480i/480p in DVcam vs. conversion

[celticwhisper]

This is going to be a mess of questions, I apologize in advance.

I've been into editing and exporting DV for quite some time, all relatively basic stuff--family videos and one experimental fan-made music video.

However, I'm starting to get into actually shooting my own footage and have discovered the wide world of resolutions and framerates.

A bit about the equipment I'm using:
-Canon Optura 50 DV Camcorder
-Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5
-Final Cut Pro 5
-Canopus ADVC110 capture device (just in case it's relevant)
-DVD Studio Pro 4

The questions I have pertain primarily to two interests: Progressive-scan pictures and 24p framerate.

So, first question: With respect to progressive-scan, do I need a camera that explicitly supports it, or do all DVcams record in 480p and leave interlaced/progressive matters to playback equipment?

Second question: If my camera does support it, what steps should I take to ensure an intact progressive picture from shooting all the way to burning to DVD?

Third question: If my camera does not support it, is there any viable way to convert my footage to progressive-scan in software, either by plain deinterlacing, framerate alterations, that 3:2 pulldown thing that I still don't quite grok, intelligent motion estimation, etc...?


Now, on to 24p. I'm pretty sure my camera does not have a native 24p recording mode, so this I'll have to do post-recording.

1: I know Magic Bullet can convert footage to 24p for a lot of software packages, but it's apparently only compatible with Adobe AE. Is there anything comparable for Final Cut Pro?

2: If not, can FCP itself convert to 24p?

3: If not...can anything?

4: Finally, assuming a scenario in which it IS possible to convert, what would be the best time to do it? Before editing, after editing, upon import, upon conversion/compression for export, etc...?


Okay, I think that's all for now. Thanks a million for bearing with me. Hopefully I'll be able to return the favour once my head stops swimming with all these formats, numbers, specs, standards, and settings.

[edDV]

...
So, first question: With respect to progressive-scan, do I need a camera that explicitly supports it, or do all DVcams record in 480p and leave interlaced/progressive matters to playback equipment?

You need a camera that explicitly supports it.
Alternative is deinterlacing which is highly destructive.

Second question: If my camera does support it, what steps should I take to ensure an intact progressive picture from shooting all the way to burning to DVD?

Read through this paper to understand the basics. Then ask more.
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/

Third question: If my camera does not support it, is there any viable way to convert my footage to progressive-scan in software, either by plain deinterlacing, framerate alterations, that 3:2 pulldown thing that I still don't quite grok, intelligent motion estimation, etc...?

As said, deinterlacing is destructive and should only be done when necessary. 3:2 pulldown would only apply if you recorded a film to your camcorder. Camcorders usually shoot in 480i/29.97 (59.94 fields per second) or 576i/25.

Come back after reading Wilt.

[Cornucopia]

1st-Yes, you do need a camera that SPECIFICALLY supports progressive scan. Hopefully, you'd only want this if you were trying for a "film-look" and were using 24P, or if you do LOTS of work for web output and were using 30P. Otherwise, 30i is standard and good enough. Note: beware of consumer grade cameras that give you fake 30P (where it's really 15P).
So (with those few exceptions ignored), EVERYTHING will be interlaced.

2nd-Why do you want to force something to progressive? DVD fully supports both interlaced and progressive. (SD) TVs are interlaced (unless LCDs), so you should leave it that way throughout. If you KNOW you're going to progressive display ONLY, leave it interlaced anyway--most displays do a good enough job of deinterlacing (often better than what you could do on your own with software).

3rd, 4th, 5th etc...
Unless you're starting with progressive (and this would include Telecine Pulldown), going from interlaced to progressive WILL ALWAYS result in loss of resolution/quality.

Even if you wanted to go ahead and convert anyway, FCP isn't the best way to do it. AE has --Some--good ways of converting (depending upon settings, etc), but the better ways are almost all PC-based (AFAIK). MagicBullet has a "self-contained" app, which can do the conversion itself (before or after working in FCP, though before is probably better).

Scott

[celticwhisper]

2nd-Why do you want to force something to progressive? DVD fully supports both interlaced and progressive. (SD) TVs are interlaced (unless LCDs), so you should leave it that way throughout. If you KNOW you're going to progressive display ONLY, leave it interlaced anyway--most displays do a good enough job of deinterlacing (often better than what you could do on your own with software).

I guess what I was wondering about was the matter of watching a commercial DVD (say, Star Wars, for example) on my PC monitor. The picture is interlaced and I have to turn on deinterlacing in VLC, Apple DVD Player, WMP, etc.

Is there a way to get a progressive picture onto a video DVD such that it shows up progressive on a display like an LCD monitor?

