Interlaced or progressive scan when creating a dvd?

[AndyLGR]

I'm creating concert dvds using either clips taken from an old vhs or when downloading files directly off a hd video camera. Which setting should be used in the dvd creation using these files? Interlace or progressive?

I had thought it should be progressive but I need some expert advice if possible.

[jabulon]

Use the method of the original footage material.

[AndyLGR]

Daft question then, how do I know what the original source material is? Lets say I take a take a vhs cassette and convert it myself or someone might send me a dvd of a converted vhs cassette for me to use. Thanks

[AAR.oner]

it needs to be captured in whichever the source is...VHS is interlaced...for the HD cam, depends which setting it was shot in [could be either]

you can then de-interlace any interlaced footage in editing & author as progressive if you want

[jabulon]

Originally Posted by AndyLGR

... how do I know what the original source material is? ...

GSpot or MediaInfo will tell you the video and audio specifications of the footage/material you want to use.

[AndyLGR]

Originally Posted by jabulon

GSpot or MediaInfo will tell you the video and audio specifications of the footage/material you want to use.

Thanks it shows it as interlaced. So therefore is it common practice to leave it as interlaced or to deinterlace the footage.

[jabulon]

Originally Posted by AndyLGR

Thanks it shows it as interlaced. So therefore is it common practice to leave it as interlaced or to deinterlace the footage.

My advice would be leave it at is, but the choice is yours.

FYI. Interlacing is used by analogue broadcast television systems. Interlacing is in fact a clever way to compress a movie when one cannot use digital compression methods. Interlacing reduces the bandwidth (storage space) by half, without losing vertical resolution in quiet areas. It's a way to cut bandwidth without sacrificing much quality. Progressive scan (or non-interlaced) is used for most CRT and all LCD computer monitors, and most HDTVs. Now deinterlacing is the process of converting interlaced video (analog television signals or 1080i format HDTV signals) into a non-interlaced form. When a broadcast or media is interlaced, real-time deinterlacing should be performed by embedded circuitry in a set-top box, television, external video processor, DVD or DVR player, or TV tuner card. Since consumer electronics equipment is typically far cheaper, has considerably less processing power and uses simpler algorithms compared to professional deinterlacing equipment, the quality of deinterlacing may vary broadly. Using a computer for playback and/or processing potentially allows a broader choice of video players and/or editing software not limited to the quality offered by the embedded consumer electronics device, so at least theoretically higher deinterlacing quality is possible. However, the quality of both free and commercial consumer-grade software may not be up to the level of professional software and equipment. Also, many users are not trained in video production. This often causes poor results as many people do not know much about deinterlacing and are unaware that the frame rate is half the field rate. Bear in mind that many codecs/players do not even deinterlace by themselves but rely on the graphics card and video acceleration API to do the deinterlacing.

[deadjerryhead69]

I'm just curious, sry in advance if this is a stupid question

I have woodstock 99 on VHS taped directly off of pay per view. I guess thats 1st gen?
I have this thing called vid box 4.0 made by honestech, and use nero 10 for capture, edit, chapter and so on
Would it be better for quality reasons to have settings set to interlacing since it's a pro shot VHS? So far i've use the "automatic" settings, only changing the audio to LPCM (sounded better on 2nd test burn) but the screen has tiny horozontal lines running through it. Mostly on white fast moving stuff. Could this be because the default "automatic" setting is progressive? Or because the honestech vid box 4.0 is just a cheesey VHS to DVD converter? perhaps both?
Thanks in advance for any input.

[AAR.oner]

most likely it has to do with the box or Neros capturing engine

[deadjerryhead69]

Thanks, guess i'll shop around for a better transfer device. Pretty sure it's not nero, it's helped me do some amazing things and picture or sound has never been an issue.

[AAR.oner]

since the broadcast/VHS is undoubtedly interlaced, try capturing as interlaced first

if not, there are numerous A/D conversion boxes out there, depending on your budget...i use a Canopus ADVC300 for VHS transfers, which gives excellent results for the price

[deadjerryhead69]

Thanks again, looked up the ADCV300 and i'm finding that is't no available except on ebay, but i don't want used. There are newer versions but my wallet won't allow it.
I did the interlaced and it looks MUCH better, gonna play around with the custom settings and try and get the picture to 640x480 cause at 720x480 the sides are cut off in 16:9 on the TV and wide fit makes it just a tad too big. I get the option to change that and wether i should interlace top, or bottom first.
Hey thanks again

[Ghostwheel]

Originally Posted by deadjerryhead69

Thanks again, looked up the ADCV300 and i'm finding that is't no available except on ebay, but i don't want used. There are newer versions but my wallet won't allow it.
I did the interlaced and it looks MUCH better, gonna play around with the custom settings and try and get the picture to 640x480 cause at 720x480 the sides are cut off in 16:9 on the TV and wide fit makes it just a tad too big. I get the option to change that and wether i should interlace top, or bottom first.
Hey thanks again

you should leave it at the aspect ratio & dimensions of the original broadcast if you plan sharing it.

[deadjerryhead69]

I do, eventually, and will leave it as is once i figure it all out.