@jak.willis

Apologies but this isn't an answer for your current problem.

I don't know if you seen this. I thought you may be interested in https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2450392/classic-eastenders-quality-issues-on-uktv-drama/

You may have already commented there, i dont know but apparently you are not alone.

On a personal note, I've never had a problem with PVR recording from UKTV. Mind you, I use the small TV in the kitchen which is only SD to record on USB, so the quality's naff anyway.

AndyW

@AAProds

Re-record to MPEG? That's an interesting little wrinkle. I'll try that next time I'm in that situation. Thanks.

@jak.willis

Hi Jak

Are the transmission/recordings SD 720 x576, HD 1280 x 720 or FullHD 1920 x 1080?

What is the intended use / final format you are exporting?

John EB

@jak.willis

Apologies but this isn't an answer for your current problem.

I don't know if you seen this. I thought you may be interested in https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2450392/classic-eastenders-quality-issues-on-uktv-drama/

You may have already commented there, i dont know but apparently you are not alone.

On a personal note, I've never had a problem with PVR recording from UKTV. Mind you, I use the small TV in the kitchen which is only SD to record on USB, so the quality's naff anyway.

AndyW

@AAProds

Re-record to MPEG? That's an interesting little wrinkle. I'll try that next time I'm in that situation. Thanks.

Hi,

Yes - I created that thread myself.

We were all in agreement that UKTV in being run by Junior amateurs on work experience or something...

@jak.willis

Hi Jak

Are the transmission/recordings SD 720 x576, HD 1280 x 720 or FullHD 1920 x 1080?

What is the intended use / final format you are exporting?

John EB

Hi John,

The resolution of the transmissions are 544x576...but were de-interlaced because UKTV are incompetent in their jobs.

The intended use would be to watch it on my TV like normal. But the aim is to try and get the messed up programmes looking normal again.

@jak.willis

Hi

. . . . The resolution of the transmissions are 544x576 . . . .

Ouch - not even true SD.

. . . . The intended use would be to watch it on my TV like normal . . . .

By burning to disc, using a external drive or casting/serving from the computer?

John EB

@jak.willis

Hi

. . . . The resolution of the transmissions are 544x576 . . . .

Ouch - not even true SD.

. . . . The intended use would be to watch it on my TV like normal . . . .

By burning to disc, using a external drive or casting/serving from the computer?

John EB

Either a USB HDD or USB Flash Drive.

@jak.willis

Hi

Either a USB HDD or USB Flash Drive

In this case, if the TV supports MPG file then try Als suggestion above - using the Standard DVD export preset, and let the TV do the upscaling and de-interlacing.

John EB

@jak.willis

Jak, could you put one of the episodes up on a hosting site such as Google Drive or Dropbox so we can take a look/experiment.

You could try exporting your shows as MPEG, which will re-interlace the files and hopefully smooth out the motion. Whether they become "better/smoother" than the originals will be the $64k question.

Hi,

Yes, I’ll try to do that for you.

So is it really as simple as just re-encoding from Progressive back to Interlaced?

@jak.willis

So is it really as simple as just re-encoding from Progressive back to Interlaced?

Yes, just tried it, works well; nice and smooth.

@jak.willis

So is it really as simple as just re-encoding from Progressive back to Interlaced?

Yes, just tried it, works well; nice and smooth.

But if the content was broadcasted deinterlaced, how can it be fixed?

@jak.willis

Greetings Jak,

I'm more than a little confused. Can you help me out please.

• For 3 years, a lot of the stuff they showed was going out de-interlaced when it shouldn’t have been.

Why shouldn't it have been. Surely a TV company can transmit across the terrestrial airwaves how they want; the home TV receiver will cope.

I know that interlaced material uses less bandwidth than progressive and so is much cheaper to produce, transmit and display (probably!) but isn't it just a way to fool the eye into thinking there is more visual information than there really is?

Isn't pregressive video scanning more stable and less prone to glitches? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

It would appear that they have finally and recently fixed this issue

Fixed it? Is it law that TV companies have to transmit Interlaced video? I don't really think so but I could be wrong.

but I am now left with recordings of Classic EastEnders episodes that are in appalling quality due to the de-interlacing of the original interlaced content

Does that mean you recorded lots of episodes and re-encoded them without checking the scan type? Oops. I feel your pain.

Whenever I record from my little TV in the kitchen in glorious SD - some 540x576 most 720x576 - I put them through Avidemux to remove adverts (if any) and trim the start / end then save as copy video and audio which is then put throuh Vidcoder (Handbrake engline) using Decomb and the de-interlacer; it's left on all the time as it automatically detects what, if any, interlacing is required. One less thingfor me to worry about.

I'm not 100% sure that you can blame the TV company for not telling you that they're transmitting interlaced or progressive scanning material. As I said earlier I don't think it's law. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

AndyW

@jak.willis

Greetings Jak,

I'm more than a little confused. Can you help me out please.

• For 3 years, a lot of the stuff they showed was going out de-interlaced when it shouldn’t have been.

Why shouldn't it have been. Surely a TV company can transmit across the terrestrial airwaves how they want; the home TV receiver will cope.

I know that interlaced material uses less bandwidth than progressive and so is much cheaper to produce, transmit and display (probably!) but isn't it just a way to fool the eye into thinking there is more visual information than there really is?

Isn't pregressive video scanning more stable and less prone to glitches? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

It would appear that they have finally and recently fixed this issue

Fixed it? Is it law that TV companies have to transmit Interlaced video? I don't really think so but I could be wrong.

but I am now left with recordings of Classic EastEnders episodes that are in appalling quality due to the de-interlacing of the original interlaced content

Does that mean you recorded lots of episodes and re-encoded them without checking the scan type? Oops. I feel your pain.

Whenever I record from my little TV in the kitchen in glorious SD - some 540x576 most 720x576 - I put them through Avidemux to remove adverts (if any) and trim the start / end then save as copy video and audio which is then put throuh Vidcoder (Handbrake engline) using Decomb and the de-interlacer; it's left on all the time as it automatically detects what, if any, interlacing is required. One less thingfor me to worry about.

I'm not 100% sure that you can blame the TV company for not telling you that they're transmitting interlaced or progressive scanning material. As I said earlier I don't think it's law. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

AndyW

 

 

Hi,

When interlaced content is de-interlaced before transmitting it, the quality suffers and causes the motion to be film-like.

When the content isn’t de-interlaced before transmitting, then the quality doesn’t suffer as much and the motion is fine.

I think the de-interlacing process is best left to the TV and/or STB.

Im not questioning whether or not they have to legally transmit interlaced, but what I am questioning is whether or not they really care about the quality of their broadcasts...

@jak.willis

Aah, OK I've got that. One more confusion if I may.

• It would appear that they have finally and recently fixed this issue

This I take to mean tht UKTV (or as it is now U&Drama) are now transmitting Interlaced video.

The confusion now is that I recorded a Classic Eastenders at midday today on my little kitchen TV and it's recorded progressive scan.

It plays perfectly well on the little TV on which it was recorded, my computer and the large living room LG TV. it also re-encodes without any problem again playing perfectly on all 3 devices.

Is it me?

AndyW

@jak.willis

Aah, OK I've got that. One more confusion if I may.

• It would appear that they have finally and recently fixed this issue

This I take to mean tht UKTV (or as it is now U&Drama) are now transmitting Interlaced video.

The confusion now is that I recorded a Classic Eastenders at midday today on my little kitchen TV and it's recorded progressive scan.

It plays perfectly well on the little TV on which it was recorded, my computer and the large living room LG TV. it also re-encodes without any problem again playing perfectly on all 3 devices.

Is it me?

AndyW

 

 

I shouldn’t think it matters that it’s recorded in progressive scan as long as the programme itself hasn’t been de-interlaced by the broadcaster. In other words, as long as UKTV just leave the content alone and transmit it as it is, then the de-interlacing will be left to the TV or STB, which then results in better quality and less blurring.

Righty ho. Got that.

Just looked at out local freeview transmitter. Most of the frequencies carrying the "main" channels BBC, ITV, their subsidiariesand and countless other "advert interspersed with programs" channels tend to have an average of 24 channels per frequency.

The Uktv frequency has 53 channels fighting for bandwidth. No doubt there is a reason for that.

AndyW

@jak.willis

But if the content was broadcasted deinterlaced, how can it be fixed?

As I said in post 2. Try exporting it as MPEG 2. It will be re-interlaced. Whether that will actually improve the viewing experience, only you will be able to judge.

Re that forum Andy linked to:

Since the channel reached he point where the show switched to widescreen digital (1999), the quality has just gone down hill drastically.

If they've simply cropped off the top and bottom to make the picture "widescreen", then that has invoked a major zoom effect, making the picture blurrier.

I'm guessing, but I'd wager it was shot with 24fps film ie Progressive. It would have been interlaced and 25fps only for TV and DVD.

Once again, please post a segment (instructions here) or a whole episode on a hosting site so we can try some things; Gid gave you the instructions for Google Drive above.

@jak.willis

But if the content was broadcasted deinterlaced, how can it be fixed?

As I said in post 2. Try exporting it as MPEG 2. It will be re-interlaced. Whether that will actually improve the viewing experience, only you will be able to judge.

Re that forum Andy linked to:

Since the channel reached he point where the show switched to widescreen digital (1999), the quality has just gone down hill drastically.

If they've simply cropped off the top and bottom to make the picture "widescreen", then that has invoked a major zoom effect, making the picture blurrier.

I'm guessing, but I'd wager it was shot with 24fps film ie Progressive. It would have been interlaced and 25fps only for TV and DVD.

Once again, please post a segment (instructions here) or a whole episode on a hosting site so we can try some things; Gid gave you the instructions for Google Drive above.

Ok - as soon as I’m back I’ll do that and will let you know what’s happening.

@AAProds @Gid

Here is the link to one of the deinterlaced episodes:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q7edU_oQ74mYHtZAf89NbC8m_RMLhzqb/view?usp=sharing

Weirdly, when looking at the file attributes in Mediainfo, it states the video is interlaced, but it's definitely not.

And here is the next episode from where it went back to looking normal again with regards to the motion:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YYktNp740fuLziCB_Kla2s3UFM-TzHuH/view?usp=sharing

@jak.willis

Hi

. . . . when looking at the file attributes in Mediainfo, it states the video is interlaced, but it's definitely not . . . .

What makes you think the video is not interlaced?

John EB

@jak.willis

Hi

. . . . when looking at the file attributes in Mediainfo, it states the video is interlaced, but it's definitely not . . . .

What makes you think the video is not interlaced?

John EB

Because you can tell by the motion. Compare the two I uploaded and you will see what I mean.

@jak.willis That 544 x 576 video is tiny but on my 32" 3840 x 2160 UHD screen it looks pretty good.

 

Well that one is a sample of how it should look, but the other one is how it shouldn’t look. You should notice the difference.