectino), and thus crop 2-4 extra, just to be safe about it.

Remember that the mask is going to be invisible on virtually every TV,SD and HD both. Only the computer shows this. You can completely crop and resize for streaming, since it's probably being downsized anyway. The H/x264 encoding will harm it just as much as resizing. This is all about the lesser of evils, and varies. Sometimes you can't crop, and must leave overscan, for streaming.

If anything, deter's image show hairline noise in the left/right borders, and I'd just assume mask it too. The left/right overscan is larger than top/bottom overscan anyway. (Note: JPEG compression may be the culprit in this exact image.)

Honestly, I'd not be shocked if that was a re-post of one of my images posted here over the years.

That's ridiculous and patently untrue for many viewers with new tv's. I'm not talking about "seeing" the mask anyway. It's not a great idea ("artistic license" or not) to cut off chunks of images. Ask the creator or an archivist or the owner how they feel about it. This is just mediocre grunt work looking for praise and justification.

The same author used the same gimmick to lacerate another already-damaged video posted by the same author elsewhere. It's obvious from looking at the video that big chunks are missing from the frames. Do what you want. But not to my videos and not to my clients'. Any tyro can send a video through cheap tricks like this and re-encode ad infinitum. I wouldn't recommend it and don't subscribe to it.

Otherwise everyone is perfectly free to do whatever they want.

Are we talking about the same thing here? :question:

I'm referring simply to the image above

http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/atta...oardersntscjpg

That's what masking typically looks like. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

I don't usually approve of auto-cropping 12/12/16/16, but instead cropping as needed. Sometimes that's more, sometimes less, sometimes not at all.

Note: I see deter mentioned Michael Jackson -- probably some nth generation reference to the many VH threads in recent years, all of which I find 100% pointless. I'm not referring to that junk. I'm ONLY talking about the example of a masked image.

No.

Most all SD and HD TVs mask. Even HD streams have an overscan, though it is more like 2% instead of 5% average. HDTVs tend to crop 4x3 and 16x9 feeds differently. Some cheap/crap sets don't mask anything, and some allow 100% coverage by disabling overscan in the menu. A few models have an option enabled by default, but I've rarely seen those.

FYI: I ghostwrote TV reviews at one point, and I'm not wrong. I hear assertions that "new TVs don't crop" about once per year, for at least a decade now. Those assertions are always false.

Every year, I see articles debunking the "no overscan on HDTV" myth.
A quick random article found via Google: https://www.cnet.com/news/overscan-youre-not-seeing-the-whole-picture-on-your-tv (and I'm no fan of CNET).

Many Blu-ray players, HTPCs, etc, also crop output, based on several factors.

Big chunks? :question:

At very most, it's 7% of the edges, usually half that.

There's no other way to restore video along the edges of the frames.

^ Even that statement isn't 100% accurate, because the frame was never 100% image anyway. It was black/dead space (with ugly image borders), closed-caption noise (non-image data leaking into image area), head-switching noise from analog tapes, tearing-related noise if analog tape, and a few less-seen others.

Once that noise is cropped, you may need to add a few pixels for balance.

Beyond that, it was well known that video overscan existed, so any director/producer/etc that aligned important elements on the edge of the frame was a non-professional. (Early HD was similar, with important content being truncated to the 4x3 center for years, with only periphery to the edges. Remember, I worked for studios. We had these conversations. My favorite examples of this was My Name Is Earl, which had comedy gags purposely only viewable on the HD versions.)

The idea that "archivists" must retain noise is an amusing notion, and I'm not sure how that was started. Yes, for some things, that is true. For others, no. The content matters, not the edge of the frames. This isn't the Zapruder film. However, you should always keep pre- and post-restored copies in archives. You want a good copy to view, and the not-pretty copy for later needs (mostly for new innovations that allow better-still restorations).

Masking isn't a gimmick. Masking is for (a) bitrate control, (b) if/when viewed at computers. Noise eats bitrate, and that's a concern for distribution.

You seem to be in a mood lately. Are you okay? :unsure:

Lord Smurf,

My image is just a .jpg file cause your website would not accept the file format. It is just a blue screen with cropping boarders that fits as general setup for most VHS tapes. Personally do not mask my recordings, only for online viewing. The way I did this was used filled boarders in virtual dub and than pulled a frame and than put blue in the boarders. For online viewing you want to make the picture as even as possible, if you take 7 seven from the bottom you take 7 from the top. 10 from the sides and so forth.....

