I captured a still image - now it flickers on DVD.

thomaskay wrote on 12/16/2004, 8:21 AM

The scenario: The scene is rolling and I want to freeze it on a frame (making the subject look cool and put his name in text with the frame. Then I want to resume the video.

So what I did was pick the frame out of the video and create a .jpg from it. I then take the .jpg and insert it where I want it and drag it out for the desired length. The problem is that the still flickers madly.

I spoke to a video pro here in town (Atlanta) who is an Avid guy. He tells me that the problem is a fielding issue and that the frame is trying to interpolate between frames. He says Avid has something that can correct the problem within it's program and that possible Photoshop can help.

Should I be disabling Resample on the still in question? My thinking is that I can't be the only one who has come across this problem.

Thomas

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/16/2004, 8:28 AM

This will be of little help at this point, but I bring up only in response to the "Avid guy". This can be done in Vegas without having to pull out a frame and drop it back in the timeline. My problem is I forget how it's done.

My poor old brain is like a sieve--can't hold anything. If you do a search using "freeze frame" or something like that, I'm sure you'll find your answer.

Jay

[edit] Here's the answer from John Meyer:

There is a much simpler way to do this, and it has the added benefit that you can create any speed video prior to the stop. I just did this last night for another sports video I am working on, so I know it works extremely well, and takes less than ten seconds to do.

1. Put the velocity envelope on the event.

2. Put the points on the envelope where you want the speed to change. It sounds like you already know how to do this, so I won't describe further. Get the speed changes pretty much how you want them, but don't worry too much about the video that appears at any point in time. You will iterate on this in a moment.

3. At the point where you want the speed to go to zero, put a point on the velocity envelope and set it to zero.

4. Click on this point to place the cursor exactly on the point. Use Alt-right arrow or Alt-left arrow to move one frame at a time until you are exactly over the point. Zoom in, if necessary.

5. Here's the "secret" tip: Press and hold the Alt key and then drag the event left and right. Actually, when the Alt key is held down, you no longer move the event, but instead "slipstream" the video within the event. What you see is the video under the last location of the cursor prior to you pressing and holding the Alt key. If you are zoomed in a long way, you can slipstream one frame at a time until the frame you want as your final freeze frame is displayed.

Bingo, you're done. Play it through and if you don't like your speed changes, you can adjust those and then go back to the zero point and change it again.

Chanimal wrote on 12/16/2004, 10:16 AM

Good tip. I also tried to freeze a single frame at the end of a soccer match. So I captured a jpg and used it as the freeze frame. It looked fine on screen but shook when watched on a TV.

It was a free project, most of the parents saw it streaming off a web page, not on DVD so I didn't bother trying to correct it. I'll try this next time.

Thanks Jay (and John for original post).

B_JM wrote on 12/16/2004, 10:21 AM

the proper method would be to convert the still image to interlaced w/ AE or fusion or photoshop ... or you can render out the still parts as progressive and the interlaced parts as interlaced and combine the parts after (dirty method) ...

kentwolf wrote on 12/16/2004, 2:15 PM

Also, doing .001 x .001 of gaussian blur helps this flickering a lot. I assumed you already right-clicked, yes, on the reduce flicker check box in the event properties...

albatross1 wrote on 12/17/2004, 11:04 PM

The best way to fix this problem is to take your still into Photoshop. You should look for some filters marked video. Choose the one that says de-interlace. Your problem is that you are frezzing two fields that are slighlty different. When you de-interlace, Photoshop will remove one of the fiields and replace it with a copy of the remaining one. This will cure your problem...

B_JM wrote on 12/18/2004, 4:30 AM

that is the opposite of his problem ... and not the correct solution ..

Mandk wrote on 12/18/2004, 4:50 AM

I had a similar problem. Following the advice above I applied a blur - the controls are certainly different in Photoshop than in Vegas - and the problem is solved. Never had this issue until yesterday but now I know.

Thanks everyone

thomaskay wrote on 12/18/2004, 12:45 PM

"Choose the one that says de-interlace. Your problem is that you are frezzing two fields that are slighlty different. When you de-interlace, Photoshop will remove one of the fiields and replace it with a copy of the remaining one. This will cure your problem..."

This is similar to what I was told by the Avid guy. With this method, I found the de-interlace. It then brings me to a prompt:

Eliminate - then it gives me a choice of "odd fields" or "even fields".

Create new Fileds by: - then it gives me a choice of "Duplication" or "Interpolation". I would imagine I would choose interpolation here.

I'm not sure about the "fields" though.

Thanks,

Thomas

Zulqar-Cheema wrote on 12/19/2004, 12:06 PM

Before capturing the still, put the project properties to progressive, that should do it. (put it back as was afterwards)

Feral_Films wrote on 12/19/2004, 2:46 PM

Why would one not use progressive anyway, with all the 'progressive scan' dvd players out there
i had to rerender an old dvd project and founf that setting it progressive scan and blend fields makes for a higher resolution dvd.

what do you think folks?

B_JM wrote on 12/19/2004, 7:35 PM

it would not change the resolution and in fact you would be lowering quality if the source was interlaced to begin with ..

a progressive scan dvd player is also only useful if you have a progressive scan TV/ display and the source was shot also progressive ..

thomaskay wrote on 12/19/2004, 8:26 PM

I took it in to Photoshop to de-interlace. From my video monitor, I replaced the new image with the old. Thus far, I can see a noticeable difference. I haven't burnedt he DVD yet as I am working on other issues.

thomaskay wrote on 12/20/2004, 7:01 PM

Yep. Worked fine after I took it into photoshop. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Thomsa