Thanks. That just confirms Encore doesn't support 1080p 29.97 for Blu-ray either. I still need to find the best alternative.
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.
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.
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.
Ann, I'm afraid you may be right. I thought maybe there was a definitive "this looks best".
Qengineering, that makes sense although it sounds like all playback equipment may not properly support PsF. I had heard the term before but didn't really understand it (still not sure I totally understand it). Thanks for the link.
Jim, that's what I meant in my original post when I said, "it appears 1080p 29.97 is not a valid Blu-ray format", i.e. it's not part of the Blu-ray standard. If I had known this earlier, I would have shot it at 24p. But the BD is an afterthought anyway so I can learn these things. Fortunately, the client just wanted a DVD.
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.
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.
Ah, so that's why I see jaggies on interlaced content. I've been intending to figure out why my TV has that problem. So "modern flat screen displays" can't properly display interlaced content?
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.
I don't understand why they would do that. Old (interlaced) TV programs look terrible.
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.
Yes, I understand why interlacing was used in the old days (I think in addition to the bandwidth, the 60Hz refresh also helped with phosphor decay times). What I don't understand is why a modern display can't do that too because, without it, content from networks that are interlaced looks really bad. Do (LCD) broadcast monitors display interlaced content properly?
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.
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.
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).
I didn't realize 30p wasn't part of the DVD spec either. Premiere has no problem exporting my video to MPEG2-DVD format in 30p and the DVD plays just fine.
I guess I need to haul out my old (SD) CRT monitor to check for proper interlacing. I really don't want to spend money on a HD CRT. Are there adapters available that will allow me to convert HD content to SD and still see the interlacing in the HD properly?
There is no such thing as 30i either, it's 60i.
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.
"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.
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.
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).
I doubt many people could tell the "smoothness" difference between 24p and 30p.
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.
Cavemandude, 20% more frames is not insignificant. Looks smoother to me.
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.
1080p is a blu-ray legal in 29.97 and I've heard in 59.94, but you have to encode it with a flag set to FAKE-Interlace. It will be flagged as interlaced, split as interlaced, and the extra data will be stored as progressive. When the read polls the data, it will find it already built, and playback will still hold quality. More broadcasters these days are outputting progressive video streams in rates matching 24-25, and using the higher frame rates to do slo-motion replays or effects by time stretching. The quality is slightly less than full progressive frame, but it is playable on more set-tops that match older tv's that are still in use. In this manner, the quality on older CRT's is much the same as on newer screens, the picture is just smaller, and the lines aren't quite as sharp, even though the color, contrast and signal are, overall, much clearer.
Movies typically try to conform to broadcast, but just above for quality, mainly because, at some point, a movie will be premiered on television. Since broadcasters have moved to the progressive standard, however, movies have pushed higher frame-rates and players that will output those frame rates, changing the standard media from disc to network or disk based to conform to both file-size and data-rate restrictions. Using higher math to balance key-frame and data rate values accordingly, they produce better quality, more action, and higher definition. Audio is a separate issue but not far off from the point. Audio is measured in samples, and 48khz is typically considered a HUMAN range, but higher rates are being used to give the full feel of audio, adding to data rate and increasing need for bandwidth, or better compression. Remember that progressive video is relatively uncompressed, which is why it's quality is sought. However, with proper data-rate and key-frame width, you can achieve similar results with interleaved video of higher frame rates, making motion smoother, and more real.
You cannot perform this action in AME, but in some encoders, you can...
You need to look up how to add the -fake--interlaced flag to your encoding. This will allow you to use the h.264 codec with progressive data for blu-ray, but will mark the data as interlaced. It will play as progressive. Is it blu-ray legal? In the strictest sense, no. But, recent blu-ray discs out of hollywood have progressive video in full res or even in 4 and 6k. How do they encode? With the same flag. Older players will recognize it as interlaced and play it just fine, without understanding the Fake flag. Newer players will see the flag, and ignore the interlace setting, grabbing whole frames. Remember that progressive scan is largely uncompressed. Interlaced compression polls one field or another, and then rebuilds the other field using estimation, and the number of fields depends on the data rate, higher data rate, more fields = better quality in estimating neighbor pixels. And don't forget that when you set key-frames, especially with progressive video compressions, you should set the distance that it interferes as little as possible with motion (or the opposite, as much as every 3 or 4 frames). This will keep your quality.
