HG10 MTS file for 24p analysis

[Mike Slavis]

David,

That's certainly possible, as the only way I know to check the "resolution" is to do a File -> Properties in Windows Media Player while the video is loaded. I guess what you're saying is this may not be reporting the encoded resolution of the file, but may be reporting the display resolution instead (which has been interpolated from the encoded resolution). Is there a tool you or anyone know of that will report the encoded resolution of a media file for me to verify?

I will most likely make the $15 CoreAVC Pro codec/filter kit my next test....

mike@slavis.com

[David Newman]

Please upload me you HG10 source file.

To determine the AVIs resulting resolution, right click in the "name/size/type" bar of windows explorer (details view), select "more", and check "Dimensions." Or Right click on the AVI file and select Propreties, and look in the summary page.

[Mike Slavis]

I don't know where to upload to, but it's just the Les Dit source file that I'm using for testing (I originally started using my own source files but realized that Les' was nice because it was short, has the panning in it, and you created a smooth .AVI from it which I've been using as a sort of reference). Here is the rapidshare source file location from Les:
http://rapidshare.com/files/62567223/cinemode-PF24.MTS

Note that I also have this (identical) source file, the .AVI you created and the .AVI (with stuttering) that I created on my personal FTP site:
Les Dit's test file (available earlier in the thread): ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/cinemode-PF24.MTS
David Newman's converted file (available earlier in the thread): ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/cinemode-PF24.avi
My (badly) converted file: ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/cinemode-PF24-001.avi

Thanks for the "Dimensions" tip ("you learn something every day"), I checked it and you're right, 1440x1080 it is (both your .AVI and mine). The good news is that now I know a surefire way to check the encoded resolution of an .AVI file, the bad news is that Neo HDV isn't encoding to the "FULL HD" of 1920x1080 that I was hoping it would (and the more bad news is that to do that would require Neo HD, which is $500!!!). So Neo HDV will get you the progressive frames out of the interlaced stream at the encoded resolution of 1440x1080, but in order to re-encode this at 1920x1080 (24p) would require Neo HD, do I have that right now? Any chance of Cineform coming out with a "hobbiest" version of any of these tools? :)

I've purchased the CoreAVC pack, I'll try it out later and update the post with what I find.

mike@slavis.com

[David Newman]

1440x1080 is correct for Les's clip, which is only a 1440x1080 source file. GraphEdit confirms this. NEO HDV is doing everything correctly. If you "need" 1920, you had better start with a 1920 source, and really none of these consumer cameras can resolve anywhere near that, and if you do need 1920, then you would know $500 is a bargain. :)

[Mike Slavis]

Ha, I'm not even touching that "bargain" comment, except to say, I'd like to see you tell my wife that in order to get the 1920x1080 24p output from our brand new $900 "Full HD" camcorder we need to spend another "bargain" $500. Also, as my wife would remind me, we don't "need" any of this stuff. :)

I knew going into this when I purchased the cam that it might take a *bit* more $$$ to get "Full HD" out of it, and I'm still trying to figure what I'm willing to go for. I'm trying to figure out:

1) What it will take to get 1920x1080 24p video out of this thing.

2) Now, it looks like I may settle on what it will take to get 1440x1080 24p video out of this thing, which may not be a bad idea anyway considering that to make the 1440x1080 -> 1920x1080 would require a "stretch" and interpolation/re-encode, and then if this output file is ever written to Blu-Ray or HD DVD (now I'm really dreaming, eh?) it would re-encoded AGAIN. Making my own 1920x1080 24p High Def discs sure would be cool....I digress...

At any rate, I do appreciate you helping this newbie learn some of the ins-and-outs here, and hopefully this will help some other newbies down the line.

I'll post later with my results from the CoreAVC codec pack.

mike@slavis.com

[David Newman]

1) A 1920 camera to start helps. My point is you don't need 1920 if you can't even tell that the source was 1440. Only the high-end broadcast or film guys can use or benefit from a true 1920 image, and they will not be using a HG10. Plus the pixel count is nearly irrelevant, what detail can be resolved is more important.

