What am I doing wrong? HDV to DVD

jimboy · Post by **jimboy** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:49 am

I've recently purchased Videostudio 10+ for use with HDV video from my HVR-A1U Sony camera. Following the HD Tutorial by jchunter I'm achieving excellent results when capturing HDV and outputing to DVD except for when I pan, zoom, or when the action moves to fast. I end up with severe double images during the pan/zoom etc. I know this is related to interlace issues but I found some interesting things during my testing phase.

No matter what I do or what settings I select I can't get rid of ghosting (double images) when I pan (somewhat quickly) with the camera. I understand there should be some motion blur but what I see is unacceptable.

example (camera was panning from right to left)

While viewing the cameras input to VS10+ capture (HDV mode) and before capturing I still see the double image effect while playing the video back frame by frame. The image on the cameras viewfinder is fine.
After capturing this clip everything I've tried in VS10+ yeilds the same result, whether it's viewing the clip during editing or rendering out to DVD.
I've tried the recommended methods in the tutorial and every other setting thats available ends up with the same results.

After several test DVD's I tried playing the original captured clip (captured using VS10+) in Windows media player and it looks great. The pan looks good without the ghosting and has a slight bit of normal motion blur.

How can I get it to look right?

jchunter · Post by **jchunter** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:33 pm

Jim,
You are seeing interface artifacts, which are much more noticeable in high definition. When downrezzing an HDV project to standard definition (for DVD viewing), these artifacts become even more objectionable. I find that deinterlacing improves the situation a lot.

However, when shooting high def, you have to pan and zoom slower and you have to hold the camcorder rock steady or you can make your audience sea sick.

Consider getting a fluid head tripod (e.g., Sony VCT 870RM).

jimboy · Post by **jimboy** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:56 pm

jchunter wrote:Jim,
You are seeing interface artifacts, which are much more noticeable in high definition. When downrezzing an HDV project to standard definition (for DVD viewing), these artifacts become even more objectionable. I find that deinterlacing improves the situation a lot.

However, when shooting high def, you have to pan and zoom slower and you have to hold the camcorder rock steady or you can make your audience sea sick. Consider getting a fluid head tripod (e.g., Sony VCT 870RM).

Why don't I see the same effect (during the pan) when playing the captured HDV mpeg clip with other software? It looks clean if I don't use VS10+.

jchunter · Post by **jchunter** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:08 pm

Jim
Don't use Video Studio to judge playback quality of high def files. You will see imperfections during capture or playback of edited material - VS seems to drop frames whenever it thinks it is getting behind...

The only true test is on the rendered video file using one of the few players that are able to deal with high definition. I find that I get the best playback quality with Media Player Classic. It is able to play every HD format that I have been able to produce.

But nota bene, interlace artifacts are definitely worsened when you convert HDV to DVD-compliant SD with the Ulead Mpeg Now Encoder. This may be a bug, but for now, my only workaround is to render as Frame-Based (deinterlaced).

jimboy · Post by **jimboy** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:56 pm

jchunter wrote:Jim
Don't use Video Studio to judge playback quality of high def files. You will see imperfections during capture or playback of edited material - VS seems to drop frames whenever it thinks it is getting behind...

The only true test is on the rendered video file using one of the few players that are able to deal with high definition. I find that I get the best playback quality with Media Player Classic. It is able to play every HD format that I have been able to produce.

But nota bene, interlace artifacts are definitely worsened when you convert HDV to DVD-compliant SD with the Ulead Mpeg Now Encoder. This may be a bug, but for now, my only workaround is to render as Frame-Based (deinterlaced).

After capturing the HDV video changing the field order from upper to lower to frame based didn't matter it always turned out the same. I've changed it in the Preferences, Project Properties, and the Burn properties all at the same time and in different combinations. The only setting that seemed to matter was the Preferences field order setting and only when I switched it to frame based. The ghost effect was still there but the overall video quality suffered.

I purchased the boxed version from Circuit City. Is there an update available?
After capturing the HDV video to mpeg via VS10+, do you recommend other deinterlacing software?
My next step is to capture my video via an Avid Adrenaline which is HDV capable.

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:07 am

Hi Jimboy.

I'd like to run some tests of my own.

Could you please burn one of your RAW, captured HDV files to a CD and send it to me via snail mail?

I sold my older HDV camcorder because I'm wanting to upgrade to an AVCHD model from Panasonic when it becomes available.

I'd love to run some tests in my software to determine what might be going wrong.

You can e-mail me at jerry@jonesgroup.net.

Thanks,

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:12 am

By the way, HDV camcorders that record to 1080i -- such as the model you own -- specify UPPER FIELD FIRST!

There should be no need to deinterlace this material.

Why?

Because software DVD players will deinterlace such material AUTOMATICALLY when you play the final, edited file on a PROGRESSIVE display.

1080i -- by its very nature -- is INTERLACED.

720p -- on the other hand -- is PROGRESSIVE.

As I said in the previous post, I'd love to have an opportunity to run some tests on your source files.

Thanks,

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

jchunter · Post by **jchunter** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:46 am

Jim,
I recommended that you deinterlace your video file in several of my replies. To accomplish this, you have to render your project video file with the Field Order property set to Frame-Based, as is detailed in the HD Tutorial - section: DownConverting to Standard Definition.

Do not try to set it to Lower Field First.

Remember, you can't change the field order just by changing the Project Properties - you have to render out a new video file: SHARE/Create Video File/Custom/Options, etc.

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:54 am

Well, as I mentioned, software DVD players automatically deinterlace.

