Author Topic: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!  (Read 20113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kiriakos-GR

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3525
  • Country: gr
  • User is banned.
    • Honda AX-1 rebuild
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2011, 05:16:13 am »
The bigger problem was that my 2 year old computer wasn't fast enough to play the video from it, I had to get a new computer to play and edit the video.

David

I had faced the same problem,  I had an fast and stable system for the most of my tasks, that was an extremely expensive  singe-core horse,  six years back. ;)
And I got in to quad cores just for the video editing.  ( The old system was capable for HD playback)
But I do a bit of gaming too, and so I had to spent even more, about a true fast VGA and 4GB of fast DDR3 memory. 
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2011, 05:19:29 am »

So what's the advantage of 50i? And why does every man and his dog seems to say it's better to use 50i for fast action stuff?

Dave.

The more information the better in motion recording. But this depends on too many factors now when you are producing video for more than one type of display. I and my dog say "Use 25P and don't worry about it". If you had 50P or 60P then it would be better and no hassle. Using non-interlaced recording makes less work for you, less work for the viewer, and ensures that everyone sees the video without nasty artifacts.

I shoot 30P for NTSC clients and 25P for PAL clients. I never shot interlaced as it just causes all kinds of issues and more work to make sure the end viewer sees the intended quality.

The eye can see the difference between higher frame rates. It is just that the minimum frame rate to help the brain fool itself into seeing fluid motion is around 18fps and 24fps to ensure the appearance of fluid motion. Of course people can see motion better with higher frame rates, just ask any gamer why they spend $400 or more on a video card.

The frame rates for PAL and NTSC were chosen to get the best motion appearance out of the signal bandwidth provided. The interlace idea was a work around to using phosphors in the CRTs. At 25/30FPS the phosphor at the top of the screen that was "written" to by the beam would start to fade before the beam finished drawing the whole image and the rolling flicker was annoying. If they used a phosphor mix that had longer persistence then the image retained so ghosting from the previous and the image got blurred. So the idea was to write half the image very quickly on every other line, then go back and re-draw the second part of the image, the in between lines, before the image could fade too much and this alleviated the rolling flicker effect. So this interlacing was a compromise for video and the technology of 60 years ago. Therefore, interlacing is old and useless now and should not be used!

Shutter speeds for lower frame rates are slow to compensate for the loss of temporal information between frames. If you use 1/1000 shutter speed then you have a nice series of frozen very sharp frames and the film/video can look non-fluid. If you use a slow shutter rate then the blurring effect on the moving object helps the brain fool itself into seeing more fluid motion.

Interlaced video corrected for non-interlaced output will just look the same as non-interlaced output in the first place if you use simple de-interlacing techniques. The more sophisticated techniques will throw away half the spacial resolution locally to remove the comb effect and fill in the missing information with interpolated lines so that things look nice and smooth. You gain temporal resolution for the trade off of loss of spatial resolution. The really advanced techniques can clean up most of the problems but there is always a loss of information somewhere but balanced in a way so the eye is fooled.

For the purposes of a video blog that will be viewed on mostly non-interlaced display devices, interlaced is a complication without any benefit. Again, the only reason to use interlaced is if you intend the final output to be viewed solely on CRT TVs!
 

Offline Kiriakos-GR

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3525
  • Country: gr
  • User is banned.
    • Honda AX-1 rebuild
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2011, 05:39:03 am »

For the purposes of a video blog that will be viewed on mostly non-interlaced display devices, interlaced is a complication without any benefit. Again, the only reason to use interlaced is if you intend the final output to be viewed solely on CRT TVs!

That's true, but still we have and another problem, and this is the response in milliseconds of the latest computer screens.
I accepted to get an latest DELL with IPS panel technology.
That it does sacrifices a bit of speed in 2011, so to get almost accurate colors (80%).
There is no way to tell with it what would be the ultimate video quality, like sharp frames and ultra fast motion!!
And I bet that some people with old TN panels, they would be even in a more worst position than me.  ( truly slow panels)
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29194
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2011, 09:14:25 am »
For the purposes of a video blog that will be viewed on mostly non-interlaced display devices, interlaced is a complication without any benefit. Again, the only reason to use interlaced is if you intend the final output to be viewed solely on CRT TVs!

And therein lies the complete answer!
Why of why, can't they just explain this in the camera user manual?
Finding this info online was incredibly painful!

Thanks, problem solved, I'll shoot forever in 25P mode and forget all about interlaced.
BUT, my Canon shoots at PF25, which means it actually stores the progressive image in 50i format.
Only the NTSC version of my camera has "True 24P" mode.
Will that cause any complications (or has advantages?)?
It doesn't appear to be a problem, it "just works".

Now all I need is a better video editing program than Corel VideoStudio! (opens can of worms)

Dave.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 09:22:59 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29194
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2011, 09:21:47 am »
1080p60/50 doubles the video rate though doesn't it? So I probably wouldn't use 1080p50 even if I had it.

Yes, the data rate is quite high, it runs at 28Mbps. But storage is cheap! The bigger problem was that my 2 year old computer wasn't fast enough to play the video from it, I had to get a new computer to play and edit the video.

Not when you shoot and edit the amount of video I do.
And processing speed is a real big issue too. I do everything on my bottom of the range Core i3 notebook.
I'm kinda glad my camera doesn't have a 50P, so I've got no choice but 25P.
I have 5 choices of video bit rate.
1920x1080 24Mbps ("High Quality")
1920x1080 17Mbps  ("High Quality")
1440x1080 12Mbps ("High Quality")
1440x1080 7Mbps
1440x1080 5Mbps

I've chosen to use 1440x1080 12Mbps, as I can't really see the difference with the other two for what I do, and figure the lower bit rates gives me an edge in processing/editing speed.
Will likely use 5Mbps for the live show where quality doesn't matter much.
Before I was shooting in 1280x720p 9Mbps.
Advice on that also appreciated from the pros!

Dave.
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2011, 10:48:32 am »

Why of why, can't they just explain this in the camera user manual?
Finding this info online was incredibly painful!

Like everything else on the Internet, the signal to noise ratio is abysmal. The information is out there but it can be hard to recognize dick heads with more money than brains spouting off like they know everything just because they know how to go to the store and purchase something. They then become instant "experts" and start thinking they know how everything works based on their limited equipment and experience. I know, I am preaching to the choir here. (I am an atheist, just using the phrase!)

Thanks, problem solved, I'll shoot forever in 25P mode and forget all about interlaced.
BUT, my Canon shoots at PF25, which means it actually stores the progressive image in 50i format.
Only the NTSC version of my camera has "True 24P" mode.
Will that cause any complications (or has advantages?)?
It doesn't appear to be a problem, it "just works".

It isn't a problem. Ignore it. The video editors know what to do with this method of wrapping up PF25 into a 50i stream.

Now all I need is a better video editing program than Corel VideoStudio! (opens can of worms)

Dave.

Yes, asking someone's opinion on video editing software is likely to cause flame wars. My PERSONAL opinion is that Sony Vegas is a very powerful and relatively inexpensive editor in the professional range. The main thing is, if you are getting the results you want from what you have, then there is no "better" software for your use. If you know you are being held back with the software or do not like it, then give Vegas a try.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegassoftware
There are trial versions available and different levels for different needs. You might not need the highest version.
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2011, 10:59:45 am »
I have 5 choices of video bit rate.
1920x1080 24Mbps ("High Quality")
1920x1080 17Mbps  ("High Quality")
1440x1080 12Mbps ("High Quality")
1440x1080 7Mbps
1440x1080 5Mbps

I've chosen to use 1440x1080 12Mbps, as I can't really see the difference with the other two for what I do, and figure the lower bit rates gives me an edge in processing/editing speed.
Will likely use 5Mbps for the live show where quality doesn't matter much.
Before I was shooting in 1280x720p 9Mbps.
Advice on that also appreciated from the pros!

Dave.

Well Dave, some really weird guy who hangs around says "Horses for courses". If it looks good enough for your purposes, then it IS good enough. Personally I think that 1440x1080 is good enough resolution. This is not FULL HD but rather HDV resolution with rectangular pixels. Probably 1280x720 is more than sufficient for the purposes of your video blog. The differences in editing time, upload time and storage are rather big.

If you were concerned about motion artifacts from interlaced video, then I would not use 1440x1080 5Mbps as this will artifact badly with fast motion. Drop to 1280x720 for 5Mbps if you want a better compromise in motion and bandwidth.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29194
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2011, 02:48:37 pm »
If you were concerned about motion artifacts from interlaced video, then I would not use 1440x1080 5Mbps as this will artifact badly with fast motion. Drop to 1280x720 for 5Mbps if you want a better compromise in motion and bandwidth.

