HD and interlacing hell

[jchansen]

Hi all. I hope someone can help. I've asked this elsewhere, and I am still frustrated.

I have a 1080i HDV camcorder, and a Panasonic AE900 projector. Since Bluray is prohibitive for now, I would like to be able to offload my video footage, store on a hard drive, and play it through HDMI from my MacBook Pro to the projector. Here are the ways I could do that:

1. Set the resolution sent to the projector to 1280x720 (its native res) and play the files in Quicktime.
PROBLEM: the files are 60i, so there is combing.

2. Same thing, but use the "single field" option in Quicktime.
PROBLEM: Quicktime sucks at deinterlacing, so this produces a 30p image that looks stuttery, unlike the smooth 60i when played directly from the camera.

3. Use VLC to play the files, with the "Bob" deinterlacing set.
PROBLEM: While the motion is much more similar to how it looks when played from the camera directly (because it is 60p now) it stutters when loading a new clip, and the motion jitters occasionally. Also, the controls are awkward.

4. Play directly from the camera, sending the projector a 1080i signal, and letting it deinterlace. The deinterlacer in the projector is excellent, and apparently works on the "bob" principal; smooth, realistic, 60p-looking motion.
PROBLEM: No random access of footage, wears out tapes, rewinding, etc.

5. Wait for Bluray.
PROBLEM: Well.......

6. Set the resolution sent to the projector to 1080i, play the files natively without deinterlacing, letting the PJ do it.
PROBLEM: I don't know how to do this.

That's the catch. I have played around forever with SwitchRes and DisplayConfig, and I can't seem to get it to display an interlaced signal that behaves like it is interlaced. I can set the res to 1920x1080 "interlaced", but playing the files through QT or anything else still shows combing. Help! What should I do?

Jeremy

[terryj]

you may be ahead of the curve on what your trying to do.

However, if you add a third piece to the output puzzle,
say this box from Matrox, you can achieve what you want. ($995.00)

however, is it worth the cost? Compared to say buying a PS 3? ($499.00)

if cost is a factor, your option #4 looks really good right now....

[jchansen]

you may be ahead of the curve on what your trying to do.

Ha, that made me chuckle.

I see what you are saying. It is frustrating though that the "digital hub" model of electronics has this big gaping hole in it named "interlaced video". I mean, here I have all this digital video and I just want to play it on my nice new computer.

What I wonder is what the AppleTV does; does it display interlaced content at all, or just up to 720p? Is interlacing fundamentally harder for graphics hardware to display? I can't tell really whether the computer is putting out a truly interlaced image, even when the PJ reports that it is. It just doesn't seem to behave that way.

Jeremy