Forum archive - Are there progressive scan DVD discs??

Forum Archive Home -> DVD Ripping -> Are there progressive scan DVD discs??

Are there progressive scan DVD discs??

seekt posted 2009 Oct 17 16:21

Those dvd rips found on the net, 272 pixels tall, are no mystery for me... I guess they are deinterlaced PAL dvds. But what about 384 pixels? Some dvd rippers release these files on the net, and it doesn't seem it's possible to achieve the same quality by any deinterlacing process. Any clue of how these rips are made?

DereX888 posted 2009 Oct 17 18:25

seekt : Those dvd rips found on the net, 272 pixels tall, are no mystery for me... I guess they are deinterlaced PAL dvds. But what about 384 pixels? Some dvd rippers release these files on the net, and it doesn't seem it's possible to achieve the same quality by any deinterlacing process. Any clue of how these rips are made? What a video's resolution has to do with deinterlacing? 512x384 is a perfect 4:3 res 682x384 is a near match for 16:9 res If the source is DVD-Video or BD obviously they were resized

edDV posted 2009 Oct 17 19:03

See What is DVD? http://www.videohelp.com/dvd "NTSC" progressive would be 720x480p @ 23.976 fps "PAL" progressive would usually be 720x576 either P or i @25fps

seekt posted 2009 Oct 17 20:43

DereX888 : What a video's resolution has to do with deinterlacing? From the tests I runned I could notice that the best quality is achieved by excluding one field. Through all the other deinterlacing methods, the picture gets blurry. And those 384 pixels videos have a pretty sharp picture, as though they were ripped directly from the 24 fps theatrical film. edDV, my question is whether the movie industry releases these progressive DVDs. I have only seen 29,97fps interlaced so far. Thanks!

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 17 20:55

Most NTSC movie DVDs are encoded progressive with 3:2 pulldown flags. If your software doesn't perform the pulldown to 29.97 fps you will get 23.976 fps progressive frames. Anime and some television shows are the exceptions -- they are often encoded 29.97 fps interlaced.

DereX888 posted 2009 Oct 17 22:15

seekt : DereX888 : What a video's resolution has to do with deinterlacing? From the tests I runned I could notice that the best quality is achieved by excluding one field. Through all the other deinterlacing methods, the picture gets blurry. And those 384 pixels videos have a pretty sharp picture, as though they were ripped directly from the 24 fps theatrical film. Again: what video's resolution has to do with (whatever better or worse) deinterlacing job?

manono posted 2009 Oct 17 23:44

seekt : Those dvd rips found on the net, 272 pixels tall, are no mystery for me... I guess they are deinterlaced PAL dvds. But what about 384 pixels? Some dvd rippers release these files on the net, and it doesn't seem it's possible to achieve the same quality by any deinterlacing process. Any clue of how these rips are made? Yeah, I think seekt needs to do some serious reading. A height of 272 is often a 640x272 2.35:1 AVI and has nothing by itself to do with PAL/NTSC or with deinterlacing. If the framerate is 25fps, the source was likely a PAL DVD and if 23.976fps, probably from an NTSC DVD. As for a height of 384 pixels, those are often 1.33:1 512x384 AVIs as DereX888 also speculated and, again, nothing to do with deinterlacing. It's not only possible to achieve the quality you've seen, but sometimes (often?) possible to achieve better quality, if you know what you're doing. If you want to get started on converting DVD to AVI, I might suggest taking a look at AutoGK.

seekt posted 2009 Oct 19 10:22

According to 100fps.com: "When you buy a DVD, some are encoded with interlaced frames and some are progressive. The output is always interlaced of course (except for some special DVD players) because TV Sets usually don't support progressive input." I really don't believe that a progressive encoded dvd would be the same picture quality as an interlaced one. The reason should be obvious. Think dudes, think.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 19 10:37

seekt : I really don't believe that a progressive encoded dvd would be the same picture quality as an interlaced one. The reason should be obvious. Why don't you spell it out for us?