Like most new camcorders on the market, it can't shoot anything lower than 1440x1080

Dave.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29194
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2011, 03:02:55 pm »
Yes, asking someone's opinion on video editing software is likely to cause flame wars. My PERSONAL opinion is that Sony Vegas is a very powerful and relatively inexpensive editor in the professional range. The main thing is, if you are getting the results you want from what you have, then there is no "better" software for your use. If you know you are being held back with the software or do not like it, then give Vegas a try.

Yes, Videostudio has many problems. Annoying audio "pops", lack of decent AVCHD output (I need to render to MPEG2 first and use Handbrake), among other things.

I've tried Vegas before but didn't like it, but I need to try again.

Dave.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29194
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2011, 09:48:42 am »
Ok, I tried Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 11 and I finally got the hang of it.
It seems to do most of what I want.
I might give it a go for editing the next blog.

Dave.
 

Offline Kiriakos-GR

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3525
  • Country: gr
  • User is banned.
    • Honda AX-1 rebuild
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2011, 10:18:59 am »
Videostudio X3 , needs a very stable computer to work properly.
Took me allot of time, even to find and adjust the proper V-core for my CPU,  that keeps all four cores, rock stable under intensive operation.
Not even intensive games does not use all four cores.
Additionally important is the quality of the PSU for the desktops.
Motherboard / RAM / everything must be carefully selected, so to offer speed & stability. 
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2011, 11:03:05 am »
Ok, I tried Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 11 and I finally got the hang of it.
It seems to do most of what I want.
I might give it a go for editing the next blog.

Dave.

Does it not do something you want? I am curious.
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8939
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2011, 12:04:21 pm »
Additionally important is the quality of the PSU for the desktops.
why cheapo psu will degrade performance? how?
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29194
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2011, 12:24:34 pm »
Does it not do something you want? I am curious.

For starters, I can't see a way to do the animated cartoon effect I was able to do in VideoStudio.
Granted, that's just a bundled wanky effect probably exclusive to Videostudio, but I liked it.
I'm left scrambling for ideas for an intro now...

I can't see a way to quickly and simply edit the duration of an image (element it's called in Vegas?). Sure, I can drag it on the timeline, but I don't want to do that, I want to just type the value in myself.

Dave.
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #39 on: July 11, 2011, 05:10:25 pm »
Yes, you are correct. There is no way to set a time for an image before it is dumped into the timeline. There you have two choices. First, as you said, is to drop the image onto the timeline and stretch it to your liking. Secondly you can set the default time for new images in the Options>Preferences>Editing tab>New still image length (seconds).

As far as the cartoon transition effect, I have no idea how to find that for Vegas. But I will look for you.
 

Offline Kiriakos-GR

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3525
  • Country: gr
  • User is banned.
    • Honda AX-1 rebuild
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2011, 08:32:45 pm »
Additionally important is the quality of the PSU for the desktops.
why cheapo psu will degrade performance? how?

At video editing, in functions  like Play video - stop - add a filter- review the change - stop - ,
causes very fast or instant changes in the power demands.
The PSU that its not fast enough to handle such instant changes of load, it will cause problems and even crash the computer.
When the video editing software converts a video In a specific format, this takes some time,
and it stress the PSU too, all four cores need allot of juice.
And so the PSU it must be over-sized in Watts , so to not run hot.

Small details , but they do matter.
This is why some semi profesionals on video editing, they build dedicated computer boxes,
just for video editing.
   
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8939
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2011, 09:26:56 pm »
This is why some semi profesionals on video editing, they build dedicated computer boxes,
just for video editing.
yea, its $$$ matter and its "semi".
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline Kiriakos-GR

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3525
  • Country: gr
  • User is banned.
    • Honda AX-1 rebuild
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #42 on: July 12, 2011, 12:01:55 am »
This is why some semi profesionals on video editing, they build dedicated computer boxes,
just for video editing.
yea, its $$$ matter and its "semi".

Nop its just the correct way to do it , if you do not like to nag about unstable results.
No one tells you up front, that by buying one HD capable camera, you have to own an worthy computer system,
so to edit or view the results of your footage !!

