I have 1080f (same as 1080p) videos and have found out that they perform much better in a 1080i (interlaced) timeline than 1080p (progressive) timeline. So would importing progressive video into a interlaced timeline then exporting it back to progressive result in lower video quality of the finished product than if it was done in a progressive timeline?

Any ideas?

I think it's okay to load a progressive video to an interlace timeline. But then, when you export from an interlaced timeline to progressive, premiere will deinterlace the footage. Thus you will lose half the resolution.

So exactly what do you mean by "they perform better". I don't notice any performance issue.

I don't think that Premier will automatically deinterlace all footage when export progressive from an interlaced timeline.
Unless you force it to de-interlace, Premiere should interpret that the source is progressive, so if you are only cutting the footage I don't think you will have any issues.

The problems can happen when premiere needs to interpolate new frames (i.e when you apply effects), and then, as far as I know, Premiere looks to to the timeline's field settings to determine how to interpolate.

I'm not sure if this applies to all effects, but I can say for certain that manipulating the scale and speed/duration of a clip in an interlaced timeline can result in interlacing issues even if the source is progressive.
This is true up to cs3, I don't know if this has changed in cs4.

If source is progressive and output is progressive, timeline should be progressive.
you say you have performance issues - don't forget you could always edit in an interlaced timeline, and when it's time to render you can copy paste the edit to a progressive timeline (CS4) or import the interlaced project into a new progressive project (CS3 and older) for final rendering.

So exactly what do you mean by "they perform better".

Hey Taky, I did some sequence experimenting in Premiere. I found out that progressive 30f HDV footage in a progressive sequence required much more processing power than in a interlaced timeline. The progressive timeline used approximately 60-80% of the cpu while the interlaced timeline used 40-60% and was also more responsive. I don't exactly know why this is, maybe something to do with Canon's proprietary 30f mode.

It looks like your computer setup is the problem, not the frame rate recorded by the camera. I have a Quad Core Q6600 3Ghz. I'm editing on Canon 30F multi-cam with 2 video streams, 4 audio tracks at the same time. My CPU shows only 28% to 30% usage.

Which timeline preset you are using? Are your shooting at 30F or 24F? So you should be using 1080p30 or 1080p24 accordingly. What I think was you loaded a different time base footage to a different timeline. With Premiere "Frame Blending" on, during playback, premiere will blend adjacent frames. That's why it taxes your CPU power. But that's just my guess.

I'm shooting @ 30f and using the "HDV 1080p30" preset in Premiere Pro CS4.

You pick the right timeline preset...

Oh my CPU usage might be inaccurate to measure against because I'm editing with the Matrox RT.X2 card that accelerates the editing work.

I've heard of these Matrox cards but don't know much about them. How much do these cost, how are they installed and what are the benefits? Thanks for your help!

The Matrox RT.X2 card is a video editing accelerating card for both SD editing and HDV editing. It gives you several high quality matrox intermedia HD codecs to use too. You will capture the video to .avi instead of .mpeg or .m2t. Premiere is much happier when dealing with avi files. You will have the option to turn off generating conform audio file and peak files. You also don't need to have the indexing process when import because the indexing process applies to mpeg files but not avi files.

The card also gives you many real-time filter effects, color correction tools, special effects (3D DVE, Shine .. and more). Since they are realtime, you don't have to wait to preview. It plays back right away.

You can also connect a 1920x1200 DVI computer monitor (very cheap these days) as preview monitors for 1:1 pixel HD digital output. It also have accelerated rendering output too. Basically it speeds up the entire process from capturing, editing to exporting.

I have one of the Matrox cards for sale

L.A. Color Shop | Matrox RT.X2 Full Version (Used) (http://lacolorshop.com/products/item.asp?id=rtx2)

Sounds great, I might have to look into getting that. I've also heard of Cineform around the forums, what is the difference between that and Matrox.

Cineform will be another great solution. The major difference is Cineform is software only. Matrox is a combination of dedicated hardware and software that accelerates the editing process. Cineform uses your CPU cycle for the work while Matrox has it's own processors on the board to acelerate the work.

I think the Cineform product for Premiere Pro is almost $500.

So there is a big performance improvement in using software only CineForm?

It's all software which means still using the CPU that you are already using. I'm not sure if it will give you any big performance improvement.

So Matrox is probably the way to go?
Would it also speed up other video applications like Adobe After Effects?

Matrox works with the Adobe suites (After Effects, Encore, Photoshop...) and several other programs to enhance with the WYSIYWG preview output to the DVI monitor. But I don't think it accelerates anything in After Effect.

You can read more about it here

Matrox RT.X2 - Overview (http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/rtx2/)

You've answered all my questions. Thank you very much for your help!