VSO Software Forum

I'm trialling this product, but being in Australia which is a PAL country I cannot seem to change the frame rate to 25/50 fps. Any PAL HD stream I convert turns out converted to 23.976fps resulting in jerky playback. Strangely it is supported on the ConvertXtoDVD

Anyone please, before the trial runs out.....

Hello woody8,

PAL/NTSC formats are related to DVD Video only, not Blu-ray.
Major part of Blu-ray videos are encoded at 24Fps or 23.97Fps and can be played in any Blu-ray home player...

Regards,

cedric wrote:Hello woody8,

PAL/NTSC formats are related to DVD Video only, not Blu-ray.
Major part of Blu-ray videos are encoded at 24Fps or 23.97Fps and can be played in any Blu-ray home player...

Regards,

Thanks, but did you read my problem? Blu Ray also supports 25/50 fps, your software doesn't.

Why do you want inferior quality?
BluRay supports following FullHD formats:

• 1920×1080 30i (29.97i)
  1920×1080 25i
  1920×1080 24p
  1920×1080 23.976p

First two are seemingly better due higher framerate, but they are interlaced - that means that real resolution is 1920x540, making those inferior to progressive framerates.

But if I want to master PAL at it's native rate to Blu ray, this software can't do it without converting it to 23.976fps, that's the problem

JJ wrote:First two are seemingly better due higher framerate, but they are interlaced - that means that real resolution is 1920x540, making those inferior to progressive framerates.

To be honest, i'm not even sure what you're saying even holds water. I've got some BBC PAL BDs like Sherlock etc that are full 1080p

JJ is explaining you that Blu-ray 1080p 25fps is not part of the standard.
only 1080i (interlaced) 25fps is supported...
so you can't convert a PAL progressive dvd to Blu-ray without changing the framerate.

Regards,

woody8 wrote:

JJ wrote:First two are seemingly better due higher framerate, but they are interlaced - that means that real resolution is 1920x540, making those inferior to progressive framerates.

To be honest, i'm not even sure what you're saying even holds water. I've got some BBC PAL BDs like Sherlock etc that are full 1080p

If it is 1080p then it is 24 or 23.976FPS.
Only things that separate PAL and NTSC BluRays are region codes and some extras on disk that are in DVD format.
Actual BR/1080p parts are playable on any BluRay player. There is no such thing as 1080p 25FPS.

cedric wrote:JJ is explaining you that Blu-ray 1080p 25fps is not part of the standard.
only 1080i (interlaced) 25fps is supported...
so you can't convert a PAL progressive dvd to Blu-ray without changing the framerate.

Regards,

Okay, got it, although JJ still doesn't understand how the two fields are displayed. So as I have 1080i PAL, does ConvertX support that framerate?

No, therefore as it converts 25i/50 to 23.976fps badly and introduces motion jerkiness it is not suitable for PAL territories. Infact the free MultiAVCHD does a flawless PAL slowdown

Again, got it.....and glad I didn't pay for it

Hello woody8,

I'll teach you something: be so aggressive will never corrects your problem and you will loose your time without positive result...
Posting a message saying "Can you add a 25fps to 24fps conversion using speed reduction in ConvertXtoHD?" would have been a better solution I think.


FYI, we started to work on this feature request on last week...

Regards,

Aggressive?? You get trteated with incredulity here with suggestions like 1080i PAL isn't full resolution

Thanks, but unless it can encode at 25fps it's still not much use. PAL slowdown is fine for movies broadcast in PAL, bringing them back to thier correct speed, but native HD TV needs to be kept at 25fps otherwise speed issues are introduced

woody8 wrote:Aggressive?? You get trteated with incredulity here with suggestions like 1080i PAL isn't full resolution

I suggest that you read more about interlacing. Then you should realize what it means.

JJ wrote:

woody8 wrote:Aggressive?? You get trteated with incredulity here with suggestions like 1080i PAL isn't full resolution

I suggest that you read more about interlacing. Then you should realize what it means.

I don't have to, I've worked in television production for 30 years.

On any decent monitor the two fields of 1920x540 are displayed per frame making the full 1080 image. That's a basic and no displays I know of only deinterlace 1080i to one field per frame. Most HD transmissions around the world are interlaced now

From Cnet, in case you don't believe me:

"When your TV is sent a 1080i signal, however, a different process occurs: deinterlacing. This is when the TV combines the two fields into frames. If it's done right, the TV repeats each full frame to create 60 "fps" from the original 30."

With all due respect I suggest you brush up on fields and how they're displayed before offering dodgy advice

I don't have to, I've worked in television production for 30 years.

Sure. But did you notice that technology has changed?
Interlacing is not viable anymore, it does not save bandwidth with current digital packing, and it does cause artifacts in picture when shown in progressive.
And ALL modern HDTV (and better) screens are progressive.
Yes, some broadcasters still send interlaced, and that signal needs to be processed for progressive displays.

