I decided to move this argument into a separate thread, because it may be more interesting to owners of the Canon G10 and other interlaced-only camcorders than to owners of native progressive camcorders like the Panasonics and later Sonys.
---
Absolutely not true (the image is clickable).
---
---
Maybe. Maybe it is YouTube's deinterlacer. You never know. Bottom line: you get predictable and consistent results with progressive source, you get unpredictable and inconsistent results with interlaced source. If you do deinterlace interlaced video so that it does not have neither combing nor ghosting you lose half of vertical resolution compared to native progressive video. And yes, this is noticeable even on YouTube.
As for TV viewing, all TVs have deinenterlacers, some are better other are worse, but even when deinterlaced "field-to-frame" (a.k.a. "bob") the image usually is still watchable. Which is why I would prefer consumer cams having 720p60 instead of 1080p60, but Panasonic does not want to hurt its professional lineup by offering what they think is a professional format (720p60), so they offer a format that is not used by pros (1080p60).
1080p60 is not BD legal, it can be watched only on AVCHD 2.0 - compliant players, it is not used in broadcast. This way Panasonic (and Sony) made it look like they offered a super-duper format to consumers while fully protecting their professional lineups. Bravo.
I convert all my interlaced videos into 720p60, I also render from 1080p60 into 720p60, and it looks good enough for me (I render 1080p60 too, but I don't give it away). Presently, I consider 720p60 the best middle ground, it is fully supported in BD players and in broadcast and I can render great interlaced DVD-Video from it if I needed. And it looks great on a computer without the need to tweak deinterlacing settings.
Compare frame size in pixels: 1280x720 = 921600, 1920x1080 = 2073600. Now compare bitrates: 24 Mbit/s for 720p60 and 28 Mbit/s for 1080p60 and you will see that 1080p60 has to work harder. Hence occasional macroblocking that I see from the SD600.
---
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L 
Given the extreme compression of most on line video services it probably doesn't matter if you started out with progressive or interlace footage.
Given the extreme compression of most on line video services it probably doesn't matter if you started out with progressive or interlace footage.
Absolutely not true (the image is clickable).
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L
It depends on the service if it de-interlaces or not, if the service is feeding back interlaced footage your media player/embedded flash player should be de-interlacing it so you don't see the combing.
Something is wrong with your playback software if you are seeing interlacing combing like that or the stream has been encoded incorrectly before upload and doesn't contain the correct flags, as it should be de-interlaced for you.
Any decent de-interlacing will give you an image that doesn't look much different to true progressive when they are both going through some strong compression seen with on-line services.
Edit: I've checked the video, basically it is interlaced footage that has been flagged as progressive, looks like a problem in the creation of the final output before upload to YouTube. When forced to treat it as interlaced, all that combing is gone and it looks pretty good.
Regards
Phil
It depends on the service if it de-interlaces or not, if the service is feeding back interlaced footage your media player/embedded flash player should be de-interlacing it so you don't see the combing.
Something is wrong with your playback software if you are seeing interlacing combing like that or the stream has been encoded incorrectly before upload and doesn't contain the correct flags, as it should be de-interlaced for you.
Any decent de-interlacing will give you an image that doesn't look much different to true progressive when they are both going through some strong compression seen with on-line services.
Edit: I've checked the video, basically it is interlaced footage that has been flagged as progressive, looks like a problem in the creation of the final output before upload to YouTube. When forced to treat it as interlaced, all that combing is gone and it looks pretty good.
Regards
Phil
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L
I've checked the video, basically it is interlaced footage that has been flagged as progressive, looks like a problem in the creation of the final output before upload to YouTube.
I've checked the video, basically it is interlaced footage that has been flagged as progressive, looks like a problem in the creation of the final output before upload to YouTube.
Maybe. Maybe it is YouTube's deinterlacer. You never know. Bottom line: you get predictable and consistent results with progressive source, you get unpredictable and inconsistent results with interlaced source. If you do deinterlace interlaced video so that it does not have neither combing nor ghosting you lose half of vertical resolution compared to native progressive video. And yes, this is noticeable even on YouTube.
As for TV viewing, all TVs have deinenterlacers, some are better other are worse, but even when deinterlaced "field-to-frame" (a.k.a. "bob") the image usually is still watchable. Which is why I would prefer consumer cams having 720p60 instead of 1080p60, but Panasonic does not want to hurt its professional lineup by offering what they think is a professional format (720p60), so they offer a format that is not used by pros (1080p60).
1080p60 is not BD legal, it can be watched only on AVCHD 2.0 - compliant players, it is not used in broadcast. This way Panasonic (and Sony) made it look like they offered a super-duper format to consumers while fully protecting their professional lineups. Bravo.
I convert all my interlaced videos into 720p60, I also render from 1080p60 into 720p60, and it looks good enough for me (I render 1080p60 too, but I don't give it away). Presently, I consider 720p60 the best middle ground, it is fully supported in BD players and in broadcast and I can render great interlaced DVD-Video from it if I needed. And it looks great on a computer without the need to tweak deinterlacing settings.
Compare frame size in pixels: 1280x720 = 921600, 1920x1080 = 2073600. Now compare bitrates: 24 Mbit/s for 720p60 and 28 Mbit/s for 1080p60 and you will see that 1080p60 has to work harder. Hence occasional macroblocking that I see from the SD600.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L
Calm down
I quite agree progressive footage is better, it's a no brainer when all we have now is progressive displays. I was just acknowledging the fact that many people are quite happy with interlaced footage especially when you are using online services.
A tip I've found, turn down the sharpness on the SD600 to -5 (if you have that option on the SD600, needs manual mode), which is actually no sharpness applied (as it should be for acquistion), that makes the footage much easier to compress at 28Mbit/sec @ 1080/60p and the footage looks so much better with no tell tale sharpnening artefacts. You can always add a touch of sharpening in post edit if you wish later.
I always re-encode back out to 1080/60p at Blu-ray bit-rates, average 35Mbits/sec which avoids as much as possible any more degradation in the picture quality and playback via the network on a Panasonic Blu-ray player that supports 1080/60p. Like you when I want to give the footage away I convert to 720p for Blu-ray using a spline resizing in AVISynth and encode with X264, this link here might be of interest. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-hap...4-encoder.html
Regards
Phil
Calm down
I quite agree progressive footage is better, it's a no brainer when all we have now is progressive displays. I was just acknowledging the fact that many people are quite happy with interlaced footage especially when you are using online services.A tip I've found, turn down the sharpness on the SD600 to -5 (if you have that option on the SD600, needs manual mode), which is actually no sharpness applied (as it should be for acquistion), that makes the footage much easier to compress at 28Mbit/sec @ 1080/60p and the footage looks so much better with no tell tale sharpnening artefacts. You can always add a touch of sharpening in post edit if you wish later.
I always re-encode back out to 1080/60p at Blu-ray bit-rates, average 35Mbits/sec which avoids as much as possible any more degradation in the picture quality and playback via the network on a Panasonic Blu-ray player that supports 1080/60p. Like you when I want to give the footage away I convert to 720p for Blu-ray using a spline resizing in AVISynth and encode with X264, this link here might be of interest. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-hap...4-encoder.html
Regards
Phil
