In DVDA, I bring in progressive footage for projects, in DVD projects for Bluray projects both, but under project properties for progressive it says "no" and is greyed out. Is this significant? DVDA does not re-render my footage, but I'm having trouble with flickering in my latest video on both Bluray and DVDs and am trying to narrow down the causes.

While this may or may not be connected to my flickering issue in my other post, I brought this up separately because it's always bothered me anyway. I've always assumed since DVDA is not recompressing the footage that all is well. Am I right?

Edit: never mind, I see now that setting is asking whether to recompress, it does not refer to the nature of footage, unless I'm mistaken.

Edit again: I've revised and re-rendered Bluray project and now the project properties in DVDA say yes for progressive. I can't figure this out.

DVD & Blu-ray players don't support progressive as a standard, Blu-ray does supports 24P but for us in PAL world that is pretty useless. I have to trans-code all my 25P footage to interlaced when preparing for Blu-ray or DVD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

Bluray does support 1280x720P60.

Ron Evans

Yes Ron, which is why I like 720 60p. I thought Bluray also supported 1080 30p. And my DVDs are all progressive, or at least the footage I bring into them is, and DVDA does not recompress them.

Still wonder what the thing is with project properties in DVDA sometimes showing Progressive as yes and sometimes as no.

Reviewing things this morning it seems for 720 60p Bluray, it says yes, and for DVD it says no.

Yes Ron, which is why I like 720 60p. I thought Bluray also supported 1080 30p. And my DVDs are all progressive, or at least the footage I bring into them is, and DVDA does not recompress them.

Still wonder what the thing is with project properties in DVDA sometimes showing Progressive as yes and sometimes as no.

Reviewing things this morning it seems for 720 60p Bluray, it says yes, and for DVD it says no.

Actually, no optical disc video playback format intended for playback in standalone video players natively supports 30p at any resolution. 30p must be converted to 60i (or the DVD or Blu-ray authoring software will automatically convert 30p to 60i) before such content can be played back from DVD or Blu-ray. And the "progressive" encoding scheme for standard-definition DVD is actually intended for 24p material (either native or reverse-telecined) - that scheme inserts a 3-2 pulldown flag to tell the DVD player to remove the pulldown (all video on DVD is actually interlaced on disc even if the original content were progressive). And Blu-ray does support 1080p - but only at 23.976 fps (24p). 720p is supported with a choice of only three frame rates: 24p, 50p or 60p.

No wonder why my 30p or 60i originals encoded to DVD using the progressive encoding looked choppy and blurry both at the same time: Some of the frames never got played back at all (numerous dropped frames).

Thanks Randall, you are dead on on all points, just looked it up on Wikipedia.

What is the optimal way to deliver 720 60p footage when preparing for DVD then? I've been delivering DVDS in 29.970 progressive.

If you still want the motion of 60p, then you want 60i (29.97 interlaced).

DVD absolutely supports progressive material, but only at certain frame rates. 60p would not be one.

In any case, there's no particular setting which makes a DVD progressive -- it's by file. You can have progressive and interlaced material on the same DVD. Most movie DVDs with BTS footage do.

So David you're saying I would want to interlace 60p for DVD? That would be an improvement over 29.97 progressive?

What is the optimal way to deliver 720 60p footage when preparing for DVD then? I've been delivering DVDS in 29.970 progressive.

You will lose resolution just downconverting 720p to 480p or 480i anyway. If it is for SD DVD, the best format for 720/60p sources would be to simply encode to 480/29.970 (or 59.940) interlaced. Encoding to 29.970p would not only drop half the frames to begin with, but the DVD progressive encoding would also cause the DVD player to drop additional frames (or fields) and blend the wrong pairs of fields together, giving that video a look that's reminiscent of very-low-quality VHS. That's because the DVD player will see your "progressive" encodes as only 23.976p, not 29.970p.

Randall, my DVDs look darned good as they are. If they are being misread, then they are still coming out pretty good. I will use Vegas to interlace the DVD files and see what happens on this current project, which should be ready in a few days.

Randall, my DVDs look darned good as they are. If they are being misread, then they are still coming out pretty good. I will use Vegas to interlace the DVD files and see what happens on this current project, which should be ready in a few days.

By the way, Jeff, which DVD authoring software are you using? I'm asking this because many of them actually interlace all incoming 20.970p video automatically without even notifying you of it.