Sanlyn,

If you crop the video on VHS to remove the scan lines, you are blowing up the size of the pixels, it works ok sometimes cause most YouTube VHS videos suck anyway. But if you don't want to inflate the real image than you need to fill boarders. The information is not lost or inflated it is just blacked out.

I do frame restoration, your a Virtual Dub, Script guy who is way more detailed than I will ever be. However when doing video restoration cause I don't have $20,000 to blow on high end software, to restore damage video in a segment, let us say 10 fields, Chroma Key is the best way to do this. You mask out the damaged section and rebuild the frames. I draw them if needed based on another image. It doesn't destroy the video it actually fixes the video.

I understand what you're saying and doing, but you don't understand what I'm saying and doing. I repair edge borders and head-switching noise in Avisynth, not with VirtualDub masking. Cropping in Avisynth does nothing to change pixel size as you imply. A simple procedure for clearing head-switching noise in Avisynth would be this example that removea 8 pixels of bottom noise, re-centers the image vertically, and leaves other portions of the original image (including existing borders) intact:

This is done so many times and is posted in various incarnations in so many forum posts here and in other forums I'm amazed you haven't noticed. This method uses lossless media that does not require resizing and shouldn't involve re-encoding unless you're trying to work with a lossy original, which is a quality hit to begin with. You can use any method you wish, but I prefer to leave the original core image untouched as much as possible.

I don't have a super PC or $20,000 worth of software. I'm using Windows XP in a home built PC with a small Gigabyte mATX mobo and i5 Intel processor purchased on a Super Clearance Day at a local MicroCenter store. My capture PC is a cheap Biostar job with an old 2-core AMD 2GHz cpu, a 12-year-old ATi card and setup built from spare parts and components scavenged from discarded PC's. Like many users I have disabled overscan on my HDTV's and will not buy a TV if overscan can't be disabled -- such a TV lacking many basic features has poor picture quality to begin with and a menu control system that doesn't allow for precise grayscale calibration. There's already enough low quality and sloppy work out there without me being forced to accept or even pay for more of it.

VirtualDub "resize" filter doesn't resize if you set the new size to the same as the source.

Attachment 6835

Avisynth is just another way to do the same thing.

Depending on my workflow for the project, I'll use either. Same difference. :2cents:

IMPORTANT: Always remember to mask/crop by 2, if interlaced!

Update, Megui QTGMC script, VHS sample
 

Here is an update of how I am doing today. I do not use Handbrake anymore, I did not find it so bad, but yes Avisynth with the QTGMC script is better. Here is what i did: I installed Avisynth and the QTGMC script. I use Megui to run an Avisynth script. I use the "One-click" mode ( I find it more easy ). I insert the Avisynth script in the "Avisynth Profile" (see below).

Some of my Megui Settings
Choose One Click, Config, One Click configuration Dialog
Video tab:
Encoder x264: *scratchpad*
"Don´t encode video" disabled
"Force key frames for chapter marks" enabled (whatever that means)
Output Resolution (Max. Width) = 720 (PAL)
"Autocrop" disabled
"Anamorph output" enabled (this is important if the video is not resized in the Avisynth script)
"Automatic Deinterlacing" disabled

Avisynth profile ( choose config to make profile ) example:
<input>
AssumeTFF() # For MiniDV use BFF
ConvertToYV12(interlaced=true)
QTGMC( Preset="Faster")
SelectEven() # Add this line to keep original frame rate, leave it out for smoother doubled frame rate
Crop(12,4,-12,-12) # left, top, right, bottom
AddBorders(12,8,12,8) # left, top, right, bottom
# Levels(16, 1, 235, 0, 255, coring=false)
# LimitedSharpenFaster()
# Spline16Resize(960,720)
The three last lines are disabled commands ( by the "#" mark at the beginning of the line) and normally not used
Crop values can be adjusted if the video needs it eg. to 8 pixels cropping left and 16 pixels cropping right

Audio tab: Nero AAC: *scratchpad*
Output tab: MP4 enabled

Avisynth QTGMC sample video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsVYJ1pRlXY
This is an example of a VHS tape in bad quality i have captured. After 0.50 the video is processed with the Avisynth script above

I still capture to MPG (MPEG-2) in PAL with Hauppauge USB Live2 USB capture device. ( MiniDV is captured to AVI by Firewire ). I have tried to capture to AVI-files (much bigger) but could not see any difference. After advice in this thread I have tried Virtualdub and HuffYUV capture (on Windows 10 and Windows XP) but I could not make it work. I had problems like jitter, lost frames, inserted frames, audio out of sync.

