Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/25/2010, 8:56 AM
will there be motion? If so then I'd highly suggest setting up the TL for progressive & be sure to render progressive. That's the easiest way. DVD spec supports NTSC progressive & the DVD player will autodeinterlace fo a SD TV for you & it will look good.

If there's no motion then it doesn't matter as you won't get any interlacing.
Chienworks wrote on 6/25/2010, 9:59 AM
Actually, i think you mean "autointerlace".
dvideo2 wrote on 6/25/2010, 10:11 AM

do the settings in architect then need to be set for progresive as
well, or will the video automatically mantaing it's progressive
quality?
thank you..
TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/25/2010, 10:12 AM
Actually, i think you mean "autointerlace".

yes, my bad. :)
dvideo2 wrote on 6/25/2010, 10:32 AM
ok, some funny resutls here after running some tests-maybe somone has some info for a solution?

i put motion on a picture and rendered 1 version with progressive settings and 1 version with interlaced settings.....

Results with interlace - the quality of the lines within the picture itself were definately not as clear, however when the picture moves accross the screan, the edges don't jitter as much.

Results with progressive - the quality of the lines within the picture iteself were more clear, however when the pic moves accross the scren, the edges jitter more.....

This leaves me not realy decided on the best solution.....If i can remove the jitter from the progressive version it would be best - how can i do that?

thanks again....
LReavis wrote on 6/25/2010, 3:31 PM
I always render to 1920 x 1080 x 60p, even if I have to deinterlace the originals (which I rarely do now that I'm mostly shooting with the Panasonic TM700). If you render to, say, 24p, you'll definitely see motion that is NOT smooth.

But you'll need a fast hard disk to play it smoothly if you render 60p to Cineform or other high data-rate codec. Nevertheless, Cineform, or the less expensive PicVideo ($40) make ideal intermediates, which you can then render to MP4 for final web delivery. I also get great standard-definition DVDs when I produce them from the 60p with TMPGenc DVD. Hopefully, we'll all be making 60p HD blue-ray disks soon, where the benefits of 60p will shine.
John_Cline wrote on 6/25/2010, 5:00 PM
It's all about temporal resolution. Typically, progressive video is either 24 or 29.97 individual frames per second (25 fps PAL.) Interlaced is 59.94 (50 fps PAL) individual frames per second and the motion will be at least twice as smooth.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/25/2010, 6:22 PM
if you tell us the target media we could answer better.
FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 6/26/2010, 9:13 AM
25 progressive frames is 25 frames per second
50 fields (interlaced) is still 25 frames per second

Why would you want to interlaced stills? I wish I could remove the interlace option from my cam.
Interlacing was developed for braodcasting to save bandwidth. If your material is going to be broadcasted then let them do it for you because they will do it anyway.

[I run for cover]
John_Cline wrote on 6/26/2010, 11:10 AM
"25 progressive frames is 25 frames per second"

Correct. There are 25 indicivual images per second.

"50 fields (interlaced) is still 25 frames per second"

Essentially incorrect. There are 50 individual images per second. (Notice I said "images" and not "frames.") Each frame consists of two fields and those fields are taken 1/50th of a second apart in time, thus making 50 individual images per second.

"Why would you want to interlaced stills?"

If there are any moves on the stills, the motion will be twice as smooth using interlaced.

"I wish I could remove the interlace option from my cam."

If you understood the implications of that statement, you probably would not have made it.

Yes, 60p is better that 60i (or 50p is better than 50i) but there is no widespread distribution method of 60p. For now, 60i is better that 29.97p (50i is better that 25p) in terms of motion smoothness.
FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 6/26/2010, 12:30 PM
If you understood the implications of that statement, you probably would not have made it.

Interlacing is temporal

[link=http://www.photoshoproadmap.com/Photoshop-videos/watch/34698676

Quote from video "but at least you can still see that it is an arm"
TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/26/2010, 12:50 PM
"50 fields (interlaced) is still 25 frames per second"

Two fields make a frame interlaced so he's correct. You're correct too because each field can be an image in itself so it's displaying 50 images in 1 second vs 25 images in 1 second. With interlaced you only display 1/2 a frame in 1/50th of a second, so for one frame you need another 1/2 frame bringing the time up to 2/50th of a second, or 1/25th of a second for a while frame, same as 25 frames per second.

[/i]"Why would you want to interlaced stills?"
If there are any moves on the stills, the motion will be twice as smooth using interlaced.[/i]

I rarely do all-still DVD's @ interlaced. The motion won't be twice as smooth, it still be "smeared". Unless you add a blur, but you can do progressive & add a blur anyway.

Like I asked, if we know the target media then we can give a more accurate statement. Making image motion interlaced & playing it on a progressive display will look hideous unless it's deinterlaced first. Normally that's by removing one of the fields which would negate any advantage you get interlaced.