I'm using DVDA, and it is not recompressing the video I bring into it. I hit "Burn DVD" and it prepares the menus quickly and starts burning within a minute or two.

Also 24P on Bluray can only really be played back over HDMI to a TV that has a refresh rate a multiple of 24 and is recognized by the player to be able to display 24P native . Some plasma TV's and some 120hz , 240hz LCD's. Otherwise it has pulldpwn cadence inserted for 60i playback displayed as 60P of course on all NTSC flat panel TV's. How this conversion is done from 60i to 60 for display depends on the quality of the display and player. Since NTSC SD DVD is interlaced at 60i the best source is either 60i or 60P. 30P has only half the temporal motion of 60i or 60P so may judder on playback depending on player and display.

Ron Evans

So, to be clear, I should want to use Vegas to interlace my beautiful 60p footage for DVD when rendering mpeg 2?

This is sad news about 24p and Bluray, or rather the fact that most TVs interlace it. I just became convinced to start shooting in 24p, and now I think I am better of shooting 60i, as I have been doing for the last month.

Its the only way SD DVD's work-interlaced. Starting with 60P would give the encoder more information so that is good. I am not a fan of 24P or even 30P for that matter preferring the smooth motion of 60i or 60P. Vegas downconvert and encode is not the best. I normally edit video in Edius which is much better but still not as good as TMPGenc for long programs.

Ron Evans

I have HDLink, but I do not know if it will interlace footage or not, I have to check into that. I have been converting to 720 60p intermediates, and it's worked well.

Its the only way SD DVD's work-interlaced.

That just isn't so. 24p DVDs have been the cinematic standard for more than a decade.

So David you're saying I would want to interlace 60p for DVD? That would be an improvement over 29.97 progressive?

Whether it's an improvement is up to you. But I'm sure you notice a difference in the motion if you convert 60p to 30p. If you want the same motion as the 60p, then you'll have to make it 60i (standard NTSC).

There seems to be a disagreement here, but I do render to 29.97p (same as 30p?) already, so maybe I'm fine as is. With dozens of wedding to edit I don't need/want to take unnecessary steps if they can be avoided.

Well, there's no 30p on a DVD -- it would be 60i, but would still appear to be 30p (because each 30p frame would be split into two 60i fields, so objects will remain in the same place over two fields, instead of moving in each new field, as they do in 60i). There's no real reason to do it unless you want 30p motion.

That just isn't so. 24p DVDs have been the cinematic standard for more than a decade.

I stand corrected on my nomenclature. The point I was trying to make was that for most displays the result is a 2:3 pulldown cadence as the display has to refresh at a multiple of 24 to be a native reproduction of 24p without cadence. The combination of player and display can work at getting close but only a refresh rate of a multiple can really accomplish the task completely. The default is an interlaced 2:3 pulldown output from the player. Which was the point I was trying to make.

Ron Evans

Thanks, both of you. I'll leave things as they are then!

The default is an interlaced 2:3 pulldown output from the player.

It is if it's an interlaced-only player or a progressive player set to display as interlaced. But that doesn't mean the disc doesn't hold progressive video, or that it can't be played that way. Output of the player is a different issue from authoring the disc.

David, I have accepted the point that the disc can be 24P progressive. My real point is that to watch 24p in true progressive mode requires a very specific display chain. If that is not the case then the chain will default to a pulldown playback . How this is done is dependent on the chain. Just because the display is progressive and the disc is progressive and the player progressive does not mean that 24p will play as 24p . The display needs to refresh at a multiple of 24 otherwise pulldown will be necessary to match frame rate to refresh rate. That is all I was try to point out. Since most displays do not refresh at a multiple of 24 a cadence will be applied for playback somewhere /somehow. Either the player or TV. Depending on how the player is connected, this cadence will be applied in different places. But in most cases the viewer will see the cadence not 24P unless the display has the refresh rate needed. Most CRT and flat panel TV's in North America have a refresh rate of 60hz so pulldown is necessary. Newer 120hz TV's etc have the capability to correctly refresh 24p( 120 =5x24) but I do not think they all do this but I believe most do over HDMI.

