FORUMS: list search recent posts

The very best interlace to progressive conversion

COW Forums : Avid Media Composer

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Austin
The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 17, 2011 at 9:45:37 pm

So, my client has accidentally shot a two hour project at 1920x1080 50i although they want a film look. The broadcaster states that no film effect may be used and you should aquire in the intended format.

Film look is fairly crucial to the look of the project so I have suggested that my client asks for special permission to convert the project.

My question is, at this time, what is the best quality option out there? Could be software or hardware...

Many thanks


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 18, 2011 at 8:27:09 am

Sapphire has a nice field remove which uses a motion mask so non moving areas get full rez and only the moving areas are de-interlaced. Twixtor will do this but much slower than Sapphire. Sapphire also has a nice film look which adds a nice film gamma curve as well as grain. There may be others but if I only had one plugin set it would be Sapphire.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

Larry Asbell
Re: The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:03:19 am

[Robert Brown] " Sapphire has a nice field remove which uses a motion mask so non moving areas get full rez and only the moving areas are de-interlaced."

It may help to know that this is a widely use approach to higher quality de-interlacing. Generally it goes by the name "adaptive de-interlace."



Return to posts index


Bouke Vahl
Re: The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 18, 2011 at 1:00:45 pm

De-interlacing is NOT a film effect in my book.
And i don't like it either if it is for interlaced broadcast, the 'feel' of film comes from something else, not from progressive images. Eg limited depth of field makes for a film look, and you can emulate that a bit by masking and defocusing.

I have used a zillion different de-interlacing apps.
The worst you can get is discard a field, as you effectively throw away half your resolution.
I don't have tried Sapphire, but i trust others if they say it is good.

But since you've got resolution to spare (1920 X 1080 is way enough for a normal TV set), you might get away with something simpler.

For the sake of workflow, you could try Avids slomo (fluidmotion) at 100%. Interlaced in, progressive out.

Just try whatever you have (forget the field blend in AE, it is a defocus filter rather than de-interlace).

At least you got Squeeze as another option, and if you dare use Avisynth. Lots of options, but a bit of a learning curve...

But i would focus on making a good interlaced show, with all the CC and other eye candy you can afford, and after that, try de-interlacing.

But again, there is no blockbuster moviemaker that would not kill to have his movie on the big screen in 60 FPS, so it really is a stupid effect to pretend you had the money to shoot film...

Bouke

http://www.videotoolshed.com/
smart tools for video pros


Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 18, 2011 at 5:13:06 pm

From lots of experimentation and experience, I would say the Sapphire effect is actually rather poor at this. It creates an obvious "film effect"', which might set off alarm bells with the network. I would avoid using their deinterlacing filter or their Film Motion Controls. The grain, gamma and exposure controls in Sapphire's Fim look however are very good, but you need to dial them down a lot from the default settings to be convincing.

I have used the method Bouke suggested...apply a Time Warp effect, leave the speed at 100 percent, then set it to Fluid Motion, Interlace in, Progressive out. The result is usually very convincing. Render is very very slow, though.
You should also render it before doing any color correction or applying any other filters. If you cannot afford the colossal render time, or are getting strange artifacts (fluid motion sometimes does that depending on the footage) you might try Interpolated field instead of Fluid Motion. It renders much faster, but the quality is not as high...but may be acceptable depending on the footage.


Return to posts index

Bouke Vahl
Re: The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 19, 2011 at 3:59:56 am

While i think of it, the HQ John is talking about may come from smart blending the fields.
This makes an artificial motion blur on the footage, and that indeed is 'filmish'.
(I can't test now, my avid is powered down now, but toy yourself, at least you know where to look for.)

Bouke

http://www.videotoolshed.com/
smart tools for video pros


Return to posts index


Brendan Dillon
Re: The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 19, 2011 at 12:40:26 pm

If you're after the best convert it through a Teranex.

"PixelMoton De-interlacing of video originated material produces perfect progressive frames in preparation for further processing. The processing aperture is adjusted on a pixel-by-pixel basis, which preserves all of the detail of the original interlaced image and eliminates jaggies in the output image."


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 20, 2011 at 7:41:11 am

[Bouke Vahl] "De-interlacing is NOT a film effect in my book.
And i don't like it either if it is for interlaced broadcast, the 'feel' of film comes from something else, not from progressive images. Eg limited depth of field makes for a film look, and you can emulate that a bit by masking and defocusing."


I disagree. Frame rate is to me the most obvious difference between film and video. The difference between 60 fps and 24 is quite drastic and 30I is in reality 60 fps - just 60 half rez frames per second. 60 fps says NOW which is good for sports and news. 24 or 30 says some other time which is by far better for drama.

Panavision in the 80's made a video camera that used film lenses. I think it was a complete flop as it was still 30I. Robert Altman did a play with it called "Rattlesnake in the Cooler" and it just looked like video to me. It wasn't until 24P came out in video cameras that the gap began to close as you could get a similar temporal effect while keeping all of your resolution.

Grain, gamma curve, color rendition, depth of field all play a part but when I see film played at say 48P it looks like video to me. Of course de-interlacing is a pretty bad thing to do as you do throw away half of your vertical resolution but it will get closer to the same temporal effect that 24P has. I also found if you blur video a fair amount and then add a significant amount of grain you can get a very convincing super 8 look as with super 8 the apparent resolution comes from the grain and not the image itself..

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

Bouke Vahl
Re: The very best interlace to progressive conversion
on Dec 21, 2011 at 5:12:07 pm

I'll keep this brief.
I disagree with you on several points and i have no intention to make this a pissing contest, so let's just agree to disagree.

Bouke

http://www.videotoolshed.com/
smart tools for video pros


Return to posts index

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