More on the subject of De-Interlace

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I started a new thread because my question is bit different. I have a
PD150. I only use video on a computer, not a TV. Sometimes, I get good
results capturing and other time I see the artifacts. I shot some footage
the other day and I think my exposure was too low. I got a lot of artifacts
on capturing. I tried de-interlacing with very poor results. If
de-interlacing throws away half the infomation, maybe I should just be
trying the 15fps progressive mode? But why do I get artifacts sometimes and
not others. I would have thought a PD150 would render decent results for web
video and DVD.


When editing I have tried all of the options, frame base, field order a and
, but I can't see much difference. Your suggestions welcome. Not an expert
(obviously).

Thanks.
9 answers Last reply
More about more subject interlace
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:55:02 GMT) it happened "Christopher
    Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
    <GCsRd.1375$OU1.515@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>:

    >I started a new thread because my question is bit different. I have a
    >PD150. I only use video on a computer, not a TV. Sometimes, I get good
    >results capturing and other time I see the artifacts. I shot some footage
    >the other day and I think my exposure was too low. I got a lot of artifacts
    >on capturing. I tried de-interlacing with very poor results. If
    >de-interlacing throws away half the infomation, maybe I should just be
    >trying the 15fps progressive mode? But why do I get artifacts sometimes and
    >not others. I would have thought a PD150 would render decent results for web
    >video and DVD.
    >
    >
    >When editing I have tried all of the options, frame base, field order a and
    >, but I can't see much difference. Your suggestions welcome. Not an expert
    >(obviously).
    >
    >Thanks.
    I am not sure what sort of artifacts you refer to, and what they look like?
    Is it noise (because of low light)?
    I do not have a PD150, so '15fps progressive' does not mean anything to me,
    but I would stick to normal framerate (30fps in your case?).
    The other thing I do not know do you use a NTSC camera on that card analog in?
    What exactly is your setup?
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > I am not sure what sort of artifacts you refer to, and what they look
    > like?
    > Is it noise (because of low light)?
    > I do not have a PD150, so '15fps progressive' does not mean anything to
    > me,
    > but I would stick to normal framerate (30fps in your case?).
    > The other thing I do not know do you use a NTSC camera on that card analog
    > in?
    > What exactly is your setup?
    Jan, Thanks for the speedy response. I am getting both horizontal inderlaced
    lines particularly on movement, and low light artifacts a kind of fuzziness
    or tiny dull sequin like effect. I output to wmv and rm (real video 10) but
    the damage is apparent on capture to a DV type 1 format.

    I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:03:18 GMT) it happened "Christopher
    Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
    <GCtRd.1201$DC6.1110@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:

    >
    >> I am not sure what sort of artifacts you refer to, and what they look
    >> like?
    >> Is it noise (because of low light)?
    >> I do not have a PD150, so '15fps progressive' does not mean anything to
    >> me,
    >> but I would stick to normal framerate (30fps in your case?).
    >> The other thing I do not know do you use a NTSC camera on that card analog
    >> in?
    >> What exactly is your setup?
    >Jan, Thanks for the speedy response. I am getting both horizontal inderlaced
    >lines particularly on movement, and low light artifacts a kind of fuzziness
    >or tiny dull sequin like effect. I output to wmv and rm (real video 10) but
    >the damage is apparent on capture to a DV type 1 format.
    >
    >I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
    OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience with wmv
    and zero with making realmedia.
    If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced display),
    then try to de-interlace.
    Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
    but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
    Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
    At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
    All I can say for now :-)
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
    > OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience with
    > wmv
    > and zero with making realmedia.
    > If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced
    > display),
    > then try to de-interlace.
    > Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
    > but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
    > Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
    > At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
    > All I can say for now :-)
    Here is a link http://webvideodirectory.com/ch.html . You can see the
    fuzziness and interlacing artifacts particularly at the beginning.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Christopher Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
    message news:qwMRd.1575$DC6.518@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >>>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
    >> OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience
    >> with wmv
    >> and zero with making realmedia.
    >> If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced
    >> display),
    >> then try to de-interlace.
    >> Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
    >> but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
    >> Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
    >> At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
    >> All I can say for now :-)
    > Here is a link http://webvideodirectory.com/ch.html . You can see the
    > fuzziness and interlacing artifacts particularly at the beginning.
    >
    For 153 kbs it looks very good to me. This is hugely compressed.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    news:111f93nidpaki8e@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "Christopher Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote
    > in message news:qwMRd.1575$DC6.518@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >>>>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
    >>> OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience
    >>> with wmv
    >>> and zero with making realmedia.
    >>> If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced
    >>> display),
    >>> then try to de-interlace.
    >>> Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
    >>> but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
    >>> Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
    >>> At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
    >>> All I can say for now :-)
    >> Here is a link http://webvideodirectory.com/ch.html . You can see the
    >> fuzziness and interlacing artifacts particularly at the beginning.
    >>
    > For 153 kbs it looks very good to me. This is hugely compressed.
    Thanks, but I have others on the same site which look a lot better ( I
    think ), especially the yoga one.
    http://webvideodirectory.com/mys.html
    I don't have any interlacing problem on that one.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:33:42 GMT) it happened "Christopher
    Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
    <qwMRd.1575$DC6.518@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:

    >>>I am using NTSC and a 1394 DV in.
    >> OK, I will only address the de-interlace, as I have hardly experience with
    >> wmv
    >> and zero with making realmedia.
    >> If your intention is to ONLY play on the PC (or any non-interlaced
    >> display),
    >> then try to de-interlace.
    >> Many people here can help you better in the MS windows setup with that,
    >> but perhaps wmv also knows 2 pass encoding with a de-interlace mode.
    >> Anything that is already there in DV is a camera issue in your case.
    >> At least I think so (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
    >> All I can say for now :-)
    >Here is a link http://webvideodirectory.com/ch.html . You can see the
    >fuzziness and interlacing artifacts particularly at the beginning.
    Hi, I have played the wmv a couple of times, those artefacts in the shoulders
    for example look like -resize- artefacts.
    Did you resize this, and how?
    Yes it is fuzzy, and mplayer says:
    VIDEO: [WMV3] 320x240 24bpp 1000.000 fps 0.0 kbps ( 0.0 kbyte/s)
    makes no sense to me :-)
    Maybe the header is not right...
    Do not worry about that.
    I think for a web presentation it is convincing, I played it full screen too.
    Sound is OK.
    What was the video bitrate, perhaps you can increase that a little.?
    And perhaps, if that is posible with wmv use 2 pass and an other re-sizer.?
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Hi, I have played the wmv a couple of times, those artefacts in the
    > shoulders
    > for example look like -resize- artefacts.
    > Did you resize this, and how?
    > Yes it is fuzzy, and mplayer says:
    > VIDEO: [WMV3] 320x240 24bpp 1000.000 fps 0.0 kbps ( 0.0 kbyte/s)
    > makes no sense to me :-)
    > Maybe the header is not right...
    > Do not worry about that.
    > I think for a web presentation it is convincing, I played it full screen
    > too.
    > Sound is OK.
    > What was the video bitrate, perhaps you can increase that a little.?
    > And perhaps, if that is posible with wmv use 2 pass and an other
    > re-sizer.?

    My process is to capture DVtype 1 from a GV-D900 Sony Video Walkman. I then
    edit the video in Ulead Media Studio Pro 7. Resize it to 320 x 240 and
    output it uncompressed. Then I convert that uncompressed file to wmv 2 pass
    and Real 10. The Real 10 always looks better. On this video though the
    original capture had interlace. Not only that - even on the GV deck I could
    see horizontal lines!!!! It only got worse (of course) from there on out.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:59:02 GMT) it happened "Christopher
    Richards" <crNOTANYSPAM@christopherNOSPAMrichards.com> wrote in
    <Gd4Sd.1835$DC6.1014@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:

    >> Hi, I have played the wmv a couple of times, those artefacts in the
    >> shoulders
    >> for example look like -resize- artefacts.
    >> Did you resize this, and how?
    >> Yes it is fuzzy, and mplayer says:
    >> VIDEO: [WMV3] 320x240 24bpp 1000.000 fps 0.0 kbps ( 0.0 kbyte/s)
    >> makes no sense to me :-)
    >> Maybe the header is not right...
    >> Do not worry about that.
    >> I think for a web presentation it is convincing, I played it full screen
    >> too.
    >> Sound is OK.
    >> What was the video bitrate, perhaps you can increase that a little.?
    >> And perhaps, if that is posible with wmv use 2 pass and an other
    >> re-sizer.?
    >
    >My process is to capture DVtype 1 from a GV-D900 Sony Video Walkman. I then
    >edit the video in Ulead Media Studio Pro 7. Resize it to 320 x 240 and
    >output it uncompressed.
    Does the uncompressed resized have the same typical step / stairs on the diagonal
    shoulders?
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Desktops Video Graphics