Comments appreciated
What about the Megui settings and script?
What about the framerate of MPG capture, I think it is 6000 "DVD quality" now. Is it a good idea to use a higher bitrate?
Would AVI capture theoretically be better or faster processed by the QTGMC script?

Thanks for the update.

Since I don't use Handbrake, MeGUI, or similarly restricted software, I can't comment extensively on them, except for two of your entries:

Does your video have chapters?

You can't post anamorphic video to YouTube. Sites like YouTube are square-pixel formats only. I assume that by this time you know what square-pixel means. Don't you see what YouTube did to your anamorphic video?

Some notes on your sample script:

This line isn't necessary. MPEG2 is already YV12.

SelectEven() does keep the original frame rate, but it does so by throwing away half your frames, causes judder during motion, and discards 50% of the video's resolution. Unfortunately it's necessary for some websites, but it's just another of many ways that online posting lowers video quality standards for the visually naive.

I realize that this line is commented-out, but I'd suggest that you keep it that way and avoid using code like this. This code will crush dark detail and clip/distort brights.

Allow me to qualify that statement. The sample is not a sample of your capture, but a sample of how you processed and re-encoded it, and how Youtube resized and re-encoded your re-encode. It's not a sample of an original capture nor is it MPEG2, so not much can be said on questions you might have about the original. Was your original capture a 4:3 image pillarboxed in a 16x9 frame? The aspect ratio of the image in YouTube's version seems slightly off.

Then you should not waste your time with lossless capture. The major difference is that lossless capture of analog noise has no added digital compression noise or artifacts, and no loss of original data. Removing those artifacts is difficult and reduces detail. Lossy compression is exactly what it's name says it is: what goes into the lossy encode is less than what you started with, and you'll never see the original 100% again. Each time you modify and re-encode a lossy capture you lose more data. Lossy captures are a final delivery format not designed for further modification without degradation. That includes the lossy compressed audio as well, which is likely why your Youtube audio sounded shrill and weird. Whatever the original capture looked like, the YouTube video shows typical signs of data loss through excessive re-encoding.

Did you use VDub's defauilt capture settings? Did you have a frame-sync tbc in circuit? You said nothing about your system configuration at capture time or your VDub settings for that particular capture device (VDub's defaults should not be used for that Hauppauge device). Did you also try lossless capture with AmarecTV, which many others use?

The final results would certainly be cleaner and sharper, and it's not "theoretical". But I thought you said you tried lossless and couldn't see a difference. There are thousands of examples of lossless captures in this forums and how they were improved for final output. Unfortunately we don't have even your lossy original as a sample, so not much can be said pro or con about improving it.

Thank you for the extensive answer

No.

I usually do not make the videos for posting to Youtube. I make them for my clients who often have some old tapes they want "on a USB-stick". They want "MP4" and they do get a 720x576, 25 frames/sec (PAL) non-interlaced MP4 file made with the Avisynth script in Megui as described above.

I know what square pixels mean, and if I do not enable the "anamorphic output" it outputs square pixels. The 720x576 video is then only 5/4 ( 720/576=1.25 meaning too narrow). If I enable "anamorphic output" it correctly outputs 4/3 format (1.33). The funny thing is that the output from MeGUI is actually a little wider than 1.33. It is 1.37. It does not bother me that it is a little wider, but I wonder why.

I have experimentet by disabling "anamorpic output" and doing a resize instead to get a 4/3 square pixel video by this command in the script:
Spline16Resize(960,720)
960/720 = 1,33 It means 4/3 ratio with square pixels
It looks ok, but not really better than just the 720x576 with anamorphic output, and it takes longer time.
Sometimes combined with
LimitedSharpenFaster()
If I use it together with the sharpener for movies in good condition, like AVI files from MiniDV tapes. It then looks slightly better but not much.

