Skip navigation
PeteSteffanMTECH
Currently Being Moderated

Encoding interlaced video to retain proper 60i fluid motion during playback (WMP, etc..)

May 21, 2013 11:47 AM

I'm working on a small video project where the footage came to me as files off of a Canon Vixia HF R10 camcorder, with the settings set to 1440x1080 HD anamorphic (1.333), at 60i. The file format is a .mts, an MPEG2 stream. I just needed to make several quick edits and then export the video with those cuts; no other processing or changing of anything. I don't want to de-interlace it or encode in a wildly different and/or lossy format, as it needs to match other video clips from that camera as faithfully as possible.

 

So I've made the cuts in Premiere Pro CS6...what format and what settings do I need to encode this thing to meet my requirements? I tried an h.264 at a high bitrate, using all the settings I mentioned above, but upon exporting, playback in Windows Media Player shows funky field artifacts from interlacing, almost like it used the wrong field order (but every analysis said it was Upper first), or it was trying to play it in 30p instead of properly flagging to play at 60i. How can I get it to play at liquid smooth 60i in WMP just like the original files?

 

(I hope I never have to deal with anything interlaced again...such an unnecessary relic left over from the past!)

 

Thanks in advance, everyone!

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2013 11:57 AM   in reply to PeteSteffanMTECH

    First, WMP is not a very good player.  KM Player and VLC are far superior.

     

    Second, viewing interlaced clips on a computer monitor will show interlacing artifacts if not deinterlaced by the player.  This is normal and nothing to worry about.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2013 12:25 PM   in reply to PeteSteffanMTECH

    The correct settings depend on the intended use.  For further editing, you want an export that matches the original in frame size, frame rate, Pixel Aspect Ratio, and field order.  Whether or not that export also plays back on a computer is incidental.  If you want an export that plays back on a computer or for upload to the Internet, you'll want a progressive export at a matching frame rate and a 1.0 PAR, however that would not be a good choice for further editing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2013 12:40 PM   in reply to PeteSteffanMTECH

    we're going to be handing off the footage to someone else who may do [further editing]

     

    Well then you have your answer.

     

    "...you want an export that matches the original in frame size, frame rate, Pixel Aspect Ratio, and field order.  Whether or not that export also plays back on a computer is incidental."

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2013 12:54 PM   in reply to PeteSteffanMTECH

    if I hand this to them to play back as-is and they decide to not edit it further, it doesn't look good when played on a computer.

     

    True, but not relevant.  You need a different export for computer playback.  If you want to make sure they have something useable for both editing and computer playback, export twice and send them both.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 30, 2013 9:41 AM   in reply to PeteSteffanMTECH

    Anyone who works with video finds it annoying and surprising that most computer monitors and software players refuse to display interlaced video correctly, and insist on combining two fields into a single frame, and then showing it as a progressive video. I am interested to know if even some modern TVs are doing this with interlaced video; the specs are capable of being twisted by mealy-mouthed sales types. I guess we need someone with an ultra high speed camera to get some close ups on TVs and watch to see for sure if alternating fields are refreshed as they are supposed to be with interlaced video. If it's shot interlaced, it should be displayed that way, and if it's shot progressive, it should be displayed progressive. But I digress!

     

    This sad fact means video for computers has to be encoded differently from video for televisions, if that video was shot using an interlaced format.

     

    And I don't think any player will parse interlaced video to show correctly, even with 60 Hz or higher refresh rates on decent monitors. I can't see a way for VLC to do it. Mplayer won't. I am unsure if Ffmpeg's player will. That would be interesting if it could...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 30, 2013 9:43 AM   in reply to Phantasplasm

    I should have said "has to be encoded differently if maximum quality for each of the differing kinds of machine is to be retained."

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 30, 2013 11:33 AM   in reply to Phantasplasm

    If it's shot interlaced, it should be displayed that way, and if it's shot progressive, it should be displayed progressive.

     

    I can't argue with that.  Unfortunately, consumers have chosen style over substance, and the only TV technology capable of doing what is best - CRT - can no longer be purchased.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2013 6:12 AM   in reply to PeteSteffanMTECH

    Hi. I have the same issue as initially posted here. I have a Sony WX-50 that shoots 1080i60. When I look at this MTS file in WMP or VLC(with the deinterlaced set to Bob) it looks great- motion is fluid as mentioned above. When I do edits and re encode to uncompressed AVI or uncompressed MOV or MP4 with Upper Field and no deinterlace set in Sony Vegas....the video interlace is horrible with waves and blurs, etc. on both players. I have deinterlaced the video into several formats but all lose the "fluid" motion of 60i. It does look ok in the players but minus this "fluid" 60i motion. Suggestions please for re encoding and keeping the interlacing correct so it plays back close to the original's MTS file's smoothness?...Thanks, Steve  I use Handbrake and Sony Vegas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2013 3:17 AM   in reply to bubbastef

    I  tried some re encoding again using diferent codecs and discovered that when I rencode my MTS files (1080i)

    from my camera I cannot retain the smoothness of 1080i in the new video file (as mentioned above) UNLESS it is a MPEG2 transport stream file like a M2T or M2TS. Then, the "fluid" or smoothness of the original 1080i MTS video is maintained. But when encoding it to a MPG file configured to DVD standards - it doesn't keep this smoothness. I guess I can't keep it if I make DVDs but Blu rays should be ok. Thoughts? Thanks.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points