Will the disc play? Of course it will play. My point is it really displaying 24p or a cadence to take account of the display refresh rate. If one is really watching 24p with pulldown cadence does it really matter if the source is a progressive disc or 24P embedded with pulldown in an interlaced stream on an interlaced disc. In both cases it will likely depend on the specific quality of the player and TV de interlacing/ cadence application and the connection cabling type ( component or HDMI).

Ron Evans

If one is really watching 24p with pulldown cadence does it really matter if the source is a progressive disc or 24P embedded with pulldown in an interlaced stream on an interlaced disc.

Of course it matters. Just because your TV may be changing it to 60 fields per second, or whatever, does not mean everyone else’s TV does something like that. And just because you do not have a 24p-capable TV set now does not mean you will not have one in the future.

Of course it matters. Just because your TV may be changing it to 60 fields per second, or whatever, does not mean everyone else’s TV does something like that. And just because you do not have a 24p-capable TV set now does not mean you will not have one in the future.

Not quite. If the TV is capable of displaying 24p correctly it will do so whether the source is progressive or from 24p embedded in a 60i stream with pulldown. The point I am making is the display chain is the important thing here. If the TV can do it then it will whatever the source encoding of 24P, if it cannot it will be a pulldown cadence. Most North American TV's cannot at the moment and I suspect that most flat panels sold at the moment cannot either since they are mainly 60hz refresh.

For the record one of my displays can correctly play 24P the others cannot. To me there is a noticeable difference.

Ron Evans

But that has nothing to do with your choice for the format on the disc. If your source is 24p, you should put 24p on the Blu-ray disc. Why would you want to waste bits by converting it to a format with more frames per second? Considering you compress them to a certain number of bits, you get more quality if you keep the 24p because you lose less information in the compression.

Not to even mention that 24p can play in both the PAL world and the NTSC world.

What Ron seems to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong, Ron, is that 24p plays (we all know that at this point, this is not news) , but most TVs ruin it because they cannot display it properly.


Ron if what you say is true, it makes perfect sense to not put out 24p DVDs since they will not be displayed properly anyway, unless you know what tv is being used to view the DVD. This does not sound complicated to me. Is this what you are saying?

But that has nothing to do with your choice for the format on the disc. If your source is 24p, you should put 24p on the Blu-ray disc. Why would you want to waste bits by converting it to a format with more frames per second? Considering you compress them to a certain number of bits, you get more quality if you keep the 24p because you lose less information in the compression.

Not to even mention that 24p can play in both the PAL world and the NTSC world.

Where did I suggest encoding 24P in a 60i stream ? All my comments are directed at the fact most of NTSC TV's cannot display 24P correctly. Nothing more. The best way of seeing 24p is encoded to Bluray and played back over HDMI to a high refresh rate display. I think the discussion actually started about SD DVD's

Ron Evans

Yes Jeff. For maximum compatibility interlace is likely to give less issues with clients and you know what all of them are going to see whatever their playback system. If you are shooting exclusively for the WEB then you may chose to shoot 30P. If you are going to shoot for hard disc playback and really like smooth motion then you may shoot 60P. Not currently supported on recordable discs.

My views are colored by seeing lots of badly shot 24p ( camera used like a video camera not a film camera) played back with cadence so that the juddering is awful.

Ron Evans

I thought Bluray also supported 1080 30p
No, unfortunately Sony et al. were too myopic and failed to include an ATSC standard spec in the Bluray spec. HD-DVD did actually include this format which is why it was technically more complete. So you can't deliver 108P30 on BD - but you can *theoretically* broadcast it via ATSC. I haven't checked in several years, but it's probably safe to assume that very few of today's video processing chipsets can properly playback 1080P30 material using correct 2:2 cadence detection. At the time we had this discussion, only HQV's and Achor Bay Tech's chipsets would correctly playback 1080P30 material. but if you were pushing your playback device through an A/V receiver via HDMI, then that receiver would also have to have the same video processing capabilities as the playback device because it sits between the playback device and the display (which is expecting 1080P60 (60Hz) here in the US.

So, essentially, 1080P30 is a defunct format when physical delivery is concerned because proper playback of your production is entirely dependent on the end viewer's equipment which is not exactly reassuring.

Jeff, if you're filming @24P, then you should ABSOLUTELY put out progressive DVDs (content still stored as fields but with the proper flags set by DVD encoder) and 1080P24 BD's.