Thanks for your comments. Going to look for Dennis' Post.

Best regards from Bavaria

>> using "Blend" deinterlacing, which is different from "Reduce Interlace Flicker".

Mmh, at least the results are absolutely identically. It doesn't matter if you do interlacing by using the blend method or if you use "reduce interlace flicker".

Marco

John, I doubt that. Motion Bluring affects motion between different frames. If there is no motion nothing happens if Motion Bluring is applied. Nor does it if there is only one frame.
But if I apply "Reduce Interlace Flicker" to a single frame event it looks exactly as if I'd done a Deinterlacing with blending fields. "Exactly" means: I proofed it having both a deinterlaced event in track one and same clip with "reduced interlaced flicker" in the track below. Preview quality is set to "Best (Full)". Now if I toggle between those two tracks preview is absolutely equal.

So to me it looks like "Reduce Interlace Flicker" uses same methods like Deinterlacing with blended fields does.

Marco

Try using "Reduce Interlace Flicker" on a pan especially with indoor or stage lighting. The motion blur will be quite noticeable.

John

Mmh, I made a test sequence now. I created a circle in a graphic software imported it into Vegas. Moved it then fast using Pan/Crop and rendered the result to interlaced PAL-DV.

Then I ...

- rendered it to PAL-DV using "Reduce Interlace Flicker"

- same render now deinterlacing it choosing "progressive scan" in the render dialog

- same render but applying motion-blur - lowest level which gave me a noticalbe result

So I ended up having 4 DV-AVIs and I grabbed a screenshot out of the middle of each of these sequences.

--> Please take a look here

You will see that "Reduce Interlace Flicker" and Deinterlacing gave me absolutely same results whereas Motion-Bluring looks quite different to "Reduce Interlace Flicker.

Marco

... and based on my last test I made another render test to took the render times of a deinterlacing, "Reduce Interlace Flicker" and Motion-Blur. I had a sequence of 20 seconds, a graphic (rendered to AVI before) with motion rendered it using deinterlacing, "Reduce interlace Flicker" and Motion-Bluring with the lowest value possible (length 1 field, which is rarely noticable in the result, but still quite different from "Reduce Interlace Flicker").
The render times are:

- Deinterlacing (using Blend Fields): 53 seconds
- "Reduce Interlace Flicker": 74 seconds
- Motion-Blur: 224 seconds

O.k. - so this states:

- Even if Deinterlacing (with blending fields) and "Reduce Interlace Flicker" might look same in some cases there must be a difference between those two methods.

- "Reduce Interlace Flicker" and Vegas Motion-Blur must be completely different methods because it gives different results and quite different render times.

So now: What exactly is the difference between Deinterlacing using Blend Fields and "Reduce interlace Flicker"???

Marco

I learned to use Reduce Interlace Flicker sparingly. Overuse degrades the crisp lines of video. I use it mainly to stabilize letters or geometric patterns on screen.

It works good for softening images...like when I do parties and most of the women are...mature. It softens the facial lines and creases.

I think that reduce interlace works on the fields, not between frames.
I find it is most usefull on still images, text and such.

Udi

>> I think that reduce interlace works on the fields, not between frames.

Yes, I think that's it!

Marco

>> If you want to be fair to yourself, you should take, for example,
>> 3-5 (not just one) random still shots from each of the three files
>> before you make a conclusion about anything.

I took that one (still) which gives the best impression of what is done to the video. I made lots of tests and at last I chose that test sequence which makes rather clear what happens if I use "Reduce Interlace Flicker".

>> Better yet, specifically look for (and hopefully find) still shots where
>> the results of technique 1 differ from the results of technique 2.

That's it. I can't find one where the results differ. Anything I tested - "Reduce Interlace Flicker" always gave me same results as Deinterlacing using the blend method. Proofed after rendering on internal preview, quality set to "Best (Full)".

>> One test of 3-5 still shots would attempt to find the difference between
>> deinterlacing and reduce interlace flicker. The other test would examine
>> 3-5 still shots comparing the results of reduce interlace flicker to motion blur.

Exactly what I did ...

>> Comparing all three in one test confuses the issue. After all, nowhere have
>> you stated that you were unsure as to the difference between deinterlacing
>> and motion blur.

I don't find the results shown by the screenshots confusing. It's very clear what happens to the video. The confusing part is the fact, that all the render times differ so much.
So at least both these screenshots and the render times states the very difference between "Reduce Interlace Flicker" and Motion-Blur.

The only thing I don't understand is why Deinterlacing and "Reduce Interlace Flicker" gives me same results but different render times.

>> Also, did you consider including a sample deinterlaced by the interpolate method

Sure - I tested that one too, but took no screenshots of it. Using the interpolate method for deinterlacing differs both from "Reduce Interlace Flicker" and from MotionBlur. Using my circle example the interpolated Deinterlacing eleminates one of the two fields and interpolate all the lines of one of the fields. No result what would help me understanding.

But I surely do some further tests ...

Marco