Encoding home video (DV) with no quality loss

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I want to transferm my home videos in miniDV format to a PC,
probably in DIVX format.
What codec and what parameters (bitrate) would you recommend
if I don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss ?

I tried just running plain old DIVX with default parameters
wwhich produced reasonable results, but quality loss (although
quite low) was still present.

Thanks
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alex T." wrote ...
>I want to transferm my home videos in miniDV format to a PC,
> probably in DIVX format.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that you want to use DIVIX?

> What codec and what parameters (bitrate) would you recommend
> if I don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss ?

Leave it in DV if you "don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss".
DIVIX, MPEG, and most other codecs have some degree of loss.

It seems remarkable that you have already decided on DIVIX, but
"don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss" as they seem to be
diametrically opposed.
 

Andre

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
315
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

the dog from that film you saw wrote:
> "Alex T." <alex_s_42@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:25184c1e.0410300051.3e3ced13@posting.google.com...
>
>>I want to transferm my home videos in miniDV format to a PC,
>>probably in DIVX format.
>>What codec and what parameters (bitrate) would you recommend
>>if I don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss ?
>>
>>I tried just running plain old DIVX with default parameters
>>wwhich produced reasonable results, but quality loss (although
>>quite low) was still present.
>>
>>Thanks
>
>
>
> divx is lossy.
>
> you need to google search for 'lossless codec' to find something - but
> lossless codecs will of course have a far lower file compression level than
> something like divx -the end result will be a lot bigger.
>
>
>
So what? DV is lossy too (its an MJPG derivative). Well having said that
the OP prob. wants to encode so he won't see the difference. For that I
would recommend a bitrate higher than 1500kbps since DviX is rather
efficient. I would always prefer XviD over DviX and I would adjust the
bitrate, so that I can fit my video onto the media I want to fit it to.
You can use VirtualDUB with all the codecs installed (search online for
a free DV codec) to do the conversion and play with all settings. It
even comes with some pretty sophisticated filters and you can download
plugins. All that is freeware.
On the other hand I would not use DviX at all but rather MPEG-2, so that
the video can be played on a DVD player. For that TMPG is a good choice.
It produces very good results at 2Mbps. Other encoders, esp. the ones in
the consumer DVD mastering tools (Ulead and others) might require at
least 4Mbps.

Hope that answered the question.

Andre

--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"andre" wrote
> So what? DV is lossy too (its an MJPG derivative).

If the OP is capturing in *DV* then storing in DV (and even editing in
DV) incurrs NO ADDITIONAL LOSS. OTOH any of the other options
DIVIX MPGx etc. DO incur additional loss.

> On the other hand I would not use DviX at all but rather MPEG-2, so that
> the video can be played on a DVD player.

Agree. But the OP said nothing about writing to DVD.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <10o8g2j4231saf1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> writes:
> "andre" wrote
>> So what? DV is lossy too (its an MJPG derivative).
>
> If the OP is capturing in *DV* then storing in DV (and even editing in
> DV) incurrs NO ADDITIONAL LOSS. OTOH any of the other options
> DIVIX MPGx etc. DO incur additional loss.
>
>> On the other hand I would not use DviX at all but rather MPEG-2, so that
>> the video can be played on a DVD player.
>
> Agree. But the OP said nothing about writing to DVD.
>
One thing about 'capturing' DV -- make sure that you start with the
cleanest (most noise free) and most stable source that you can. This
helps the DV encoder to do the best possible job. When using my
later generation ADVC300 (from Canopus), I have gotten results that
are much closer to DV50 than ever in the past.

So, when 'encoding' DV, it can be helpful to use the best possible
encoder with the lowest possible noise source.

John
 

bb

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
51
0
18,630
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> I want to transferm my home videos in miniDV format to a PC,
> probably in DIVX format.
> What codec and what parameters (bitrate) would you recommend
> if I don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss ?
>
> I tried just running plain old DIVX with default parameters
> wwhich produced reasonable results, but quality loss (although
> quite low) was still present.
>

For zero quality loss use Nero Vision Express to convert your DV home movies
to DVD...surely this can be classed as a PC format with nearly every system
on the market including a DVD burner these days...and it doesn't use any hdd
space. Perfect.

Anyway, it's what I do and I'm more than pleased with the results.

BB
NZ
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

andre <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<RzWgd.15703$6q2.11581@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> the dog from that film you saw wrote:
> > "Alex T." <alex_s_42@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:25184c1e.0410300051.3e3ced13@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>I want to transferm my home videos in miniDV format to a PC,
> >>probably in DIVX format.
> >>What codec and what parameters (bitrate) would you recommend
> >>if I don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss ?
> >>
> >>I tried just running plain old DIVX with default parameters
> >>wwhich produced reasonable results, but quality loss (although
> >>quite low) was still present.
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > divx is lossy.
> >
> > you need to google search for 'lossless codec' to find something - but
> > lossless codecs will of course have a far lower file compression level than
> > something like divx -the end result will be a lot bigger.
> >
> >
> >
> So what? DV is lossy too (its an MJPG derivative). Well having said that
> the OP prob. wants to encode so he won't see the difference. For that I
> would recommend a bitrate higher than 1500kbps since DviX is rather
> efficient. I would always prefer XviD over DviX and I would adjust the
> bitrate, so that I can fit my video onto the media I want to fit it to.
> You can use VirtualDUB with all the codecs installed (search online for
> a free DV codec) to do the conversion and play with all settings. It
> even comes with some pretty sophisticated filters and you can download
> plugins. All that is freeware.
> On the other hand I would not use DviX at all but rather MPEG-2, so that
> the video can be played on a DVD player. For that TMPG is a good choice.
> It produces very good results at 2Mbps. Other encoders, esp. the ones in
> the consumer DVD mastering tools (Ulead and others) might require at
> least 4Mbps.
>
> Hope that answered the question.
>
> Andre


Thanks for all the responses. You seem to be the only person, who
actually read the word "visible" :)
Let me state the question in a little bit more detail - I want to
encode my DV video clip, which does not have any fast changing scenes,
without any visible quality loss and with best compression rate
possible, within the limits of the above constrain. I don't care about
not being able to play this on DVD, I intend to watch this video on PC
only.

You recommended XviD with best bitrate possible that gives me quality
I want. Good. Any other parameters I should tweak (and XviD does have
a few) ?

And completely different question - what about H.264 ? It's supposed
to be much superior to mpeg4 and there seem to be a few codecs around.
Are they stable ? Anybody actually tried to work with them ?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Alex T." wrote ...
>
>>I want to transferm my home videos in miniDV format to a PC,
>>probably in DIVX format.
>
>
> How did you arrive at the conclusion that you want to use DIVIX?

Someone in marketing told them it was kewl. :)

-Richard
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"the dog from that film you saw" <dsb@REMOVETHECAPITALSgarethyoung.plus.com> wrote in message news:<2ul7vuF2cjajbU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Alex T." <alex_s_42@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:25184c1e.0410311352.2c8742a2@posting.google.com...
> > andre <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:<RzWgd.15703$6q2.11581@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>
> > And completely different question - what about H.264 ? It's supposed
> > to be much superior to mpeg4 and there seem to be a few codecs around.
> > Are they stable ? Anybody actually tried to work with them ?
>
>
> i think they are all beta at the moment - supposedly more efficient than
> even wmv9

Hmm... and BTW, what about WMV9 ? I'm not a big M$ fan, but I heard
some good comments on this codec. How it compares with XviD ?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message news:<10o6v59e1o0l011@corp.supernews.com>...

> It seems remarkable that you have already decided on DIVIX, but
> "don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss" as they seem to be
> diametrically opposed.

I don't want to start flamebeit, but you just did not read my post.
I didn't say that I decided to use DIVX, I said that I tried it and
I'm looking for an alternatives. You also did not read the word
"visible" - good lossy video compression can produce video with no
visible quality loss.
 

Andre

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
315
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Alex T. wrote:
> andre <andre.gunther@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<RzWgd.15703$6q2.11581@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>>the dog from that film you saw wrote:
>>
>>>"Alex T." <alex_s_42@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:25184c1e.0410300051.3e3ced13@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I want to transferm my home videos in miniDV format to a PC,
>>>>probably in DIVX format.
>>>>What codec and what parameters (bitrate) would you recommend
>>>>if I don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss ?
>>>>
>>>>I tried just running plain old DIVX with default parameters
>>>>wwhich produced reasonable results, but quality loss (although
>>>>quite low) was still present.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>divx is lossy.
>>>
>>>you need to google search for 'lossless codec' to find something - but
>>>lossless codecs will of course have a far lower file compression level than
>>>something like divx -the end result will be a lot bigger.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So what? DV is lossy too (its an MJPG derivative). Well having said that
>>the OP prob. wants to encode so he won't see the difference. For that I
>>would recommend a bitrate higher than 1500kbps since DviX is rather
>>efficient. I would always prefer XviD over DviX and I would adjust the
>>bitrate, so that I can fit my video onto the media I want to fit it to.
>>You can use VirtualDUB with all the codecs installed (search online for
>>a free DV codec) to do the conversion and play with all settings. It
>>even comes with some pretty sophisticated filters and you can download
>>plugins. All that is freeware.
>>On the other hand I would not use DviX at all but rather MPEG-2, so that
>>the video can be played on a DVD player. For that TMPG is a good choice.
>>It produces very good results at 2Mbps. Other encoders, esp. the ones in
>>the consumer DVD mastering tools (Ulead and others) might require at
>>least 4Mbps.
>>
>>Hope that answered the question.
>>
>>Andre
>
>
>
> Thanks for all the responses. You seem to be the only person, who
> actually read the word "visible" :)
> Let me state the question in a little bit more detail - I want to
> encode my DV video clip, which does not have any fast changing scenes,
> without any visible quality loss and with best compression rate
> possible, within the limits of the above constrain. I don't care about
> not being able to play this on DVD, I intend to watch this video on PC
> only.
>
> You recommended XviD with best bitrate possible that gives me quality
> I want. Good. Any other parameters I should tweak (and XviD does have
> a few) ?
>
> And completely different question - what about H.264 ? It's supposed
> to be much superior to mpeg4 and there seem to be a few codecs around.
> Are they stable ? Anybody actually tried to work with them ?

Well XviD is not necessarily better in compression than DviX or WMV as
others have suggested here but XviD is open source. In order to use
advanced features in DviX (like quarter pixel, advanced motion
estimation, ...) you have to get the pro version.
Either way, in order to learn how to use XviD properly check this website:
www.doom9.org
They have lots of tutorials. I haven't encoded to mpeg4 in a long time
since I got my DVD burner, so all my knowledge might be a little
outdated. I would turn on everything (liek QPel, and all the other
advanced options and run a two step VBR (Variable Bit Rate) encode.
The encoder runs first and determines the distribution of the Bitrate
across the file and runs a second time to do the actual encoding.
I have gotten extremely good results with 1Mbps (if you tweak it a lot
and do the highest quality encode you can).
Like I said I am not spending that much time on it anymore, since
storage has become so cheap.
H264 is not really implemented yet. There is a free encoder you can get
but with XviD you can still get better quality. Also the computing power
needed to encode in H264 is immense (up to 10 times as long as it takes
to encode XviD).
On www.doom9.org you can find comparisons of encoders and the download
links to encoders and tools (like VirtualDUB which I highly recommend,
its freeware and extremely powerful)

Let me know if you need more help.

Andre

--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
 

Andre

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
315
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
> If the OP is capturing in *DV* then storing in DV (and even editing in
> DV) incurrs NO ADDITIONAL LOSS. OTOH any of the other options
> DIVIX MPGx etc. DO incur additional loss.
>
How do you define loss? If you can't see it it doesn't matter now does
it? DV format is about 18GB/hour while you can get 700MB/h or less on
XviD. If I can't still see the difference on my computer screen i call
this an excellent trade-off.

Andre

--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>> If the OP is capturing in *DV* then storing in DV (and even editing in
>> DV) incurrs NO ADDITIONAL LOSS. OTOH any of the other options DIVIX MPGx
>> etc. DO incur additional loss.

"andre" wrote ...
> How do you define loss?

Storage and editing in DV incurs no decompression and re-
compression and construction of derivitave frames like
compressed codecs that do temporal compression (MPEG,
DiviX, etc.)

> If you can't see it it doesn't matter now does it? DV format is about
> 18GB/hour while you can get 700MB/h or less on XviD.

And where do you think all that data goes? How much do you
think is recoverable? How many times? TANSTAAFL.

> If I can't still see the difference on my computer screen i call this an
> excellent trade-off.

You are absolutely right. My motto for audio is "if you can't
hear the difference, it isn't worth a penny." And one could
easily make a video corollary: "If you can't see the difference..."

OTOH, remember that not everybody is dealing with YOUR
particular combination of source material, equipment, display
parameters, future editing plans, and quality expectations.
Someone else here also pointed out that with more and more
people installing home theatres, the likelyhood of viewing a
large-scale picture is not as small as it has been in the past.

First hand testimonials are always valuable, but projecting
them as the solution for someone else's situation is not always
appropriate. Probably more valuable to coach them in performing
their own experiments with their own material and resources to
come to the right conclusion.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"andre" wrote ...
> How do you define loss? If you can't see it it doesn't matter now does it?
> DV format is about 18GB/hour

Just a fact-check. DV is a little over 13GB/hour. At least here
in NTSC-land. There, I just saved you 5GB/hour! :)

> while you can get 700MB/h or less on XviD. If I can't still see the
> difference on my computer screen i call this an excellent trade-off.
 

Andre

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
315
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> "andre" wrote ...
>
>>How do you define loss?
>
>
> Storage and editing in DV incurs no decompression and re-
> compression and construction of derivitave frames like
> compressed codecs that do temporal compression (MPEG,
> DiviX, etc.)
>
>
>>If you can't see it it doesn't matter now does it? DV format is about
>>18GB/hour while you can get 700MB/h or less on XviD.
>
>
> And where do you think all that data goes? How much do you
> think is recoverable? How many times? TANSTAAFL.
>
>
Well you already mentioned one thing above temporal compression.
Since DV is MJPG it does not have this (which makes it excellent for
editing since it is essentially all key frames).
This actually has a huge potential for compression, since most
information can be described by movement vectors alone.
The rest is just like on any jpg. You do some DCT, redundancy reduction
and zip like compression (lzw i belive).
So what you are refering to is redundancy reduction. If you keep the
bitrate high enough you can keep that to a neglibible amount.


>>If I can't still see the difference on my computer screen i call this an
>>excellent trade-off.
>
>
> You are absolutely right. My motto for audio is "if you can't
> hear the difference, it isn't worth a penny." And one could
> easily make a video corollary: "If you can't see the difference..."
>
Good.

> OTOH, remember that not everybody is dealing with YOUR
> particular combination of source material, equipment, display
> parameters, future editing plans, and quality expectations.
> Someone else here also pointed out that with more and more
> people installing home theatres, the likelyhood of viewing a
> large-scale picture is not as small as it has been in the past.

Also right. But since DV only records 720x480 (at least the standard
consumer one). I wouldn't worry too much about judging the picture
quality on a computer monitor (that usually has a higher resolution).
If you really care for how much quality you loose, google for a tool
that determines the JND number (or was it JD, help me out here) that
determines how much you loose. Generally a number over 3.5 means a good
encode. You can compare the source and the encoded material with that
number. The software is usually used to compare encoders.
>
> First hand testimonials are always valuable, but projecting
> them as the solution for someone else's situation is not always
> appropriate. Probably more valuable to coach them in performing
> their own experiments with their own material and resources to
> come to the right conclusion.

I fully agree. Unfortunately encoding video at low bitrates is a wide
field and one can easily make mistakes. There is no generalized way and
each situation might require something different. During the last couple
of years i learned so many tools and encoders that it is next to
impossible to give the OP a short tutorial.
A good source to start educating yourself is www.doom9.org.
Just start reading and experimenting.

Andre


--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 31 Oct 2004 13:52:45 -0800, alex_s_42@yahoo.com (Alex T.) wrote:

>You recommended XviD with best bitrate possible that gives me quality
>I want. Good.

Don't use bitrate, but encode in CQ (constant quantizer, or "constant
quality") mode. Then you can decide for yourself what quantizer gives
the results you look for. A quantizer of almost 2 should give you a
very high quality (on the same cathegory of quality as the quantizer
1, but with an important reduction in bitrate); or you can use a
quantizer of 3 for high quality at a much lower bitrate. The actual
bitrate shall depend on the movie, but the quality remanins the same.

The max. I-frame interval is another factor to consider. Using a high
one (300 frames, 10 seconds), as usually recommended, lowers the
bitrate, but then it can become very difficult to move along the film
with a slider, when played on an old computer. If the use of the
slider is important, then lower the interval (for instance, to 150).

Use 2 for Max consecutive B-VOPs, and may be Quarter Pixel and Global
Motion Compensation.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:54:01 +0100, Bariloche
<bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote:

Forgot to add this: use Mpeg for quantization type.
 

Jon

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2003
618
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

OK great information about codecs.

But just a hint. To compress with DivX you must deinterlace your
source, sure your DV video is interlaced.

Any other codec will improve as well at low-medium bitrates with a non
interlaced source.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.video.divx,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 3 Nov 2004 00:11:01 -0800, jon wrote:

> OK great information about codecs.
>
> But just a hint. To compress with DivX you must deinterlace your
> source

You don't.