seekt posted 2009 Oct 19 11:38

An even better quote from 100fps.com: "There are 2 kinds of DVDs: Some have an interlaced format (like the examples above) and some are transferred from film to DVD directly, thus have 25 progressive frames encoded. This is purely a decision of the DVD company." Why would the company choose progressive over interlaced? Scroll down 100fps a little and you'll find the answer.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 19 12:25

seekt : "There are 2 kinds of DVDs: Some have an interlaced format (like the examples above) and some are transferred from film to DVD directly, thus have 25 progressive frames encoded. This is purely a decision of the DVD company." Why would the company choose progressive over interlaced? Scroll down 100fps a little and you'll find the answer. There is nothing there about why progressive encoding is better than interlaced encoding. And the author there has only a basic knowledge of interlaced video and how to handle it. Many of his samples show incorrect handling of the chroma channels and he doesn't even realize it. See the section where he says "some digital camcorders have something you could call "color interlacing." His interlaced sources could have been deinterlaced much better and without the chroma problems. Your understanding of interlaced video and how to handle it is even poorer. It has already been explained that most film sourced DVDs are not encoded interlaced. So there is no reason to perform a drop field deinterlace when converting to progressive AVI formats.

neomaine posted 2009 Oct 19 12:33

seekt : According to 100fps.com: ... I really don't believe that a progressive encoded dvd would be the same picture quality as an interlaced one. The reason should be obvious. Think dudes, think. I'm really happy that you're looking into things and doing some research. However, you're interpreting the info that you've seen so far incorrectly. As other have pointed out you need to understand some terminology first. The 'What Is' section would do you wonders. Listening to the likes of jagabo and manono. As far as your statement above: I don't see the same quality either when watching a DVD in interlaced 480i or its native 480p! The ingredients: - DVD - DVD Player - Display (TV/Monitor) In most cases, NTSC DVDs are 480p natively. However, a older non-progressive scan (ie. interlaced) player will output this in 480i so that it could match its display, usually a interlaced TV. Now fast forward to today, taking that same 480p but using a progressive scan DVD player and a progressive scan display and you have a MUCH cleaner picture. No conversions necessary. I guess you can say a non-progressive scan DVD player 'dumbed' down the picture for the sake of the display but future proofed for when progressive scan displays were more widely available. (Though there have been progressive scan TVs available but they were quite expensive. Same for progressive scan DVD players.)

manono posted 2009 Oct 19 20:27

I would like to reiterate that the 100fps site isn't the guidebook or manual or bible for anything. Much of the information found on that site is just plain wrong, some misleading. I also think you're confusing a progressive source with how it's been encoded. Most PAL movies on DVD use a progressive source, but those same PAL movies are encoded as interlaced. And they don't show any of the fine horizontal black lines often called 'combing'. As for NTSC DVDs, most are encoded as progressive with 3:2 pulldown applied so that they output interlaced 29.97fps. Some have in the past been, and some still are, encoded as interlaced 29.97fps, with the telecine encoded into the video. This kind is inferior to the progressively encoded ones. For NTSC you definitely want a progressively encoded DVD, for encoder efficiency if for no other reason. For PAL it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference, unless you have phase-shifted fields, funky NTSC2PAL conversions, or other foul-ups.

edDV posted 2009 Oct 19 21:27

manono : I would like to reiterate that the 100fps site isn't the guidebook or manual or bible for anything. Much of the information found on that site is just plain wrong, some misleading. I also think you're confusing a progressive source with how it's been encoded. Most PAL movies on DVD use a progressive source, but those same PAL movies are encoded as interlaced. And they don't show any of the fine horizontal black lines often called 'combing'. As for NTSC DVDs, most are encoded as progressive with 3:2 pulldown applied so that they output interlaced 29.97fps. Some have in the past been, and some still are, encoded as interlaced 29.97fps, with the telecine encoded into the video. This kind is inferior to the progressively encoded ones. For NTSC you definitely want a progressively encoded DVD, for encoder efficiency if for no other reason. For PAL it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference, unless you have phase-shifted fields, funky NTSC2PAL conversions, or other foul-ups. This all assumes a progressive source and doesn't apply to consumer camcorders or "live" TV. This subject is more complicated than it first appears.

manono posted 2009 Oct 19 22:12

edDV : This all assumes a progressive source... Yes it does, but as near as I can tell that's what seekt is discussing - movies on DVD: seekt : edDV, my question is whether the movie industry releases these progressive DVDs. I have only seen 29,97fps interlaced so far. And since all NTSC DVDs output interlaced 29.97fps, many apps that might give information on the video will show even progressively encoded MPEG-2 video as interlaced 29.97fps. GSpot does this, for example, although a closer reading of the information given will tell you how it was really encoded.

