How to remove grain, how to fix film shot in low light?
 

So I am VERY VERY new to analog restoration. To be honest, I didn't know there WAS any way to restore or make analog tapes look better (I figured that only applied to film medium like 8mm reels). So to start:

I have 15 or so Video8 and Hi8 tapes, plus several VHS tapes (we either never had the master for those, or sadly the master was recorded over) spanning from 1986 to 2000. The main body of tapes span from June of '90 to December '00 and were all shot on the same video camera, a Sony HandyCam purchased new in June 1990 (I can get the model number if anyone needs it). I no longer have any Hi8 video camera to work with, just the tapes, DVD copies, and in the case of 4 films, MP4 Copes. Later today I will upload to Youtube what I feel is my most precious of the tapes as it captures the happiest time of my childhood so you have an idea of what I am dealing with. The original film was shot between 4-26-94 and 11-23-95. I will be uploading it from the MP4 copy.

My main concern is to remove grit, grain, and improve the crispness and detail/contrast of the video as well as try to fix, if possible, sequences shot in very low light areas which as such have a lot of grain.

Video in question in two parts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qhqQabQ8-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkrEECs7vro

Try this: http://www.fbmn-software.com/en/exposure

Confused about what you're requesting. Do you want someone's advice on how to clean up a lossy, blocky, noisy YouTube reencode, or do you want something more appropriate for your original video? Filters for YouTube and filters for an original capture won't be the same. Besides, cleaning up YouTube reencodes is a waste of time.

Also, a reminder that video samples posted off-site will disappear, thus making your thread useless for other readers.

I recall these shots from a batch of similar home videos posted elsewhere a few years back. If you could post the originals directly in forum threads back then, why can't you post them that way now?

Basically, I want advice on how to clean up the original video (but I can't post the original tape here) as well as get better lighting out of underlit scenes.

I've never posted original films because I know of no way to do so directly. I have posted stills captured from digitized versions of the videos.

No one can advise about noise filters baeedm omn still shots from undefined sources. That's not the way video filtering work.

You can learn a great deal, and even get into advanced cleanup work, by reading forum posts. For example, .you won't find any posts anywhere where anyone ever at any time in any way posted a piece of film or a chunk of tape to an internet forum. What you should do is let us know the format and codec of your video, and someone can tell you how to prepare and post a short sample without degrading its original properties. If you don't know the format of your video capture, or don't know how to capture, or don't know the format of any sample you'd like to discuss, or don't know what a "format' is (for example, mp4 and AVI are not formats. They're containers.), I'm afraid this thread is at a standstill.

How would I determine the format? Like, I have the MP4 files, and as you say they're containers, not formats - How do I determine the format and codec? Film to me is a very alien thing, it's complex unlike archiving photos which has been in my experience a lot more straightforward. I would really like to post a short sample of video from the source here, I just need to know what I asked above.

You can upload 99mb clips to the forum, which should well suffice as a sample. Especially for something compressed like MP4. I'm sure the main file is too large, so you just need to clip off a piece. For that, I use TMPGEnc Smart Renderer, but some freewares exist. Which can be used depends on the H.264 container (MKV, MP4, AVI). And right now, I'm just assuming the MP4 contains H.264, as know it can hold others.

sanlyn has concerns about not just Youtube, but the MP4 as source. I concur. I'm afraid you may have low quality compressed work from that company, but I'd need to see an unaltered (not re-encoded) clip to be sure.

The overall answer to the question is that you'll need to learn and use both Avisynth and VirtualDub. Those are the main restoration tools, even at a pro level. There's really nothing else that can do what those do.

To determine format details, use MediaInfo: https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo (freeware)

Downloaded MediaInfo. It says:
Format: MPEG-4
Format profile: Base Media
Codec ID: isom (isom/iso2/avc1/mp41)
File size: 4.07 GiB
What is a good freeware software to show clips of my movies here?

And here is the specific video info:

You can use avidemux( free and small software ~20 MB)
upload on Mega.co.nz or here directly

I think you should caution RyfromNY that he must edit with AviDemux in "copy" mode or his sample will be re-encoded. Avidemux must cut only on key frames. I'm fairly certain that RyfromNY doesn't know what key frames are. I don't use Avidemux so you might want to give some notes on how it's done without re-encoding. A re-encoded sample won't help.

Notes would help please, I have no idea what key frames are.

