Smooth Scrolling Credits with VS?

[2Dogs]

Is it possible to achieve smooth scrolling credits with Video Studio - without the use of add-ons or third party programs?

All my efforts thus far have been in vain.

I invariably end up with jerky motion, and the text sort of flashes or strobes.

Referring to a link in a post by Thoff, I know that smooth title motion in MPEG2 is problematical. Although the article offered some insight into the matter, it did not provide any practical solutions.

I've used a process of trial and error with a sample scrolling title, altering the duration to see if things improved. I'm able to home in a bit on a duration that minimises the problems, but not solve them entirely.

I note that rendering to avi produces nice crisp clean text, with smooth motion.

By contrast, rendering to constant bitrate 8000kbps MPEG2 gives a noticeably uneven motion and less sharp text.

Two-pass rendering to variable bitrate 8000kbps is significantly better, though by no means perfect - but that would presumably force me to use variable bitrate settings for all the clips in my project, in order to make use of the smart render feature when burning to DVD in accordance with the standard method. Otherwise, if my project clips are constant bitrate, the scrolling quality would be degraded when the scrolling title clip was re-encoded to constant bitrate.

I tried rendering the avi file to MPEG2, but the resultant output, whether constant or varible bitrate was inferior to the files created by rendering the titles straight to MPEG2.

I might add that the test scrolling title comprised text over a plain black colour clip, rather than over video.

Is it simply unrealistic to expect a consumer video editor to be able to produce smooth scrolling titles?

The static titles are fine, and work great with fade in and out. I try to use those as much as possible, but it would be nice to finish with a scrolling credit with video quality comparable to the main project.

[Black Lab]

Are you viewing the finished product via the VideoStudio preview screen or on a tv? I ask this because when I first started using VS and viewed titles in the preview screen I also was not impressed. But when burned to a DVD and viewed on a tv mine look fine.

[Ken Berry]

I thoroughly endorse BlackLab's comments. I use scrolling credits all the time in VS7/8/9 and they come out just fine in the final product, whether scrolling from bottom to top, top to bottom or horizontally across the screen. They always look terrible in the preview screen (though I can't say I have ever had jerky motion in preview mode, only very fuzzy looking text while it is in motion). Have you tested it on an RW disc played in a standalone player, or played back the video in a DVD player program such as Power DVD or Nero Showtime?

[2Dogs]

Are you viewing the finished product via the VideoStudio preview screen or on a tv? I ask this because when I first started using VS and viewed titles in the preview screen I also was not impressed. But when burned to a DVD and viewed on a tv mine look fine.

I'm referring to the video quality when viewed in programs such as WinDVD, Media Player Classic, and on a TV from a test burn to a DVD played on a standalone player.

I am fully aware that the preview screen does not give a true representation of output, even when preview quality is maximised.

[daniel]

I also want to support black lab and Ken Berry that there must be something in your proceedings that is not correct because all titles, scrolling or not, should be crisp and clear even with much lower bitrates than what you use (I routinely do home videos at 6000 and the titles, animation, etc are absolutely better than the rest of the video :-) ).

One question: did you select the Apply Anti-flicker filter setting? It has effects on everything static; pictures of course but also all overlays like frames, and titles.

When doing interlaced output this should be activated, except in obvious cases where you add nothing (a simple DVD copy of a VHS movie f.i.)

By the way if you produce interlaced (field-based) it will not display OK on your computer (you mention media player and WinDVD) which is a progressive-display system. At least not on my Win2000 system.
You must check on a standard TV.

[2Dogs]

I also want to support black lab and Ken Berry that there must be something in your proceedings that is not correct because all titles, scrolling or not, should be crisp and clear even with much lower bitrates than what you use (I routinely do home videos at 6000 and the titles, animation, etc are absolutely better than the rest of the video ).

One question: did you select the Apply Anti-flicker filter setting? It has effects on everything static; pictures of course but also all overlays like frames, and titles.

When doing interlaced output this should be activated, except in obvious cases where you add nothing (a simple DVD copy of a VHS movie f.i.)

By the way if you produce interlaced (field-based) it will not display OK on your computer (you mention media player and WinDVD) which is a progressive-display system. At least not on my Win2000 system.
You must check on a standard TV.

Thanks for the response, Daniel.

I will try the anti-flicker filter to see if that helps.

Note that I mentioned Media Player Classic - which is not Microsoft Media Player but an ad-free alternative to the obnoxious Real Player, which fills your registry with all manner of stuff and hogs resources.

My static titles are fine, but the scrolling ones are definitely problematical.

You can probably tell from my other posts that I am kind of picky, so maybe most users don't even notice the irregularity.

In fact I noticed a similar jerky effect in a commercial DVD we watched last night. In case that makes you wonder if it's a hardware issue, you might give Media player Classic a try. One of it's options is to show statistics, which include average sync offset, standard deviation of sync offset, frames drawn and frames dropped and jitter, in milliseconds.

None of those parameters suggest any problem with the player or the file.

For info, here's Thoff's link: http://www.greatdv.com/post/scrolltitles.htm

[daniel]

what is your rendering target? Progressive or interlaced?
Is you text very large and scrolling very fast?
Do you have text enhancements? (contour, shadow etc..)

