FORUMS: list search recent posts

Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive

COW Forums : Adobe Premiere Pro

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Dan Powers
Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Oct 12, 2017 at 7:12:04 pm

Is there ever a reason to have the source media in a timeline set to anything other than progressive?
Any time you have a field interpreted source file and edit with that file, the resolution in premiere looks like crap.
Does not matter if the sequence setting is set for progressive or for upper. Unless you Modify the interpretation to progressive, it will get hammered.

When I get a properly created interlaced master file to add supers, or color work, I always modify the interpretation to progressive and use a progressive sequence. This allows the fields to pass cleanly when exported. Done this for 20 years with success with highest quality output. Using an interlaced source in an interlaced sequence and then mastering to interlaced will always look bad in comparison on the air.

Networks are STILL requesting 1080i even though 1080i production is all but dead. So I always output a progressive master and never have any rejections.
However some of my other vendor outlets are taking my progressive master files and adding phone numbers.
They are also working in premiere and putting progressive files into an upper field sequence and mastering upper field. When they get on the air the disclaimers and text look like crap.
In my opinion a post production work flow should always be progressive (allowing the fields to pass untouched) unless you have to disturb the field alignment of the source file (enlarging, blurring, etc).

Anyone else want to jump in on this?


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Oct 12, 2017 at 8:01:23 pm

TV is still aired at 1080i29.97. Even if you deliver a 23.98 master, they convert to 1080i29.97 for air. There are only a handful of networks that air progressive...FOX, ESPN, ABC. And those air 720p60. The rest are 1080i 29.97, with a couple that are 4K.

So, if you have 29.97 interlaced source, it's best to use a 1080i29.97 (1080i59.94, really) sequence. If you put interlaced footage into a progressive sequence and that is converted to interlaced...it'll be poo.

Nice to have the opinion that things should be progressive, but that's not the reality. I too prefer progressive, but networks want 29.97i...and I still work with 29.97i material (archival docs).

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Dan Powers
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Oct 12, 2017 at 9:36:55 pm

So... I sent in a 23.98p master for customization. Came back as 29.97 with a 3:2 cadence. OK fine. So, now I want to see how it looks in my edit system.

Put file in PPRO, Make sequence from clip. Play. Looks like crap.

Go to source clip, modify>Interp>Progressive, Make sequence from clip, play. Looks great. WTF???

In my first example, is premiere messing with the interlaced file in some way to make it look bad? I would expect it would look bad when paused (on a field) but when playing it looks like a field. This is using Black Magic Design Ultra Studio 4K with pretty much the best gear out there. Also see the same results just viewing on the edit screen.
Playing an interlaced video clip looks bad unless I modify it to progressive and change sequence setting back to progressive. Try it with something that has small supers.


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Oct 12, 2017 at 10:01:06 pm

[Dan Powers] "In my first example, is premiere messing with the interlaced file in some way to make it look bad?"

There may be a bug. Can you download a newer or older driver for the Ultra Studio?


[Dan Powers] "This is using Black Magic Design Ultra Studio 4K with pretty much the best gear out there."

I did not know you had 3rd party hardware. That will make my other post obsolete. The moderators have to approve my post.


[Dan Powers] " Also see the same results just viewing on the edit screen.
Playing an interlaced video clip looks bad unless I modify it to progressive and change sequence setting back to progressive."



Are you on a Mac or PC? Interlaced video never looks good on the computer screen. All I can say is my interlaced video looks fantastic using the Intensity Shuttle and Premiere Pro. Some times the BMD drivers are buggy.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Oct 13, 2017 at 12:05:41 am

[Dan Powers] "
Put file in PPRO, Make sequence from clip. Play. Looks like crap."


How are you monitoring? The BMD Ultrastudio 4K device out to an HDTV or broadcast monitor? Because PPro doesn't show interlacing properly, it will look bad. ONLY playing this out via video IO to a TV or monitor designed to play back interlaced will show you what it really looks like. And this can't be a computer display connected via IO...only a TV. Computer displays do not show interlacing properly.


[Dan Powers] "Go to source clip, modify>Interp>Progressive, Make sequence from clip, play. Looks great. WTF??? "

Because now the display is viewing footage it's good at viewing. But notice the skipping of frames, or, rather, repeating of frames. Because 6 new frames were made to go from 24 to 30.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Oct 12, 2017 at 9:09:00 pm

[Dan Powers] "
Is there ever a reason to have the source media in a timeline set to anything other than progressive?"


Yes! If your project is going to be broadcast at 1080i.


[Dan Powers] "Any time you have a field interpreted source file and edit with that file, the resolution in premiere looks like crap."

That is what the 3rd party hardware from BMD, AJA and Matrox are for.



[Dan Powers] "Does not matter if the sequence setting is set for progressive or for upper. Unless you Modify the interpretation to progressive, it will get hammered."

Interlaced video never looks good an a computer monitor.



[Dan Powers] "Using an interlaced source in an interlaced sequence and then mastering to interlaced will always look bad in comparison on the air."


Not sure how the video is getting to the station. If for example they accept HDV tapes or even if it was SD DV tapes they should look fine using an interlaced timeline/sequence.



[Dan Powers] "In my opinion a post production work flow should always be progressive (allowing the fields to pass untouched) unless you have to disturb the field alignment of the source file (enlarging, blurring, etc)."


Not if it will be broadcasted at 1080i.

1080i is a fantastic way to edit if you use Premiere Pro and have broadcast compliant hardware. You can drop 1080P and even 720P video into an interlaced timeline/sequence and it will play back smooth on the broadcast compliant hardware. Motion graphics will look AWESOME in an interlaced timeline provided you have broadcast compliant hardware! Do not use the computer screen for client previews when editing 1080i sequences/timelines!

If you have to output for broadcast compliant 1080i investing in the Intensity Shuttle for $180.00 might be money well spent. I wish I had bought mine earlier. The image quality of 1080i on broadcast compliant hardware really does look awesome but you have to see it for yourself. As I stated earlier even 1080P looks good in a 1080i timeline. The video link below might be worth watching







Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]