Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Technique › Editing › AVI-DV encoding to H.264 with Jaggies
November 26, 2014 at 9:07 PM #84576
I am capturing older SD-DV tapes with Pr Pro CC 2014 which of course saves them to AVI-DV. My streamer (WDTV live) will not play these files so although of course I will keep them for archive purposes, I need to encode a copy with AME just to view with the streamer. I have the space on a NAS so that is not the issue.
So I encoded to MP4 using H.264 ad AAC. I initially used he "match source" option with the medium bitrate preset which should be appropriate for SD content.
My issue is that upon playin the H.264 video back on my PC I noticed jaggies or whatever the correct term is when there is camera movement.
The original AVI-DV file did not have these artifacts. I then tried a variety of H.264 presets and they all had the same artifact. Strange…..Now could this just be that Windows Media Player does not recognize that the H264 footage is interlaced and does not decode correctly? I read that might be a possibility. I could live with that since the eventual use is not on PC but on a HDTV
Interestingly when I used the MPEG-2 NTSC DV preset in AME that file looks fine. So perhaps this is just a playback issue with WMP? I just want to encode with whatever codec would get me the best quality out of these SD clips. I thought H.264 was the most current codec but I don't want to go through all of this and find I have an issue.
Any thoughts appreciated.
PS. I had to type very slow to get the forum to recognize keystrokes and paste from word or to text did not work….
December 6, 2014 at 4:31 PM #211437
Still at loss here. Trying to decide whether to encode to MPEG-2 or H.264. With all the knowledge on this forum, any thoughts would be most appreciated.
FWIW Windvd pro 11 (admittedly an older version) has the same issue.
I am pretty sure this is a progessive vs. interlaced issue. Just not sure if it is an encoding or playback issue.
December 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM #211446
It sounds like you are experiencing improper de-interlacing. I know that in PPro CS4 interlaced DV-AVI's will play fine, but if I try to play the files in Windows Media Player the image will be full of a combing effect. Think of what a TV screen looks like if you put a comb over part of the screen and just watch the area with the comb. But it's not just SD material this affts; I've downloaded TV shows from iTunes that we're obviously shot in 1080i, and were not converted to Progressive correctly (iTunes MP4 files are natively progressive). There's not much you can do: if you do a software de-interlace you are throwing away half your image whereas a hardware conversion will give you an image that looks like your original, but in progressive.
December 15, 2014 at 6:36 PM #211448
Thanks! So if I am reading this right, you are saying that my transcoded H.264 files (which were made with the "same as original source" AME setting) are just not being read and decoded correctly by WMP. But my file is properly created and will be played correctly by my WDTV live streamer and HDTV? I don't really care how they look on a PC.
December 16, 2014 at 4:21 AM #211452
If you are putting the files onto DVD make sure you save the MPEG-2 as an interlace file and it goes on the DVD as an interlace file.
unfortunately with H.264 when you save it as the original source, the encoder will still be converting it to progressive, albeit without throwing away the extra field or aligning it correctly. With Interlace you have to remember the fields captured two slightly different moments in time, and while that was fine in the past, in today's world of progressive screens every where just about every electronic device you can think of has a progressive screen (the iPhone, the tablet, your computer monitor) interlace doesn't always work the best. So with H.264, unless you do a hardware conversion by a Terranex or another converter, you are going to get the combing effect or loss of resolution.
December 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM #211460
Thanks for the insight. I am not trascoding for DVD use, just to play on the WDTV streamer. I will have the original AVI-DV capture if I ever want to edit, so I would start with that.
So…..I have read that AME does not do a great job converting interlaced to progressive….and you are telling me that H.264 wil convert my SD AVI-DV file to progressive whether I say "same as soure" (which is interlaced) or not.
I totally get the MPEG2 comment about making it interlaced and the DVD too and these always looked geat on an HDTV even as SD.
So,based on all that, perhaps my best soluion is to encode to MPEG2 (same as source) which will keep it interlaced and will dislay well on an HDTV similar to how my DVD's look.
Do I have it? All makes sense other than why H.264 ignores the progressie/inerlaced setting… Seems like since H.264 is a more modern codec, if it would just keep it interlaced that would be good. Anway, I feel like I am gettng closer to a solution!
December 17, 2014 at 6:50 PM #211467
March 7, 2015 at 2:28 PM #211858
Okay, thanks for the handbrake suggestion. I have used that too. My Adobe media encoder also has those options I think. Unless Handbrake does somthing special with SD AVI interlaced sources.
Here is what I have determined. I have encoded using a variety of H.264 settings. All of them look okay on an HDTV. All look jaggy with Msft Media Player or Corel WinDVD on a PC. The MPEG2 encoding looks good on both.
So if I encode this huge batch of videos to H.264, they will only look good on a TV.
If I encode to MPEG2, they will look good on both. However I wonder if I am limiting my future useability of these videos for mobile devices using an old codec?
Am I missing something with the above analysis? I don't care about file size.
March 8, 2015 at 7:56 PM #211863
O absolutely I will be keeping my DV-AVI files and tapes!
Just trying to figure the best enoding to play on other devices like my Western Digital streamer that won't play my DV-AVI files.
I read that the problem is not so much the monitor tying to show both fields as the software player recognizing that the H.264 video is interlaced. I guess the players do recognize when the MPEG-2 encodes are interlaced, perhaps due to its heavy use for DVD's?
Unless it is a typo, surprised that you said your MPEG-2's don't look good outside of Pr Pro (which I also use). My DV-AVI's and MPEG-2's look fine in Windows Media player on a monitor. Signicantly different than how the H.264 files look.
March 9, 2015 at 12:51 PM #211867
If I'm watching something that was progressive to begin with, or does not have a lot of action (i.e. talking head during an interview), I don't get any jagged lines (or in the case of the talking head, if the person moves their head, the I'll see the jagged lines). But when there is lots of action in the interlace picture, then can I ever see the lines, since the both fields were captured at 2 differen points in time, and on a progressive moniter it will try to display the interlace video as a progressive video. (Progressive TV's even have de-interlacers built in to help deal with analog sources, but those are very primitive and if you've ever watched a VHS or played an older video game cosole, those do not do the best job.) Other times I also get a ghosting effect, which is another sign of improper deinterlacing.
And the same goes for AVCHD. If you don't deinterlace the video correctly, then you'll get the jaggies. And I've exported many files, as tests for upload to Youtube, from 480i sources as 480p without telling the computer to deinterlace, and they've all looked jagged.
With the MPEG-2, unless I'm watcing it from a DVD, interlace MPEG only plays fine in PPro.
March 12, 2015 at 3:09 PM #211888artsmithParticipant
By the purest coincidence, I have been doing something very similar to what I think you require, namely conversion of m2ts formatted HD shot at 25 frames/sec. of irreplaceable documentary material from 2013. The source files have been interlaced and my concern has been to convert them to progressive at 50 frames/sec. I am not kidding myself that the process will magically interpolate into existence the missing intermediate frames, just to ensure compatibility with more modern material shot at 50 frames/sec. I have used TMPGEnc (Pegasys) Video Mastering Works, and irrespective of the orginal scanning bit-rate, I have output the material at 45,000 kB/sec again with future compatibility in mind. Although the footage is in 1920 x 1080 in both cases, I am quite happy wth the outcomes, especially since the material had previously been through 'Mercalli' v4, for various stabilisations. I would strongly advise AVCHD, using the h264 codec and forgetting about mpg2 altogether, as in my view, it has had-its-day. I hear good things about h265, if the industry is evergoing to stop pussy-footing aound it and get a standardised and viable version of it onto the market, which won't require re-mortgaging.
March 12, 2015 at 5:32 PM #211890
Thanks! I have almost decided to encode to BOTH MPEG-2 AND H.264. The file sizes are small enough and I am keeping my originals! Best of both worlds. MPEG-2 will look good on PC's and either will look good on HDTV.
If I am not mistaken, AVCHD is a container which usually has H.264 encoding so my encoding with H.264 in an MP4 container would be the same? Do I have that right?
March 12, 2015 at 6:33 PM #211891
AVCHD is only good as a final end delivery method (also in this case you would gain nothing by going from Standard-Definition to High-Definition). Besides being extremely compressed, it's color is also the worst of all the HD/SD codecs out there.
Just for for arguments sake here, if you went from 640 by 480 DV to 1920 by 1080 AVCHD, you would be taking a color that would be stored at a 160 by 120 and saving it in a space that was 465 by 270, and then stretching that color to 1080 on playback (compared to stretching it to 640 by 480 for DV or MPEG-2). In this argument, AVCHD would be a waste and would even damage your video. Plus no matter how many ways you slice it, when you go from DV's CBR 25Mbps to AVCHD's VBR 5.0-8.0Mbps, you are damaging your video, and throwing out information that you may need.
Also H.264 is a codec, just like MP4 is both a codec and wrapper.
June 1, 2015 at 12:50 PM #212373
Thanks, I will check out Pavtube. My current solution is very low tech! I am keeping my original DV files for archive purposes. Then I am using Adobe Media encoder to concurrently encode both an H.264 and an MPEG-2 version (straight up with no deinterlace or other processing). The H.264 looks better on PC and mobile and MPEG-2 looks good on HDTV. Disk spaceis cheap, but if there is an easy solution so I can live with one, I will check it out
December 17, 2014 at 2:41 PM #211465
Another option you could try is to convert the file to a Blu-Ray AVC H.264 file, since there is allowance in that profile for interlace, since there are Blu-Rays out there that have 1080i video (although most Blu-ray's, when they include SD material the SD material is in MPEG-2), plus the Blu-Ray H.264, as far as I'm aware, is also used for broadcast.
But the majority of the H.264 profiles are designed for internet transmission.
Upconverting DVD and Blu-Ray players tend to have the best upscaler's and de-interlacers out there, so with discs just get yourself a $25 dollar DVD player from Walmart that upconverts and you can see your video in the best possible HD upconversion possible.
March 8, 2015 at 12:26 PM #211861
I've noticed that even when I play my DV-AVI an MPEG-2's outside of Adobe Premiere Pro, the video has a lot of jagged edges. This is due to the video being interlace, and a progressive monitor trying to show both fields at the same time,. Premiere Pro has a de-interlacer thtat de-interlaces interlace video.
For future proofing your video, keep your DV-AVI's, and make all your copies from these, as they will be your highest quality. Your MPEG-2's and H.264 copies are highly compressed copies.
Also, make sure you keep your tapes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.