Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

1080p 29.97 to Blu-ray

Jun 20, 2013 10:25 AM

I have a project shot at 1080p 29.97 and this is my first attempt to export it for Blu-ray.  When I select the H.264 Blu-ray Format in Export Settings, there is no Preset matching the source format.  It looks like the best options are:

1. 1080i 29.97 - Would I lose resolution this way?  Is 29.97i actually 59.94 fields/sec with even fields on one pass and odd fields on the next (which would be parts of the same frame because it was shot progressive) or am I only going to get 540 lines of resolution?

2. 1080p 23.976 - How bad would artifacting be if I change the frame rate?  Would Twixtor do this perfectly or at least much better than Premiere?

3. 720p 59.94 - This would preserve the original frames (doubling them) but I would have less than half the resolution.

 

I notice the MPEG2 Blu-ray also does not have a format that matches the source but if I select Match Source Attributes (High Quality) the Summary lists the Output as 1920x1080, 29.97 fps, but doesn't indicate whether it's progressive or interlaced.  I just checked Wikipedia and it appears 1080p 29.97 is not a valid Blu-ray format.  So is the MPEG2 converting to interlaced without expliciting telling me in the Summary Output?  Is H.264 going to look better than MPEG2 (that would be my guess)?

 

Bottom line, what is the best option for highest quality output given the source material I'm using?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 10:28 AM   in reply to illucine

    Encore Import Formats http://forums.adobe.com/thread/622722 should help by showing what is possible for a BluRay

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 11:12 AM   in reply to illucine

    You are going to have to do some experimenting.

    Get yourself a few rewritables and try all kinds of settings (presets) and see what looks the best.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 11:23 AM   in reply to Ann Bens

    I think your best setting would be 1080i 29.97. This preset (in theory) should create a 1080PsF (progressive segmented frame) file that, when sent to a display, would combine both fields back together to create a full 1080p image.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_segmented_frame

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 12:11 PM   in reply to illucine

    That just confirms Encore doesn't support 1080p 29.97 for Blu-ray either.

     

    It isn't just Encore, the Blu-ray standard itself does not support 30p.  Export out as 30i and it should work.  It won't look as nice as real 30i or 24p, but it'll work.

     

    My recommendation is to avoid 30p when shooting, as it isn't a defined standard anywhere.  Stick to 30i, 60p or 24p and you're good for any deliverable.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 1:28 PM   in reply to illucine

    The (BD) playback equipment does not detect PsF format, PsF is essentially progressive images in an interlaced envelope. Both fields represent the same moment in time, each at half resolution. When the display presents the image, both fields are shown simultaneously (unless you displaying on an old CRT) recreating the full resolution 1080p frame.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 1:44 PM   in reply to Qengineering

    It should be noted that all modern flat screen displays, when fed an interlaced signal, will display both fields simultaneously. This is true for both PsF, and true interlaced video, when playing at normal speed. It is for this very reason, I would argue that 1080PsF is superior to 1080i when shown on any modern display.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 2:07 PM   in reply to illucine

    Basically, that's correct. CRTs can display one field at a time and "interlace" two of them sequentially to create one frame. Flat screens are not designed to display (half resolution, interlaced) fields sequentially, so they just slap them together (when played at normal speed) to create the frame.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 2:54 PM   in reply to illucine

    Modern displays do that because interlacing is an outdated technology, would be terribly difficult with LCD/plasma and progressive images are much sharper. Modern displays accept interlaced video for backwards compatibility and because certain TV networks chose to stay interlaced.

     

    Interlacing allowed/allows the same number of scan lines (think pixels) but uses half the bandwidth of the equivalent size progressive for any given refresh rate (60Hz). In the old days, interlacing was simply more efficient and used less expensive circuitry.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 3:32 PM   in reply to illucine

    Modern displays would have to literally separate out every other horizontal row of pixels and feed them a separate image at a different time (field 2 delayed from field 1). This would require additional (expensive) circuitry, and display panels with considerably more complex control.

     

    There's little incentive for manufacturers to create such a specialized, expensive item just to properly display "old technolgy" signals.

     

    No, modern high-end broadcast monitors do not properly display interlacing, which is why production facilities that must produce interlaced files need to should have at least one CRT to confirm and diagnose correct field dominance. It's also why I see so many commercials with reversed (jittery) field dominance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 3:53 PM   in reply to illucine

    Fortunately, the client just wanted a DVD.

     

    It's not part of the DVD spec either.  30p is just the ugly stepchild no one wants.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2013 3:58 PM   in reply to Qengineering

    When the display presents the image, both fields are shown simultaneously

     

    That's not true, even for flat panels.  Each field will be 'deinterlaced' by the TV and shown sequentially.  Since both fields are from the same image, you essentially see each frame twice, which accounts for the somewhat unnaturalness of 30p.  It's not quit as smooth as 30i, and not quite as filmic as 24p.  It's a no-mans-land best avoided altogether (in my view).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 21, 2013 11:02 AM   in reply to illucine

    There is no such thing as 30i either, it's 60i.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 21, 2013 11:15 AM   in reply to Cavemandude

    There is a way to get 1080p 29.97 though.

    The 3rd party x264pro h.264 exporter encodes the video as 1080p 29.97 and sets a flag to say that it's interlaced even though it's not (it's progressive).

    The result is all the quality of a progressive encode and it makes it blu-ray legal.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 22, 2013 7:31 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    "30p is just the ugly stepchild no one wants."

     

    This sort of broad, misinformed opinion is baseless and misguided.  The real world (my eyes) tells me 30p looks great on DVD and Blu-ray.

     

    Don't just take my word for it.  I suggest the OP test it for themselves.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 22, 2013 10:30 AM   in reply to streamthis

    I've done a lot of experiments recently and "My eyes tell me" that 25P @50Hz doesn't look smooth during the pans, but 50i does.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 22, 2013 11:43 AM   in reply to serge kouper

    Your are correct, Serge.  If your subject matter requires lots of pans, 50i will look smoother than 25p, just like 30p will look smoother than 24p.  But you are speaking of subjective "looks".  That's quite different from "best avoided altogether" (for reasons that still don't hold water).  30p is a reasonable compromise between 60i and 24p, gives me just the "look" I want (for the kind of material I shoot), and looks stunning (to me) on a computer monitor and TV screen (no matter how it is delivered).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 22, 2013 11:50 AM   in reply to streamthis

    I doubt many people could tell the "smoothness" difference between 24p and 30p.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 22, 2013 11:56 AM   in reply to serge kouper

    serge kouper wrote:

     

    I've done a lot of experiments recently and "My eyes tell me" that 25P @50Hz doesn't look smooth during the pans, but 50i does.

    You shouldn't have to do lots of experiments to see that 50i is much smoother than 25p, it's a dramatic difference. The motion with 50i looks like live video with no judder and 25p looks more like film.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 22, 2013 12:05 PM   in reply to Cavemandude

    Cavemandude, 20% more frames is not insignificant.  Looks smoother to me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 22, 2013 12:38 PM   in reply to Cavemandude

    Yes. Actually I was experimenting something else I shouldn't have mentioned that. For me it's 50i all the way. I always wondered why it's so important for some to shoot at 30p/25p or even 24p. For me, the smoother, the better. I like to see the film at a real life speed, I'm not fan of a constant shutter effect.

     
    |
    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