Deinterlacing AGAIN

I found a decent article that explains interlacing. Im not through with it yet - but interlacing happens on digital camcorders correct? but not analog camcorders?

clickie

 

All video, essentialy.

 

So I have to deinterlace if the video is going to be show on a tv? If i do deinterlace - when I watch it back on my pc it is going to be wobby as it goes back and forth between each field correct?

 

No. Every time ou watch TV it's interlaced (for the most part) and your monitor and your TV alike are used to this. You won't notice.

 

Damn this keeps confusing me lol. So interlaced video looks smoother on the tv than on my monitor cuz the monitor is progressive scan right? So deinterlacing makes it look better on a pc then?

 

Actually, unless your monitor is fairly old, it is NOT interlaced.

Interlacing is really for the TV only. There is no advantage to interlacing footage to playback on a computer.

 

That article on interlace is pretty confusing and bad.

Yes, TV's are inherently interlaced. So if you have interlaced stuff it works right on a TV, coz TV's display interlaced.

It looks strange on a progressive computer monitor.

/Z

 

But, if you want some synchronisity.....if you interlace your fingers too hard they'll progessively hurt.

 

This article is about the best I've seen covering interlacing. Definitely worth reading through.

Have fun.

 

So then I guess my question is - Im shooting with a Sony CCD-TR67. Is that interlaced? If I want to watch it on a tv i should leave it interlaced? and If I want to watch it on a pc I should de-interlace?

EDIT: after reading your article nick. If im importing at 320X240 since its half the resolution, is it true i will have an easier time deinterlacing without losing quality?

 

So hold on... if I am planning to export it to video tape or DVD and watch it on TV, I should leave it interlaced?

EDIT: "it" being my film

 

Your Sony camera shoots interlaced, as are all consumer (and almost all other) cameras. Some cameras have the option of shooting non interlaced (progressive or frame mode) but all video is essentially interlaced.

If your footage was captured at 320x240 it is probably already deinterlaced. The capture card captured every other field (half of 480 is 240).

Reasons for Deinterlacing:

1. If done properly, it can give your footage the slightly less fluid, yet occasionally blurry "film look."

2. It helps a lot when there are complex VFX shots (such as sabers).

3. Your footage is intended for viewing on computer monitors. When compressing interlaced footage for the web, you will lose your separate fields and introduce some nasty jaggy or blurred artifacts (Batman DE comes to mind).

Keep in mind, that you only need to deinterlace your footage once.


Reasons for not de-interlacing footage:

1. You will retain a higher quality image (if the source footage was higher than 320x240).

2. You want that "TV look" where the camera captured new information every 60th of a second.

 

One note about complex effects for TV.
An option for handling sabers and compositing is to deinterlace TWICE to get 60 progressive frames per second.
Then do your effects on the 60 deinterlaced frames per second.

Finish by interlacing the result into 30 interlaced frames per second.

Have fun.

 

Thanks Jake, that explains a lot.
I appreciate the help

 

No problem, SuprSpy.

One note about complex effects for TV.
An option for handling sabers and compositing is to deinterlace TWICE to get 60 progressive frames per second.
Then do your effects on the 60 deinterlaced frames per second.

Finish by interlacing the result into 30 interlaced frames per second.

For an FX project (that I have indefinately put on hold but swear that I will do one of these days) I've actually considered doing what you mentioned, Nick. In fact, I did a test (only 5 or 6 frames) and was pleased at how it turned out. It took a while to figure out exactly how to do it with limited software. I ended using 2 obscure freeware programs in addition to QuickTime Pro to pull off the 60i > 60p > 60i process. FCP/FCE, or AE, or perhaps Premiere could do all of the conversion by itself, but I had none of those at the time, only Photoshop).

Alas, the TV look of 60i is just no good for an FX test that is trying to emulate the film look. In addition, the Photoshop Roto work will take twice as long. Better to stick with deinterlacing to 30p. While this decreases quality it still yields better results, imho.

But, Sabers do look pretty spiffy in 60i. They almost seem more real. But like the lady said, "This isn't reality - this is FANTASY!"

 

Nick or Jake, How would you go about doing that in AE? Starting from a fresh import of 320X240?

Thanks

 

Well I still don't have AE so I couldn't tell you step by step how to do it. But you need to understand that if your footage was captured at 320x240, then it is extremely likely that it was deinterlaced when it was captured. Your capture device took every other field (perhaps only the odd field). So since your video is already deinterlaced, it will be impossible to do what Nick was talking about (FX on every individual field). In fact, deinterlacing your 320x240 footage or any such field manipulation is pointless. It would only degrade your image. Actually, by working with 320x240, you have less to worry about (disk space and interlacing issues).

If you were able to alter the settings on your capture device to record at full 640 or 720x480 then it would be interlaced and you could enter the mess that most of us DV heads deal with. OR perhaps you could tell your capture card to capture the opposite field than the one you previously captured. Perhaps then you could combine the two clips but that's just crazy.

 

haha - yeah well I have a cheap tv wonder ve and i cant seem to get it to capture anything higher than 320X240. I have the option in the cards controls but in premiere when I go into my video for windows options and set it, I hit ok and go right back in, it goes back to 320X240. Im saving for a DV camera so im sure youll be hearing from me on this issue again

Thanks