Thanks to all for its answers.

Thanks Spot. I would come to your sessions - but I'd already booked flights for a holiday when I found out so I won't be there unfortunately.

What smart deinterlace filter would you use on the footage? I've used Mike Crash's one and it gives great results in the tests I've done, but I usually can't see much difference between most of the settings so I'm not really sure how to set it up. Are there any others that can be used directy in Vegas?

What would the workflow be? edit in cineform 1080i to allow for faster preview, then before render change the project settings and apply deinterlace? or would you deinterlace, resize and render all footage to cineform then edit natively at 720p?

Thanks

hello,

I proved Cineform 3.2 for Vegas 6 and I liked.
It works well if framerate does not change (i.e. 1080 50i --->1280x720 25p). Also I proved Canopus Edius with such results( All with monitor 17 inch )
I respond to your questions?

Just as an FYI, CineForm is now up to it's 1.9 rev, you might want to download that. Some bug fixes, and some improvements to the speed workflow.

I agree that interlaced never will be better than progressive video at equvalent frame rates (60p vs 60i), that was not the subject of my post.

Since the most limiting factor today is data bandwidth, the only fair comparison would be to compare progressive with interlaced at the same bandwidths: 60i vs 30p. I think most people agree that 60i gives better fluidity of motion than 30p. (30p has it's uses though)

It's debatable how "pretty much undetectable" an increased frame rate beyond 60 FPS is for the human vision system. For instance take a look at this:

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

If there is some evidence that 60p is the final FPS "grail" I would be happy to read about how and why the industry came to that conclusion. As I see it 1080i60 was developed as a pretty good trade off between image resolution and image update speed, given a limited and fixed bandwidth. My bet is that even 60p will lose ground to 120i and 120p or similar in the future.

I'm referring to Douglas Trumbull's experiments with ShowScan, where he pretty much concluded there was no real going beyond 60fps (and, being film, that meant 60p). Any more than that was, in his opinion, just wasting film.

Thanks for the reply Barry.

I think Trumbull's experiments showed that it peaks around 72 FPS. But still this is an old experiment and only for printed film. By todays standards I think the experiment is obsolete.

Just try for yourself and play a 3D shooter game like Counter Strike or similar. Using a fast TFT screen, I would say there is a noticeable difference even up to 100 FPS. Why would that not apply to film making?

Another example: A standard TV set has a slightly flickering (as we percieve it) rendition of video, a 120 Hz TV set has less flickering.

DSE, I know you will have been flat out the past few weeks, but can you give answers to the above when you get a chance?

Thanks.

First, I don't do much of anything (OK, NOTHING) at 720p. None of our clients want it, all are interested in being future-ready/capable.
Second, I just use the internal tools for Vegas for deinterlacing. Mike's tools are great, but frankly, they're not any better than what Vegas (V6) does. I used his solution a lot in Vegas 5 however.
Depending on who the client is, we do many things in uncompressed YUV rather than CineForm, but we also have some clients that are very, very pleased with CineForm, and I prefer working in CineForm codec or working with proxy, as most of our stuff is 2-4 cams. Only problem with it is, I can't use it for SDI preview, so I use my third LCD with it. And I set the monitor props to deinterlace anyway.
If I WAS doing 720p output, I'd likely still edit in CineForm and then render to 720p from there, using the stock Vegas deinterlace settings.

I used to use Crash's a lot in V5 also, but your quote here has me reconsidering now that I'm using V6. But I have a couple of questions now regarding this. First, I thought the Crash delacer was a motion-detection-based algorithm rather than Vegas's Blend and Interpolating algorithms? Do I have that wrong? Because, to me this might help with resolution for certain situations. My second question is that I think Mike has an updated version now that actually has different customizable settings. Have you tried used the new version of Mike's Delacer yet? And if so, any comments about how well it works?

Deinterlace Filter
 

Where is this at? I cannot find it anywhere in Vegas 7.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Steven

Hi Steve. It's a third party filter, but the good news is that it's free. You can get it at the link below, together with some others.

Richard

http://www.mikecrash.com/modules.php...showpage&pid=6

Thanks Richard, I'll give it a try.

SB

Bjorn, one thing to consider is that at low bitrates, like the ones used for HD TV broadcast, interlace images show more artifacts than progressive images. Mpeg 2 and Mpeg 4 both work much better with progressive images when the bandwidth is being minimised. Combine that with the fact that progressive display technology is now both cheap and mature and there is avery strong argument for producing programmes in progressive.

Interesting discussion. JVC will soon launch the GY-HD200 and GY-HD250. Both camera's have 720p/50 and 720p/60. So how will that hold up against 1080i/50 and 1080i/60? Looks like 720p is also an option now.

Also in terms of making documentaries. Is it better to use an interlaced or a progressive format? I am really puzzled by all this information.