I always had an over-sized PSU on my system, the latest is a solid brick at 900W  :) 
Its unable to run hot.  ( at the cost of 197 USD )
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12712
  • Country: gb
  • Hero999
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #43 on: July 12, 2011, 03:34:56 am »
I always had an over-sized PSU on my system, the latest is a solid brick at 900W  :) 
I doubt it's really rated to 900W, that's probably just the peak rating.
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8939
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #44 on: July 12, 2011, 04:11:13 am »
I always had an over-sized PSU on my system, the latest is a solid brick at 900W  :) 
I doubt it's really rated to 900W, that's probably just the peak rating.
he got his point. i understood ;)
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline RCMR

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 405
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #45 on: July 12, 2011, 12:21:12 pm »
Personally I think that 1440x1080 is good enough resolution. This is not FULL HD but rather HDV resolution with rectangular pixels. Probably 1280x720 is more than sufficient for the purposes of your video blog.
Absolutely dead right!

I shoot all my video with a Panasonic MX500 which is 10 years old and only has an SD resolution of 720x576 (progressive) -- yet people keep asking me "what camera are you using? the video looks great."

I edit with Sony Vegas (the $50 edition) and when rendering, I upscale to 1280x720p.

A lot of the time it's hard to tell the results from a true HD camera at 720p and i have the benefits of much faster edit/render times than if I were to be running a higher native resolution.

Personally, I see no point in running 1080p for the average "talking head" video blog.  I'm happy to see Dave's face without being able to count the hairs on his chin and so I rarely watch at anything greater than 480p.

Even when I do manage to find an affordable camera that has the features I need, I'll still stick with 720p because there's really no benefit (that I can see) to going to 1080p.
 

Offline rew

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 7
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2011, 04:58:01 pm »
Hi RCMR,

I bought a high-res projector some time ago, and watch a lot of stuff on that. I bought 1024x768 when 800x600 was the norm. Lots of money!

Anyway, I've tried watching stuff in higher res than say 800x600, but I don't actually see any difference.

But then I visited a friend who recently upgraded to a 1920x1080 projector... Wow! there IS a big difference.

So: if your display isn't up to the task of display high res stuff, then you won't see the point of having higher resolution content.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29194
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2011, 05:54:34 pm »
It's not just the resolution either, but the bitrate too.
I used to upload 1280x720 to Youtube in as little as 2Mbps! but eventually upped that 4-5Mbps for most videos
The new 1440x1080 stuff I'm shooting at 12Mbps (the last blog was accidentally 7Mbps) and am now encoding at 8Mbps for the upload, so there will ultimately be loss in video quality there somewhere.
But for the really long videos (like that live show) I've had to drop right down to 3Mbps or so.

If I know there is lots of movement in the video (like say a canyon video) I'll up the bit rate for that one. But I've found I can generally get away with those bit rates.

Some videos are now pushing 1-2GB uploads to Youtube, and that can take all night to upload, which has a habit of cutting off my VOIP phone until done. Crazy stuff.

Dave.
 

Offline Wartex

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Country: ca
    • http://headsplosive.com
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2011, 10:27:46 am »
It's not just the resolution either, but the bitrate too.
I used to upload 1280x720 to Youtube in as little as 2Mbps! but eventually upped that 4-5Mbps for most videos
The new 1440x1080 stuff I'm shooting at 12Mbps (the last blog was accidentally 7Mbps) and am now encoding at 8Mbps for the upload, so there will ultimately be loss in video quality there somewhere.
But for the really long videos (like that live show) I've had to drop right down to 3Mbps or so.

If I know there is lots of movement in the video (like say a canyon video) I'll up the bit rate for that one. But I've found I can generally get away with those bit rates.

Some videos are now pushing 1-2GB uploads to Youtube, and that can take all night to upload, which has a habit of cutting off my VOIP phone until done. Crazy stuff.

Dave.

Enable and configure QoS in your router so your phone doesn't get cut off.
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9485
  • Country: us
Re: Uh oh, you're interlaced, Dave!
« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2011, 12:15:50 pm »
Dave, FYI, I watch all YouTube videos at 480p, even when a higher resolution is available. It's a little window on a computer screen, not some blockbuster movie! If I up the resolution to HD levels the download time takes too long and playback is annoying (I am in the US and I have a > 10 Mbps Internet connection).

So from my perspective, uploading HD to YouTube is not worthwhile.
I'm not an EE--what am I doing here?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf