Best deinterlace setting.

General questions or discussion about HandBrake, Video and/or audio transcoding, trends etc.
Post Reply
SicMX
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:31 pm

Best deinterlace setting.

Post by SicMX »

I've been trying to rip interlaced DVDs for ages but they have always turned out with jerky motion if deinterlaced.

This new version of Handbrake has somehow solved that so now i can finally start ripping by Friends collection!

For some wierd reason i've noticed that i get the best results using:

Deinterlace: Fast and Two Pass with Turbo first pass. Really good quality!

I've also tried using Slowest but it takes forever (3fps vs 30fps) and on some rips the quality is bad when scenes switch quickly.

Anyone else noticed the same thing?

sdm
Bright Spark User
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:53 pm

Post by sdm »

If you are using 'fast' deinterlace, thats the same as the traditional line- doubler handbrake deinterlace.
So the jerky motion was likely caused by something else. Probably the wrong framerate was chosen in older versions of handbrake.

You may want to experiment with the 'slow' deinterlace. Yes its slower, but should produce even better video.

--sdm.

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake »

First off, have you really done a side-by-side comparison of the same frame with "Fast" and "Slow" deinterlacing? There is no way "Fast" is better. It effectively throws away half the lines of resolution.

And the reason it's not working right for you is that Friends isn't interlaced in the first place. Google tells me it's telecined.

remyhelsinki
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:35 am

Post by remyhelsinki »

jbrjake wrote:First off, have you really done a side-by-side comparison of the same frame with "Fast" and "Slow" deinterlacing? There is no way "Fast" is better. It effectively throws away half the lines of resolution.

And the reason it's not working right for you is that Friends isn't interlaced in the first place. Google tells me it's telecined.
Somewhat on topic...jbrjake, is there a site that lists dvd tech specs such as frame rate, interlaced, telecined, etc for movies and tv box sets? I tried googling but I must be using the wrong search keywords because I'm coming up blank. If there is that would sure help me out so that I don't have to play with settings until I get what looks is right.

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake »

remyhelsinki wrote:is there a site that lists dvd tech specs such as frame rate, interlaced, telecined, etc for movies and tv box sets? I tried googling but I must be using the wrong search keywords because I'm coming up blank. If there is that would sure help me out so that I don't have to play with settings until I get what looks is right.
Sadly, no.

As far as I know, the site with the most-detailed specs is dvdbeaver.com, but they don't delve into stuff like that as much as things like average bitrates and comparisons of different editions.

I'd love to know of one myself. It'd save me time, too.

SicMX
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:31 pm

Post by SicMX »

jbrjake wrote:First off, have you really done a side-by-side comparison of the same frame with "Fast" and "Slow" deinterlacing? There is no way "Fast" is better. It effectively throws away half the lines of resolution.

And the reason it's not working right for you is that Friends isn't interlaced in the first place. Google tells me it's telecined.
Might well be. I'll give that a go next. (Don't know if it makes a difference but it's a PAL dvd)

Plus I have no doubt slowest is qualitywise better than fast, but for me using two-pass plus turbo combined with fast or slow interlacing has produced the best results

sdm wrote: So the jerky motion was likely caused by something else. Probably the wrong framerate was chosen in older versions of handbrake.

You may want to experiment with the 'slow' deinterlace. Yes its slower, but should produce even better video.

--sdm.
I have no idea what the jerky motion was caused by, but this is the first version of handbrake where there is 0 jerkyness. In previous versions i managed to get it almost under control when manually setting the FPS to 25 (PAL) but still not smooth enough.

Will all the deinterlace setting in the newest HB build the picture is smooth as butter. Which is awesome!

I did try Slow and Slowest on Fawlty Towers and Friends PAL dvds.

Worked really well on Fawlty Towers, but not on Friends (might have to do with the fact that it is telecined) Using Fast deinterlace and two pass has soo far worked really well though.

I'll try ripping the same episodes with telecine now and show comparisons a bit later

hawkman
Veteran User
Posts: 609
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:46 pm

Post by hawkman »

Telecining refers to the NTSC version, but depending on how it was transferred to PAL the video might just be too dodgy by now to get a great rip.

