sd dvd from ex1 : horrible

Gints Klimanis · March 10th, 2008, 04:25 PM

[QUOTE=Adam Forgione;840092]okay im starting to get the down convert to
the picture on all tests looks the best on the LG ($400 tv) - the bravia surprisingly looked the worse QUOTE]

The Bravia line is known for its soft upscaling. I picked up the 52" 1080p at a good price just as stores were clearing their inventory in August 2007 for the new models. Sony announced some new models in fall 2007 (some have been in stores for a couple of months), but I haven't confirmed if they are any better at upscaling. I think you have to rely on your DVD player to upscale for the Bravia.

Dennis Schmitz · March 10th, 2008, 05:15 PM

Sooo, here's the link.
http://rapidshare.com/files/98564166...Hcenc.m2v.html

sd dvd from ex1 : not horrible ;)

regards Dennis

Adam Reuter · March 11th, 2008, 02:12 AM

I just downloaded some clips around here (Renaissance festival, Woods, Aquarium and some others). I loaded them onto my thumb drive and plugged it into my XBox 360 (a DVD-R also works equally as well.)

Viewing them on a 32" Sony Trinitron TV, the SD quality of the EX1 is absolutely gorgeous! Lifelike colors...sharp resolution. It easily matches HD-originated footage from my Korn: Live from the Other Side DVD (the only other DVD I've tested so far...I recently purchased the system and haven't messed around with it much).

I've also viewed the aquarium footage on a 57" HDTV (projection) and it looks ALMOST as good as broadcast Discovery Channel stuff. And that's coming from files made for the internet...I wonder how it'd look at higher bitrates? This camera is absolutely amazing at its price point.

From that I extract that it is the software encoders that are not doing proper downconversion. If the XBox can handle it well in realtime downconversion then it's either the software you're using is poo (I always hated Compressor which I know a lot of you are using...it never looked as good as my Canopus Procoder conversions) or you're not using the proper settings to get good footage. If I knew what techniques Microsoft used in their Windows Media/Quicktime H264 downconversion schematics I'd tell you! But be rest assured it is not a waste of time to shoot in HD with this camera. As another user said earlier we are in a transitional period with all this HD stuff and it's an issue that has yet to be ironed out.

I'd like to say more but I'm going back downstairs to watch that lovely EX1 footage again!

Craig Seeman · March 11th, 2008, 06:23 AM

Adam, Compressor 3 is a major improvement over previous versions. It's ability to down convert, change frame rates, etc. is quite good in most respects. The one area I have issue with is line twitter on certain shoots which is likely due to the source resolution and that it's not being intelligently blurred (or equivalent).

I've also done test encodes in Episode Pro which, according to most reviews is competitive with Procoder if not Rhozet. I can the same results with Episode although I continue to experiment. Episode Pro is far more "tweakable" than Compressor. Episode Pro (and it's network version, Engine) are broadcast level apps. I've used it to create MPEG2 Program and Transport streams for broadcast and it does an excellent job.

I do think software compression apps in general probably have not been optimized to handle some aspects of HD to SD downconversions.

Keep in mind that, in my experience, there is only certain shots that Compressor and apparently Episode Pro are not handling. Most look great. It's thin horizontal lines that twitter when the picture moves up/down. The same shots look fine stationary.

Steve Sykes · March 11th, 2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Reuter

I loaded them onto my thumb drive and plugged it into my XBox 360...
Viewing them on a 32" Sony Trinitron TV, the SD quality of the EX1 is absolutely gorgeous! Lifelike colors...sharp resolution. It easily matches HD-originated footage from my Korn:

I wonder if you record Xbox 360 HD footage through RGB out into a DVD recorder and then compare the mpeg2 files from the software conversions mentioned how it will compare.

Dennis can you give me more details on your latest workflow, I also have a cinema craft encoder will this be better or worse than HCenc? It has been a while since I used it so I am very rusty in that sort of workflow.

Dennis Schmitz · March 11th, 2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Sykes

Dennis can you give me more details on your latest workflow, I also have a cinema craft encoder will this be better or worse than HCenc? It has been a while since I used it so I am very rusty in that sort of workflow.

You can resize the m2v or m2t files with Virtualdubmod + smartresize.
The resulting .avi file can be encoded with cce of course.

But I don't know whether it looks better or worse than Hcenc.
Hcenc is free. It does offer better quality than squeeze (sharp with artifacts) or even procoder (very soft).

regards Dennis

Bill Ravens · March 11th, 2008, 08:16 AM

Using virtualdub resize filter:
set to Lanzos
Tick the "Interlaced" button
Even if your footage is progressive. It seems counter-intuitive, but trust me on this 'til you try it.

