6 Replies Latest reply on Jan 26, 2012 10:13 AM by Glitchdog

    Interlaced to progressive on PP export?

    Glitchdog Level 1

      Just finished a short film in PP. It's the first one we've done that has interlaced source. I was exporting to ProRes HQ, Progressive. The final encode looks great, but is still interlaced. I'm guessing I'm just missing a setting somewhere. Thoughts?

        • 1. Re: Interlaced to progressive on PP export?
          Glitchdog Level 1

          I'm still using the frame control in Compressor to convert from interlaced to progressive, but would prefer to do this in PP export or Media Encoder. Is it possible?


          I've see a few tutorials where people are just changing the field order for each clip, but I'm guessing this would just throw out half the image quality.

          • 2. Re: Interlaced to progressive on PP export?
            Jim_Simon Level 8

            Normally (using any container besides MOV), simply specifying Progressive in the field order drop down box in the Export Settings dialog does the trick.


            But ProRes requires the MOV container, and things sometimes get wonky when using QuickTime.

            • 3. Re: Interlaced to progressive on PP export?
              jojejo Level 2

              Good luck!

              If you find a solution, please tell me!

              I was in contact with the adobe costumer "support", and after 10 incorrectand stupid answers I gave up.

              The problem appears not only with QT, also with AVI etc. If your source is interlaced and you going to output a progressive file, premiere simply discard the second field if you choose upper field first or discard the first field by lower field first. Premiere isn't able to do a adaptive deinterlacing, it just do simple field scaling.

              I was really angry about that, cause adobe tells us (in the gernman descrition) that premiere does a propper deinterlacing. But, fieldscaling is no propper deinterlacing! It's just throwing away the half resolution.


              Now I use Grassvelly Procoder for the deinterlacing.


              Again good luck


              • 4. Re: Interlaced to progressive on PP export?
                Glitchdog Level 1

                Thanks guys! This was one of my first posts in the short time on this forum that I hadn't gotten a response. Had me worried. I think Adobe has and is doing a great job, but Premiere, from my short time editing with it, definately needs some more professional attention.


                Jim, I know what you are saying, makes sense as I have noticed other issues with mov wrapped footage in PP. I had tried some tests as well, changing the field order to Progressive on export to no avail. It did concern me that it took ProRes HQ interlaced footage and crunched through it so fast. I know it's 64bit, but it still seemed too quick to actually do an adaptive processing with the fields.


                Jojejo, one of my colleagues down under is using the Procoder and loves it.


                For now my workaroud is using my old workflow via Compressor, as I mentioned.

                All the best gentlemen!

                • 5. Re: Interlaced to progressive on PP export?
                  Jim_Simon Level 8

                  premiere simply discard the second field


                  That may not be the preferred method of deinterlacing, but it is still deinterlacing.  According to Glitch, even that isn't happening.  PP is simply ignoring the Progressive setting and creating an interlaced file.  That's not the same thing you were describing for AVI options.


                  On a side note, PP has the opposite problem when choosing an H.264 option, even when set to UFF or LFF, it always creates a progressive file.  You need to use an "H.26$ Blu-ray" option to get the interlacing.

                  • 6. Re: Interlaced to progressive on PP export?
                    Glitchdog Level 1

                    Thanks Jim, interesting, in searching for answers to my issue I stumbled on the H.264 problem you mention. Ha, we don't even have a blu-ray burner. We stopped authoring/encoding DVD's about a year ago and have no interest/need in doing Blu-ray at this point. Not part of our marketing focus.


                    Thankfully, once I'm done with the series I'm working on (all shot interlaced) any future stuff (other than pulling archival footage) will be shot progressive (AVCHD or better) and distributed progressive.