Achieving 24p (film look) from HDV source?

Gian Pablo Villamil · April 13th, 2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

At what framerate were these acquired? 50i? 25p? 24p?
Stills don't tell much of the story, but of course you're going to see some frame redundancy on something like this. I'm starting to lose the thread, which might be pointing to lack of sleep, but are you starting at a higher framerate resampling TO 24p? or starting with 24p trying to get rid of the redundant/echoed frames?

I'm starting from HDV 60i, going to DVD format MPEG2 at 24p (using the Vegas templates as-is).

I'm pleased with the results using interpolate for deinterlacing (and resample disabled), but I'm curious as to why the smart resample does what it does - generate ghost images.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · April 13th, 2006, 08:12 AM

That's a part of the motion blur. You shouldn't be seeing the ghosting when the picture is moving, which is why I say "stills don't tell much of the story."

Laurence Kingston · April 13th, 2006, 09:00 AM

Yeah, Vegas and DVFilm do it differently. In Vegas, on parts with heavy motion you'll see it alternate between one and two ghost images. In DVFilm you'll see it alternate between zero and one ghost images. In my opinion, when played back at regular speed the Vegas approach looks much smoother. If you didn't have the ghost images the motion would appear to studder and jerk along as the extra frames were dropped.

By the way, when you are doing a 24p render from 60i footage, if the camera moves are steady, the pans are slow, and you avoid zooms or at least use very slow zooms, the conversion will look pretty darned good. If you shoot like regular handheld video though it will look terrible.

Gian Pablo Villamil · April 13th, 2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

That's a part of the motion blur. You shouldn't be seeing the ghosting when the picture is moving, which is why I say "stills don't tell much of the story."

I figured as much, yet the ghosting is very visible. I've put two clips online:

Without resample: http://www.villamil.org/movies/istanbul-interpolate.mpg

And with resample: http://www.villamil.org/movies/istanbul-resample.mpg

The resampled clip does look smoother, in most of the frame. However, I find the ghosting quite visible. The clip without resampling looks more stuttery, but that's kind of the look I was going for...

I guess resampling is doing what it is supposed to, which is averaging the source frames to generate a target frame, when there isn't an exact coincidence.

...so turning off resample is more a matter of the style I'm trying to achieve, I suppose.

April 13th, 2006, 08:12 AM	#17
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	That's a part of the motion blur. You shouldn't be seeing the ghosting when the picture is moving, which is why I say "stills don't tell much of the story." __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

April 13th, 2006, 09:00 AM	#18
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	Yeah, Vegas and DVFilm do it differently. In Vegas, on parts with heavy motion you'll see it alternate between one and two ghost images. In DVFilm you'll see it alternate between zero and one ghost images. In my opinion, when played back at regular speed the Vegas approach looks much smoother. If you didn't have the ghost images the motion would appear to studder and jerk along as the extra frames were dropped. By the way, when you are doing a 24p render from 60i footage, if the camera moves are steady, the pans are slow, and you avoid zooms or at least use very slow zooms, the conversion will look pretty darned good. If you shoot like regular handheld video though it will look terrible.