60fps File Conversion - FINALLY a Guide! The Keys to the Kingdom

[Casshern2]

When I first got into it "they" said it will be loved by some and hated by others because it gives movies the "soap opera effect", referencing the way soap operas used to look, almost like live TV. For movies and TV shows it does make it look funny IMO, but for this stuff...I like the effect.lease:

Yes I keep the ratio. Some of my movies are 1080p, some 720p, some smaller. But I do keep the ratio. :sadomaso:

Hmm well most of my clips are AVI becuase I've edited the movie parts in Avidemux (awesome movie editor), but the same thing happens with MKV files as well, so..

About the fastfowarding stuff, it HAS to be in my imagination. The movie DOES NOT play faster. I guess it's just that I'm not used to 60fps movies.

I tried with a real movie, or rather an episode of Dexter. It look good, but still it looked rushed. I don't know if I like it or not.

 

[Nick_Wells]

When I first got into it "they" said it will be loved by some and hated by others because it gives movies the "soap opera effect", referencing the way soap operas used to look, almost like live TV. For movies and TV shows it does make it look funny IMO, but for this stuff...I like the effect.lease:

I'd say a lot of the subjective impressions concerning frame rate (in general) have to due with the effect of persistence of vision and by extension, cultural conditioning.

The former basically refers to how your brain interprets a series of still images (which ALL forms of the video medium actually are). Ultimately, the motion of any recorded video won't appear as smooth as we perceive said motion when seen live, in-person. However, the faster the frame rate, the closer it will appear to be to what we see in real life (technological by-products aside).

This is where the latter concept comes in; we (humans) have been conditioned over the last century or so of recorded visiual motion to accept certain frame rates as the norm. These would be 24fps for film and 25fps(PAL) or 30fps(NTSC) for video. Because of this, we tend to subconsciously think of these frame rates as "natural". But the fact is, all other things being equal, a higher frame rate is actually more realistic, regardless of what we're used to.

Also, compounding the issue is the fact that, since European frame rates are a bit lower, most Europeans (assuming they view primarily PAL video content) are psychologically predisposed to perceive higher frame rates as unnatural or unusual. This is not, of course, an absolute but it is a tendency.

Personally, I think part of the issue is semantics. Sometimes we use imprecise words to express our opinions. For example, many people say they think high frame rate versions of films (The Hobbit, for example) look "unrealistic". This is, objectively speaking, not true. More than likely, what they really mean is that they aesthetically "don't like the 'effect' ". This could be for any number of reasons, but it comes down to a subjective opinion of it... much in the same way some people like some art and others don't.

Anyway, sorry for the academic treatise. It's just something I'm fairly knowledgeable about and find interesting (I studied a bit of film as well as a little video production at two different colleges).

-Nick
__________________________________________________

http://nickwellsjav.blogspot.com/

and follow me (@NickWellsJAV) on Twitter for all the latest updates.

 

[Casshern2]

When I first saw a demo for Trumotion TVs they were showing Pirates of the Caribbean. It looked like I was watching behind the scenes footage of the filming. It didn't look like film, or like a movie. Same thing when I first saw one in someone's house. They were watching Pitch Black and it looked the same as in the store. Especially when the creatures came out they looked like special effects. Again, because it didn't look like film. The interpolation going on, creating the image between the frames makes it more fluid.

For movies, since like you say, we're used to seeing them a certain way, I like the way I'm used to. But for JAV (and the like) it nice to see it as LIVE-looking.

Nice breakdown, by the way. Hope your NJV series pieces are getting watched.

I'd say a lot of the subjective impressions concerning frame rate (in general) have to due with the effect of persistence of vision and by extension, cultural conditioning.

The former basically refers to how your brain interprets a series of still images (which ALL forms of the video medium actually are). Ultimately, the motion of any recorded video won't appear as smooth as we perceive said motion when seen live, in-person. However, the faster the frame rate, the closer it will appear to be to what we see in real life (technological by-products aside).

This is where the latter concept comes in; we (humans) have been conditioned over the last century or so of recorded visiual motion to accept certain frame rates as the norm. These would be 24fps for film and 25fps(PAL) or 30fps(NTSC) for video. Because of this, we tend to subconsciously think of these frame rates as "natural". But the fact is, all other things being equal, a higher frame rate is actually more realistic, regardless of what we're used to.

Also, compounding the issue is the fact that, since European frame rates are a bit lower, most Europeans (assuming they view primarily PAL video content) are psychologically predisposed to perceive higher frame rates as unnatural or unusual. This is not, of course, an absolute but it is a tendency.

Personally, I think part of the issue is semantics. Sometimes we use imprecise words to express our opinions. For example, many people say they think high frame rate versions of films (The Hobbit, for example) look "unrealistic". This is, objectively speaking, not true. More than likely, what they really mean is that they aesthetically "don't like the 'effect' ". This could be for any number of reasons, but it comes down to a subjective opinion of it... much in the same way some people like some art and others don't.

Anyway, sorry for the academic treatise. It's just something I'm fairly knowledgeable about and find interesting (I studied a bit of film as well as a little video production at two different colleges).