The default mode is "copy" so ain't none to worry about.
Just make sure to put it in a .mp4 container ("output format" on the main window) or mkv

What you want to do with Avidemux is select 10 to 20 seconds of mp4 video that is not re-encoded or filtered. To do that, start Avidemux and use its "File" menu to open your desired mp4 file, which will show up in the main display window. On the left-hand side of the main window, under "Video output", select "copy". Below that, under "Audio output", select "copy". Under "Output Format" select "mp4muxer".

At the center of the bottom of the Avidemux window you'll see an "A" icon and a "B' icon. You will use the "A" button to mark the beginning of your desired sample, and use the "B" button to mark the end of the selection.

If you pause your mouse pointer for a second or two over any of the bottom-row icons, you will find one icon that will "Go to previous key frame" and next to it is an icon that will "Go to next key frame". Use these "next' and "previous' icons to find the beginning of a section that you want to include in your sample. When you find the key frame that begins your desired selection, press the "A" marker button. Then use the "next" key frame button to find the end of your desired selection. Note the timer at the bottom of the window reads the time markers where your A" selection started. Move ahead about 20 seconds, which will be enough for a suitable sample and which will certainly be less than the 99MB limit for posting in the forum. When you find the point where you want your selection to end, click the "B" marker to mark the end of your selection.

Now click "File..." -> "Save...", and give your sample a name and location. It should take a mere second to save this small sample. Post it here in the forum using the Reply window in this thread. If you don't see a big button for managing uploads and attachments, use the "Advanced" viewing mode in the reply window and follow the onscreen instructions in the uploa window after you click the "manage Attachments" button. Give your sample a while to upload -- it will be a little slow because the system scans for viruses during the process.

Sorry for the delayed response. The film was shot between April of 1994 and November of 1995. It was transferred by a service from a master Hi8 to MP4. The original Hi8 was shot on a 1990 Sony Handycam. I'm trying to determine if the level of grit and grain was either a poor transfer by the service, irreversible degradation of the tape itself, or just how a Hi8 from 1994 would look. Basically, if I was to use a higher end service, if I would get better results or if this tape has been screwed from being converted a few times - if I can get anything better. I do notice that in BRIGHT lighting MOST of the grain disappears.

First segment - shot April 1994 in the relatively low light conditions of my parents' bedroom, beginning of tape

Second segment - Shot June 1994 in the sunlight of our backyard

Third segment - Shot July 1994 in the relatively low light conditions of our living room

Fourth - Shot December 1994 in relatively well light conditions at my school

Fifth - Shot November 1995 in very low light conditions in my parents' bedroom.

All from same tape.

I uploaded some non reencoded samples from the MP4. Please tell me if you think the quality is either from the tape itself, or the camera used, or if it was a bad transfer, or if the tape's signal to noise ratio has degraded highly. Basically I wanna know how much better and "cleaner" - less grit - I can get the film.

For comparison, here is another tape, this one from 1993 (separate Hi8) which was transferred by the same service. This tape was not converted as many times as the April 1994 Hi8 was. Just to give you guys an idea of if the issue is the tapes themselves, the camera used back then (we used the same camera from June 1990 through 2001) or if the transfer got gave me really high compression, or if the films are very much degraded because of age and transferring.

First is shot outside, Sept 93, beginning of tape.
Second shot outside again, Sept 93
Third is shot Christmas 93 in relatively low light conditions of my living room
Fourth is shot in better lit conditions of my living room (same day as 3)
Fifth is shot in lit conditions in my grandparents' house also on Christmas of 1993

I would say the grain/noise is typical of video shot with a consumer camcorder in poor light. The transfer process and age may have added to it, but they are not likely the source of most of it.

Is there any way I could reduce grain/get better video quality?

Without looking at the sample, yes, reducing noise is generally easy. Just remember to make it better, not perfect, otherwise you may filter too much, and cause artifacts.

Avisynth has many ways to correct for it.
With VirtualDub, you can look at Dynamic NR MMX by Donald Graft (neuron2), but the default is way too strong, and you should pull it down to about 4 or less.

My video system is not available today.

Do you think you could examine my samples and determine what you think the cause for the noise is? If its simply the way the film was shot or transferring it too many times or age? Like if you could look and determine what you think the biggest factor is. I could samples of another film which was only transferred twice and which is older than the first to compare if need be.