Maybe you hit the limit of MPEG2 compression.

[2Dogs]

what is your rendering target? Progressive or interlaced?
Is you text very large and scrolling very fast?
Do you have text enhancements? (contour, shadow etc..)

Maybe you hit the limit of MPEG2 compression.

Dear Daniel,

my test scrolling title comprises 12 lines of text, in the form "role : actor"
with "role:" in 24pt Book antiqua and "actor" in 30pt. The ":" is in red, whilst the text is default white, all on a plain black background.

The text is plain, with no outline or shadow effects applied.

I've used 100pt spacing between each line.

In an effort to find the best result, I've experimented with a duration of 14 to 18 seconds. This represents a fairly slow scroll that gives the viewer sufficient time to read each line.

The animation is set to "Fly" with both the start and end units set to "text" with "No Pause".

The credit rolls from the bottom centre of the screen to the top centre.

My test outputs to MPEG2 are as follows:

MPEG files
24 Bits, 720 x 480, 29.97 fps (I'm in NTSC land)
Lower Field First
MPEG-2), 4:3
Video data rate: 8264 kbps
Audio data rate: 224 kbps

I've also checked "perform non-square pixel rendering" and further to your earlier post, I'm experimenting with checking the "Apply anti-flckering filter" so see how that affects things.

In addition, I am also trying variable bitrate output (with the same 8264 kbps max) in both single and two pass encoding.

I'm making up a test DVD for each of these 6 alternative outputs and comparing results when the DVD is played back on a standalone player hooked up to our TV. The player is a non-progressive scan unit, and the TV is pretty plain-brown-wrapper too.

[2Dogs]

I thoroughly endorse BlackLab's comments. I use scrolling credits all the time in VS7/8/9 and they come out just fine in the final product, whether scrolling from bottom to top, top to bottom or horizontally across the screen. They always look terrible in the preview screen (though I can't say I have ever had jerky motion in preview mode, only very fuzzy looking text while it is in motion). Have you tested it on an RW disc played in a standalone player, or played back the video in a DVD player program such as Power DVD or Nero Showtime?

Dear Ken,

OK, I think I've sorted it out now.

You were right about viewing on a PC - no combination of anti-flickering, constant or variable bitrate and one or two pass encoding gave a perect result.

After viewing on test DVD+RW's on my TV, however, things were in fact different. The scrolling motion is pretty smooth.

Applying the anti-flickering filter did seem to give a very slight benefit, though hardly noticeable.

The variable bitrate versions were no better than the constant (perhaps unsurprising since they both used the same maximum bitrate) although the quality was no worse for an MPEG file size approaching half of the constant bitrate version.

What did make the biggest difference was the run time, i.e the scrolling speed.

Using a run time of 17 seconds gave a lesser quality image, with strobing effects on the text. This was particularly pronounced along the bottom of each character, so that it looked like that part of the letters was dancing up and down. I'd say the quality was 5/10

16 seconds was better, less strobing, 6/10 or 7/10.

14 seconds gave the best result, probably 9/10. It was significantly better than the worst case generated by the 17 second run time.

I just wish there was a better way of optimising the scroll speed - I would hate to have to go thru the same sort of trial and error procedure each time!

Thanks to all for the input !

[daniel]

2Dogs:

This may not be a help to your difficulties, but I think you are using a multiple-title function while the general idea in VS is to use single title for scrolling credits. I always do it that way but I didn't test, the result is maybe identical.
All I can say is I never seen that, but I'm in PAL so somewhat slower frame rate and more lines which would certainly go a long way in improving smoothness (less frequent and smaller shifts).

For the rest what you did is correct but you have to factor in the scrolling with the finite (an rather low) number of lines on a TV frame.
Depending on the speed of "travel" of your text, for every field VS has to move the title overlay a bit higher; sometimes it falls exaclty on a line, sometimes not, and the position is rounded (or cut) to the nearest line.
If your scroll slowly they can sometimes fall on the same line twice.
So you can not always assume you will get cinema-like smoothness on your TV.

You could try using a desaturated still picture from the movie or some sort of half-toned logo instead of black and it will also be less noticeable. I must admit I never used credits on black until now either.

[2Dogs]

2Dogs:

This may not be a help to your difficulties, but I think you are using a multiple-title function while the general idea in VS is to use single title for scrolling credits. I always do it that way but I didn't test, the result is maybe identical.
All I can say is I never seen that, but I'm in PAL so somewhat slower frame rate and more lines which would certainly go a long way in improving smoothness (less frequent and smaller shifts).

For the rest what you did is correct but you have to factor in the scrolling with the finite (an rather low) number of lines on a TV frame.
Depending on the speed of "travel" of your text, for every field VS has to move the title overlay a bit higher; sometimes it falls exaclty on a line, sometimes not, and the position is rounded (or cut) to the nearest line.
If your scroll slowly they can sometimes fall on the same line twice.
So you can not always assume you will get cinema-like smoothness on your TV.

You could try using a desaturated still picture from the movie or some sort of half-toned logo instead of black and it will also be less noticeable. I must admit I never used credits on black until now either.

Dear Daniel,

as far as I am aware, I am using a single title - at least it is a single entry on the title layer. Video Studio allows you to used different fonts and colours within a single title, in contrast to other consumer video editing programs I've tried.

Anyhow, thanks for the suggestion about a half-toned background. I assumed that any background other than a plain colour clip would exacerbate quality problems, but I'll now experiment with some video clips.

I like the idea of a washed out or colour shifted video clip, almost like a moving watermark, perhaps played in slow motion, as the background.

I'm also hoping that adding an audio track won't have adverse effects too.

I determined that setting output to "frame based" gives a substanatial improvement for playback on the pc, with clear text and much reduced jerkiness in the motion. (though the motion never got as smooth as the best results with field order output played thru a standalone player to the TV)

Unfortunately, however, frame based video output for the main body of the video seems to achieve a lower quality for the same bitrate settings and so on compared with field order (lower field first in my case) even when played on the pc.

Another thing I found in my endless (read obsessive?) quest for higher quality output is that by setting audio to MPEG, I can use bitrates of up to 9800 kbps compared to "only" 8264Kbpss when using LCPM audio, and still have the DVD-VR box checked.

(I'd noticed that commercial DVD's appear to use up to 9500 kbps)

[daniel]

as far as I am aware, I am using a single title - at least it is a single entry on the title layer.

I was talking about the single - multiple check box in the title properties

I'm also hoping that adding an audio track won't have adverse effects too.

Audio is unrelated to video stream

Another thing I found in my endless (read obsessive?) quest for higher quality output is that by setting audio to MPEG, I can use bitrates of up to 9800 kbps compared to "only" 8264Kbpss when using LCPM audio, and still have the DVD-VR box checked.

My opinion is that 6000 should be plenty for what you need.
Players do not eat above 8000 easily as sustained bitrate.

(I'd noticed that commercial DVD's appear to use up to 9500 kbps)

That is variable bitrate and only in short bursts, see above.
Some players and not the worst begin to get dizzy from 7000 if sustained several minutes, i.e. filling up the RAM buffer.
My previous player (Philips) was choking on some of my DVDs and I use 7000 variable (i.e. 7000 is max and not sustained) and MPEG audio, no subtiltles.

[2Dogs]

Dear Daniel,

your response prompted me to do some further tests to deal with the issues you raised. It's taken a little while, but having done the tests, I'll respond to your points:

I was talking about the single - multiple check box in the title properties

You're right - I had the (default?) multiple box checked. When I tried using a single title, however, it made no difference to my results - other than altering the formatting a bit. I have to admit I'm not familiar with the use of multiple titles and when they are appropriate.

Audio is unrelated to video stream

I know that, but I feared that maybe the additional rendering load might adversely affect the output quality. It did not. I was being unduly pessimistic!

My opinion is that 6000 should be plenty for what you need.
Players do not eat above 8000 easily as sustained bitrate.

I have experienced no problems with any of the family's DVD players to date. None of them are cutting edge units, and player prices are so low now as to make them almost "disposable". Most of my output has been either constant bitrate 8264Kbps with some variable bitrate 8264Kbps.

(I'd noticed that commercial DVD's appear to use up to 9500 kbps)

That is variable bitrate and only in short bursts, see above.
Some players and not the worst begin to get dizzy from 7000 if sustained several minutes, i.e. filling up the RAM buffer.
My previous player (Philips) was choking on some of my DVDs and I use 7000 variable (i.e. 7000 is max and not sustained) and MPEG audio, no subtiltles.

Anyway, I took up your suggestion to try a background video clip. I used some slow motion footage colour shifted to blue, with the contrast reduced.

Being the eternal pessimist, I was of course expecting the scrolling title motion to be seriously disrupted by the background video. To my surprise, however, the smooth motion was unaffected, but the strobing instability effect of the text appeared to be greatly reduced! Almost perfect, though you probably know what I'm like by now.

I also found that the credit roll duration was now less critical. Previously, the "sweet spot" was 14 seconds, that being a fairly slow credit roll.

Now anything from 18 to 12 seconds gave good results, with 13 or 14 still being marginally better. Getting down to 10 seconds resurrected instability effects on the text.

Two pass variable bitrate (max 8264kbps) gave pretty much the same quality as constant bitrate 8264kbps.

The anti-flicker filter gives a noticeable improvement in the static title text and backgrounds, but no perceptible improvement in either the scrolling credits or the video background. (the VS manual recommends anti-flicker to stabilise menus - and it presumably has a beneficial effect for slideshows too)



Overall, the whole exercise has brought me to the following conclusions:

1) For the best possible quality scrolling credits, it's still worth experimenting with the duration but perhaps experienced users will just have a "feel" for it.

2) Video backgrounds improve the text quality.

3) The improvement in video quality for a given file size achieved by using two pass variable bitrate encoding is rarely worth the extra rendering time (though Extreme Edition hotshots may care to differ)

4) It's a bad idea to hit the "submit" button by mistake instead of the "preview" when responding to a post!

Thanks for your input, Daniel et al.