Loss of quality during rendering in Video Studio 10

[marioarguello]

Does anybody know why there would be a significant loss of quality during rendering of video captured in HuffYUV format and rendered to MPEG2 at 15Mbps?

I am capturing some video which has some writings on the screen (telemarketer on the TV) and they are stationary; the original capture shows the letters perfectly clear, but the rendered MPEG2 video shows them blurry, even though this is a part of the video which is stationary.[/img]

[Terry Stetler]

What colors are involved and is the Preferences/Edit/NTSC/PAL filter turned on (it is by default)? Is Preferences/Edit/Sampling set to better or best (better is default)? What are your MPEG settings? Are the source and rendered video using the same frame size?

What would really help is if you could post before/after stills of the same frame showing the difference.

[marioarguello]

What colors are involved and is the Preferences/Edit/NTSC/PAL filter turned on (it is by default)? Is Preferences/Edit/Sampling set to better or best (better is default)? What are your MPEG settings? Are the source and rendered video using the same frame size?

What would really help is if you could post before/after stills of the same frame showing the difference.

The colors are black and white.

Preferences are NTSC, Resampling is set to best.

The MPEG settings are upper field first, variable bit rate, 15 Mbps (have tried different ones, doesn't make a difference). I have also rendered to MJPEG and that one is a little better but not much. DV shows a little bit of deterioration, but that would be expected I suppose.

Source and rendered are 720x480.

How do I post the stills, I saw the "Img" box at the top, but I don't know how to use it to post the pictures.


If I capture directly to MPEG2 or MJPEG, the deteriorations dissapears completely for MJPEG and the image is vastly improved for MPEG2.

[Terry Stetler]

You have to have webspace that allows you to "remote link" to images or other files stored there. Most often this space provided by your ISP to create a website. My provider gives 2g while others give more or less.

You can also get space on commercial servers like Freeservers. There are also free image hosting services, some of which 'deal' with the larger ISP's.

Once you have uploaded the files there (ISP's will define 'how' in their docs) they can be displayed here using the following command string, minus the quotes;

""

with 'xxx' being the filetype; .gif, .jpg, png or whatever.

Some webspace providers will have remote linking as an option that has to be turned on, so watch for that.

[marioarguello]

You have to have webspace that allows you to "remote link" to images or other files stored there. Most often this space provided by your ISP to create a website. My provider gives 2g while others give more or less.

You can also get space on commercial servers like Freeservers. There are also free image hosting services, some of which 'deal' with the larger ISP's.

Once you have uploaded the files there (ISP's will define 'how' in their docs) they can be displayed here using the following command string, minus the quotes;

""

with 'xxx' being the filetype; .gif, .jpg, png or whatever.

Some webspace providers will have remote linking as an option that has to be turned on, so watch for that.

Here they are"

[heinz-oz]

I only see links, no images. Does your ISP allow hot linking?

Copied one link into my browser search and it displayed the image ok.

[marioarguello]

I only see links, no images. Does your ISP allow hot linking?

Copied one link into my browser search and it displayed the image ok.

I don't know; I have searched and I can't find any references to it.

I don't know anything about the subject so this is just a guess: they allow me to create a "personal" web page, and to upload files, etc. I have not created the web page, however I uploaded the files. They are there, when I put the addresses in the address bar, I access them. My guess is that since I did not create the web page, then hot links are not allowed.

[heinz-oz]

With my ISP, if I place a link here, the images show, even though these are not part of a web page. Most of the free web hosting services on offer do not allow hot linking.

[marioarguello]

With my ISP, if I place a link here, the images show, even though these are not part of a web page. Most of the free web hosting services on offer do not allow hot linking.

It is not a free hosting service, it comes with the ISP service; I searched and can't find any references to hot linking.

Are you able to see the pictures by copying the links into the address bar?

[Terry Stetler]

Try;

1. change the *.BMP extension to lower case (*.bmp). Case matters with some servers.

2. try *jpg. Some servers only support certain filetypes (MIME types in server-ese).

When using images on forums use high quality compressed formats like jpg, png etc. for large images lest the viewer with dialup or sloe DSL will suffer long d/l times.

[maddrummer3301]

.

[marioarguello]

Yes, I can copy and load the links.

My opinion they look like only one field is displayed.

Maybe try rendering the mpeg2 file as "Frame_Based" would help.
.

I tried rendering frame-based and it crashed.

I tried lower-field first, and it works great. VS senses lower-field first, but I had it at upper-field first.

The still capture below is from a HuffYUV video capture; the letters at the bottom of the screen are moving, the ones with the blue background take 6 seconds to go across, and the ones with the white background take 3 seconds. The letters are solid, but the letters in the still capture are not.

The following strange things also happen:
1) While in Edit mode, the still capture shows the letters as solids when paused, but they look like the still when I play it.
2) The letters move smoothly across the screen in the original TV trasmission, and I have no dropped frames, but they don't move smoothly across the screen in the capture.
3) After I render to MPEG2, that file shows the letter as solids when played, but the still frame has the same problem. There is a place where the capture jumps (the letters take 3 frames to move, when they move with every frame in the original TV transmission).

[Terry Stetler]

Is Preferences/Capture/Image Capture Deinterlace checked or unchecked? Change it and see if that makes a difference.

[marioarguello]

Is Preferences/Capture/Image Capture Deinterlace checked or unchecked? Change it and see if that makes a difference.

Perfect.


But the issue of the letter not scrolling smoothly is still there; remember, there were no dropped frames, at least that's what VS claims.

[Terry Stetler]

So does my PCIe AIW no matter what software I use. Crawling titles, esp. with those in lower thirds that use smaller fonts to fit in 2-3 lines, are difficult to get smooth captures of. Sometimes even our DVD recorder will trip up on them.

The only hardware I've used that could hammer them consistantly is my Matrox RT.X100 realtime board, which is a pro board that requires you to use Premiere Pro on a relatively powerful system. It has things built-in that low end boards don't; a time base corrector, more powerful processing amplifiers etc.