This is what I see in the 10 samples you've posted:

• There is mosquito noise from compression, and it appears to be MPEG noise, not H.264 noise. My suspicion is that it was captured to DVD/MPEG first, and then transcoded to H.264 next. What I see there is not normal.
• The deinterlace used was Yadif. Not terrible, but not the best. Yadif gets overrun with stairsteps in linear objects like air vents and house siding. Sometimes, the deinterlace job in the clips actually looks like older adaptive, not newer/better Yadif, so I'm not 100% which was used. It was definitely not QTGMC.
• To process video (deinterlace, H.264, etc) and not cover overscan with a matte, is honestly inexcusable. I understand seeing overscan on raw captures, but never post-capture.
• Those samples all shake too much to really tell if TBC was used. I think it was, as non-TBC conversion is generally much worse, but sometimes I see furniture and I'm not sure if it is moving. A good transport VCR can minimize no-TBC wiggles, but never fully remove/prevent them.
• Tape grain is present, and was not removed. The shaky nature of the film will not react well to temporal NR methods, and non-temporal methods will primary blur. And VHS footage is already soft as is. If you remove too much of the grain, I'm afraid that the poorer deinterlace method would be more obvious.
• The mosquito noise is treatable with some Avisynth filtering, perhaps deen() or mosquitoNR() -- or maybe another filter, as Avisynth is complicated primarily because it has seemingly endless options, and no two people ever use it the same way.

Overall, I've seen worse.

What they did for you is decent, but not what I'd call good.
Better quality is easily possible, but most services are sadly not the ones to give it. That's why it's really important to do research about video, and hardware used, before going with them.
I could do better without really even trying.

For NR, removing grain, the better the source, the better it can be attacked. When the footage was deinterlaced, and has mosquito noise from compression, the ability to reduce/remove grain is significantly reduced. You're supposed to deinterlace/compress after restoring, not before.

I'm actually more noxious nauseated (thanks Sheldon) watching the footage because the camera is about as steady as a bowl full of jello. I stabilized one of the samples, see attached.

I'd echo that it's a bad transfer with many basic errors. I'd guess that you could probably do just as well with a cheap USB capture card and the generic software that comes with it. I'll give a few reasons why I think so:

A) if you suspect that your original source would require restoration and repair or other image mods such as contrast and color correction or applying effects such as fades and dissolves, you cripple your effort at the outset by having the source captured to a lossy final delivery codec. "Final delivery" means that such codecs are not designed for further modification without image degradation. Lossy final delivery formats like MPEG and h.264 also contain compression artifacts and signal loss that don't occur with lossless captures.

Also, final delivery formats are interframe encodes, meaning that even simple cut and join edits entail yet another damaging stage of lossy re-encodes. For simple edits, such encodes require smart-rendering editors to avoid further quality loss. Almost all free editors and some cheap paid editors cannot smart-render h.264 encodes.

B) Your mp4's were captured with an inferior and damaging deinterlace method that dropped alternate fields or frames, and seems to have used an inferior deinterlace method (yes, it does look like yadif) that resulted in many blurry and fuzzed edges. The original Hi8 was interlaced and after field dropping it was encoded as progressive, which actually causes playback problems that look like bad de-interlacing on DVD players. Besides losing 50% of your original color by encoding directly to YV12, you lost half of your original video frames and 50% of the original temporal resolution. None of these losses can be repaired, and edges cannot be smoothed or sharpened to mask the deinterlaced resizing effects. If the person who made these transfers claims that because they are progressive mp4's they are suitable for the internet, they're wrong: 720x480 anamorphic frames can't be used for posting to sites like YouTube or Facebook. No one makes this many newbie mistakes should be called a "pro" and get paid for it.

C) Further, the audio has been encoded with low bitrate AAC audio at 44.1KHz. If you wanted DVD or standard def BluRay for final output, AAC audio at 96Kbps and 44.1 KHz cannot be used. Audio would have to go through another lossy stage of audio resampling and re-encoding for DVD or BluRay.

D) There was apparently no control over captured input levels. On almost every sample, levels are invalid for standard digital video, meaning that levels exceed the range of luminance y=16 to y=235 and chroma UV=16 to UV=240. What this means is that invalid brights and highlights are clipped, and invalid darks or subzero blacks are crushed (i.e, the same thing as clipped). Clipped data is destroyed data -- there is no detail in clipped areas, since all values below or above the clipping value have been converted to the same value, so lost detail cannot be retrieved after clipping. Clipped darks are always zero black and will never be any other color.

Don't confuse the noise in dim, underexposed, mottled, overly dark areas by thinking of it as "grain". Most of the noise in underexposed camera video is sensor noise, not grain. When the signal level is too dark, the signal strength of the camera's residual sensor noise is greater than the signal strength of the incoming image. Sensor noise differs from grain in that grain contains data of various kinds of values but sensor noise contains no usable image information (Sensor noise becomes zero-black and contains no other data). You can do all the filtering or brightening you want, but black sensor noise will always look like black mottling and won't go away.

