DV deinterlacing - on the fly?

[Raga]

Is it possible to deinterlace DV-video on the fly when you're importing it from your DV-camcorder? (Is it possible to do anything on the fly but just copy what's on the tape, anyway?)

Interlaced video just seems to be one of those major annoyances to me, it's of no use to me at all, and is just an obligatory step that takes a hell of a lot time with all tne video I work on. What do you need it for, anyway?

I seem to have a lot to say today in this section.

[junkmalle]

Get a progressive scan camcorder.

[Raga]

Just got a new one, so I don't think that's an option anytime soon. (Panasonic NV-GS120.)

[junkmalle]

I'm not sure you fully understand what interlacing is. Normal interlaced television does not consist of 29.97 frames per second, it's 59.94 fields per second. Every field is from a different picture (ie, a different point in time), but each only contains half a picture (every other scan line). When you watch TV you never see two fields at the same time, by the time you see a field the previous one has faded away. So you actually see 60 pictures a second.

Deinterlacing your interlaced video will either blur the two fields together (making anything that moves blurry), throw away a field (reducing both temporal and spatial resolution), or throw away parts (places where motion is detected) of a field (this is usually very imperfect).

If your end product is for an interlaced display (TV) you should not deinterlace. You'll just be throwing away or destroying the picture. Just learn to live with the interlaced video while editing. Or use an editor that deinterlaces the video for display on the monitor but leaves the video interlaced otherwise.

I'm not aware of any programs that will capture DV, decode and deinterlace it (by whatever method), and reencode on the fly.

[Raga]

Yes I'm somewhat acquainted with the theory of interlaced video. I mean, I know it isn't there just to annoy me. However since my end products are for the most part videos for online use (people downloading & watching on their computers), interlaced video will look fairly ugly. Anyhow I may need to also get them on DVD later on, so I suppose keeping interlaced sources is in place.

Am I correct in assuming that also MPEG-files come both as interlaced and deinterlaced versions? Many DVDs I've ripped into XviD have come out neat and clean without deinterlacing, which makes me wonder...

On a related matter, how far do all these filters with, say, VDub and AviSynth, actually work with interlaced source? I need to do some homework in this regard.

[thecoalman]

However since my end products are for the most part videos for online use (people downloading & watching on their computers), interlaced video will look fairly ugly.

If that's the case as suggested above get a cam that does progressive. Nop deinterlacing required, if it's just a hobby I think your going to be out of luck because I have not seen any consumer grade cams that do progressive. If your doing it professionally that's the route to take.

Am I correct in assuming that also MPEG-files come both as interlaced and deinterlaced versions? Many DVDs I've ripped into XviD have come out neat and clean without deinterlacing, which makes me wonder...

http://www.projectorpeople.com/tutorials/pulldown-2.asp

[junkmalle]

Many DVDs I've ripped into XviD have come out neat and clean without deinterlacing, which makes me wonder...

Most DVD's contain progressive MPEG and the DVD player performs 3:2 pulldown on the fly.

[Raga]

So basically if I need to edit video for mainly web use, but of which I may (a possibility, not a certainty) need to make DVDs later, I can just deinterlace my video and not need to re-interlace it when I make the DVD. In that case I'll just have to live with the fact that the quality of the image becomes slightly worse in quality. I can live with that, compared to having to do all the extra work with two sets of files. Otherwise, I can work on the interlaced video all the time and just deinterlace what I need for web. Given that the size is smaller there, the deinterlacing gets probably done a bit faster. (?) What makes sense to you?

[thecoalman]

So basically if I need to edit video for mainly web use, but of which I may (a possibility, not a certainty) need to make DVDs later, I can just deinterlace my video and not need to re-interlace it when I make the DVD.

Yes but now you have neither looking good, best way is the cam. For the best quality you have to leave it interlaced because as pointed out above your essentially destoying half the picture.

If you can't afford the cam leave your raw footage interlaced and deinterlace for the web. You do realize that most media players take interlacing into account when playing it? They adjust the picture for better playback. You could always suggest they use a player such as PowerDVD to view the movie.

[Raga]

Yes, I realize the cam is the best way to go, but I don't think they're really available in the below $1000 price range. (I'm not doing this for living.)

You do realize that most media players take interlacing into account when playing it?

I'll be damned. You're right! (Watches in awe as even Windows Media Player does this.) How come my favorite player (BS) doesn't do this...

Edit - Actually, it does, if you are smart enough to change the Overlay Mode to 2.

[thecoalman]

I'll be damned. You're right! (Watches in awe as even Windows Media Player does this.)

If you want some detailed info on interlacing go here www.digtialfaq.com

[Raga]

I've spent a good while there just now... thanks! (Though you misspelled the link.)