Good De-Interlacing Filter For Vegas ?

farss wrote on 3/3/2004, 2:46 PM

If you render out as uncompressed AVI VirtualDub will accept that file. It does get kind of huge though.

In Vegas you just set project field order to "None (progressive)" and select which de-interlace method you want and job done as you render out.

You do realise you take a quality hit doing this unless the material was originally shot progressive?

Best method I've found so far involves rather expensive hardware. There should be a way to do the same in software but so far I haven't seen anything. What needs to be done for the best results is motion compensation and even that would be 100% accurate but much better than dropping / merging fields.

TheDingo wrote on 3/3/2004, 2:54 PM

I've had the best results rendering as uncompressed AVI and then
using VirtualDub to take care of it. Using a "None (progressive)" field
order in Vegas is nowhere near as good as VirtualDub.

I'm hoping that someone makes a solution that's as good as VirtualDub
but can be used right within Vegas.

Thanks for the feedback.

BJ_M wrote on 3/3/2004, 5:34 PM

you can use virtualdub if you install the free panasonic dv codec or the main concept dv codec or the canopus dv codec .. then virtualdub will
read/write DV files ...

farss wrote on 3/3/2004, 5:51 PM

Which de-interlacing method did you use in Vegas?

TheDingo wrote on 3/3/2004, 6:17 PM

Thanks for the tip on installing one of the free DV CODECs. This sounds
like a great solution.

TheDingo wrote on 3/3/2004, 6:26 PM

I've tried using the "Reduce Interlace Flicker" combined with a Field order
setting of "None (progressive scan)", and I still see all kinds of interlaced
motion artifacts in the rendered video. ( horizontal interlaced lines on
anything in motion )

Using VirtualDub with the "Alparysoft Deinterlace" filter ( I compared a
bunch of VirtualDub de-interlacing filters, and this was the best ) completely
eliminates the interlacing artifacts, producing very smooth yet still sharp video.

I'm producing video for CD-ROM / DVD-ROM / Web playback, and the
interlacing artifacts are VERY noticeable in high resolution video.

Next I'm going to try installing the free Canopus DV CODEC, and see if this
allows me to work on DV files output from Vegas.

< 30 minutes later >

I tried the Canopus DV Codec, but VirtualDub still couldn't open a DV file
generated by Vegas. Next I tried the Panasonic DV Codec, and everything
worked great. Thanks.

The_Jeff wrote on 3/3/2004, 6:30 PM

You can run virtual dub plugins directly inside of vegas using satish's plugin pac adapter.

TheDingo wrote on 3/3/2004, 6:35 PM

Thanks. I'll give it a whirl.

< 10 minutes later >

...Wow! This is amazing!

Now I can use all of the VirtualDub filters right in Vegas!

This is SO COOL !!! Thanks a million !!!

Bill Ravens wrote on 3/3/2004, 7:03 PM

why don't you just frameserve with satish's frameserver right from the vegas timeline into VirtualDuB?

farss wrote on 3/3/2004, 8:39 PM

Yes BUT,
in Vegas which de-interlace method are you using?

From what I know IF you leave it set to none then you'll just do a field merge because it'll assume your source is progressive to start with and you would get horrible results.

You need to specify a de-interlace method, either interpolate or blend.

As far as I am aware, and I could be wrong apart from very high end stuff no one has a better way of doing it. I'd expect to get the same dodgy results from Vegas and Virtual Dub filters. Of course if you're going to a low res format then it may not matter to you anyway.

taliesin wrote on 3/4/2004, 4:14 AM

Not all of the VD-filters work inside Vegas. 2-pass filter like the VirtualDub Deshaker plugin does not work this way.

Marco

DaLiV wrote on 3/4/2004, 5:04 AM

try http://www.debugmode.com/pluginpac/

TheDingo wrote on 3/4/2004, 10:16 AM

>> As far as I am aware, and I could be wrong apart from very high end stuff no one has a better way of doing it.

OK, here's a few frame grabs to illustrate what I am talking about.

Frame from original DV capture made using a Sony DSR-25 DVCAM deck:

http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/capture_dv_frame.jpg

The same frame renedered from Vegas in DV format.
"Reduce Interlace Flicker" was set, and field order was set to "Progressive":

http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/vegas_prog_dv_frame.jpg

Now here is the same frame rendered from Vegas in DV format with the same
settings plus the VirtualDub Alparsoft De-Interlace filter inside satish's plugin pac adapter:

http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/alparysoft_dv_frame.jpg

Notice the difference ? ( Remember that this is still in DV format, rendered from Vegas )

...This is what I'm talking about.

taliesin wrote on 3/4/2004, 10:34 AM

Mmh, "Reduce Interlace Flicker" is not meant for deinterlacing, though in some cases it works similar.

Most important is to have the project properties set right.
So in the menu "File/Properties ..." you must have the field order set to "Lower Field First" if your source files are interlaced DV files.
Same window go to "Deinterlace Method" and set it to either "Blend Fields" or "Interpolate Fields". I recommend "Interpolate Fields for freeze frame exports and "Blend Fields" for regular deinterlacing. But it is VERY IMPORTANT to have either "Blend" or "Interpolate" set here!!!

Now in the Vegas render dialog - if you render DV-AVI - go to the "Video" tab and set the "Field Order" value to "None (progressive scan)". Now render your file.

This way you'll get same results out of Vegas as you've shown on the VirtualDub picture.

Marco

TheDingo wrote on 3/4/2004, 11:43 AM

Thanks. I now see that I was completely missing the Vegas
"De-interlace" field on the file properties "Video" tab. Doh!

Here are the results of doing things properly in Vegas:

http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/vegas_interpolate_dv_frame.jpg

http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/vegas_blend_dv_frame.jpg

http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/alparysoft_dv_frame.jpg

The Vegas "Blend" method seems almost identical to the alparysoft
de-interlacing filter, but with no color shift. ( re: Vegas is better )

Thanks again!

riredale wrote on 3/4/2004, 11:55 AM

Take a look at the Alparysoft versus the Vegas photos. Is it just me, or is the Alparysoft just a tad sharper? Look in particular at the white window frame in the background. If, in fact, the Alparysoft does a much more involved computation regarding motion vectors and such, then one would expect better results than just what one could do by blending or interpolating.

taliesin wrote on 3/4/2004, 11:59 AM

Are you absolutely sure your first example was made by interpolating?

There should be a visible difference between interpolate and blending. At least my results look different. Using interpolation I get sharper results with Vegas.

Marco

TheDingo wrote on 3/4/2004, 12:04 PM

>> Are you absolutely sure your first example was made by interpolating?

Yes. You can see a slight "jagginess" to the bride's raised finger tip with the
interpolated version, which is not visible in the blended version. Because of
this I think I prefer the blended method better, despite it being slightly softer.

TheDingo wrote on 3/4/2004, 12:08 PM

...OK I just checked, and it looks like I've made a mistake. Sorry.
I'll re-do the results again. ( I deleted the original files )

I'll be more careful this time.

vitamin_D wrote on 3/4/2004, 12:15 PM

I did this a while back, comparing Vegas with DV FilmMaker's deinterlacing:

http://ideaspora.net/progressive

If you can find a better solution that I don't have to shell out $$$$ for, I'd be happy to learn of it. Til then, I'm doing Spot's manual deinterlacing -- blending upper and lower-field video using sync'd, overlapping tracks and 50% opacity.

- jim

taliesin wrote on 3/4/2004, 12:34 PM

Looks like you only used the interpolate setting in Vegas. I think the blend setting would give you results just like DV-Filmmaker.

Marco

TheDingo wrote on 3/4/2004, 12:48 PM

OK, I've re-done my de-interlacing tests, and here are the resulting images:

http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/1_capture_dv.jpg
http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/2_vegas_blend.jpg
http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/3_vegas_interpolate.jpg
http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/4_alparysoft_even_rows.jpg
http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/5_alparysoft_simple_interpolation.jpg
http://www.lingodingo.com/dvtests/6_alparysoft_area_based.jpg

I tried a using a few of the different methods available in the alparysoft
de-interlace VirtualDub filter.

The Vegas interpolate method is still pretty good.

The Alparysoft simple interpolation method seems to have slightly
sharper edges. ( check the bride's overlapping fingers and the rose petals )
There is also a slight color shift with the Alparysoft filter.

taliesin wrote on 3/4/2004, 12:58 PM

Interesting results. Also check the area around the car front window.

Marco

BJ_M wrote on 3/4/2004, 1:02 PM

some do not work and others may not work correctly .. some work fine .. some may cause some major issues with your render ...

just a note of warning ...

its a very handy plugin though ....