Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI

	Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 10, 2008 at 4:18:50 pm I've just come across this link buried deep in my bookmarks; a report on a debate on HD at IBC 2004 where Yves Faroudja (who has made a living and won an Emmy, making products that deinterlace stuff, in case you didn't know) comments: "Why are we still talking about using interlace? This is something I’ve been dealing with for decades and I can’t believe we’re still considering it in the 21st century,” he said. “I’m a complete enemy of interlace. There are some things in an interlaced picture that you just can’t de-interlace. When TV began it was a very simple way of reducing bandwidth, but now it is not needed. I’m very depressed when every ten years I see people about to make the same mistakes. More: http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_300-ibc-2004.html Enjoy. __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 10, 2008 at 4:54:18 pm IMO I really think this thread shouldn't be here so you can have an unrelated conversation the SDE Sorry you feel that way - I thought it would have been of even a little bit of interest to anybody working with video. Maybe I should have chosen a different subject title, would that have been preferable? Please accept my apologies. p.s. I don't see your email address in your profile? __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 10, 2008 at 10:04:11 pm I was there. So? Like I said...gain an understanding of PsF. Problem is, you need to wrap your head around how that is a benefit, not a detriment. I was also there and I don't need to gain an understanding PsF, thanks very much, I am perfectly well versed on the subject. It's not the type of interlacing I, or Mr Faroudja, was referring to. I can't understand why you keep harping on about PsF. Alternate lines and half frames are really quite distinctly different. It's like comparing a fist to fingers displaying the peace sign. Nor does PsF degrade an image like interlace does, I though you'd appreciate that and realise that was where I (and Mr Faroudja) was coming from. What I can't 'wrap my head around' however, Mr EagIe, is that you object, seemingly so venomously and patronisingly, to the friendly banter and discussion I was hoping this post would generate amongst the many experts, including you, that this forum attracts. Maybe I caught you on an off day? Daniel PS I have a PADI Open Water Diver Certificate from 1978. Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 11, 2008 at 3:47:55 pm Depends on what you are filming to a great extent, but in many cases 25p will look better on your progressive displays. http://www.videomaker.com/article/13755/ http://www.bestechvideos.com/2008/07/31/adobe-cs-shoot-progressive-video-ra... __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 14, 2008 at 9:58:37 pm May I step in here... You'd have to deinterlace the 1080i to get to standard def anyway (although I've seen some idiots just scale it down). It's always preferable to avoid a deinterlace step, 1. for transcode performance and 2. for quality (as deinterlacing generally always throws something away or muddles it up somehow. So for the best 'quality' DVD picture, shoot progressive. Obviously I don't need to tell you that the best quality picture usually comes from film, which is, of course, progressive by its very nature. __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Todd Terry on Oct 14, 2008 at 10:17:29 pm [Daniel Low] "best quality picture usually comes from film, which is, of course, progressive by its very nature." Getting picky here... although film could be considered more progressive than interlaced, it's actually quite neither. "Progressive" would indicate that picture is "drawn" on the frame from top to bottom. With film, the entire frame is exposed virtually all at the same time. When using a film camera with a variable shutter and a very narrow setting, one could argue that the exposure is "drawn" onto the frame from the top to the bottom, sort of a kinda-like-progressive style. But even then the exposure is "drawn on" in an arc following the shutter rotation, not a perfectly straight line down. Futhermore, since the image captured on the negative is actually upside down, the image is being drawn up, not down. Sort of pesudo-reverse-progressive, I suppose. At any rate, unless the telecine is done at true 24fps (usually reserved for making digital intermediaries which will eventually go back to film) the transfer is probably going to be interlaced. As I said, just being picky.... T2 __________________________________ Todd Terry Creative Director Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc. fantasticplastic.com Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 14, 2008 at 11:11:21 pm Getting picky here... although film could be considered more progressive than interlaced, it's actually quite neither. "Progressive" would indicate that picture is "drawn" on the frame from top to bottom. With film, the entire frame is exposed virtually all at the same time. Probably way too picky for a forum on HDV (especially when it's about going to SD DVD), but I applaud you for being a chief propellor head. Obviously one could argue that that with a digital camera the way the light hits the lens is...no, I'm not going to raise myself to your level...oh, ok, I will; it's exactly the same, only it's processed differently after impact...it's not the sensor or the material that dictates the method of scanning or recording, it's the format. RED and the DCI will change all that, everything will become progressive, just you watch... ;-) __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 17, 2008 at 2:55:34 pm There are plenty of software packages and post systems that know video is commonly interlaced, and so properly deal with field-based material. You just scale each field individually. Which is done automatically in any compositing software I know of What would you consider a way to properly deal with field-based material? Drop a field? Blend fields? Interpolate between fields? Perform motion adaptive deinterlacing? Perform motion compensated deinterlacing? Would you force a deinterlace of the whole picture or just the pixels that are moving? Etc If compositing software knows auto-magically what to do, why would products like RE:Vision's Fieldskit exist? obviously to do the job better, I would have thought. By simply scaling down 1080i to progressive SD, you are obviously deinterlacing but you are probably performing it in an uncontrolled, poorly calculated and unsophisticated manner, as most people and products tend to do. __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 17, 2008 at 4:41:36 pm Just out of interest, could you share your workflow from EX1 to DVD: Software and settings used for transcoding through to what you watched the final result on? Thanks! __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 22, 2008 at 10:04:34 am I don't think shooting at a 'higher rate' will help, I agree that your workflow is likely making a bit hit on quality but also I think you have set your expectations too high if you want to compare the output from the camera to heavily compressed MPEG-2. __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 22, 2008 at 3:01:29 pm My comment had nothing to do with the subject of this forum. Obviously shooting at a higher bitrate will improve the quality at the camera end but if there is image degradation in your workflow at 25Mb/s then that will still degrade the image at 35Mb/s. You said you were not happy with the final output to MPEG-2. It was suggested by Steve that your workflow might be affecting the quality of your pictures before they hit the MPEG-2 process. I was simply suggesting that it might be more beneficial to clean up the workflow (and/or lowering your expectations) before throwing more bits per second at it. I currently shoot in SP (1440 X !080i) mode on the EX1. I transfer as video direct from the camera via firewire to HDV tape (Sony M10 deck). I then run the video via firewire to the Convergent Design HD-Connect box which converts the HDV to 1920 X 1080i and which I can then take through the box via SDI into Media 100 as HD for editing. In other words 6 or 7 format conversions?: Camera source to HDV tape then uprezzed then converted to SDI then digitized by M100 then downrezed to DV and finally to MPEG-2! Phew! To me that has way too may conversion steps in it, each step you'll be making a quality hit (Uprezzing doesn't add any picture quality or detail, as you know, it only increases the resolution). We all know that MPEG-2 is capable of reproducing to superb quality levels, given the right quality source, the right transcoder and the right transcoding profile. __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Douglas Spotted Eagle - FYI by Daniel Low on Oct 23, 2008 at 10:47:26 am If that's the case, I would suggest that there's something wrong with the settings in Bitvice as it's a very good MPEG-2 encoder, not quite Cinemacraft, but still good value. __________________________________________________________________ Please post back saying what solved your problem. It could help others, and saying 'thanks' is free! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index