How to improve footage "smoothness" ?

[Luigi Carniel]

Hi, newbie from Italy here. I have only recently approached the 8/S8 world. Bought myself a used projector and a couple of old (family, holidays) footages on Ebay . I have been trying to find the best way to digitize them (Off-the wall, Ambico ) with no good result. So I decided to rent a Wolverine clone for a week and do the job. Even if this is long process, I have to say that the scanning + NeatVideo have enabled me to achieve a good result but still making tests on the scanned footages to improve final output.
One thing that I really cannot get to solve is the “smoothness” of the footages after post-processing. I am not an expert in bitrates, framerates etc, all I I got to learn is from tutorials, forums etc but still a long way to go.
Let me go the point: after the scanning , I got a mp4 footage at 20fps 1440 x 1080op. I post process and rendered the footage thus obtaining another h264 , at 25 fps 1440 x 1080p, bitrate 20000 as suggested by the software (Adobe Premiere Elements) . It looks acceptable but what bothers me ist hat the fooages appear tobe kind of ‚choppy‘ especially when it comes to moving landscapes . I add a short example of what I mean (not denoised yet) . I have tested on several Video Players on my pc (which is a good one with Win 11 64bit) ) and modern Tv sets. but no difference at all. .
When porjecting it from the reel tot he wall the footage is ok . The footage that I obtain from the scanning does not help me to understand if the problem arises there (it is not stable to evaluate and it runs too fast but then I correct both issues) or during post production, Can anybody out there have a look at the short example which I am adding to this post and see if ther is any suggestion or solution ? Or any parameter or configuration in terms of Bitrates,framerates etc in post prodution to obtain a „smooth“, non choppy, footage ? Thank you very much and sorry for this (maybe unnecessarily ) long post.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FaY8P7f0LblTHPQrP8aRVTHEjWsMw8Zo/view?usp=share_link

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

I think I knew how this issue would've come up.
- The original film would probably be shot at 16 frames per second.
- But the output file from Wolverine scanner is 20 frames/second (25% fast).
- After post-processing the final output file runs at 25 frames/second, by repeating certain frames to keep the "actual speed" at 20 fps. That would mean adding 5 repeated frames per every second - hence the choppiness.

There are 2 possible options to eliminate this issue.

1.Keep everything at its native speed - 16 fps in this case. That means slowing down the original file(s) from the scanner to 16 fps. Then doing any edit/post-processing/export at that speed. Unless states otherwise this is how I scan/edit/export my work to customers (btw I do film scanning as semi-hobby job for a while now ).

2.But certain playback device/platform wouldn't like running odd framerate files. For example media player box did play 16 fps files, but it would resample the output to 24p video stream, causing noticeable choppiness much like in your sample. In this case I'd slow down the playback speed of the original file to 16.67 fps (in other words: 50/3 fps), then oversample it at the export step to 50p output file. Therefore each original frame will be repeated precisely 3 times throughout and would look at least as "smooth" as projecting actual films.

Not sure if this lengthy/confusing reply are of any use or not. But if in doubt, feel free to ask.

[Luigi Carniel]

Dear Nantawat, thank you so much for your suggestions and advises. I think you got it . In my case I have chosen your solution # 2 : I slowed down the original (from scanner) 20 fps footage at 0.8335 thus matching more or less 16.67 fps and then I have exported it at 50p. I found that the improvement is good. Below is a link of the new generated output file . What do you think ? I will make more attempts to make sure it works with all other footages and see if I can improve even more but the good thing is that apparently the reason of the "choppiness" seems to match your indications. . Thank you again, I have been wasting so much time around this issue, then I have come across this nice forum and finally I seem to have found a way out. As said I am new in this field and I learn as I go... Thank you

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13_a...usp=share_link

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

Although there's still some inconsistencies in the frame cadence (some frames still not x3 repetitive), but you'll have to really look for it by scrolling through the video, frame by frame, to find it out.
In other words it now seems perfectly fine for casual use, no obvious stuttering anymore. I think it's now safe for your to stick to the current workflow then.

[Luigi Carniel]

Thank you, what else should I do in your opinion to remove these still existing inconsistencies ? Reduce speed a little bit more before exporting at 50p ?

