Weird Ghosting Problem

Peyton-Todd wrote on 2/26/2016, 5:50 PM

What's weird is that a video with only minor ghosting problems, has those problems SOLVED if played inside Vegas, but they get MUCH WORSE if I render it from there. You can find the video and vegas files at the Dropbox link below:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7zq4lg3dmpadlv7/AABfjDFlrL_xhCE4GjWdYKKMa?dl=0

Specifically:

- My source is an AVI file that MediaInfo tells me is 24.4 Mbps, 720x480 (4:3) 29.970 fps, DV (Sony) (NTSC) (DVCPRO)

- My Vegas Project Properties are set to NTSC DV (720x480, 29.970 fps), Lower field first, Pixel aspect ration .9091, Motion Blur type = Gaussian, Deinterlace Method = Blend fields.

to repeat: The source has some ghosted images, but not many. When I load it to my Vegas 11 with Project Properties as stated above the ghosting disappears! But when I render it the ghosting becomes MUCH MUCH worse.

Currently I render my videos into 655x480 MOV files with square pixels (thanks to John Rofrano of Creative Cow who advised use of that ratio). When I try various different parameters for rendering, so far I just get letter-boxing or pillar-boxing with the same huge ghost problem.

The fact that Vegas somehow makes the problem disappear when hosted inside of Vegas itself fills me with hope. Could there be an answer to this problem?

Thanks for your suggestions!

Comments

OldSmoke wrote on 2/26/2016, 9:35 PM

Try to disable resampling on each event. if you have many events, try it I a region and just render that region. Are you rendering from interlaced to progressive in Vegas?

john_dennis wrote on 2/27/2016, 1:09 AM

I see severe ghosting in Windows Media Player.

I got rid of some of the ghosting at the expense of freezing.

John_Cline wrote on 2/27/2016, 6:01 AM

A) Set the deinterlace properties to "Interpolate"
B) When you render, check the box that says "Stretch Video to Fill Frame Size"

Peyton-Todd wrote on 2/28/2016, 11:23 AM

To John Cline:Switching the Deinterlace method from Blend to Interpolate had no effect as far as I could see.Nor did Stretch Video to Fill Frame Size. Just curious: Since I was already using a tailor-made frame size, what would be the rational for stretching the video choice?

Peyton-Todd wrote on 2/28/2016, 11:24 AM

To John Dennis: What settings did you change to get that result? I'll try that along with the most successful method so far, in my reply to Old Smoke..

Peyton-Todd wrote on 2/28/2016, 11:28 AM

To Old Smoke: Resampling is already disabled, and Yes I am indeed rendering from interlaced (a property of the source, according to MediaInfo) to progressive. Switching the Project Properties to 'None (progressive)' did not help. However, switching the render settings to 'Lower field first' did help a lot.

Results are at the Dropbox link, repeated below for convenience.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7zq4lg3dmpadlv7/AABfjDFlrL_xhCE4GjWdYKKMa?dl=0

Those without the suffix (lower to lower) are done with the other sets of suggestions.In those examples, both 'me two' clips froze on a the same frame even though the second one was a later event. Same story with the 'can't go, look! push!' and just the 'push!' clips: a spot about 20 frames earlier in the first case and the same spot, 50 frames earlier in the second one. The much improved (lower to lower) versions don't remove the ghosting, but the frame that's frozen does not prevent us from seeing the real event occurring 'beneath' it at the same time.

That's a lot of progress, but I still hold out the hope for further improvement. If the problem actually goes away when viewing the video inside of Vegas, then apparently there has to be a set of parameters that will work, no?

You might all be interested to know what this is about: It shows how a child with a very small vocabulary up to this point (due to not hearing English till just before his 3rd birthday) is able to stretch the words he does know to fill the gaps. In this case he uses the word 'two' to refer to 'the other part', or 'the matching part', namely the cabinet that the little dollhouse drawer fits into.

THANK TO ALL FOR YOUR SUGGESTIONS!

Tom Pauncz wrote on 2/28/2016, 12:07 PM

Just a curious question...
Why are you not rendering to the same format as the original video files??
Maybe I am missing the point of the 655x480 MOV file format.
Tom

Peyton-Todd wrote on 2/29/2016, 1:31 PM

AVI files take up much more space than MOV files, and take longer to download. Also, my readers will need frame-by-frame viewing, which Qucktime offers while other viewers seem not to. When I first started this project many years ago, I was under the impression that Quicktime cannot play AVI files, and it is important that my readers have the ability to view the videos frame by frame - not for the videos at issue in this post but for the many translations of the child's spoken sentences into ASL, (American Sign Language), where is important to be able to determine exactly when brow raises, movements of the eyes and so on occur. I just checked, and currently Quicktime does play AVI files, so that leaves the first reason.

As to the particular 655x480 pixel ratio, in my basic ignorance of video editing I was using square pixels (probably a consequence of whatever default I had started with) and getting pillarboxing (or letterboxing, but I think it was the former). The 655x480 ratio was calculated for me by a helpful participant on the Creative Cow website.

As it is, though, because of the huge number of videos to be shown by now and the vagaries of dealing with a publishers, the whole thing may wind up as a website instead, and the latest version of Acrobat Reader disables MOV files, or will do so soon, according to rumor. HTML5's new video capabilities do not allow frame-by-frame viewing although apparently one can write code to do it, a feat I have not attempted.