2) Your not settling if you source is actual 1440.

All my AVCHD files are 1440x1080, just like HDV. Please someone upload a 1920x1080 AVCHD clip for my testing.

[Les Dit]

Mike, what David is saying is, to put it mildly, that the 'FULLHD' claims of these sub $1000 cameras is pure rubbish.
They are not getting 1920 true pixels across in any shape or form. The single cmos sensor is interpolated from bayer pattern from the get go. Plus, do this little test: Point the HG10 at something in a room in photo mode, and note two objects one on each side of the screen. Now switch to video mode. Note that it is now cropped in, you can't see the objects on the sides of the screen any more! Even fewer pixels are being used for video. I haven't done any measurements, but it may be more than 128 pixels different ( 2048 photo size minus 1920 video size. ) I noticed this when my attached 0.45x wide angle adapter was not vignetting on video, but was when I switched to photo mode.

So don't worry about 1440 horizontal being what the video is encoded at.
It's a neat little camera, non the less, and all of the manufacturers are stretching the truth.

[Mike Slavis]

Good news! The CoreAVC Pro codec pack from http://www.coreavc.com/index.php?opt...d=21&Itemid=59 for $14.95 does, indeed, work with Cineform (and the HG10 .MTS files) to produce stutter-free 1440x1080p24 output. Here is how this went:

---------------
Try 3:
1) New install of Windows XP Professional
2) Neo HDV 3.1.2 installed
3) CoreAVC Pro codec pack 1.5.0.1 installed

HDLink successfully converts Les Dits 24p test file to an .AVI (no audio).

Lessons Learned:
1) Cineform Neo HDV produces a 1440x1080 .AVI output file (I was mistaken about the 1920x1080 from back in Try 2, Lessons Learned 1)
2) Windows Media Player will report out the resolution of the file after Aspect Ratio is applied, resulting in it reporting 1920x1080 for a 1440x1080 .AVI with 16:9 AR
3) To get the real resolution of an .AVI file in XP, right-click it, choose Properties and look at the Summary tag
4) The CoreAVC codec pack includes video filters only, to get audio the Corel Application Disc software still needs to be installed.
5) Disable the Deinterlacing option of the CoreAVC Codec (Start->Programs->CoreCodec->CoreAVC Professional Editon->Configure CoreAVC) to work correctly with Cineform

Try 3 application in/outs: ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/Try3-XP...rm-CoreAVC.pdf
Try 3 converted file (no audio): ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/cinemod...eInterlace.avi

---------------
Try 4:
1) New install of Windows XP Professional
2) Neo HDV 3.1.2 installed
3) CoreAVC Pro codec pack 1.5.0.1 installed
4) Apple Quicktime 7.1.6 installed

HDLink successfully converts Les Dits 24p test file to a .MOV (no audio).

Lessons Learned:
1) When the .MOV is played back in Quicktime the 16:9 AR is not applied, resulting in "squished" video
2) Windows Media Player will not play the .MOV file
3) The .MOV will not play through Quicktime on a machine that does not have Neo HDV on it.

Questions:
1) How do you view the .MOV at the correct Aspect Ratio? I don't see anywhere in the Quicktime Player to force it to adjust to it.
2) Will this .MOV play back on a Mac?
3) Is the Neo Player sufficient for playback on another PC along with Quicktime Player?

Try 4 application in/outs: ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/Try4-XP...CoreAVC-QT.pdf
Try 4 converted file (no audio): ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/cinemode-PF24-004.mov

---------------
Try 5:
1) New install of Windows XP Professional
2) Neo HDV 3.1.2 installed ($250)
3) CoreAVC Pro codec pack 1.5.0.1 installed ($15)
4) Apple Quicktime 7.1.6 installed (Free)
5) Corel Apps from Canon HG10 disc installed (Included with camcorder)

HDLink successfully converts Les Dits 24p test file to an .AVI, including audio.