The sample video in Youtube is atypical. I think Youtube did nothing to it. I did it before uploading. Because it is made from a mix from MPG and MP4 files in Serif MoviePlus and exported by "Export Movie, Youtube, Pal HD 720p 25". It seems to have the slightly off 1.37 aspect ratio created by the anamorphic output in Megui, and then some added black borders on the edges to fit the chosen wide screen format. The reason for choosing 720p is that there is no 576 lines option in the export for Youtube, only 640 x 480 (but maybe I should choose this one anyway to avoid the strange black borders).
The video is meant as a demonstration of how TBC and Avisynth improves quality in three steps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsVYJ1pRlXY

OK, thanks, but can I keep it anyway? what about other formats like AVI?

OK, I have just seen it used like this in some script examples. I figure the QTGMC uses both an even and an odd frame to create two new non-interlaced frames. Then the odd one is discarded, but the even one left has still been made with information from both frames. So I do not think it discards 50% of the original videos resolution. The video stil has 25 "Pictures"/second".
I understand the quality would be better and "smoother" if keeping the 50 frames/sec. But my idea was to keep the original 25 frames pr. second.
I do not use the videos for posting on websites, but mainly for giving to clients on a USB-stick. My clients must be able to play them on many devices, like mobile phone, tv set, computer, and also many uploads to cloud services like one-drive, dropbox or icloud, some do editing also. Therefore my idea was that sticking to the original 25 fps was the best, but will 50 fps also be compatible?

# Levels(16, 1, 235, 0, 255, coring=false)
That is also my experience, I have seen the levels command used in some sample scripts. I think the idea is that it somehow translates the grey levels to fit the computer screen more than a tv. And it also at first sight looks better (more contrast) on the computer screen, but yes, details in the dark disappear, so I do not use it. I also tried ColorYUV(levels="TV->PC") but it seems to have the same issue. I do not quite understand these commands, but this is another discussion.

The original capture was MPG2 4:3. The pillarbox and 16:9 frame is because of the chosen 720p youtube upload size. The aspect ratio is slightly off about 1.37 (instead of 1.33) probably because Megui makes this slightly off aspect Ratio when exporting MP4 "anamorpic output" from my 720x576 MPG2 input. See link to original files at the bottom of the post

I Wrote: I have tried to capture to AVI-files (much bigger) but could not see any difference.
I did not capture lossless AVI, I think it was AVI "DV" they were about 10GB/hour instead of MPG2 4GB/hour.

The audio in the Youtube is worse than in the original capture. Usually I find the sound good. I value good sound and even sometimes use another VCR if the audio does not play good on the first one. Should I use something else than Audio tab: Nero AAC: *scratchpad* in MeGui or other settings in capture?

This is how I did
Virtualdub install:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...lters-pre.html
Install HuffYUV codec 32 bit (not MT or 64bit):
http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...l-huffyuv.html
AVI capture with Virtualdub:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/guides/vid...virtualdub.htm

1. File, Capture AVI
2. Audio, compression = pcm 48k, disable audio playback (or frames will be dropped)
3. Video, format, Set the compression mode to YUY2 if available (does not work)
4. Video, compression, HuffYUV or M-JPEG
5. Optionally choose Video, Cropping, Noise reduction or filters
6. File, Set Capture file
7. Capture, capture video

Frames were lost, tried to disable audio playback, lesser dropped frames, but many inserted and audio out of sync. Resulting in jitter in video and audio massively out of sync. I did use a Panasonic NV-HS960 VCR (built in TBC) and Hauppauge USB2 Live capture device. I then gave up. Thank you for the tip about AmarecTV, maybe I will try it, someday when I feel fit to take up lossless recording again.

I do not know if I have a "frame sync" TBC. I have a built in TBC in the Panasonic NV-HS960 ( it can be disabled by a button on the front). I also have a Panasonic ES-10 that I use as TBC, especially for more worn out tapes, it is much "stronger" (used in the sample video). And also a Panasonic ES-15 (not tested). I have not tried the Panasonic with Virtualdub.

As mentioned it was not lossless AVI.

