[Gleb Rysanov]

Hi Dan,

Not sure if that may help, but I’d try to switch the timebase from time to frames in Sequence -> Sequence Settings -> General (in CS5 or ‘Settings’ in CS5.5) -> Editing mode. However, I believe this only affects a sequence and most likely doesn’t change the source monitor’s settings (hence the In/Out points made there). But I can’t tell that for sure, so it might be worth trying.

[Gleb Rysanov]

This is an update for everyone interested in the subject matter.

As it turned out, ProVideo Coalition has a series of articles devoted specifically to the issue of proper recognition and processing of video shot in PsF (aka PF) mode with cams coming from defferent manufacturers. Some of them happen to be identifiable by up to date editing software (like PP CS5.5) as progressive and some don’t. For those willing to get in-depth coverage, please read this article. In short, the workaround offered is to work in 25p (or 30p/29.97p) sequence with source footage previously set to ‘Conform to no fields (Progressive scan)’ in Modify->Interpret Footage dialogue.

I would like to thank Vince once again for providing the link that led to this solution.

[Gleb Rysanov]

[Vince Becquiot] “Here’s an article that might shed so light.”

Thanks for the article, Vince.

It was kinda painful to discover that my cam shoots ‘malignant’ PF footage and Canon neglected to make it ‘benign.’ I wish I knew that before the purchase.

However, the workaround offered by the author and based on shooting with 360 degrees shutter (i.e. 25 fps @ 1/25 in my case) can hardly be seen as an acceptable solution for 90% scenarios, for motion blur softens the image even more than unnessecary deinterlacing does.

Gotta give Vegas a try, I guess.

[Gleb Rysanov]

Tim, Vince, thanks for replying, you got my point exactly.

Thanks for the link, Vince. I did extensive search on the subject (to no avail) but somehow this article escaped my attention.

BTW, Vegas folks came up with a kind of colution. When ingesting their source PF video into a Vegas project, they set the project setting to 50i, fields order — to progressive and method of deinterlacing — to none. Kinda sounds wierd and contradicting, but somehow this works for them.
Still hope that there must be a way to tell Premiere to just weave the fields without throwing anything away and interpolating.

[Gleb Rysanov]

[Ann Bens] “But that wont matter as both fields are the same.”

It probably won’t, except for loss of vertical resolution, which is what I’m trying to avoid.

Besides, I noticed that when working in 50i sequence and trying to time remap a clip (change speed/duration) Premiere does that based on fields rather than frames and the results, when rendered to full HD progressive video, are not much impressive.

[Gleb Rysanov]

Thanks Ann, I was thinking of this solution, too.
The only thing that stops me is that I have no idea how Premiere will deinterlace the footage. Not all of the otherwise routine processing algorythms will be optimal in my case since source material is already progressive. Unfortunately, Premiere’s help doesn’t throw any light either.

[Gleb Rysanov]

Thanks for the reply, Ryan.

As far as we talk of this particular question, I don’t think PAL/NTSC workflows have any difference.

I mentioned the options you’re referring to. However, it’s unclear how PP will handle source 50i footage if I force its interpretation as progressive. Like I said, it will most probably dump every other field, while interpolating the remaining ones to full frames. To try every combination of options in the ‘Field Order’ menu, render the results and compare them in full resolution (there is no other way to see the difference that I know of) will be quite time consuming. So I thought that someone might have already come up with a tested solution, since Canon has been on the market with its ‘PF’ shooting mode for quite a while already.