Graphedit shows active filters:
"cinemode-PF24.MTS"

connecting video to:
"CoreAVC Video Decoder"
which ends at:
"Video Renderer"

and audio to:
"InterVideo Audio Decoder"
which ends at:
"Default DirectSound Device"

Lessons Learned:
1) THIS is the configuration that works completely (make sure Deinterlacing is off in the CoreAVC codec).
2) When I installed Neo Player 3.1.2 on a separate Windows Vista PC to check playback compatibility, the .AVI plays in Media Player, but not using the proper Aspect Ratio, so things look "squished". It shows the resolution as 1440x1080 and the AR as "Unknown".

Questions:
1) Is there any alternative to using Neo HDV to pull the 24p out?
2) Now that I have the 24p, how can I get it onto a BD-R, BD-RE or HD DVD-R at 1080p24?

I'll be looking at Windows Media Encoder and Nero to see if they can help with any of this...although I'd say my posting in this thread is done, as I managed to get SUCCESS from the components listed in Try 5. Hope this helps someone!

Try 5 application in/outs: ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/Try5-XP...VC-QT-HG10.pdf
Try 5 converted file (complete): ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/cinemod...ware-Audio.avi

I'll keep these files available as long as I can for anyone interested.

---------------
mike@slavis.com

[Mike Slavis]

Originally Posted by Les Dit

Even fewer pixels are being used for video. I haven't done any measurements, but it may be more than 128 pixels different ( 2048 photo size minus 1920 video size. ) I noticed this when my attached 0.45x wide angle adapter was not vignetting on video, but was when I switched to photo mode.

Les, I'll check this out when I get to that point, but maybe instead of taking 1920 across from the sensor and throwing away data to get down to the 1440 across actually saved, the camcorder is only grabbing 1440 across from the sensor? That would give you a 2048-1440=608 pixel delta from the full photo size (assuming photo is using 2048 across from the sensor). That seems like too large a differential, so probably not...

mike@slavis.com

[Aaron Courtney]

Mike, just wanted to chime in here and say a huge "thank you" for taking the time to be the guinea pig in this whole 1080/24P deal with the HG10. The same goes for Les. I imagine there are a lot of others out there who are following this progression in lurking mode as it unfolds because I think we all have similar end results in mind, i.e., get true HD progressive editable footage finalized to an appropriate HD distribution medium for a reasonably justifiable (to our spouses, LOL) expense.

So again, huge props to you and keep up the great work, man.

[Michael Jouravlev]

Aaron, ditto from me. I am also very interested in Mike's progress since I am thinking about getting one myself. I am torn between HV20 (or its successor) and HG10. I have no experience with HDV and AVCHD whatsoever, my camcorder is a regular MiniDV, as simple as a hand saw.

So, to reiterate, I would like to clarify:

* CoreAVC is AVCHD codec, right? Is it decoder only or it can encode back into AVCHD? Does it work seamlessly with media players and NLEs? Or do I need some sort of special support for installable codec in my NLE?

* I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio 6, AFAIK it does not support plugins. Will it work with CoreAVC codec? Also, how does Sony enable/disable certain file types? They say that HDV or AVCHD are not supported by VMS6, but if I had a proper codec, why would VMS care? I don't want to upgrade my NLE, I just want to use a codec to read HDV/AVCHD files.

* What exactly does HDLink do? I understand it is a separate utility.

* Neo HDV is a intermediate format. Again, can it be used with Sony VMS, in particular with VMS6 which does not even support HDV out of the box, or do I need an NLE with explicit support for plugins like full Vegas?

* Mike, what is Quicktime for in try 5?

[Mike Slavis]

Originally Posted by Michael Jouravlev

* CoreAVC is AVCHD codec, right? Is it decoder only or it can encode back into AVCHD? Does it work seamlessly with media players and NLEs? Or do I need some sort of special support for installable codec in my NLE?

CoreAVC Pro, which I purchased for $15, is a decoder only. It does not encode. I'll get back to you on whether it works seamlessly with Windows Media Player when I re-GHOST my system for the next "start from scratch" test. As far as NLEs go (Non-Linear Encoder?), I don't know as the only one I have right now is Nero, which seems to always use its own built-in filters.