So there should be no need to deinterlace 1080i.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

jchunter · Post by **jchunter** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:19 am

Jerry,
Theoretically, yes. However, in my equipment it makes a big difference if I deinterlace the 1080 file rather than letting my HDTV do it. It may also be an artifact of my IOData AVLP2 player.

Bottom line, I first noticed slight jerkyness when panning the Sony HDR-HC1 video the first time I captured with it. I even called Sony Tech support to be sure that the Field Order that VS9 (at the time) was defaulting to - Upper Field First. They assured me that this was correct but the jerkyness was real and proportional to the pan speed. Deinterlacing made it better on my HDTV.

Moreover, when I later downconverted from HDV to SD to burn conventional DVD, the interlace artifacts got much worse and produced a staccato effect. I assume this is due to a residual bug in the Ulead Mpeg codec. However, deinterlacing smooths this out almost completely.

In an imperfect world, pragmatic workarounds are our best strategy.

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:30 am

jchunter wrote:Jerry,
Theoretically, yes. However, in my equipment it makes a big difference if I deinterlace the 1080 file rather than letting my HDTV do it.

This down-conversion question really has my interest because -- if true -- your suggestion to deinterlace the source file may have an impact on the final quality of the video.

Deinterlacing in software -- depending on the specific tool you use -- "throws away" one of the fields; visual information is discarded or lost, in other words.

I understand your suggestion is based on what you've observed and I understand your view is that this method is sound.

Forgive me for my skepticism.

I ran into this issue with my old JVC JY-HD10.

You may recall that model.

It was the first "pro" HDV camcorder.

The JY-HD10 supports 720p while the Sony models support 1080i.

I never did resolve some of the issues I observed in connection with down conversion using the JY-HD10 because I got busy at work and then somebody bought my JY-HD10.

But I suspect there may be a faster, easier way to accomplish good down-conversion in software.

I'd love to have the opportunity to run some tests of my own with some of these Sony HDV files.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

jchunter · Post by **jchunter** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:59 am

Jerry,
De-interlacing HD does reduce the resolution of non-moving scenes - I can see the reduction on a res chart. But I am not able to see this in videos or still photos of everyday objects.

However, deinterlacing improves the resolution of moving objects, whose distortion is proportional to the speed they are moving. Interlace distortions can span many, many adjacent pixels and are obvious to the naked eye.

All in all, my preference is to deinterlace both HDV and SD and picture quality, on my equipment, is better that way. However, your mileage may vary...

BTW, it is also possible that the mpeg encoder in the HDR-HC1 and HC3 has a bug that causes the minor jerkiness of 1080i. But the major jerkiness of downconverted 480i seems to be more closely associated with Ulead. The OP's picture looks just like some of my first downconverts.

I would love to send you some samples, but I am "internet connection challenged" right now.

I will see if I can put together a set of short video files from different stages of the process, burn them on a DVD and will have to snail mail it.

jimboy · Post by **jimboy** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:59 pm

jchunter wrote:Jim,
I recommended that you deinterlace your video file in several of my replies. To accomplish this, you have to render your project video file with the Field Order property set to Frame-Based, as is detailed in the HD Tutorial - section: DownConverting to Standard Definition.

Do not try to set it to Lower Field First.

Remember, you can't change the field order just by changing the Project Properties - you have to render out a new video file: SHARE/Create Video File/Custom/Options, etc.

Been there done that. Took the original captured video and created a new video file via share set for frame based. Besides the video losing a little resolution the swish pan (above picture looks the same). I'll try it again in case I set something wrong.

I have a fluid head tripod but I didn't use it on a family vacation.

As an experiment I took the original captured material and brought it into Roxio MyDVD. The stuttering effect during the pan was still there but the ghosting effect was different. I also created two DVD's one set to Interlace and the other set to Progressive. The progressive looked not as crisp and still had the same ghost effect during the pan as the interlace DVD did.

Again playback of the original captured material looks great using Windows media player and also while outputting analog to my tv set.

jchunter · Post by **jchunter** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:25 pm

Jim,
Well, you have me stumped. Many of your experiences do not jibe with mine.

For example, you are able to play the captured HDV files in WMP. However, my WMP v10 makes a total mess of the audio track (video playback is OK). WMP can play the same file downconverted and deinterlaced to 720x480p very smoothly and audio is perfect. No interlace artifacts or jerkiness evident.

I examined a captured HDV file in Virtual Dub Mpeg, which shows clear comb distortions on moving objects. These distortions are not present on the deinterlaced, downconverted file. Nor are they present on the 1920x1080p files that I use for viewing on my HDTV.

Media Player Classic plays everything well. But HDV capture files show less distinct comb than Virtual Dub, which has a distinct edge in its ability to display all the resolution in my files.

Bottom line: IMO, your picture shows interlace distortion, which you can remove by deinterlacing. However, you cannot remove motion blur (slow shutter) nor can it compensate for the staccato effect of too fast a shutter speed (too much light). You may have to bite the bullet and pan and zoom slower with high definition video.

BTW, my pet theory about the slight jerkiness of 1080i pans is that the time between successive fields in a single frame is greater than "customary," which would result in exagerated motion interlace artifacts. This could possibly be caused by excessive time required to read out the field data from these new CMOS image sensors...

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:25 pm

jimboy wrote:Been there done that. Took the original captured video and created a new video file via share set for frame based. Besides the video losing a little resolution the swish pan (above picture looks the same). I'll try it again in case I set something wrong.

Jimboy,

If you burn some of your RAW .M2t files from your HDV camcorder to a DVD disc (DVD-R or DVD+R) and mail it to me then I am certain I could develop an optimal procedure for down-conversion of HDV without motion artifacting.

If you could send me something with motion, I'd love to run some tests.

E-mail: jerry@jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net