XM2 (GL2) 'frame' mode - encode as progressive?

[daamon]

Hi all,

I've found a few threads on this, but no definitive answer.

I don't confess to fully understanding how Canon's "frame" mode works on the XM2 (known as the GL2 in the US), and how it differs from "proper" progressive shot footage. But, it seems that the end result is as good as footage that was shot as progressive.

My question is, when encoding (I use TMPGEnc Plus v2.5) my DV AVI to MPEG2 (for DVD) should it be done as interlaced or progressive?

I'm not even sure that there's a progressive option in TMPGEnc - I've not needed to consider it until now.

Thank you.

[dipstick]

I've used FRAME MODE on my Panasonic PV-DV953. I always encode in Progressive Format @ 29.97 fps (NTSC). The field order is unimportant, but I always use Zig-Zag Block Scanning.

I don't use TMPGENC so I can't help there. I usually use MainConcept or CCE.

For a detailed discription of what FRAME MODE is all about read this:
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/papers/Progressive-WP.pdf

[daamon]

Hi dipstick,

Thanks for the info. I wonder if Panasonic's "frame mode" works the same as Canon's?

I reckon I'll try encoding as progressive (if that option exists in TMPGEnc) and see how it comes out.

What's "Zig-Zag Block Scanning"? Is that a feature in your camera, or in your encoder?

Cheers.

[hrlslcbr]

In CCE you can choose between Zig-zag scanning order (for progressive material), or alternate scanning order (for interlaced material). AFAIK, there's no such option in TMPGEnc Plus.

[pijetro]

Yo dipstick..
I've also got that option on the GS400..
Just out of curiosity, do you find choppy playback using frame mode, or is it my LCD playing mind games with me?
If so, would you suggest a faster shutter speed??

Thanx...

[daamon]

Thanks for the info hrlslcbr. I'll check out TMPGEnc and see what there is beyond what I normally use.

[Sillyname]

Yo dipstick..
I've also got that option on the GS400..
Just out of curiosity, do you find choppy playback using frame mode, or is it my LCD playing mind games with me?
If so, would you suggest a faster shutter speed??

Thanx...

Progressive is not meant for panning. Motion pictures hardly ever do this, if they do it is usually very slow. 60i has more instances in time and makes for smoother pans, perfect for handheld video. This whole move to progressive is sort of a joke, unless you know how to compose your shots.

[thecoalman]

RE: Your PM, figured I might as well answer here.

Sorry Dammon I haven't experimented with it much, and the only reason I could see doing so would be if you wanted a series of deinterlaced shots. Considering the framerate and the great quality of the images (although small compared to camera standards) it would be superb for that. As mentioned it's choppy, being your in PAL region I would imagine it would be more so due to the lower framerate.

[dipstick]

Yes it's a little chopy compared to NORMAL MODE because it's 30 solid frames per sec vs 60 fields @ 30fps. It would be more noticable in Pal @ 25fps. It's most evident during slow pans. All progressive video will do this.

The main reason I use it, is because I use lot's of stills from video. A good example would be during Baseball games. I can get some nice action stills off the video frames. It also provides cleaner image when paused on the dvd player.

[daamon]

@ thecoalman and dipstick - Thanks for the replies. There's things in there that I hadn't considered, so something learnt.

I shall experiment and see how I go. Thanks for the opinions all.

[daamon]

Results...

The options for the source file in TMPGEnc are: "Interlace" and "Non-interlace (progressive)".

I encoded a small clip that had someone walking left to right at a normal pace, using both options.

I then authored both to DVD and played on my normal res TV. I zoomed in 4x on the picture and stepped through the bit where the person was walking. The person was wearing white and they were against a dark background, making it easier to spot anything.

And the outcome was... I couldn't see any difference at all between the clips. There was no obvious (as in bad / noticeable) interlace lines on normal size for either clip. At 4x zoom, again for both clips, interlace lines were there but insignificant.

[dipstick]

You should not see any interlaced lines on the TV as it is an interlaced display, unless you have a progressive scan monitor.

I've done countless back to back comparisons. In all my tests, Frame Mode encoded as progressive wins every time with a sharper, more detailed picture. As always, they are my results, with my camera and encoded with my encoder, using my settings.

Obviously your results may vary.

[daamon]

In that case, I guess what I initially thought of intrerlace lines was just probably "blur" due to motion.

Cheers for the input...