seekt posted 2009 Oct 19 23:53

manono : I also think you're confusing a progressive source with how it's been encoded. Most PAL movies on DVD use a progressive source, but those same PAL movies are encoded as interlaced. And they don't show any of the fine horizontal black lines often called 'combing'. As for NTSC DVDs, most are encoded as progressive with 3:2 pulldown applied so that they output interlaced 29.97fps. Some have in the past been, and some still are, encoded as interlaced 29.97fps, with the telecine encoded into the video. This kind is inferior to the progressively encoded ones. I was reading about this right now. It has been said that the best way to reconstruct the progressive frames would be through inverse telecine, but it is not a perfect process and leaves interlaced frames. I tried it myself and could see that indeed VirtualDub is not able to identify all telecine. The other way mentioned, deinterlacing, is what I tried earlier. neomaine : As far as your statement above: I don't see the same quality either when watching a DVD in interlaced 480i or its native 480p! The ingredients: - DVD - DVD Player - Display (TV/Monitor) I have never put my hands on a PAL DVD, but I'm suspicious of their quality being much better than NTSC. Mixing interlaced and progressive means degrading the project's final vertical resolution. In my opinion, NTSC's picture quality stays between 480 and 240 pixels. Even the progressive frames are not commited to full 480 pixels quality since the final motion picture is already compromised by those 2 telecine frames ahead. The great interrogation arised in my head after I downloaded a DVDRip that makes my NTSC DVD look like youtube video. And my DVD makes that DVDRip look like High Definition. :D

manono posted 2009 Oct 20 01:29

seekt : I was reading about this right now. It has been said that the best way to reconstruct the progressive frames would be through inverse telecine, but it is not a perfect process and leaves interlaced frames. I tried it myself and could see that indeed VirtualDub is not able to identify all telecine. The other way mentioned, deinterlacing, is what I tried earlier. You IVTC using an AviSynth script and one of its IVTC filters, and not the lousy IVTC in VDub. That's if it needs an IVTC. And if it does, then deinterlacing it is exactly the wrong thing to do. You might post a small 10 second sample of the video - a sample showing steady movement - so we can understand how best to treat it. Again, I suggest that if you're converting a DVD to AVI (XviD, DivX), that you try AutoGK. It can easily IVTC the video, if that's what's needed. seekt : I have never put my hands on a PAL DVD, but I'm suspicious of their quality being much better than NTSC. Mixing interlaced and progressive means degrading the project's final vertical resolution. In my opinion, NTSC's picture quality stays between 480 and 240 pixels. Even the progressive frames are not commited to full 480 pixels quality since the final motion picture is already compromised by those 2 telecine frames ahead. The great interrogation arised in my head after I downloaded a DVDRip that makes my NTSC DVD look like youtube video. And my DVD makes that DVDRip look like High Definition. :D Some of what you say is nonsensical; the rest is just plain wrong.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 20 06:50

I suspect you are dealing with animated material which often has a mix of 24 fps progressive, 30 fps progressive (30 different pictures per second), and 30 fps interlaced (60 different pictures per second). In addition to that some of the character animation is done around 12 or 15 fps with simple frame repeats to create 24 or 30 fps progressive frames. The only way to get the 24p, 30p, and 30i sections all to play smoothly is to (smart) bob to 60 fps.

seekt posted 2009 Oct 20 10:45

manono : Some of what you say is nonsensical; the rest is just plain wrong. Of course is nonsensical and wrong, since you believe that you are right and everyone else wrong. The guy from 100fps is the fool and you the master. People that focus on finding fault on other's speech are never concerned in learning but bragging about their own knowledge. Neither 100fps is the guide, manual or bible for anything, nor you. Again, if you're so good, read 100fps and perceive the obvious that you still wasn't able to learn. Pay close attention to edDV's last reply. He's right, camcorders and live TV has everything to do with what I'm talking about.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 20 11:03

seekt : Again, if you're so good, read 100fps and perceive the obvious that you still wasn't able to learn. I guaranty you, manono knows far more about interlaced video than the author at 100fps.

poisondeathray posted 2009 Oct 20 11:06

jagabo : seekt : Again, if you're so good, read 100fps and perceive the obvious that you still wasn't able to learn. I guaranty you, manono knows far more about interlaced video than the author at 100fps. +1

seekt posted 2009 Oct 20 12:08

jagabo : I guaranty you, manono knows far more about interlaced video than the author at 100fps. Uh, he knows far more about INTERLACED VIDEO. And according to his own words, 100fps isn't a guide for ANYTHING. Quite hard word to use, don't you think? Or do you think this is nonsense and plain wrong? Video Fundamentalism :shock:

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 20 12:16

seekt : manono... according to his own words, 100fps isn't a guide for ANYTHING. Quite hard word to use, don't you think? Yes. I found the site useful when I was first learning about interlaced video and deinterlacing. But now that I know more I can see it has its shortcomings and errors. Tools have advanced quite a lot since it was written, many years ago. seekt : Again, if you're so good, read 100fps and perceive the obvious that you still wasn't able to learn. Quite hard on him, don't you think?

poisondeathray posted 2009 Oct 20 12:18

You won't find a guy that knows more about DVD than manono. Post a sample from your original source If it's a "regular" hollywood movie it's likely just IVTCed using high quality avisynth methods (not vdub filters) If it's foreign anime, it might be hybrid, like jagabo mentioned. You could process it with avisynth methods like animeivtc

seekt posted 2009 Oct 20 12:27

jagabo : Quite hard on him, don't you think? Pride makes people quite hard on others... words denouncing that should be in fact quite hard on them.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 20 12:51

seekt : jagabo : Quite hard on him, don't you think? Pride makes people quite hard on others... words denouncing that should be in fact quite hard on them. OK. You're a fucking idiot who's read a few web sites and now thinks he's an expert on deinterlacing. Happy?

seekt posted 2009 Oct 20 14:13

jagabo : OK. You're a fucking idiot who's read a few web sites and now thinks he's an expert on deinterlacing. Happy? I think you know too much. poisondeathray said, "You won't find a guy that knows more about DVD than manono. ". So, is he the cult leader? Reputation doesn't make me take anyone seriously, character does.

poisondeathray posted 2009 Oct 20 14:20

seekt : poisondeathray said, "You won't find a guy that knows more about DVD than manono. ". So, is he the cult leader? Nope. A "cult leader" is a figure that someone follows blindly. I respect manono because he knows his stuff and knowlegable guy - especially about DVD stuff. Dig up some of his old posts. You will be amazed. He doesn't get paid to help here. He is volunteering his time. Seriously, if you want help, at least try to entertain some of the suggestions. If you don't want help then keep on doing whatever it is you're doing (making crappy DVD rips)... : Reputation doesn't make me take anyone seriously, character does. And what does this thread say about your character ? :roll: Cheers

DereX888 posted 2009 Oct 20 14:37

@ seekt Dude, WTF is wrong with you? You can deinterlace any interlaced video better or worse, it's up to your tools and skills. Yet it still has nothing to do with your final video's resolution, for which you may or may not use better or worse resizing. Deinterlacing and resizing are TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES. How fucking hard is it to understand!

seekt posted 2009 Oct 20 21:35

My last word is: "I downloaded a DVDRip that makes my NTSC DVD look like youtube video. And my DVD makes that DVDRip look like High Definition." Since I don't have to prove anything to anyone understimating me, I won't upload anything. No, it's not possible to make one picture the same quality as the other. All the knowledge and all the tools in the world won't help you. Believe it, or not. Topic closed.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 21 06:18

Enjoy watching all those buzzing edges and jerky videos you get from drop field deinterlacing.

seekt posted 2009 Oct 21 07:48

Enjoy some serious reading too: http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/progscan/progscan.htm And don't even try to diminish the guy. It's definetely not a wise way to recognize truth in someone's speech.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 21 08:23

The people replying to you here in this thread already understand everything in that article. And, as has already been pointed out to you, the vast majority of NTSC DVDs use progressive encoding. Indeed, PAL DVDs have 25 percent more resolution on the vertical axis.

Noahtuck posted 2009 Oct 21 12:52

seekt Why are you here ? You obviously have better sources, know more and want to just argue with anyone here that has tried to help. This link should be helpful. http://forum.videohelp.com/topic244978.html

Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.