![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
laurashapiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
vidding_livejournal_ark2If you're a vidder and plan to work with the Due South DVDs, or you work on a Mac and have questions about DVDxDV's more arcane settings, the following may be of interest. Otherwise, feel free to move on.
I made a test DVD including six versions of the action-packed climax of "A Cop, a Mountie, and a Baby" which I had clipped using DVDxDV, changing the settings each time. Here's what I found out:
Lower field dominant - this is the default setting for most DVDs. As before, playback was jerky, especially during motion (not even particularly fast or hectic motion)
Upper field dominant - this was my second test the other day. On direct comparison, I find playback even more jerky at this setting. This suggests to me that lower field dominance is the correct setting for these DVDs (as with most others), and that there's something else to do with the way these DVDs were encoded which is the problem.
Original field order - The same as lower field dominant.
Deinterlaced, upper field dominant; deinterlaced, lower field dominant; deinterlaced, original field order - all three of these were identical. No more jerkiness. Instead, blockiness. Pixelization occurred in big ugly chunks at any point where there was fast or energetic movement. On balance, these were more watchable than any of the other settings, but still not an acceptable situation.
At this point, I seem to have two options:
1) Download MPEG StreamClip and poke away blindly at its settings, or
2) Accept a generation of quality loss and use my capture device to pull clips in through the DVD player.
I'm leaning heavily towards #2, on account of I am *tired* of this.
Any further suggestions will be gratefully appreciated.
I made a test DVD including six versions of the action-packed climax of "A Cop, a Mountie, and a Baby" which I had clipped using DVDxDV, changing the settings each time. Here's what I found out:
Lower field dominant - this is the default setting for most DVDs. As before, playback was jerky, especially during motion (not even particularly fast or hectic motion)
Upper field dominant - this was my second test the other day. On direct comparison, I find playback even more jerky at this setting. This suggests to me that lower field dominance is the correct setting for these DVDs (as with most others), and that there's something else to do with the way these DVDs were encoded which is the problem.
Original field order - The same as lower field dominant.
Deinterlaced, upper field dominant; deinterlaced, lower field dominant; deinterlaced, original field order - all three of these were identical. No more jerkiness. Instead, blockiness. Pixelization occurred in big ugly chunks at any point where there was fast or energetic movement. On balance, these were more watchable than any of the other settings, but still not an acceptable situation.
At this point, I seem to have two options:
1) Download MPEG StreamClip and poke away blindly at its settings, or
2) Accept a generation of quality loss and use my capture device to pull clips in through the DVD player.
I'm leaning heavily towards #2, on account of I am *tired* of this.
Any further suggestions will be gratefully appreciated.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 10:50 am (UTC)Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 11:09 am (UTC)I know I have a bookmark for another forum at home that has a thread devoted to it. (3ivx maybe.) I had mm2d too, but that didn't work as well for me as mm2c did. (And as a warning, you have to do a chapter at a time.)
Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 11:14 am (UTC)Oy, one chapter at a time? Wow.
One thing I saw on mm2c suggested that it was for Mac OS9. Is that the case? Will it work on OSX too?
Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 11:19 am (UTC)And I've been working on 10.2.8 with this.
Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 11:31 am (UTC)Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 11:34 am (UTC)Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 11:39 am (UTC)Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 01:44 pm (UTC)Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 01:54 pm (UTC)Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 01:57 pm (UTC)Re: Hmm...
Date: 2004-10-12 02:01 pm (UTC)If you do have trouble with it, give me a holler and I'll tell you what I know.