Future proof Render: Progressive Wide Screen

kingsfan wrote on 1/2/2006, 12:50 PM
Hi,
I am new to this world - so please go easy :-).

I have a bunch of 4:3 aspect ratio NTSC DV AVIs that I am putting on DVD. I would like to ensure that the DVDs (that I am making for a family archive) are viewable in the standards of at least the near future. Here are a couple of newbie questions -

1. Will Vegas 6.0c and DVDA 3.0c do a good job in converting the 4:3 ascpect DV AVI to a 16:9 MPEG for the DVD? Is this even recommended? Or should I stay with the ascpect ratio of the source DV AVI?

2. Since Progressive is supposed to be so much cleaner and easier on the eye and most DVDs and TVs that are targets for these DVDs are capable of supporting Progressive video, should I render my video as Progressive? Or should I stay with Interlaced, since I suspect that is that is the source mode anyway. If the recommendation is to do Progressive rendering, what settings should I be changing in Vegas 6.0c and DVDA 3.0c to make that happen.

I was thinking 29.97 progressive and not 24p. Does this make sense?

I appreciate your help. Thanks.

Comments

filmy wrote on 1/2/2006, 4:06 PM

1> it is very easy to convert - just put the 4:3 material on a 16:9 project timeline. Crop all the media via the 16:9 preset and adjust as needed. Render out via the DVDA 16:9/widescreen template. However unless there is a real need to do a 16:9 blow up than stick with the 4:3.

2> Many DVD players now upconvert to progressive and really do a fine job of it so there isn't a need to convert unless you want to add a 'film look' or the like.
Jøran Toresen wrote on 1/2/2006, 5:41 PM
Hello

Whatever you do: keep the original DV cassettes for back up purposes! You say you are a newbie. And maybe next year you find a new and better method to archive your videos. And if you transfer the original DV files to MPEG 2 and delete the original files, you are lost!

Regards, Joran
John_Cline wrote on 1/2/2006, 5:59 PM
"Progressive is supposed to be so much cleaner and easier on the eye"

That is the subject of some debate. There are two types of resolution, spatial, which is the resolution of the image in pixels and temporal, which is how many individual images are shown in a given amount of time. Interlaced DV video has a 720x480 spatial resolution and a temporal resolution of 59.94 frames per second. (In actuality, interlaced video is 59.94 individual 720x240 images per second.) Nevertheless, by converting to 29.97 progressive, you have just thrown away half of your temporal resolution, which will make the motion in your video half as smooth, and you will gain absolutely no spatial resolution whatsoever. In my opinion, not a particulary good trade-off.

You shot it interlaced at a 4:3 aspect ratio and I suggest you leave it at that. This is a close to future proof as you can get. Anything else will just lose your original resolution, either spatial or temporal, or both.

John
kingsfan wrote on 1/2/2006, 6:26 PM
Thanks for your suggestions, all. Based on the feedback I have recd., I will keep my original DV tapes and render at 4:3 intrerlaced. Some of the newer DV is shot 16:9, so that's when I will render as 16:9.
busterkeaton wrote on 1/2/2006, 11:34 PM
You shot it interlaced at a 4:3 aspect ratio and I suggest you leave it at that. This is a close to future proof as you can get.

I agree with John. If you consider the amount of material that exist in a 4:3, interlaced format, there will probably always be a way to play it.