Frame Based vs Interlaced DVDs

somegeek · Post by **somegeek** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:32 am

Is there a case where an interlaced mpeg2 DVD would look better than a frame based mpeg2 DVD during playback?

The HD tutorial notes: "Alternatively, you can set Frame Type to Frame Based for progressive playback, which will display smoother pans
and fewer interlace artifacts on progressive HDTV displays and LCD computer displays."

Curious if my DVD player would produce a better image when presented with an interlaced source? I have a DVD player (Denon DVD-1200) with a Faroudja decoder and was curious if I would see a better image if it worked it's magic on the frame vs ulead creating the frame before hand?

Also - would the 'upscaling' 1080i DVD players produce a better image if they were presented with the interlaced signal vs framed?

somegeek

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:35 am

It depends on your viewing monitor.

If you're viewing your output on an interlaced television (a tube TV), then interlaced will look better than frame-based.

If you're viewing your output on a progressive display (LCD), then the frame-based option should look better.

Software and hardware players usually have a built-in "deinterlacer" that allows interlaced content to be played successfully on progressive displays.

So it's really kind of a moot issue.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

somegeek wrote:Is there a case where an interlaced mpeg2 DVD would look better than a frame based mpeg2 DVD during playback?

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:45 am

A further point worthy of consideration is - who is going to watch the DVD.
If you are only making one copy for your own use then by all means choose what looks best on your system.

If on the other hand you are distributing copies to other people then you need to take this fact into account and perhaps stick to the traditional interlaced method.

etech6355 · Post by **etech6355** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:19 am

Is there a case where an interlaced mpeg2 DVD would look better than a frame based mpeg2 DVD during playback?

It's all dependant on the source material.
Interlaced source = Interlaced video on dvd = Best method
Frame_based source = Framebased video on dvd = Best method

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:51 am

Agree.

Virtually all standard definition DVD camcorder (MPEG-2) video is interlaced.

Virtually all standard definition MiniDV camcorder video is interlaced.

Some HDV camcorders record in 1080i (interlaced) while others record in 720p (progressive) and some can do both.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

etech6355 wrote:It's all dependant on the source material.

somegeek · Post by **somegeek** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:53 am

Great info guys. I took some clips that I previously created DVDs with from a frame based render and made some interlaced renders to see how this differs.

My Sony HC3 records in 1080i.

Thanks,
somegeek

somegeek · Post by **somegeek** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:36 am

Well the results are good for my setup with UFF DVDs.

Allowing the Faroudja decoder to do it's thing with the interlaced DVD input to provide a progressive output(480p) to my HD set looks much better than my VS frame based DVD. Think I will stick with UFF renders for the mean time. Also maxed out the video bit rate to fixed 9800.

somegeek

etech6355 · Post by **etech6355** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:47 am

I would think the frame based dvd looks kind of jerky if you rendered it as framebased.
Take note that some tutorials on the web mention converting fielded/interlaced video to framebased/progressive. Sometimes it's because the author of the article may have to do this for the video to look correct on his personnel TV setup. Usually this is because his TV/HDTV setup cannot handle the true HDV spec, slow response HDTV, bad playback devices, a computer that isn't HD Certified for playing back HD video and all.

The only time you would want to convert the video from an HC1/3/5/7 cam to framebased is if the codec/format was different. For example HD-WMV 9 encoder will not encode interlaced video, so on my system I'll encode to 1280x720 framebased - Video=CBR-6000kbs, Audio=CBR @ 59.94fps. This double the framerate for playback. In VS when you make this conversion you still tell VS to send interlaced video to the windows encoder, so your project settings will still be set to the same as the source video.
Works for my setup..

somegeek · Post by **somegeek** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:40 pm

I noticed that Windows Media Player studders when I plays back my HDV capture from the camera however, WinDVD does great.

Thanks for the reply. Kinda figured that might be the case regarding the author writing up a tutorial that fit his application. At any rate it got me going in the right direction so it served it's purpose.

somegeek

etech6355 · Post by **etech6355** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:03 pm

In your WMP setup/options you can change playback settings under the advanced tab.
Disabling overlays and allowing frame dropping may help the playback alot, if the WMP feels it's over taxed it starts dropping frames to maintain stability. You may not drop frames or if you do may not notice them.

Technically for proper WMP playback one should have a HD certified plugin installed for the WMP (under plugins). Nvidia sells one, but try the above suggestion, sometimes it works.

When playing back HighDef on your computer a HD certified video card with hardware accelleration is required for proper operation. If you don't have a HD certified video card and also the playback program isn't HD Certified then the player will use the DirectX accelleration to playback video.
In your playback software you should usually select "Use hardware accelleration".

Take note that one should have both a HD Certified Hardware accellerated video card AND a HD Certified Software Player. The HD Software player access the hardware accelleration on the HD Certified video card. ATI use "AVIVO" & NVidia uses "PureVision"
It gets so confusing, computers were supposed to get easier and less technical, maybe that's why many are switching to Mac's.

somegeek · Post by **somegeek** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:31 pm

With drop frame enabled and directx acceleration , WMP still studders.

WinDVD plays this back perfectly.

etech6355 · Post by **etech6355** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:27 pm

Your computer setup is very similar to mine.
Windvd must be using the NVidia PureVision on your 6800 video card for it to be playing back correctly.
PowerDvd7 Ultra/Deluxe will also work with the NVidia Purevision HD Accelleration.

jmone · Post by **jmone** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:43 pm

FYI - I've found that the stuttering on HDV content is actually due to some Codec combinations not liking the Transport Stream (TS) format (eg the nVidia Purevideo decoders load an TS filter in addition to the normal ones and they stutter badly). The good news is that VS11+ (no idea about VS10) converts the HDV-Transport Stream to a HDV-Program Stream based file during capture that plays just fine with most CODECs.

Now if ULEAD would only support file splitting on capture for HDV.....

Nathan

etech6355 · Post by **etech6355** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:14 am

I haven't run across this problem of playing back TS format videos.
Probably you playback software. The TS stream is a very acceptable format for HD-DVD & Blu-Ray.

jmone · Post by **jmone** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:09 am

etech6355 wrote:I haven't run across this problem of playing back TS format videos.
Probably you playback software. The TS stream is a very acceptable format for HD-DVD & Blu-Ray.

It is probably the Direct Show filter selections being used by the SW...some just don't like TS. FYI for those wanting to know more about how video is played on a PC using Direct Draw filters the following FAQ is pretty good (and so is the JR Media Center SW)

http://wiki.jrmediacenter.com/index.php ... back_Guide

Alludo USER to USER Web Board

Frame Based vs Interlaced DVDs

Frame Based vs Interlaced DVDs

Re: Frame Based vs Interlaced DVDs