De-Interlacing

Hello,

I am supplying a short DVD for a company for downloading.
I am using FC 6.0.6 The material was shot on standard def
I exported with the following QT conversion:
Compression: Apple Pro Res 422 HQ Dimensions: 640X480
I burned a DVD and sent it.

They liked the copy but asked for it de-interlaced. I haven't been able to get in touch with their tech guy.

Anyone have a de-interlace formula?

Thanks,
Michael

My preferred route which will give you the best quality "Progressive look" from interlaced.

? Get the FREE "Too Much Too Soon" Blend Fields Filter [www.mattias.nu]

? Add the TMTS Blend fields to all the clips in your Interlaced sequence.

? Then drop/nest the Interlaced Sequence/Timeline onto a ProRes Timeline with fields set to none.

? Output a Progressive ProRes Quicktime


Can I ask why are you making 640x480?

Are you making a Video DVD or are you simply making a Square Pixel Quicktime delivered via a DVD-ROM for distribution via download?

You certainly shouldn't be delivering the latter AS the former!



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

1. I don't understand what you mean by "I am supplying a short DVD for a company for downloading."...are you supplying a download or a DVD?

2. Why 640x480 instead of 720x480?

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

1.I am supplying the distributer a quicktime on DVD to put up on their site or stream or whatever they choose to do with it. I am hoping to deliver (compress) the series (18-7 minute videos) on DVD's as opposed to creating 1:1 and having to send off a hard drive

2. I chose 640 X280 because it seemed more realistic to the original material. THe 720X480 seemed slightly morphed. I could be mistaken there...is there a problem in altering dimensions?

Thanks
M

Nope nothing wrong with altering dimensions or giving a Square Pixel Version as a Quicktime on a DVD-ROM



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Not if you are simply burning a Data DVD with a QT on it. When I make ENCODED DVDs (SD), I always use a PAR of 720x480 (DV/DVCPRO - NTSC)

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

"Blending" your fields will give you good resolution,
but will also give you weird motion artifacts.
each frame will have the two fields (two images) superimposed.

this looks pretty bad anytime there is fast motion.

i prefer a genuine de-interlace,
and for that i'd recommend the Nattress "Smart De-Interlace"


nick

The Deinterlacer in Telestream's Episode Pro gives a rich choice of protocols and looks real nice!!

- lsm

"Blending" your fields will give you good resolution,
but will also give you weird motion artifacts.

Well it will mimic the motion blur that you should have if you shot progressive in the first place if thats what you mean.

Ultimately making a progressive picture from an interlaced source whichever way you do it, is not going to be perfect.

If you have the time/money you should test the various options and see which works/looks best for you.

It might be that you use a variety of plugins on different footage to achieve your perfect solution.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Thanks Ben and all for all...I'm looking into suggested options...

As I looked I found through Effects/Video Filters/Video- an option to De-Interlace

Also in exporting to Pro Res HQ there is a an Interlace check box...

Any comments on these options?

Thanks,
Michael

Oh don't use the De-interlace that comes as standard - it throws away one of the fields and duplicates the remaining one giving you half the vertical resolution!

Michael Horton
-------------------

"Well it will mimic the motion blur that you should have if you shot progressive in the first place if thats what you mean"

hmm... it doens't really mimic motion blur,
it just gives you two separate imaged superimposed on each other.

maybe it's that i've learnt to see it, but now that i have, i really don't like it.

it looks really bad on camera moves
it can work well on shots with very little motion,
or static wide shots where the motion is small.

of course simply losing one field in every frame also has it's own "motion" look
the motion can look a little jittery, just like a small shutter speed would give you.

for the docos i've done, (all hand held) that's a good look,
but a couple of times, on pans and tilts i've added motion blur to help it along.

the perfect solution requires a fair bit of attention to detail, as ben says.



nick

Just to be sure - I am talking about blending fields into 1 progressive picture with TMTS filters NOT about using FCP filters.

Yes it does look like a single frame with motion blur.

No it doesn't look like bad image or I wouldn't use it and it would not pass the tech review.

However you are of course welcome to your opinion and I will respect that.

ALL progressive footage of the lower frame rates (24, 25 and even 30fps) CAN look juddery and "bad" if your motion is too fast for the frame rate to accurately replay the original image.

This applies to film as well as native progressive video. It is NOT a specific by-product of blending fields of an interlaced video image.

This "juddering" can be minimised /smoothed by the careful use of extra motion blur if it is really bad.

I will post references when I get back to the UK in a month.

Michael Horton
-------------------