This content has been marked as final. Show 10 replies
> What would be the optimal project settings?
The optimal settings should reflect your footage: Use an SD preset for SD footage, use an HDV preset for HD footage
> Should i be using something else to generate my text/graphics or import them differently?
Photoshop is fine. You should create your graphics @ 720x480 using the NTSC (0.9) PAR if you are using DV footage, or 1440x180 @ 1.33 PAR for HDV projects.
> What should my export settings in CS3 be?
Depends on what you're trying to get. Again, the "best" export settings would be those that use the same dimensions, etc. as your sources, which are the same as your project settings.
> Does it make sense to shoot in HD or should i stick to SD DV?
It all depends on your needs. If you're planning to output to BluRay, then you should shoot HDV. If you are planning to export to DVD, then DV will be fine.
Unfortunately, PPro does not do a nice job of down-converting HD to SD. There are ways around this using other programs... you can search these forums for plenty of info on this.
>you can search these forums for plenty of info on this.
Most of it provided by Dan. :)
Thanks for the helpful info Dan.
However, i'm not sure i have completely resolved my issue. The end format of my video will be for display on a computer screen - not DVD or HDDVD.
i think this is the main reason for the graphics appearing "blurry". I have been reading a bit about "de-interlacing" footage if it is to be displayed on a computer screen.
Should i de-interlace my graphics? footage? or both?
Is there anything else i should be doing to optimize veiwing and quality for the computer?
Again, thanks in advance for the help!
> Should i de-interlace my graphics? footage? or both?
Graphics: no. Video.... err ???
I'm probably the wrong person (or exactly the right one?) to ask about this in regard to PPro. I hate Premiere's deinterlacer with a passion, and so I'd never want to use under any circumstance.
If you're planning on displaying your stuff on a PC, then I would recommend using another deinterlacer. There is the FieldsKit deinterlacer plugin, which is good but expensive and slow.
I would recommend you export from Premiere (using the same dimensions and framerate as your project -- but choosing "progressive" in the Keyframe & Rendering options, deinterlacer turned OFF) with the DebugMode FrameServer plugin. This allows you access uncompressed frames from your Premiere timeline without writing a large intermediary file.
DebugMode creates what's called a "signpost" .avi file. Open this .avi file in another program that can competently deinterlace your footage.
One such program is VirtualDub + Smart Deinterlacer plugin. "Smart" is fairly good with most footage. You can also use VirtualDub to resize your footage after deinterlacing (using the Lanczos algorithm which is better than anything Premiere's got). You can then save this to a uncompressed (or otherwise lossless) .AVI that you can encode to .wmv, .flv, etc. in the encoder of your choice.
Better than VirtualDub alone is VirtualDub + AviSynth. This is an extremely powerful scripting language for video processing for which there have been written many excellent deinterlacing plugins and functions.
I know it's all pretty deep stuff, but take a look at my HD->SD conversion workflow and you'll get a better idea of how all this works.
You may also want to take a look at this thread. This deals with my dv60i2film() function, which can be used for 60i->24p (or, actually to/from 60i, 50i, 24p, 25p in almost all combinations). While this may not be exactly what you're looking for, the "wrapped" functions provided in my scripts will give you great quality and flexibility for handling interlaced->progressive conversions, whether your source is HDV or DV.. for any intended output format. :)
>I would recommend you export from Premiere (using the same dimensions and framerate as your project -- but choosing "progressive" in the Keyframe & Rendering options, deinterlacer turned OFF)
I don't see why you would do this, Dan.
If the source footage is interlaced, you want to pass the original, untouched, interlaced frames to the deinterlacing app via the frameserver.
Choosing progressive for export inside of Premiere when the source is interlaced, just seems to invite Premiere to do stuff to the footage before the frames get handed off to the frameserver.
And choosing progressive with Deinterlace unchecked is a non-sequitur that could further negatively influence the proper export of the footage.
> And choosing progressive with Deinterlace unchecked is a non-sequitur that could further negatively influence the proper export of the footage.
Nope. It's fine and good -- assuming you're only target output is PC display. It actually *stops* Premiere from doing stuff to the footage: Choosing "progressive" renders all transitions, effects, etc. as progressive while leaving the footage untouched.
Things like sliding transitions, moving text -- even dissolves -- can be very hard to deinterlace. It's much easier when these are rendered progressively.
Your "adaptive deinterlacer of choice" will detect what's moving/combed and what's not -- ideally allowing it work as a replacement for the "Deinterlace footage" checkbox.
These days, I pre-process my interlaced footage and edit in a progressive project preset. Obviously, that's better. But for a long time I used the above method (for web/CD-ROM projects) without complication.
To stray slightly OT into PPro future feature fantasy land: It's too bad we can't set an external deinterlacing "engine" in PPro's options. Imagaine you have the FieldsKit deinterlacer installed and you were able to select that as the global deinterlacer in Prefs; so that when you check "Deinterlace footage" it would bypass Premiere's built-in horror and use the plugin of your choice. Now THAT would be sweet :)
>Choosing "progressive" renders all transitions, effects, etc. as progressive while leaving the footage untouched.
Another non-sequitur. I don't see how you can avoid Premiere deinterlacing the "untouched" footage if you specify "Progressive" for the video rendering. It should (will?) be deinterlaced before it is served to the frameserver. Is there a test that you have devised that can prove that Premiere *doesn't* do what you tell it to do by selecting Progressive?
Further, The footage that is involved in the transition, or affected by the effect, must be deinterlaced. It will be deinterlaced with Premiere's sub-par algorithm, which will defeat the purpose of serving that footage to an external adaptive deinterlacer. This would be particularly heinous for CC'd footage.
I'd like to get this sorted, because if you are correct, then Premiere is very, very broken from an logical operational perspective, and has been for a long time.
I don't know, Jeff... it makes perfect sense to me: Render effects as progressive but don't touch the footage (i.e: assume it was progressive to begin with).
> The footage that is involved in the transition, or affected by the effect, must be deinterlaced
Not at all. It does not have to be and it won't be (it is this way in CS3 and has been back to Premiere 6.5 at least).
> Is there a test that you have devised that can prove that Premiere *doesn't* do what you tell it to do by selecting Progressive
Ummm. Try it out: Set up a bunch of interlaced clips on the timeline, apply some effects and transitions and send it to the frameserver. You should see combed lines on the original footage but none extra resulting from the effects (a wipe, for instance, will not have combed edges).
> This would be particularly heinous for CC'd footage
Try it. I think you'll see there's no reason to be concerned.
I'd still like to talk about this, but I don't want to take this thread any further off topic than I already have. (Sorry. 8) )
I'll fire off an email soon.
Ok, I need to correct myself (thanks to Jeff and his fabulous testing -- and NEVER listening to anything I say without veryfying it himself :) )
DO NOT set fields to progressive if you have any effects applied to your clips. Transitions render as I described, but effects do not. When an effect such as Brightness / Contrast is applied and "progressive" is set in the Keyframe and Rendering options, this will cause PPro to deinterlace your source.
These problems began in CS3. I had no such issues in earlier releases.
I actually made a few posts about these kinds of problems a long time ago ( #1 ... #2 ... #3)
... but my workarounds have become so ingrained in my workflow that I forgot all about the underlying issue.
Everything else I said is accurate, but you should disregard my suggested "progressive" setting if you are using effects on your clips.
*EDIT -- here's a thread I created on the Matrox forums when I upgraded to CS3. Although my main focus was the quality of frame holds, I also tested some filters and found similar issues... all of them unqiue to CS3. I thought it was a Matrox issue, but it is not. It's a native Premiere problem.