Using Twixtor to interpolate frame mode video into interlaced video at DVinfo.net

Todd Mattson · December 1st, 2001, 01:00 PM

Has anyone used twixtor to interpolate 29.97 fps Canon frame mode video into
interlaced 59.94 half frame video? If so, how were your results? I'm interested
because this could mean that NTSC XL-1/GL-1 users could use frame mode, and
still be able to transfer their video to film from an interlaced source with 59.94
different points of reference. I have talked to the people at ReVision, and they
may also be developing a specific product based on reinterlacing frame mode footage.
The notion is such, as frame mode is actually captured as such: each frame is composed
of two fields with the red and blue signals coming from field one and the green coming
from field two. What they may be doing is trying to separate the frame back into
two separate fields, interpolating the remaining color/field information and then
reinterlacing the result, thus recreating two separate half frames from one frame.
Anybody else interested?

Joe Redifer · December 2nd, 2001, 04:05 AM

Twas my understanding that frame mode IS interlaced. It's not progressive scan. You get two fields making up one image. That's interlacing. Of course those two fields are of the same moment in time giving you 30 frames per second (yes I know I know... 29.976435645673453765 fps in reality) instead of 60 fields per second. I have separated the fields before from frame mode and both odds and evens were all full color. I don't really see any advantage using Twixtor to do interpolation here. The only reason I'd want to use Twixtor is if I shot something in the low shutter speed mode that gives you 15 fps and interpolate back into 30 for low light scenes and really smooth slow motion effects and the such.

Unfortunately Twixtor still works in fields. When each field is different, it is BAD when you try to convert to film. Yuck. Of course ALL video will look bad on film simply because it is, in fact, just video... even if it is PAL.

Maybe I am not understanding the question?

December 1st, 2001, 01:00 PM	#1
Todd Mattson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 89	Using Twixtor to interpolate frame mode video into interlaced video Has anyone used twixtor to interpolate 29.97 fps Canon frame mode video into interlaced 59.94 half frame video? If so, how were your results? I'm interested because this could mean that NTSC XL-1/GL-1 users could use frame mode, and still be able to transfer their video to film from an interlaced source with 59.94 different points of reference. I have talked to the people at ReVision, and they may also be developing a specific product based on reinterlacing frame mode footage. The notion is such, as frame mode is actually captured as such: each frame is composed of two fields with the red and blue signals coming from field one and the green coming from field two. What they may be doing is trying to separate the frame back into two separate fields, interpolating the remaining color/field information and then reinterlacing the result, thus recreating two separate half frames from one frame. Anybody else interested?

December 2nd, 2001, 04:05 AM	#2
Joe Redifer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 290	Twas my understanding that frame mode IS interlaced. It's not progressive scan. You get two fields making up one image. That's interlacing. Of course those two fields are of the same moment in time giving you 30 frames per second (yes I know I know... 29.976435645673453765 fps in reality) instead of 60 fields per second. I have separated the fields before from frame mode and both odds and evens were all full color. I don't really see any advantage using Twixtor to do interpolation here. The only reason I'd want to use Twixtor is if I shot something in the low shutter speed mode that gives you 15 fps and interpolate back into 30 for low light scenes and really smooth slow motion effects and the such. Unfortunately Twixtor still works in fields. When each field is different, it is BAD when you try to convert to film. Yuck. Of course ALL video will look bad on film simply because it is, in fact, just video... even if it is PAL. Maybe I am not understanding the question?