This is the original MPG2 file (with and without TBC)
https://1drv.ms/v/s!Au87Yx6urKlahu9igRc_8JEpfiQXTQ
This is the MP4 file made with the Avisynth script in MeGui
https://1drv.ms/v/s!Au87Yx6urKlahu9nTkDgFurwcvFNiw
Choose "download" to download the original
0-10 sec. without TBC (VHS tape PAL)
10-19 sec with TBC
19-30 sec second run without TBC
30-41 sec. second run with TBC

If there are better ways to improve it (other TBC, other script) I am nterested.

I can offer detailed suggestions for improving the original MPEG you provided, but not until the end of the week when I return to my home PC, so I apologize for the delay. But I will say that the frequent and very visible horizontal dropouts can and should be cleaned with Avisynth filters, and color can look richer and cleaner with more standard resizing. With reference to the audio, no one has used mp2 audio for years. It's low-quality compression.

I'm sorry to learn that your clients have equipment that is so bad they can't play MPEG content from a USB device. They must be using some very poor equipemt indeed, since MPEG is one of a few remaining universally playable codecs in the world, is far more widely accepted by playback devices than is mp4 or h264, is the standard for HDTV broadcasting, and is 1 of only 3 mainstay codecs used to encode commercial BluRay discs, which have both progressive`and interlaced formats.

Thanks for your detailed reply, but I'm afraid your answers reveal misinformation about some aspects of video. In particular.....

25fps PAL interlaced video is designed to play at 50 fields per second. Whenit is deinterlaced, interlaced 25fps PAL results in 50 images per second, not 25. When a deinterlacer like QTGMC or yadif deinterlaces 25fps interlaced files, the resulting frame rate is 50 frames per second, not 25.

You can maintain 25 fps from deinterlaced video only by discarding 50% of the frames. So you have been robbing your clients by throwing away 50% of their videos. I have no idea where you gathered your explanation of non-double-frame-rate deinterlacing that you posted, but it is patently incorrect.

There are other misconceptions I can't address address now that I'm on the road with a slowpoke Netbook for internet work. All that aside, perhaps I can offer some enlightenment concerning capture, whether with Virtualdub or something like AmaracTV, both of which are used for lossless capture. I don't know what you meant when you wrote that you're using "filters" with VirtualDub capture (that's a no-no which will cost dearly in lost frames and bad audio sync) or whether you used the ES10 with VirtualDub (and if not, why didn't you?), but you're starting to make shivers of apprehension run up my spine. So I'll offer this updated 21st-century version of the VirtualDub capture guide in 5 sections that begins here: Capturing with VirtualDub [Settings Guide] , and hope you will take special note of video sync options in section 5 which begins at 5: Capture (top menu) .

Meanwhile thank you for your additional samples. The first thing I'd say is that no one, under any circumstances, has gained anything or made visible improvements by upscaling VHS to HD frame sizes. HD is based on high resolution sources, not on low resolution sources blown up into big frames. But the latter does seem to be some sort of misguided fad these days.

Deinterlacing gives you 25fps. You can specify 50fps if wanted.

Standard script:
Assume field dominance
Deinterlace
Select retained field

50fps is valid for almost nothing, so he's doing the right thing.
Nothing is being lost if QTGMC. It creates 50 frames where only 25 had existed (using the 50 woven fields).
Loss of when you do simple drop-field (odd or even).

Thanks to lordsmurf for the details. Deinterlacing always has a cost, whether original fields are retained or not. It's sometimes a necessary evil and, these days, is one of many butchering techniques required by various media distribution concerns (strictly for their own benefit, not for the viewer). Dropping fields is a loss of temporal resolution. Period. There is nothing to be gained by it other than reducing bandwidth. It's part of the general lowering of quality that appears in all internet streaming schemes, whether video or audio. That lowering of standards characterizes two generations of listeners and viewers who find it not only acceptable and harmless but consider it preferred. It's now becoming standard SOP in tech forums. I guess quality reduction has become a specific requirement for video restoration, despite the recent decision by the likes of YouTube to accept and post 50 and 60fps video. I'll have to refrain from the debate since my personal family viewing habits don't indulge low-quality sources. Extending lowered standards of video restoration for clients' videos and calling it some form of quality bonus is rather bogus IMO. So I'll leave that discussion to those who support it.

