Frame Mode vs. Vegas De-Interlace for DV953 16:9 at DVinfo.net

Matt McConnell · August 14th, 2003, 12:26 PM

My question is... would you recommend using Frame mode or just de-interlace in Vegas?

The background...

My subject is my family and I currenly have a 4:3 TV, but I know that someday I will get a nice 16:9 progressive scan screen, thus I am shooting in 16:9. I have read that there is a significant loss of resolution when using the frame mode, so I am wondering what is a comperable consequence of de-interlacing in Vegas 4.0? Will I only notice the de-interlace during fast action? There are a couple of different settings in Vegas and I am not sure what the pros and cons of each are.

What would you do if you had footage you intended for family viewing on a future 16:9 progressive scan screen?

Rob Lohman · August 15th, 2003, 09:02 AM

I'm not familiair with your camera, but I suggest you try both
methods out while shooting the same footage [with motion in
it!!!] and see what happens. Perhaps someone can answer if
your camera has a huge loss when doing frame mode and/or
16:9 mode.

Personally I use frame mode on my Canon XL1s.

Bram Corstjens · August 17th, 2003, 05:59 PM

I'm not exactly sure... but I thought I heard this cam can't do the frame mode together with the 16:9 anamorphic mode. (?) Ontopic: If you de-interlace in post or enable the frame mode (supposing that can be enabled when in 16:9 mode) it will never make the image better. If I recall correctly your cam shifts the colour green to get the frame mode (don't ask me how it works precisely cos I don't know :) In the end, some detail/resolution is lost.

De-interlacing in post will lower quality a little bit (depending on the used de-interlacer) because de-interlacers tend to add noise/artifacts near edges (these are just the imperfections of the de-interlacer) The frame mode will not introduce this noise/artifacts but in frame mode you lose some resolution.

The question is: What's the least worse or the most best :) TV's tend to soften the image a little bit, so the noise/artifacts introduced by the de-interlacer might not be visible at all on a TV while the lost resolution of frame mode is! So on a computer screen the artifacts an noise are likely to be visible while they might not even be noticed on a TV. The lost resolution from frame mode might be noticed much sooner on a big TV than on a relatively small computer screen.

What I did was I made two clips. One in 16:9 interlaced mode and one in 4:3 progressive mode (my cam is a TRV-60 that does NOT loses resolution when in progressive mode, but it can't record in 16:9 when it's in that mode)

The interlaced 16:9 clip was de-interlaced by Reelsmart Fieldskit (5 nearest neighbours, no motion detection) and the 4:3 progressive image was cropped to 16:9. Even while I cut of 70 pixels from the top and 70 from the bottom from the 4:3 progressive image to make it 16:9, it still looked better than the de-interlaced 16:9 clip.

When I played these two clips on my DVD-player on a normal TV I started to notice that the 4:3 converted to 16:9 clip had lost some detail. I also noticed that the artifacts introduced by the de-interlacing procedure were almost not visible at on the TV.

To cut a (already to long of a) story short: Less resolution is easier noticed on a (big) TV and artifacts are easier noticed on a computer screen.

If you tend to display everything on a computer screen, I'd use the frame mode

If the destination is TV, use a decent de-interlacer like magic bullet or reelsmart fieldskit.

You could however just leave the video interlaced. This (of course) gives the best image quality when played on a TV and software DVD-players like PowerDVD 4 and 5 also have no problem at all with interlaced video (just make sure you have hardware acceleration enabled in their settings!) You'll get real smooth video in return. That's why interlaced video was invented in the first place ;) And yes, this smoothness like your TV also works on your computer as long as you use a software DVD-player that can handle interlaced video correctly.

Unless you're chasing the filmlook and insist on using de-interlaced video ;)

Frank Granovski · August 17th, 2003, 06:56 PM

This cam can do both progressive and 16:9 at the same time. Only with video, though, not with stills as far as I know.

Bram Corstjens · August 18th, 2003, 05:13 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : This cam can do both progressive and 16:9 at the same time. Only with video, though, not with stills as far as I know. -->>>

In that case, can someone post a frame grab from a 16:9 interlaced and a frame mode clip?

I'd really like to see how much detail is lost in frame mode on this cam.

Frank Granovski · August 18th, 2003, 12:58 PM

There's no detail lost: more CCD pixels are used and 2 fields are put together.

Matt McConnell · August 19th, 2003, 11:55 AM

So there is no resolution loss when using Frame mode on the DV953? That is contrary to what I have read elsewhere.

If it is true, then there is no downside to using Frame mode and it would make sense to use frame mode over deinterlacing in a NLE.

Matt McConnell · August 19th, 2003, 01:17 PM

Here is the extent of information provided in the manual for Fram mode.

Frame Moving Pictures (Frame Mode)
Frame moving-picture recording makes it possible to obtain natural still pictures with a high picture quality, even when the scenes involve a lot of movement recording frame still pictures continuously at a rate of 30 frames a second. (It is also possible to record sound.)
1 Set [CAMERA FUNCTIONS] >> [CAMERA SETUP] >>
[REC MODE] >> [FRAME].
2 Press the Recording Start/Stop Button.
¡ÝIt is not possible to use the digital modes of [EFFECT1].
¡ÝSet [REC MODE] to [NORMAL] for regular recording.

Frank Granovski · August 19th, 2003, 01:36 PM

Matt, vertical and horizontal resolution is increased in frame mode with MX cams.

Matt McConnell · August 20th, 2003, 08:43 AM

I am curious how the resolution is increased in frame mode. I found the article which I read awhile back claiming that frame mode decreases resolution. I have no way of knowing how the frame mode works on the DV953.

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panason...gressive-WP.pdf

Excerpt from the article.
"These estimates do not, however,
carry 480 lines of vertical information.
First, row-pair summation has decreased
vertical information by 25%.
And second, the estimation process itself
reduces vertical resolution further
— yielding a video frame with about 320
lines of vertical resolution. The CCD
read-out is recorded as an even field to
tape, and is also stored in a buffer. During
the next field-time, the contents of
the buffer are recorded as an odd field.
Thus the recording is interlace, yet each
video frame contains no interlace artifacts."

Thanks for the help uncovering this mystery.

Bogdan Vaglarov · August 20th, 2003, 08:53 AM

The MX5000 gives 360 pixels vertical in wide mode.
GS100 improves that to 460 so the display on wide TV is close to the 480.

If you use the translation with babel fish you can find what Pana claims for their improved resolution (GS100 improved over MX5000 but still needs 1.04 digital interpolation to view full 480).

Looking at the comparison pics in few japanese magazines though I can state GS100 looks best of all squized mode 'real' wide cams. I mean the resolution impresion is highest.

Frank Granovski · August 20th, 2003, 02:05 PM

Quote:

...MX5000 gives 360 pixels vertical in wide mode. GS100 improves that to 460 so the display on wide TV is close to the 480...(GS100 improved over MX5000 but still needs 1.04 digital interpolation to view full 480). Looking at the comparison pics in few japanese magazines though I can state GS100 looks best of all squized mode 'real' wide cams. I mean the resolution impresion is highest.

Thanks. I didn't know that. Do you know of any links to these Japanese magazine articles?

Samuel Raj · August 20th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Frank no need to look for japanese magazines,

Its on the panasonic website itself!!!!

http://panasonic.jp/dvc/DIGICAM/gs100k/ki_wide.html

Yes gs 100 gets the BEST wide angle compared to any other camcorders in that range.

August 14th, 2003, 12:26 PM	#1
Matt McConnell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Posts: 33	Frame Mode vs. Vegas De-Interlace for DV953 16:9 My question is... would you recommend using Frame mode or just de-interlace in Vegas? The background... My subject is my family and I currenly have a 4:3 TV, but I know that someday I will get a nice 16:9 progressive scan screen, thus I am shooting in 16:9. I have read that there is a significant loss of resolution when using the frame mode, so I am wondering what is a comperable consequence of de-interlacing in Vegas 4.0? Will I only notice the de-interlace during fast action? There are a couple of different settings in Vegas and I am not sure what the pros and cons of each are. What would you do if you had footage you intended for family viewing on a future 16:9 progressive scan screen?

