How to author a progressive DVD?

[ljCharlie]

To author a progressive DVD, what do I need to have and how do I go about accomplishing it? Can I use Adobe Encore to author a progressive DVD?

[dipstick]

I don't know about Adobe Encore, I don't have it. I prefere DVD-Lab.

Interlaced or Progressive, it doesn't matter. The only thing you have to worry about, is if you have Progressive that is 23.97 fps. In that case, it needs the 2:3 pulldown. If the m2v doesn't have the pulldown flags allready, DVD-Lab will do it for you.

[Cunhambebe]

How did you render the files to be used on your project? If you have rendered them as progressive, your authoring application will probably prepare and burn you DVD as progressive. Sony's DVDA does that.
Cheers!
Mark

[ljCharlie]

Thank you for the response. I'll keep that in mind next time I render my footage. By the way, what is the really big advantage of progressive DVD?

[Cunhambebe]

Picture quality is enhanced and I can only dare to say that progressive files are better for storage since they don't have those fields coming and going all the time that can produce artifacts when you convert an interlarced file to progressive. The magic is going to work if your TV is progressive, and if you have the progressive cables, otherwise you DVD player will interlace the output so that it can be shown correctly on your regular TV (and here you won't notice absolutely any difference AT ALL). Please someone corrects me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

[non-linear]

If the video source is interlaced (and NTSC/PAL formats are), it should stay interlaced, period; there's nothing to gain by changing it to a progressive source.

[Cunhambebe]

I do agree with you here, but some people like to convert their video files to MPEG4 to watch their favorite movies on the computer. So converting to progressive is a must here, otherwise the files will not be displayed correctly

[non-linear]

I do agree wit you here, but some people like to convert their video files to MPEG4 to watch their favorite movies on the computer. So converting to progressive is a must here, otherwise the files will not be displayed correctly

I am fully aware of that, but that has absolutely nothing to do with DVD authoring, which is what's being discussed here.

[Cunhambebe]

Sorry - I know that, but this would be one of the advantages of the progressive files (no need to deinterlace them for further usage such as converting to MPEG4) and I guess this answers one of the questions here

By the way, what is the really big advantage of progressive DVD?

-you can store the files as progressive (and later convert them to MPEG4);
-if your TV is progressive you may notice the image is enhanced, and;
-what else? Hmmm

[non-linear]

this would be one of the advantages of the progressive files (no need to deinterlace them for further usage such as converting to MPEG4) and I guess this answers one of the questions here

We're not talking about creating MPEG-4 files, this is about progressive video in relation to DVD authoring.

In order to have a progressive source from interlaced video, you have to deinterlace, which always results in a decrease in quality since half of the video information is being tossed out.

After reading your responses, I really don't think you understand the concepts of interlaced and progressive video. Lordsmurf has a writeup on his website.

-NTSC, PAL and SECAM broadcast formats use interlaced video ALWAYS.

-Deinterlacing video loses quality ALWAYS.

-There is NOTHING to be gained by converting interlaced video to progressive.

-you can store the files as progressive (and later convert them to MPEG4);
-if your TV is progressive you may notice the image is enhanced, and;
-what else? Hmmm

-If watching on a progressive scan player/TV, there's NO BENEFIT to having the video converted to progressive, as the player will do this on all interlaced video. The picture will look like shit on any conventional television.

-If creating MPEG-4 video, which is meant to be viewed on a PC, then yes, it's alright to deinterlace it, but it will lose picture quality as deinterlacing always does. Of course progressive video looks better on a PC screen because computer displays are progressive and conventional television is interlaced. Of course with MPEG-4 (or any other format), if you're changing the resolution from 480 lines to something smaller, then the interlace structure's destroyed anyway.

[edDV]

this would be one of the advantages of the progressive files (no need to deinterlace them for further usage such as converting to MPEG4) and I guess this answers one of the questions here

We're not talking about creating MPEG-4 files, this is about progressive video in relation to DVD authoring.

In order to have a progressive source from interlaced video, you have to deinterlace, which always results in a decrease in quality since half of the video information is being tossed out.

There are always exceptions to the rule and the only two exceptions for interlaced input (without quality loss) I can think of are

1. A pure telecined NTSC film input.
IVTC can be applied to recreate the 24 fps (23.97 actually) progressive sequence than can be authored to DVD and properly played back to interlace or progressive TV sets. For progressive output, the 23.97 frames are repeated in a 3:2 sequence at 60 frames per second. For interlace playback the progressive data receives a 2:3 telecine field repeat to increase field rate to 29.97.

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/production_a_z/3_2_pulldown.htm

2. A pure PAL 50 field per second film transfer where the projector is run at 25 fps. Proper field selection can restore the 24 fps progressive sequence.

It is important to realize that progressive televisions include internal hardware deinterlacers. In order for normal analog NTSC or PAL broadcasts to be displayed on a LCD, plasma or many projection technologies, the interlaced video must first be deinterlaced and scaled in hardware to the "native raster" of the progressive display.

Computers don't have this capability built in. Instead, software display deinterlacing viewers like PowerDVD or WinDVD can be used. If you view interlaced video raw on a progressive display, you will see alternate line tear in areas of motion. This is normal.

[Cunhambebe]

After reading your responses, I really don't think you understand the concepts of interlaced and progressive video. Lordsmurf has a writeup on his website (...) The picture will look like shit on any conventional television.

-Thanks so much for your kind response.

[ljCharlie]

Thank you so much for this discussion. I learned a lot. I'll give those links some reading...however in the mean time, I like to ask this question. I have a Sony HVR-Z1U, can this camera shoot in progressive? Or I a guess another question is, how or what do I need to get true progressive footage?

[edDV]

Thank you so much for this discussion. I learned a lot. I'll give those links some reading...however in the mean time, I like to ask this question. I have a Sony HVR-Z1U, can this camera shoot in progressive? Or I a guess another question is, how or what do I need to get true progressive footage?

The HVR-Z1U records native 1440x1080 interlace. The camera itself can play scaled analog component 1080i, 480/576i, and hardware deinterlaced 480/576p (similar to DVD progressive). I'm not aware of a consumer level capture system that will capture that analog 480p to a computer.

If you transfer the HDV signal to the computer HDD over IEEE-1394, you will have 1080i. This can be downconverted to 480p with software (e.g. Premiere Pro, Vegas 6, Final Cut Pro, etc.) but the computation time will be very long on a normal computer.

Video display cards have some hardware assist for scaling but not for deinterlacing. All in all, I think you will still get a much better DVD by downscaling to 720x480i and authoring interlace.

In the future, other alternatives may emerge.

[Cunhambebe]

And please remember what I've said...
Progressive DVDs are going to work if you have a progressive monitor or Television. And yes, one of the advantages of progressive files is that you can store them for the future and convert them to MPEG4 without deinterlace them lol lol

[edDV]

And please remember what I've said...
Progressive DVDs are going to work if you have a progressive monitor or Television. And yes, one of the advantages of progressive files is that you can store them for the future and convert them to MPEG4 without deinterlace them lol lol

The main point is how the deintelace is done. In almost all cases, deinterlacing a native interlace source (e.g. analog TV, DV, HDV, VCR, etc.) will seiously degrade video quality. Hardware deinterlacers do a much better job of it than software methods unless you are calculating for very long times going into days using very advanced software.

[ljCharlie]

Again, thank you for the responses. I'm using Avid Xpress Pro HD. I'm guess that AVid Xpress Pro can capture at the HD level. I have not tried but read that it can. So let's say that it can, I can capture the footage in HD resolution into Avid Xpress Pro then down convert to 480p and author as progressive to DVD, correct?

[non-linear]

I'm using Avid Xpress Pro HD. I'm guess that Avid Xpress Pro can capture at the HD level

You own a piece of software that's worth over $1,500 and you don't know it's capabilities? Did you check the documentation that came with the software?

I can capture the footage in HD resolution into Avid Xpress Pro then down convert to 480p and author as progressive to DVD, correct?

While I don't own Avid software (and haven't touched it since college), I don't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to do that. Again, you might want to check the documentation that came with the software.

[edDV]

You can but why? HDV will look better 480i than 480p as explained above. There is nothing in AVID Xpress that changes that.

Deinterlacing has quality costs and adds to encode time.

Try it both ways and see for yourself.

[ljCharlie]

Thanks! I got it. Okay, here's another question. What is a better option, down convert a HDV content from the camera when capturing or capture as HDV content and then down convert to 720x480i to auther as DVD? Right now, the only advantage I see from capturing as a HDV content is that I don't have to recapture the footage again when a HD DVD or Blue Ray is available to author as high definition dvd.