SicMX
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:31 pm

Post by SicMX »

Don't know about that but it looks pretty damn good to me. Very close to the original DVD. I am however using the High Qual iPod setting so already there i'm losing some quality but it's definately good enough for me. Plus series like Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and older episodes of Friends are not great quality from the start so I see no point in ripping them at full quality. Each to his own though obviously...

If i ripped all Friends episodes in good Apple TV quality they would take up over 100gb (90hours of footage) but with the iPod setting around 60gb. Plus when the new video iPod comes i wanna be able to watch TV Series on that.

Rip Time/Quality wise the best combo I have found is still iPod High, 2 Pass + Turbo first pass, and fast deinterlace.

PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

SicMX wrote:Don't know about that but it looks pretty damn good to me. Very close to the original DVD. I am however using the High Qual iPod setting so already there i'm losing some quality but it's definately good enough for me. Plus series like Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and older episodes of Friends are not great quality from the start so I see no point in ripping them at full quality. Each to his own though obviously...
I agree with you also that the MPEG-2 source quality of the Friends DvD package is not the greatest to begin with. Why encode at high quality and big files? I agree. But yes, to each his own.
If i ripped all Friends episodes in good Apple TV quality they would take up over 100gb (90hours of footage) but with the iPod setting around 60gb.
Glad to see one individual that's using HB for what exactly it really is for. You agree to sacrifice a bit of quality for a conveniently smaller file. I certainly can't understand some people here on this forum encoding DvD source to ridiculously high bitrates or 99% CRF. Geez. Where's the practicality of decreasing the quality for a file much bigger than the source? Besides, sit-coms like Friends don't need major anamorphic or HD or high resolution or DTS to be enjoyed.

I understand if you were encoding something like 300 and want some of its beauty translated with higher quality settings, but even so, if you want the "real thing" - you get and play the "real thing".

epstewart
Regular User
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by epstewart »

jbrjake wrote:... Friends isn't interlaced in the first place. Google tells me it's telecined.
jbrjake, is there any way HandBrake could (eventually) be given the ability to "inspect" what it is about to convert and see whether it's interlaced or telecined?

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake »

epstewart wrote:jbrjake, is there any way HandBrake could (eventually) be given the ability to "inspect" what it is about to convert and see whether it's interlaced or telecined?
I haven't found a way yet.

epstewart
Regular User
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by epstewart »

jbrjake wrote:
epstewart wrote:jbrjake, is there any way HandBrake could (eventually) be given the ability to "inspect" what it is about to convert and see whether it's interlaced or telecined?
I haven't found a way yet.
It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that telecined film-based DVD material is "supposed to" have flag bits set in a particular way, such that the DVD player could (if the flags were correct) do "perfect" deinterlacing of the nominally interlaced video fields on the disc. The problem is that the flags are sometimes missing or wrong.

I gather that many DVD movies are encoded with flags set correctly most of the time, but there can be occasional incorrect flags, especially at chapter breaks.

The unreliability of flags is, I assume, the reason why it would not be easily possible to "pre-inspect" the DVD to determine whether it comes from telecined material, correct?

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake »

epstewart wrote:It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that telecined film-based DVD material is "supposed to" have flag bits set in a particular way, such that the DVD player could (if the flags were correct) do "perfect" deinterlacing of the nominally interlaced video fields on the disc. The problem is that the flags are sometimes missing or wrong.
Well, yes, that's true for soft telecining. There are flags set so the player can perfectly display the content progressively. But HandBrake already handles that.

The problem is discerning what is hard telecining and what is interlacing. Both send the same flags: not progressive, top field first, no repeat.

Ralph The Magician
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:57 am

Post by Ralph The Magician »

I'd think that most stuff would actually be telecined rather than interlaced, albeit I guess telecining is a form of interlacing. If something isn't telecined, but still interlaced, I'd think it would have to be stuff shot with a personal camcorder that records at 60i.

rhester
Veteran User
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:24 pm

Post by rhester »

Telecining has nothing to do with interlacing, and a great number of television shows on DVD are interlaced but not telecined.

Rodney

Ralph The Magician
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:57 am

Post by Ralph The Magician »

rhester wrote:Telecining has nothing to do with interlacing, and a great number of television shows on DVD are interlaced but not telecined.

