Please help me. I am at my wits end. I have read just about every post in this forum about poor quality stills and I still cannot get good quality stills in my mpeg2 video or the final DVD. The stills are high resolution photos in jpg files. I am getting (a) white ghosts along edges expecially around lettering, (b) what I call a running "barber pole" effect along vertical edges up to 45 degrees from vertical, (c) shimmering in areas with a lot of edges, and (d) overall blur.
I have tried changing my project, mpeg2 file, and DVD settings from lower field first to upper field first and frame based. I have tried gaussian blur (radius=1) and 720x480 subsampling of the stills. I am using the stills with a DV encoded type 2 AVI file (captured from my miniDV camcorder tape) so that limits my settings somewhat. I have also created a test video file with just the stills in it to experiment with different settings. But nothing seems to work.
Surprisingly, I copied the "stills" project posted in this forum and I got excellent results when I created my own mpeg2 video file.
If you have any suggestions, please provide some technical rationale, if possible. Maybe I screwed up somewhere in the procedure but I tried to follow the procedure in the "readme first sticky" in this forum . I read in another post that the project settings only take effect after you start inserting objects into the timeline but do not affect, retroactively, the existing objects in the timeline. Maybe this is what is screwing me up, but I think I did it correctly.
Project settings:
NTSC drop frame (29.97 fps)
Microsoft AVI files
24 Bits, 720 x 480, 4:3, 29.97 fps
Lower Field First
DV Video Encoder -- type 2
PCM, 32.000 kHz, 16 Bit, Stereo
Preferences:
Resampling quality: Best
Image resampling option: Keep aspect ratio
Video file settings:
MPEG files
24 Bits, 720 x 480, 29.97 fps
Lower Field First
(MPEG-2), 4:3
Video data rate: Variable (Max. 8000 kbps)
Audio data rate: 256 kbps
Mpeg2 compression quality: 100
Perform non-square pixel rendering option
Apply anti-flicker filter option
DVD settings:
MPEG files
24 Bits, 720 x 480, 29.97 fps
Lower Field First
(MPEG-2), 4:3
Video data rate: Variable (Max. 8000 kbps)
Audio data rate: 256 kbps
Perform non-square pixel rendering option
Apply anti-flicker filter option
Thanks,
Jim
Poor quality stills
Moderator: Ken Berry
-
maddrummer3301
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:24 pm
- Location: US
Are you saying that if you put the pictures on the timeline
without adding any text overlays / transistions etc and render
a mpeg2 file to the dvd spec using
"Frame-Based"
that the resulting video is still poor?
(No Dv.avi file)
Also, how does a video created to the above specs
look on the computer screen versus the TV screen.
MD
without adding any text overlays / transistions etc and render
a mpeg2 file to the dvd spec using
"Frame-Based"
that the resulting video is still poor?
(No Dv.avi file)
Also, how does a video created to the above specs
look on the computer screen versus the TV screen.
MD
-
jchunter
Jim,
There are parameters that operate only at the moment of insertion into the timeline. AFAIK, the Preferences: Resampling quality and Image resampling option are two of these.
I suspect that the Preference: Default Field Order controls the field order of a jpeg that is converted to video at the moment it is dropped into the timeline. (I have not verified this.)
Your properties look fine to me. They are the same as mine except that my source video clips are Mpeg2. I have never experienced the problems that you have had with still images. I always create my video files with the field order of the captured video clips. So, my analog projects render the jpegs as Upper Field First, and my digital projects render their jpegs as Lower Field First. I have never used anti-flicker or Gausian Blur filters. My stills always look very sharp and do not flicker either on PC monitor or HDTV set.
However, there are other users who have had continual problems with still pix flicker and I have never understood the reasons.
John
There are parameters that operate only at the moment of insertion into the timeline. AFAIK, the Preferences: Resampling quality and Image resampling option are two of these.
I suspect that the Preference: Default Field Order controls the field order of a jpeg that is converted to video at the moment it is dropped into the timeline. (I have not verified this.)
