I just edited my first hdv video shot with my new Sony FX1 camcorder and edited it with P Pro 1.5.1 and Aspect HD from Cineform. I used Adobe Media Encoder within P Pro to export a wmv file which is what the client wants. I chose the 1080i 60 profile (NTSC) and wound up with an approx. 1 Gb file from a 20 minute video that still had a lot of jaggies from on screen movement. Any advice on how to make a similar or reasonably sized wmv for web use but that still looks good when exported as a wmv without the motion jaggies?

This file is only for web use, the client only wants wmvs the final product, and I would rather not purchase other utilties if possible since I am on a budget and a deadline.

I recommend that you deinterlace each clip on the timeline. That way you won't have interlacing issues. In lieu of that, try deinterlacing as you export.

I recommend that you deinterlace each clip on the timeline. That way you won't have interlacing issues. In lieu of that, try deinterlacing as you export.

Steven, I don't understand why I would need to deinterlace. Is it because of the profile I chose last time I tried to export? I am not married to that profile. I just want to export a wmv file without motion jaggies. Are you saying that if I want to make wmvs in this hi def aspect ratio straight from P Pro and watch them only on computers, that deinterlacing is always necessary? If so why isn't it integrated into the profile?

This is the specific profile I am using, should I try another one to make wmvs for web use only to keep the movie size at 1920 x 1080 on the screen and thereby avoid deinterlacing?

WM9 HDTV 1080 60i 5_1
Frame rate 29.97
Square pixels
Keyframes 5
Avg Bitrate 8000
Peak Bitrate 10000

I have always had to deinterlace to play it on my HDTV using a WM9 file. I don't know why it is not built into the profile.

I have always had to deinterlace to play it on my HDTV using a WM9 file. I don't know why it is not built into the profile.

Steven, I do not want to play these movies on a HDTV. I *only* want to make a decent quality WMV file for viewing strictly in Windows Media Player on people's computers. The files will be downloaded though the internet. Does that make a difference in the answer?

Sorry. No, it doesn't. I watch WM9 files on a DVD player designed to play WMV-HD files. I always have to deinterlace. If you ever find a way to avoid it, please let me know. You would think that the PC or HDTV could deal with it, but they can't.

Thanks Steven. I was about to ask you where the deinterlacing filter was and then I found the field options with a right click on the clip on the timeline. I just tried deinterlacing on a short clip and it was a night and day difference, no motion jaggies! I wish there was a way to do this without right clicking on every clip in every timeline though.

Theoretically there is. There is a deinterlace option in the Adobe Media Encoder. I just don't like it as well.

After selecting always deinterlace on the clips and exporting, my twenty minute video looks great. No motion jaggies and it wound up being about the same size, 1.16 Gb at 1920 x 1080. The deinterlacing didn't take too long to render on the timeline, maybe about an hour or less, but it did take *forever* to export the finished wmv file though, over nine hours on my dual core machine!

I wonder if there is a way to keep it the same frame size but cut down the bitrate without pixelating noticeably. I used the profile I listed above with an avg. bitrate of 8000 Kb. The files need to look like high quality hi definition media, and I know they are going to be much bigger than say a standard definition 640-480 wmv file no matter what. I just wonder if this is overkill.

fyi...u might want to try 6 keyframes, CBR of 9800 and reduce the framerate to 24 fps. the framerate would really reduce your file size

fyi...u might want to try 6 keyframes, CBR of 9800 and reduce the framerate to 24 fps. the framerate would really reduce your file size


Bill, thanks for the suggestion. Using a CBR with one pass rather than variable with multiple sounds sensible. But if I use 24 fps rather than the 29.97 I am using now would that not make the video look weird or choppy or something? Or would that be unnoticeable to the end user?

too funny, Jim. dunno how long u've been into digital video, but it wasn't so long ago that professionals were screaming that digital video would never make it in the pro world because 24fps wasn't available. people absolutely LOVE that so called "film look" for the timing cadence that 24fps provides. so, no, i think 24fps is an accepted "standard" in the film industry, and, therefore, is very acceptable.

too funny, Jim. dunno how long u've been into digital video, but it wasn't so long ago that professionals were screaming that digital video would never make it in the pro world because 24fps wasn't available. people absolutely LOVE that so called "film look" for the timing cadence that 24fps provides. so, no, i think 24fps is an accepted "standard" in the film industry, and, therefore, is very acceptable.

Bill in your experience is simply changing the frame rate in the export step from 29.97 to 24 fps on a video like this the equivalent of capturing the footage with a different camera like the Panasonic in 24 fps, rather than the FX-1 that I used? I have never used a film look despite having filmed hundreds of videos.

I actually made a short sample in 24 fps and I thought that it did have a vaguely film look but the client wants crisp hi def video. So instead I am trying your suggestion of (one-pass) CBR 9800 kbps, rather than the variable two-pass I was using before with 29.97 fps instead. P Pro Says it should take about four and a half hours to export.