Question regarding 1080i/1080p at DVinfo.net

Ollie James · October 24th, 2009, 08:11 AM

Hey,

I've found out how to deinterlace my AVCHD footage within Premiere Pro CS4 (right click footage > field options > always deinterlace) which seems to have done the trick. So, in my newbie mind, I've now gone from 1080i to 1080p?

So does this mean that when I export for a DVD, I export as MPEG2, using the HDTV 1080p 25 High Quality preset? (Although my footage was shot at 1440x1080, and the export is 1920x1080?)

If i'm completely wrong, any help/guidance would be great!

I really appreciate your time and help!

Thanks a lot,
Ollie

Tripp Woelfel · October 25th, 2009, 06:08 PM

It depends upon what you want. If you want a progressive output disk, then you can deinterlace as part of the transcode process. Output 1080p to get there. You needn't deinterlace the source footage.

You should note that by deinterlacing interlaced footage you are discarding half the resolution. This has to happen lest you get the dreaded "mice teeth" interlace artifacts in your output.

One of the fundamental rules is always shoot in the format you want the result to be. If you want 1080 25p output, shoot that way.

Ollie James · October 26th, 2009, 02:36 AM

Hi Tripp,

Thanks for your reply.

I would imagine that progressive is best for any exportation, as you don't get the interlacing whether shown on a TV, or a computer? The camera I've got my eye on is the Sony HVR-Z1, which as far as i'm aware doesn't film in progressive so therefore I'd 'be stuck' with interlaced footage.

So if I wanted a progressive export for everything (is there any requirement now to shoot in interlaced?) then is a different camera recommended?

I currently just export my interlaced AVCHD footage as progressive and the image seems to be okay...

Thanks for your help,
Ollie

Tripp Woelfel · October 26th, 2009, 05:39 AM

There are some who think that there is no reason to live in an interlaced world. I would tend to agree with them... some of the time. I would probably shoot progressive all of the time if I didn't want the option to use fields for slow motion playback. Dealing with fields can often cause issues when manipulating footage in unusual ways. Progressive footage would reduce these headaches.

To your situation, if you want to output progressive footage why would you want to buy a camera that doesn't do that? You're just going to make your life more difficult. To say that your deinterlaced footage "seems to be OK" is fine at the moment. But since you seem to be getting deeper into the world of video and want to upgrade your camera wouldn't you want to select a camera that will give you what you want in the future? Yes, I know that fiscal reality has to enter into your decision but you might want to look into cameras that will record progressive otherwise you'll be throwing away half of your resolution for years to come. It may not sound like much now but it will eventually make a difference to you.

Ron Evans · October 26th, 2009, 07:25 AM

You also have to be aware that in de interlacing you will be changing the temporal motion. The interlaced video you shot with the AVCHD cam will have a temporal motion of 50fps(PAL) recorded a field at a time ( 60fps in NTSC). The deinterlaced video will be at 25fps(PAL) or (29.97 NTSC). The interlaced video will be missing some vertical resolution but will be twice as smooth as the progressive output especially when viewed on a CRT display or a newer 120hz or faster LCD or plasma. To get similar smooth motion you would need to shoot 60P, in HD that will be a Panasonic cam like the HMC150 which is 1280x720 at 60P.
IF you are going to make a standard DVD stay in interlace as most DVD's are interlaced format anyway. You will have more artifacts from converting from HD to SD than from interlaced video and that will leave the progressive conversion to the playback devices so that when viewed on a modern high frame rate TV the data will be there to create the high frame rate for smooth motion that going progressive to make a DVD will destroy. Virtual Dub is currently viewed as the best converter at the moment.

Ron Evans

Ollie James · October 26th, 2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripp Woelfel

There are some who think that there is no reason to live in an interlaced world. I would tend to agree with them... some of the time. I would probably shoot progressive all of the time if I didn't want the option to use fields for slow motion playback. Dealing with fields can often cause issues when manipulating footage in unusual ways. Progressive footage would reduce these headaches.

To your situation, if you want to output progressive footage why would you want to buy a camera that doesn't do that? You're just going to make your life more difficult. To say that your deinterlaced footage "seems to be OK" is fine at the moment. But since you seem to be getting deeper into the world of video and want to upgrade your camera wouldn't you want to select a camera that will give you what you want in the future? Yes, I know that fiscal reality has to enter into your decision but you might want to look into cameras that will record progressive otherwise you'll be throwing away half of your resolution for years to come. It may not sound like much now but it will eventually make a difference to you.

Hi Tripp,

Thanks very much for your reply - I guess that a different camera is the way to go then. I've had a look at the V1 and the Z5, but these are CMOS chips, and some of the shooting I do will be in lower light (gigs, plays etc) which I understand CCD is better in low light?

I will have a look for progressive HD cameras within my price range (up to £3000/£3500 MAX)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

You also have to be aware that in de interlacing you will be changing the temporal motion. The interlaced video you shot with the AVCHD cam will have a temporal motion of 50fps(PAL) recorded a field at a time ( 60fps in NTSC). The deinterlaced video will be at 25fps(PAL) or (29.97 NTSC). The interlaced video will be missing some vertical resolution but will be twice as smooth as the progressive output especially when viewed on a CRT display or a newer 120hz or faster LCD or plasma. To get similar smooth motion you would need to shoot 60P, in HD that will be a Panasonic cam like the HMC150 which is 1280x720 at 60P.
IF you are going to make a standard DVD stay in interlace as most DVD's are interlaced format anyway. You will have more artifacts from converting from HD to SD than from interlaced video and that will leave the progressive conversion to the playback devices so that when viewed on a modern high frame rate TV the data will be there to create the high frame rate for smooth motion that going progressive to make a DVD will destroy. Virtual Dub is currently viewed as the best converter at the moment.

