You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

to interlace or to not interlace

Posted: Sat, 15th May 2004, 8:05pm

Post 1 of 24

thecarpets

Force: 0 | Joined: 13th May 2004 | Posts: 20

Member

ok im a bit of a n00b, and since i've never made a movie to burn on dvd, would you reccomend deinterlacing the video or not? does this depend on the type of dv cam i use?
Posted: Sat, 15th May 2004, 8:17pm

Post 2 of 24

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Interlacing or not depends on your output media. If your puting it on DVD or VHS like you said you were, you'll want it interlaced. If your puting it on the web, you're going to want it deinterlaced. Its all about how the computer monitor plays it pretty much. smile
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 12:09am

Post 3 of 24

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I disagree. I think deinterlacing looks better in both instances. Well, actually it depends on the look you're going for. Deinterlacing will make it look slower and more film-like on a TV, so if that's what you want, then you should deinterlace it.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 12:12am

Post 4 of 24

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

No actually TV's are interlaced, so deinterlaced footage will look all wobbly on a TV. I made a test the other day, putting a interlaced clip next to a deinterlaced one, and it really looked better interlaced.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 1:24am

Post 5 of 24

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Footage will always look smoother on a TV if it is interlaced as they work with interlaced fields. If you have a progressive camera playing that footage on a TV can give a "film look" but as a rule footage which was interlaced then deinterlaced will not look that good as you are basically dumping half of your data.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 1:28am

Post 6 of 24

Solidus

Force: 240 | Joined: 15th May 2002 | Posts: 103

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I found a better comprimise is keeping it interlaced but dropping the speed of your film down to 98%, it gives a more delayed feel to it.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 2:16am

Post 7 of 24

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:

footage which was interlaced then deinterlaced will not look that good as you are basically dumping half of your data.
It depends on how you deinterlace. Standard deinterlacing will do this, but using the blend method retains more the vertical resolution (in fact, I think it keeps all of it).
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 2:53am

Post 8 of 24

adamlightandmagic

Force: 580 | Joined: 3rd Nov 2001 | Posts: 611

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Come on folks, we all know Magic Bullet can make deinterlacing look good!

But hey, I did a dvd last December and my first test looked very jerky and wobbly and it was deinterlaced (blend). So then I redid all the footage as interlaced for the dvd. Viewed again and it looked perfect. Smooth.

To be honest after seeing demos from magic bullet, I'm kinda sold on that being the best method. Although, it is kinda achievable in something like Vegas. I might give it a go and see if it's worth it.

Adam.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 3:01am

Post 9 of 24

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Oh yes, Magic Bullet! Only 999.99$ biggrin
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 4:25am

Post 10 of 24

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

adamlightandmagic wrote:

But hey, I did a dvd last December and my first test looked very jerky and wobbly and it was deinterlaced (blend). So then I redid all the footage as interlaced for the dvd. Viewed again and it looked perfect. Smooth.
*Gulp* Umm...was the footage jerky when you played it on the tv from a tape? The reason I ask is because I just finished a movie with the already expired trial of Premiere Pro, and it was deinterlaced. I plan on burning a dvd, but I don't want it to be jerky.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 10:01am

Post 11 of 24

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

TVs work with fields, your TV doesn't display 30 frames per seconds, it does 60 fields per second.

If you split up the interlaced fields of your footage you can see it was filmed at 60 fields a second, or 60 half vertical res frame - each one is slightly different. By deinterlacing the footage you are cutting this to 30 full res frames which the TV can not display properly as it is still trying to show one half of the frame before the other half. Basically it ends up showing the same image twice (odd pixels on one image, even on the other) with a slight time gap in between - as we are running at half the fields of interlaced footage (think of it as 30FPS rather than 60FPS) you tend to get a stuttered effect (some TVs look worse than others).

Although in some ways this is similar to the cinema (where the projector shows each frame twice) its still using fields from progressive frames which doesn't really give the same effect - but can be close. Even if you like the effect the problem comes with the TV - some TVs display progressive footage in a way which is very uncomfortable to watch.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 10:08am

Post 12 of 24

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I for one haven't ever had a problem with de-interlaced footage looking bad on a TV. Maybe I just don't de-interlace my movies, and I never noticed it before...
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 10:22am

Post 13 of 24

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Yah, I always deinterlace my footage, & it does seem fine when I output to DVD & VHS & view on a tv.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 10:34am

Post 14 of 24

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

But it will look totally different to interlaced footage and nowhere near as smooth. Hence Chromanator allows you to work on your footage field by field (like its deinterlaced) to get your effects just right and then reinterlaces it for perfect broadcast quality output. If interlacing had no point then cameras/tvs would not use it at all.
Posted: Sun, 16th May 2004, 11:16am

Post 15 of 24

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Lloyd66 wrote:

schwar wrote:

footage which was interlaced then deinterlaced will not look that good as you are basically dumping half of your data.
It depends on how you deinterlace. Standard deinterlacing will do this, but using the blend method retains more the vertical resolution (in fact, I think it keeps all of it).
No, blend does not retain the quality at all. It also creates ghosting.