Originally Posted by Michael Jouravlev

* I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio 6, AFAIK it does not support plugins. Will it work with CoreAVC codec? Also, how does Sony enable/disable certain file types? They say that HDV or AVCHD are not supported by VMS6, but if I had a proper codec, why would VMS care? I don't want to upgrade my NLE, I just want to use a codec to read HDV/AVCHD files.

I can't fully answer this one, as I don't have Vegas. The tips from Les and David about graphedit led me to use the tool to attempt to get Nero Vision working as the NLE for output. The way it works is, you open graphedit, drag the file you want to check into its window (in the case of the HG10 it's a file with a .MTS extension), and graphedit will "draw you a map" of what DirectShow filters will be used by default to translate the video and audio. If you look in the Try 5 .PDF I put together (further up in the thread) you can see that at that point the system was using the CoreAVC codec by default. What makes the CoreAVC codec necessary is that it can be easily configured to NOT deinterlace the fields in the file, which is necessary in order to recover the 24p data contained in the interlaced fields. That may be the other issue with Vegas. Even if it can use the DirectShow default filter (CoreAVC codec) it may not be able to handle the pulldown process itself. That's the process of re-combining the progressive frame pieces that are embedded inside the interlaced fields back together. THIS is what CineForm HDLink does, once it can be fed with a codec that doesn't mess with the original interlacing. The output from CineForm HDLink is a 24 fps progressive file which can now be fed to just about any NLE, and interlacing/deinterlacing is no longer a concern.

Originally Posted by Michael Jouravlev

* What exactly does HDLink do? I understand it is a separate utility.

I *think* I might have just covered this above, but basically, it is used with the HG10 output, the CoreAVC codec (or another that leaves interlacing alone) and the InterVideo audio codec (which comes with the camcorders software package) to "pull out" the 24p information from the interlaced stream so you wind up with an output file that actually has the progressive frames in it, without "hiding" them in a 60i stream (telecine). HDLink is, of course, not limited to the HG10, but that's my focus here.

Originally Posted by Michael Jouravlev

* Neo HDV is a intermediate format. Again, can it be used with Sony VMS, in particular with VMS6 which does not even support HDV out of the box, or do I need an NLE with explicit support for plugins like full Vegas?

Again, I'm probably not the right guy to answer this, but my GUESS would be that Vegas 6 would handle the CineForm HDLink output as long as you have the CineForm codecs on the machine with Vegas. HDLink outputs "easy" 24p files encoded with the CineForm codecs that get wrapped into an .AVI or .MOV file. The output from HDLink is HUGE (due to trying to retain maximum quality through to the final output). Les Dits original 6 MB 4 second test file turned into a 32 MB .AVI after David Newman pulled the 24p out of it and saved it as an .AVI (My own test yielded a 36 MB .AVI). That's ~500 MB PER MINUTE. That's why the Neo HDV output is intermediate, no one can afford to archive that kind of size.

Originally Posted by Michael Jouravlev

* Mike, what is Quicktime for in try 5?

Neo HDV (HDLink) can output to either .AVI or .MOV. Personally, I'm fine with .AVI but didn't know if others would be interested in Quicktime (.MOV) files. One of my next moves was going to be to ask a Pro on here if it mattered (.AVI vs. .MOV). I was basically "kicking the tires" to make sure it worked so I knew whether or not to visit the .AVI vs. .MOV question later. Again, look at the .PDF from Try 5 - on the 1st page you'll see the Neo HDV Prefs sheet where you can see that it's possible to specify either .AVI or .MOV.

All that said, if you're open to .WMV files (don't know if Vegas can work with those), I'm hot on some testing right now using Window Media Encoder instead of CineForm to pull down the 24p from the stream. So far, what I see is promising, I'm hoping to post later about it. I don't think Pros like .WMV files at all, but I'm no Pro (that's for sure).

