Deinterlace at DVinfo.net

Eloy Varela · August 16th, 2005, 09:16 AM

hello,

I would like you will explain me clearly the difference between progressive of camera ( native ) and progressive by software.
The people who uses HVR-Z1, what sofware do you suggest me for converting 1440x1080i to 1280x720p?

Thanks

Kyle Ringin · August 16th, 2005, 05:34 PM

Check this thread out for conversion methods:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=48352

It gives a link to this:
http://hdvforever.com/hdv/hdrhc1/to720p/

I'll let others fill you in on the native vs deinterlaced/resized question.

Cheers

Douglas Spotted Eagle · August 16th, 2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Ringin

Check this thread out for conversion methods:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=48352

It gives a link to this:
http://hdvforever.com/hdv/hdrhc1/to720p/

I'll let others fill you in on the native vs deinterlaced/resized question.

Cheers

The recipe referred to is null and useless if you use Sony Vegas, otherwise, it's a pretty good option.

Progressive in the camera means the footage is never interlaced at any point, it is always progressive.

Made from interlaced to progressive in post/software, means you start out with interlaced and end up with progressive.

Both formats have their benefits. Personally, I don't care for 24p or 30p acquired footage for anything that has a lot of movement, when captured with a 1/3" chip cam. But that's opinion, not a quantifiable position.
Interlaced captures fast movement better. Progressive is very smooth, or usually is. It's easy to convert interlaced to progressive, and vice-versa. If it's displayed on a CRT screen, it will be interlaced regardless of what the acquisition method is. If it's displayed on a computer screen or progressive television, it will be progressive taken from interlaced, if captured with an interlaced camera.
Eventually, all displays will be progressive. The grail is 1080p60, which isn't really an option for broadcast right now, but will be. The next best thing is 1080p30, which is doable right now. 1080i60 to 1080p30 is very nice looking, very smooth, if it's managed correctly.

John McGinley · August 16th, 2005, 07:08 PM

Speaking of converting from 60i to 24p, what's different in the new version of Gearshift? I have the 1.2.1 script and noticed the new one is $50.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · August 16th, 2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McGinley

Speaking of converting from 60i to 24p, what's different in the new version of Gearshift? I have the 1.2.1 script and noticed the new one is $50.

First, since you already own the application, you are entitled to a free download of the update.

Second, what's new is:
1. You can convert directly from the timeline, rather than converting entire tapes from the media pool or from the explorer. This saves tremendous amounts of conversion/rendering time.
2. Different options in the rendering queue
3. Auto-ripple of new files (user selected)

John McGinley · August 16th, 2005, 08:12 PM

Sweet, Free...yeah I think I can afford that. Thank you sir.

Kyle Ringin · August 16th, 2005, 10:01 PM

DSE,
How would you do the 1080i->720p conversion in Vegas to have the best quality?

Create a 720p project, place the footage on the timeline and apply a smart deinterlace filter?

(I don't have a HDV camera yet but am thinking about getting an FX1)

Thanks.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · August 16th, 2005, 10:08 PM

That's exactly how I'd do it. Are you coming to the VASST training in Melbourne next week? I can take a minute to show you this if you'd like.

Bjorn Moren · August 17th, 2005, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Eventually, all displays will be progressive. The grail is 1080p60, which isn't really an option for broadcast right now, but will be.

Are you saying that 1080p60 is as good as 1080i120 (if available), even for fast paced action scenes?

I'm under the impression that we are far from framerates where an improvement in framerate would not give a visible difference. Perhaps at 1080p2000 (my guess) that would be true.

If given a limited bandwith, will not interlaced always be the preferred method, since it transfers action much better?

Or is it the editing benefits of progressive video you are referring to?

Barry Green · August 17th, 2005, 01:18 AM

Interlace will never be "better" than progressive video, at equivalent frame rates; the only benefit interlace has is when progressive just isn't fast enough. 60p gives better motion rendition than 60i -- you get just as many updates, but they're full frame updates, not split field updates. And since we already have 60p, and any increase in frame rate above 60 is pretty much undetectable to the brain/vision system, I don't expect we'll see too much faster anytime soon.

1080/60i will likely mark the end of interlace. I would strongly expect that all future development of high-def will center on progressive-scan displays. Nearly all high-definition televisions are natively progressive-scan. Of the six ATSC television formats accepted for broadcast, only one is interlace, the other five are progressive. I would bet that there will never be such a thing as 1080/120i.

Nigel Traill · August 17th, 2005, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

That's exactly how I'd do it. Are you coming to the VASST training in Melbourne next week? I can take a minute to show you this if you'd like.

Douglas,

You're visiting Australia next week? When are you in Sydney - and is it just Vegas you are speaking about?

I'm in Sydney. I'm interested in hearing you. I visited the VASST site but couldn't immediately find any reference to an Australian series of talks.

Nigel

Graeme Fullick · August 17th, 2005, 04:53 AM

Can I second that Spot.

I live in Newcastle - 200km north of SYdney, but might be able to get down to see you if you were there!

Graeme

Douglas Spotted Eagle · August 17th, 2005, 07:21 AM

visit the http://www.newmagic.com.au site for more information.
Look on the left hand side.

I'll be in Melbourne and Sydney, arriving there later today/your tomorrow.
Would be great to meet some of you!

re: 1080i120....what Barry said.

Eloy Varela · August 17th, 2005, 08:09 AM

Test:
record good soft.post
Sony HVR-Z1 1080i ------------------> 1280 x 720p (1)

record
JVC HD100 -------------------------> 1280 x 720p (2)

Wich one is the best quality image (1) or (2)?

I think it would be the second one, but is the difference very big??

Are you be able of understanding me?

Thanks for your reply guys.

Barry Green · August 17th, 2005, 11:44 AM

We do understand you. The answer is not yet clear. It would seem reasonable to expect a native 1280x720p signal to deliver the better 1280x720p final product, but there is much more to it.

First, do you want 24p or 30p? Then the JVC will give the better final result. But if you want the 60p look, the JVC cannot do it at all, and the converted Sony would do a better job.

Then there are other factors to consider, such as lens quality. For issues such as that, only side-by-side testing can deliver the actual true answer.

August 16th, 2005, 09:16 AM	#1
Eloy Varela New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Pontevedra- Spain Posts: 23	Deinterlace hello, I would like you will explain me clearly the difference between progressive of camera ( native ) and progressive by software. The people who uses HVR-Z1, what sofware do you suggest me for converting 1440x1080i to 1280x720p? Thanks

August 16th, 2005, 10:08 PM	#8
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	That's exactly how I'd do it. Are you coming to the VASST training in Melbourne next week? I can take a minute to show you this if you'd like. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

August 17th, 2005, 04:53 AM	#12
Graeme Fullick Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 337	Can I second that Spot. I live in Newcastle - 200km north of SYdney, but might be able to get down to see you if you were there! Graeme __________________ Graeme

August 17th, 2005, 07:21 AM	#13
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	visit the http://www.newmagic.com.au site for more information. Look on the left hand side. I'll be in Melbourne and Sydney, arriving there later today/your tomorrow. Would be great to meet some of you! re: 1080i120....what Barry said. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

August 16th, 2005, 05:34 PM	#2
Kyle Ringin Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 241	Check this thread out for conversion methods: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=48352 It gives a link to this: http://hdvforever.com/hdv/hdrhc1/to720p/ I'll let others fill you in on the native vs deinterlaced/resized question. Cheers

August 16th, 2005, 07:08 PM	#4
John McGinley Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 142	Speaking of converting from 60i to 24p, what's different in the new version of Gearshift? I have the 1.2.1 script and noticed the new one is $50.

August 16th, 2005, 08:12 PM	#6
John McGinley Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 142	Sweet, Free...yeah I think I can afford that. Thank you sir.

August 16th, 2005, 10:01 PM	#7
Kyle Ringin Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 241	DSE, How would you do the 1080i->720p conversion in Vegas to have the best quality? Create a 720p project, place the footage on the timeline and apply a smart deinterlace filter? (I don't have a HDV camera yet but am thinking about getting an FX1) Thanks.

August 17th, 2005, 01:18 AM	#10
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Interlace will never be "better" than progressive video, at equivalent frame rates; the only benefit interlace has is when progressive just isn't fast enough. 60p gives better motion rendition than 60i -- you get just as many updates, but they're full frame updates, not split field updates. And since we already have 60p, and any increase in frame rate above 60 is pretty much undetectable to the brain/vision system, I don't expect we'll see too much faster anytime soon. 1080/60i will likely mark the end of interlace. I would strongly expect that all future development of high-def will center on progressive-scan displays. Nearly all high-definition televisions are natively progressive-scan. Of the six ATSC television formats accepted for broadcast, only one is interlace, the other five are progressive. I would bet that there will never be such a thing as 1080/120i.

August 17th, 2005, 08:09 AM	#14
Eloy Varela New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Pontevedra- Spain Posts: 23	Test: record good soft.post Sony HVR-Z1 1080i ------------------> 1280 x 720p (1) record JVC HD100 -------------------------> 1280 x 720p (2) Wich one is the best quality image (1) or (2)? I think it would be the second one, but is the difference very big?? Are you be able of understanding me? Thanks for your reply guys.

August 17th, 2005, 11:44 AM	#15
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	We do understand you. The answer is not yet clear. It would seem reasonable to expect a native 1280x720p signal to deliver the better 1280x720p final product, but there is much more to it. First, do you want 24p or 30p? Then the JVC will give the better final result. But if you want the 60p look, the JVC cannot do it at all, and the converted Sony would do a better job. Then there are other factors to consider, such as lens quality. For issues such as that, only side-by-side testing can deliver the actual true answer.