CMOS noise patterns after brightening, contrast masking, and filtering:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/atta...1&d=1536390039

Ann example of processing for gross underexpose is given here, posted just days ago: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...html#post55882.


These same videos were seen in other posts a few years ago, in (I think) a different forum. I believe lossless capture was the advice given for best results.

Some clarification is needed here. Yadif isn't field dropping. Field dropping is much worse, the "odd" or "even" deinterlace methods. Again, I'm not sure if this was Yadif, or the much earlier adaptive method. The nature of deinterlace does remove a field, but yadif/adaptive take some of each to create a new frames from the 2 former fields. (And of course, both are craptastic compared to QTGMC, which adds in quality anti-aliasing to the newly created frame).

And like video, lossy audio prevents any further restoration. AAC does allow for reduced bitrates compared to AC3, but compressed is compressed. Also 44.1kHz is missing some of the fidelity found in 48kHz, and that matters for hiss/noise correction. While consumer analog tape video was subpar, the audio was not.

I'd actually blame the camera for this. Home movies shot on camcorders are all over the map. I'd be shocked to see a tape with valid levels. And that does happen, but very infrequently. The white balance alone is often wrong (and not just wrong, but very wrong). The lenses of camcorders left much to be desired.

Analog didn't have sensors.

What were they?

As I understand it, image sensors (typically CCD and later CMOS in handicams) had two noise components: Thermal noise (within the sensors noise) that is random and that under normal exposure (i.e., good light) conditions would be below black level and not visible on screen, but with poor light and AGC it rises above the black level and is visible. Also there can be a grain-like component that is fixed and results from slightly different sensitivity of the individual imaging cells in the sensor.

When yadif deinterlaces for same-rate output, it drops alternate fields and makes no attempt to create 2 full frames from two interlaced fields. Only one frame is created. Yadif and QTGMC alike create only one frame from each two interlaced fields for same-frame-rate deinterlacing.

I don't remember. I actually looked in a couple of my analog books for the diagrams of how VHS and Video8 cameras were made, for probably 30 minutes without finding it, between writing that and submitting the reply. What I can say is mostly that analog and digital are not the same. Last time I dissected a camcorder was probably the 90s. Those may have CCD, but those formats predate CMOS.

Yadif creates (interpolates) a new frame with data from surrounding fields. I was not aware that Yadif could create 59.94fps until just now, having never used it. But it appears that you must specifically change the mode to 1, and the default mode 0 outputs the input fps. So is it internally creating 59.94 already, and then dropping that? I'm not sure that is the case.

With QTGMC, however, the default is 59.94fps, after creating frames from fields using surrounding data AND advanced processing (anti-alias, NR, etc). Very advanced, very powerful. To match input fps, you must drop a newly created frame.

And just for mentions, to expand on adaptive:
The older adaptive was often a bob with some weak anti-aliasing applied, and sometimes took nearby frames into account. "adaptive" was an overrused term, and described anything not basic drop-frame back in the early 2000s, before the methods like nnedi, Yadif, and QTGMC existed.

FWIW: I believe the early cameras sold with VCRS (in the late 1970 aned early 1080s) were using vidicons (similar to image orthicons, etc.), and were based on a scanned line analogous to the raster scan of a analog tube TV image. (I had a RCA CC-002 and later a CC-017 back then.)

Development of the CCD in the early 1980s led to its replacing the larger, heavier, more-power-required tubes in video cameras and camcorders. For example, the 1990 vintage Canon Hi8 A1Digital camcorder used 400K pixel 1/2" CCD as the image sensor.

Thanks for the responses, so what do you suppose I do next?

I also compared this tape to other tapes and I noticed something - either the aspect ratio is a bit off, or there's very small black vertical bars on the edge of the screen, because, I actually measured it, each side is a little more vertically narrow than on other home movies I have which are also 4:3. Why is this?

Also, can your service guarantee the best possible result?

A re-capture is honestly required, if you want a quality transfer. Who does that is up to you, either DIY or another service.

It really depends on the tape and sources. Not all NTSC signals contained image data, and some were actually 704 palette matted to 720. --- But another option is that the service you used jacked up the video file, and seeing what I've seen so far, that cannot be eliminated as a possibility. I'd have to see the original tape.

I'd say that's a yes. I'll let our site guides and staff forum posts speak for themselves, in this regard. The only real time that "best possible" isn't done is because the budget doesn't allow for it. We get some really tough and ugly restoration projects, not just those needing good transfers. And when something is not possible, we can at least give you an exact reason why it's the case.