anyone heard of / tried this

[Don Parrish]

A "filmlook" technique requiring two copies of footage being placed in two tracks and de-interlacing the upper fields on one clip, the lower fields on the other and then compositing them at 50% on the top level

[Jeff Donald]

People have been fiddling with video since it was created and trying to make it look like film. This is one more homegrown effect. It does look more like film, but it is far from perfect. The advantage is that almost everybody has software to do this type of compositing. So, in essence it's free as oppessed to plug-ins costing hundreds. it does take rendering time for most systems. Try it, you might like it.

Jeff

[Martin Munthe]

I agree with Jeff. Better than nothing and it's free. Deinterlacing artifacts are heavy using this method. It has a tendency to create video trailing.

[Vinson Watson]

I've heard if you do this in progressive mode it will look a lot better and even closer to film. They also say playing with the gamma on the JVC GY-300 creates a pretty good film look (off video look).

-Vinson

[Martin Munthe]

??? Do you mean the two layer 50% method on progressive? How can this be? Adding 50% transparency on a progressive layer atop af another progressive layer would result in no difference at all...

Are you sure your not thinking of "instant sex"? The method of bluring the top layer and giving it transparency?

[Joel Peregrine]

Hi,

I helped to develop this technique a few years ago. This method does work and creates no artifacts or 'trailing'. Whoever says so hasn't seen the process done properly or at all. You've got the technique correct: take either a clip or nested clips and place a copy directly on top of itself. Place the de-interlace filter with the upper field selected on one track and the same filter with the lower field selected on the other track. Adjust the top track's opacity to 50%. Footage with this method applied actually has less artifacts, stairstepping and noise are reduced. In FCP on a Dual 800 this renders at about 8 minutes per 1 minute of video. Check out more here:

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/film_look.html

Joel Peregrine
Peregrine Video Production
Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin
www.RememberTheFeeling.com

[Martin Munthe]

Joel,

we did the technique you are reffering to in digibeta suites back in '94. It was done by running the same signal two ways into a mixer. The top layer had one of the fields thrown away and a 50% opacity setting. IMHO; It didn't look like film then and it does not look like film now when we are not doing it in real time anymore. It looks a bit more pleasing than watching raw 50i/60i.

I think "instant sex" was invented by the on line editor on the George Michael video "Freedom" (1990?) directed by David Fincher and has since been over done and outdated. If you have ever watched MTV you have seen "instant sex" in action. It was kind of the look of the '90's...

[Joel Peregrine]

Hi Martin,

The way you did the technique would result in artifacts-you've simply laid a de-interlaced copy over an interlaced one at 50%. Please don't comment on a technique that you haven't actually done and seen the results of. De-interlacing must be done to both tracks. The top is the upper field at 50% and the lower track is lower field. The difference is substantially better. It doesn't look like video and doesn't have artifacts or ghosting. Is that film-look? Not truthfully. But for those that want no-cost artifact free solution to de-interlacing it's the best option available. And it looks better than options that take ten times as long to render....

Joel Peregrine
Peregrine Video Production
Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin
www.RememberTheFeeling.com

[Martin Munthe]

Joel,

that's only a variation of the same principle. I have tried the deinterlace 50% method a lot using apps like After Effects, Avids and Final Cut Pro. The problem with it is that it does not actually produce a progressive image in the way Magic Bullet does. The advantage of a true progressive image is in the compositing situation. Progressive produces much cleaner mattes than interlaced footage does. It's a major difference.

But as I said before - the 50% method looks better than watching raw interlaced. However some 35mm DP's would tell you that that type of deinterlacing is what really sells the footage as video (along with heaps of softfilters). To me it's more a matter of taste. The method also limits your options in CC and traditional "tele cine styling" since you are working with two deinterlaced sources. To do that full out the material has to be true progressive.

[Matt Stahley]

im no pro not even close but once i discovered this method of de-interlacing in FCP on ken stones site i pretty much use it all the time and i love the way it makes my VX2000 footage a less harsh non video look.
after deinterlacing and rendering copy clip to track 1 & 2 and add a soft light composite to the top track.this kinda give you that look that ive been seeing around especially on some ESPN docus.

How is this technique accomplished in Vegas Video?

[papabryd]

How do I achieve this effect in Premiere (6.5)? My only options are to deinterlace the video clips, it doesn't provide me with an upper or lower field selection. Even the special processing option for export video only has a checkbox for deinterlacing, no field selection.

any ideas?

[Barend Onneweer]

For the top clip you could try to reverse the field order. Select the clips goto menu clip>video options>field options.

Not sure if this will get the result you're looking for. The best quality de-interlacing with the least loss in quality (vertical resolution) I have found to be the ReelSmart Fieldskit for After Effects (www.revisionfx.com).

It might be interesting to see if this plugin will also run in FCP or Premiere.

For people that have After Effects, I once did a pretty thorough article about different techniques for de-interlacing.

http://www.creativecow.net/articles/onneweer_barend/deinterlacing/index.html

Bar3nd

[Don Berube]

Very nice Barend,

I also share your opinion of the ReelSmart FieldsKit. They really should offer some longer sample clips on their website, while the clips they do offer more or less convey the results, longer sample clips would also more effectively show the reduction of interleacing you can achieve with this plug-in.

For those also working with Final Cut Pro, as well as Eureka, gere are a few helpful links:
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...ideo_film.html
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...ffects_dv.html
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/film_look.html

- don