Anyone done FX1/ Z1u 60i hdv to 24p files?

Graeme Nattress · July 4th, 2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Pappas

Graeme,

What % of resolution do you believe is lost doing this 60i to 24p conversion on HDV FX1/Z1u material.

What's the render time ( approx ) per frame your getting on your system?

Have you done a 1080i 60 to 1080p 24?

Can your system take the HDV from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 or higher and do 60i to 24p at the same time? or does this need to be done at different times?

Graeme, is there any short clips of your 60i to 24p system that I can watch?

Thanks

Pappas

% resolution is a tricky one. On still stuff the resolution loss is minimal and might not even be noticed due to the interlace factor, and for moving stuff you'll drop to 50%, but again, you'll never see it as it's moving. They end result, however, does look very good.

I will be putting in options for 4:2:0 into my filter packages.

I don't have any clips, but that's what the free demo is for so you can try on your own footage.

Graeme

Michael Pappas · July 4th, 2005, 04:25 PM

[QUOTE=Graeme Nattress] I will be putting in options for 4:2:0 into my filter packages.

Will there be an option to make a 4:2:2 version on output?

I can't wait to try your plugins, I have heard nothing but praise about them!

Thanks Graeme!

Graeme Nattress · July 4th, 2005, 04:48 PM

Yes, the 4:2:0 option will try to boost the chroma to 4:2:2.

Graeme

Kyle Edwards · July 4th, 2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Pappas

For some reason I can not see your files?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Equils

I can't seem to be able to open the files either. What sort of player/viewer are you using?

On the PC, install this file. It will let you view files encoded with the Xvid codec. Xvid is a free MPG4 codec, the same as Divx...but free.

http://www.koepi.org/XviD-1.0.3-20122004.exe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

I'll post a CF24 clip in a few minutes, but it will take a good 30 mins for it to fully upload. But, it'll be on the same page as linked above.
http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images-Surfers.htm

I guess I need to rename that page, eh? :-)

It's now up...

Here is the CF24 clip converted:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=20P9EICE

While it gets rid of the pulldown perfectly, fast motion seems jerky. The reason behind that is that there is no motion blur. Watch the clip and look for the man walking in the background, he's perfectly smooth. Then watch the motorbikes, jerky. Do a frame by frame on the bikes and you can see how this mode would be great for slow-mo on fast moving objects...maybe. I'd have to do some tests with that.

The clip I tested on consisted of myself walking around a room touching certain objects and even jogging. That came out fine since I was not moving 20+ mph.

Michael Pappas · July 5th, 2005, 10:01 AM

Excellent!

Thanks Graeme

pappas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

Yes, the 4:2:0 option will try to boost the chroma to 4:2:2.

Graeme

Douglas Equils · July 7th, 2005, 05:41 PM

Graeme/Douglas/all,

This was the original article that I remembered reading regarding Magic Bullet and the "film look".

http://thecarpark.net/products_magicbullet2_HDV.htm#

Although he doesn't claim it converts from 60i to 24p, Christopher Kenworthy seems to believe that Magic Bullet is excellent at giving video that "film look" through blurring, etc.

Since, I don't understand it, Graeme, can you please explain the difference between your product and Magic Bullet if both give the "film look"? Yours gives it apparently through 60i to 24p and Magic Bullet through some other means.

Thanks in advance,
Douglas

Graeme Nattress · July 7th, 2005, 06:56 PM

Really, the only thing magic about the bullet is their marketing budget!

Yes, I have my own proprietary algorithms that I believe produce an excellent look. But really, the major difference is that my plugins are significantly cheaper and you get tech support direct from me, the person who writes the code.

MB for Editors does not do the 24p thing, or de-interlace. The AE version does, but that's $1000, not $300.

Oh, and free upgrades for Film Effect customers from day one. Hopefully free upgrades won't end, but people who've bought from V1.0, will be getting a free upgrade to V2.5 which will be released this month, and I can't really get any fairer than that.

Graeme

Peter Moore · July 8th, 2005, 03:12 PM

I did this using VirtualDub and obtained near perfect results.

The procedure was to convert the M2T to AVIs using MidVid MJPEG. I'd like to do it with DVCProHD but can't find a good cheap codec (any suggestions?)

In virtualdub, I set it to inverse telecine with a 0 field offset to 23.976 fps. Then I added a 1-pixel blur filter, and finally I downed it to 1280x720 (since the blur does cause some resolution loss).

I think the blur causes a loss to slightly less than true 720p quality but certainly much better than 480. The footage is progressive and gorgeous and is virtually indistinguishable from 24p from a Panasonic AG-DVX100A when downed to 480p, excepd that the picture quality is immensly superior.

I will try to post a clip this afternoon.

Bill Porter · July 14th, 2005, 06:56 PM

What is the purpose of the 1-pixel blur?

Kyle Edwards · July 14th, 2005, 08:05 PM

Wouldn't matter anyway, you'd get blended fields. Might as well try to pass those off as motion blur.

Thomas Smet · July 14th, 2005, 09:03 PM

converting 60i to 60p will give much better results when going to 24p.

with 30i or 30p the 24p frames happen within every 1.25 of the 30p frames. So only every other 4th frame will land on a real frame.

With 60p the 24p frames happen within every 2.5 of the 60p frames. That means only every other 24p frame is interpolated. The in between frames are real frames from the 60p.

There is no more quality loss from going to 60p either since you have to deinterlace anyways. When you deinterlace 60i to 30p you throw away one whole field of data or basically half the frames. If you seperate the 60i into 60 half height frames and then scale up to full height you get 60p that will look just as good as 30p.

The best would be to convert to 120p. 120p gives a 24p frame exactly every 5 frames. Just take every 5th frame from your 120 sequence and you have a perfect 24p. Of course going to 120p can take a long time.

I am working on a program to do a high quality 60p and convert that to 24p. Every other frame will be a perfect deinterlaced frame. The in between frames will be blurry or interpolated. I am still working on how to best create the in between frame. If I can make a time shifter that is fast enough I may even go the 120p route.

Peter Moore · July 14th, 2005, 10:32 PM

The way it works is:

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2

becomes

A1+A2+blur = A_P

B1+B2+blur = B_P

C2+D1+blur = C_P

D2+E1+blur = D_P

You have to blur because the two interlaced fields happen at different points in time. Also known as "Blending fields" which VirtualDub doesn't do unless you tell it to.

But then to compensate for the blur, you go down to 720p so it all works out. And then you get beautiful 24p footage which only the most discerning eyes would know was artificial.

Kyle Edwards · July 15th, 2005, 12:14 AM

Hmm, Thomas I'll try your method and see how that works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Moore

You have to blur because the two interlaced fields happen at different points in time. Also known as "Blending fields" which VirtualDub doesn't do unless you tell it to.

Using your method:

http://www.uploadhouse.com/images/625620499020.JPG

You're not creating a true progressive source to work with. You're basically blending. The motion may appear ok to your eyes, but you are creating a mess with the frames.

EDIT:

60i to 24p - 119.88 to 23.976
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=283SRN7Y

60i to 30p - Deinterlaced
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2890NCTV

60i to 60p - Resized Fields
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=27BZ47GT

I've uploaded all three so we can compare the motion in each. The sample footage is only 10sec. I'll do a longer test tomorrow.

Thomas Smet · July 15th, 2005, 01:38 AM

What program are you using to convert to 120p?

Radek Svoboda · July 15th, 2005, 07:14 AM

Graeme & Co,

Once convert 1080i60 to 24p, using your, other top software, what we getting subjectively as result, is overall quality close to 720p, 1080p, somewhere in between, lower than 720p?

What I'm driving at, if lenses are same, would picture quality be better on 720p24 HDV, 720p24 DVCPROHD with 960x720 recorded pixels, or Sony HDV converted from 50-60i to 24-25p?

David Newman of CineForm already said that 720p24 HDV codec means theoretically better quality than DVCPROHD at 24p, which is 40 Mbps.

How close is Sony HDV codec to HDCAM codec at 1080i? Compressin on non-moving complex image is about same (significantly less than on DVCPROHD), once movement starts, compression increases but eye is less sensitive to movement so it may perceive it as natural blur.

Radek

July 4th, 2005, 04:48 PM	#18
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Yes, the 4:2:0 option will try to boost the chroma to 4:2:2. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

July 7th, 2005, 05:41 PM	#21
Douglas Equils New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 11	Thoughts on this article? Graeme/Douglas/all, This was the original article that I remembered reading regarding Magic Bullet and the "film look". http://thecarpark.net/products_magicbullet2_HDV.htm# Although he doesn't claim it converts from 60i to 24p, Christopher Kenworthy seems to believe that Magic Bullet is excellent at giving video that "film look" through blurring, etc. Since, I don't understand it, Graeme, can you please explain the difference between your product and Magic Bullet if both give the "film look"? Yours gives it apparently through 60i to 24p and Magic Bullet through some other means. Thanks in advance, Douglas

