[Ben Shoemate]

I forgot to add that in the original mpg, it plays on the computer without interface lines showing. But after I render in after effects, it seems I only have two options – crisp (but with interface lines) or no lines but blurrier (if I select progressive scan). Why can’t I seem to render it out the same way it came in?

It must be possible since the original video is recognized by AE as interlaced (upper field) and when I interpret the footage and turn it off, I can see the lines.

I just want to find a method that outputs the same quality as I got in…

Which I’m thinking is somehow interlaced, but perhaps tagged so it plays non-interlaced…

[Ben Shoemate]

Ok – very interesting, I’m learning why they pay you guys the big bucks but getting closer I think.
As per your instructions I have:

1) imported the video
2) right click and select “Interpret Footage” > “Main”
– a dialog appear and says: Separate Fields: Upper Field First
– I change this to “off”
– It says frame rate is 29.97 fps but I leave this alone here (i need to change it in the comp right?
– click ok – close dialog
3) drag footage to create a new composition (called comp 1)
– right click composition change the frame rate to 59.94 fps
– drag footage onto comp 1, as I scrub through it, the motion has combed interface lines
– do a little rotoscoping (now there are twice as many frames – yikes!), some animation, yada yada
4) create a new comp, same settings but frame rate is 29.97 fps
– drag comp 1 to comp 2
– I think this will cause comp 1 to play inside comp 2, as if there is a tv in the shot playing 59 fps but comp 1 is only “recording” 29 fps of them (or something right?)
5) render comp 2
– at this point, no matter how I render it, I still see interlace lines in the final output.
– comp 2 also shows the interlace lines

The good news is the final render is clean as a whistle (expect the lines). In your previous message you said “reintroduce the interlacing or not (your choice)” – but I can’t find the choice button…

thanks for getting me this far…

[Ben Shoemate]

Stupid question, but is it even possible to get the same quality out of After effects as get put in?

mpg > import into AE > turn off interlacing > render out lossless QT with animation codec

at this point, if I play that video with QT should it look as good as the original mpg? I would think so right? But it is noticeably inferior.

Or should I switch to the strategy Dave suggested, convert the original .mpg (to what though?) before import?

[Ben Shoemate]

Hi Steve, Thanks for the advice.

I followed you’re advice (select the imported file, and file>interpret footage>main. Then turn off “separate fields” in the interpret footage dialog.)

Now as I scrub through the video I see (what I think are called interlace lines) so I found and used this https://www.videocopilot.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9741 to “deinterlace” (man I’m learning a lot of new words today) and the lines went away. Now I’m going to try and re-render and test the quality.

If that works, I’ll copy the effects from the old comp to the new one. (fingers crossed)

[Ben Shoemate]

Ok – I think I understand. Your saying that although AE accepts mpg formats, it doesn’t fully support them (i.e. the data between keyframes in the mpg compressed version is lost)…ok. so, let me ask you this. Should I convert the original using Adobe Media Encoder (or some other tool) to change the original (MPG) to some other format before I import into AE? If so, which format? Or should I try to get the original footage in some other format from the producer?

The original plan was:
get mpg > import to After effects (do magic) > export and send mpg

Now it sounds like the plan needs to be:
get mpg > turn mpg in something else (what and how?) > import to AE > render out as lossless quicktime animation > use adobe media encoder to change back to .mpg or mov > send back to producer

or maybe even this:
get mpg > say “.mpg, dude. wtf?” and ask for something else > import to AE > export and send QT .mov

with the same aspect ratio and quality. Did I get that right?