Deinterlacing to make your footage look more like film is really daft. It just lowers the quality and makes it wibble up and down as well as stutter. If you want the film look then it is much better to keep it interlaced and simply take frames out. This is what magic bullet does.

Also don't forget that what PAL people see and the effect of deinterlacing to them is quite different to what NTSC people see. For us (PAL) our fps is already much closer to film.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 3:17am

Post 16 of 24

Cutty201

Force: 188 | Joined: 14th Apr 2004 | Posts: 327

Windows User

Member

VirtualDub anyone ? am I the only here who makes use of VirtualDub. I find that VirtualDub's Deinterlacer seems to work pretty good. It really just blends everything really nicely. Don Graft ( I can never remember his name ) makes a Smart DeInterlacer filter for VirtualDub. Haven't played around with that too much tho, I am gonna now that I have been learning a lot more stuff. Oh for those of you that don't know of VirtualDub i pity you. It's the fastest video encoder on the planet, and on top of that you can really do some nifty things with it. It wasn't really meant to be an all out editor like Adobe Premiere or FCP but it does what it's supposed to (Video Correction, Processing) excellently. It is lightyears ahead of Adobe Premiere's outputting ability. This can encode in almost every codec without a problem,... and much much faster than anything else. ...erg I am getting off topic huh, ill create a VirtualDub topic later. www.virtualdub.org smile it looks like shit but it is much powerful than it looks. www.neuron2.net is for the plugins i believe smile

==update==
just for craps and giggles (don't think I can swear here smile) i was playing around with the smart deinterlace filter from Don Graft, I didn't like it b4 because it wasn't simple modes like the normal deinterlace filter ("Blend", "Field A", "Field b" etc) but special motion and sensing thingys...anywho i looked at em and "Frame - n - Field differencing" seemed like a cool thing to choose... wow that looked pretty beautiful smile actually lemme open'er back up and try the other ones.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 3:46am

Post 17 of 24

Cutty201

Force: 188 | Joined: 14th Apr 2004 | Posts: 327

Windows User

Member

I just made this for all yall. I know it's big but maybe this pic will help you decide. These are a few (not all) of teh deint methods available in VirtualDub. This might make your decision a lil easier:

Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 9:48am

Post 18 of 24

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

VirtualDub's deinterlacing is very useful if you are distributing your film on the internet or if it is to be viewed on a computer. But, as has been said elsewhere, you don't want to deinterlace something if it is to be viewed on a TV.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 11:51am

Post 19 of 24

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

The smart deinterlacer is indeed known as the best when you need to keep the resolution.

But if you are resizing down for the web then you may as well simply use a drop field method because this keeps all the detail from the other field intact and halfs the resolution.

But, yes, these deinterlaced pics may look good on the computer but its still bad to deinterlace for tv because tv is interlaced by nature.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 1:32pm

Post 20 of 24

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Also you need to remember that deinterlacing (including all the method in the image above) will always create a blurred image as the to fields its working with were recorded 1/60th of a second appart - the more movement in the footage the worse it will get. Deinterlaced footage is not the same as getting progressive footage in the first place.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 9:54pm

Post 21 of 24

Cutty201

Force: 188 | Joined: 14th Apr 2004 | Posts: 327

Windows User

Member

agreed. But it has been my experience (at least with my camera) whjen I shoot in Frame mode (progressive) i still need to deinterlace it cuz it still has the lil lines. I like the way deinterlaced video comes out on screen, though that look is what I was going for. It really depends on what you are doing I guess. If you are a videographer and videoing a deposition or wedding or something, interlaced footage is the way hands down. But if you are doing a narrative film, like a short movie, and you want to give your movie a different (i'd try to shy away from the word "cinematic") look, deinterlaced is probably the way you want to go.

==edit==
when I say "on screen" i mean on a Television or Projected screen.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 9:59pm

Post 22 of 24

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Frame mode on Canon cameras isn't real progressive - hence it can have some small lines (less so on the XM2). Cameras like the Sony VX2100 which do real progressive will have no lines at all.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 10:54pm

Post 23 of 24

polemarch

Force: 510 | Joined: 4th Mar 2002 | Posts: 135

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Don't bother with worrying about it I say. How many of you are going to put your projects onto film? 1 or 2 at the most? Just get the best footage you can and leave the interacing till later.

Unless you have a cam that has a really good progressive mode on it then you are probably best leaving it alone. Filming techniques and practice will give you a real 'film' look, not interlacing.
Posted: Mon, 17th May 2004, 11:45pm

Post 24 of 24

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Hey schwar, I've wondered this about the VX2100. Does it play okay on normal tvs, or do you have to interlace it first? In other words, does it equal the same as deinterlacing normal footage, or does it work differently?