Your properties look fine to me. They are the same as mine except that my source video clips are Mpeg2. I have never experienced the problems that you have had with still images. I always create my video files with the field order of the captured video clips. So, my analog projects render the jpegs as Upper Field First, and my digital projects render their jpegs as Lower Field First. I have never used anti-flicker or Gausian Blur filters. My stills always look very sharp and do not flicker either on PC monitor or HDTV set.
However, there are other users who have had continual problems with still pix flicker and I have never understood the reasons.
John
-
maddrummer3301
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:24 pm
- Location: US
Are those the original pictures or the pictures you applied the g-blur to.
I think you are going to have to do some troubleshooting.
I would forget the dv video for now and find out what's up with the picture
conversion first.
Standard Definition Videos, Broadcast and camcorders use "Field Order".
Upper or Lower is defined as the first field. (Standard Definition Video).
A picture you insert into a program is a picture. There aren't any fields.
If you are creating a video from only pictures then framedbased is good
and you can use that setting to judge the picture on the computer screen
since computer screens are framebased. also. This will tell you if the
conversion is being performed properly.
I mean if the slideshow doesn't look good on the computer screen it definitely
won't look correct on a TV.
If you plan to insert a picture into a video (one mpeg2 file) then the picture
will have to be fielded to match the video since it's a part of the overall
video stream. (Not a problem on a Progressive Scan HDTV).
But, you can create a dvd with one mpeg2 file as the video(fielded) and another
mpeg2 file as the slideshow(framebased). They would be separate thumbnails on the
dvd menu and also separate mpeg2 files on the dvd.
(Even if the slideshow is framebased the dvd player will send the
correct interlaced field order to the TV to display properly).
Get it looking good on the computer screen first. Then on to the TV.
Getting a good looking slideshow can be somewhat of an art because many
of the new cameras as so high resolution a TV cannot display all the
information in the picture. That's why applying a slight blur will cut down
on the high definition in the picture causing less artifacts on the TV.
Your TV may be slightly out of alignment also. Pause a commercial DVD
and take a good look at the picture around the edges of the TV.
MovieFactory 3 & 4 makes very nice slideshows and
I just insert the pictures taken on a 3.2 Kodak camera into the slideshow
and MovieFactory3/4 converts them. They look nice on the TV. Even the
VCD slideshows I've made look good. (36" Standard Interlaced TV).
The slideshows that MF3 & 4 create after importing the created dvd
back into VideoStudio or MF display the video properties as "Frame-Based".
(That is only a slideshow, not pictures and video mixed together).
Progressive scan Tv's can correct the shimmering effect and display the
higher detail in the picture.
I think it would be helpful to post the jpg picture properties:
color specs / frame size / resolution etc. so others users can help you
with this problem.
Hope this helps,
MD
I think you are going to have to do some troubleshooting.
I would forget the dv video for now and find out what's up with the picture
conversion first.
Standard Definition Videos, Broadcast and camcorders use "Field Order".
Upper or Lower is defined as the first field. (Standard Definition Video).
A picture you insert into a program is a picture. There aren't any fields.
If you are creating a video from only pictures then framedbased is good
and you can use that setting to judge the picture on the computer screen
since computer screens are framebased. also. This will tell you if the
conversion is being performed properly.
I mean if the slideshow doesn't look good on the computer screen it definitely
won't look correct on a TV.
If you plan to insert a picture into a video (one mpeg2 file) then the picture
will have to be fielded to match the video since it's a part of the overall
video stream. (Not a problem on a Progressive Scan HDTV).
But, you can create a dvd with one mpeg2 file as the video(fielded) and another
mpeg2 file as the slideshow(framebased). They would be separate thumbnails on the
dvd menu and also separate mpeg2 files on the dvd.
(Even if the slideshow is framebased the dvd player will send the
correct interlaced field order to the TV to display properly).
Get it looking good on the computer screen first. Then on to the TV.
Getting a good looking slideshow can be somewhat of an art because many
of the new cameras as so high resolution a TV cannot display all the
information in the picture. That's why applying a slight blur will cut down
on the high definition in the picture causing less artifacts on the TV.
