weird interlace artifacts upon "export with current settings" looks fine in timeline at DVinfo.net

Josh Bass · December 25th, 2009, 03:12 AM

Related to several other threads I've recently started, I am attempting to uprez/upconvert an SD project to HD for a festival.

When I export my tiny 10 second test QT reference movie from FCP, I'm noticing interlacing artifacts that aren't there when viewing the material in the timeline.

Now to elaborate, the footage I"m talking about originated as 24p Advanced from an XL2, was then converted to 24 P standard and then to 60i/29.97 interlaced, and put in a 29.97 timeline to be mixed with other 60i footage that I wanted to keep looking interlaced (hence all the conversions of the 24p stuff). Finally got all this stuff looking right, exported to AVI, made DVDs, everything's cool. This was all done when I was using PC/VEgas. I then converted to a Mac/FCP, and brought this project in for uprezzing.

In a 29.97 timeline in FCP, the formerly 24p stuff looks fine. However, after exporting to a QT reference movie to play with in compressor (for the uprez), I keep seeing interlace artifacts on certain frames. IN the timeline, those aren't there at all. And these are WEIRD interlace artifacts, where it seems half the fields are missing. So on the "ghost" frame, instead of seeing every other line of the field, I'm seeing every two lines.

I don't know why it would look fine in the timeline, and after exporting "with current settings" cease to look fine when played back in the QT player. Any ideas?

Josh Bass · December 25th, 2009, 04:42 AM

OH, how very strange. This may just be Bass being too anal for his own good.

I realized that if I had this problem now, it means I had this problem every time I've used FCP to export something for this movie.

I opened a few of these QT ref movie files in other players, like real player and divx (divx lets you scroll through frame by frame, which is nice), and could not see these interlace artifacts. Furthermore, I tried playing a DVD burned from a newer version of the movie that I cut down to size from the larger version (instead of starting over with source material) on my TV, and going through frame by frame, and can't see the artifacts. That could something with the DVD player or the compressor DVD encoding settings, though, maybe? In any case, the only place I can see the issue is in the QT player. Not the FCP timeline, and not anywhere else I've looked.

Marty Welk · December 25th, 2009, 05:50 AM

only thing i can tell you, till someone comes along who knows what you even said is, check the "Feild Order" thing. odd or even first, might have something to do with that.
Some stuff will turn it progressive by just dumping the other feild.

Josh Bass · December 25th, 2009, 12:26 PM

Thanks, but I want to keep it NOT progressive because of parts of it need the 60i home video look. The clips, according to "item properties" are "even field dominant" so I have the sequence settings the same way. But I tried it both ways already and the result's always the same. I think I may have freaked out over nothing though. I still don't get why FCP doesn't see it and the QT player does. . .something about how they handle fields differently?

Josh Bass · December 25th, 2009, 03:51 PM

Oh guys, I'm such a dumbstick. the reason it's not showing up in FCP's timeline is cause I have the canvas viewer sized at "fit to window", which is slightly smaller than 100%. If I set it to 100%, bam! there's the interlacing. Now to figure out if it should look like that. Why do they even let me out of the house?

Josh Bass · December 26th, 2009, 12:20 AM

Ok, even stranger. . .i mention in another thread uprezzing this to hd via compressor. I found that in compressor, in the video settings, under compressor, if you select interlaced, and then check the 4:4:4 chroma filtering, the resulting hd file has no interlace artifacts (yay!) but is noticeably softer than an hd file without that filter added (boo).

Chuck Fadely · December 26th, 2009, 02:29 PM

I've had that same problem before with still photos when keyframed. Apply a slight motion blur filter - say '60' setting' - to the offending clips. It's a field dominance thing but I have never been able to sort it out... the slight motion blur fixes it without making it look soft.

Josh Bass · December 26th, 2009, 03:37 PM

I will take a look. Thanks. I was wrong about the 4:4:4 filter. . .I had accidentally changed something else when I first applied it so I thought it was doing things it wasn't. As it is, I can't see a lick of difference between having it on and off. I think it's supposed to help with jaggy edges when upscaling, but isn't that what the anti-aliasing control is for too?

December 25th, 2009, 03:12 AM	#1
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	weird interlace artifacts upon "export with current settings" looks fine in timeline Related to several other threads I've recently started, I am attempting to uprez/upconvert an SD project to HD for a festival. When I export my tiny 10 second test QT reference movie from FCP, I'm noticing interlacing artifacts that aren't there when viewing the material in the timeline. Now to elaborate, the footage I"m talking about originated as 24p Advanced from an XL2, was then converted to 24 P standard and then to 60i/29.97 interlaced, and put in a 29.97 timeline to be mixed with other 60i footage that I wanted to keep looking interlaced (hence all the conversions of the 24p stuff). Finally got all this stuff looking right, exported to AVI, made DVDs, everything's cool. This was all done when I was using PC/VEgas. I then converted to a Mac/FCP, and brought this project in for uprezzing. In a 29.97 timeline in FCP, the formerly 24p stuff looks fine. However, after exporting to a QT reference movie to play with in compressor (for the uprez), I keep seeing interlace artifacts on certain frames. IN the timeline, those aren't there at all. And these are WEIRD interlace artifacts, where it seems half the fields are missing. So on the "ghost" frame, instead of seeing every other line of the field, I'm seeing every two lines. I don't know why it would look fine in the timeline, and after exporting "with current settings" cease to look fine when played back in the QT player. Any ideas? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

December 25th, 2009, 04:42 AM	#2
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	OH, how very strange. This may just be Bass being too anal for his own good. I realized that if I had this problem now, it means I had this problem every time I've used FCP to export something for this movie. I opened a few of these QT ref movie files in other players, like real player and divx (divx lets you scroll through frame by frame, which is nice), and could not see these interlace artifacts. Furthermore, I tried playing a DVD burned from a newer version of the movie that I cut down to size from the larger version (instead of starting over with source material) on my TV, and going through frame by frame, and can't see the artifacts. That could something with the DVD player or the compressor DVD encoding settings, though, maybe? In any case, the only place I can see the issue is in the QT player. Not the FCP timeline, and not anywhere else I've looked. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

December 25th, 2009, 05:50 AM	#3
Marty Welk Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: East Bay Cali Posts: 563	only thing i can tell you, till someone comes along who knows what you even said is, check the "Feild Order" thing. odd or even first, might have something to do with that. Some stuff will turn it progressive by just dumping the other feild. __________________ ----------------sig----------------- Re-learning everything all over again, one more time.

December 25th, 2009, 12:26 PM	#4
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Thanks, but I want to keep it NOT progressive because of parts of it need the 60i home video look. The clips, according to "item properties" are "even field dominant" so I have the sequence settings the same way. But I tried it both ways already and the result's always the same. I think I may have freaked out over nothing though. I still don't get why FCP doesn't see it and the QT player does. . .something about how they handle fields differently? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

December 25th, 2009, 03:51 PM	#5
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Oh guys, I'm such a dumbstick. the reason it's not showing up in FCP's timeline is cause I have the canvas viewer sized at "fit to window", which is slightly smaller than 100%. If I set it to 100%, bam! there's the interlacing. Now to figure out if it should look like that. Why do they even let me out of the house? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

December 26th, 2009, 12:20 AM	#6
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Ok, even stranger. . .i mention in another thread uprezzing this to hd via compressor. I found that in compressor, in the video settings, under compressor, if you select interlaced, and then check the 4:4:4 chroma filtering, the resulting hd file has no interlace artifacts (yay!) but is noticeably softer than an hd file without that filter added (boo). __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

December 26th, 2009, 02:29 PM	#7
Chuck Fadely Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: United States Posts: 306	I've had that same problem before with still photos when keyframed. Apply a slight motion blur filter - say '60' setting' - to the offending clips. It's a field dominance thing but I have never been able to sort it out... the slight motion blur fixes it without making it look soft.

December 26th, 2009, 03:37 PM	#8
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	I will take a look. Thanks. I was wrong about the 4:4:4 filter. . .I had accidentally changed something else when I first applied it so I thought it was doing things it wasn't. As it is, I can't see a lick of difference between having it on and off. I think it's supposed to help with jaggy edges when upscaling, but isn't that what the anti-aliasing control is for too? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB