Best Mac software/settings for 53 minute DVD encode.

[Richard Mamary]

Here is a link to download a zipped folder containing, a 17 sec. Apple Pro Res 422 QT mov, and a TS Folder, of the same, encoded by Compressor at above settings, and muxed by DVDSP.

https://d01.megashares.com/index.php?d01=6acc5d5

If you are unfamiliar with the site. When you get there, click the Regular Download, not the High Speed link.

That will bring you to this page where you will be prompted to, “Enter the passport reactivation code in the graphic, then hit the “Reactivate Passport” button.

Now the file is ready for download.

Hopefully it will all go smoothly, un-zip well, and play. Hopefully…

[Eric Pautsch]

Arrggghhh….I hate 30p! I believe you have a 30p file. You still dont indicate how you encoded the piece? Progressive or interlaced.

BTW…the screenshots look fine. You will loose alot of info since you’re going to MPEG 2. Reds are a terrible color to use. I’ll have a look at the files later.

[Richard Mamary]

Eric, I didn’t find this latest post of yours at first, because it wasn’t at the bottom of the page, as it ended up above my previously last post… So, my actual reply to this post of yours will be made at the bottom, (technically replying to my own last post), just to keep these in order…
That way if you are not notified of the entire thread, and only responses to your replies, you will now know I posted again, even though it was only to myself… So look below! (Man that’s wordy.)

[Richard Mamary]

Hi Eric,

And, thanks again. So did you see the flickering, moire-ing (whatever) in the building windows on your DVD player? (I realize now that I should have set it to loop. Next time.) And, what is this flickering phenomena rightly called? Does it have a name?

Arrggghhh….I hate 30p! I believe you have a 30p file. You still dont indicate how you encoded the piece? Progressive or interlaced.

I believe it is 30p too. My understand back in January was in order to be able to import & edit AVCHD with FCP, it has to be at the 29.97 frame rate. Which seemed dreadful to me too at the beginning, assuming I was starting with a form of 720p. Though, my understanding was that even as it was supposedly recording 60frames, it was merely duplicated every other frame.

Now, as to how I encoded it?
Progressive, or interlaced…
I am not sure where I would have chosen this option. In FCP? Compressor? And if so, where? I am looking.

In FCP, I can’t see any options other than Export QT…

Click on Current Setting pulldown to change…

Select: Apple Pro Res 422 (HQ) 1280×720 30p 48 kHz

And the end result look pretty identical to when I just choose current settings, except the file is much larger. My media info application still indicates it is 29.97, even though I clearly chose 30p. Is that just how it works?

I also can’t find any program for OSX to analyze the file and tell me if it is progressive or interlaced. Do you know of one?

The only other option off the FCP timeline is for QT conversion. (I know I am being major redundant here, but maybe I missed something?)

The only reasonable option here is for QT movie, right?

And once in there here are the options:

And the if I click on Settings, the obvious choice is again:

And even if I change the frame rate there to 30, the exported file’s MediaInfo still says it’s 29.97!

Also, in Compressor, I do not see any choices for Progressive or Interlace either.
Can you walk/talk me through. What am I missing?

[Eric Pautsch]

It looks like you’re doing everything correctly. Look in the Inspector for Compressor and you’ll see where to set the progressive flags. Look at some youtube tutorials first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw93na5phCo&feature=related

I work nights (yes I have a real job now) so Im going to bed now…I’ll look at the TS later 🙂

Eric

[Richard Mamary]

Hey Eric, thanks again. And, no worries at all on when you get around to watching it. I am thankful to be getting all the help you’ve already given me, even though I am still flumoxed. I hope you have had plenty of rest when you read this, because I am wired up! Even though this whole thing is starting to wind down…

When/if you get to watch the TS on a big screen, hopefully you will see these strobing, (again I do not know what to call them!) patterns in the parts of the frame I circled in this screenshot I posted above and again here,
https://img809.imageshack.us/img809/5862/badmoirepatternsinmovem.jpg
as well as in other places in this clip. I really want them fixed quite badly, but am also open to many-a-pro telling me that I should forget it and just move on. Though, I am far from there yet…

Seeing as we may now be in agreement, that I already have as decent an encode from my original footage, that I can make on my own, then perhaps I only have two options left. One being Joe’s, from above, (which I am curious what you think about that), and the other, being to have to go back to FCP.

Perhaps there is some kind of filter or blur that I could apply to those problem areas, which would be a bit insane, as I would have to create a mask over each of them, (e.g. the window frames), add a blur/filter of some sort, and then frame by frame move the mask until each of these offending areas are no longer in frame. Because I could never apply it to the whole image. That could take me, as I am far from an expert a really long time to do.

I have seen some guys wacking away on their FCP keyboards, editing at speeds that gals in the proverbial secretarial pool, would envy. No, I am not one of those, more of a peck, peck guy, unfortunately.

