DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   What Happens in Vegas... (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/)
-   -   Maximizing HD to SD Quality (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/271329-maximizing-hd-sd-quality.html)

Perrone Ford August 15th, 2009 08:10 PM

Good question Jim, and I wish I had the answer. But I don't. What I do have is a workflow that I am happy with and works well. TMpegEnc seems like a nice solution for those wanting to go to DVD, but I often am not delivering that way, so I prefer doing things in VDub, and then making my SD master.

As I said before. The tools are clearly available, and relatively inexpensive (or free). So maybe the Big Boys will realize that this is a real need for some people and offer a solid solution inside the NLE.

Brian Luce August 15th, 2009 11:00 PM

This seems like a great tip and the Virtual dub software is in my price range.
One note, looks like it doesn't support M2t files so if you use a Firestore or some native HDV flavor, you're SOL unless you transcode. I've been trying to work natively in m2t, looks like it's back to the future with Cineform again.

Dennis Murphy August 15th, 2009 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Snow (Post 1227673)
The files that I encoded to MPEG-2 after resizing them in VirtualDub were of apparently equal quality when encoded with either the Main Concepts encoder or TMPGEnc. It appears that the culprit that degrades the files is the resizing operation in Main Concepts.

I'm not quite understanding you there Jim. I'm not familiar with TMPGEnc - are you saying that it encodes MPEG2 with the Main Concept encoder as well?

Jim Snow August 15th, 2009 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy (Post 1228171)
I'm not quite understanding you there Jim. I'm not familiar with TMPGEnc - are you saying that it encodes MPEG2 with the Main Concept encoder as well?

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. TMPGEnc does not use the Main Concept encoder. To use the Main Concept encoder, I opened Vegas and loaded the resized RAW RGB file and rendered it to MPEG-2. The point I was making is that when Main Concepts encoded to MPEG-2 without having to resize, the video quality wasn't affected. The video quality loss occurred when it also had to resize.

Dennis Murphy August 15th, 2009 11:45 PM

Cheers for that - I'm with you now.

Marc Salvatore August 16th, 2009 12:20 AM

Jim when you encoded in Vegas did you have the deinterlaced method in the Vegas properties set to either blend or interpolate? If it is set to none it will look bad when Vegas does a downconversion. That said I agree that TMPEG downsized and encoded video looks better.

I also read in another DVD thread that HDV video that is uprezzed in Cineform (during capture) to full HD is supposed to look better. It's supposed to have something to do with the square pixels. Not sure if it's a big difference but I'm trying it on a project right now.

Regards, Marc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Snow (Post 1228263)
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. TMPGEnc does not use the Main Concept encoder. To use the Main Concept encoder, I opened Vegas and loaded the resized RAW RGB file and rendered it to MPEG-2. The point I was making is that when Main Concepts encoded to MPEG-2 without having to resize, the video quality wasn't affected. The video quality loss occurred when it also had to resize.


Jim Snow August 16th, 2009 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Salvatore (Post 1228365)
Jim when you encoded in Vegas did you have the deinterlaced method in the Vegas properties set to either blend or interpolate? If it is set to none it will look bad when Vegas does a downconversion. That said I agree that TMPEG downsized and encoded video looks better.

I also read in another DVD thread that HDV video that is uprezzed in Cineform (during capture) to full HD is supposed to look better. It's supposed to have something to do with the square pixels. Not sure if it's a big difference but I'm trying it on a project right now.

Regards, Marc

I didn't deinterlace, I left it is interlaced. I use CineForm NeoScene. It doesn't support upconverting from 1440 x 1080 to 1920 x 1080.

Marc Salvatore August 16th, 2009 12:03 PM

It's not a matter of deinterlacing. For some reason Vegas downconversions (when converting an HDV Timeline to SD MPEG for example) are affected by the deinterlace setting in the project properties of Vegas. If it is set to none it will look bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Snow (Post 1229722)
I didn't deinterlace, I left it is interlaced. I use CineForm NeoScene. It doesn't support upconverting from 1440 x 1080 to 1920 x 1080.


Dennis Murphy August 16th, 2009 02:36 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Following Perrone's basic workflow, I tried a bit of footage and am quite impressed with the results.
I rendered the same clean (no effects etc) 1440*1080i clip from Vegas using:
a) Main Concept DVD Architect PAL Widescreen Video Stream template
b) Cineform Neo Scene Codec at 1440*1080 (.avi)

Imported the Cineform file into Virtual Dub. Applied the resize filter (720*576 PAL) using the Lanczos3 filter mode - rendered back out of Virtual Dub using the same Cineform codec.