Lonnie Bell · March 11th, 2008, 08:21 AM

Just burned a SD DVD with the mv2 file Dennis shared, using DVD Studio Pro from FCS2 - looks like HD footage even when played back on a SD 4:3 50" TV... albeit letterboxed!

Dennis Schmitz · March 11th, 2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

Using virtualdub resize filter:
set to Lanzos
Tick the "Interlaced" button
Even if your footage is progressive. It seems counter-intuitive, but trust me on this 'til you try it.

Virtualdubmod is my favourite.
Contains nice filters, easy interface and is open-source.
I'll try your suggestion later.
(have you seen the .m2v file? created with virtualdubmod and hcenc?)

regards Dennis

Dennis Schmitz · March 11th, 2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Schmitz

I'll try your suggestion later.
regards Dennis

UGLY!!!
Looks like a very bad deinterlaced video with this filter applied (tested with HDV 25f Canon A1).

regards Dennis

Bill Ravens · March 11th, 2008, 11:20 AM

weird...works beautifully for me. but I shoot real progressive, no faux.
could it be that frame mode on the canon?

Dennis Schmitz · March 11th, 2008, 11:36 AM

It looks very unnatural even with EX1 25p 1920x1080 material.
Horizontal lines get stretched and are flickering during pans.

regards Dennis

Jon Carlson · March 11th, 2008, 02:49 PM

@Dennis:

Thanks for posting that clip! I would agree that it looks better than either of the SD clips I rendered. (At least on my 42" LCD).

I do notice some differences in color... I haven't yet figured out which looks closer to the original HD. My grading was crap, as well, which certainly didn't help things.

I still think that my AVI scaled in After Effects (before being exported as MPEG via Adobe Media Encoder), looks the best. However, if I can't maintain that quality across the workflow onto DVD, your solution may be best.

There really are only two places where the process can go wrong:

1. Scaling - it seems that Premiere Pro, AE and VirtualDub generate similar results, with VirtualDub maintaining the highest quality.

2. MPEG encoding - Here is seems that your process beats Adobe Media Encoder. Kind of frustrating, given what CS3 costs compared to what these other tools cost... :-)

@Adam... did you get a chance to test the files that have been provided to you, per your request?

Dennis Schmitz · March 11th, 2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Carlson

I do notice some differences in color... I haven't yet figured out which looks closer to the original HD. My grading was crap, as well, which certainly didn't help things.

I don't know wether I should downgrade color to BT.601 or not, but it looks different then...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Carlson

I still think that my AVI scaled in After Effects (before being exported as MPEG via Adobe Media Encoder), looks the best. However, if I can't maintain that quality across the workflow onto DVD, your solution may be best.

AEs (at least V.7) scaler is much worse compared to smartresize filter. Tried Avid Liquid and Procoder 3, too, but the results were pretty bad - esspecially the graphics in the beginning ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Carlson

There really are only two places where the process can go wrong:

1. Scaling - it seems that Premiere Pro, AE and VirtualDub generate similar results, with VirtualDub maintaining the highest quality.

I don't know about Premiere (the video you provided scaled with Premiere? was not usable in my opinion.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Carlson

2. MPEG encoding - Here is seems that your process beats Adobe Media Encoder. Kind of frustrating, given what CS3 costs compared to what these other tools cost... :-)

Hcenc is free, fast and produces very clean video.
The .m2v file didn't look much worse compared to the uncompressed avi I created with Virtualdubmod.

regards Dennis

Mark Miner · March 11th, 2008, 04:21 PM

This is a repost from the canopus forum dealing with this subject. It is a very hot topic there as well. It is a step by step that starts with a Canopus HQ avi file as the source. Any NLE high quality barely compressed file should work as the input file to this process! It uses free tools for conversion and has had great feedback so far!

Mark

http://ediusforum.grassvalley.com/fo...ead.php?t=5141

March 11th, 2008, 02:12 AM	#33
Adam Reuter Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Posts: 234	Downconversion on XBox 360 I just downloaded some clips around here (Renaissance festival, Woods, Aquarium and some others). I loaded them onto my thumb drive and plugged it into my XBox 360 (a DVD-R also works equally as well.) Viewing them on a 32" Sony Trinitron TV, the SD quality of the EX1 is absolutely gorgeous! Lifelike colors...sharp resolution. It easily matches HD-originated footage from my Korn: Live from the Other Side DVD (the only other DVD I've tested so far...I recently purchased the system and haven't messed around with it much). I've also viewed the aquarium footage on a 57" HDTV (projection) and it looks ALMOST as good as broadcast Discovery Channel stuff. And that's coming from files made for the internet...I wonder how it'd look at higher bitrates? This camera is absolutely amazing at its price point. From that I extract that it is the software encoders that are not doing proper downconversion. If the XBox can handle it well in realtime downconversion then it's either the software you're using is poo (I always hated Compressor which I know a lot of you are using...it never looked as good as my Canopus Procoder conversions) or you're not using the proper settings to get good footage. If I knew what techniques Microsoft used in their Windows Media/Quicktime H264 downconversion schematics I'd tell you! But be rest assured it is not a waste of time to shoot in HD with this camera. As another user said earlier we are in a transitional period with all this HD stuff and it's an issue that has yet to be ironed out. I'd like to say more but I'm going back downstairs to watch that lovely EX1 footage again!