I don’t even know if my masking/blurring scheme would work, (do you?) But, I am guessing that those kind of anomalous patterns can only show up, (and probably are a, “to be expected,” though disagreeable phenomena), when some distinct parallel lines are present. Is this a good guess? So if the lines were less distinct, -blurred if you will, -then the strobing couldn’t occur. Right? Or, if I had a professionals access to the hardware encoders out there, would it all look great, and I wouldn’t have to worry about the strobes? But, more on that in a minute.

Anyway, as to your last suggestion regarding progressive flags, I went in and changed the Output Fields from “Same as Source,” to Progressive, but not only did both m2v versions look the same, but my MediaInfo application reported that in both of them, the Scan Type was, “Progressive.”

The only other thing that I didn’t do, was when I exported from FCP, I used Current Settings. Current settings were again Apple Pro Res 422, not Apple Pro Res 422 (HQ). I did export a short clip in each format to compare them, but I really couldn’t see a difference except in the file size.
Do you think that this is important?

Finally, once you see the TS Vid, perhaps you could also let me know whether you think Joe’s idea, using a professional DVD encoding service to do a hardware down conversion, would make a significant difference. He didn’t respond to my initial request for a ballpark figure of what it might cost, but I am curious. In addition to the digi-beta master he said they would give me an 8-bit uncompressed anamorphic file, which I can then compress to mpeg2. Is that something I can’t do with FCP? I do have other export options, such as this custom, Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC 48kHz 1280×720.

Would that downscale out of FCP be a better starting point than the Apple Pro Res 422, I have been using? And again do you think using the Apple Pro Res 422 (HQ) would be that different than Apple Pro Res 422?

Finally, finally, would full out pro encoding, or the hardware down conversion Joe mentioned, ultimately be the only things, (perhaps other than my masking scheme), that would make the difference in all this strobing? And would the overall quality be that improved?

Or, triple finally, with what I have, would pro encoding not make the huge difference and be worth the money, and I would probably get a better result with my insane masking idea?

I appreciate all your help, as again I am running out of options here, the time frame is closing, and overall this thing has to come to a final conclusion. No worries, as I know this is a holiday weekend, darn it!

All The Best,
Richard

[Eric Pautsch]

I’ll take a look at the TS folder this weekend. I was thinking the same thing about masking those trouble spots. However, this just might be something you cant fix. Even masters from the studios have bad moire patterns like these.

A Hardware down-conversion would be a waste of time and money. If you were up converting, then I would say otherwise. But even the CORRECT software based conversion processes with match any hardware set up. The only difference is time…which is a premium in certain environments. Ive spent many years has a tape op doing down/up/cross conversions and can tell you there are free tools like AviSynth which match an Alchemsit, UFC or Terenex conversion frame to frame….period! The difference is that the software option takes days while the HW is real time.

Alot professional encoding is file based these days. This might help.

Talk later.

[Eric Pautsch]

OK…I just watched the disc.

Your encoding is fine. Those issues are just the nature of interlaced video. Really not as bad as I thought it would be. You really need to color correct that piece and that will help alot!! You left your automatic aperture activated! 🙂 The whites are really washed out. After that I would try another encode with compressor. You can try another encoder or pay someone to do the encoding but with source footage like that, you can only do so much. Not saying it looks real bad, and Im sure its a thoughtful and provocative film, but it needs a good grading pass done.

[Richard Mamary]

Once again Eric thanks so much for your time. I’ll hit all your points, but I will stick to the moire first.

I just wanted to check. Did you have a chance to watch it blown up on a large screen? No worries if you can’t. Because, as I’ve mentioned a few times, the moire patterns didn’t bother me much on a 1080p computer monitor. I see it happening slightly in the original footage, but I guess after, down conversion, encoding, and then watching it blown up, (even larger than the original was), is more than any footage can bear. I may still try one test with a moving mask, and see if it helps or is worth the time.

I’m sure that as a pro, the washed out whites, (from the automatic aperture settings), look like the biggest problem. And in an ordinary situation they would be. But this was no ordinary situation. This wasn’t a film shoot at all. I was tagging along with a small relief group, and there were no second takes.

It was a choice to shoot with the automatic aperture. One I made right from the beginning after missing shots. (No excuses, only an explanation.) I was shooting inside a van with this relief team, members of which range from a dark skinned black man, to as white skinned a man as there is! They were also jumping in and out on a moments notice, and had to grab quick shots whenever I could, and missed some shots on the fly, until I ended up setting it to auto. So, as much as I too don’t like how it looks, and would find it un-acceptable in a real film set up, it was the only way I could pan between a conversation inside the van and see both men.

This particular clip I sent you with the moire, I was shooting inside the van and then we turned the corner, I saw the devastation, and I just flipped open the side door, and basically hung outside and just shot with one hand, holding on to the car frame. Nothing I shot was planned, and as I was following them around, again there were never any retakes.