I started out hoping to find a way to get the camcorder output to a "REAL FULL HD" AVCHD DVD-R or even BD-R/BD-RE or HD DVD-R at TRUE 1920x1080p24. I figured if I could do this, it would justify the purchase of a Playstation 3 which would allow playback of the 1080p24 through HDMI at an actual 1080p24 (instead of dealing with pulldown from an interlaced stream). This is, to me, the "nirvana" of camcorder output (as sad as I know that is!) :)

I'm finding the reality is that I don't even know if this can be done for less than thousands of dollars, so I've now settled into getting the 24p out of the 60i stream and utilizing my Home Theater PC (HTPC) to display the TRUE 1080p24 (be it 1440x1080p24 or 1920x1080p24). This means that, for me, the "intermediate file" would effectively be "the end of the line." I would simply play it back on my HTPC whenever I wanted to view it in 24p. When the authoring tools mature and the High Def format war is over (if it ever is!) I can just take my "intermediate files" and use them to create Blu-ray or HD DVD discs at will. Or use my archive of original AVCHD from the camcorder, assuming the tools will be smart enough at that point to get the 24p out. That's why this is the "cutting edge", eh? At least all my footage of my kids from this point forward would be in "Full HD".

The pluses so far for Windows Media Encoder are that I'm happy with the output at lower bitrates than CineForm (meaning archiving these "intermediate files" is a possibility) and I have the option of scaling the output .WMV to 1920x1080 if I like (which means the display resolution will match the encoded resolution and the display driver will not need to provide scaling to provide the final 1920x1080 output). The big downside is that the encode itself is A LOT slower.

OK, I thought this would be short...back to the encoding tests....

:P

mike@slavis.com

[Mike Slavis]

I'll try to keep this as short as I can. I've been on a crash course in video editing this weekend, and have learned several things (I'll stick to those that are relevant to the discussion here). First, let me finishing answering Michael J's question from above:

Yes, CoreAVC works seamlessly with any media player that supports DirectShow for its filtering (Windows Media Player is the one I'm using). It also works with Windows Media Encoder, which is the one I'm using for my current testing.

OK, I'll try to sum up the good and bad points of what I've found.

The good:
Windows Media Encoder (WME) does seem to support Inverse Telecine (IVTC) on the HG10 .MTS files (with CoreAVC filter utilized - and with no deinterlacing in the CoreAVC filter) to yank out the 24p from the 60i stream. I have experimented with several combinations of CBRs and VBRs and settled on what is optimum for my setup (Pentium D 2.8 GHz). In my case, this is VBR for both video and audio with a quality of 90. The output is very nice.

More good news with WME, you can "leave" the video at 1440x1080 and specify it for anamorphic display, or you can have WME resize it to 1920x1080 and save a square-pixel output file (so your player doesn't have to re-resolve it for Full Screen display).

More good, WME includes a file editor which can be used after encoding to clip sections out of a large .WMV file without the need for re-encoding.

More good, WME is a free download from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...Downloads.aspx. To get this working, the only $$ I had to spend outside of the camcorder itself was the $15 for the CoreAVC Pro filter pack. Here's the configuration I used:

1) New install of Windows XP Professional
2) CoreAVC Pro codec pack 1.5.0.1 installed ($15)
3) Corel Apps from Canon HG10 disc installed (Included with camcorder)
4) Microsoft Windows Media Encoder installed (Free download)

More good, the file sizes are small, although if you want the same kind of quality that CineForm outputs, you can specify a greater quality and/or bitrate to achieve it. Just watch it - when I went over Quality 90 my Pentium D 2.8 GHz couldn't keep up trying to play the files back.

The bad:
WME is SSSLLLOOOWWW to encode. It takes about 45 seconds - 1 minute to encode 4 seconds of footage. That means an hour of footage will take approximately 12 - 15 hours to encode (on my Pentium D 2.8 GHz). This may be acceptable to those who do not shoot for hours every day (I don't - I am a "family" user who will, on average, take "a while" to fill up 1 hour of footage) and/or have a separate computer they can use for encoding (I do) and/or don't mind leaving the computer on overnight to chug away (I don't).

More bad, it's a fairly manual process (at least for me right now). I still need to learn more about WME, it seems to have a scripting language, perhaps that can be put to good use. I have been processing individual files for my testing, I'll need to figure out later how to batch-encode multiple files (I'm sure there is a way).

