Comments

DJPadre wrote on 6/6/2006, 8:43 PM
no, just change your project properties to progressive then render...
Chienworks wrote on 6/7/2006, 4:54 AM
Or ... just render using a progressive template. Rendering properties override project properties.
johnmeyer wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:16 AM
Or don't change it at all. Why does it need to be progressive??
Cooldraft wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:35 AM
Good point. I don't know. Just thought that it would look better. But now that I think about it, I need to watch some more tutorials on this, cause I don't know how Progressive DVDs play if not played on a progressive capable player.
Spot|DSE wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:55 AM
Progressive media will be interlaced at either the DVD player (not likely these days) or at the television. Bear in mind that most commercial DVDs are progressive scan, and they're converted to interlace at the display when appropriate.
If the player isn't progressive, it's still basically the same thing. Some are better than others, just like display.
TeetimeNC wrote on 7/11/2006, 6:27 AM
I'm looking for some basic guidance on when it would make any difference whether you use interlace or progressive for burning a photo montage to dvd. I just created a photo montage both ways and can't tell any difference between them on either of my dvd players (one non-progressive, two progressive scan). Should I be seeing a difference? When (if ever) should I elect to burn as interlaced?

Jerry
Paul_Holmes wrote on 7/11/2006, 7:38 AM
I'm not too big on the technical details, but I do all my projects in 24p now, including photo montages and movies, which means it is changed to progressive automatically. I like the look I get occasionally from 24p, more movie-like which is sometimes the illusion I want to create instead of simple pans and zooms on photos.
DavidMcKnight wrote on 7/11/2006, 7:46 AM
Doesn't it depend on if the final product will be viewed on a PC vs. a TV? I thought rendering to a progressive template was for when the output would be viewed on a PC monitor...which, if that's true, is it true for both LCD and CRT?
TeetimeNC wrote on 7/11/2006, 7:56 AM
David that was my original thinking too but i can't tell any difference when I play on either of my dvd players hooked to conventional tv or progressive scan lcd projector. I am concerned that some of my clients would see a difference so I'm looking for guidance here from the experts.

Jerry
TeetimeNC wrote on 7/11/2006, 7:57 AM
Paul, I'll have to give this a try. Do you do anything else to your photo montages to give them a movie look (other than rendering to 24p)? Also, have you had any problem with them playing correctly on non-progressive scan players?

Jerry
John_Cline wrote on 7/11/2006, 8:03 AM
There are always trade-offs. In this case, assuming that the DVD player and TV can handle progressive, you are trading increased spatial resolution for decreased temporal resolution. The still images will potentially have increased vertical resolution, but if you are doing moves on any of the images, you will notice a "stutter" as progressive will cut your frame rate in half. 29.97 Interlaced video has a temporal resolution of 59.94 individual images per second, progressive has 29.97 images per second. Personally, I would keep it interlaced.

John
TeetimeNC wrote on 7/11/2006, 8:17 AM
John, this is exactly what I expected when playing the progressive render on my non-progressive dvd player. However, I could tell no difference. I think I am going to redo my test to be absolutely sure I did have a progressive render.

Jerry
Paul_Holmes wrote on 7/11/2006, 9:31 AM
I don't think the movie-look is that important for a photo-montage, but I like the look. I just did a photo movie for my niece's graduation class and there were a lot of slow zooms and pans with an occasional surprise movement that accorded with the music. My main focus was on making the photos look as good as possible and sync well with the music that was playing. However, because it was edited as 24p, some of the movements had that suble stuttering that, in my opinion added to the mystique.

You can add movie looks if you like through plug-ins like you find on the VAAST site. I also like the Pixelan Creative Ease ChromaWarp 2.
Jay-Hancock wrote on 7/11/2006, 11:55 AM
I'm no expert, but it seems like this discussion is comparing interlaced vs. progressive on stills. Clearly if there is no movement than it would be a moot point. How significant is the motion in your zoom / pan / crop? Nothing too fast or dramatic, I would assume. But I could be wrong. Maybe even a simple pan/zoom can show the weaknesses of interlaced motion (but I am doubting it).

If the DVD were of a soccer match, for example, I would expect a far more dramatic contrast between interlaced and progressive. While it's true that 60i would have more temporal resolution than 30p, the interlaced video also has a temporal deviation between frames. i.e. the runner's position in the upper field is different than his position in the lower field, hence the slightly jaggy look when fields are combined with fast motion.

Again, I'm no expert in this field. I had no idea that most DVDs are made using progressive video. That's very interesting & useful information!

Makes me wonder about the case where you capture in HDV and you know it's destined for a downconvert to SD DVD. Would it be better to have Cineform deinterlace it during capture? Would Vegas do renders faster with a source that is progressive (i.e. it has whole frames to work the FXs on and doesn't need to deinterlace them internally)?