August 15th, 2003, 09:02 AM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I'm not familiair with your camera, but I suggest you try both methods out while shooting the same footage [with motion in it!!!] and see what happens. Perhaps someone can answer if your camera has a huge loss when doing frame mode and/or 16:9 mode. Personally I use frame mode on my Canon XL1s. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 17th, 2003, 05:59 PM	#3
Bram Corstjens Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 126	I'm not exactly sure... but I thought I heard this cam can't do the frame mode together with the 16:9 anamorphic mode. (?) Ontopic: If you de-interlace in post or enable the frame mode (supposing that can be enabled when in 16:9 mode) it will never make the image better. If I recall correctly your cam shifts the colour green to get the frame mode (don't ask me how it works precisely cos I don't know :) In the end, some detail/resolution is lost. De-interlacing in post will lower quality a little bit (depending on the used de-interlacer) because de-interlacers tend to add noise/artifacts near edges (these are just the imperfections of the de-interlacer) The frame mode will not introduce this noise/artifacts but in frame mode you lose some resolution. The question is: What's the least worse or the most best :) TV's tend to soften the image a little bit, so the noise/artifacts introduced by the de-interlacer might not be visible at all on a TV while the lost resolution of frame mode is! So on a computer screen the artifacts an noise are likely to be visible while they might not even be noticed on a TV. The lost resolution from frame mode might be noticed much sooner on a big TV than on a relatively small computer screen. What I did was I made two clips. One in 16:9 interlaced mode and one in 4:3 progressive mode (my cam is a TRV-60 that does NOT loses resolution when in progressive mode, but it can't record in 16:9 when it's in that mode) The interlaced 16:9 clip was de-interlaced by Reelsmart Fieldskit (5 nearest neighbours, no motion detection) and the 4:3 progressive image was cropped to 16:9. Even while I cut of 70 pixels from the top and 70 from the bottom from the 4:3 progressive image to make it 16:9, it still looked better than the de-interlaced 16:9 clip. When I played these two clips on my DVD-player on a normal TV I started to notice that the 4:3 converted to 16:9 clip had lost some detail. I also noticed that the artifacts introduced by the de-interlacing procedure were almost not visible at on the TV. To cut a (already to long of a) story short: Less resolution is easier noticed on a (big) TV and artifacts are easier noticed on a computer screen. If you tend to display everything on a computer screen, I'd use the frame mode If the destination is TV, use a decent de-interlacer like magic bullet or reelsmart fieldskit. You could however just leave the video interlaced. This (of course) gives the best image quality when played on a TV and software DVD-players like PowerDVD 4 and 5 also have no problem at all with interlaced video (just make sure you have hardware acceleration enabled in their settings!) You'll get real smooth video in return. That's why interlaced video was invented in the first place ;) And yes, this smoothness like your TV also works on your computer as long as you use a software DVD-player that can handle interlaced video correctly. Unless you're chasing the filmlook and insist on using de-interlaced video ;)

August 17th, 2003, 06:56 PM	#4
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	This cam can do both progressive and 16:9 at the same time. Only with video, though, not with stills as far as I know.

August 18th, 2003, 05:13 AM	#5
Bram Corstjens Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 126	<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : This cam can do both progressive and 16:9 at the same time. Only with video, though, not with stills as far as I know. -->>> In that case, can someone post a frame grab from a 16:9 interlaced and a frame mode clip? I'd really like to see how much detail is lost in frame mode on this cam.

August 18th, 2003, 12:58 PM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	There's no detail lost: more CCD pixels are used and 2 fields are put together.

August 19th, 2003, 11:55 AM	#7
Matt McConnell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Posts: 33	So there is no resolution loss when using Frame mode on the DV953? That is contrary to what I have read elsewhere. If it is true, then there is no downside to using Frame mode and it would make sense to use frame mode over deinterlacing in a NLE.

August 19th, 2003, 01:17 PM	#8
Matt McConnell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Posts: 33	Here is the extent of information provided in the manual for Fram mode. Frame Moving Pictures (Frame Mode) Frame moving-picture recording makes it possible to obtain natural still pictures with a high picture quality, even when the scenes involve a lot of movement recording frame still pictures continuously at a rate of 30 frames a second. (It is also possible to record sound.) 1 Set [CAMERA FUNCTIONS] >> [CAMERA SETUP] >> [REC MODE] >> [FRAME]. 2 Press the Recording Start/Stop Button. ¡ÝIt is not possible to use the digital modes of [EFFECT1]. ¡ÝSet [REC MODE] to [NORMAL] for regular recording.

August 19th, 2003, 01:36 PM	#9
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Matt, vertical and horizontal resolution is increased in frame mode with MX cams.

August 20th, 2003, 08:43 AM	#10
Matt McConnell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Posts: 33	I am curious how the resolution is increased in frame mode. I found the article which I read awhile back claiming that frame mode decreases resolution. I have no way of knowing how the frame mode works on the DV953. ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panason...gressive-WP.pdf Excerpt from the article. "These estimates do not, however, carry 480 lines of vertical information. First, row-pair summation has decreased vertical information by 25%. And second, the estimation process itself reduces vertical resolution further — yielding a video frame with about 320 lines of vertical resolution. The CCD read-out is recorded as an even field to tape, and is also stored in a buffer. During the next field-time, the contents of the buffer are recorded as an odd field. Thus the recording is interlace, yet each video frame contains no interlace artifacts." Thanks for the help uncovering this mystery.

August 20th, 2003, 08:53 AM	#11
Bogdan Vaglarov Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 366	The MX5000 gives 360 pixels vertical in wide mode. GS100 improves that to 460 so the display on wide TV is close to the 480. If you use the translation with babel fish you can find what Pana claims for their improved resolution (GS100 improved over MX5000 but still needs 1.04 digital interpolation to view full 480). Looking at the comparison pics in few japanese magazines though I can state GS100 looks best of all squized mode 'real' wide cams. I mean the resolution impresion is highest.

August 20th, 2003, 07:47 PM	#13
Samuel Raj Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 210	Frank no need to look for japanese magazines, Its on the panasonic website itself!!!! http://panasonic.jp/dvc/DIGICAM/gs100k/ki_wide.html Yes gs 100 gets the BEST wide angle compared to any other camcorders in that range.