Your TV may be slightly out of alignment also. Pause a commercial DVD
and take a good look at the picture around the edges of the TV.
MovieFactory 3 & 4 makes very nice slideshows and
I just insert the pictures taken on a 3.2 Kodak camera into the slideshow
and MovieFactory3/4 converts them. They look nice on the TV. Even the
VCD slideshows I've made look good. (36" Standard Interlaced TV).
The slideshows that MF3 & 4 create after importing the created dvd
back into VideoStudio or MF display the video properties as "Frame-Based".
(That is only a slideshow, not pictures and video mixed together).
Progressive scan Tv's can correct the shimmering effect and display the
higher detail in the picture.
I think it would be helpful to post the jpg picture properties:
color specs / frame size / resolution etc. so others users can help you
with this problem.
Hope this helps,
MD
-
sjj1805
- Posts: 14383
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
- motherboard: Equium P200-178
- processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
- ram: 2 GB
- Video Card: Intel 945 Express
- sound_card: Intel GMA 950
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
- Location: Birmingham UK
I create my slideshows with ProShow Gold
www.photodex.com
ProShow Gold will create MPG files that you can then use in Vs9 with your
other MPG files.
Give the Free Trial version a try to see if it solves your problem.
www.photodex.com
ProShow Gold will create MPG files that you can then use in Vs9 with your
other MPG files.
Give the Free Trial version a try to see if it solves your problem.
The pictures are the original digitized photos without any blur filter added. They are about 1500x1000 pixels, 24bit RGB color jpeg files produced at WalMart from 35mm ASA-200 color film.
I think I am going to have to try using another application to produce the slide show because I have tried producing a slide show with VS8 using lower field first and frame based video and the results are always poor as described above when viewed on an interlaced TV. They look fine (except for a slight blur) on my PC so there is definitely an interlace issue here. I am also curious why I get the slight blur on my PC.
I have also looked closely at commercial DVDs and I do see similar problems when viewing stills, such as the DVD menu images, but not nearly as bad as what I am seeing with my VS8 slide shows. Maybe my DVD player and/or TV are partly to blame.
As far as the using a gaussian blur (radius=1) on the photos or subsampling at 720x480, I do not like doing this unless it is really necessary since the blur is visible in the final product. And if I do a pan and zoom on the photos, it becomes really apparent. But, I found this to be really useful for scanned pictures from newspapers, magazines, and postcards where there is rather large dot pattern in the original and in the jpeg file that creates moire patterns when compressed with an MPEG2 codec. By the way, instead of a gaussian blur filter I use the "sal and pepper" filter in Paint Shop Pro which seems to produce better results.
I think I am going to have to try using another application to produce the slide show because I have tried producing a slide show with VS8 using lower field first and frame based video and the results are always poor as described above when viewed on an interlaced TV. They look fine (except for a slight blur) on my PC so there is definitely an interlace issue here. I am also curious why I get the slight blur on my PC.
I have also looked closely at commercial DVDs and I do see similar problems when viewing stills, such as the DVD menu images, but not nearly as bad as what I am seeing with my VS8 slide shows. Maybe my DVD player and/or TV are partly to blame.
As far as the using a gaussian blur (radius=1) on the photos or subsampling at 720x480, I do not like doing this unless it is really necessary since the blur is visible in the final product. And if I do a pan and zoom on the photos, it becomes really apparent. But, I found this to be really useful for scanned pictures from newspapers, magazines, and postcards where there is rather large dot pattern in the original and in the jpeg file that creates moire patterns when compressed with an MPEG2 codec. By the way, instead of a gaussian blur filter I use the "sal and pepper" filter in Paint Shop Pro which seems to produce better results.
-
sjj1805
- Posts: 14383
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
- motherboard: Equium P200-178
- processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
- ram: 2 GB
- Video Card: Intel 945 Express
- sound_card: Intel GMA 950
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
- Location: Birmingham UK
scanned pictures from newspapers, magazines, and postcards where there is rather large dot pattern in the original and in the jpeg file that creates moire patterns
I used to have that problem until I read an article somewhere on the internet which explained it all. Similar in some respects to "Fields" in MPG files (Upper, Lower, Frame) the commercial lithographic printing agencies use a similar method when printing colour pictures in magazines. They only use half the ink, which when they are printing many thousands of copies is a big saving in costs.
What the human eye does not detect, the scanner does and you end up with the moire patterns you describe.
In your scanner software there is a de-screen option.
Turn de-screen on when scanning magazines, postcards etc. and you will find the moire patterns are no longer there, you get crystal clear pictures.
Remember to turn de-screen back off when you are finished, as scanning with de-screen turned on greatly increases the time it takes to scan a picture.
I used to have that problem until I read an article somewhere on the internet which explained it all. Similar in some respects to "Fields" in MPG files (Upper, Lower, Frame) the commercial lithographic printing agencies use a similar method when printing colour pictures in magazines. They only use half the ink, which when they are printing many thousands of copies is a big saving in costs.
What the human eye does not detect, the scanner does and you end up with the moire patterns you describe.
In your scanner software there is a de-screen option.
Turn de-screen on when scanning magazines, postcards etc. and you will find the moire patterns are no longer there, you get crystal clear pictures.
Remember to turn de-screen back off when you are finished, as scanning with de-screen turned on greatly increases the time it takes to scan a picture.
-
jchunter
Jim,
You wrote "The pictures are the original digitized photos without any blur filter added. They are about 1500x1000 pixels, 24bit RGB color jpeg files produced at WalMart from 35mm ASA-200 color film. "
This revelation completely changes the nature of the problem.
1. We have no idea what the precision of the Walmart scanner was.
2. Did it scan an original transparancy or a print?
3. The fact that the pixel count is 1500 x 1000 does not necessarily mean that the actual resolution is as good as that of a digital photo of the same dimensions.
4. 1500x1000 is only 1.5 megapixels - IMHO, poor quality stills - not great resolution for large prints or displays.
All these things taken together could explain many of your problems, except the shimmering - which might be explained by SJJ's post.
John
You wrote "The pictures are the original digitized photos without any blur filter added. They are about 1500x1000 pixels, 24bit RGB color jpeg files produced at WalMart from 35mm ASA-200 color film. "
This revelation completely changes the nature of the problem.
1. We have no idea what the precision of the Walmart scanner was.
2. Did it scan an original transparancy or a print?
3. The fact that the pixel count is 1500 x 1000 does not necessarily mean that the actual resolution is as good as that of a digital photo of the same dimensions.
4. 1500x1000 is only 1.5 megapixels - IMHO, poor quality stills - not great resolution for large prints or displays.
All these things taken together could explain many of your problems, except the shimmering - which might be explained by SJJ's post.
John
John,
You forgot one important fact, the slide show looks fine (except for the blur) on a PC monitor which uses frame based video. Also, I know that a blur is introduced in the MPEG2 file because I compared the original WalMart jpeg with the MPEG2 video of the same photo on my PC monitor. Besides, 1500x1000pixels is 4x as many as 720x480 which is the max resolution of an NTSC TV.
You forgot one important fact, the slide show looks fine (except for the blur) on a PC monitor which uses frame based video. Also, I know that a blur is introduced in the MPEG2 file because I compared the original WalMart jpeg with the MPEG2 video of the same photo on my PC monitor. Besides, 1500x1000pixels is 4x as many as 720x480 which is the max resolution of an NTSC TV.
-
maddrummer3301
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:24 pm
- Location: US
-
vivid_maniac
jbowen28,
I have had the same problems that you have. In my introduction I place still image jpgs in the overlay track and they look great in the preview window but every time I render the project the stil looks a little blurry, blocky and pixelated. Definitely not usable in the project. I scoured the newsgroup and internet and tried every suggestion I saw. I also tried varying different preferences to no avail. I used to use videostudio 7 on my old computer and it always worked just fine, so I was ripping my hair out trying to figure out why vs9 wouldn't work. The workaround I have to use is to do this part of the project on my old computer with vs7 installed. I then render and transfer it to my good computer and put it in the timeline. An enormous pain in the butt and it really is upsetting because vs9 has a lot of new options that I like and would like to use in my project but can't. Reading this web board, it really seems like there is a problem with the overlay track. I hope this is something that they will fix in an update shortly. Good luck, and if you ever figure it out please let me know!!
