PoisonDeathRay,
I tried several methods of interpolating up to 119.88 fps and then decimating back to 23.976. The best method I found was to use DaVinci.
The smoothest motion I have produced thus far was expanding to 119.88 fps using optical flow, then decimating back down with "ChangeFPS(24000,1001) in AviSynth. That produced better motion smoothing in 23.976 fps than the following methods:
1). Using ChangeFPS in AviSynth to shift to 119.88 fps and then using my QTGMC repair method.
2). Using QTGMC to interpolate additional frames into the original video (it may have been a dumb idea, but I still tried it) and then trying different combinations of SelectOdd and SelectEven. I ran an entire set of tests where I played around with various methods of increasing and decreasing frame rates to muck around with fixing VFR issues.
There are two ways to push DS9 to 119.88 fps using DaVinci Resolve Studio, and they produce different effects.
A). You can use Nearest Neighbor and 119.88 fps output settings. This will duplicate the frames in the DVD source file and results in the vastly expanded file size. Each frame is repeated 5x or 4x. It takes 4 days to upscale 1x DS9 episode if we go this route. Not much fun.
B). You can use Optical Flow and 119.88 fps output settings. This will result in hypersmoothed motion.
If you choose Option #B and
then use "ChangeFPS(24000,1001) in AviSynth, however, the final output is remarkably good. Please don't think that when I say it's "Remarkably good" that I mean you won't find major differences if you inspect frame to frame. I'm sure you will. But the overall judder and motion are
remarkably reduced considering I'm interpolating 80% of the frames that AviSynth then used to generate its 23.976fps output. It's closer to the kind of quality I'm trying to achieve than anything else I've found. That doesn't mean I don't think there's better. It's just gotten me the closest.
Btw:
The reason I use the following QTGMC preset is because I found the specific Input Type sequence of 2 followed by 3 to be most helpful in terms of repairing the content I wanted to repair. Other preset tests (1,1, 1,2, 1, 3, 2,1, 2, 2, 3,1, 3,2, 3,3) did not yield the same level of improvement.
But the rest of my QTGMC script?
Quote:
QTGMC2 = QTGMC(Preset="Very Slow", SourceMatch=3, InputType=2, MatchEnhance=0.75, Sharpness=0.2, MatchPreset="Very Slow", MatchPreset2="Very Slow")
QTGMC3 = QTGMC(preset="Very Slow", inputType=3, prevGlobals="Reuse")
|
Other than the Input Types and the Sharpness, I chose the other presets hoping for maximum quality relative to original content. If there are different QTGMC presets that I should use, I'll try them.