Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

More on the subject of De-Interlace

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:55:02 PM

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

I started a new thread because my question is bit different. I have a
PD150. I only use video on a computer, not a TV. Sometimes, I get good
results capturing and other time I see the artifacts. I shot some footage
the other day and I think my exposure was too low. I got a lot of artifacts
on capturing. I tried de-interlacing with very poor results. If
de-interlacing throws away half the infomation, maybe I should just be
trying the 15fps progressive mode? But why do I get artifacts sometimes and
not others. I would have thought a PD150 would render decent results for web
video and DVD.


When editing I have tried all of the options, frame base, field order a and
, but I can't see much difference. Your suggestions welcome. Not an expert
(obviously).

Thanks.

More about : subject interlace

Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:34:33 AM

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

On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:55:02 GMT) it happened "Christopher
Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
<GCsRd.1375$OU1.515@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>:

>I started a new thread because my question is bit different. I have a
>PD150. I only use video on a computer, not a TV. Sometimes, I get good
>results capturing and other time I see the artifacts. I shot some footage
>the other day and I think my exposure was too low. I got a lot of artifacts
>on capturing. I tried de-interlacing with very poor results. If
>de-interlacing throws away half the infomation, maybe I should just be
>trying the 15fps progressive mode? But why do I get artifacts sometimes and
>not others. I would have thought a PD150 would render decent results for web
>video and DVD.
>
>
>When editing I have tried all of the options, frame base, field order a and
>, but I can't see much difference. Your suggestions welcome. Not an expert
>(obviously).
>
>Thanks.
I am not sure what sort of artifacts you refer to, and what they look like?
Is it noise (because of low light)?
I do not have a PD150, so '15fps progressive' does not mean anything to me,
but I would stick to normal framerate (30fps in your case?).
The other thing I do not know do you use a NTSC camera on that card analog in?
What exactly is your setup?
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 1:03:18 AM

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

> I am not sure what sort of artifacts you refer to, and what they look
> like?
> Is it noise (because of low light)?
> I do not have a PD150, so '15fps progressive' does not mean anything to
> me,
> but I would stick to normal framerate (30fps in your case?).
> The other thing I do not know do you use a NTSC camera on that card analog
> in?
> What exactly is your setup?
Jan, Thanks for the speedy response. I am getting both horizontal inderlaced
lines particularly on movement, and low light artifacts a kind of fuzziness
or tiny dull sequin like effect. I output to wmv and rm (real video 10) but
the damage is apparent on capture to a DV type 1 format.

I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 2:13:43 AM

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

On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:03:18 GMT) it happened "Christopher
Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
<GCtRd.1201$DC6.1110@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:

>
>> I am not sure what sort of artifacts you refer to, and what they look
>> like?
>> Is it noise (because of low light)?
>> I do not have a PD150, so '15fps progressive' does not mean anything to
>> me,
>> but I would stick to normal framerate (30fps in your case?).
>> The other thing I do not know do you use a NTSC camera on that card analog
>> in?
>> What exactly is your setup?
>Jan, Thanks for the speedy response. I am getting both horizontal inderlaced
>lines particularly on movement, and low light artifacts a kind of fuzziness
>or tiny dull sequin like effect. I output to wmv and rm (real video 10) but
>the damage is apparent on capture to a DV type 1 format.
>
>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience with wmv
and zero with making realmedia.
If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced display),
then try to de-interlace.
Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
All I can say for now :-)
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:33:42 PM

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

>>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
> OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience with
> wmv
> and zero with making realmedia.
> If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced
> display),
> then try to de-interlace.
> Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
> but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
> Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
> At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
> All I can say for now :-)
Here is a link http://webvideodirectory.com/ch.html . You can see the
fuzziness and interlacing artifacts particularly at the beginning.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:33:43 PM

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

"Christopher Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
message news:qwMRd.1575$DC6.518@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
>> OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience
>> with wmv
>> and zero with making realmedia.
>> If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced
>> display),
>> then try to de-interlace.
>> Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
>> but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
>> Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
>> At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
>> All I can say for now :-)
> Here is a link http://webvideodirectory.com/ch.html . You can see the
> fuzziness and interlacing artifacts particularly at the beginning.
>
For 153 kbs it looks very good to me. This is hugely compressed.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 11:59:44 PM

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:111f93nidpaki8e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Christopher Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote
> in message news:qwMRd.1575$DC6.518@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
>>> OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience
>>> with wmv
>>> and zero with making realmedia.
>>> If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced
>>> display),
>>> then try to de-interlace.
>>> Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
>>> but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
>>> Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
>>> At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
>>> All I can say for now :-)
>> Here is a link http://webvideodirectory.com/ch.html . You can see the
>> fuzziness and interlacing artifacts particularly at the beginning.
>>
> For 153 kbs it looks very good to me. This is hugely compressed.
Thanks, but I have others on the same site which look a lot better ( I
think ), especially the yoga one.
http://webvideodirectory.com/mys.html
I don't have any interlacing problem on that one.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 12:58:19 AM

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

On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:33:42 GMT) it happened "Christopher
Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
<qwMRd.1575$DC6.518@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:

>>>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
>> OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience with
>> wmv
>> and zero with making realmedia.
>> If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced
>> display),
>> then try to de-interlace.
>> Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
>> but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
>> Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
>> At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
>> All I can say for now :-)
>Here is a link http://webvideodirectory.com/ch.html . You can see the
>fuzziness and interlacing artifacts particularly at the beginning.
Hi, I have played the wmv a couple of times, those artefacts in the shoulders
for example look like -resize- artefacts.
Did you resize this, and how?
Yes it is fuzzy, and mplayer says:
VIDEO: [WMV3] 320x240 24bpp 1000.000 fps 0.0 kbps ( 0.0 kbyte/s)
makes no sense to me :-)
Maybe the header is not right...
Do not worry about that.
I think for a web presentation it is convincing, I played it full screen too.
Sound is OK.
What was the video bitrate, perhaps you can increase that a little.?
And perhaps, if that is posible with wmv use 2 pass and an other re-sizer.?
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 8:59:02 PM

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

> Hi, I have played the wmv a couple of times, those artefacts in the
> shoulders
> for example look like -resize- artefacts.
> Did you resize this, and how?
> Yes it is fuzzy, and mplayer says:
> VIDEO: [WMV3] 320x240 24bpp 1000.000 fps 0.0 kbps ( 0.0 kbyte/s)
> makes no sense to me :-)
> Maybe the header is not right...
> Do not worry about that.
> I think for a web presentation it is convincing, I played it full screen
> too.
> Sound is OK.
> What was the video bitrate, perhaps you can increase that a little.?
> And perhaps, if that is posible with wmv use 2 pass and an other
> re-sizer.?

My process is to capture DVtype 1 from a GV-D900 Sony Video Walkman. I then
edit the video in Ulead Media Studio Pro 7. Resize it to 320 x 240 and
output it uncompressed. Then I convert that uncompressed file to wmv 2 pass
and Real 10. The Real 10 always looks better. On this video though the
original capture had interlace. Not only that - even on the GV deck I could
see horizontal lines!!!! It only got worse (of course) from there on out.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:43:30 AM

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

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:59:02 GMT) it happened "Christopher
Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
<Gd4Sd.1835$DC6.1014@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:

>> Hi, I have played the wmv a couple of times, those artefacts in the
>> shoulders
>> for example look like -resize- artefacts.
>> Did you resize this, and how?
>> Yes it is fuzzy, and mplayer says:
>> VIDEO: [WMV3] 320x240 24bpp 1000.000 fps 0.0 kbps ( 0.0 kbyte/s)
>> makes no sense to me :-)
>> Maybe the header is not right...
>> Do not worry about that.
>> I think for a web presentation it is convincing, I played it full screen
>> too.
>> Sound is OK.
>> What was the video bitrate, perhaps you can increase that a little.?
>> And perhaps, if that is posible with wmv use 2 pass and an other
>> re-sizer.?
>
>My process is to capture DVtype 1 from a GV-D900 Sony Video Walkman. I then
>edit the video in Ulead Media Studio Pro 7. Resize it to 320 x 240 and
>output it uncompressed.
Does the uncompressed resized have the same typical step / stairs on the diagonal
shoulders?
!