The worst bad (put on your thinking caps for this one, I'll be asking for some assistance at the end of it), the "Auto" setting of the IVTC section in WME does not work 100%. It does a fair job, but after examining thousands of frames for hours this weekend, I can say that it is not 100% (I look for interlace artifacts (combing?) in the output to see how good a job it's doing). I have compared with the original as well as CineForm output.

The "good" side to this is that WME offers 10 manual specifiers for how it should IVTC, and I've been able to successfully isolate "the one" that works successfully for each test case I've tried. The bad side of *this* is that the HG10 is not consistent in how it telecines, and the method used is potentially different for every file, meaning to find "the one" to use I actually need to trial-and-error all 10 (it's been a really fun weekend). :P

I'll try and explain, the pros will know what I'm talking about but the rest might not - I'm still learning myself so hopefully I don't royally mess this up...look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#3:2_pulldown for a description of telecine and IVTC. The issue here is that the progressive frames are "trapped" inside the interlaced fields, which play back at a different frame rate. To pull the frames back out from the interlaced fieldscorrectly, you need to know what the starting point is. It could be AA, BB, BC, CD or DD. WME calls these AA Top, BB Top, BC Top, CD Top and DD Top. WME also has settings for AA Bottom, BB Bottom, BC Bottom, CD Bottom and DD Bottom. Pick the right one, and the progressive frames magically "pop out" of the interlaced stream. Then WME re-encodes them at 24 fps and you're back where we should have been at the beginning - 1080p24 (for REAL). Pick the wrong one, and some frames may still come out progressive, but NOT ALL WILL. OK, now here's the question I need help with (I may also ask this as a separate post in a different forum which may be read by more people since it is a general question):

***** Here's the question:
Is there a tool, preferably free, that will examine telecined input and tell you the method used inside it? (AA Top, BB Top, etc...) This knowledge would lead me to always know what IVTC method to choose in WME.

If there isn't, I have another grassroots method I noticed from a pattern in the output files. Using VBR and a constant quality (I used 90 for all my initial test settings) the "correct" IVTC method always had the smallest encoded file size (which makes sense since the progressive frames should be smoother than ones with interlace artifacts in them, and therefore easier to compress). This held true for the 3 tests that I did with VBR Quality 90 (and also the test on Les Dit's file). Will it always be true? Not necessarily, but it's better than nothing. If there's no surefire way to ID the IVTC mode ahead of time, I plan on trying to script WME to encode the 1st 10 seconds (maybe 1 second is enough) of a file with all 10 IVTC keys and then check the file sizes, choose the lowest, and then script WME to process the entire file with the correct key. Thanks, Canon, for making this so easy. :P

Sound like too much work? You're probably right. My testing used graphedit. Open graphedit, drag the file (.MTS, .AVI or .WMV) into it and start stepping through the frames 1 at a time. Look for interlace artifacts (combing). NOTE: DO NOT run 2 graphedits, 1 with .WMV and the other with a CineForm .AVI. When I did this and went frame by frame on the CineForm .AVI it showed interlace artifacts. When I loaded just 1 graphedit for the .AVI the frames were progressive. I definitely can't explain that one, but it had me freaking out for a while. "1 graphedit at a time, please." If you look at the 0011 .WMV 29.97 you'll see combing all over the place (whenenver I moved the cam and even in the numbers changing - look for "stripes" in the black numbers of the LCD). In the 0011 WMV BBTop there is no combing (all frames are progressive). Check the 0011 WMV Auto and you'll see the IVTC doesn't "get all" the frames right. There's also a 0011 WMV 1920, which has square pixels and a 0011 WMV 1920 Quality 100, which is about the max quality you're going to get from WME (My machine can't play it real-time, it's not fast enough). The CineForm .AVI version is out there as well. And the test wouldn't be complete without Les Dits original file. Using my "smallest filesize" detection method, I mark this file as LesDit-24p-1440-Qual90-BCTop-Progressive.wmv (It is 5,665 kZB. The next smallest from the bunch is 11,126 kB). I'm including Quality 90 output from this 1440 anamorphinc run as well as Quality 90 1920 square-pixel output. Les, let me know what you think.