[Stan Jelavic]

Hi Luigi. The clip still looks choppy when panning. Have you tried daVinci Resolve. It is a free tool. Try interpolation with optical flow. Here sre instructions that I put together.
https://github.com/vintagefilmograph..._video_capture
Check towards the bottom of the file.
Essentially you import the clip and set the clip speed to 60FPS.
Create timeline from the clip.
Right click on the timeline and select change speed and set the speed to your final speed.
Make sure optical flow is selected as per the instructions in my document.
That will create very smooth pan scenes.

[Stan Jelavic]

Something like this.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/194Q...ew?usp=sharing
I used Resolve standard interpolation. Some tuning may be necessary to reduce the optical flow artifacts.

Used the following workflow:
Avisynth getdups http://avisynth.nl/users/fizick/getdups/getdups.html
Exported processed video as an image sequence from VirtualDub
Imported to Resolve at 60 FPS
Turned Optical Flow on and chose standard filter
Changed timeline speed to 16.67 with ripple checked off
Exported into MP4.

Can provide more details and instructions if required.

[Luigi Carniel]

Something like this.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/194Q...ew?usp=sharing
I used Resolve standard interpolation. Some tuning may be necessary to reduce the optical flow artifacts.

Used the following workflow:
Avisynth getdups http://avisynth.nl/users/fizick/getdups/getdups.html
Exported processed video as an image sequence from VirtualDub
Imported to Resolve at 60 FPS
Turned Optical Flow on and chose standard filter
Changed timeline speed to 16.67 with ripple checked off
Exported into MP4.

Can provide more details and instructions if required.

Hi Stan ,
Thank you for your and Nantawats' precious tips. I was not familiar with DaVinci Resolve as I was under the assumption that it was not free, meaning = trial with many restrictions in functions and time or marks as most of its competitors. It wasn’t so, the free version that I have tested indeed has turned out to be quite exhaustive at least for my purposes and Pc resources.
It took me some time and tests this week to get familiar with this tool at least as far as my goals are concerned. After many tests I think I have improved and got a better result although I might still have to fine-tune and maybe change some configurations. Here is a link for the new footage (it is related to a tourist tour shot in Sicily, Southern Italy around Mid-70s but I have only bought it on Ebay) .

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17OB...ew?usp=sharing


The footage is longer than the previous one because I want to show the speed of the panning sea-landscape posted earlier along with other scenes with people, cars, etc. and I do not wish to process single sections/scenes of the footage, but as a whole. However, this is he configuration that I have used (it might not suit the „purists “as it is „hand-made“ but suggestions, if not too complicated for my level, are welcome.

1. Set project in DVR with Optical Flow and Enhanced Faster
2. Imported the Clip to DVR and set to 50 fps
3. Changed the speed (and duration) to 16.67 fps
4. Slightly stabilized footage at the minimum level
5. Exported it at 1280 x 720p (I opted for this resolution to speed up render process and reduce file size)
6. Denoised it with Neat Video (in Premiere Elements as I do not have Neat Video for DaVinci)
7. Adjusted slightly colors, saturation, white balance (in Premiere Elements but next time I might do that in Davinci) but can do better
8. Exported finally again with 1280 x 720 p resolution (with low bitrate though)

Although a couple of artifacts (probably due to Optical Flow) are still there, It looks to me ok especially when I watch the footage on my Samsung Tv set (on Vlc or other PC Media Players a little bit less satisfactory) . I do not know if the above configurations and parameters make all sense, and I think there might be ways to do better in terms of process method and time saving but I find the result ok, maybe I could slow the speed down just a little bit more. I would appreciate any constructive comment and I wish to thank you all for the support.
Luigi

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

I once tried Film9 software (in short - a dedicated software for film restoration after scanning process) a long, long while ago - back in good old SD days. Among several "enhancement" functions such as color correction/dirt & grain removal/stabilization, there's also frame rate conversion function built -in. That will take either 16.67 or 18 (or whatever) fps input clip and output to any higher frame rate - much like this optical flow function in today's NLEs.

While initially impressive I then realized that this would create "new" frames, and almost all of "original" frames would be "lost" in the process. Thereby negating the major intent of frame-by-frame scanning in the first place.

In the end I turned this function off and have the entire workflow strictly in its original frame rate. If it was 16 fps, so be it and leave that untouched. Then no frames were harmed in the "restoration" process.

(Of course this is me and me only - YMMV.)

[Stan Jelavic]

Nice work Luigi. I like the final clip that you posted. You've spent lots of time working on this and that is commanding. My main issue with keeping the original speed without interleaving is that it is hard to watch with my old eyes. It is just too much flickering when panning, so your clip is easy to watch and I actually enjoyed it despite a few artifacts here and there.
I understand that some people try to keep the output close to the original as much as possible including the film scratches, frame rate etc but we also have to keep in mind that the "player" is different. A projector with incandescent light and 3 blades does not nearly give you as much flicker. We now have computer monitors and that definitely produces more flicker when run at original FPS.
Anyways my 2 cents.

[Stan Jelavic]

One more thing, try importing it at 60 FPS.

[Luigi Carniel]

I once tried Film9 software (in short - a dedicated software for film restoration after scanning process) a long, long while ago - back in good old SD days. Among several "enhancement" functions such as color correction/dirt & grain removal/stabilization, there's also frame rate conversion function built -in. That will take either 16.67 or 18 (or whatever) fps input clip and output to any higher frame rate - much like this optical flow function in today's NLEs.

While initially impressive I then realized that this would create "new" frames, and almost all of "original" frames would be "lost" in the process. Thereby negating the major intent of frame-by-frame scanning in the first place.

In the end I turned this function off and have the entire workflow strictly in its original frame rate. If it was 16 fps, so be it and leave that untouched. Then no frames were harmed in the "restoration" process.

(Of course this is me and me only - YMMV.)

Thanks Nantawat

I have tried Film9 earlier this week but let down for DaVinci .

The problem I have with frame rate is that the footage resulting from Wolverine is at 20fps which is not the originally shot ( it should be 18fps being it a Super8 in my specific case). This is messing all up to me in my case . I would like to test your suggestion to render as original but I am figùring out how. I like to test different options and see what works better and faster 🙂

[Luigi Carniel]

Nice work Luigi. I like the final clip that you posted. You've spent lots of time working on this and that is commanding. My main issue with keeping the original speed without interleaving is that it is hard to watch with my old eyes. It is just too much flickering when panning, so your clip is easy to watch and I actually enjoyed it despite a few artifacts here and there.
I understand that some people try to keep the output close to the original as much as possible including the film scratches, frame rate etc but we also have to keep in mind that the "player" is different. A projector with incandescent light and 3 blades does not nearly give you as much flicker. We now have computer monitors and that definitely produces more flicker when run at original FPS.
Anyways my 2 cents.

Thanks Jan , I am keen to know that I am getting closer to my objective, also in particular to expert’ eyes like yours. I will try and import at 60fps but if I am not wrong , Dvr will only allow me to export at the same rate and it might take long time. I have a few of these rolls to digitize and most of them are more than 20 minutes each. Regards h the artifacts, I wonder if there is any way at all to avoid them. I know that the next step is Speed warp function but the full version is only available in the Studio version. I have tried on the standard Dsr version but it is only available with marks and it is extrmely slow (it would take 90 minutes for 3 minute footage!) so I gave up…

[Brian Fretwell]

While initially impressive I then realized that this would create "new" frames, and almost all of "original" frames would be "lost" in the process. Thereby negating the major intent of frame-by-frame scanning in the first place.

I know that in the UK when restoring film telerecordings (Kinoscopes in the USA), which have only half the frames per second that the original interlaced video has fields, they now do not us ANY of the original frames but interpolate between where the fields were originally. This is because the interpolated frames are subtly "Wrong" compared with the real ones. I image this is the same when runing with films and you either have to do what they do or what you do to get results that don't look a bit "wrong".

[Stan Jelavic]

Here is another twist on keeping the original frames. If you are doing frame-by-frame then yes you have the original frames. In the case of Wolverine this is no longer true since it takes the original frames (key frames) and applies mpeg type of compression in between the keyframes. So any frames acquired between the keyframes are compressed frames that leverage from the frame differences. There is no way of getting the original frames back. If we would take the Wolverine mp4 video and extract the keyframes (with ffmpeg) and make a video from that it would get too choppy. Even if Wolverine generated the video at 18 FPS the situation would not be much better.
Even the original frames will have jpeg compression on them plus they do image doubling...