converting PAL digital 25 fps progressive to Ntsc

[spiritgumm]

I was converting a recent PAL dvd of an older film to Ntsc. The film and bonus features were all 25 fps progressive. The film needed to be slowed down (I used Avisynth), but the bonus features (digital camera interviews of UK film critics with some film clips inserted; audio interview over video; stills gallery video) were contemporary and not filmed except for the film clips. I'm thinking those only need to go thru DGpulldown. Does that seem correct? Is this usually the case?

[manono]

Does that seem correct?

It can be, yes. If it was created at progressive 25fps it's easy enough to encode it at 720x480 and 25fps, later running the result through DGPulldown set for 25->29.97fps. The film clips within will remain speeded up but when you have hybrid material like that you may not have much choice.

[spiritgumm]

right, there's that resizing requirement.
The speed-up of the film clips isnt really noticeable (and barely audible), so that's not an issue for me, but I dont have a frame of reference for the interviewees so I cant tell if they're sped-up or not. I'm thinking that at this point, for a UK dvd release, they would simply video people at 25fps, not at film speed which would require speeding up later. Likewise, the audio interview (which was from an old recording) is probably the correct speed, and just added to a 25 fps video montage.

[spiritgumm]

I didnt mention one of the bonus videos (old movie trailer) which was apparently fieldblended from ntsc - bobbing/Srestore automatically outputted a 23.976 video. Because it was film and was fixable, it was unrelated to my question.
I mention this now because the contemporary interviews video was actually interlaced, not progressive as I first thought. I loaded it into above trailer script (which I was going to change to deinterlace) and noticed it also automatically outputted 23.976. I thought it would default to 25 fps? The videographer said they recorded 25 fps progressive. After bob/srestore, the video seems to play fine at 23.976 - I didnt see any dropped frames. But also plays fine when deinterlaced/TFM'ed to 25 fps progressive (which I would then run thru DGpulldown). I'm confused about which is the correct method.

Is it possible the video was progressive but encoded interlaced? That is, would it effect the field order so TFF might look fine but BFF would jump back every other field? Or is fieldorder not affected in that scenario?

[manono]

I loaded it into above trailer script (which I was going to change to deinterlace) and noticed it also automatically outputted 23.976.

The 'trailer script' uses SRestore? That's the default behavior for a PAL source. SRestore isn't analyzing it or anything and you should figure out for yourself if that's correct or not.

I'm confused about which is the correct method.

You could always post a sample.

Is it possible the video was progressive but encoded interlaced?

That's possible, yes, and is the norm for PAL progressive material (like movies on PAL DVD). But you've already said it's interlaced, meaning you see interlacing. At least, that's what you should mean when you say the "video was actually interlaced, not progressive as I first thought".

[spiritgumm]

sample of bonus interviews feature - hand gesturing is the main motion

[manono]

Thanks for the sample. Yes, talking heads can be difficult as there's so often not much movement. This is real interlaced and I would guess it was shot using interlaced PAL 25fps video cameras. Therefore, I would also guess 25fps is the correct framerate. If converting to NTSC for DVD there are scripts you can use to keep it interlaced. Or you can deinterlace it. With so little movement I'd say that's okay too.

[spiritgumm]

thanks for confirming. I'll just deinterlace, etc.
Dont suppose you know why Srestore is outputting 23.976?

[manono]

Dont suppose you know why Srestore is outputting 23.976?

I already told you. That's the default for SRestore with a PAL source. You don't need it for this source.

[spiritgumm]

sorry, I only read part of your earlier reply in an email. Good to know since it's not always the correct output.