July 7th, 2005, 06:56 PM	#22
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Really, the only thing magic about the bullet is their marketing budget! Yes, I have my own proprietary algorithms that I believe produce an excellent look. But really, the major difference is that my plugins are significantly cheaper and you get tech support direct from me, the person who writes the code. MB for Editors does not do the 24p thing, or de-interlace. The AE version does, but that's $1000, not $300. Oh, and free upgrades for Film Effect customers from day one. Hopefully free upgrades won't end, but people who've bought from V1.0, will be getting a free upgrade to V2.5 which will be released this month, and I can't really get any fairer than that. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

July 4th, 2005, 04:25 PM	#17
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	[QUOTE=Graeme Nattress] I will be putting in options for 4:2:0 into my filter packages. Will there be an option to make a 4:2:2 version on output? I can't wait to try your plugins, I have heard nothing but praise about them! Thanks Graeme!

July 8th, 2005, 03:12 PM	#23
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	I did this using VirtualDub and obtained near perfect results. The procedure was to convert the M2T to AVIs using MidVid MJPEG. I'd like to do it with DVCProHD but can't find a good cheap codec (any suggestions?) In virtualdub, I set it to inverse telecine with a 0 field offset to 23.976 fps. Then I added a 1-pixel blur filter, and finally I downed it to 1280x720 (since the blur does cause some resolution loss). I think the blur causes a loss to slightly less than true 720p quality but certainly much better than 480. The footage is progressive and gorgeous and is virtually indistinguishable from 24p from a Panasonic AG-DVX100A when downed to 480p, excepd that the picture quality is immensly superior. I will try to post a clip this afternoon.

July 14th, 2005, 06:56 PM	#24
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	What is the purpose of the 1-pixel blur?

July 14th, 2005, 08:05 PM	#25
Kyle Edwards Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI, NY Posts: 274	Wouldn't matter anyway, you'd get blended fields. Might as well try to pass those off as motion blur.

July 14th, 2005, 09:03 PM	#26
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	converting 60i to 60p will give much better results when going to 24p. with 30i or 30p the 24p frames happen within every 1.25 of the 30p frames. So only every other 4th frame will land on a real frame. With 60p the 24p frames happen within every 2.5 of the 60p frames. That means only every other 24p frame is interpolated. The in between frames are real frames from the 60p. There is no more quality loss from going to 60p either since you have to deinterlace anyways. When you deinterlace 60i to 30p you throw away one whole field of data or basically half the frames. If you seperate the 60i into 60 half height frames and then scale up to full height you get 60p that will look just as good as 30p. The best would be to convert to 120p. 120p gives a 24p frame exactly every 5 frames. Just take every 5th frame from your 120 sequence and you have a perfect 24p. Of course going to 120p can take a long time. I am working on a program to do a high quality 60p and convert that to 24p. Every other frame will be a perfect deinterlaced frame. The in between frames will be blurry or interpolated. I am still working on how to best create the in between frame. If I can make a time shifter that is fast enough I may even go the 120p route.

July 14th, 2005, 10:32 PM	#27
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	The way it works is: A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 becomes A1+A2+blur = A_P B1+B2+blur = B_P C2+D1+blur = C_P D2+E1+blur = D_P You have to blur because the two interlaced fields happen at different points in time. Also known as "Blending fields" which VirtualDub doesn't do unless you tell it to. But then to compensate for the blur, you go down to 720p so it all works out. And then you get beautiful 24p footage which only the most discerning eyes would know was artificial.

July 15th, 2005, 01:38 AM	#29
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	What program are you using to convert to 120p?

July 15th, 2005, 07:14 AM	#30
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	Graeme & Co, Once convert 1080i60 to 24p, using your, other top software, what we getting subjectively as result, is overall quality close to 720p, 1080p, somewhere in between, lower than 720p? What I'm driving at, if lenses are same, would picture quality be better on 720p24 HDV, 720p24 DVCPROHD with 960x720 recorded pixels, or Sony HDV converted from 50-60i to 24-25p? David Newman of CineForm already said that 720p24 HDV codec means theoretically better quality than DVCPROHD at 24p, which is 40 Mbps. How close is Sony HDV codec to HDCAM codec at 1080i? Compressin on non-moving complex image is about same (significantly less than on DVCPROHD), once movement starts, compression increases but eye is less sensitive to movement so it may perceive it as natural blur. Radek