Z1 = Upper field ???

[Phil Gosselin]

Hi all,

I just finished some editing with footage taken from a Z1, this was shot by my collaborator and it was my first attempt at HDV. Everything went smoothly. I notice though the native field order was "upper". I thought those HDV cameras shoot in progressive mode.

Do you think I should set my edited work to progressive then, this will go on a DVD and won't be broadcasted in any conventionnal way.

Thanks

Phil

[Boyd Ostroff]

The Z1 does not shoot in progressive mode, it's an interlaced camera. It does have cineframe 24, 25 and 30 psuedo-progressive modes however which you can activate in the picture profiles.

[Phil Gosselin]

Thanks Boyd

[Heath McKnight]

1080i HDV is indeed upper field first.

heath

[Harm Millaard]

Footage from the Z1 being downrezzed to SD profits - at least in Premiere Pro - from de interlacing the output while using Adobe Media Encoder.

[James W. Graham]

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard

Footage from the Z1 being downrezzed to SD profits - at least in Premiere Pro - from de interlacing the output while using Adobe Media Encoder.

Or you could highlight the clip and deinterlace it in Premier pro. I did some experimenting yesterday with premier pro 2 and final cut. Deinterlaced copies of the same clip in both programs. Final cut took dramatically longer to perform the interlace, which lead me to believe that final cut does a more thorough job of deinterlacing. The clip I used was recorded on a Z1 with the gain pumped up to 18db and there were jaggies when movement was depicted. However, after the interlace the jaggies were gone and I noticed no decrease in resolution or quality. Not at all what i was expecting, since deinterlacing apparently removes one of the fields.

I'm sure this isn't a revelation to the old hands here :-)

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by James W. Graham

Not at all what i was expecting, since deinterlacing apparently removes one of the fields.

Were you converting the video to standard defintion? If so, then you could remove one of the fields without noticing a difference since you have 1080 lines to start with and only need 480 for SD. But I'd expect to see a difference in quality at HD resolution on a good monitor.

But there are different ways to deinterlace. The simplest is just discarding a field, as you note. Not familiar with the PC, but FCP just removes a field. There are other solutions for "smart deinterlacing" however where moving parts of the image are processed differently from static portions. Graeme Nattress makes an FCP plug-in:

http://www.nattress.com/Products/fil...eInterlace.htm

Joe's filters is another plug-in option for FCP:

http://www.joesfilters.com/joes_deinterlacer

And there is DVfilm Maker which runs as a standalone program on the PC and Mac:

http://www.dvfilm.com/maker/

There are also other solutions out there.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Graeme Nattress makes an FCP plug-in:

http://www.nattress.com/Products/fil...eInterlace.htm

Joe's filters is another plug-in option for FCP:

http://www.joesfilters.com/joes_deinterlacer

And there is DVfilm Maker which runs as a standalone program on the PC and Mac:

http://www.dvfilm.com/maker/

There are also other solutions out there.

Am I wrong or VirtualDubMod does the deinterlacing... for free!?!?


Carlos

[Matt Vanecek]

Originally Posted by Carlos E. Martinez

Am I wrong or VirtualDubMod does the deinterlacing... for free!?!?
Carlos

You are correct. There is a smart-deinterlace plugin for VirtualDub (smart deinterlace by Donald Graft) that to me seems to do an excellent job, and provides some fine options. Not sure if it would work on HDV, or on Cineform AVI--might be worth a try...

ciao,
Matt