ADOBE PREMIERE PRO: Tutorials Forum Articles Creative Cloud Debate

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

Dan Powers
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Jan 25, 2018 at 10:21:16 pm

I am monitoring using BMD UltraStudio Extreme 4K connected to an EIZO reference monitor.
Also connected to a LG OLED monitor (expensive TV).

There is no monitor "designed" for interlace except for my tube monitor (built in the 80's which has been deep in storage for the last 10 years.

Also, I have been delivering progressive 2997 (1080p) footage to broadcast outlets for many years and it looks stellar.
Interlaced 1080i looks like live sports or old soap operas. 23.98 with a 4:3 cadence added looks fine on air at 1080i 29.97.

My issue is that premiere WILL NOT look good in any configuration with an interlaced source file and an interlaced sequence. Even when viewed on a "TV" connected to a broadcast compliant 1080i device like the BMD.

I will challenge anyone to get a nice clean graphic file rendered out interlaced and find a way for it to look good on a monitor (TV) without it looking half resolution. Disclaimers are nearly illegible.

Someone, maybe Andy, commented that it looks fine in his world. Andy put a graphic created in AE in there and see if the edges of your rounded fonts look like crap or if they look as perfect as a progressive project. Again, I do not believe Premiere handles interlaced footage properly,


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Jan 25, 2018 at 10:49:43 pm

[Dan Powers] "There is no monitor "designed" for interlace except for my tube monitor (built in the 80's which has been deep in storage for the last 10 years. "

Nope. Current TVs all display interlacing, because most networks broadcast interlaced. Even if I deliver a 23.98 master, they make a 1080i59.94 broadcast master from that. Most sports are broadcast interlaced, news, soap operas...all interlaced. So current TVs need to work with that, and display it properly. Many networks now want 1080p29.97 because they have a major web streaming presence and want it to look good there as well. But satellite, over the air, and cable is still delivered 1080i59.94.

Broadcast monitors, even LCD and OLED ones are designed to display interlacing. Mine does.

[Dan Powers] "Also, I have been delivering progressive 2997 (1080p) footage to broadcast outlets for many years and it looks stellar."

Not saying it doesn't. I have done this too. Just saying that 23.98p to 29.97p will have a repeated frame...well, 6 repeated frames every second. So it'll have a slight stutter to it. 23.98 to 59.94i (29.97i) will have the extra frames distributed in the fields of the video, so they WON'T repeat, so they will look smoother. And not soap opera like, because they were originally 23.98. the only footage that will look like sports or soap operas are those shot and delivered 59.94i.

[Dan Powers] "I will challenge anyone to get a nice clean graphic file rendered out interlaced and find a way for it to look good on a monitor (TV) without it looking half resolution. Disclaimers are nearly illegible. "

I have this done all the time, and they look fine on my broadcast monitor, and my HDTV. Because both can display interlacing. Now, I looked up the Eizo, and it looks impressive, but not sure if it handles interlacing. Can you see both fields when you pause on interlaced video? that sort of jittery look on the single paused frame? If not, then it doesn't do interlacing.

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 Jan 26, 2018 at 8:39:48 pm

The pause does not show a flicker like in the old days, but it is showing both fields. When playing back at full speed it looks fluid like 60hz, only the motion is obviously not as crisp as 60p. Tried this on three displays, all LCD and one OLED. The resolution actually looks fine which is opposite of what I was seeing in the same tests from early last year. I still had the same test files and am getting different results... I suspect a temporary interpretation bug in an old version...

For many years I worked with 23.98 shot footage that was transfered from film to video at 29.97 with 4:3 cadence. Common practice was for us to work in progressive 29.97 time base and pass the interlace without damage. Only working in an interlaced world when the footage needed to be processed or scaled. Even rendering out a 2997 30p file with 3:2 interlaced fields looked good on air. That was also the suggested workflow in the Quantel days.
I seldom get 23.98 anymore since nobody wants a 3:2 interlaced cadence in their master. (NG for web)
Mastering one file at 23.98, then another at 29.97 with a 3:2 UF added for broadcast masters.
Then the Telestream Flip Factory had the actions backwards in the software. Treating Upper as Lower and Flipping it on file conversion. Stations everywhere using that version of software were airing half res spots for nearly a year. I am the one who proved the bug and got it patched. Poorly handled fields in the post workflow have been a thorn in my side for roughly 35 years. I dont know which will die first. Fields or me.

Dan Powers
Production Services Director
United States Money Reserve
Austin, TX


Return to posts index

Ernie Munick
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Jan 24, 2018 at 12:43:58 am

Hi, guys.

If my sequence has to be interlaced (1080, 29.7)---my final product is shared in FCPX as XDCAM HD (35mbps)---is there a way to shoot first in 4K, then SMOOTHLY translate to 1080i?

Probably a big fat no on the way, which sucks because I love 4K for the cropping factor.

Thanks, either way.


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Jan 24, 2018 at 1:13:22 am

4K formats aren't interlaced, so if you shoot 4K, you are shooting progressive. And there's no way to make progressive full frame formats into Interlaced two field formats. You can export something FLAGGED as interlaced...media readers will see the metadata as interlaced, but it will be progressive.

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


Return to posts index

Ernie Munick
Re: Interlace discussion when finishing online progressive
on Jan 24, 2018 at 2:14:59 am

Thanks, Shane.

Gonna experiment with 4K broll over a 1080i sequence----we shall see. I'm all for fooling the media reader with the sequence name, but let's see how it looks...


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 >>
© 2018 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]