I'm rendering to an uncompressed progressive AVI.... same resolution and framerate as source (720x480 29.97fps). Then I usually convert to a DivX file at 4000kbps (the highest it can).

On further investigation, most of the blurriness I'm complaining about must just be from converting to DivX. The uncompressed version seems pretty clean. I need to do more careful testing before I start making blanket statements... :)

Try a Panasonic DVX100 in progressive mode. It will really blow away any others interlaced cam for computer format delivery...

BTW, why use Divx format?

Do you really need to render to progressive before encoding in Divx?

I looked at a review of the Panasonic DVX100 and it looks cool.... Unfortunately, I just bought a panasonic 3CCD camcorder for $1300 and can't afford to make another big purchase right now.

Why use DivX? It gives good quality and doesn't create huge files (which matters when you sending videos over the internet. Are there other codecs you think are better?

I want my videos in progressive because so many viewers on computers do not show interlaced video very nicely. You can really see the "steps" of an interlaced image. So when I send these videos to friends to view on their computers, they will get a crappy image. Progressive is better anyways. I wish all video was migrating this way. Are HD standards progressive?

Anyways... I still have to do more testing to determine where the quality is getting lost when de-interlacing an image.

Deinterlacing is rarely something you should do to interlaced material. There used to be an article about it at lordsmurf.com, but it seems to be gone. Basically you're going to lose resolution that way and it is not recommended. I've tried a few different products and Vegas methods, but I've never been happy with deinterlacing from any of them.
Now, I think interlacing is an abomination and should be gotten rid of immediately as it an answer to a 60 year old problem, but my belief is that once you start with it you're better off leaving it interlaced.

DiVX can go up to 8000 btw .... select the HD profile if you cant get there using the home theater profile ..

this site http://www.100fps.com/ has a lot of info on de-interlacing ...

so does www.videhelp.com and doom9

Old news to anyone following this forum regularly, but the best de-interlacer for Vegas is free and it's here:

http://mikecrash.wz.cz/

All of Mike's plugins are first rate by the way. Get them all and contribute if you can.

Interesting. Do you find it better than DVFilmmaker, Magic Bullet, and Twixor? I think MB and Twixor maybe to 24p only rather than 30p though.

Well it is the best free de-interlacer that runs within Vegas ;-) I have DV Film-Maker and its about the same for a straight 30P deinterlace though I do like it better for 24P conversion. I haven't tried Magic Bullet or Twixtor so I can't comment on them.

This is pro software for deinterlacing: Fieldskit.

"Using proprietary field reconstruction and adaptive motion techniques, FieldsKit Deinterlacer can build full frames from fields that are of much higher quality than the standard approaches available in most effects and video editing applications."

Needs AE or Combustion or Premier Pro or FCP to work, but costs only $89.95.

[Quote]Switching from Pinnacle Studio 8 to Vegas Video 5 is like switching from a bicycle to a Porsche.[/Quote]
I did the same two years ago but I felt like switching from a [B]broken[/B] bicycle to a Porsche since Studio 8 frequently crashed every 5-10 mins or so.
Martin :-)

Using adaptive motion is certainly the key however you should only be getting loss of res due to motion bluring on things that have ah, motion.
If you're getting loss of res on static shots something else is wrong I think.
Which de-interlacing method did you use in Vegas?

If you use interpolation then you've thrown half your vertical res away.
Try changing de-interlace method in Project Properties to Blend Fields.

Shooting with a slower shutter speed might help too, the natural motion blur might hide that added from the de-interlace.

Bob.

Actually, I tried blend fields and it looked fuzzier than the original. It's been a while though. I have the DV Filmmaker that makes things 30p, but not the updated version that can do 24p. I was not terribly impressed with the 30p version and it created nightmares when I rendered to mpeg2. Of course, that project had serious undercranking then velosity envelopes to speed it up (to simulate the sped up motion of silent films). Anyway, nothing worked very well and I believe I tried Vegas out on another project and still found it fuzzy. Have you had a different experience?

To answer your questions Fars:

I've been using the "Blend" method already. And yes, unfortunately, most of my video has significant motion being shot with a hand-held camcorder. Thanks for the tip about shutter speed, but I don't think my camcorder is capable of having it's shutter speed changed.