Ron Evans

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply, It definately looks like i'm after a progressive camera!

Perrone Ford · October 26th, 2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

I've had a look at the V1 and the Z5, but these are CMOS chips, and some of the shooting I do will be in lower light (gigs, plays etc) which I understand CCD is better in low light?

Uhh no. I'd say nearly all the best low light consumer cams out there right now are CMOS.

Ollie James · October 26th, 2009, 10:09 AM

Hey Perrone,
Thanks for your reply.

I've just checked out some videos on youtube of the Z5 in low light and it looks fantastic - proved me wrong!

Perrone Ford · October 26th, 2009, 10:11 AM

Yea,

There there is the Sony EX1/EX3, Canon EOS 5D, 7D, 1D, etc.

October 24th, 2009, 08:11 AM	#1
Ollie James Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Northampton, UK Posts: 44	Question regarding 1080i/1080p Hey, I've found out how to deinterlace my AVCHD footage within Premiere Pro CS4 (right click footage > field options > always deinterlace) which seems to have done the trick. So, in my newbie mind, I've now gone from 1080i to 1080p? So does this mean that when I export for a DVD, I export as MPEG2, using the HDTV 1080p 25 High Quality preset? (Although my footage was shot at 1440x1080, and the export is 1920x1080?) If i'm completely wrong, any help/guidance would be great! I really appreciate your time and help! Thanks a lot, Ollie

October 26th, 2009, 10:11 AM	#9
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Yea, There there is the Sony EX1/EX3, Canon EOS 5D, 7D, 1D, etc. __________________ DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.

October 25th, 2009, 06:08 PM	#2
Tripp Woelfel Trustee Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: North Conway, NH Posts: 1,745	It depends upon what you want. If you want a progressive output disk, then you can deinterlace as part of the transcode process. Output 1080p to get there. You needn't deinterlace the source footage. You should note that by deinterlacing interlaced footage you are discarding half the resolution. This has to happen lest you get the dreaded "mice teeth" interlace artifacts in your output. One of the fundamental rules is always shoot in the format you want the result to be. If you want 1080 25p output, shoot that way.

October 26th, 2009, 02:36 AM	#3
Ollie James Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Northampton, UK Posts: 44	Hi Tripp, Thanks for your reply. I would imagine that progressive is best for any exportation, as you don't get the interlacing whether shown on a TV, or a computer? The camera I've got my eye on is the Sony HVR-Z1, which as far as i'm aware doesn't film in progressive so therefore I'd 'be stuck' with interlaced footage. So if I wanted a progressive export for everything (is there any requirement now to shoot in interlaced?) then is a different camera recommended? I currently just export my interlaced AVCHD footage as progressive and the image seems to be okay... Thanks for your help, Ollie

October 26th, 2009, 05:39 AM	#4
Tripp Woelfel Trustee Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: North Conway, NH Posts: 1,745	There are some who think that there is no reason to live in an interlaced world. I would tend to agree with them... some of the time. I would probably shoot progressive all of the time if I didn't want the option to use fields for slow motion playback. Dealing with fields can often cause issues when manipulating footage in unusual ways. Progressive footage would reduce these headaches. To your situation, if you want to output progressive footage why would you want to buy a camera that doesn't do that? You're just going to make your life more difficult. To say that your deinterlaced footage "seems to be OK" is fine at the moment. But since you seem to be getting deeper into the world of video and want to upgrade your camera wouldn't you want to select a camera that will give you what you want in the future? Yes, I know that fiscal reality has to enter into your decision but you might want to look into cameras that will record progressive otherwise you'll be throwing away half of your resolution for years to come. It may not sound like much now but it will eventually make a difference to you.

October 26th, 2009, 07:25 AM	#5
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	You also have to be aware that in de interlacing you will be changing the temporal motion. The interlaced video you shot with the AVCHD cam will have a temporal motion of 50fps(PAL) recorded a field at a time ( 60fps in NTSC). The deinterlaced video will be at 25fps(PAL) or (29.97 NTSC). The interlaced video will be missing some vertical resolution but will be twice as smooth as the progressive output especially when viewed on a CRT display or a newer 120hz or faster LCD or plasma. To get similar smooth motion you would need to shoot 60P, in HD that will be a Panasonic cam like the HMC150 which is 1280x720 at 60P. IF you are going to make a standard DVD stay in interlace as most DVD's are interlaced format anyway. You will have more artifacts from converting from HD to SD than from interlaced video and that will leave the progressive conversion to the playback devices so that when viewed on a modern high frame rate TV the data will be there to create the high frame rate for smooth motion that going progressive to make a DVD will destroy. Virtual Dub is currently viewed as the best converter at the moment. Ron Evans

October 26th, 2009, 10:09 AM	#8
Ollie James Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Northampton, UK Posts: 44	Hey Perrone, Thanks for your reply. I've just checked out some videos on youtube of the Z5 in low light and it looks fantastic - proved me wrong!