March 11th, 2008, 08:21 AM	#38
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	Just burned a SD DVD with the mv2 file Dennis shared, using DVD Studio Pro from FCS2 - looks like HD footage even when played back on a SD 4:3 50" TV... albeit letterboxed! __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

March 11th, 2008, 04:21 PM	#45
Mark Miner New Boot Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Cedar Rapids, IA Posts: 9	Canopus Forum Repost This is a repost from the canopus forum dealing with this subject. It is a very hot topic there as well. It is a step by step that starts with a Canopus HQ avi file as the source. Any NLE high quality barely compressed file should work as the input file to this process! It uses free tools for conversion and has had great feedback so far! Mark http://ediusforum.grassvalley.com/fo...ead.php?t=5141

March 10th, 2008, 04:25 PM	#31
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	[QUOTE=Adam Forgione;840092]okay im starting to get the down convert to the picture on all tests looks the best on the LG ($400 tv) - the bravia surprisingly looked the worse QUOTE] The Bravia line is known for its soft upscaling. I picked up the 52" 1080p at a good price just as stores were clearing their inventory in August 2007 for the new models. Sony announced some new models in fall 2007 (some have been in stores for a couple of months), but I haven't confirmed if they are any better at upscaling. I think you have to rely on your DVD player to upscale for the Bravia.

March 10th, 2008, 05:15 PM	#32
Dennis Schmitz Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Viersen, Germany Posts: 120	Sooo, here's the link. http://rapidshare.com/files/98564166...Hcenc.m2v.html sd dvd from ex1 : not horrible ;) regards Dennis

March 11th, 2008, 06:23 AM	#34
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	Adam, Compressor 3 is a major improvement over previous versions. It's ability to down convert, change frame rates, etc. is quite good in most respects. The one area I have issue with is line twitter on certain shoots which is likely due to the source resolution and that it's not being intelligently blurred (or equivalent). I've also done test encodes in Episode Pro which, according to most reviews is competitive with Procoder if not Rhozet. I can the same results with Episode although I continue to experiment. Episode Pro is far more "tweakable" than Compressor. Episode Pro (and it's network version, Engine) are broadcast level apps. I've used it to create MPEG2 Program and Transport streams for broadcast and it does an excellent job. I do think software compression apps in general probably have not been optimized to handle some aspects of HD to SD downconversions. Keep in mind that, in my experience, there is only certain shots that Compressor and apparently Episode Pro are not handling. Most look great. It's thin horizontal lines that twitter when the picture moves up/down. The same shots look fine stationary.

March 11th, 2008, 08:16 AM	#37
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Using virtualdub resize filter: set to Lanzos Tick the "Interlaced" button Even if your footage is progressive. It seems counter-intuitive, but trust me on this 'til you try it.

March 11th, 2008, 11:20 AM	#41
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	weird...works beautifully for me. but I shoot real progressive, no faux. could it be that frame mode on the canon?

March 11th, 2008, 11:36 AM	#42
Dennis Schmitz Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Viersen, Germany Posts: 120	It looks very unnatural even with EX1 25p 1920x1080 material. Horizontal lines get stretched and are flickering during pans. regards Dennis

March 11th, 2008, 02:49 PM	#43
Jon Carlson Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Reading, PA USA Posts: 61	@Dennis: Thanks for posting that clip! I would agree that it looks better than either of the SD clips I rendered. (At least on my 42" LCD). I do notice some differences in color... I haven't yet figured out which looks closer to the original HD. My grading was crap, as well, which certainly didn't help things. I still think that my AVI scaled in After Effects (before being exported as MPEG via Adobe Media Encoder), looks the best. However, if I can't maintain that quality across the workflow onto DVD, your solution may be best. There really are only two places where the process can go wrong: 1. Scaling - it seems that Premiere Pro, AE and VirtualDub generate similar results, with VirtualDub maintaining the highest quality. 2. MPEG encoding - Here is seems that your process beats Adobe Media Encoder. Kind of frustrating, given what CS3 costs compared to what these other tools cost... :-) @Adam... did you get a chance to test the files that have been provided to you, per your request?