-Nick
__________________________________________________

http://nickwellsjav.blogspot.com/

and follow me (@NickWellsJAV) on Twitter for all the latest updates.

 

[Nick_Wells]

For movies, since like you say, we're used to seeing them a certain way, I like the way I'm used to. But for JAV (and the like) it nice to see it as LIVE-looking.

Yeah, not to belabor the point, but the common interpretation of the Persistence of Vision effect (re: visual art) used to be that the human eye could actually distinguish the individual frames at 24-25fps but not at 30fps. The phenomenon kicked in at the lower frame rate because your brain "told you" you were seeing constant motion as opposed to a rapid series of still images.

But since the eye couldn't distinguish the individual images at 30fps, you were seeing, for all intents and purposes, actual motion. Supposedly this was one of the reasons that film and video used to look so vastly different. Of course, video has undergone some major improvements in quality over the last several decades, whereas film hasn't changed nearly so much. This is (allegedly) one of the reasons that most people have traditionally perceived film as having more of an artistic aesthetic than video.

I refer to all of this in theoretical terms for two reasons. The first is that much of it is a moot point in the current era of visual motion as nearly everything thing is now shot on (digital) video. Actual film is a very specialized medium these days.

And second, with the rise of high frame rates, many of the traditional beliefs about the exact nature of Persistence of Vision related to specific frame rates is being called in to question.

Take, for instance, the current discussion comparing 30fps to 60fps. It's fairly obvious that most people notice an immediate difference in the "smoothness" or "speed" of the motion between the two; and yet, the traditional understanding would indicate that anything above 30fps would look pretty much the same.

Anyway, this is just a long-winded way of saying, "I know what you mean". And I kinda miss the perceived "artistic" look of film sometimes, too. But when it comes to porn, you're absolutely correct... the more realistic it looks, the better, IMO.

Nice breakdown, by the way. Hope your NJV series pieces are getting watched.

Thanks! As far as the NJV series, it's still a bit hit or miss. Unfortunately, since pretty much all of them contain content from PRESTIGE, I can't link to them from Akiba. It's unfortunate because that's a really good way to hit my target audience, so to speak.

However, I'm trying to grow my presence through whatever means I can. Mainly, any way I can drive traffic to the blog and encourage people to download is really my goal. For now I'll just have to be patient, yet persistent.

-Nick
__________________________________________________

http://nickwellsjav.blogspot.com/

and follow me (@NickWellsJAV) on Twitter for all the latest updates.

 

[Casshern2]

Nick, I enjoy your posts and replies.

I'm glad you like the 60fps difference. I was kinda like the guy who sees an awesome movie and tries to get everyone else to see it so they can experience it, too. I'll even buy the tickets! Haha!!

It is fun to take a scene or two from an old favorite and watch what happens after conversion. The picture may not improve but the smoothness gives it another quality altogether.

 

[Casshern2]

maschi, how is the KV conversion process coming? Those titles were made for 60fps. I converted two of the 720p titles recently. Looks amazing. I kept the resolution. I specified the output size to match the original pretty much. It came in a little lighter in size and the bitrate was pretty close to the 4000kbs of the original.

THANKS again for sharing those titles.

 

[maschi]

maschi, how is the KV conversion process coming? Those titles were made for 60fps. I converted two of the 720p titles recently. Looks amazing. I kept the resolution. I specified the output size to match the original pretty much. It came in a little lighter in size and the bitrate was pretty close to the 4000kbs of the original.

THANKS again for sharing those titles.

It's going great! I keep the ratio on everyone. :sadomaso: The 1080p's looks absolutely amazing in 60fps! The KVs were certainly made for 60fps! :cheer:

Yeah mine come out a little smaller as well, but no degradation in quality, as far as my eye can see, that is.

I'm in the process of converting all my porn. :love: It's about 900 clips.... :joker:

And no I don't remember all the clips I have. :exhausted: It's become more of a hobby collection! :exhausted:

 

[maschi]

I have to say I'm amazed sometimes how good it looks with 60fps! :cheer:
I strongly recommend to do this to 1080p files. 720p too but you will get the best result with 1080p movies. IMHO that is. :joker:
Casshern2: why aren't you keeping the 1080p? You don't need that much power from the computer gear. :sadomaso:

 

[Casshern2]

I might give it another try and let one encode tonight. I have a faster computer now so maybe it will work better. Thanks for the encouragement! :hero:

Casshern2: why aren't you keeping the 1080p? You don't need that much power from the computer gear. :sadomaso:

 

[maschi]

I might give it another try and let one encode tonight. I have a faster computer now so maybe it will work better. Thanks for the encouragement! :hero:

Yes you really should give it a try! May I ask what computer gear you have?

I have a 3-year old i7 3.07 GHz and 6gb DDR3. And an old geforce 9600 GT. Nothing fancy! (In fact it's time to upgrade).:sadomaso: But it definitely handles 1080p.

 

[Casshern2]

Dell XPS i7 3.40 Ghz and 8GB RAM

Yes you really should give it a try! May I ask what computer gear you have?

I have a 3-year old i7 3.07 GHz and 6gb DDR3. And an old geforce 9600 GT. Nothing fancy! (In fact it's time to upgrade).:sadomaso: But it definitely handles 1080p.

 

[Casshern2]

I will be adding small 10 second clips of converted files in the OP to give examples of what can be accomplished with 60fps. :study:

 

[maschi]

Dell XPS i7 3.40 Ghz and 8GB RAM

Then you should have no trouble handling 1080p!

 

[Casshern2]

I am finding that out! andalaugh:

Then you should have no trouble handling 1080p!

 

[Nagusa]

I have watched some example and this is amazing. But I haven't tried it. I have a few question. Do the source file need to be HQ ? The output file's ratio will be reduced (like 1080p become 720p) or not ? The output file's size will be bigger or smaller than the source file?

 

[Casshern2]

Nagusa, let's see if I can answer your questions the right way.

Do the source file need to be HQ? Not at all. They can be any quality, really. Just keep in mind that you cannot make a non-HQ file into an HQ file. At least not in terms of literal quality, but as you've seen, the smooth motion gives it another kind of quality.

The output file's ratio will be reduced (like 1080p become 720p) or not? That is completely dependent on how you want to do the encoding. Yes, you can turn a 1080p into a 720p presentation, but you don't have to. maschi seems to do just fine converting his 1080p material with much success. Basically, downsizing is optional.

The output file's size will be bigger or smaller than the source file? Again, depends on how you do the encoding. If you go for constant quality the size will always be bigger, sometimes even surprisingly so. But if you specify a file size during the process it will come as close as possible to your target size. However, this increases the encoding time as it has to do two passes. Constant quality will keep the picture as close to original as possible. Specify a file size and the compromise will be the bitrate, which may impact the quality.

Make a clip of one of your 1080p sources and test it out. See where you are comfortable. If size isn't a problem then use constant quality settings, otherwise specify the file size you want to get close to or even the average bitrate you want.

Enjoy the process! When you first start out you'll be smiling quite a bit. :joker:

I have watched some example and this is amazing. But I haven't tried it. I have a few question. Do the source file need to be HQ ? The output file's ratio will be reduced (like 1080p become 720p) or not ? The output file's size will be bigger or smaller than the source file?

 

[Nagusa]

Thank you for the information. I have tried it. Everthing is fine until the muxing step. The Mkvmerge doesn't support .wmv ( my original file is .wmv) so I stuck :study:. Is there any suggestion?

 

[Casshern2]

Ah, yes. You will need to convert the audio from your WMV file into a different format. Use MeGUI for that. Open it, at the bottom audio section click the Audio Input button with the three dots and select your source WMV file. Then use the Encoder settings dropdown below that and select an AC3 profile. Click the Queue button then click the Queue tab and then the Start button. Once you have your AC3 file you can mux that no problem.

Good luck!

Wow, wait! What I said above will work. But I hadn't realized that the site with the instructions have a changed a bit. Seems he's using an MKV file as a source already. Use what I said as a quick patch to get your file working. I will try to post a "patch" to the guide to show what I do for WMV files. uzzled:

Thank you for the information. I have tried it. Everthing is fine until the muxing step. The Mkvmerge doesn't support .wmv ( my original file is .wmv) so I stuck :study:. Is there any suggestion?

 

[Casshern2]

I had thought about doing this a while ago but couldn't find the script that allowed for it. Found it!

Attached (stack_compare.rar - 8.64MB) is an example of what JAV60 does to a standard JAV title. Hopefully the difference is big enough to help realize the potential of the process. In the file you will find three things:

ANX-027_10sec.wmv 10sec clip @30fps
ANX-027_10sec.mkv 10sec clip @60fps
stack_compare.avs simple avisynth script

Note: this will only work if you have avisynth installed. For that I recommend visiting the beginning of this post and follow the link to the directions. But try it first, you may have it installed and not know it.

Extract the contents and open the avs file with Media Player Classic or another player that accepts avisynth scripts as input. What you should see is two identical clips (in content only) displayed one on top of the other. The top region will play the 10 second clip at the standard 30fps from the original SD source encoding found throughout the JAV sharing scene. In fact, all I did was use asfbin to clip the 10 second segment. The bottom region will play the 10 second clip converted to 60fps using that same source clip.

I’m guessing you will be amazed at what you see. It is a striking comparison IMO. Each region is playing the exact same length of video, only the JAV60 region has more frames to create the smooth motion you see.

What the process does, in a nutshell, is analyze one frame to the next and then actually create the frame that would go between the two. So instead of having frame1, frame2, frame3 in a presentation you end up with frame1, frame1.5, frame2, frame2.5, frame3, etc...

The effect is really noticeable in scenes like this where there is motion. erfectplan:

 

[Casshern2]

Actually...if you grabbed the latest file pack from that site...once you get to step 11 of his instructions - instead of clicking the queue from the video section click the AutoEncode button at the bottom right.

Thank you for the information. I have tried it. Everthing is fine until the muxing step. The Mkvmerge doesn't support .wmv ( my original file is .wmv) so I stuck :study:. Is there any suggestion?