Dropping frames will affect the video, but how much varies with the amount of action and how you set keyframe distance. More key frames will mean more "Whole" frames and less space between them. If an area changes a lot and very quick, you'll get jitter with more keyframes, and you'll get slightly less contrast\sharpness with fewer. Dropping the frame rate will also add to jitter, and loss of smooth motion. However, if you were to convert the video first, with an extremely high distance between keys, it might help with jitter, but quality of contrast\sharpness could suffer. Finding the proper setting for this is the key to getting it right. To burn with encore (transcode), and using AME, start with a lower frame rate. However, if you can get your hands on an FFMPEG encoder that will allow you to apply the flag to an m4v, you can point encore to the m4v and burn a blu-ray disc just fine, that will work with most modern players. If you apply the flag for fake interlace, it will function in all players, but newer players with higher quality.
I just went through my workflow and found another answer for you...
If you want to use a newer blu-ray standard encoding, you have to create it yourself. Not sure how well it will work across all machines, but I'm testing it myself, right now. First, you need to open media encoder, then, create a new preset. Use h.264 for the main setting designer, and "based on" should be blu-ray set. Now... ...for 1920 sized video, you'll need the following:
version-4.2 or higher (careful--this will change the compatibility with older players; check with clients about their equipment; older than 3 years, use the standard blu-ray settings provided or offer a flash drive with a formatted disc image that they can resize to their own liking).
and 35-50mb\s for video bare minimum.
This will be an UNCOMPRESSED style format if you want a progressive video... ...set progressive, set frame rate.
set audio to taste.
Make sure you do this: check the MUXER tab. Set to none. Now you will have an M4V file.
Save the preset with a decent name, forget about the "Keyframe" setting. It no longer matters.
Close media encoder, go to encore. You can now use the Transcode now (make sure you set it to transcode in media encoder in prefs), and when media encoder opens the sequence or video, you'll be able to drag\drop your settings onto it, and watch it go. You could also just click the setting in the main area and edit the settings from the operation directly, which will give you a better idea of your data-size. I don't care, personally. I can buy a disc to fit the data, and if I have to, image right to a flash drive or other fast drive for client product. Once you've encoded the project by dynamically linking it through encore, and media encoder, the project sees the file as transcoded, and *should* drag it in on it's own.
I'll be testing another theory later as well.
Encore and adobe media encoder use the same preset library (this is the theory), and when editing the presets for media encoder, you can have those show up in encore (again, in theory). If encore picks up the blu-ray presets from media encoder's library of system presets, then, in theory, you could ADD a preset to the system preset folder, and have it appear in encore. I will try this if my previous option fails. By doing this, the option for the transcode settings to use Progressive video with my standards should show up as an encore project quality preset. This way, all the video will be encoded the same (menus and all). The downside of this approach: menus will be Progressive video and will require more space on the disc. If you have motion, it will take up enormous resources. With separate menu and movie transcodes, you should see smaller menu video, with high quality movie video.
I've seen that several vbr2pass encodes have failed when done outside of encore in previous versions to CS6 (haven't faced such a project in CS6 yet). This means that the file was built\compressed\encoded OUTSIDE of the program, so it doesn't KNOW that it is compatible with a disc format, and will AUTOMATICALLY force it to be transcoded. By transcoding INSIDE encore, you then build the LINKAGE encore uses, FLAGGING it as transcoded, and pointing it to the proper file. You can also Point to the proper file in CS6 by right clicking on an asset and choosing to Locate Transcoded File. This will mark it as transcoded (obviously a workaround for the whole vbr2pass high profile setting problem evident since cs3). However, if you do find yourself in this predicament (a client simply wants a blu-ray built from existing video that is supposedly compatible with blu-ray already), you have a choice. I don't recall how earlier versions of encore checked the transcode flag, but I believe it was based on a settings listing check. If it used the quality preset to check the settings, you might be able to use my theory above to fix the problem. If you can add the quality preset that fits your video (even with newer quality standards), you should be able to get encore to recognize and mark the video. If you can "Locate Transcoded File", this too might flag it for you. In Short Terms: The ASSET must MATCH the QUALITY PRESET FOR THE PROJECT. Check the Transcode Preset. IF you can match your video, you can *possibly* get away with skipping the transcode and going directly to link\build and burn.
