AtticusLake
Well-known member
The PIX files are from the PIX. The .MTS files are from the camera.
Internal codec compared to external ProRes 220
- Thread starter AtticusLake
- Start date
The PIX files are from the PIX. The .MTS files are from the camera.
AtticusLake
Well-known member
Interesting comparison, thanks!
kerrigan
Well-known member
I've taken 2 frame grabs from the original footage on your Google Drive.
IMAGE 1. (00001.MTS)
Here is a frame grab from the AVCHD file from the camera.
Notice the moire in the two speakers.
IMAGE 2. ( PIX_001 mov)
Here is a frame grab from the ProRes file from the Pix.
Notice there is no moire.
I've been using the PIX240 on most of my shoots.
During the online you can see the difference.
Bill Kerrigan
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
http://www.kerrigan.ca
http://fs700user.com/
IMAGE 1. (00001.MTS)
Here is a frame grab from the AVCHD file from the camera.
Notice the moire in the two speakers.
IMAGE 2. ( PIX_001 mov)
Here is a frame grab from the ProRes file from the Pix.
Notice there is no moire.
I've been using the PIX240 on most of my shoots.
During the online you can see the difference.
Bill Kerrigan
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
http://www.kerrigan.ca
http://fs700user.com/
Last edited:
AtticusLake
Well-known member
Billl, I'm puzzled by this, because that moire is NOT in the original clip. Did you scale the clips / frame grabs at some point?
If I look closely at 100% magnification, there is slight moire in both clips -- the MTS and the PIX file. In fact I would say that it is slightly worse in the PIX file. But it's nothing like your grab above. If it had been, I certainly wouldn't have come to the conclusion I came to in my review.
kerrigan
Well-known member
No I didn't scale the clips.
Both images are just frame grabs on my iMac, from your footage.
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0Bz...ROUnAyQ2M/edit
Both images are just frame grabs on my iMac, from your footage.
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0Bz...ROUnAyQ2M/edit
Jean-Philippe
Well-known member
Kerrigan: Your frame grabs are from playing the clip in the google doc player, which is pointless since it recompres the video files using the Youtube compressor for preview purpose. You need to download the file and play it locally. I confirm that there is no moire in the original file.
Because it has less fine detail in the AVCHD clip to work with and I'm sure it does a quick and dirty encode job just to show it off to you as quickly as possible.
Because it has been deinterlaced
Often Google/Youtube will assume transport streams are interlaced and deinterlace before re-encoding . Not only that, the type of deinterlacing is horrendous (drop field)
Download the re-encoded mp4 versions at 1080p, and you will notice 1/2 the resolution is missing (since it's only made up of 1 field, instead of 2 for progressive content, that's why there is aliasing and moire patterns as the progressive frame is interpolated from 1 field)
Be careful with certain software and NLE's as well (many will do the same thing - deinterlace, unless you set them up correctly)
e.g. 1:1 crop of the re-encoded 1080 mp4's, prores right, avchd left . Notice the yellow text of the engineering manual
They are both progressive. But note the PIX footage is in a MOV container.
It's what youtube/google "think" of the transport stream (MTS is a transport stream, think of it as a "container" that holds video, audio, metadata and other data streams ). It's misinterpreted as interlaced, so it applies a deinterlace. The footage in the MOV is properly identified as progressive.