So that said, this unfortunate look, is throughout the project. And, if the video didn’t have such compelling images, and subject matter, I would probably say it was unwatchable. Yet strangely, as it occurs throughout, it adds, (mind you this is an excuse in retrospect!), a certain cinema verite feel to it. At first, horrified at the look, I started trying to muck with CC using keyframes to keep the shots as balanced as I could, and then ended up bailing on the idea, as it would never look quite right, and in fact looked even more artificial. (Cinema un-Verite, if you will!) I also think there is also nothing at all to be done with the shots where the whites are completely washed out, as there is no detail to recover. In fact, it was so unbelievably bright down there, (I guess the direct sun, being so close to the equator), just to be able to see the expressions on the Haitian people, everything else ended up getting washed out. I don’t have a lot of experience shooting dark skinned people, but I have heard that even in the most controlled of environments, it can be a great challenge.

I have ended up coming full circle, and have fully accepted, -embraced if you will, this look. If the whites weren’t washed out, I just wasn’t seeing any faces. And, yes, the subjects too are a little over exposed, so I could make an adjustment. But when I do the blown out whites begin to look strange and un-natural.

Thanks, big time, for the advice on not needing pro services for “down conversion.” I was beginning to think that I maybe I had to go that route. That’s a relief to know. You wrote that “correct” software based conversion, matches a hardware set-up, except for time.

But, to be clear, that doesn’t include DVD encoding too? Isn’t hardware dvd encoding light years better than any software encoding I can do at home? Because, there doesn’t seem to be any way for me to make a 2hr DVD here that looks anything like the pro’s can make. Has this changed? I figured because this piece was under an hour that I would have a shot at making it look decent. But I have seen professionally encoded dvd’s with two hour features, and several hours of extras, that look better than anything I can encode at even half the length. This is just the nature of the business, right?

Before we get to CC, back to my output. Do you think my outputting as (reg) Apple Pro Res 422, not Apple Pro Res 422 (HQ) is an issue at all?
Or, are there better settings, for the pre Compressor output from FCP? I would think it can’t get “out” any better than how it was brought in.

You wrote that the moire issues are just the nature of interlaced video. Yet, the outputted files from FCP say they are progressive?? This may be rhetorical, sa there may be no answer but, are they, or aren’t they?! I am confused. Are they actually interlaced? The original video is supposed to be 720p, again albeit “lite,” (with every other frame of the 60fps a duplicate.) Is it because FCP can’t deal with AVCHD lite, that it forces a workflow in 29.97, which has to be interlaced? (BTW, I don’t expect you to know the answer to this, as AVCHD lite is not a common format. And, I have tried to get these answers before, spending hours and hours on the net. I’m not sure anyone knows…)
Before importing into FCP, I followed all the instructions I could find, and yet never really understood exactly what happened. Everything I could find just said it would have to be worked at 29.97.

So finally, you say applying CC will help a lot. But, I am assuming you mean for the over all look, and not as a fix for the moire-ing, right?

Some of these exposure fluctuations go from over bright, to over dark, before the auto aperture adjusts properly. (Say a pan from the white to the black guy inside the van.) Neither situation corrects well, as there is no detail in those over blacks, or blown out whites, to bring back. I was frustrated for a while trying to fix this, but gave up, and began accepting it.

Without seeing all the footage, do you feel comfortable telling me that I am I wrong in this thinking? Because, if I am not going to try and fix all the aperture fluctuations throughout, do you still think I should CC shots like the one above, and take the hit on how strange the blown out whites become? I can apply CC like that throughout, without trying to completely balance all the wild aperture fluctuations, but again bailed on it all, and decided on that verite look.

Once again thanks a bunch! And, Happy 4th!

[Eric Pautsch]

There would be no difference in your situtation between ProRes 422 and HQ.

https://macmediacast.com/2009/03/prores-422-standard-vs-prores-422-hq/

I see your point on the Cinema Verite but what you gain in one area you must give up somewhere else. The reason why the features you have watched look so much “better” has more to do with the source than the encoder. People spend alot of money and alot of time color correcting, lighting and mastering before it hits an encoder. Im not saying what your doing is incorrect, it just a by product of the type of production you are handling.

The reason your seeing interlacing is because you are viewing it on an interlaced monitor. You can encode progressive but since our are seeing it on a interlaced monitor you have interlacing. The problem goes away once its feed intoa progressive monitor.

29.97 doesn’t mean interlaced its just means DFTC. Your files are definitely progressive 29.97. The reason I hate 30p can be illustrate in this thread:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/55/862652

Things have changed in the last 3 years or so with Hardware vs. Software encoders. Since a digital workflow has become a standard in itself it only makes sense. Also, not all software encoders are the same. Some run 10 of thousand so of dollars, use advanced DCT algorithms and enable you to tweak parameters- even segments re-encode certain trouble spots.

If you like, I can look at your QT encode this for you on Cinevision, Im not promising any miracles and I certainly can’t do it for free but its just an offer since you obviously reflect such passion in the quality of your encode ( A huge compliment BTW 🙂 ) Other than that, you can try another encoder if you like.

So basically you have 3 choices:

1. Color correct it scene to scene
2. Buy another encoder
3. Have someone do it on a high end system with pre-processing and segment encodes and all that

None will guarantee the results you might want since Ive only been talking with you over a computer screen. These things need to be scrutinize with an encoder and the producer in the same room or over the phone. Your workflows look correct.