cross dissolve issues at DVinfo.net

Howard Churgin · January 4th, 2009, 06:55 AM

I use premiere pro cs3 and have issues when i use cross dissolve or dip to black for fade ins or fade outs. If I use a cross dissolve between 2 clips with movement in them the cross dissolve renders out fine. but when used as mentioned above it doesn't look good. is there a different transition or settings i should use. It looks ok during playback when in Premiere pro but when rendered out to dvd is when it happens. Very hard to describe what it looks like, more like a bad transition, like it is having trouble doing the fade in or fade out.

Anyone have a similar issue?

Adam Gold · January 4th, 2009, 03:17 PM

You need to find a way to describe your problem or post a clip. Otherwise, how can we know if we have the same problem if you can't describe it, other than "it doesn't look good"?

Howard Churgin · January 4th, 2009, 04:50 PM

I'm not sure how to post a clip because it only looks bad when rendered out for DVD. a quicktime photojpeg or h264 looks good. I guess the best way to describe it is that it looks like dithering rather than an smooth fade or cross dissolve. again it is only when going to or from black. I use a single sided transition( either dip to black or cross dissolve). Should I be doing something else?

Adam Gold · January 4th, 2009, 11:45 PM

It sounds like you're doing it right, but if the problem only appears when burned to DVD I'd check your bitrate and other encoding settings. What happens if you change the duration of the fade?

Howard Churgin · January 5th, 2009, 05:39 AM

My bit rate settings are best quality: 2 pass vbr, quality 5, bit rate max 8.5, min 2.5, target 8.

Standard transition time 1 sec. slower makes it look worse faster probably looks better but its not long enough.

I now think some of it has to do with new LCD 52" tv, because i notice some similar type of thing happening (not as bad) watching some transitions during football game yesterday.

Could this be a lcd dispaly issue not being able to show the transition best. It is a good sereies 7 Samsung LCD with 120hz refresh rate....

Greg Boston · January 5th, 2009, 06:12 AM

Transitions can be difficult with MPEG2. FCP has compression markers that can be added to the timeline to force all I-Frames to be used throughout the transition. This improves the visual quality at the expense of slightly larger encoded files.

I only have access to PP2 so I don't know if you can do the same with your stuff or not.

-gb-

Howard Churgin · January 5th, 2009, 07:11 AM

I'm afraid I don't know what this means, but I will do some research. if you feel like explaining it that would be great.

Tripp Woelfel · January 5th, 2009, 07:27 AM

What Greg means is that by forcing I frames through the transition you will ensure that every frame of the transition uses, essentially, intra-frame compression rather than inter-frame compression in the typical MPEG-2 stream. I frames are not reliant upon preceding or following frames to build an image.

When P frames or B frames fall within a transition, and they typically will, MPEG-2 can lose its mind a bit because the drastic change in scene cannot be accurately predicted from the information it has available. Forcing I frames through the transition, where each frame is essentially self contained, can mitigate this issue.

You might want to check this out for more detailed information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_2

I use CS3 and I don't know of a way to force I frames in the PP timeline.

Howard Churgin · January 5th, 2009, 10:50 AM

Thanks for the info everyone.

Update: I tried rendering out a small clip and instead of using either cross dissolve or dip to black for opening and closing the video I tried to just go from 0% to 100% opacity and back over 15 frames (similar to overlapping a transition) and I still got the same results. it appears to be more noticeable when fading out to black rather than fading in from black.

Herman Van Deventer · January 5th, 2009, 11:38 AM

Howard ,

Like said , Fades are noy encoded well in mpeg 2 systems - To get more insight in this matter you will have to study the following source -

Weighted prediction video encoding - Patent EP1936994
Although info is fed from a new patent site it will technically sum up the scenario.

Encoders like Tmpg/Express 4.0 adress this issue with "better" results while software like magic bullet more "film like" fades and dissolves.

Cinemacraft encoder SD only - had extra parameters for fades on static scenes.

Give Tmpg trial a try !