I'm a bit confused, since 480p looks much clearer on TVs that support it, but yet on LCDs that are natively progressive, the picture appears interlaced.

[Cornucopia]

Commercial DVDs are usually progressive already, as that's what film starts out as.

DVD Player apps worth their salt will automatically deinterlace interlaced footage when displaying on progressive monitors (WinDVD, PowerDVD, etc).

The path is:
Progressive Film -> Telecine to Video -> IVTC to Progressive video file -> Encode w/ Pulldown flags to MPEG2 -> Author while recognizing/setting up for Pulldown.
Upon playback on progressive hardware DVD player (with Prog display), or upon playback on PC with Prog display, player should IGNORE pulldown flags=Progressive.

My guess is that the "artifacts" you're seeing on LCDs is NOT interlacing, rather it's the slow reaction time of LCD pixels. Very few are fast enough to NOT exhibit smearing.

BTW--ALL LCD screens are progressive (except for a few experimental ones).

[edDV]

I guess what I was wondering about was the matter of watching a commercial DVD (say, Star Wars, for example) on my PC monitor. The picture is interlaced and I have to turn on deinterlacing in VLC, Apple DVD Player, WMP, etc.

Is there a way to get a progressive picture onto a video DVD such that it shows up progressive on a display like an LCD monitor?

I'm a bit confused, since 480p looks much clearer on TVs that support it, but yet on LCDs that are natively progressive, the picture appears interlaced.

Now you have me more confused. Are you using a camcorder to shoot your own video or are you using it to capture someone elses work?/[quote]

Shooting progressive requires serious discipline and more expensive equipment. It must be shot 24p for DVD as described in the Adam Wilt article. If you aren't up to that, forget about 24p.

Normal DV is 720x480i. Normal consumer HDV is 1440x1080i. Most broadcast HD is 1080i. The idea is you must adapt to interlace if you want the best quality. For quality TV display, the processing load falls to the Progressive DVD player and/or the HDTV itself. For computer playback, you need a good deinterlacing software player.

[celticwhisper]

Cornucopia: Okay, that makes sense. The "smearing" you talk about on LCDs--it looks like scanlines sticking out to the sides of objects in motion? If that's it, then that explains what I'm seeing perfectly. However, the one thing that I still don't quite get is that the smearing does go away if I turn on the deinterlace feature in VLC. Depending on whether I use X, Linear, Mean, or Blend, the results look a little different, but it does take care of the smearing effect. Would that be a side effect of the software doing its deinterlacing work?

Also, let me make sure I have this right: commercial DVDs are progressive with metadata to manage interlacing for non-progressive displays.

edDV: Sorry 'bout that. I am using a camcorder to shoot my own footage. What I'm trying to figure out how to do is conversion from 480i30 to 24p in software. I have no illusions about it looking Hollywood-professional, but I'm interested in seeing the difference with a clip I've set up and shot myself.

Following Cornucopia's explanation, I'd have to start at "stage 2" and take my interlaced footage and IVTC it (if it's still the right term for a non-film source) to a progressive file.

I know I can't do 30i to 30p since my conversion software would have to fake the data in the missing fields, but isn't there enough data to do 30i to 24p as it requires fewer frames per second?

[Cornucopia]

You're getting it, but you're still not getting it.

Since I don't know which clips you mention re: VLC, I can't be sure what's going on there. Could be an interlace thing, could be LCD thing, could be combination of the 2, could be something else (settings not right?)...Won't comment further--others here are better at that area.

***MOST*** Commercial DVDs are film sourced. As film is progressive, the natural and most efficient way to represent that on DVD is with progressive encoding with Pulldown flags added (what you're calling metadata). Some don't do as good of a job of transferring and encoding, so some AREN'T done this way. Plus, stuff that originated via standard video camera is Interlaced (whether PAL or NTSC).

If you've got 480i30 camera footage, you SHOULD NOT be converting it to 24p. You'll lose a lot going this way.
If you absolutely have to/want to anyway, I would say a series of conversions--separating fields, interpolating missing fields (to give you "full" 60p), then double with motion interpolation to 120fps, then drop every 4 out of 5 frames to get 24p. And it still won't look that great.
To do a AB comparison, you need to shoot natively at each different rate (adding Telecine to the 24p source to get both = 30fps for comparing "apples to apples").

IVTC is only good (and non-destructive) on interlace when the original source was progressive and then telecined to interlace. Your original source was interlace to begin with. The only thing you can do then is DeInterlace (via one of a number of methods--I mentioned one just above).

I would say 30i(actually 60i) to 30p is easier than 30i to 24p. In the 1st one, the frame timing at least can line up without shifting (motion judder added) or interpolating (blurring/ghosting added).

Scott