Hi there - can someone tell me if there is anything I have to do (settings, etc.) before processing video identified as Progressive? I'm using Gordian Knot, which has produced excellent results for me from Interlaced video. I've noticed that a couple of processed Progressive video movies don't have good image quality, mostly on sharp edges; other areas such as faces are okay, though. Thanks for any advice
Progressive sources offer the most quality compared to interlaced ones inmo. Anyways, if you have an NTSC dvd then the dvd is telecined. Just select an Inverse Telecine filter in gordian knot and encode. Good Luck.
From what Ive read on http://www.doom9.org , you just set the FPS to 25.000 and set Field Operations to NONE.
I processed another movie, this time Interlaced video (Gordian Knot, DivX 5 62% quality, 1527Kbps, total file size: 1,331,352 KB), and I got the same substandard DivX video image Here's an example: You can see from the titles of this movie the very bad edge definition, which is the problem. Any suggestions? I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling my codecs.
Well, I uninstalled Gordian Knot and reset the registry keys, and hopefully that's fixed the problem. After reinstalling GK I started a test encoding of the same film (stopping the coding just after the titles), and the video seems great. I will try encoding the whole film again and see what happens
It seems uninstalling all the codecs and stuff and resetting to defaults has fixed the problem I also went back to DivX 5.0.5, but I don't know if that made any difference. I use the setting Separate Fields [fast] for interlaced video now, which gives great results.
Glad to hear you got it worked out. Yeah, I really do not like to work with interlaced material because you can't deinterlace them 100%. There will always be some artifacts left(scanlines...) If youre lucky and have a good source its unnoticable, but if youve got a really bad source youll just have to live with it if you cant find a suitable filter that can do the job right. BTW, was divx 5.1 considerably slower than 5.05 or was the slower encoding speed not that much behind? Im asking because Im a little hesitant to upgrade until they come up with a few fixes to the bugs that people seem to be experiencing, and find a way to have the codec encode at similar speeds to 5.05.
I didn't notice any difference in processing time with the DivX 5.1 codec. The 110min movie (mentioned in this topic) finished 2 passes with a total file size of approx. 1300MB in 2hrs 35mins - the usual for my DivX movies. I have noticed very faint scan lines on some of my interlaced-sourced DivX video, but not noticeable enough to affect the viewing picture.