TMPGEnc - Products: TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress Product Information

Howard Churgin · January 5th, 2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herman Van Deventer

Howard ,

Encoders like Tmpg/Express 4.0 adress this issue with "better" results while software like magic bullet more "film like" fades and dissolves.

Give Tmpg trial a try !

I tried the TMPEG trial. It did give much better results. What do you recommend for exporting file type from PPro to import to TMPEG. I tried a microsoft avi but it was terrible so i went with Quicktime Animation keyframed at 30.

Also what setting would you use to do a standard def dvd at 1920 x 1080. it does not let you adjust the SD settings that high for resolution size. Would you use the Sony HD 1440x 1080?

what bitrates do you use?

Herman Van Deventer · January 5th, 2009, 11:01 PM

To retain max quality of the file - I would use Uncompressed avi. - Large file sizes -

However I am using Cineform Products for this matter.

Not sure if you want to encode 1920x1080 HDV source to 1920x1080 Mpeg 2 ( Bitrate according to TMPG quality optimised template -Video 32000 - audio - 256.

or Downscale 1920x1080 to SD - Downscale of footage is done better via third party software - Virtualdub (free) - using the resize filter Lancros 3 - and finally encode with
TMPG.

Thx.

Herman Van Deventer · January 5th, 2009, 11:08 PM

To retain max quality of the file - I would use Uncompressed avi. - Large file sizes -

However I am using Cineform Products for this matter.

Not sure if you want to encode 1920x1080 HDV source to 1920x1080 Mpeg 2 ( Bitrate according to TMPG quality optimised template -Video 32000 - audio - 256.

or Downscale 1920x1080 to SD - Downscale of footage is done better via third party software - Virtualdub (free) - using the resize filter Lancros 3 - and finally encode with
TMPG.

Thx.

Sorry about double post , Chris - Firefox driving me crazy - trying to post

Graham Hickling · January 6th, 2009, 01:41 AM

"Frameserving" out of Premiere directly into your encoder avoids the need for an intermediate file and its associated de/recompression.

Debugmode FrameServer Homepage worked for frameserving from earlier versions of Premiere - I've lost track of whether it still works in CS3. But it's free to try...

January 4th, 2009, 06:55 AM	#1
Howard Churgin Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posts: 85	cross dissolve issues I use premiere pro cs3 and have issues when i use cross dissolve or dip to black for fade ins or fade outs. If I use a cross dissolve between 2 clips with movement in them the cross dissolve renders out fine. but when used as mentioned above it doesn't look good. is there a different transition or settings i should use. It looks ok during playback when in Premiere pro but when rendered out to dvd is when it happens. Very hard to describe what it looks like, more like a bad transition, like it is having trouble doing the fade in or fade out. Anyone have a similar issue?

January 4th, 2009, 03:17 PM	#2
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	You need to find a way to describe your problem or post a clip. Otherwise, how can we know if we have the same problem if you can't describe it, other than "it doesn't look good"?

January 4th, 2009, 04:50 PM	#3
Howard Churgin Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posts: 85	I'm not sure how to post a clip because it only looks bad when rendered out for DVD. a quicktime photojpeg or h264 looks good. I guess the best way to describe it is that it looks like dithering rather than an smooth fade or cross dissolve. again it is only when going to or from black. I use a single sided transition( either dip to black or cross dissolve). Should I be doing something else?

January 4th, 2009, 11:45 PM	#4
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	It sounds like you're doing it right, but if the problem only appears when burned to DVD I'd check your bitrate and other encoding settings. What happens if you change the duration of the fade?

January 5th, 2009, 05:39 AM	#5
Howard Churgin Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posts: 85	My bit rate settings are best quality: 2 pass vbr, quality 5, bit rate max 8.5, min 2.5, target 8. Standard transition time 1 sec. slower makes it look worse faster probably looks better but its not long enough. I now think some of it has to do with new LCD 52" tv, because i notice some similar type of thing happening (not as bad) watching some transitions during football game yesterday. Could this be a lcd dispaly issue not being able to show the transition best. It is a good sereies 7 Samsung LCD with 120hz refresh rate....

