Please implement the ability to trans-code all the 1080i stations on live TV to 720p 60fps. 1080p 30fps looks like a burry movie for any kind of motion. Watching sports is near impossible. Implement this and it will be perfect!
Bump. I guess no one watches sports on Plex TV on Roku?
Not quite sure how to āinventā frames that donāt exist out of thin air, but Iām sure somebody, somewhere, is trying to do it.
Itās built into the deinterlace filter. Yadif has the option for frame doubling that creates additional frames. Its ridiculously simple to implement.
Yep this is a perfectly reasonable request. View a frame-doubled 1080i signal and youāll see the difference 60fps makes.
If youād like to see this yourself, just open a 1080i sporting event in handbrake. Encode once as decomb 29.97fps, then a second time as yadif-bob, 59.94 fps. The difference is glaringly obvious.
Iām also surprised Plex offers no deinterlace customization like this.
(This isnāt specific to Roku btw. The only place I know that handles 1080i deinterlacing properly is Plex Media Player on a PC, which is hardware-accelerated with local graphics)
It looks to me like the transcoder does deinterlace if you force it to transcode.
As the OP notes, the Plex transcoder does deinterlace, but it uses 30fps. Heās asking if Plex could offer an option to frame-double (the equivalent of yadif-bob in Handbrake) to give it smoother motion.
@blue-dawgie said:
Yep this is a perfectly reasonable request. View a frame-doubled 1080i signal and youāll see the difference 60fps makes.If youād like to see this yourself, just open a 1080i sporting event in handbrake. Encode once as decomb 29.97fps, then a second time as yadif-bob, 59.94 fps. The difference is glaringly obvious.
Iām also surprised Plex offers no deinterlace customization like this.
(This isnāt specific to Roku btw. The only place I know that handles 1080i deinterlacing properly is Plex Media Player on a PC, which is hardware-accelerated with local graphics)
Yes. I did this a while back to test yadif frame doubling and itās virtually perfect. Itās night and day the quality. I watch a ton of hockey so the 30fps is brutal. I tried to get the guys over at EMBY to implement this and they refused. Itās a fairly simple thing to implement. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE implement this. I will even pay for it.
Ditto. I tried Emby as well and was not impressed.
Currently the best way to deal with this is to use PMP or Shield to direct play LiveTV streams. PMP will use yadif send_field to frame double. I am not positive what method the Shield uses but it is a frame doubler. Another option is Plex for Kodi which also direct plays and defaults to frame doubling.
@Achilles said:
Currently the best way to deal with this is to use PMP or Shield to direct play. PMP will use yadif send_field to frame double. I am not positive what method the Shield uses but it is a frame doubler. Another option is Plex for Kodi which also direct plays and defaults to frame doubling.
Iāve always wondered something, and perhaps you know the answer to it: Most modern smart TVās still have an ATSC tuner on board for viewing HD via antenna. They do a wonderful job with 1080i, of course. Is there any reason why those TVās canāt direct-play and deinterlace MPEG2 files provided by Plex? Iāve always assumed it was a limitation with the TV, and what decoders are available for the app.
Thatās the great unanswered question, aināt it?
Nothing in the universe works any better than that TV Tuner at putting those two fields back together - perfectly. Once you leave that tuner - it turns to ****.
Thereās something āspecialā going on in that tuner than canāt be done in that recording device - and I donāt have a clue what it is. I wouldnāt look for any solutions in that area either, because if somebody, somewhere could have figured it out by now - they would have.
Post Processing the crappy facsimile that the recorder captures - or is done on the fly by a transcoder - is a hack job (to say the least), but does produce something adequateā¦ in no way equaling the perfect accuracy of watching that signal live on your TV Set.
Itās one of lifeās mysteries - to be sure.
1 Like
@Achilles said:
Currently the best way to deal with this is to use PMP or Shield to direct play. PMP will use yadif send_field to frame double. I am not positive what method the Shield uses but it is a frame doubler. Another option is Plex for Kodi which also direct plays and defaults to frame doubling.
This is the Roku Forum. That is not a solution.
@JuiceWSA said:
Thatās the great unanswered question, aināt it?Nothing in the universe works any better than that TV Tuner at putting those two fields back together - perfectly. Once you leave that tuner - it turns to ****.
Thereās something āspecialā going on in that tuner than canāt be done in that recording device - and I donāt have a clue what it is. I wouldnāt look for any solutions in that area either, because if somebody, somewhere could have figured it out by now - they would have.
Post Processing the crappy facsimile that the recorder captures - or is done on the fly by a transcoder - is a hack job (to say the least), but does produce something adequateā¦ in no way equaling the perfect accuracy of watching that signal live on your TV Set.
Itās one of lifeās mysteries - to be sure.
This was only true on old CRT TVās where there was no -deinterlacing, thatās actually how the TV displayed the image (1/2 frame at a time). On any modern progressive display there is a deinterlace algorithm very similar to what yadif double frames does that displays the image at 60fps. Itās flawless. You canāt even tell it was once interlaced content. Iām getting a bit annoyed because this is such a simple feature to implement and yet Plex nor the jokers at Emby seem to care that they are producing a half baked solution for anyone with a progressive only device. An āgo buy a different deviceā is not a solution.
@blue-dawgie said:
@Achilles said:
Currently the best way to deal with this is to use PMP or Shield to direct play. PMP will use yadif send_field to frame double. I am not positive what method the Shield uses but it is a frame doubler. Another option is Plex for Kodi which also direct plays and defaults to frame doubling.Iāve always wondered something, and perhaps you know the answer to it: Most modern smart TVās still have an ATSC tuner on board for viewing HD via antenna. They do a wonderful job with 1080i, of course. Is there any reason why those TVās canāt direct-play and deinterlace MPEG2 files provided by Plex? Iāve always assumed it was a limitation with the TV, and what decoders are available for the app.
Because the hardware in your TV that does the deinterlacing is part of the TV tuner itself, not the rest of the TV or display. Putting video to the TV via HDMI bypasses all that hardware. If you can figure out how to get a computer to output MPEG2 video over coaxial at broadcast frequencies then it would probably work.
1 Like
@roberto188 said:
@Achilles said:
Currently the best way to deal with this is to use PMP or Shield to direct play. PMP will use yadif send_field to frame double. I am not positive what method the Shield uses but it is a frame doubler. Another option is Plex for Kodi which also direct plays and defaults to frame doubling.This is the Roku Forum. That is not a solution.
I have already requested this with the devs quite some time before you posted. The request is to create an option in PMS to allow foryadif send_fieldorsend_frame. Currently the mode issend_framewhich results in29.97fpsand25fpsfor PAL.
Ironically, its mostly because of Roku devices that this is the current default mode. Many of the earlier Roku devices can not receive an input signal of 1080p60. This is why PMS sends out 1080p30 after transcodingāfor those legacy Roku devices.
@roberto188 said:
This was only true on old CRT TVās where there was no -deinterlacing, thatās actually how the TV displayed the image (1/2 frame at a time). On any modern progressive display there is a deinterlace algorithm very similar to what yadif double frames does that displays the image at 60fps.
No, you are wrong. At least youāre wrong in the United States with current mainstream technology. Thereās a cure (ATSC 3.0), but for the time being (no immediate announcements for the future) weāll be getting TV Signals through the air the old fashioned way - two (1920x540) fields, blended back together at the tuner (or in post processing - that aināt gonna work as well as that tuner isā¦ sadlyā¦ for some reason):
A broadcast 1080i signal sent through the air is sent in two fields - 1920x540 then blended back together at the tuner. The reason is the bandwidth doesnāt exist at the frequency the signals are being transmitted to send one 1080p frame. 720p signals can be sent via the air intact, but 1080p signals canātā¦ yetā¦
1080p material can be sent and received via wires (cable) or via Satellite (at much higher frequencies), but Broadcast Television, at this time, is locked into UHF and at those frequencies the bandwidth simply isnāt there with the current technology.
In the end, no matter what miracle you think is happening in post processing you canāt make 60 frames out of 30. You can make 30 frames, double each one and come up with 60, but you still only have 30 frames of movement capturing potential. No matter how much youād like to change the laws of physicsā¦ you canāt.
I donāt know what youāve been watching your stuff on, but Iāve been āDecombingā material at 30fps for DECADES and watching it later with no issues. My eyeballs/brain interface canāt see 60fps anyway - so what difference does it make? In fact, the magic number seems to come in somewhere around 23fps which, not coincidentally, is pretty much a standard for Motion Pictures - Less than that and the human brain/eyeball interface can detect flashes - above that and it canāt.
Evolution may be happening, but I doubt itās happened in a couple of generations. Darwin would probably even agree - it donāt work that fast. Check back in 100 thousand years and weāll talk about it then, but I doubt if either one of us will be able to add much to the discussion.
B)
@JuiceWSA said:
@roberto188 said:
This was only true on old CRT TVās where there was no -deinterlacing, thatās actually how the TV displayed the image (1/2 frame at a time). On any modern progressive display there is a deinterlace algorithm very similar to what yadif double frames does that displays the image at 60fps.No, you are wrong. At least youāre wrong in the United States with current mainstream technology. Thereās a cure (ATSC 3.0), but for the time being (no immediate announcements for the future) weāll be getting TV Signals through the air the old fashioned way - two (1920x540) fields, blended back together at the tuner (or in post processing - that aināt gonna work as well as that tuner isā¦ sadlyā¦ for some reason):
Why are there no 1080p TV Channels? | The Live Video Production Blog
ATSC 3.0 is not a cure. They have allowed for HEVC encoded 480i and 1080i broadcast in the specs for legacy support. Read the following ATSC 3.0 whitepaper for this. Search forLegacyin the PDF.
https://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/A341-2017-Video-HEVC-2.pdf
A broadcast 1080i signal sent through the air is sent in two fields - 1920x540 then blended back together at the tuner. The reason is the bandwidth doesnāt exist at the frequency the signals are being transmitted to send one 1080p frame. 720p signals can be sent via the air intact, but 1080p signals canātā¦ yetā¦
Most modern progressive displays have two methods at their disposal when dealing withNTSC 480iandATSC 1.0 1080i. The displays either use dumbBOBde-interlacing orIVTC. Some lower end model displays will not haveIVTCfor film-based broadcast. Those displays will simply apply the dumbBOBfilter in realtime. I could be wrong but have never seen a progressive display merely weave an interlaced broadcast. The results would be terrible with constant combing artifacts.
1080p material can be sent and received via wires (cable) or via Satellite (at much higher frequencies), but Broadcast Television, at this time, is locked into UHF and at those frequencies the bandwidth simply isnāt there with the current technology.
ATSC 1.0 is broadcasted on both VHF and UHFābut either way bandwidth was the issue as you stated.
In the end, no matter what miracle you think is happening in post processing you canāt make 60 frames out of 30. You can make 30 frames, double each one and come up with 60, but you still only have 30 frames of movement capturing potential. No matter how much youād like to change the laws of physicsā¦ you canāt.
Depends on the footage. If its recorded as 1080i60, you have 60 unique half frames. Applying an advanced motion-compensated (orBOBat the very least) de-interlacing filter does result in 60 full frames from the 60 fields. This keeps the temporal resolution while interpolating the spatial resolution. This is the default behavior of PMP and the Shield when you direct play 480i60 and 1080i60 content.
The temporal resolution of 60fps for fast live action is often desired by sports fans. One of the reasons why ESPN, Fox and ABC went with 720p60 for broadcast. The temporal resolution is more important than the spatial resolution for those viewers.
I donāt know what youāve been watching your stuff on, but Iāve been āDecombingā material at 30fps for DECADES and watching it later with no issues. My eyeballs/brain interface canāt see 60fps anyway - so what difference does it make? In fact, the magic number seems to come in somewhere around 23fps which, not coincidentally, is pretty much a standard for Motion Pictures - Less than that and the human brain/eyeball interface can detect flashes - above that and it canāt.
As you stated, it was the minimum the industry could get away with before flicker became detrimental to the viewing experience. As far as 30fps weave and decomb versus 60fps frame doubling, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No right or wrong here. There are plenty of users asking for this from Plex. Again I have made the request on behalf of the users that want the server option.
Evolution may be happening, but I doubt itās happened in a couple of generations. Darwin would probably even agree - it donāt work that fast. Check back in 100 thousand years and weāll talk about it then, but I doubt if either one of us will be able to add much to the discussion.
The human eyes can detect greater than 24fps. Anyone that plays twitch shooters like Quake/Doom/Counterstrike/UT will tell you the sweet spot is 120fps. 24fps was devised a standard due to the cost of film long ago.
@blue-dawgie said:
@Achilles said:
Currently the best way to deal with this is to use PMP or Shield to direct play. PMP will use yadif send_field to frame double. I am not positive what method the Shield uses but it is a frame doubler. Another option is Plex for Kodi which also direct plays and defaults to frame doubling.Iāve always wondered something, and perhaps you know the answer to it: Most modern smart TVās still have an ATSC tuner on board for viewing HD via antenna. They do a wonderful job with 1080i, of course. Is there any reason why those TVās canāt direct-play and deinterlace MPEG2 files provided by Plex? Iāve always assumed it was a limitation with the TV, and what decoders are available for the app.
They simply donāt have the API framework to allows apps access to the de-interlacer is probably the reason.
@Achilles said:
@blue-dawgie said:
@Achilles said:
Currently the best way to deal with this is to use PMP or Shield to direct play. PMP will use yadif send_field to frame double. I am not positive what method the Shield uses but it is a frame doubler. Another option is Plex for Kodi which also direct plays and defaults to frame doubling.Iāve always wondered something, and perhaps you know the answer to it: Most modern smart TVās still have an ATSC tuner on board for viewing HD via antenna. They do a wonderful job with 1080i, of course. Is there any reason why those TVās canāt direct-play and deinterlace MPEG2 files provided by Plex? Iāve always assumed it was a limitation with the TV, and what decoders are available for the app.
They simply donāt have the API framework to allows apps access to the de-interlacer is probably the reason.
I canāt figure out why a recording device canāt get the same stellar results the TV tuner can - I mean itās recording the same signal - at the same time - horking up sputum while the TV tuner is working wondersā¦ Canāt they put a decent tuner in that recording device and instead of outputting to a video stream - CAPTURE IT!
Itās gotta be some copyright, or restriction somewhere holding it up - I mean it just seems too easyā¦
ā¦ like Warp Driveā¦
lol
