Quality?

[chribba]

Hi,

I have a question about Motion Jpeg B in SE2. Why is the quality of the displayed video not as nice as the one in in QT window? It´s the same video and frame.

/chribba

[joseburgos]

If you test the same file on a Mac, it should look good. Quicktime on Windows has a gamma shift that cause the black level to look grey.

[chribba]

If you test the same file on a Mac, it should look good. Quicktime on Windows has a gamma shift that cause the black level to look grey.

I think you got me wrong there... Why is the output image on Speededit looking like crap when the QT is so much better looking... thats the Q..

/chribba

[SBowie]

So SE and Quicktime are actually showing the identical file - not different copies? If so, I wonder what settings you have for the SpeedEDIT Video Output window?

There is an Output quality setting in Prefs, along with a couple of other options - and in addition, you may want to right-click in the Output window itself, select "Both Fields" and turn off "Simulate Device Aspect" (the horizontal scaling adds a little smoothing, and it at a glance it doesn't look like the Quicktime player is treating the image as 4:3, so that gives it a little edge over SE).

[chribba]

So SE and Quicktime are actually showing the identical file - not different copies? If so, I wonder what settings you have for the SpeedEDIT Video Output window?

There is an Output quality setting in Prefs, along with a couple of other options - and in addition, you may want to right-click in the Output window itself, select "Both Fields" and turn off "Simulate Device Aspect" (the horizontal scaling adds a little smoothing, and it at a glance it doesn't look like the Quicktime player is treating the image as 4:3, so that gives it a little edge over SE).


Yes, it is identical frame from the same file at the same time...... Now i have set the projekt settings as the QT shows the pixels... You can see the settings in SE and QT.... whats up with this?..

/Chribba

[SBowie]

You can see the settings in SE and QT.... whats up with this?.. /ChribbaBetter, but still no cigar - you're got SE's Video Output window set to show only one field, which is why it looks kind of jaggy.

[Shabazzy]

I'd like to get a look at that source video's properties to see if it's an interlaced or progressive video.

That way you'd be able to tell what you should set the preview monitor to.

I've a feeling it's a progressive (both fields) video.

[SBowie]

I'd like to get a look at that source video's properties to see if it's an interlaced or progressive video.Unless I'm mistaken, it's PAL SD res; my assumption is that in most cases this would be laced. Either way, simply dumping a field is going to cause visible degradation.

[chribba]

Unless I'm mistaken, it's PAL SD res; my assumption is that in most cases this would be laced. Either way, simply dumping a field is going to cause visible degradation.

Yes it´s PAL SD, and here is a image of both fields... Now please dont say that i need to select both fields without the defielded cause that makes no better image ....

/Chribba

[SBowie]

Yes it´s PAL SD, and here is a image of both fields... Now please dont say that i need to select both fields without the defielded cause that makes no better image ....

/ChribbaDefielding doesdegrade the image slightly, insamuch as it blends the two fields, which will almost always blur them a bit. That said, I'm not sure whether SE's viewer automatically handles upper/lower field order (for desktop viewing), so without blending, it might actually be worse than what you see there.

I don't know if it would help at all to use the recommended monitor refresh rate (75mHz) instead of 60 as you are doing; I'd have expected that to relate more to full motion playback quality, but guessing here.

I do think though, that while the SE output is still a little softer than the Quicktime player, it's substantially improved compared to your original image. (John might have some further thoughts, don't know.)