Some reading:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413044,00.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video

http://www.100fps.com/ - this one is old site, but explains very well why interlacing should be discarded totally. (and shows that interlaced resolution is half of progressive)

And finally, interlacing is not supported anymore in new HEVC codec (FullHD and better resolutions)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Effic ... deo_Coding

Hi
poster woody8 is correct, sorry to say, in UK we use 1920x1080 interlaced, not progressive, I have been converting from broadcast tv
via satellite feeds 1920x1080i 50 fields, odd/even (25 frames) to Blu Ray, using Nero Plat.11, this will render at 25 frames, the result
when checking by P/B the Blu Ray disc is upto 31 Mpbs, depending on content, Nero rendering does not use AVC, as our input format is Mpeg2, not Mpeg4.
Your software produces a Blu Ray disc of upto 34Mbps,AVC , with the lower frame frequency "HOP" on picture with any camera left to right
or, right to left. pan.
So your software is unusable for us,if it rendered HD 25Frames we would use it, as its faster at rendering and burning than our other softwares
Ref the the "official" BluRay spec, it was a long time coming from Sony, but one of the first players to be upgraded to the "Blu Ray" spec
was the Playstation 3, which we use along others to check, all produce this picture "Hop" with your software, fine with your competitors.

menbed wrote:Hi
poster woody8 is correct, sorry to say, in UK we use 1920x1080 interlaced, not progressive, I have been converting from broadcast tv
via satellite feeds 1920x1080i 50 fields, odd/even (25 frames) to Blu Ray, using Nero Plat.11, this will render at 25 frames, the result
when checking by P/B the Blu Ray disc is upto 31 Mpbs, depending on content, Nero rendering does not use AVC, as our input format is Mpeg2, not Mpeg4.
Your software produces a Blu Ray disc of upto 34Mbps,AVC , with the lower frame frequency "HOP" on picture with any camera left to right
or, right to left. pan.
So your software is unusable for us,if it rendered HD 25Frames we would use it, as its faster at rendering and burning than our other softwares
Ref the the "official" BluRay spec, it was a long time coming from Sony, but one of the first players to be upgraded to the "Blu Ray" spec
was the Playstation 3, which we use along others to check, all produce this picture "Hop" with your software, fine with your competitors.

Finally, someone who puts it much better than I can!

Many thanks

JJ wrote:

I don't have to, I've worked in television production for 30 years.

Sure. But did you notice that technology has changed?
Interlacing is not viable anymore, it does not save bandwidth with current digital packing, and it does cause artifacts in picture when shown in progressive.
And ALL modern HDTV (and better) screens are progressive.
Yes, some broadcasters still send interlaced, and that signal needs to be processed for progressive displays.

Some reading:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413044,00.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video

http://www.100fps.com/ - this one is old site, but explains very well why interlacing should be discarded totally. (and shows that interlaced resolution is half of progressive)

And finally, interlacing is not supported anymore in new HEVC codec (FullHD and better resolutions)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Effic ... deo_Coding

Good grief, from your own link "Today's HDTVs can display beautiful, 1,920-by-1,080-pixel video, but the actual quality of what you're viewing depends on the source material. A lot of the time, you're not seeing exactly 1080p. In fact, most TVs today have two modes with similar names: 1080i and 1080p. Both have the same screen resolution"

My progressive display Epson HD 3D projector and HD TV displays interlaced images just fine and in full resolution. When it comes to the source material, the broadcasters realise the bandwidth required for 1080i. Again, every frame is two fields of 540, that's how it works in PAL countries. You're clearly stuck on the old type of deinterlacing which drops one field and doubles the remaining one, halving the resolution. Providing outdated links would seem to back this up.

The bottom line is that everything you keep banging on about does not change the fact that some of us are in countries that still support interlacing. Nobody is making a case that interlacing is better, it's not but it's the reality we're dealing with. It does not matter how you think things should be, now or in the future

With all due respect, you're flogging a dead horse and just not helping

You don't seem to get the point;

In original post you asked for resolution that is not supported anymore in any new codecs.
Interlacing is a remnant of analog time and it will be removed totally in few years, now it is partly supported only because some broadcasters still insist on using it. Some still use CRT displays and analog broadcasts. That does not make it new or viable.

The fact that some of those links were really old tells you about the whole issue.
There is no new information or development on interlacing. Only some ways to remove it and convert to progressive.

JJ wrote:You don't seem to get the point;

In original post you asked for resolution that is not supported anymore in any new codecs.
Interlacing is a remnant of analog time and it will be removed totally in few years, now it is partly supported only because some broadcasters still insist on using it. Some still use CRT displays and analog broadcasts. That does not make it new or viable.

The fact that some of those links were really old tells you about the whole issue.
There is no new information or development on interlacing. Only some ways to remove it and convert to progressive.

This is getting surreal. Firstly you post links that disprove your notion that interlaced images are half the resolution of progressive, then you keep digging yourself into a hole by trying to twist or derail my original post.

For a start, nobody uses CRT displays in broadcasting apart from Broadcast techs. Here's a given, the interlaced transmissions are designed to be compatible with today's progressive displays...obviously. That's a no-brainer you can not seem to grasp. You're going around in circles here, we know some broadcasters still insist on using interlacing as I keep saying, so how do we deal with it now? Again, nobody is saying it's better than progressive, but that's the hand we're dealt with here and now. Bringing analogue broadcasts into this discussion just smacks of desperation

And as for the original post:
"I'm trialling this product, but being in Australia which is a PAL country I cannot seem to change the frame rate to 25/50 fps. Any PAL HD stream I convert turns out converted to 23.976fps resulting in jerky playback. Strangely it is supported on the ConvertXtoDVD"

I don't know if it's a problem with the language, but of course 1080i PAL can be converted to progressive, but the point of this thread is that this software can't do that unless it converts it to 23.976fps. As you can see here, it's not only me telling you this. Get it yet?

Again, with all due respect you've bought a lot of ill-informed nonsense into the discussion about the current state of PAL territories and interlacing and quite frankly muddied the waters and derailed it time and time again. Take a breather, please