Rodney
I was under the impression that telecine is a common form, possibly the most common, of taking something that is progressive and making it interlaced so it can be NTSC compatible. Is that wrong?

eddyg
Veteran User
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:34 am

Post by eddyg »

Ralph The Magician wrote:
rhester wrote:Telecining has nothing to do with interlacing, and a great number of television shows on DVD are interlaced but not telecined.

Rodney
I was under the impression that telecine is a common form, possibly the most common, of taking something that is progressive and making it interlaced so it can be NTSC compatible. Is that wrong?
Telecine is about frame rate, it converts cinema framerate into TV framerate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine

Interlacing is about doubling the resolution of the picture without additional bandwidth, at the expense of quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace

Telecine utilises some aspects of interlacing, but not in its regular form, or function. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#3:2_pulldown

Cheers, Ed.

epstewart
Regular User
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by epstewart »

Deinterlacing is covered here:

Deinterlacing Guide

You can learn a lot about detelecining here:

Framerate Guide

Telecine (which I believe is pronounced Tell-uh-SIN-ee) or telecining is how film-based material at 24 frames per second is converted to 30 (or 29.97) fps for NTSC video on DVD. Soft telecining does it just with bit flags which, when encoded properly on the disc -- they aren't always -- allow HandBrake to automatically switch to 24 fps progressive-scan output when "Same as Source" is selected as the frame rate -- thereby mimicking the original film's frames on a one-to-one basis in HandBrake's output.

But some film-based DVDs are "hard telecined" such that the extra frames necessary to get from 24 fps to 30 fps are actually present on the DVD. That makes the material on the DVD indistinguishable from a program that comes from video, not film, and is interlaced rather than progressive. That's why ...
jbrjake wrote:The problem is discerning what is hard telecining and what is interlacing. Both send the same flags: not progressive, top field first, no repeat.
Hard-telecined film-based material looks to HandBrake just like interlaced video-based material, so with the former it's difficult for HandBrake to know to do the automatic switch to 24 fps while throwing away the totally redundant frames that were stuck in during the hard-telecining process.

Do I have that right, jbrjake?

RandomEngy
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:56 am

Post by RandomEngy »

When ripping Futurama, "Slower" tends to have a marked improvement over "Slow". Though it is pretty slow, I'm only encoding at 4 FPS my E6600. It looks like the code is only single-threaded.

Jasoco
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:52 pm

Post by Jasoco »

I've noticed just plain "Slow" seems to give a good enough result for me.

Weird thing is that "Slow" is the same exact speed as "Fast" and "Off" on my computer. I don't get any slowdown at all. It rips exactly as long as it would without deinterlacing. So why even call it "Slow" is beyond me. But I'm not complaining. :D

"Slower" and "Slowest" are just a bit too slow for me IMHO. But maybe one day I'll use them.

This is on a 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook with Intel Integrated Graphics and 1GB RAM.

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake »

epstewart wrote:Do I have that right, jbrjake?
Yep, entirely. =)

RandomEngy: Futurama is a pain because of how it's produced...you know the episode where Fry drinks the water emperor? In the first five minutes you've got hard telecine, soft telecine, interlaced, and even 30fps progressive (!). In the future, hopefully, it will look great using --detelecine and "Slow" deinterlacing.

raoul
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:55 am

Post by raoul »

remyhelsinki wrote: Somewhat on topic...jbrjake, is there a site that lists dvd tech specs such as frame rate, interlaced, telecined, etc for movies and tv box sets? I tried googling but I must be using the wrong search keywords because I'm coming up blank. If there is that would sure help me out so that I don't have to play with settings until I get what looks is right.
Hi. This may help some people - after I've ripped a dvd to my hard drive (typically as an ISO file) I drop it into SUPER converter, where I can double-click on the file to get an analysis of framerate, bitrate, aspect ratio etc.
Then I use handbrake to convert what I want. I use handbrake because it allows me to convert individual chapters, I don't think SUPER can do that, correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, that's how I see if it's interlaced or not.

Cheers

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake »

raoul wrote: Anyway, that's how I see if it's interlaced or not.
I truly doubt SUPER is telling you anything beyond whether the MPEG-2 picture structure is flagged as progressive or not. That's not going to help remy find out if a source is telecined or interlaced, since something that reports it isn't progressive might be either.

Post Reply