It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:18 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5957
In the old day zulm, this topic would have attracted lots of attention, but what about now.
Are there enough zulmies around, interested in this topic ??

Recently, lots of youtube videos, streaming videos etc are available with stated option of 720P, 1080P, 2K, 4K etc and yet although some are really good, some are just a 4K video up-scaled from a 10th generation VHS copy. Some are really much better than the so far available DVDs from the same company but not real Hi Def as stated in video properties.

Recently, I learnt a few tricks and discovered a few characteristics of some videos. Still, I'm no expert and it will have to be a collective effort to figure out currently available content in various formats.

If enough interest, we can start a discussion here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 331
Hi Rana,
pm'd you on another topic.

The current video quality is a vast topic.

One thing I would like to mention is that before when 4:3 ratio TVs were common, we got widescreen movies get cropped from sides. Now that 16:9 is common, we are getting them cropped from top and bottom if not a widescreen film. This is more common online YT or some old titles remastered for Blu Ray.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14978
brownboy05 wrote:
Hi Rana,
pm'd you on another topic.

The current video quality is a vast topic.

One thing I would like to mention is that before when 4:3 ratio TVs were common, we got widescreen movies get cropped from sides. Now that 16:9 is common, we are getting them cropped from top and bottom if not a widescreen film. This is more common online YT or some old titles remastered for Blu Ray.

It will never be a win but always be loose loose situation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:59 pm
Posts: 713
Location: Scotland
For me, the most frustrating part of these new, nice-looking YouTube clips from recent HD/4K restorations is the awful, constant decision to crop the aspect ratios from 4:3 to 16:9. For instance...

https://youtu.be/v2aS1O3YMv0

Grain removal and logos are hideous too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
Stephen wrote:
For me, the most frustrating part of these new, nice-looking YouTube clips from recent HD/4K restorations is the awful, constant decision to crop the aspect ratios from 4:3 to 16:9. For instance...

https://youtu.be/v2aS1O3YMv0

Grain removal and logos are hideous too.


Of course stuff like that are not restorations but severly altered recreations/remasterings for today's digital channels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5957
Just noticed and glad to see some activity.
Soon I will post my comments on presently good looking youtube videos while their DVDs from same source were crap. And other things I noticed/ concluded).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To brownboy05:
Quote:
brownboy05 wrote:
Hi Rana,
pm'd you on another topic.



I did not get the PM, you said you sent me in June 2019. Pl resend.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 331
rana wrote:
I did not get the PM, you said you sent me in June 2019. Pl resend.


Pm'd you again


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5957
rana wrote:
Just noticed and glad to see some activity.
Soon I will post my comments on presently good looking youtube videos while their DVDs from same source were crap. And other things I noticed/ concluded).


Here is my first comment:

Q: How come many youtube videos look better than DVD prints even if from same recording.

My Answer:

Recall, not most but all NTSC DVDs from ULTRA (& other India based companies) were PAL to NTSC convertred Field Averaged. Shemaroo & others - some film to NTSC and some were Film to PAL to NTSC Field Averaged. They all produced NTSC DVDs because all TV systems could play NTSC but not all could play PAL; AND India is a PAL country and had mostly PAL compatible equipment.

Youtube postings of the same content by same companies, most likely are from their master prints that were Film to PAL, And the youtube posting too is either Film to PAL @ 25 fps or Film to NTSC @ 24 fps. As computers can play 24 fps, 25 fps, 30 fps, 50 fps, 60 fps etc, there is no need to convert 25 fps material into NTSC.

Picture became fuzzy in DVDs because of Field Averaging and the youtube postings are, what we used to call, 25 fps default Progressive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:13 pm
Posts: 1295
Mr. Rana, I have noticed that YouTube's technical details list frame rate for most videos, and it seems accurate for most times. However, the songs of Amrapali run at film speed (my inference is based on the pitch of audio compared to the previous field averaged versions of the film) however, labeled as "25" in the attribute section. What are the odds here?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIlCqg__Nvg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:13 pm
Posts: 1295
Here is a new version of Kati Patang. This one has the same content as EVP DVD which was 24 fps. However, this 25 fps version runs at the same rate with no 4% speed shift.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U44HKiKsB78



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:13 pm
Posts: 1295
Again, a song from Ujala at film speed, though labeled as 25 fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWi16HyV_4



Here is another song from the same film from the same channel/source, but sped up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVLvnK4VlGc



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5957
Ragz wrote:
Mr. Rana, I have noticed that YouTube's technical details list frame rate for most videos, and it seems accurate for most times. However, the songs of Amrapali run at film speed (my inference is based on the pitch of audio compared to the previous field averaged versions of the film) however, labeled as "25" in the attribute section. What are the odds here?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIlCqg__Nvg

Let's see what's going on in this clip. I brought this youtube video into my VLC player. VLC's video info clearly states 25 fps. You said, audio is 4% slower than 25 fps field averaged DVD video.

