Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Usage

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 23rd January 2021, 23:30   #41  |  Link
Frank62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danette View Post
I agree that it would be much better to have ‘clean’ progressive streams, but all decimation processes that I’ve tried on these sped-up episodes are leaving too much stutter.
Try with mode=2. And you have to find out the correct factor/pseudo framerate. We had two sources, one progressive with German sound, but very bad picture. So we were able to find the correct factor for decimating by aligning. When found, then decimating worked pretty well with rather no stuttering left. Without second source it may be rather hard to find the factor, I fear.

Quote:
The vast majority of TV series I encounter respond nicely to IVTC, but there are some hybrid videos (I prefer to call them mangled) that respond better to QTGMC.
If you use QTGMC for hybrid video you get the best result for the interlaced native 29.97fps parts. The pulldowned portions will still stutter. The only way to manage hybrid sources - if you want a progressive final result - is to handle 29.97 and pulldowned 23.976 scenes separately. We adapted the 29.97 sections by deinterlacing with QTGMC and afterwards converting with motion flow (we used Alchemist, but the converter some made here is also very good, sometimes better than Alchemist, even better than some A.I. approaches I tested).

Quote:
Note that I actually slowed the speed down, so speed issues with QTGMC are moot. Additionally, the AudioSpeed function does seem to provide the correct pitch. At least, to my ear.
You kept pitch. What I tried to say was, that the algorithms they used for the SOURCE surely did NOT keep pitch. So the scenes that are more accellerated will be higher than the scenes less accellerated. Without handling each seperately by using different factors the sound will never be 100% ok. Maybe the differences are not high, then you are lucky. If not ther may be quarter tones higher or lower at transitions, especially when there is music...
Frank62 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2021, 19:11   #42  |  Link
Danette
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 260
Tried TDecimate(mode=2) and result is the same as mode=7.

The video has two sections: one section is clearly 1 dup in 5 and the other section is clearly 1 dup in 10. If I use Decimate(cycle=10,cycler=1), then about 90% of the video plays smoothly. If I use Decimate(cycle=5,cycler=1), then about 10% of the video plays smoothly. These two patterns repeat in varying segments throughout the video.

I probably could find each transition point and apply the appropriate decimation, but the time commitment would be significant.

As a hobbyist, I don't have the investment in various professional tools, such as you do for your studio work, so I'm pretty much limited to Avisynth.
Danette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2021, 20:50   #43  |  Link
Frank62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 125
TDecimate(mode=2) requires no cycle, but a framerate. This could f. e. be something like 24.385. But you are of course right: If the pattern" changes that often, it's a waste of time.

As I said: Avisynth and the fabulous people here provide a motion-flow-framerateconverter that is sometimes even better than professional tools.
Frank62 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2021, 03:03   #44  |  Link
Danette
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 260
Yes, I'm afraid it is a waste of time chasing those two patterns around. fortunately, QTGMC, while not ideal, gives the smooth playback.

When you say: "motion-flow-framerateconverter", are you referring to some specific functions that haven't been raised here, or is this a generalization for some of the tools that have already been explored in this thread? I agree about the knowledge and creativity by so many members on this forum. I bring my problems here and generally get solutions that I never envisioned or expected.
Danette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2021, 09:28   #45  |  Link
Sharc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,810
It's about synthesizing of new frames from existing frames by motion interpolation in order to match a desired new constant frame rate.
There exist Avisynth filters for this purpose.
See for example here:
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=174793
https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Manual:SVPflow

Last edited by Sharc; 25th January 2021 at 09:30.
Sharc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2021, 13:49   #46  |  Link
Frank62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 125
To make it clear: This was just my answer to your statement:
"As a hobbyist, I don't have the investment in various professional tools, such as you do for your studio work, so I'm pretty much limited to Avisynth."

