Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. Collapse Details
    What are the best practices for combining interlaced and progressive footage
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    473
    Default
    Hi everyone,

    I recently shot a project at 3840x2160 30P with an A6300, and now the client would like me to combine it with footage I shot 10 years ago at 1440x1080 60i with a Sony SR-11.

    I'm using the free version of Resolve 15 with a mid-2012 MBP that's been upgraded to an SSD, 16GB RAM, and the Intel HD4000 graphics card hacked to use 2GB of system RAM. The final video will be delivered to DVD and possibly YouTube. I'll be using Toast Titanium to encode the final video to DVD.

    I can correct the 1440x1080 aspect ratio and scaling in Resolve by applying a 1.3 anamorphic desqueeze and zooming in 1.026%, so my only real concern is dealing with interlaced and progressive footage.

    I tried deinterlacing with JES Deinterlacer, QuickTime 7, and MPEG StreamClip, but they all result in lots of artifacts.

    It seems like a lot of DVDs are interlaced, should I just interlace my 3840x2160 30P footage, edit everything on an interlaced timeline, and export interlaced for DVD?


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,781
    Default
    When I was younger, I had a job that entailed de-interlacing hundreds of hours of footage per week. I've seen it all and I do agree (I think everyone would) that certain de-interlacing processes produce artifacts and 'jagged edges' which I found very unpleasant.

    It's been a very long time, but I think what I ended up settling on is using Compressor to change the footage to progressive with a very light blur.

    I lost a tiny bit of quality (very little), but it looks so much nicer. Smoother, if you will.

    Today, the software above may de-interlace better than it used to (or there are new options), but I don't know. MPEG Streamclip was one of the best (for many reasons), but they stopped working on it a while ago.

    ___

    A lot of DVDs are indeed interlaced but that's because most of the content was natively interlaced. There are progressive DVDs too.

    IMO, I would not interlace your progressive footage as you'll just ruin it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    473
    Default
    Thanks for your input NorBro.

    The artifacts aren't just jagged edges, it looks like random sections of pixilation and macroblocking going in and out.
    Screen Shot 2019-07-13 at 1.06.47 PM.jpg

    This brings me to another connected issue of matching frame rates. 60i = two 29.97 fields, so deinterlacing results in 59.94 FPS. What's the best way to get back to 29.97?
    I assume that dropping every other frame and applying frame blending would be the wrong approach?


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,781
    Default
    That doesn't look right...if you'd like to upload that clip above in its original state (even a few seconds), I'll de-interlace it for you and show a sample.

    60i has 30 frames (the fields would blend), and when I de-interlaced it it stayed at 30 frames.

    But if I mixed 60p with a 24p or 30p base, I would always let the NLE do its thing, which would indeed be dropping frames (or duplicating them if it was vice-versa but it rarely was).


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    473
    Default
    Thanks, I appreciate the offer, but I think it would only establish that there's something wrong on my end, and wouldn't give an indication of what I need to do differently.

    For some reason VLC reads my re-wrapped clip as 59.94 FPS.
    Screen Shot 2019-07-13 at 7.48.14 PM.jpg
    I tried transcoding to Prores with 5DtoRGB, once with chroma mode disabled and once with chroma mode set to progressive. Bothe versions look identical with very slight combing that's only really visible when you pause the action. I don't understand why 5DtoRGB would give me the best results so far, as it doesn't have a proper deinterlace feature, but perhaps it's just throwing away one of the fields.

    I just tried using a Yadif Deinterlacer plug-in with Resolve. It seems to produce good results, but my framerate ended up as 60 FPS.
    Screen Shot 2019-07-13 at 8.28.07 PM.jpg
    I have a friend who still has Premiere CS5, so I may try to borrow his computer at last resort.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,781
    Default
    Don't always trust software; it can be wrong.

    Count the frames in your footage with your arrow keys to confirm. 1...2...3...

    In this case, you'll immediately know if there are 60 frames by seeing each frame twice (which has been duplicated).


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    532
    Default
    Just a suggestion having tried many programs for interlace to progressive conversions. If you can beg borrow or steal or get access to a decent PC download MAGIX Vegas Pro trial program and use the following settings. By far the best solution I have used so far.

    https://www.vegascreativesoftware.co...ons/vegas-pro/

    I have done hundreds and I mean hundreds of hours for broadcast history docos converting all manner of of formats and frame rates and sizes of footage with very good results with no artifact problems other than what may have been in the original archive material. See image #1 for the project settings and image #2 for rendering out to your flavor of ProRes, I see you are on MB Pro. Works great for a Resolve edit. The important things to set is the 'Progressive' field setting and then select how you want to de-interlace your footage, BLEND or INTERPOLATE. Blend works best for normal human motion. As a rough rule if it is faster moving than an average human I use INTERPOLATE. These settings will give you a full 1920 x 1080 progressive image. This rough rule of thumb has worked well on everything from interviews to high speed aerial combat footage... so far

    Chris Young

    Blend ot interpolate.jpgProRes settings.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    127
    Default
    Have you tried After Effects yet? It might seem a bit simple vs. the more specialized solutions above, but it might be easier to get your hands on.

    Just make a comp with your 1440 interlaced footage and transform using export settings (no need to use effects, de interlacers, or "interpret footage as...").

    I've been shocked at how well this has worked for me because it just seems too easy (or maybe my needs weren't as great as yours, lol). Anyway, it might be worth giving this a shot. Good luck, hope it works out!


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    532
    Default
    I wonder? Does the OP subscribe to Adobe? Good suggestion using AE in this way. Must give it a go!

    Chris Young


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,781
    Default
    Any pertinent software is attempting to do the same thing in its own way. Some work better than others, and some may be more convenient to use (especially because of an individual's unique situation). But you still have to tell AE what to do. The 'transform' process in the export setting(s) still has to de-interlace and/or convert the footage to progressive and/or interpret motion and/or apply any personalized filtration/effects (either by choice or by default as part of the conversion).

    All of these applications, which have different settings - some more complex than others - and may and do look nonidentical are different options that have the capability of doing the same thing (some better than others depending on how much money and knowledge was put into that particular effort).


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •