|
(AutoGK) Motion problem on some titles
|
|
|
samsayit
Newbie
|
15. February 2010 @ 16:12 |
Link to this message
|
I'm using AutoGK to convert my entire DVD collection to XviD.
I use all default settings and Target Quality 75%. By far most of the movies come out great and I am really happy with AGK and would not consider changing.
However, I have a few titles which come out with some problems with motion such as a car passing through the picture it will not be a smooth motion. Other than that the picture quality looks OK.
The titles in question were oddly enough all TV movies in 4:3.
I used GSpot to see the framerate of the original DVD (VOB) files and it is 29.970 and so is the output XviD file.
The only thing I can see is different is the frame resolution where the original is 720x480 and the output XviD is 720x544 (this I have seen on other 4:3 conversions and has always been beyond my understanding but never complained because it usually looks OK anyway).
Any ideas would be appreciated!
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
15. February 2010 @ 19:44 |
Link to this message
|
Regarding the resolution, in general, it's OK. AutoGK is preserving
the proper 4:3 ratio of the original.
As far as the juddery movement, it's difficult to say with out
looking at it. For example, overall bitrate too low, or artifacts to
do with interlaced material.
Perhaps post a small section of the troubled area and let us
look at it.
|
|
seagrave
Member
|
20. February 2010 @ 22:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by davexnet:
Regarding the resolution, in general, it's OK. AutoGK is preserving the proper 4:3 ratio of the original.
That AGK is going to 544 pixels is odd. Given that 4:3 DVDs are usually 720x480, there seems to be no need to create extra pixels.
I've usually thought anamorphic video was only for widescreen. But in another forum I was told it also was used to squeeze a 720 pixel wide source onto a 4:3 screen. If so... the encode should remain the same as the original. That's what I get.
I sometimes use Handbrake and in dealing with such videos, I set the anamorphic setting to "strict". This maintains the 4:3 ratio at 720x480. Of course another way is to go with square pixels and reduce the resolution to 640x480. I don't know if every encoder has this option. TMPGEnc does.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. February 2010 @ 22:11
|
|
seagrave
Member
|
20. February 2010 @ 23:41 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by samsayit:
The only thing I can see is different is the frame resolution where the original is 720x480 and the output XviD is 720x544 (this I have seen on other 4:3 conversions and has always been beyond my understanding but never complained because it usually looks OK anyway).
Will a 720x544 video even play on a standalone DVD player?
My concern is that in creating all those unnecessary extra pixels, it reduces the overall quality for any particular bitrate or increases the file size without any increase in quality.
I'd recode the affected files to bring them in line with the original source.
|
|
seagrave
Member
|
20. February 2010 @ 23:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by samsayit:
I'm using AutoGK to convert my entire DVD collection to XviD.
I use all default settings and Target Quality 75%.
Given how much more efficient mpeg4 is, isn't 75% of an mpeg2 source excessive? I often have to encode to mpeg2 at 75% with good results.
What's your end game? To put them all on DVD? Blu-Ray? Hard drive?
|
Senior Member
|
21. February 2010 @ 00:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by seagrave:
Originally posted by samsayit:
The only thing I can see is different is the frame resolution where the original is 720x480 and the output XviD is 720x544 (this I have seen on other 4:3 conversions and has always been beyond my understanding but never complained because it usually looks OK anyway).
Will a 720x544 video even play on a standalone DVD player?
My concern is that in creating all those unnecessary extra pixels, it reduces the overall quality for any particular bitrate or increases the file size without any increase in quality.
I'd recode the affected files to bring them in line with the original source.
I must admit, whenever I've encoded anything myself with the intent
of playing back on the standalone, I've limited the vertical
resolution to 480. The DVD player will resize it on the fly
anyway if it's bigger - I've had no problems playing 720*576 @25
FPS converted to NTSC in the player.
|
|
seagrave
Member
|
21. February 2010 @ 00:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by davexnet:
I must admit, whenever I've encoded anything myself with the intent of playing back on the standalone, I've limited the vertical resolution to 480. The DVD player will resize it on the fly
anyway if it's bigger - I've had no problems playing 720*576 @25
FPS converted to NTSC in the player.
Good to know... since I have 2 AVI capable DVD players.
But the bigger question remains.... in creating all those unnecessary pixels, does it reduce the overall quality for any particular bitrate or increase the file size without any increase in quality? After all, no matter how much you increase the resolution... there's no more data than in the original 720x480 source.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. February 2010 @ 00:57
|
Senior Member
|
21. February 2010 @ 01:18 |
Link to this message
|
In general, you're right. Nothing is really achieved by
increasing the vertical resolution.
However, if the source is PAL DVD (720*576) 720*544 is perfectly
valid.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. February 2010 @ 01:19
|
|
seagrave
Member
|
21. February 2010 @ 12:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by davexnet:
However, if the source is PAL DVD (720*576) 720*544 is perfectly valid.
True, but samsayit said the original was 480 so it had to be NTSC.
|
|
samsayit
Newbie
|
21. February 2010 @ 13:05 |
Link to this message
|
Guys, thanks for posting.
I'm a bit confused. if you do a calculation, 720x480 is not anywhere near 4:3 (it's a 1.5 ratio - 4:3 is 1.33).
The source is NTSC.
The goal is not to play these on DVD players, but to stream them from a media server to my PS3.
Frankly, I am by no means an expert in this field (although I'm not that green). The reason I chose AutoGK is that it's so easy to use and default settings produce decent quality (in most cases).
I might try out Handbrake - any recommended setup?
|
Senior Member
|
21. February 2010 @ 14:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by samsayit:
Guys, thanks for posting.
I'm a bit confused. if you do a calculation, 720x480 is not anywhere near 4:3 (it's a 1.5 ratio - 4:3 is 1.33).
The source is NTSC.
The goal is not to play these on DVD players, but to stream them from a media server to my PS3.
Frankly, I am by no means an expert in this field (although I'm not that green). The reason I chose AutoGK is that it's so easy to use and default settings produce decent quality (in most cases).
I might try out Handbrake - any recommended setup?
It's because the DVD has a display aspect ratio of 4:3 (or 16:9)
regardless of the SAR (720/480). The pixels are non-square.
Usually, AVI files are created 1:1 pixels so we have to compensate.
See this for details:
http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/31410...l=1#post1942276
|
|
seagrave
Member
|
21. February 2010 @ 19:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by samsayit:
).
I might try out Handbrake - any recommended setup?
Handbrake did a wonderful job encoding some grainy video to H264.
But I would not recommend it for XVID. In fact they were going to take XVID out to concentrate on H264.
You might want to checkout StaxRip.
|
|
samsayit
Newbie
|
24. February 2010 @ 21:59 |
Link to this message
|
Just a followup.
I tried in AutoGK forcing width to 640 and it produced 640x480 output (no extra lines).
Still had the problem of jitterish motion though, don't know why.
I used StaxRip on your suggestion - used default settings XviD conversion only resizing to 640x480 (to keep a clean 4:3 ratio), and the outout came out just nice, motion too!
Thanks for all your input guys, appreciate it!
|
|
ute4after
Newbie
|
23. April 2010 @ 02:16 |
Link to this message
|
I use AutoGK, the same version. I always use 2-Pass, encoding as Xvid. I set the
output size to just under 698Mb. I don't change anything, just letting AGK do the work and I never have any problems the OP writes about.
|
|
samsayit
Newbie
|
23. April 2010 @ 09:48 |
Link to this message
|
@ute4after:
That was my case too. I have converted hundred of titles, all came out great. But I got the problem on a few titles - some TV shows...
Whether you do 2-pass or not should have nothing to say in this at all. 2-pass is used when you set a target size. I don't use target size but target quality instead (75%) which generally produces much nicer quality (but also generally bigger size).
|
Moderator
|
23. April 2010 @ 10:32 |
Link to this message
|
I've also converted many hundred of movies, all came out great too, I only use 2-Pass, encoding as XviD.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules *** |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. April 2010 @ 11:48 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I used GSpot to see the framerate of the original DVD (VOB) files and it is 29.970
It is possible Staxrip has some filters enabled by default, which you maybe did not enable in AutoGK(to deal with Telecine or Interlace).
 Piss me off, and I Will ignore You!This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. April 2010 @ 11:51
|