January 5th, 2009, 06:12 AM	#6
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	Transitions can be difficult with MPEG2. FCP has compression markers that can be added to the timeline to force all I-Frames to be used throughout the transition. This improves the visual quality at the expense of slightly larger encoded files. I only have access to PP2 so I don't know if you can do the same with your stuff or not. -gb-

January 5th, 2009, 07:11 AM	#7
Howard Churgin Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posts: 85	I'm afraid I don't know what this means, but I will do some research. if you feel like explaining it that would be great.

January 5th, 2009, 07:27 AM	#8
Tripp Woelfel Trustee Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: North Conway, NH Posts: 1,745	What Greg means is that by forcing I frames through the transition you will ensure that every frame of the transition uses, essentially, intra-frame compression rather than inter-frame compression in the typical MPEG-2 stream. I frames are not reliant upon preceding or following frames to build an image. When P frames or B frames fall within a transition, and they typically will, MPEG-2 can lose its mind a bit because the drastic change in scene cannot be accurately predicted from the information it has available. Forcing I frames through the transition, where each frame is essentially self contained, can mitigate this issue. You might want to check this out for more detailed information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_2 I use CS3 and I don't know of a way to force I frames in the PP timeline.

January 5th, 2009, 10:50 AM	#9
Howard Churgin Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Marlboro, NJ Posts: 85	Thanks for the info everyone. Update: I tried rendering out a small clip and instead of using either cross dissolve or dip to black for opening and closing the video I tried to just go from 0% to 100% opacity and back over 15 frames (similar to overlapping a transition) and I still got the same results. it appears to be more noticeable when fading out to black rather than fading in from black.

January 5th, 2009, 11:38 AM	#10
Herman Van Deventer Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: cape town South-Africa Posts: 251	Howard , Like said , Fades are noy encoded well in mpeg 2 systems - To get more insight in this matter you will have to study the following source - Weighted prediction video encoding - Patent EP1936994 Although info is fed from a new patent site it will technically sum up the scenario. Encoders like Tmpg/Express 4.0 adress this issue with "better" results while software like magic bullet more "film like" fades and dissolves. Cinemacraft encoder SD only - had extra parameters for fades on static scenes. Give Tmpg trial a try ! TMPGEnc - Products: TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress Product Information

January 5th, 2009, 11:01 PM	#12
Herman Van Deventer Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: cape town South-Africa Posts: 251	To retain max quality of the file - I would use Uncompressed avi. - Large file sizes - However I am using Cineform Products for this matter. Not sure if you want to encode 1920x1080 HDV source to 1920x1080 Mpeg 2 ( Bitrate according to TMPG quality optimised template -Video 32000 - audio - 256. or Downscale 1920x1080 to SD - Downscale of footage is done better via third party software - Virtualdub (free) - using the resize filter Lancros 3 - and finally encode with TMPG. Thx.

January 5th, 2009, 11:08 PM	#13
Herman Van Deventer Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: cape town South-Africa Posts: 251	To retain max quality of the file - I would use Uncompressed avi. - Large file sizes - However I am using Cineform Products for this matter. Not sure if you want to encode 1920x1080 HDV source to 1920x1080 Mpeg 2 ( Bitrate according to TMPG quality optimised template -Video 32000 - audio - 256. or Downscale 1920x1080 to SD - Downscale of footage is done better via third party software - Virtualdub (free) - using the resize filter Lancros 3 - and finally encode with TMPG. Thx. Sorry about double post , Chris - Firefox driving me crazy - trying to post

January 6th, 2009, 01:41 AM	#14
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	"Frameserving" out of Premiere directly into your encoder avoids the need for an intermediate file and its associated de/recompression. Debugmode FrameServer Homepage worked for frameserving from earlier versions of Premiere - I've lost track of whether it still works in CS3. But it's free to try...