No, QTGMC creates each frame from one individual field (half a frame), which is why what comes out of QTGMC has twice has many frames as what goes in. So when you discard the odd frames, you're discarding all the information that was in the odd field of the original.

Not correct.

If it was, then the resulting frames would be (assuming 720x480 source) only 720x240. Because that's the resolution of a single field. QTGMC does indeed interpret data from both fields (plus others) to merge into a single new frame.

50fps isn't likely to do anything other than give you a doubling of 25fps, nor 59.94 for 29.97.

50fps is unlikely to be any smoother with motion, for the same reason.

QTGMC is based on much older deinterlacers, including NNEDI and even plain ol' BOB. QTGMC is a mix of interpolation, motion analysis, anti-aliasing, and denoise. Simple separation of fields, with anti-alias (which is what you'd get from simple field separation 25>50fps) was never the intention. 25>25 or 29.97>29.97 was always the goal.

You're not "discarding" anything. It's all being analyzed to create a frame that did not actually exist. The idea that you must retain all fields is incorrect.

QTGMC is not a simple drop-frame (odd or even) method. That throws away. Not this.

All of the advanced deinterlacers are based on edge-directed interpolation. This includes:
- QTGMC, which is simply the update of TempGaussMC (TGMC) that used Gaussian blur in addition to EDI aka why QTGMC has noise reduction built in.
- Yadif and Yadifmod; earlier works, based on the same deinterlacing theory. Yadif is "yet another de-interlacing filter". The mod version allows external EDIs.
- NNEDI2, NNEDI3, EEDI3, etc

An EDI is (for interlaced video) a bob that looks forward and back to create the new frame.

So again, the idea that 25fps is "throwing away" data is simply false. At most, it's not making extra frames.

FYI: Most of this deinterlacing theory doesn't even go back 10 years. What existed before it was lousy, mostly "adaptive" methods. And sadly, still in use. For example, the current All-New Popeye episodes on Amazon were adaptive deinterlaced (weave/blend pseudo-temporal method), and look like crap. Lots of aliasing noise, do to simple non-EDI/temporal methods. I'd have never encoded that badly when I did studio work!

I can see how 25>50fps could be ideal for SD>HD work, but SD>HD is a usually bad idea for other reasons. It all depends on the project.

Well....at the risk of putting myself in bade with the powers that be, I don't know that I can agree with some of this. Perhaps some of it should be stated in another way.

Hmm. By default QTGMC uses NNEDI3 and double-rate deinterlacing. Of course, QTGMC offers a way of single-rate work (by throwing away alternate fields). I was under the impression that QTGMC creates two progressive frames from each interlaced field. I'm now wondering why, when I use QTGMC, the frames are 720x480, not 720x240. So I'm getting two full-sized frames for every one original. The frame rate is doubled, and I have twice the number of frames. When I look at the original interlaced fields in a frame, I see two different images. When I look at the deinterlaced frames, I see two distinct images from each original frame and the two frames look just like the two original fields except for the height resize. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Or perhaps I'm reading you incorrectly.

Looks to me as if each original frame cntains two distinct images. Maybe I'm viewing it incorrectly, but it looks like two images to me and the resulting deinterlaced frames contain the same image content resized into two full frames. I had no idea that interlaced video contained only one image. Reading you wrong again? Maybe confusing same-rate deinterlacing in NNEDI3? QTGMC specifies double-rate and all field retention for the NNEDIx NSD eedIX, even when working with progressive source (InpuType=1, 2, etc.).

If interlaced video doesn't contain two two fields with two distinct images created at different instances in time, then deinterlacing isn't necessary. So why do it? Maybe this concept needs to be stated differently.

LS, I don't know what that means. According to the documenation for Avisynth and SelectEven():

So what happens to the frames that SelectEVen() and SelectOdd() don't use? Seems to me like they're discarded.

If you start with interlaced video at 59.94 fields per second, and you end up with 29.97 fields per second, you get one-half the temporal resolution of the original. An object or action that appears in only one of the dropped original fields will be discarded, unless the multiple-frame interpolations recreates it. Is this what happens when my TV plays DVD's, the TV discards half the fields? I don't think that's really what you meant.

