The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya [HD Raw Question]

[Zero1]

Yeah, it's not always easy to gauge and upscale, but my decision on PlanetES wasn't of good judgment. It was clear, but not as sharp/clear as I expected it to be (from memory, compare the screenshot you sent with the opening credits from .hack and it shows that PlanetES just isn't as sharp).

Also my issue with raw cappers doing stupid things clouded my judgement and at that time I was basically "LOL everything is upscaled".

With Haruhi, I hear it is broadcasted in HD, but judging by the poor quality raws I would normally doubt that. It's probably the case that it is HD, but it's on a premium channel, which means it cannot be viewed/dumped via PC due to encryption, which in turn means hooking up a satellite box to an analog TV card and capturing at some resolution which is typically 480/576 lines depending on where you live and configuration.

I would say that if this is the case, that these people putting out the "HD" upscales are just trying to look like elite raw cappers that "LOL beat the encryption", which in fact they didn't, they just did it the same as everyone else, resized and filtered it to make it look less obvious.

My opinion would be that you should use the standard resolution raws; since they will typically be less filtered, smaller in filesize (and higher quality for those cappers that encode to a certain size) and not have irreversable problems like upscaled interlaced frames.

Having said that, most raws seem to be 704x396, which is no broadcasted resolution.

If we are talking DVB, most sources for NTSC will be 720x480 or 704x480 (there are possibly more variants, maybe a 480/352x480, but I don't know since I live in PAL land). Widescreen sources will tend to be 720 or 704x480 with an aspect ratio flag which means it's stretched on playback (this is anamorphic where the image fills the 720x480 frame). If the raw capper has used anamorphic stream dumps as a source, then I assume they cropped (not usually required for widescreen though) and resized the 720/704x480 to 704x396.

Again this is yet another gripe I have with raw cappers. Although 704x396 is 16:9 (well actually, it isn't...), this resolution is sub optimal. This is because it is not mod16 (the height cannot be cleanly divisible by 16), this is suboptimal because macroblocks are 16x16, and having a non mod16 resolution means macroblocks get "partially" used, and they they display out of the image area which can cause tearing or other weirdness:


Anyway, back on topic. If they are feeding an external decoder/satellite box to a TV capture card, then that might be a grey area. It may feed it the image in such a way that it's captured as 720x480 or 640x480, but the actual image gets letterboxed, so what they end up with is a square frame with a 16:9 source with black borders. It may be possible to turn off or override this feature in the setup of the decoder/satellite box, I can do so on my DVB-T set top box. In this case it may just pan and scan and send that to the card, or maybe even just send the uncorrected source to the card (so what you get is the anamorphic image minus the aspect ratio correction).

With DVB they are cropping and resizing, with DVB > capture card they could be cropping and resizing, or simply cropping of the black borders if the decoder corrects the aspect ratio and sends the corrected image to the capture card (which would be a 4:3 frame with a letterboxed 16:9 image).

Remember that 1280x720 broadcasts are progressive, and should have no interlacing artifacts or interlaced frames. It's not impossible, but very unlikely (unless the broadcaster just sucks ass).

Also with 1920x1080 broadcasts; the actual resolution is 1920x1088 and they are (or should be) pure interlaced. So if you get a progressive 1920x1080, it's highly likely that it's an upscaled 1280x720, a) because the resolution is incorrect and b) because 1920x1080 is not broadcasted progressive since it's so insane on bitrate (for MPEG-2)

As for 119.88fps AVI's, IMO it's retarded and not necessary. Yes there may be some streams that are encoded as Variable frame rate in AVI, but MP4 and MKV support variable frame rate in a much nicer way (timecodes rather than frames with no data in), and requires less CPU power.

Current list of annoyances are:

1) Upscales
2) H.264 in AVI
3) 119.88fps AVI
4) WMV in AVI (evil, low quality AND variable frame rate)
5) Non mod 16 resolutions

Japan doesn't have slow ass internet; it would be nice if someone would stream dump the MPEG-2.

Anyway, here's a related thread. My post might be of interest, but it's too long to repost here.
http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=32008

[shiro_clanclan]

As always, a greatly insightful post. So you're sick of h264 and WMV9 AVIs too? ^-^

Shall read that thread. Oh, wow, the other series I was wondering about! Talk about raw capping inconsistency on that one... >.>;

Thanks a bunch, Zero1!

[Willen]

As always, a greatly insightful post. So you're sick of h264 and WMV9 AVIs too? ^-^

Shall read that thread. Oh, wow, the other series I was wondering about! Talk about raw capping inconsistency on that one... >.>;

Thanks a bunch, Zero1!

I don't see why there is the need for people to stick every codec into AVI somehow. If you want to use h264, then use MKV or MP4. If you are dead set on AVI, then stick with Xvid or Divx. And while I don't personally have any problems with WMV9, it's pretty interesting that cappers use it since the only advantage I can see is that it's supported by Microsoft and WMP (unless the raw caps are originally done on a Windows box that uses WMV9, but why stick it into an AVI file?).

I also wonder where these people are learning how to encode some of this stuff. Odd resolutions, codecs in AVI that shouldn't be in AVI, 119.88fps streams when there is no need to do it. Or is there some fundamentally wrong software that everyone is using that is encouraging the problems listed (bad presets/auto modes)? I'll admit to using 640x360, but generally I try to optimize encodes and encourage others to do so too.

[Zero1]

As always, a greatly insightful post. So you're sick of h264 and WMV9 AVIs too? ^-^

Shall read that thread. Oh, wow, the other series I was wondering about! Talk about raw capping inconsistency on that one... >.>;

Thanks a bunch, Zero1!

I don't see why there is the need for people to stick every codec into AVI somehow. If you want to use h264, then use MKV or MP4. If you are dead set on AVI, then stick with Xvid or Divx.

My thoughts exactly. Good post.

And while I don't personally have any problems with WMV9, it's pretty interesting that cappers use it since the only advantage I can see is that it's supported by Microsoft and WMP (unless the raw caps are originally done on a Windows box that uses WMV9, but why stick it into an AVI file?).

It is/was quite a mystery to me, but a while ago I gave it some thought and it's quite possible that it simply comes down to the language barrier. Think about it; Virtualdub is relatively simple to set up, there are only a few things you need to know for basic tasks and most of those can be accessed by shortcut keys, this makes the fact that it's in English pretty much a moot point, not to mention that they probably have their own equivalent to Virtualdub, or a translation of it (or even a translated screenshot/guide like how we get for Winny).
Now lets come to the CODECs; the terminology used in them isn't as general as you might find in Virtualdub; I mean most if no all programs have file and edit tabs, save as commands and such, but CODECs can be very technical and confusing even for native english speakers.
XviD and DivX are coded in English, and I don't think they have Japanese versions, now consider Microsoft, a huge, worldwide company. The Japanese probably use WMV9 because MS has a Japanese version of the ACM codec, so it's easier for them to use than an English version of DivX etc.

So that's my theory, Japanese people use WMV9 because Microsoft provide a Japanese version, but they don't use XviD or DivX as much because it's English. You will get some Japanese using English programs, who obviously speak the language, or are able enough to fumble through it just like we do with Winny or Share, or any other Japanese games/programs/products.

I also wonder where these people are learning how to encode some of this stuff. Odd resolutions, codecs in AVI that shouldn't be in AVI, 119.88fps streams when there is no need to do it. Or is there some fundamentally wrong software that everyone is using that is encouraging the problems listed (bad presets/auto modes)? I'll admit to using 640x360, but generally I try to optimize encodes and encourage others to do so too.

With all due respect to Japanese people, I really think that some raw cappers just browse Doom9 through babelfish, so they get mangled translations and such :p
Most video coding related tools originate from programmers in the West, occasionally you get some Japanese programs (such as tc2mp4 which allows creation of VFR MP4 by using MKV timecodes output by the AVISynth filter, dedup).

Perhaps it's simply that video coding information is not as required or available in Japan (Japanese) as it is in the West (English), after all the fansubbing/AMV community is huge, and obviously depends hugely on video coding, the tools and information. I don't know much about Japanese culture, but I don't expect they have something equivalent to our fansubbing scene with mass online distro of videos, and the coding of, so perhaps there isn't much need for the information.

Using 640x360 is something that is commonly done, again this is due to lack of information, people not knowing about the inner workings of codecs and why it is optimal for the resolution to be mod16 (and that's not something I expect people to know, only encoders or enthusiasts). I consider this to be little known information, so I don't hold it against people when they use that, but raw cappers are the most important stage of fansubs/unlicensed amv source, so it really needs to be spot on. I hold them to high standards.

I need a PC in Japan with a DVB card and VNC, so I can orchestrate my own captures remotely :p

I guess my ranting may come across a bit offhand, but these little things essentially make my job as an encoder frustrating :p

[shiro_clanclan]

All right, I ran a little experiment with the newest release of Haruhi (easy to get since it just came out and everybody's still pouncing the torrents), and was a little... surprised, I guess, with the results.

At first, I nabbed the first raw available, the WMV9. It looked like crap. Haloing, bled colors, blurred like crazy... I don't even have it anymore, so I can't really post up reference pics. But it wasn't worth it.

So then I got the "upscales" (apparently QR caught wind of something, 'cause their comment for the torrent was along those lines). And they looked as the rest do--same problems. Except for one scene which seemed to have incredibly horrible video. It's this one:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5519 ... oad9jz.png

Disgusting, right? So then l33t-raws released their DivX 704x396 version, so I got that and took a peek. Well... it just didn't look as clean as the upscale. Plus, the scene which looked ugly in the upscale was still ugly:

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/6712 ... oad0nf.png

However, I was comparing them by full-screening the video on my 1280x1024 monitor... so I put the l33t-raws into VirtualDub and resized (precise bicubic=1.00) to 1280x720, just to see what it'd look like. This is the result:

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/2119 ... zed8ux.png

And for comparison, here's the same scene from the Q-R raw:

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1522 ... zed0gw.png

Hmm. I can't really make any conclusions from that...

...but the bottom line is, if one were going to make an AMV, which source would be better to use (assuming DVD isn't an option, for us impatient people)? As a final display of content, I'll pick a close-up of Haruhi's face. I'll also include as the last link, the Q-R raw downscaled to 704x396.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5860 ... nal9zb.png

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/415/ ... nal6ix.png

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8928 ... alr9rp.png

That's all. If you need any more reference images... just say the word. ^-^;

[Qyot27]

...but the bottom line is, if one were going to make an AMV, which source would be better to use (assuming DVD isn't an option, for us impatient people)?

I won't make judgement calls on the raws in question, but I'd say go with whatever one looks the nicest/clearest to you. Since it's going to be at normal res (480 pixels high or less), it would actually be whichever one looks better when put at that size. If the regular-sized ones look like crap, but the upscaled ones look nice - or at least, nicer - when shrunk down to the correct size, use the upscales.

This was ultimately the conclusion I came to regarding Witchblade - the upscales look better (when resized back down to 640x480) than the SD raws do, or at least the specific ones I compared. I can filter out any nasty artifacting that remains, and the video that'll be made with that source likely won't be released until long after the domestic DVDs have come out, since I'm one that [99% of the time] doesn't release something if I don't use the DVDs. What I'd essentially be doing is just getting the editing itself down. Remastering a video isn't really all that time-consuming unless there's a lot of effects (and even then it might not be too hard, but none of my videos are very effects-heavy, and the ones that do have more effects in them are recent, and I had the DVDs to work with).