A few deinterlacing questions...

[SBPP]

Admittedly, I know next to nothing about deinterlacing, which is why I am here, so if any of you out there are experts on the topic, please chime in...

1) Assuming that all my raw footage is NTSC DV (sometimes SD and sometimes 1080i HDV), when do I want to deinterlace, and when do I absolutely NOT want to?

2) Does it matter wat my intended destination is in your answer to question 1? I saw somewhere (on another forum) that if you were planning to output to DVD, then deinterlacing would be a bad idea. Of course, the poster did not say why.

3) I have seen many discussions about deinterlacing entire projects during the transcoding/compressing step, however my editor (FCP) comes with a deinterlacing plug-in to be applied to individual clips during editing. If I should be deinterlacing, then what method would I use?

4) Also, speaking of methods, should I be deinterlacing with Upper(Odd), Lower(Even), or Flicker Filter (which I assume must be a blending method)?

[lordsmurf]

1. For video output for websites, i.e. Youtube. Never anything else, no other reason. Keep master projects, archives, etc -- everything -- as interlace.

2. Yes. Deinterlacing degrades picture quality (often significantly), only do it when required. Better deinterlace methods are less harmful to the image.

3. FCP has garbage deinterlacers. All of them are crap. Deinterlacing on Mac in general is a terrible experience, too few options for this advanced filter. AVISynth or VirtualDub on Windows machine required for best methods. Pro studios use hardware for this. However, most pro footage was shot progressive anyway, to film or "digital film" modern equivalents.

4. None. These are the crap methods I mention above. The worst options of the few dozen that exist. All 3 of these butcher your image. Those deinterlacer checkboxes may as well be checkboxes that say "Click Here To Reduce Image Quality".

Some more information on this page, about halfway down:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/guides/video/capture-understand-sources.htm

[SBPP]

Thanks so much for your quick and thorough reply lordsmurf! I followed your link and read the related sections of that article. They too were very helpful. If I may (and I promise that I'll drop the subject after this), let me just pose a few more questions to you, as you seem quite knowledgeable on this subject.

1) I have had people tell me (and read some posts on other forums that suggest) that the reason for deinterlacing is to try and trick the viewer into thinking that you shot on film rather than video (as film is progressive), and therefore give you a more "expensive" or higher quality look. If this view is to be believed, then I would imagine you would want to do it regardless of what the situation was (not just for video destined for the web). Obviously, this contradicts much of what you are saying. I was just wondering if you could tell me weather there is any merit to this theory at all, or if these people are just unfortunately misguided and undereducated.

2) I also just realized that one of the cameras that I shoot with sometimes, a Sony HVR-Z5U, is capable of shooting in progressive mode rather than interlaced when I am shooting in HDV 1080i. Should I be using this mode when I shoot HD for higher quality as a rule, or again does it depend on my desired output destination?

3) Lastly, in your reply, you made it pretty clear that my FCP deinterlacing was all but useless, and if I understood you correctly anything available for MAC wasn't much better. Now, I am sure that we would all buy an actual deinterlacing box if we had the money, but alas... This is what I have right now... A Mac. So, my question is, should I not even bother deinterlacing for web content due to the poor quality of the process? Also, is there even a third party plug-in or encoder that will run on Mac and do a better job than the FCP option?

Once again, sorry for my ignorance, and thank you so much for your valued input!

[edDV]

First explain the types of video production you are doing. You need a project flow plan for each type. Sometimes you shoot progressive (film style or for online distribution), sometimes interlace is best (hand held action, live broadcast, reality). 24p progressive is a pain to shoot. It is mostly done for TV series to allow easy conversion for both 29.97 fps "NTSC" and 25 fps "PAL" markets.

1) I have had people tell me (and read some posts on other forums that suggest) that the reason for deinterlacing is to try and trick the viewer into thinking that you shot on film rather than video (as film is progressive), and therefore give you a more "expensive" or higher quality look. If this view is to be believed, then I would imagine you would want to do it regardless of what the situation was (not just for video destined for the web). Obviously, this contradicts much of what you are saying. I was just wondering if you could tell me weather there is any merit to this theory at all, or if these people are just unfortunately misguided and undereducated.

"expensive or higher quality look" is in the eye of the beholder. Technically deinterlace and "film look" filters are highly destructive. If you want film look, shoot on film or with electronic cinema gear.

2) I also just realized that one of the cameras that I shoot with sometimes, a Sony HVR-Z5U, is capable of shooting in progressive mode rather than interlaced when I am shooting in HDV 1080i. Should I be using this mode when I shoot HD for higher quality as a rule, or again does it depend on my desired output destination?

Shoot progressive when it fits your end product needs. You will need all the film technique gear for 24p including heavy tripods, steadicam, low depth of field focus follow, limited use of pan or zoom, single camera lighting and all the techniques you learn in film school.

3) Lastly, in your reply, you made it pretty clear that my FCP deinterlacing was all but useless, and if I understood you correctly anything available for MAC wasn't much better. Now, I am sure that we would all buy an actual deinterlacing box if we had the money, but alas... This is what I have right now... A Mac. So, my question is, should I not even bother deinterlacing for web content due to the poor quality of the process? Also, is there even a third party plug-in or encoder that will run on Mac and do a better job than the FCP option?

Web content can be deinterlaced. Deinterlacing is often needed to achieve extreme compression. Of course this is highly destructive to video quality. Again you need to maintain camera original interlace archives for re-purposing.

[lordsmurf]

edDV answered #1 and #2 for you quite well, so I'll jump to #3...

The solution is still to use Windows. I've used Mac systems on and off for 10-15 years now in the field of media, and I'd never operate a Mac without having a Windows system nearby, or having Windows inside Mac OS.

In 2009, you need to get either Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion, install Windows XP inside of it, and then use VirtualDub or AVISynth in Windows. That's the best solution -- not suffering through the Mac software's crappy deinterlacing choices. Final Cut Pro is a fine editor, but this is one task where it's pathetic compared to other options.