Thanks for listening!

mike@slavis.com

(Keep this short, yeah right. I overstepped the posting limit so will post the files next.)

[Mike Slavis]

Here are the files for you to check out, if you like. Again, these are on my personal FTP server, which is serviced through a cable modem (limited upload speed) so you must be patient. Also, I'll try to keep them alive as long as I can but can't guarantee they won't disappear some time.

YOU SHOULD RIGHT-CLICK AND SAVE THE FILES TO YOUR HDD BEFORE TRYING TO VIEW, Please. :)

My "raw" test file, straight from the camcorder (plus a file name change) in AVCHD format. You can drag this to GraphEdit to make sure you're using the right filter to decode it (in my case, CoreAVC Video Decoder (DEINTERLACE TURNED OFF) and InterVideo Audio Decoder):
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-24p-Tv-F2.4-1000.MTS (10,026 kB)

The test file converted to .WMV without DeInterlacing or IVTC with VBR Quality 90 and left as 1440 anamorphic. You can use this file to see the combing present in the result. NOTE: You DO NOT need CoreAVC (or any additional fitlers, including CineForm) loaded to view this or any .WMVs (you just need a computer with enough CPU power, mine is a Pentium D 2.8 GHz):
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-2...29.97-NoDe.wmv (3,184 kB)

The test file converted to .WMV with BBTop IVTC with VBR Quality 90 and left as 1440 anamorphic. Compare this to the one above and notice that this one has 24 fps (vs. 30) and the interlace combing is gone:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-2...ROGRESSIVE.wmv (2,260 kB)

The test file converted to .WMV with AUTO IVTC with VBR Quality 90 and left as 1440 anamorphic. Compare this to the one above and notice that this one has interlace combing occasionally (the worst is the stopwatch on frame 5. The rest of the file is pretty good, but again the IVTC wasn't "Perfect" in Auto). Also note the filesize is larger than the "Perfect" BBTop version above:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-2...-1000-Auto.wmv (2,437 kB)

The test file converted to .WMV with BBTop IVTC with VBR Quality 90 and scaled to 1920x1080 (square pixel output). Compare this to the one 2 above:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-2...-1000-1920.wmv (2,774 kB)

The test file converted to .WMV with BBTop IVTC and scaled to 1920x1080 (square pixel output) and Quality 100 video/Quality 98 Audio. I cannot play this file smoothly on my machine due to lack of CPU Power, it is basically an "intermediate" file which can be used to feed an NLE (if it supports .WMV) to maintain the highest quality. Compare this to the one above:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-2...20-Qual100.wmv (23,559 kB)
Here is a .PDF with the details of the WME properties used to create this Quality 100/98, 1920x1080 square-pixel .WMV:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-2...20-Qual100.pdf (645 kB)
Here is the actual WME settings file, in case it is of use to anyone:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-2...20-Qual100.wme (11 kB)

The test file converted using CineForm Neo HDV to a CineForm intermediate .AVI. You'll need the CineForm decoders on your machine to view this, I'm including it just as a reference:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/00011-2...4-1000-001.avi (31,628 kB)

Les Dit's original test file converted to .WMV with BCTop IVTC with VBR Quality 90 and left as 1440 anamorphic. Compare this to the CineForm ones referenced earlier in this thread:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/LesDit-...rogressive.wmv (5,665 kB)
Here is a .PDF with the details of the WME properties used to create this Quality 90, 1440x1080 anamorphic .WMV:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/LesDit-1440-Qual90.pdf (657 kB)
Here is the actual WME settings file, in case it is of use to anyone:
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/LesDit-1440-Qual90.wme (11 kB)

Les Dit's original test file converted to .WMV with BCTop IVTC with VBR Quality 90 and scaled to 1920x1080 (square pixel output):
ftp://66.66.199.125/Cineform/LesDit-...rogressive.wmv (7,496 kB)

Thanks again,

mike@slavis.com

[Chris Barcellos]

Wow. Nice work in chasing that down. Get some sleep, man....