DVFilm maker vs. Joes De-interlacer at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Apple / Mac Post Production Solutions > Final Cut Suite

Final Cut Suite
Discussing the editing of all formats with FCS, FCP, FCE


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 29th, 2003, 06:32 PM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Waynesboro, PA
Posts: 648
DVFilm maker vs. Joes De-interlacer

I own Joes plugins and have been using them exstensively with my footage.After reading some previous threads here I tried the demo of DVFilm maker. I cant tell a difference in a side by side ccomparison is there really any? Why would a stand alone De-interlacer be superior to a plug in type? And both joes and DVFilm handle motion differencing but Joes seems to be able to control it more though I usually turn it off due to mostly all handheld shots.Any comments from users of both or either one?
Matt Stahley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2003, 07:34 PM   #2
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
Joes de-interlace is good - it's certainly no worse than DV Film maker, which is slow and expensive. There's also a de-intleracer in my Film Effects (30p mode) which you could take a look at and compare.

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2003, 10:03 PM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Waynesboro, PA
Posts: 648
Cool I will check it out thanks!
Matt Stahley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2003, 08:21 PM   #4
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,541
<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Joes de-interlace is good - it's certainly no worse than DV Film maker, which is slow and expensive. -->>>

Sorry I haven't had a chance to look at your Film Effects package yet Graeme. But you got me thinking about this, so I finally had a chance to do a comparison since I own both products.

As far as quality, I see very little difference using each program's default settings. There are some small things that are different, but overall they both seem to do the job fine. But I take issue with the notion that DVFilm Maker is slow. After I read your comments I thought that maybe I had been wasting a lot of time de-interlacing with DVFilm Maker when I could have just stayed in FCP and rendered Joe's de-interlacing. But when I tried using Joe's filter, FCP estimated HOURS to render a clip that I knew would only take MINUTES to do with DVFilm Maker.

So I ran a controlled test with a 30 second clip. It took Joe's de-interlacer 378 seconds to render the clip, while DVFilm Maker only took 128 seconds, a three-fold speed difference. As noted above, both programs used their default settings (Joe's de-interlacer was set to "fast interpolate"... can only guess how long it would take at "normal" speed ;-)

Anyway, you will find specifics and sample frames here
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2003, 06:50 AM   #5
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
Thanks for the comparison Boyd. It does seem that DVFilm Maker is much faster than I had thought from my brief look at it. However, I can't see much, if any difference between the images you posted in your comparison. Did you notice much difference??

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2003, 08:45 AM   #6
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,541
No, I didn't notice much difference and that's why I wrote
Quote:
As far as quality, I see very little difference using each program's default settings.
:-)
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2003, 02:57 AM   #7
Tourist
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 4
Quote:
<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : So I ran a controlled test with a 30 second clip. It took Joe's de-interlacer 378 seconds to render the clip, while DVFilm Maker only took 128 seconds, a three-fold speed difference. As noted above, both programs used their default settings (Joe's de-interlacer was set to "fast interpolate"... can only guess how long it would take at "normal" speed ;-) -->>>
Thank you for posting that Boyd. I'm curious what your numbers would be for Joe's De-Interlacer with FCP 4.02. In my own highly unscientific testing, I've found De-Interlacer is more than twice as fast in FCP 4 as it was in FCP3. (and I was happy about the speed in 3!)

I just did a 10 second test at default settings (NTSC DV):
  • FCP 3: 217 seconds
  • FCP 4: 104 seconds
(867mhz G4 PowerBook, 10.3 with a bunch of other apps running)

Multiplying that difference against your numbers, I'd expect FCP 4 to render De-Interlacer in about 181 seconds. That puts DVFilm Maker at only about 1.4x faster, much better than 3x faster. At any rate, the time savings of working inside FCP and not having to import/export and possible reconnect all your media should also be considered.

The 'Normal De-Interlacing' method uses a very precise field-preservation algorithm but the difference is basically non-existant.

Any FXScript effect is going to be at the mercy of FCP's rendering engine regarding speed. The benefit is that you don't have to manage clips in and out of FCP, the disadvantge is speed and not having access to the unlimited tools available in Carbon or Objective C. Thankfully FCP is only getting better and faster.

Joe Maller
www.joesfilters.com
Joe's Filters for Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Express
Joe Maller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2003, 08:05 AM   #8
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,541
Thanks Joe, this also gives me heart that FCP4 will be a worthwhile upgrade (although one that I'll probably wait on for awhile :-) Your points about staying in the FCP environment the whole time are well taken. How is the render time affected by the amount of movement in the source clip? I deliberately used an example with lots of movement where the camera was panning to follow two dancers.

My tests were done just to satisfy my curiousity as to the best approach for deinterlacing a couple large projects I'm working on. I should also point out that I was using the anamorphic setting in FCP3. This wouldn't make any difference to DVFilm Maker (which ignores this flag and treats all footage the same), but I wonder if it was a factor in FCP?

Anyway, I hope you don't think I was trying to find flaws in your excellent filter package. It's an incredibly useful collection of tools that I use regularly, and it should be on everyone's "must have" list!
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2003, 09:50 AM   #9
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
Yes - FCP 4 does seem to be more optimised than ever before, and it makes use of dual processors, which is becoming increaseingly vital. I don't know exactly about Joe's de-interlacer, but I don't think it's matters what the source footage is, anamorphic or otherwise, or what the level of movement is - at least that's how Film Effects and it's de-interlacer behaves.

Joe's also right about workflow - I'm doing more and more sfx inside FCP rather than go into After Effects because the FCP workflow is much quicker.

Another advantage of the FCP workflow is that you can stop a render half-way through, and come back to it later. Stopping a render in DVFilm Maker means starting again...

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2003, 12:15 PM   #10
Tourist
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 4
Quote:
How is the render time affected by the amount of movement in the source clip? I deliberately used an example with lots of movement where the camera was panning to follow two dancers.
The De-Interlacer uses differences between the current, previous and next frames to generate a mask highlighting only the changed pixels. The term 'adaptive' is probably misleading, Areas of high motion don't take any more or less time to render, they just make it more difficult to pull a good motion mask. I added threshold and soften controls to allow for precise adjustments which balance the needs of a largely non-moving scene with something like the bicycle example from the De-Interlacer page.
Quote:
I should also point out that I was using the anamorphic setting in FCP3. This wouldn't make any difference to DVFilm Maker (which ignores this flag and treats all footage the same), but I wonder if it was a factor in FCP?
Anamorphic is mostly just a display preference for FCP. The video itself is the same as standard frame; 720x480 with 60 interlaced fields.
Quote:
Anyway, I hope you don't think I was trying to find flaws in your excellent filter package. It's an incredibly useful collection of tools that I use regularly, and it should be on everyone's "must have" list!
Not at all. Craft is extremely important to me but there's always room for improvement and there's always something I didn't think of or notice. This filter specifically benefitted from a mediocre review of the previous version. After reading that, I was determined to rewrite the filter so it would compete against the best options available. There are still a few things I could do though...

Joe Maller
www.joesfilters.com
Joe's Filters for Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Express
Joe Maller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2003, 01:44 PM   #11
Retired DV Info Net Almunus
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,943
This thread has become a pretty darn good fly-over reference to some of the basic issues concerning one of the most influential technical aspects of giving a non-video look to video: deinterlacing.

Thanks very much for you remarks, Joe. I have your filters and use several of them routinely. They are an excellent value and very well crafted.
__________________
Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission.

Hey, you don't have enough stuff!
Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really!

See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com
Ken Tanaka is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Apple / Mac Post Production Solutions > Final Cut Suite

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:16 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network