Continued tech issues...well, it ain't field dominance.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

If 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.

Comments

[klia.livejournal.com]

I never was much of a source quality obsessive, so I'm not sure if my own "eh" about it reflects merely my laziness, or the standards of viewers.

FWIW, I've *always* been a source quality bee-yotch. *g*

If you think about it, though, ripping is still a relatively new way of creating clips, because DVD source wasn't always available. We've been considering ripping, but until we do, we're happy with the quality we get from capturing with Canopus.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I've *always* been a source quality bee-yotch. *g*

Stands to reason. The "JKL" group have always been among the cleanest of vidders (see Lum and me for theories on "clean" vs. "messy" vidding). I mean that in the best possible way! *g*

I expect much of this weekend will be me fiddling with my converter box, with which I have not captured since I learned about this whole ripping thing.

[klia.livejournal.com]

The "JKL" group have always been among the cleanest of vidders (see Lum and me for theories on "clean" vs. "messy" vidding). I mean that in the best possible way! *g*

Thanks. You'll definitely have to fill me in on your theories! :)

I expect much of this weekend will be me fiddling with my converter box, with which I have not captured since I learned about this whole ripping thing.

Good luck! After all the time and effort you put into remastering, only to be frustrated by the crappy quality, it sounds like capturing may be the best solution, at least for now. *sends good vidding vibes*

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

I should probably do a "Clean vs. Messy Vidding" post at some point, although I should talk to Lum first and get our stories straight. *g*

Thanks for all the good vibes and support. ::straightens helmet:: Cover me. I'm going in.

[klia.livejournal.com]

*salutes*