Aliasing, artifacts and moire?

Jerry K wrote on 4/8/2011, 5:24 AM

I've asked this question before and hope this time some one will have a better answer on a work around.

I shoot with a Sony HDR-AX2000 set to AVCHD 1080 X 1920 60i. I edit with Sony Vegas 9c. I edit the raw AVCHD files and then down convert them to standard definition DVD.

Here's my problem we are not happy with the Aliasing, artifacts and moire from the downconvert process. If I downconvert with Vegas sharpness filter at "0" the video is sharp but very annoying to view with all the Aliasing, artifacts and moire. If I create the DVD with out a sharpness filter the video is very watchable but flat.

I have tried making a DVD with "0" sharpness and then using a blur filter to tone it down 50% being Vegas sharpness filter at "0" is a tab too much and we can't back it off. This did not help the problem.

I know others are having the same issue and would like to hear back on how you are dealing with it?

Thanks, Jerry K

Back to post

Comments

craftech wrote on 9/29/2011, 10:55 AM

I want to post this first without saying how I did it:
================================

Nice handling of twitter for Jerry's Voodoo Doll.

John

Laurence wrote on 9/29/2011, 1:02 PM

Just to make sure that I am on the same page as everyone else: my assessment is that this is progressive footage flagged as interlaced. Is that correct?

amendegw wrote on 9/29/2011, 1:43 PM

"Just to make sure that I am on the same page as everyone else: my assessment is that this is progressive footage flagged as interlaced. Is that correct?"The source is true 1920x1080 60i (not PF30, as my Canon calls 30p embedded in 60i).

The original assignment was to take this ugly/nasty source and produce the best quality SD DVD render. Documented here: HD to SD Challenge The original procedure called for posting the results to YouTube, but we soon learned that the only valid comparison was at the interlaced .mpg level.

All that said, the original assignment may have (certainly has) morphed via various threads & tests in this forum.

...Jerry

Laurence wrote on 9/29/2011, 9:46 PM

I can't see any interlaced comb in the original. It looks like progressive to me, regardless of what the flags and camera settings say. My latest version several posts back was done with no deinterlace method selected and as if it was progressive, and the fact that it looks as good as it does leads me to suspect that is not in fact interlaced. If it was, the way I did it would look horrible.

amendegw wrote on 9/30/2011, 5:55 AM

"I can't see any interlaced comb in the original. It looks like progressive to me, regardless of what the flags and camera settings say. My latest version several posts back was done with no deinterlace method selected and as if it was progressive, and the fact that it looks as good as it does leads me to suspect that is not in fact interlaced."Hmmm, just playing around a little this morning, here's the way I would test for PF30 vs 60i (you'll want to view the video at fullscreen 720p). It was quick-and-dirty. I got the SnagIt capture framesize wrong and forgot to capture the cursor movement, but I didn't want to re-do the capture.

...Jerry

Laurence wrote on 9/30/2011, 7:16 AM

Fair enough, Yes it does look like 60i. What I used was the Boris BCC7 uprezzer but as a downrezzer. Not much good for downrezzing when you want to preserve the interlace however, extremely good if you don't mind losing the interlace.

johnmeyer wrote on 9/30/2011, 12:00 PM

I can't see any interlaced comb in the original. It looks like progressive to me ...I just downloaded the original source and tested. It is quite definitely interlaced NTSC (i.e., "60i") upper field first.

AlenK wrote on 10/10/2011, 1:37 PM

Hi Guys,

I've been following the discsussion here with great interest and I've gone back and read the previous "HD to SD challenge" thread. No doubt I will have some relevant questions to ask soon, but my first question is actually about this forum and one called "Sony Talk."

A portion of this thread, and all of the "HD to SD Challenge" thread, appear to be replicated in the Sony Talk forum but with bogus names and bogus dates. The dates are older than what I presume are the real dates here (e.g., the first post in this thread is dated April 8, 2011 here but is dated September 30, 2010 there).
http://www.sonytalk.com/aliasing-artifacts-and-moire-t84242.html

"Copy" of "HD to SD Challenge" thread on Sony Talk:
http://www.sonytalk.com/challenge-t16735.html

This is confusing. Is Sony Talk a real discussion forum? If so why are threads posted here replicated there with bogus names and dates?

Laurence wrote on 10/10/2011, 1:40 PM

I certainly look cuter on the other site as "Elena Alina"

john_dennis wrote on 10/10/2011, 2:09 PM

"Is Sony Talk a real discussion forum?"

No! Feel free to ignore it and come here. If you search, you'll find a discussion about this site in the last few months. The more you ignore it the better.

PeterDuke wrote on 10/10/2011, 6:40 PM

"Elena Alina" sounds a bit like "Tina Arena".

AlenK wrote on 10/10/2011, 10:14 PM

Thanks for the explanation. Sorry to momentarily derail the thread. So they "steal" this forum's content to generate ad revenue and phish for personal information. And it's been going on for a while now. Wonderful.

musicvid10 wrote on 10/10/2011, 11:55 PM

"So they "steal" this forum's content to generate ad revenue and phish for personal information. And it's been going on for a while now. Wonderful."

Here's the earlier thread on these site-scrapers:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=769062

1 … 3 4 5 6

of 6