Remember that a STREAM file-system is used for any movie file-type that has a greater than 2gb max file-size. Blu-ray utilizes this structure as well. It splits the file into sections of similar size and setting, which means, in theory, you can have videos with different transcodes and settings mixing into the same disc. By that same theory, you can have menus with separate settings from the video, and even several of the same video with different settings. If you know your programming, you can use a flag to set a single menu set for multiple codes of the same video, audio, etc, and then use those flags to set up advanced playback. For multiple types of audio, you'll want to have the audio and video as separate assets, placed on separate timelines. This paradigm can be used for archives.
I said uncompressed, I meant there was less loss of imaging data by comparison. And I have gotten the fake interlace video to play on both old and new players. You only need to conform the bitrate to the necessary spec. Because the bitrate is actually conforming to a data buffer, you need to keep from overflowing the space. I tried it with a 5.2 profile. Worked on new, not old. Tried with a 4.1, and set bit to 40000 max. Worked on both. A slight drop in quality, but it worked.
I need to burn a 5.2 Profile, why not just allow encore to draw it's format encoder from media encoders HDBLU_RAY folder, and place a 5.2 profile there?
I've seen the posts about how they both handle video differently... ...BOGUS. They both handle the video essentially the same, they just use different versions of the same engines to do it! I checked. Same exact files for all but 6, and one of those was the quicktime engine for sending 64bit process to 32bit quicktime.
Here's my finding so far:
I tried encoding for encore using a separate encoder, but it won't burn it. I used the FAKE interlaced flags, and set everything else to be standard rates, with a few suggestions I picked up from some guys online. The problem that still arises is that encore cannot conform the video to a disc or even a folder. Even if you attempt to code is as PsF, encore lags behind current technology. This is one bug I cannot live with. From now on my clients that work post will get a new recommendation (and I've got at least 5 big ones that utilize multiple licenses across full labs). Encore was such a nice concept... ...too bad adobe can't stay on the ball. *sigh* So tough to see you leaving the mainstream market...
I occasionally work post, and every time I produce output, let me repeat that, "EVERY F_ING TIME I PRODUCE OUTPUT", the client wants a BLURAY DISC, or a disc with hi-def video format. Consequently, without this feature, I am left to find another host software.
Just FYI, I used the video I created with a fake interlace with a burning app... ...it worked flawless. It was already encompassed as 30i with fake interlace, turning it into PsF, and I played it on a player so old, it shouldn't have played at all. It did play and it looked alright. It didn't stutter. I played it at home on my smart 3d blu-ray, wifi player. It worked. It looked even better than on the older player, and the info palette showed a frame dimension of 1080i 30PsF. I tried two versions of the disc. One I matched to a 5.2 profile bitrate setting, which looked awesome on the new player but didn't play on the old one. I used a 4.1\.2, and it played just fine. Older players will ignore the progressive frame and play it as interlaced, processing the frames as interlaced; newer players will be fast enough to display the progressive frame with both fields at the same time. You know, unlocking the encoder in encore shouldn't be all that difficult. IF the video is already conformed to the data format, you're only encoding the transport stream, which is the same operation no matter what size the file is. You're just cutting it up for the stream. UNLOCK THE ENCODER setting. Let us, the content creators (IE YOUR CUSTOMER BASE--IE THE MARKET STANDARD) do the rest. I've tried to add settings to it. It's impossible, as the encoder is said to be "Incompatible", which I know to be bulls&%t. For you cavemen: Tested... ...work fine outside encore. Need work inside encore. Does that clear it up for you? PsF is a BLURAY LEGAL FORMAT. Especially with blu-rays topping out at 128gb now. I need the quality, not the headache, and for a long time, ADOBE was the Aspirin. Now it's becoming the Cerebral Hemorrhage.
I'll get back to you if I find an alternative...