The imperfections in the scrolling text may wel have been there in the PAL version but not as noticeable, perhaps if you had done the titles in a nNTSC project to start with would have been better but then again mostly the general population never even notices as someone pointed out to me most TVs in the US are so way off you can waste a lot of time worrying about nothing. Did you make certain the colors in the titels were legal?

This can be a real trap, they'll look great on the PC monitor and on a DVD player with RGB connection to the TV but once they go through a composite video connection is when they fall apart.


But I like the Sydney HiFi idea, I can take the client along as well. Could pretend she's my wife, she'd get a hoot out of that, don't know how the real wife would take to the idea.

Im ignorant to the technical details like upper frame,lower frame, pulldown and now legal colours. At this stage of my vegas hobby. I just make things for home use and if it looks good on my TV Im happy.

Fortunetly I dont have the professional worries that you do in this case. ;-)

But I did a DVD slide show for a friend who just got a huge LCD rear projection TV, and the 4:3 stuff I made looked crap so I re did it in 16:9 and changed a few things and it looks much better.

It really helps to view your stuff on the type equipment it will be shown on.

Hey you dont need to declare whos your wife when buying a TV. ;-)

Then again the sales guy might start pressuring 'your wife' to get you to sign.

cheers
jc

Well, motion blur will basicly introduce a blur effect to simulate film look at 24Fps.

Deinterlace will create more or less a progressive picture, but since it is not captured that way you could end up with a loss of sharpness due to merging to half frams into one, which are captured at different moments, especcialy if there is a lot of movement in the footage.

The way you did it befor is probably the best way to go, the problem is that if you convert from PAL to NTSC you deal with different speeds as well as with different resolutions, so you have two possibilitys, pan and scan or fit into frame, but in any case depending on the footage and the fact that you are missing approx. 5 frames to the second you might get a little stuttering in the final product

....hmm, I had heard about the Sydney wife swapping , never knew it took place in Sydney Hi-fi tho ..... :)

I wonder how VV does the conversion by calculate/interpolate additional frames or just duplicate fields (like 24p to 30i). I think that VV does it by recalculating all frames - in this case, suppersampling might improve the quality?.
Also, all generated media will probably improve if you change the frame size to NTSC.

Udi

Taking the smart resampling and possibly supersampling items to one side.
There is something you can do with Vegas4+DVD that'll get one over and is my preferred way of going to NTSC, where the look suits the footage:

1. PAL footage into a project but adjust the template for 24 interlaced fields per second. (choose PAL or NTSC size depending on what you do in 2.)
2. Rescale to 720x480 centred on the window, by crop probably, but scaling some or part maybe OK too.
3. Ensure that your footage is 4% longer than it was originally, or stretch it. I always check this but can't remember what I do, as most of my work is on stills which are more forgiving on transcodes.
4. Pitch convert the audio back up by increasing by 4%.
5. Render out with the NTSC 24p project type, but worry not on the fact that your footage consists of video frames with interleaving in field time.
6. DVDA it out to disc.

The player will insert a pulldown, and this is where the natural rate adaption of Vegas might be a better look for your project. Pulldown being an NTSC mode phenomenon, you may not be satisfied with it even with a bought 24p DVD.

The above steps are probably described more convincingly in the Sony 24p white paper.

Ron,
thanks for all the advice. One of the SOny (SoFo) guys had suggested making a 24p DVD as these should play anywhere in the world, in fact this is how most of the Hollywood DVDs are authored. But I didn't try this as I was uncertain just how it wold turn out going from 50i to 24p.

From what you are saying this process should work out, I'll gie it a try, time permitting and see how it looks. I'm actually a bit nervous about some of the footage the client has given me. Firstly it was create in FCP 1.2, secondly this client has zero technical knowledge, she likes to twiddle things to get a certain 'look' from an artistic point of view.

I noticed on some of her footage shot from a kayak that the rippling waves with sunlight bouncing off them looked strange, at first I just thought it was some normal artifact due to stobing between the light and the frame rate. But when it's been encoded and played back from the DVD the top line jitters, this is normally masked and it had to go Europe the next day so I didn't have time to look at it carefully, she thought it looked great and I didn't want to cause myself anymore grief at that time. But now the footage is being converted to NTSC I'd better check that its fine in PAL first, I might try your trick with TMPGEnc you just mentioned elsewhere, maybe she's got the field dominance mixed up on this one video, her other stuff looks fine.

The cadence concerns of going to 24p are likely to be the same whether you have 25p or 50i sources. Pulldown isn't a worldwide phenomenon that we've all grown up with in large quantities.

Without seeing your footage I couldn't guess as to whether I'd recommend:

1. Scaling 720x576 to 720x480 or cropping.
2. Attempting to use some fancy interpolation to de-interlace.
3. Relying on smart resampling to 'tween 50i to 59.94i
4. Timestretch 50i to 48i and pitch convert 4%, then output as 24p NTSC.
5. Attempt an aspect ratio conversion to help with the scaling options.
6. Use a conversion house with something like a Snell & Wilcox Alchemist Ph.C. (phase correlation, motion estimation) to hand.