I was wondering what the best settings would be when rendering deinterlaced 24p (from 60i) to look film-like as much as possible without any 3rd party addons, but just what the Vegas can do. I see a lot of things that can be customized, but do not know most of them.

I use my optura Xi on 16:9

If you are serious about obtaining a true 24p film-look, you should be doing this at the BEGINING of your project, not in the final render. The first thing you should do is convert your 60i footage to 24p BEFORE you do any other work. Then set the Vegas project properties to 24p so that all of your edits, transitions, titles, etc. are true 24p. Otherwise you will find that transitions get weird as 60i transitions are reverse telecined to get the 24p cadence. Also by having your project at 24p Vegas will create all generated media in 24p giving you the best possible look.

The procedure to do this is documented in this VASST tutorial Getting a film look with 24P in Vegas (http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?id=d42540f9-bff6-4b4d-9421-052e887905de). This will give you all the details on what rendering settings to use.

Because there are several steps to achieve this, we created VASST Celluloid (http://www.vasst.com/Celluloid/). It follows the same procedure in this tutorial and does all the hard work for you. It also has a few free film looks built in. Celluloid alone is now a FREE download from the VASST site. I would read the tutorial so you can understand the process, but then let Celluloid apply the 24p look for you.

If you just want to render as 24p then you can use our Freeware tool VASST DVD Prep (http://www.vasst.com/search.aspx?entity=16&category=Freeware) to render your project to a DVD Architect compliant 24p MPEG2 file with AC3 audio all with one click.

~jr

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought Vegas 6 changed the required workflow for 60i to 24p (your link talks about Vegas 4)? I thought you could now just open a 24p project, import 60i events into the timeline, do your transitions/effects, then render out to 24p or 24p with 3:2 pulldown? Maybe not, but I though v6 made the workflow different? Also, what about this link to a different "updated" version of the article you reference above? Although the page is completely screwed up and nearly impossible to read (I had to cut-paste into a different app to read it)...

http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/tutorials/filmlook_in_Vegas6.htm

Yes I agree - I thought Vegas 6.0 simplified this but I am still a bit unclear as to whether I can go directly to 24p NTSC DVD Architect mpeg from SD DV or not. Can someone clarify this as it applies to titles and transitions and proper rendering?

Also, if someone is using Vegas 6.0 and has come up with a good workflow plus settings/filters to do this it would be appreciated and allow us to cut to the chase on this without hours of experimentation. I would just like to get to a basic filmic look and author to DVD using Architect.

Also, what is the advantage of DVDPrep really? Is it saving a step or two or does it render faster/better than Vegas 6.0c does? tks - this is a great forum.

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought Vegas 6 changed the required workflow for 60i to 24p (your link talks about Vegas 4)? I thought you could now just open a 24p project, import 60i events into the timeline, do your transitions/effects, then render out to 24p or 24p with 3:2 pulldown?Yes, Vegas 6 does a much better job at 24p and you can render your final project right from the timeline and it will look great. So this is not as necessary as it was in Vegas 5. BUT if you need to do frame accurate edits, understand that you will be editing accurately in 60i and then when 2:3 pulldown is inserted, your edit may end up on a non existing frame (this is basic math, going from 30fps to 24fps means 6 frames out of every second are not making it to the final output)

This is why I prefaced my statement with "If you are serious about obtaining a true 24p" with "true" being the operative word. i.e., to be as accurate as possible, work in 24p from the start. I did not mean to imply that this was the only way to achieve 24p. It is just the most accurate way. You might not need that level of accuracy.


~jr

Yes I agree - I thought Vegas 6.0 simplified this but I am still a bit unclear as to whether I can go directly to 24p NTSC DVD Architect mpeg from SD DV or not. Can someone clarify this as it applies to titles and transitions and proper rendering? Yes you can go directly to 24p NTSC DVD Architect mpeg from SD DV. Your 29.970 project will be converted to a 23.976 fps MPEG inserting 2:3 pulldown.

Also, if someone is using Vegas 6.0 and has come up with a good workflow plus settings/filters to do this it would be appreciated and allow us to cut to the chase on this without hours of experimentation. I would just like to get to a basic filmic look and author to DVD using Architect. If you haven’t looked at VASST Celluloid as mentioned in my previous post then download it and take a look at the film looks. It doesn’t get any easier than pushing one button.

Also, what is the advantage of DVDPrep really? Is it saving a step or two or does it render faster/better than Vegas 6.0c does? tks - this is a great forum.DVDPrep is saving steps and simplifying a process that for some is complex. It uses Vegas to render so there is nothing special going on. I wrote it for two kinds of people. The first is the people who post about once a month that they can’t make a good looking DVD. Then we find out they are using the Default MPEG2 template which is terrible. So it simplifies the process for them by selecting the correct template to use from 6 possible templates.

The second kind is for people who want a DVD Architect compliant MPEG2 file and AC3 audio but don’t want render twice or use the batch renderer because it has too many options. DVDPrep streamlines the process for them.

~jr

Yes, Vegas 6 does a much better job at 24p and you can render your final project right from the timeline and it will look great. So this is not as necessary as it was in Vegas 5. BUT if you need to do frame accurate edits, understand that you will be editing accurately in 60i and then when 2:3 pulldown is inserted, your edit may end up on a non existing frame (this is basic math, going from 30fps to 24fps means 6 frames out of every second are not making it to the final output)

This is why I prefaced my statement with "If you are serious about obtaining a true 24p" with "true" being the operative word. i.e., to be as accurate as possible, work in 24p from the start. I did not mean to imply that this was the only way to achieve 24p. It is just the most accurate way. You might not need that level of accuracy.


~jr


I knew I must have been missing something, now I get it completely. So, would it be safe to say, that as long as I'm ok with losing or adding one frame on my edits, then it's not worth bothering to add the extra step to the workflow, where if one frame really might matter, then I should use the extra step in the workflow?

Also, quick question... When you say the default MPEG2 template sucks, are you talking about the default DVDA templates for rendering straight out of vegas itself, or the templates used in DVDA? I typically render out my AC3 and MPEG2 DVDA Widescreen NTSC right from Vegas. Are you saying I should be getting much better quality by doing something different than using those templates?

Thanks for your help...

Thanks for the comment now one final question. If I want to work in TRUE 24p do I take the 60i 29.97 source and convert to 24p with 3:2 pulldown then use that in the timeline?

Or should I use some other template for 24p say 2:3:3:2 or something like that?? Reason: I see it mentioned both ways and something rings a bell that if you want to edit in 24p you have to uese the 2:3:3:2 pulldown for the initial convert prior to EDITing - THEN when you want to render to the DVDA version you use the 24p DVD A NTSC template that I believe puts the video into its final form at 2:3 pulldown for DVD. Correct??

I knew I must have been missing something, now I get it completely. So, would it be safe to say, that as long as I'm ok with losing or adding one frame on my edits, then it's not worth bothering to add the extra step to the workflow, where if one frame really might matter, then I should use the extra step in the workflow?Yup you got it.

Also, quick question... When you say the default MPEG2 template sucks, are you talking about the default DVDA templates for rendering straight out of vegas itself, or the templates used in DVDA? I typically render out my AC3 and MPEG2 DVDA Widescreen NTSC right from Vegas. Are you saying I should be getting much better quality by doing something different than using those templates?No, those are the correct templates to use. I was pointing out that there is actually an MPEG2 template called "Default Template" and it is not really tweaked for any particular purpose but that's what you get if you don't select anything else. Beginners tend to leave this selected but this does not yield the best results when going to DVD. As long as you are selecting one of the other templates like DVD NTSC or DVD Architect NTSC video stream (or the PAL versions) you are OK.

~jr

Also, quick question... When you say the default MPEG2 template sucks, are you talking about the default DVDA templates for rendering straight out of vegas itself, or the templates used in DVDA?

The DVDA templates are fine. It's the straight "Default" template that is bad. For example, just click on Custom and you'll see the quality slider at 15 isntead of 31. Do the same for ANY of the other presets and it's at 31. Start with any of the DVDA templates and you'll be fine.

Thanks for the comment now one final question. If I want to work in TRUE 24p do I take the 60i 29.97 source and convert to 24p with 3:2 pulldown then use that in the timeline?
Yes, you would render your 60i source using the NTSC DV 24p (inserting 2-3 pulldown) template (or the PAL version). This is what VASST Celluoid does for you.

Or should I use some other template for 24p say 2:3:3:2 or something like that?? Reason: I see it mentioned both ways and something rings a bell that if you want to edit in 24p you have to uese the 2:3:3:2 pulldown for the initial convert prior to EDITing - THEN when you want to render to the DVDA version you use the 24p DVD A NTSC template that I believe puts the video into its final form at 2:3 pulldown for DVD. Correct??
Well... that depends on your final format. If you are going from 60i to 24p to edit but then your final project will be rendered back to 60i (for broadcast on TV for example) you should use 2:3:3:2 pulldown. This is because you are inserting pulldown to go from 60i to 24p and then removing pulldown to go from 24p back to 60i. It is easier to remove 2:3:3:2 pulldown which is why it is recommended when editing 24p. (but only 24p that is going back to 60i)

If, however, your final format is a DVD Architect 24p MPEG2 file, then you should render using 2:3 pulldown because you are never going to remove it. Your Vegas project should be set to 24p and your final render will also be to 24p with 2-3 pulldown.

Does that make sense?

~jr

John - Thanks. I am going to 24p DVD Arhcitect NTSC ultimately. I was just wondering if I really needed to convert the clips first to 24p BEFORE doing the editing or if I could just work in 60i - do all my edits - and then do the render to 24p using the DVDA template.

What I believe your are saying is YES go ahead and render the captured AVI and insert 2:3 pulldown. Set up the project using the 24p template - add the newly rendered 24p to the timeline - do your edits and render out to DVDA 24p NTSC template. Correct?

Now here is a wrinkle. If the source is 1080 60i HDV I guess I would still go to 24p AVI FIRST then add to the timeline and edit and then render to the DVDA 24p template.

The workflow is generally the same in going to 24p regardless of HDV or DV source?? I can down convert but prefer to capture as M2T HDV source because I have maximum quality and information to work with - do you know if this would be true too? tks - ph

Yes you have the process correct. It is the same for HDV as DV. As some have pointed out, you can also work at 60i and convert to 24p as a last step as long as there are no critical frame accurate edits that might get messed up during the 2:3 pulldown process. For most work this is fine too.

You should try a test both ways and see if you can tell the difference. If you can’t, then use the easier method of converting at the end. Vegas 6 is a lot better at this than Vegas 5 or 4 were.

If you have a Sony Z1/FX1, you can also shoot CF24 and use CineForm ConnectHD to convert to 24p at capture time! The captured file will be at 23.976 fps and the results are really nice (better than CF24 alone).

~jr

Yes you have the process correct. It is the same for HDV as DV. As some have pointed out, you can also work at 60i and convert to 24p as a last step as long as there are no critical frame accurate edits that might get messed up during the 2:3 pulldown process. For most work this is fine too.

If you have a Sony Z1/FX1, you can also shoot CF24 and use CineForm ConnectHD to convert to 24p at capture time! The captured file will be at 23.976 fps and the results are really nice (better than CF24 alone).

~jr
Yeah. It's the frame accurate edits I'm wondering about too. It's a lot of extra work to create 2:3:3:2 AVIs of the M2Ts PRIOR to editing and I would love it if this step is unnecessary. Anyone have situations where frame accurate editing issues come up - what not to do/avoid??

I have a Sony HDR-HC1 and love it so far. It has a cinematic mode that adds some judder to the film. I haven't experimented much with this but I'm thinking this would only be useful for HD productions printed back to tape. If I'm going to DVD ulitmately for a project then adding more effects at the time of filming may not be the way to go. Anyone have experience with this setting? ph

It's not just frame accuracy. It's things like fades. In, out, and cross. Those are effects that change in character depending on their framerate. A 60i title fading in and out looks like video. If the effect is generated in 24p, however, then it looks more fimic, and generally better in most cases.

Quick question...

my head hurts from going around in circles, and some quick clarification would be awesome. If anything is wrong, please correct the error of my ways:

1) Footage shot with the XL2: 24p Standard

2) Edited (Vegas 5) on a 23.97 timeline

3) Render video out to mpeg2: 23.97 (+2:3 pull down)**

DVD architect (2.0): Burn as a 23.97 (24p) dvd


Question:

**do I use the pull down only when using 24p Advanced, standard… what? Why is there an option for 23.976 and 24.000fps? What is the difference?

Um, not to nag... but I kind of need to asap. : )

So what is the deal with 2-3 pull down in the sony vegas 6 mpeg2 templates?

If I want the DVD player to perform the pull down for me, why can't I render a mpeg2 DVD at 23.976 without the pulldown?

Well I just tried it and the resulting file imported into DVD Architect 3.0c just fine (a 6000mbts cbr .mpg file with assoiciated ac-3 audio). BUT when I went to burn the DVD I was told that the file was not compliant and that the file would be recompressed.

So what's up with that? The only other test (I am trying now) is to render with the Output type set to MPEG-2 instead of DVD in video tab of the MainConcept MPEG-2 DVD Architect 24P NTSC video stream template menu (whew).

Would that work?
Or should I just stick to the 3-2 pull down requirement?

from what i can tell the DVDa 24p template does not add pull down. it appears to add flags where it should go so your stand alone DVD player can add the pull down.

Okay, that is a relief. Thanks.

The only other test (I am trying now) is to render with the Output type set to MPEG-2 instead of DVD in video tab of the MainConcept MPEG-2 DVD Architect 24P NTSC video stream template menu (whew).

Would that work?You must have done something in your template to make it non-standard. Just use the MainConcept MPEG-2 DVD Architect 24P NTSC video stream template and you’ll be OK. That’s what those templates are there for. All of the DVD Architect XXX video stream templates will work without requiring recompression.

~jr

The only template change I made was 23.976 (with 2-3 pulldown) to just plain 23.976.

I have tried it both ways now and without the pulldown choice, DVD architect will not consider it compliant. I have not tried changing the setup choice form DVD to MPEG-2 which I understand can help with compliant problems in some authoring programs (no time as I am try to finish this project).

John:

I am just monitoring this thread for interest sake and I have noticed something:

In Douglas' article he makes reference to a PAL template:

"Name the file, choose .avi as the file format, select NTSC or PAL DV (inserting 2:3 Pulldown)"

and you also make reference to PAL in this thread.

I have no PAL template that inserts any kind of pulldown i.e. all of the templates that insert pulldown of one sort or another are NTSC templates and if you use one of these templates and then change the video format to PAL DV you are basically changing the template back to a standard PAL DV render template i.e. you lose the ability to select '23.976 (inserting 2-3 pulldown) although the Field Order does change to 'None (progressive scan)' automatically.

This is confusing me.

I shoot in PAL.

If I also want to try and make my 25fps interlaced video 'look like film' which templates / what changes do I need to use / make in Vegas 6.0d?

Regards,

Dale.

I don't think you can, Dale; if you use an uncompressed AVI or an SD YUV PAL template, you can have PAL resolution (720x576) with 24.000 or 23.976 for your frame rate, but I don't see a way to insert pulldown.

But you don't really need to. Pulldown is only a concern if you're trying to view 24p on a 60i monitor -- or trying to record 24p in a 60i stream. It's really only an NTSC concern, and trying to back-engineer PAL footage into it if you're staying in a PAL environment isn't really worth the headaches.

PAL versions of 24p cameras like the DVX don't shoot 24p; they shoot 25p, which matches the PAL frame rate standard and is only a single frame per second different from 24p. Most people can't tell the difference.

You can convert 50i to 25p easily. In your project settings, change the field order to progressive, and then the deinterlace method according to how much motion you have -- if you have a lot, choose "interpolate"; if you don't have much, choose "blend." Then, when you render, use a PAL template and choose "progressive" as your field order -- or, choose "uncompressed" and the settings will automatically conform to your project settings.

This is going to get you a film look and is going to save you headaches. If you don't have to get wrapped up in pulldown issues, don't.

Sorry for the confusion. You are correct. There is no such thing as 24p PAL. 24p is NTSC only. PAL never created a standard for it. I believe that when transferring film for PAL they simply speed it up by 4% and use the already established 25fps standard.

When I was answering the follow-on question about MPEG2 templates I was speaking in general and not specifically about the 24p templates. My point was to not use the Default templates and use the DVD Architect video stream templates instead.

The definition of pulldown (i.e., Telecine) is the procedure of converting 23.976 fps video to 29.970 fps by adding extra frames. So “pulldown” by its very nature is an NTSC concept having nothing to do with PAL.

~jr

Thanks for the replies.

David - I just want to clarify something else with you - something that has had me confused (due to different peoples input and ideas) since Vegas 3.0!

...In your project settings, change the field order to progressive...
and

...when you render, use a PAL template and choose "progressive" as your field order -- or, choose "uncompressed" and the settings will automatically conform to your project settings.

Two questions:

Should your Project Properties not match your source file?

and

Do the settings in your Project Properties affect the output of your final Render Template?

Regards,

Dale.

I'm sure everyone out here already does this and will shake there heads knowingly as I cry.... Windows decided to update and reboot at 3am last night while I was rendering my 24p project!

It was a long project (10 hour render) so you can imagine my frustration.

I just turned off automatic updates in control panel. So anyone about to do a long render might want to keep this little detail in mind.

Thanks for the replies.

David - I just want to clarify something else with you - something that has had me confused (due to different peoples input and ideas) since Vegas 3.0!


and



Two questions:

Should your Project Properties not match your source file?

and

Do the settings in your Project Properties affect the output of your final Render Template?

Regards,

Dale.

With Vegas, you can put pretty much any format on any timeline and Vegas will cover you. It can get more complicated if your source file is widely different from your project settings, in which case it's better to convert, say, 60i to 24p FIRST if you want to edit in 24p.

But converting 50i to 25p is pretty straightforward. And IDEALLY, you want to be editing in the format you intend to be your final output. Some NLEs require this. Vegas doesn't. But there are advantages.

When you render and set your field order to "progressive," Vegas will use the deinteralce method of your project settings. (Not sure what it doesn't if you haven't chosen one; I'd suspect it interpolates.) Set the appropriate method in your project settings, and you're good to go. And also, as I said, if you choose to render an uncompressed AVI, the render settings will automatically match your project settings, which can be a timesaver.

Also, when you edit, you want as much of "what you see is what you get" as you can have, and editing in the intended render format will help you a great deal.

That being said, Vegas isn't limited by project settings, and you can render as pretty much anything you want. Just be aware, as with all things, if there are many different ways of doing something, some ways will be better than others.

Hi David,

Thanks for the reply.

There have been two issues that for me have never been resolved or satisfactorily explained:

1 - When rendering to any uncompressed format Vegas ALWAYS creates an uncompressed .AVI with 'Upper Field First' no matter what your project settings were or what settings you selected in the render template. Have YOU ever checked or seen this? What I mean to say is that even although Vegas picks up your project settings when you choose the uncompressed render template this does not necessarily mean that Vegas has in fact created a file with those properties - at least Vegas itself does not seem to think so. Just try this - project properties set to anything you like - render using uncompressed template and use progressive - then create a new project and let Vegas 'match' the project properties to your new file - Vegas sees this new file as having upper field first not progressive as you specified at render time.

2 - Vegas does strange things with the de-interlace method set in the project properties i.e. if you select blend or interpolate and then render dv to dv you get interlace flicker in the resulting output file. This is strange to say the least. Also - if you render any HDV file (.m2t or Cineform) to SD DV with the de-interlace method set to none you get the same interlace flicker in the output file.

Any thoughts on the above?

Regards,

Dale.

1) No. Never seen that happen. When I render uncompressed and progressive, the file is always progressive.

2) I haven't seen that flicker, either. Where do you see it? Playing it on/in what?

The only place I see any flicker is on hand held pans after they are de-interlaced (this includes slow pans) that seems to be a trouble spot for deinterlacers unless you can play around with the motion blur parameters (like with Twixtor for AE).

There is a Reduce Interlace Flicker Switch in Vegas, but I don't know if it would apply to progressive timelines even if the original was interlaced.

Jeff, are you converting to 24p when you're seeing these pans?

It's probably not because of the deinterlacing -- it's because of the frame rate conversion. When you shoot 24p, you have to pan sloooooowly or you'll end up with a motion stutter. A quicker pan in 60i may look fine, but when you convert to 24p, you'll end up with the same stutter you would have had if you had shot 24p to start with.

