Interlacing issue in Vegas Pro 13

[John Bolton]

Have to tried to Disable Resampling from the Time line properties ? It does cause that wobbling appearance..

[Graham Bernard]

[Martin Stanesby] ” 50i footage shot on a Canon C100 mkii.”

Are you sure that that footage is 50i? Did you “Match Media” for your Project Settings or manipulate the settings manually yourself?

* Grazie

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge

[Graham Bernard]

Just when and where in your workflow are you seeing these de-interlace “steps” artifacts? In Vegas? After Render? Viewed in a 3rd Party Player?

* Grazie

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge

[Martin Stanesby]

Thank you both for your replies.

I always disable resample.
The C100 setting was AVCHD 50i so I’m sure it was, and it looks so different to my progressive footage. I didn’t match media, maybe I should see what it suggests if I did, but the media settings gs are the same as the clip properties.

I am seeing this within sony vegas pro time line.

Thanks again for your help.
Martin

[John Rofrano]

What is your deinterace setting in your project properties? If it’s set to None, that’s what’s causing the problem.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasstsoftware.com

[Martin Stanesby]

Hi John,
Thanks for the response.

Yes you are correct it is set to none. However, it’s no de-interlacing that I’m wanting to do. This does resolve the issue by de-interlacing, but I needed to produce an interlaced 50i project which may be used for broadcast.

I have since done some tests and found the combing field lines are visible on my work flow on a PC monitor due to the monitor being progressive. Once produced a clip on DVD it resolved this fine. However, the zooming in on an interlaced clip of footage would need to be de-interlaced first as this, so I’ve now heard, cannot be done as it makes the field lines worse effectively.

Martin

[Graham Bernard]

[John Rofrano] “If it’s set to None, that’s what’s causing the problem.”

John, look at the first post. I’d surmised from this he’d applied a deinterlace method and not “None”. What do you think?

* Grazie

Video Content Creator and Potter
PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti
Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX50HS Bridge

[Martin Stanesby]

Yes Grazie, to be clear I have tried and tested de-interlace and this was fine and looks ok, as mentioned in the post. However, I am wanting this footage to remain interlaced.
As mentioned in my reply to John, I have concluded the field lines will be visible in my work flow as I am viewing on a progressive monitor until either played on DVD (my test worked fine) or broadcasted.

I had this below reply with regards to the zooming/cropping which was making it look worse:

“OK
I’m assuming you understand that in interlaced footage, the camera alternately records odd and even scan lines In other words filming at 1080/50i The image is split into 1080 lines and in the first 50th of a second the camera records 540 “even” lines with the image in position “A”, then in the next 50th of a second it will record the “odd” lines of the image in position “B”, so if you superimpose the first image onto the second you will get a very fine “comb” effect.

But, in the normal course of events, we don’t superimpose one on top of the other we show them alternately and our eyes are tricked into seeing a nice smooth motion image.

Now imagine what happens if you zoom in – lets say to double height.
Each one of your lines now takes up the height that two lines previously took up so your “odd” line is now split across one odd and one even “output” line (for want of a better way of describing it). In other words half of the image from the lines that were in “position A” are now being replaved on the second 1/50th of a second. Depending on how much you zoom in, you can see that the effect of doing this will differ which is exactly the phenomenon we can see above.

You need to de-interlace any footage if you are going to zoom even if your output will be interlaced.

(It took me a while to understand this as well as it sounds contrary to what we are trying to do).”

So I’m clearer now.
Thanks
Martin

[John Rofrano]

[Martin Stanesby] “Yes you are correct it is set to none. However, it’s no de-interlacing that I’m wanting to do. This does resolve the issue by de-interlacing, but I needed to produce an interlaced 50i project which may be used for broadcast.”

It’s not about what you want to do. It’s about what Vegas Pro needs to do. If you have interlaced footage you MUST select a deinterlace method because Vegas Pro may need to deinterlace the footage to process it and then re-interlace it. If you disable this, you will only get horribly squiggled video like in your example.

This has nothing to do with delivering interlaced video for broadcast. This is purely about Vegas Pro processing the video internally. Essentially what this parameter is asking is, “If Vegas should need to deinterlace the video for any reason, which method should it choose?” It doesn’t cause the video to be deinterlaced. It just tells Vegas how to handle deinterlacing when it needs to. For example, if you zoom in, Vegas needs to first deinterlace the video, then zoom in, then reinterlace it. By selecting None, it is zooming in without deinterlacing which makes the interlacing look like big squiggles.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasstsoftware.com

[Martin Stanesby]

Hi John,
Thanks for the advice.
That’s rather confusing then…if it’s not about deinterlacing the footage…why does Vegas call this option ‘deinterlace’? I would h ae thought Vegas would default this option if interlaced footage MUST be deinterlaced….why have the option for none??

Thanks
Martin