I guess everyone knows by now that QTGMC will discard alternate fields for you without the external Select() functions. Just specify "QTGMC(FPSDivisor=2)" and QTGMC will do the following internally, selecting only alternate frames and discarding the others:

Or you can specify a number like FPSDivisor=3, and QTGMC's code becomes literally "SelectEvery(3,0)" which will discard 2 of every 3 frames, keeping only frame 0. In that case the origina interlaced frame rate of 29.97 will drop to 19.98 fps. And you will definitely see the sputtery effects of reduced temporal resolution during motion, if you didn't see it at one-half resolution.

You can also undo most or almost all of QTGMC's interpolations, motion smoothing, and denoising by using a "Draft" preset, which uses a simple Bob -- yet you still, somehow, end up with full-sized frames, two for every original interlaced frame.

Yes.

Nah, no risk at all. :D

Let me try this another way. :)

Interlaced video fields are equivalent/exact 720x240 (NTSC). It's 50% of the vertical resolution of the on-screen image.

Remember that interlace alters in time. One odd shows for every two even and one even shows for every two odd.

You have 4 basic type of deinterlace:
1. Drop-field (throw away 50% of the image; the only deinterlace method that "throws away" anything). Due to every other video line now missing, straight lines are aliases/step-stepped/jaggy.
2. Blend. Creates ghosts, but at least lacks aliasing/jaggies.
3. Bob. Separates fields, doubles 29.97fps to 59.94fps, and stretches to 720x480. Aliasing/jaggies still present, though harder to see.
4. Complex methods based on a bob: NNEDI, QTGMC, Yadif/mod/x2, etc.

The complex methods usually separates fields, and then processes them, based on properties of neighboring frames, to create new video frames that never actually existed.

... and I think that's where the disconnect is for you: "never actually existed". ;)

So a deintelacer like QTGMC will take a video, split the fields to create double frames, and then alter each frame to creates something new. The processing is mostly to anti-alias, but not the only consideration. QTGMC gives us that lovely alias-free progressive image we all want.

This all gets more confusing because the advanced deinterlacers have options to select the way fields/frames are processed, and each has a different default setting. Notably, the (old?) default of NNEDI3 is to drop-frame and them anti-alias the leftover.

So, technically, when using default QTGMC, you are right in that you "throw away" 50% of the frames, after processing is finished, in order to restore the initial frames. However, you're throwing away frames that never existed anyway. Most often, that 50% extra frames are primarily just duplicate data. Remember, it was shot 29.97, not 59.94. One could argue that only 29.97 complete moments in time actually existed.

The main reason you keep the 2x extra frames during processing, and discard later, is to aid the processing. Let the deinterlacer decide what is salient information to create the new frames from the old fields. It will create 59.94 ideal frames, and you'll retain 29.97 of them. It's much better than only giving it half the data for processing.

Deinterlacing is one of the concepts that's never confused me. :)

Does that makes more sense now?

Also...

Note that humans see only frames, not fields -- viewed on interlaced device, for this video discussion. This is what allows us to watch video on interlaced CRTs to begin with. So you cannot argue "59.94 fields per second" in a visual temporal, in terms of "throwing away" data, as it's data we cannot see. We only see the 29.97 frames per second. You have to throw away whole frames to notice a temporal image reduction. We can only see that fields were tossed due to the lowering of resolution, anti-aliasing, lower motion, etc.

Humans see motion, not frames/fields, which is why video gamers are ridiculous ("I can see all my 100+fps on my video game card!!!"). The scientific community generally accepts 40-60 max, with some exceptions due solely to motion (ie, subliminals).

This is also why 240Hz/480Hz/etc for TVs is starting to get ridiculous now. Much like cameras and megapixels, Hz is faux information. With camera sensors, it's now about optics/glass and dynamic range. With TV, the actual limiter is interpolation, deinterlacers, anti-judder, etc. As is always the case, the source determines quality far more than the TV does anyway. Yet many judge a TV based on specific DVDs used for demo.

Thank you again, but I don't see any sign of normal deinterlacing operations dropping fields. The version I get from some others is that progressive video has frames, but interlaced video does not. Interlaced video consists of a stream of half-height fields, not frames. Each two fields are interleaved together, and this pairing of two fields can be called a "pair", a "box", or if you will an interlaced "frame". In a full deinterlace operation, each two interleaved fields are separated and resized via various means into two distinct full-height images called frames. Then the original pairings, boxes, or interlaced container "frames", or whatever you want to call them, are discarded.