Imported both the Main Concept and Cineform/Virtual Dub files into a Vegas Pal Widescreen project and took these two frame grabs. I'm very impressed with the overall sharper image - and there is more detail.

Sweet!

Perrone Ford August 16th, 2009 02:59 PM

Nothing like trying it for yourself and seeing the results in front of your own eyes. It's a pretty big difference. Considering that the Lanczos isn't necessarily the best at this, its remarkable how poor the downscaling is in the NLEs. And you used Cineform (twice), which is NOT lossless. I use lossless codecs which improve on the workflow you've used here. Not saying Cineform is bad, mind you.

Dennis Murphy August 16th, 2009 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford (Post 1230826)
Considering that the Lanczos isn't necessarily the best at this, its remarkable how poor the downscaling is in the NLEs. And you used Cineform (twice), which is NOT lossless. I use lossless codecs which improve on the workflow you've used here. Not saying Cineform is bad, mind you.

I've always been impressed by the SD quality of commercial DVD movies and lamented my lack of ability to take a 1440*1080 image and somehow lose sharpness by reducing it in size - coming from a Photoshop background, this was an unsuspected dissappointment. I thought there was some possibly archane magic going on with how well feature length studio movies were squeezed onto a single DVD with such sharpness and detail. I'm glad I stumbled upon this thread. I must look into other methods i.e. Lancoz etc.
I hear you with the Cineform codec. I'll only use that on projects over 30 minutes. I'll definitely use lossless of one form or another to go between Vegas and Virtual Dub.

Martin Wiosna August 16th, 2009 08:10 PM

I've read 3 pages of this thread, and while being somewhat new to NLEs and Vegas, I'm trying to understand why spend money and time on 3rd party software (besides Vegas) on something that most of clients (wedding, commerical) will never see?

I looked at the comparison above and I'm pretty sure that Its not worth my time to go thru the hassle just for a bit of more detail. I tell my clients that if they want the pretty picture they will need a BluRay disc player, otherwise IMO most people just can't tell the difference.

I just import my HDV (1080i/60) m2t files onto the time line and if its going to a DVD I use a progressive scan render (VBR 9K)(two pass), and so far everyone is happy (including me because I spend less time on a project)

Am I missing something here?

Jim Snow August 16th, 2009 08:16 PM

Craig's List vendors are welcome here too - - I guess.

Ken Diewert August 16th, 2009 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Wiosna (Post 1231796)
I've read 3 pages of this thread, and while being somewhat new to NLEs and Vegas, I'm trying to understand why spend money and time on 3rd party software (besides Vegas) on something that most of clients (wedding, commerical) will never see?

I looked at the comparison above and I'm pretty sure that Its not worth my time to go thru the hassle just for a bit of more detail. I tell my clients that if they want the pretty picture they will need a BluRay disc player, otherwise IMO most people just can't tell the difference.

I just import my HDV (1080i/60) m2t files onto the time line and if its going to a DVD I use a progressive scan render (VBR 9K)(two pass), and so far everyone is happy (including me because I spend less time on a project)

Am I missing something here?

Martin,

If you're happy with the existing HD-SD downconvert quality - then that's great. I really wish I was. There's a whole bunch of us here that aren't. I've spent a good chunk of the last few days just trying to improve my dvd output because I'm frankly disgusted by the quality of the Vegas downcnvert quality using the 'optimum settings'.

Dennis Murphy August 16th, 2009 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Wiosna (Post 1231796)
Am I missing something here?

Most of my clients don't have HD players or don't request HD content.
I've spent a lot of time and money on my little videography business, and I put a lot of effort into the work that I do. Because of that, I'm passionate about squeezing every ounce of perceivable quality out of what I produce.
I think with the relative accessibility for the average Joe to purchase a nice camera and editing software/hardware, maintaining that professional edge and market advantage means that you do what you have to do to produce higher quality outcomes than the serious hobbyist (which there are plenty of these days) or your professional competition.
Not that I actually really care about that angle - I just want my images to look as pretty as I can possibly make them. This HD to SD method gives me enough of a perceivable image improvement to warrant the extra step in my workflow.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:04 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network