And yet, both statements can be true. I'm not 100% sure but most likely my findings will be same as any one else's (Of course video tech who mastered this video, knows for sure). I tried to frame advance frame by frame. Somehow VLC video timer did not advance (other videos, it does). And, many frame advance you advance one frame but many are repeat frames, sometimes 3 at a time. So, if the played audio at normal speed and inserted frames and filled up 25 fps, you do get no 4% speed up as well as normal audio speed. Ingenious! I do not know if there is auto program for that or if they did it painstakingly, frame by frame.
Now, as far as lyp sinc is concerned, if a frame gets repeated 5-6 times in a one second period, you won't get the lyp sinc problem.

I'll look into other clips later on, one by one.

--------------------------------------------
BTW, filling up frames technique can also be used to replace/ add damaged frames with repeated frames. Only 14 frames are required per second to fool the eye. 24 frames film standard was used for cushion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5957
rana wrote:
Raghuvir wrote:
Some Shemaroo movies are pseudo progressive, but the songs from the same movies in somg compilation DVDs are field averaged.
Examples : Their actual mea DVD is pseudo Prog. but the songs in compilation DVDs are field averaged.
If that is possible, isn't making field avgd videos pseudo prog possible??


LOL!
No mystery here.

Shemaroo does not stay with same encoding. There are lots of Shemaroo DVDs that were Pseudo Prog in the earlier releases and now are Field Averaged in newer batches. Mughl-e-Azam is one of those films. Moreover, it has many versions for B/W version (I'm not sure about colored version).

(Satyam Shivam Sundaram and Ram Teri Ganga Mailee had pseudo-prog DVDs in first Shemaroo release and I've encountered field averaged Shemaroo current batches; There are others too)

Obviously Shemaroo has setups for NTSC as well as PAL mastering. It's a toss, whether a transfer ends up at NTSC machine or at PAL machine. If master is in PAL, no big deal, they just make a NTSC DVD out of it (mostly field averaged). Anytime a Film to PAL transfer is done, it has gone thru 4% speed up (standard practice).

Prog/ Pseudo-Prog: one video frame contains picture from one film frame only.
Field Averaged: One video frame contains picture from 1 to 3 film frames (mostly 2 film frames).

Can you extract original frames from field averaged frame: Just the same as a camera shot with long exposure will give a fuzzy picture for a moving object, it's the same for field averaged picture.

Talking of Ram Teri Ganga Mailee, recently saw it on IPTV Box on OLED TV (free legal/ illegal hardware max res is 1280x720, not even a 1080p/i), and it sure had an excellent (Shemaroo) print. Then, also found it on youtube marked as HD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmVzbgtw2Vk&t=448s
I assumed it to be same Shemaroo DVD upscaled to HD ?? Then tried my Shemaroo DVD (thought to be excellent print in those days) and, what a difference. Crap VHS print vs HD. So, sure it was another mastering by Shemaroo (but no Blu Ray listed). Some Shemaroo RTGM DVDs were NTSC pseudo-prog (24 fps- no speed up) and some were field averaged. Youtube (& IPTV Box) is 25 fps (4% speed up). Also noticeable from runtime 178 min vs 171 min.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 5957
Just wonder:

There is lots of 4K Bollywood material on youtube. But, what do you make of it when the video caption says
Murder 3 Full Hindi Indian Bollywood Movie 2013 Full 1080p 4K HD Blueray rip Movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUWujUgC7hg

Ripped from Blu Ray that was 1080P to begin with.

---------------------------------------
I suspect most of the Bollywood videos are upscaled from lower res videos. 480i or 480P or PALs upscaled to 720P or sometimes to 1080P or even to 4K.

Recall a 480P NTSC res is something like 640x480 and Monitor pixels are never exactly the same. Mostly Monitor native res (pixel matrix) is much higher. So Matrix conversion from video matrix to Monitor matrix is always going on.
So, you have a UHD TV (4K). Which 4K conversion is better, one done by your TV or by the video poster's upscaler ??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14978
rana wrote:
Just wonder:

There is lots of 4K Bollywood material on youtube. But, what do you make of it when the video caption says
Murder 3 Full Hindi Indian Bollywood Movie 2013 Full 1080p 4K HD Blueray rip Movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUWujUgC7hg

Ripped from Blu Ray that was 1080P to begin with.

---------------------------------------
I suspect most of the Bollywood videos are upscaled from lower res videos. 480i or 480P or PALs upscaled to 720P or sometimes to 1080P or even to 4K.

Recall a 480P NTSC res is something like 640x480 and Monitor pixels are never exactly the same. Mostly Monitor native res (pixel matrix) is much higher. So Matrix conversion from video matrix to Monitor matrix is always going on.
So, you have a UHD TV (4K). Which 4K conversion is better, one done by your TV or by the video poster's upscaler ??

You do have a very good 4k Tv with built in youtube app. Plsy murder 34 4k and then 1080p bluray if u have it? And see the difference your self.
I would assume ur tv shall display youtube with no upscale and upscale 1080p to 4k ;) that shall show u which upscaler was better!
Now there is another way, 1080p bluesy player with 4k upscaler built in, or a 4k player that can play and upscale your bluray. Now you can assign the scaler to tv or player.
Generally i have seen sony,s video processing and upscaling be superior both player and their oled tvs. I am not that thrilled with LG!
I have an oppo 4k player that is discontinued now and was supposed to be champ of its art ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group