That's not really any different than what I'm saying. :laugh:

You get it. We're not using the same words ... but you seem to understand.
- Yes, each frame is two fields (each temporally displaced from one another).
- And yes, some deinterlace methods separate the fields into new frames, by stretching the field vertically by 200% (sometimes using EDI).

And to counteract the artifacts of the new frames, when using a quality deinterlacer (like QTGMC), it has to be further processed using data from neighbor frames. To fully understand QTGMC, you have to understand the earlier TempGaussMC, which is uses temporal processing. The keyword here is "temporal". The new frames are based on the old fields, and are not the old fields themselves. And what often happens during processing is that you end up with ~60 frames that are 90%+ identical to one another (differing only due to high motion).

Wikipedia says this succinctly:
Do like a Bible reader: dissect and digest that 1 sentence slowly.
- "Buffer" insinuates processing.
- "Recombine into full frames" means you take 2 fields at 59.94 fields per second, and transform them into a progressive frame at 29.97 frames per second. You don't create 59.94 frames per second. (That can be done, but is atypical. In earlier years, the processing time alone was a nightmare. Remember most of these deinterlacing methods, even QTGMC's base TempGaussMC, are 10-15 years old.)

But you're also not wrong about "throwing away" (discarding, losing) data. I didn't make that entire clear earlier.

Wikipedia is again useful here:
Indeed, deinterlacing always lose/tosses some data. But, as I highlighted, it's only "some" information. Not 50%.

The only deinterlace that loses 50% of data is the raw drop-field method, where you completely toss the odd or even into the trash. It's quick and dirty. And for many, it's the only method that exists/existed, even in professional software like Adobe Premiere. You only had/have access to advanced deinterlacers if you're willing to delve into complex software like Avisynth. Adding Yadif to VirtualDub was pretty major at the time. Not even NLEs had Yadif, and I still think it's the case.

I think you just need to refine your understanding a bit. Otherwise, you understand perfectly. :congrats:

As I stated elsewhere:
- best SD deinterlace for SD is 1:1, 720x540 or 640x480 for streaming (as 4x3/16x9 disc deinterlacing is pointless)
- best SD deinterlace for HD is 1:1, 1280x720 (720p), either 59.94 or 29.97 (depending on specs of project, dictating data size; usually disc = 59.94, streaming = 29.97).

So I'm not at all anti-59.94. It will further hinder loss (10% at most, probably much less), but at a cost of data size (about 200%).

I've been really busy lately, but I just had to take a break for this conversation. I've enjoyed it! :)

Just curious: why does it have to be deinterlaced? Why mp4? Why lower quality by resizing to square pixel? Your clients don't have equipment that can play standard DVD or BluRay?

The downloads look like re-encoded cuts, but I'm guessing. I don't usually work with lossy captures, too much unnecessary work and heavier filtering involved. But the links are workable. It looks as if your ES10 had its DNR enabled. In any case, there are better filters in Avisynth that don't soften video as much, and the Es10's dnr can cause ghosting. But there's no motion here, so it's still workable. The 720p link with tbc on is rather noisy, with obvious horizontal dropouts and rips.

I've attached two demos. The first is a similar step-by-step you posted on YouTube showing each step as 1: No Tbc, 2: Tbc On, 3: Borders & Levels fix, then 4: Denoised (horizontal noise and dropouts fixed). The original VHS has slightly illegal luma levels, but that was easy enough to fix with Avisynth's SmoothAdjust filter, and some mild edge halos (fixed with DeHalo_Alpha). The dropouts, spots, and comets required lordsmurf's mod of a median averaging filter I call FixRipsP2. There are several versions posted all over doom9 and a couple were posted in digfitalfaq recently. For all this work I used SeparateFields, without deintelacing. The attached VHS_Tbc Off_Tbc On_BordersLevels_Denoise_All.mp4 is anamorphic 480i playing at 4:3.

The second attachment, VHS_Denoised_720p.mp4, is the 1280x720p version of the fixup @50fps. It was deinterlaced with QTGMC after it was denoised and resized using Avisynth's 16-bit dither plugin. The h.264 encoder I used was TMPGenc Video Mastering Works.

Time for a self-correction (again):

It's 576i, not 480i. It's PAL.