You will not need motion-flow-converting here at all. This was just meant for hybrid sources that were mentioned before, and there only for the portions in native 29.97fps.
Frank62 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2021, 14:58   #47  |  Link
Danette
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank62 View Post
You will not need motion-flow-converting here at all. This was just meant for hybrid sources that were mentioned before, and there only for the portions in native 29.97fps.
Thanks for mentioning the motion-flow-converting aspect. I decided to try both FrameRateConverter and InterFrame, and both provide much better play, smoothness wise, than using either Decimate(cycle=10,cycler=1) or Decimate(cycle=5,cycler=1) alone.

Using cycle=10 (it affects more of the video than cycle=5), the play was nearly identical to QTGMC. So much so, that I've decided to employ InterFrame (supposedly better than FrameRateConverter) so that I can eliminate the moire effect, which cannot be done when QTGMC is used.

So, I can now handle these mixtures of odd duplicates, eliminate the moire effect, extend/correct the playing time, establish a more conforming fps (23.976), and sync the audio because of all the help in this thread by so many of you.

For those interested in seeing the full script:

Quote:
Video=MPEG2Source("C:\xxx.d2v", cpu=0)
Audio=DirectShowSource("C:\xxx.ac3")
AudioDub(Video,Audio)
TFM(y0=160,y1=480,pp=5,micmatching=0,slow=2)
TDecimate(Cycle=10,CycleR=1)
AssumeFPS(24)
AudioSpeed(24.0,26.973,PitchCorrect=True,Info=False)
InterFrame(Preset="Medium", Tuning="Film", NewNum=24000, NewDen=1001, Cores=1)
VagueDenoiser(chromaT=0)
KNLMeansCL(a=1,h=2)
LimitedSharpenFaster(strength=100)
CropResize(0,0, 8, 0, -4, -0,InDAR=15.0/11.0,ResizeWO=True,Resizer="Lanczos4Resize")
Greyscale()
GradFun3()
ConvertAudioTo16bit()

Last edited by Danette; 27th January 2021 at 15:21.
Danette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2021, 18:57   #48  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,459
FrameRateConverter is generally better than InterFrame.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th January 2021, 01:19   #49  |  Link
Danette
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
FrameRateConverter is generally better than InterFrame.
Then I'll have to change.

I replied to your pm, but I don't see anything as having been sent. Did you get it?
Danette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th January 2021, 06:32   #50  |  Link
johnmeyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
FrameRateConverter is generally better than InterFrame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danette View Post
Then I'll have to change.
Just so the OP understands, both FrameRateConverter and InterFrame use the code and/or the algorithms from MVTools2. FrameRateConverter attempts to reduce artifacts via masking. InterFrame doesn't really add anything to the quality of the motion estimation and instead was created to provide real-time, GPU-assisted motion estimation so you can change 24p to 60p and get the "soap opera effect" while watching movies, without having to encode offline. InterFrame was optimized for that one task and is quite limited and doesn't attempt to do all the other things that you can do with MVTools2 (like noise reduction).

So, while I certainly agree that the quality produced by FrameRateConverter is better than Interframe, I am not at all certain that it produces better quality than simply using MVTools2 itself. I participated quite a bit in the thread which led to the development of FrameRateConverter, and much of my work with MVTools2 was used as a sort of benchmark against which FrameRateConverter was measured. It definitely did produce good results in some cases, but also failed to produce any improvement in others, and occasionally produced worse output.

So, bottom line, I don't know if you'll see much improvement by changing, but by all means, if you have the time, try it out.
johnmeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th January 2021, 23:09   #51  |  Link
Danette
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 260
I did try it and cannot detect a difference, but I do accept that FrameRateConverter is the better approach, so I'll use that on those difficult videos that also exhibit moire-effect problems. If there is no moire-effect issue on these difficult videos, I'll use QTGMC, which does give slightly better smoothness of play.

Last edited by Danette; 28th January 2021 at 23:11.
Danette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th January 2021, 22:48   #52  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danette View Post
Then I'll have to change.

I replied to your pm, but I don't see anything as having been sent. Did you get it?
Yes I did. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to check it out yet.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:13.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.