I have had the same problems that you have. In my introduction I place still image jpgs in the overlay track and they look great in the preview window but every time I render the project the stil looks a little blurry, blocky and pixelated. Definitely not usable in the project. I scoured the newsgroup and internet and tried every suggestion I saw. I also tried varying different preferences to no avail. I used to use videostudio 7 on my old computer and it always worked just fine, so I was ripping my hair out trying to figure out why vs9 wouldn't work. The workaround I have to use is to do this part of the project on my old computer with vs7 installed. I then render and transfer it to my good computer and put it in the timeline. An enormous pain in the butt and it really is upsetting because vs9 has a lot of new options that I like and would like to use in my project but can't. Reading this web board, it really seems like there is a problem with the overlay track. I hope this is something that they will fix in an update shortly. Good luck, and if you ever figure it out please let me know!!
-
Rez
stills
I too am having problems inserting still images into a video project. I ensure my stills are the same dimensions as the DVD setting. I use either TIF, or Ulead generated BMP stills. I place the stills onto the video track right beside the video.
VideoStudio project settings PAL DVD, quality 100, Video Data Rate constant 8000 kbps, Field Order B, 720 x 576.
MovieFactory preferences Apply Anti-Flickering Filter.
When I render my movie, any stills used look great when viewed on the computer monitor.
However, once a DVD is made, any still images comprising straight lines eg balcony railing, fencing, rows of windows on distant buildings, lines on clothing, fur on animals, a field of grass; these areas will annoyingly shake during replay of the DVD when viewed on television. The stills are otherwise nice and sharp looking. And if the DVD is viewed on the computer monitor, no problems at all.
Now, if I make a still capture of a video clip containing lines, and place the still image on the video track BEFORE the original video clip, the resulting video render plays great, but a DVD of the same played on television will have the still image flickering, yet the video image (from where the stilll was derived) plays no problem.
I don't understand why there should be any difference between a scene using a non-moving video clip, and a scene using a still from that very same video clip. As the DVD plays okay on the computer it is something to do with the interlacing?
VideoStudio project settings PAL DVD, quality 100, Video Data Rate constant 8000 kbps, Field Order B, 720 x 576.
MovieFactory preferences Apply Anti-Flickering Filter.
When I render my movie, any stills used look great when viewed on the computer monitor.
However, once a DVD is made, any still images comprising straight lines eg balcony railing, fencing, rows of windows on distant buildings, lines on clothing, fur on animals, a field of grass; these areas will annoyingly shake during replay of the DVD when viewed on television. The stills are otherwise nice and sharp looking. And if the DVD is viewed on the computer monitor, no problems at all.
Now, if I make a still capture of a video clip containing lines, and place the still image on the video track BEFORE the original video clip, the resulting video render plays great, but a DVD of the same played on television will have the still image flickering, yet the video image (from where the stilll was derived) plays no problem.
I don't understand why there should be any difference between a scene using a non-moving video clip, and a scene using a still from that very same video clip. As the DVD plays okay on the computer it is something to do with the interlacing?
I downloaded a trial version of ProShow Gold and made a test slide show and then outputted an mpeg2 file. I then burned a DVD with ProShow Gold with this mpeg2 file. The mpeg2 file and the DVD play fine on my computer (I forgot to look for any blur) but I get the same interlace problems when I play the DVD on my standalone DVD player and interlace TV. So now I am suspecting my standalone DVD player and interlace TV. ProShow Gold does not have a lot of options for creating the MPEG or DVD (e.g. field order versus frame based) so I do not know a lot about how it created the DVD. I plan to look at my DVD on another DVD player and interlace TV as well as looking at some more commercial DVDs to try to isolate the problem some more.