Right. Only once the footage gets to 24p do pans start get touchy. What I don't get is that pans that are faster and shot on film still seem to look better than what I can get with deinterlacing. The jerky effect is minimized if I use the FieldsKit pluging for AE to convert to 60p (2 frames per field) and then convert to 24p with some motion blur.

Hi David,

1) No. Never seen that happen. When I render uncompressed and progressive, the file is always progressive.
When you say 'render uncompressed' do you mean that you are choosing the 'Default template (uncompressed)' and then changing the field order to progressive there or are you choosing the 'PAL DV' template and then changing the field order there? If I use the 'PAL DV' template and change the field order to progressive Vegas does recognize the resulting files field order as being progressive BUT if I choose the 'Default template (uncompressed)' and change the field order to progressive in this template - no matter what I do - no matter what my project settings are - or anything else - the resulting file is ALWAYS interlaced, upper field first - at least according to Vegas.

2) I haven't seen that flicker, either. Where do you see it? Playing it on/in what?
Create a new project with the correct settings for a HDV file (or match the new project to a HDV file - it can be either .m2t or a Cineform .AVI file). Load the HDV file into the project and then render it to PAL DV first with interlace method set to none and then render again with interlace method set to blend or interpolate (it makes no difference for this excercise). You will notice that the PAL DV file that you have created from the HDV file with de-interlace method set to none is unwatchable but the file created when the de-interlace method was set to either blend or interpolate is fine. This also happens when you try and convert PAL DV Wide to PAL DV.

I have my own theory on this (which nobody has ever passed an opinion on) and the theory is this:

Vegas de-interlaces a file - using the de-interlace method selected - whenever it feels it needs to and then 're-interlaces' the file to produce the desired output. This may sound strange but think about it - HDV is interlaced, upper field first and PAL DV is interlaced, bottom field first so I can understand that by converting HDV to PAL DV you are changing the field order which is a no-no and I can understand why you would get interlace flicker (particularly when there is movement) BUT why then does the setting of the de-interlace method even come into play in this scenario. In other words (if my theory is wrong) I should get a PAL DV file that is interlaced, bottom field first, with much interlace flicker (because I am effectively changing the field order) if I rendered with the de-interlace method set to none (which is in fact the result) but I should get the SAME result even if de-interlace method is set to blend or interpolate BECAUSE at no point have I instructed Vegas to de-interlace my footage! Any thoughts on this?

Either the above or the Vegas de-interlace method is ALSO used when you for some or the other reason are swapping fields / changing the field order for whatever reason (and again the only explanation for this would be if Vegas first de-interlaces the original footage and then re-interlaces depending on whether or not you are trying to create an interlaced file with a different field order).

Just another bit of useless (useful) information: If you allow the Sony FX1E to convert HDV to PAL DV the output file size is almost identical (as a matter of fact it is slightly larger) to the same .m2t file captured from the FX1E and converted using Vegas to PAL DV with the de-interlace method set to blend fields. Interpolate fields creates a much smaller file. From this I can only assume that you are getting the same or possibly even better quality HDV to DV conversion when the camera does the conversion and of course take only a fraction of the time it takes to convert a HDV tape to DV using Vegas.

Regards,

Dale.

Right. Only once the footage gets to 24p do pans start get touchy. What I don't get is that pans that are faster and shot on film still seem to look better than what I can get with deinterlacing. The jerky effect is minimized if I use the FieldsKit pluging for AE to convert to 60p (2 frames per field) and then convert to 24p with some motion blur.

In Vegas, which deinterlace method are you choosing?

Are you disabling resample?

A trick to getting faster pans to look more smooth when shooting 24 fps is to follow an object -- like a walking person -- keeping the object constant in the frame. The background still strobes, but you don't notice because you're following the object.

When you say 'render uncompressed' do you mean that you are choosing the 'Default template (uncompressed)' and then changing the field order to progressive there or are you choosing the 'PAL DV' template and then changing the field order there? If I use the 'PAL DV' template and change the field order to progressive Vegas does recognize the resulting files field order as being progressive BUT if I choose the 'Default template (uncompressed)' and change the field order to progressive in this template - no matter what I do - no matter what my project settings are - or anything else - the resulting file is ALWAYS interlaced, upper field first - at least according to Vegas.

