-
Sony Vegas – Interlacing / Progressive Issues
Hi Guys,
I’m aware that this subject has been brought up a million times but I just need 100% clarity on something. I find that a lot of the threads regarding interlacing vs Progressive etc, sometimes go off-topic and there’s no real definitive yes/no answer on the subject. Frankly, I find the whole thing a complete ball-ache.
So…
I’ve got film-lock on a short film, that I have edited on a PC in Sony Vegas 12, and I’m preparing to send it off to be colour-graded on a Apple MAC, where it will be graded in DaVinci or FCP, I’m not really sure which.
You can see my Vegas settings here:
The film was shot on the Canon 5D and Canon 7D. Because I live in the UK, it was set to 25 FPS, so it works better with PAL.
As far as I can tell, Canon’s compressed native H.264 files are not interlaced because the files play-back fine in all the computer media players, with no weird interlaced lines running through the image. I also transcoded the compressed H.264 files to ‘Apple Motion JPEG A’ in MPEG streamclip; making sure I unchecked the interlace option. I did this because I wanted to get the best looking Image for my final render, in Sony Vegas 12
Here some screen shots of the native H.264 files and transcoded Apple Motion JPEG A files, played in Quicktime. As you can see there are no interlace lines:
H.264
Apple Motion JPEG A
When I rendered the completed film to Apple Motion JPEG A (which matched the projects progressive scan settings etc), film comes out looking like this:
Why is this happening? There should be no lines at all! Why doesn’t it come out as Progressive? It doesn’t make sense.
I tried taking the completed rendered Motion JPEG A file, and rendering it in Adobe Premier Pro 6. This software also acknowledged that the source file was progressive and that the output file would also be progressive, but somehow manages to come out interlaced too. Below are screen shots of my Premiere render Settings and final rendered image:
Why do I have such an issue with interlaced footage?… I don’t trust it.
I’m going to be showing this film at all kinds of film festivals and, as some of you will know, these festivals will range from organised high-brow affairs to tiny backroom squats; some festivals will use HD projectors, on to a cinema-style canvas, others will simply be shown on a cheap 42″ LCD TV, others might just use a large computer monitor.
I will die in my chair from a cardiac-arrest if I see my film played back with those interlaced lines running through the image.The worst part is, I can’t tell if those lines will be there or not, as I can’t even view the footage on my TV. I’ve rendered it as all kinds of different files, and each one does not work on my TV. Am I supposed to just take the word of people on forums, who say that those lines disappear when played on a TV, and just hope that it works on the night??
Sorry to sound so desperate but I’ve spent about 4 whole days rendering different file-types and reading all kinds of error messages.
So after all this, my questions are:
“Will those horrid interlaced lines disappear, never to return, when played on a TV of any kind? Is it a definite yes or No?”
“Why does Vegas and Premiere refuse to render the film as progressive, even though the source files and projects are set up as progressive?”
“What’s the point in interlaced existing in 2013 when progressive is pretty much agreed to be better all-around?”
Thanks for your time. I appreciate you reading this long post and all feed back will be gratefully received.
-
6 Replies
-
1) You should not see those artifacts, if everything is exactly as you wrote.
2) Render template affects the final quality, format, resolution, field order etc.
3) Make sure that source media properties are also set to Progressive.Can you share the short part of your footage for test? I need Apple Motion JPEG (after MPEG streamclip)
Light Leaks | Film Grain | Magic Bullet Looks Presets | Film Look for Vegas Pro
-
OK . . . . Taking a very deep breathe . . .
You are NOT seeing Interlace. You ARE seeing nasty artifacts that APPEAR to be like interlace artifacts, when in actual fact ( another deep breathe here . . ) this is the way M-JPEG works. Here’s the thing: M-JPEG does not work like other CODECS, it is an intraframe-only compression scheme and unlike other CODECS MPEG1, MPEG2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC which can get to 1:50 or even higher success, M-JPEG’s limits its efficiency to 1:20 or lower, depending on the values of spatial artifacting in the compressed output. So “smooth” curves (the chap’s shoulders) and general soft detail will not be processed as well as the more predictive-capable interframe options. Smooth curves (his shoulders) that move are worse than stationary detail that doesn’t.
Do try rendering to another CODEC to test this “theory” and report back.
[Craig Newman] “”Why does Vegas and Premiere refuse to render the film as progressive, even though the source files and projects are set up as progressive?””
I can’t speak to Premmie, but Vegas tends to do what it is told to do. And stealing from Forest Gump here: Progressive IS what Progressive DOES.
All of this – I believe – is a result of that M-JPEG trying very hard to make a fist of those “soft” curves. Strong, contrasty detail, it’s fine, really look hard at your footage, I can see it, so you should be able to too.
[Craig Newman] “”What’s the point in interlaced existing in 2013 when progressive is pretty much agreed to be better all-around?””
I can’t fault your wish for “another” option, but again, – deep breathe – you’ve based your whole approach on the fault of the industry not getting rid of the “interlace” artefacts, when this isn’t the case.
Look, I too share your mystification over this stuff, and I would truly appreciate a simpler way of doing, which is what we are meant to do – be creative – but these are the tools we are having to use. As we are “here”, and not “there” I need to temper my enthusiasm for something BETTER against what I have.
I honestly hope that what I’ve written makes sense and is of value to you.
Cheers
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 -
In the bad footage is this rendering a previously rendered M-JPEG A again in M-JPEG A?
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 -
In the bad footage is this rendering a previously rendered M-JPEG A again in M-JPEG A?
Yes… the footage used in Sony Vegas is M-JPEG A, which was previously converted in MPEG streamclip from H.264, which was then rendered to M-JPEG A in Sony Vegas, once the edit was complete.
I chose this file type as it (should) produce better results. As you can see from the pictures, the M-JPEG A is lighter than the H.264.
This makes colour-grading a lot easier and effective. Naturally, I want my film to look the best it can. So when my colourist tells me he wants the best possible quality render/image that I can make, I go to the M-JPEG A. Unfortunately I get those lines.I’ve tried all the other file types Sony Vegas has to offer (I forget all of their official file names) but they all seem to produce a small-size file and darker image. I’m trying to make sure that the output matches the lightness and quality of the source files, as closely as as possible. The M-JPEG A seems to produce the best results… If/when it works. I’ve also tried DNxHD, which I heard was really good and basically a PC equivalent to Apple’s Pro-Res. Turns out that is not true as DNxHD is rubbish; giving the image a dark, almost green tint.
-
Your project VP is set to 8 bit. You later show a codec as 4:2:2 which may well be 10 bit. Just a chance this is the problem.
Might well be setting VP to 10 bit and trying a short test.
-
Nah, I made sure it was set to 8 bit.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up