Comments

MichelleT wrote on 5/15/2003, 11:39 AM
If your source is truly interlaced and you are playing back the DVD on a regular TV then you'll get better results if you don't deinterlace. But that's assuming you use an encoder that handles interlaced material well, like Procoder. I don't know how MainConcept fares in this regard.

If the material is telecined you can look into doing inverse telecine.
PAW wrote on 5/15/2003, 1:24 PM
Marquat, what would you choose for PAL, different settings or just accept that it does not look as good as the NTSC?

PAW
BillyBoy wrote on 5/15/2003, 1:47 PM
I tend to share Marquat's views. I too like 'blend' and have tried interpolate and don't see any real difference. I know that interpolate is suppose to be good for 'fast' action like a car race, other stuff REALLY fast. I should have phrased my orignal question better. What I guess I'm really asking is how fast is fast?

Or to put it another way when would you switch (if ever) from blend to interpolate?

What's "fast"....

1. a 100 yard dash
2. a hockey game
3. a horse race
4. a jet zooming by
5. a car race
6. an explosion

vectorskink wrote on 5/15/2003, 6:35 PM
But what about slo-mo stuff? I think interpolate would be better to get a smooth slo-mo? or do you get better results with blend??????
mikkie wrote on 5/16/2003, 10:11 AM
http://www.100fps.com/ for a better discussion then I could provide (especially without pictures).

In my own experience, nothing else, I'd rather use the temporal stuff for V/Dub then most others. Second, When using something else, I have had much different luck depending on the source video - sometimes the built-in DI of WMV or Real encoders, sometimes Vegas, and so on, so I don't know if there is One answer, excepting a favorite method for your camera's footage.

I have found that doing work with real and winmedia, putting as much of the load on them as possible, giving them as close to the original picture as possible, can make a very big difference. Makes sense as the picture is read into software and manipulated once rather then say thrice. If only it worked that way every time I'd be a happier person.

RE: converting whatever video to DVD and such, in my experiences it all depends on the source, and there seem no rules but to rely on experience. Some stuff is so noisy that the only hope is to keep everything so nothing gets any worse - removing noise also removes detail because they are one and the same in this case. Other stuff will not IVT easily because there was never a set pattern applied throughout. Some has been recorded at 29.97i so there is no way to remove much of anything without loss.

FWIW, I've noticed the floating layer of noise effect & it drove me nuts, until I checked and no one not editing ever noticed! That said, I've seen it more as an aftereffect of over filtering then anything else.