I mean "default template (uncompressed)." I do a lot of compositing, and I need to render with alpha channels, and you can only do that with uncompressed. I've never had a problem making a (recognized) progressive file from it -- but I've never done it in PAL.



Create a new project with the correct settings for a HDV file (or match the new project to a HDV file - it can be either .m2t or a Cineform .AVI file). Load the HDV file into the project and then render it to PAL DV first with interlace method set to none and then render again with interlace method set to blend or interpolate (it makes no difference for this excercise). You will notice that the PAL DV file that you have created from the HDV file with de-interlace method set to none is unwatchable but the file created when the de-interlace method was set to either blend or interpolate is fine. This also happens when you try and convert PAL DV Wide to PAL DV.

I have my own theory on this (which nobody has ever passed an opinion on) and the theory is this:

Vegas de-interlaces a file - using the de-interlace method selected - whenever it feels it needs to and then 're-interlaces' the file to produce the desired output. This may sound strange but think about it - HDV is interlaced, upper field first and PAL DV is interlaced, bottom field first so I can understand that by converting HDV to PAL DV you are changing the field order which is a no-no and I can understand why you would get interlace flicker (particularly when there is movement) BUT why then does the setting of the de-interlace method even come into play in this scenario. In other words (if my theory is wrong) I should get a PAL DV file that is interlaced, bottom field first, with much interlace flicker (because I am effectively changing the field order) if I rendered with the de-interlace method set to none (which is in fact the result) but I should get the SAME result even if de-interlace method is set to blend or interpolate BECAUSE at no point have I instructed Vegas to de-interlace my footage! Any thoughts on this?

If you're working in an interlaced project and wanting to output an interlaced file, I'm not sure why deinterlacing will ever come into play. Maybe I'm not following you here.


Either the above or the Vegas de-interlace method is ALSO used when you for some or the other reason are swapping fields / changing the field order for whatever reason (and again the only explanation for this would be if Vegas first de-interlaces the original footage and then re-interlaces depending on whether or not you are trying to create an interlaced file with a different field order).

I don't see why this would happen.


Just another bit of useless (useful) information: If you allow the Sony FX1E to convert HDV to PAL DV the output file size is almost identical (as a matter of fact it is slightly larger) to the same .m2t file captured from the FX1E and converted using Vegas to PAL DV with the de-interlace method set to blend fields. Interpolate fields creates a much smaller file. From this I can only assume that you are getting the same or possibly even better quality HDV to DV conversion when the camera does the conversion and of course take only a fraction of the time it takes to convert a HDV tape to DV using Vegas.


I wouldn't say the difference in file size means you're necessarily getting a better-quality file; it could have to do with compression efficiencies, etc.. But I've never worked with the FX1, so I don't have any first-hand experience with this.

In Vegas, which deinterlace method are you choosing?

Are you disabling resample?


I use smart resample. There seems to be some connfusion about resample settings elsewhere in the forum so I stick to the defualt for Vegas 6. Can you apply the resample switch on a clip by clip basis (in other words, turn it off of panning clips).

Keeping the center of attention anchored in a pan is a cool tip, thanks. I do a lot of landscape work which is where I often run into trouble. That and handheld shots.

Is there away to affect motion blur outside of the project settings in Vegas?

Oh, this probably goes without saying for deinterlace projects, but I alway shoot with a shutter speed of 60 (ntsc footage).

Smart resample is fine, but be sure that your project deinterlace method is "interpolate."

Also, which pulldown scheme are you adding? If you're adding 2-3-3-2 pulldown and try to watch it, it's going to have a more pronounced stutter than 2-3 pulldown. Keep an eye on that.

I render with the DVD Mpeg2 template for 24p that inserts the 2-3 pulldown.

I had the best luck when I deinterlaced with fields kit to 60p and then brought the resulting footage into a Vegas 24p project for final rendering with smart resample set to blend and motion blur set to guassian.

Have not tried the interpolate yet, but I will on my next pass which will be use Magic Bullet for the deinterlace.

For best results, what you really ought to do, Jeff, is convert your footage to 24p before you edit (using 2-3-3-2 pulldown), then edit the converted files on a 24p timeline.

yeah next time I will. But this is a feature length project that I have been editing for the past 2 years. Anyway, I showed a 24p version from DVD at the San Francisco Film Arts Foundation on Saturday and I was very pleased with the results. Some people thought it looked like 16mm which I took as a completment. I hope they were not expecting 35 from dv...

Thanks for everyones help here, the look really came out nice.

Hi David,
I have my own theory on this (which nobody has ever passed an opinion on) and the theory is this:

Vegas de-interlaces a file - using the de-interlace method selected - whenever it feels it needs to and then 're-interlaces' the file to produce the desired output. This may sound strange but think about it - HDV is interlaced, upper field first and PAL DV is interlaced, bottom field first so I can understand that by converting HDV to PAL DV you are changing the field order which is a no-no and I can understand why you would get interlace flicker (particularly when there is movement)


I think it might be even more fundamental than that. In the computer, particularly in an application like Vegas, things tend to work out well when being frame oriented, not field oriented. So it's very likely that Vegas would treat a 60i video track as, essentially, 30p plus an "interlace" bit, for all practical purposes. That "progressive" representation is the natural field order for that media type, eg, the upper and lower field that belong in a frame together, based on the chronology. This isn't real de-interlacing, in any sense of blending.


BUT why then does the setting of the de-interlace method even come into play in this scenario. In other words (if my theory is wrong) I should get a PAL DV file that is interlaced, bottom field first, with much interlace flicker (because I am effectively changing the field order) if I rendered with the de-interlace method set to none (which is in fact the result) but I should get the SAME result even if de-interlace method is set to blend or interpolate BECAUSE at no point have I instructed Vegas to de-interlace my footage! Any thoughts on this?


I think basically, it amounts to a choice here... if you were to render "straight" to, say, DVD-class MPEG-2/60i from your HDV, same field order, the video would look fine rendered directly from that internal model. If you rendered to DVD-class MPEG-2/30p, same thing. But if you render to a form, like DV, where the interlacing is reversed, then the temporal ordering of your frames is wrong, given than internal model, and must be changed. I think the "de-interlace method" set to "NONE" is essentially saying "never change from this internal model" in any intelligent way.

This isn't just Vegas, either.. other programs I've used seem to behave in a way that fits the model I'm suggesting.


Either the above or the Vegas de-interlace method is ALSO used when you for some or the other reason are swapping fields / changing the field order for whatever reason (and again the only explanation for this would be if Vegas first de-interlaces the original footage and then re-interlaces depending on whether or not you are trying to create an interlaced file with a different field order).


I think it really amounts to "do something" vs. "do nothing", it's just that interlacing is the biggie, when it comes to bad-looking video. If you render from HDV to MPEG-2 60i MP@ML resolution, without any de-interlacing method, you just get the resizing. If you have de-interlacing checked, it should be essentially the same thing (well, assuming it's smart enough to do field-based resizing; if not, the former could be messed up). If you render to 30p, the video still looks reasonable, though with de-interlacing checked, you may well get "smart" field blending, rather than something a bit more brute-force... but it's way more nunanced. When changing the field order, it's an seriously obvious case when this isn't handled properly (back in the days of SuperVideoCD, I made this mistake occasionally).



Just another bit of useless (useful) information: If you allow the Sony FX1E to convert HDV to PAL DV the output file size is almost identical (as a matter of fact it is slightly larger) to the same .m2t file captured from the FX1E and converted using Vegas to PAL DV with the de-interlace method set to blend fields.

That makes perfect sense: DV isn't a variable-rate format. I've never actually tried on-camera DV conversion (I have the HVR-A1), simply because I would naturally assume that Vegas would do it better -- it's got many, many times the resources, even on a modest PC... and there's no demand to do it in realtime, though I would hope in my case (Athlon64x2 4200+), it's happening much faster.
[/quote]


Interpolate fields creates a much smaller file.

When rendered to DV? That's really weird; it's not supposed to work that way.


From this I can only assume that you are getting the same or possibly even better quality HDV to DV conversion when the camera does the conversion and of course take only a fraction of the time it takes to convert a HDV tape to DV using Vegas.


I think you can bank on Vegas, or other PC-based tools, doing at least as good a job on the downconversion. They should do better, if there's any real margin in the conversion process.

-Dave