interlaced
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
interlaced
When I save a photoshop file as a png for import into moho, it asks me if i want interlaced or non. I think I choose non since its the default answer. Does it make a difference which I choose?
Interlaced refers to (most often over the internet) how the image will be sent to the web client. If it's a very large image, it shows up kind of fuzzy and gets more focused over time. If you are on dialup, you can see something before it's done downloading. That's really it's use. If you are using the image for something you are working on, I prefer the non-interlaced formats for images. They're a bit simpler in file format and import faster on quick machines.
Still, a matter of choice.
Still, a matter of choice.
7Feet, what you describe is "progressive". With interlaced the frame is split into even and odd fields that alternate to give the smooth "video" look. To make it even more confusing film is also labelled "progressive", in this case all frames are seperate images (25 for PAL, +/-30 for NTSC), which is easier when you want to add other elements like animations to them.
You can notice interlaced formats if in fast movements you clearly see the odd/even lines are misplaced, in progressive (or deinterlaced) material every frame looks sharp.
I do not work with PS so maybe they use different terminology which is possible.
Reindert.
www.nobudgetvideo.com
You can notice interlaced formats if in fast movements you clearly see the odd/even lines are misplaced, in progressive (or deinterlaced) material every frame looks sharp.
I do not work with PS so maybe they use different terminology which is possible.
Reindert.
www.nobudgetvideo.com
No, I think just me confusing my terms. I work in too many persnickety technical fields, and the terminology abounds. Leave me to my myriad rubbers, plastics, and varied natural and synthetic polymers and I'm pretty happy these days. Even if I like Lua I'm a pretty sorry software geek, and as much as I'd like to be "an expert" often bollox up the explanations with the best of 'em. Oops.
I meant to say progressive. Thanks nobudget. I guess it was the it don't all show up at once part that I creatively intermixed. Interleaving don't mean diddly except for a multiframe format.
As an aside, an old friend of mine was running me around his projection booth (I used to work as a motion picture projectionist, IATSE local 640), and the digital projectors were pretty interesting. Even, on a HUGE screen, Madagascar was only running out of the projector at 1080i. So that is, for one, interlaced, and I didn't see a setting in the projectors software for progressive frame display. So I guess, even on the big screen you have to deal with some interlacing artifacts and tearing. I didn't see it, though. For that matter, they had a dedicated HiDef projector for each of the screens just for the "house" ads and TV show trailers, and I would be hard put to see the difference between cheesy and proper digital projection. But that's just a few moments, Mike looks at this stuff all day, and has built a good portion of the best houses for seeing film today in the states.
It's too bad that still, the servers to put stuff up on the screen are out of my reach. The films are downloaded by secure satellite link, and are still iffy enough that if you messed with 'em, you could get in big trouble. If that changes, I will without a doubt go down there with a DVD full of work from the board and take some pictures of it projected on a 100ft wide screen. The projectors (even though they are in one of the best houses in NYC) are obselete. I wanna see the state of the art. As much as I love shooting on film itself, digital is getting mighty nice. I don't have a TV (I watched it some for a bit before the bulb blew in the house LCD projector), but I wouldn't mind one of those "obsolete" machines around. But even supposedly past their prime they're $150,000 minus the lamphouse. Too bad, there are a lot of things I'd like to project against the side of the factory building I live in.
I meant to say progressive. Thanks nobudget. I guess it was the it don't all show up at once part that I creatively intermixed. Interleaving don't mean diddly except for a multiframe format.
As an aside, an old friend of mine was running me around his projection booth (I used to work as a motion picture projectionist, IATSE local 640), and the digital projectors were pretty interesting. Even, on a HUGE screen, Madagascar was only running out of the projector at 1080i. So that is, for one, interlaced, and I didn't see a setting in the projectors software for progressive frame display. So I guess, even on the big screen you have to deal with some interlacing artifacts and tearing. I didn't see it, though. For that matter, they had a dedicated HiDef projector for each of the screens just for the "house" ads and TV show trailers, and I would be hard put to see the difference between cheesy and proper digital projection. But that's just a few moments, Mike looks at this stuff all day, and has built a good portion of the best houses for seeing film today in the states.
It's too bad that still, the servers to put stuff up on the screen are out of my reach. The films are downloaded by secure satellite link, and are still iffy enough that if you messed with 'em, you could get in big trouble. If that changes, I will without a doubt go down there with a DVD full of work from the board and take some pictures of it projected on a 100ft wide screen. The projectors (even though they are in one of the best houses in NYC) are obselete. I wanna see the state of the art. As much as I love shooting on film itself, digital is getting mighty nice. I don't have a TV (I watched it some for a bit before the bulb blew in the house LCD projector), but I wouldn't mind one of those "obsolete" machines around. But even supposedly past their prime they're $150,000 minus the lamphouse. Too bad, there are a lot of things I'd like to project against the side of the factory building I live in.
confused
I thought interlace had to do with how video draws lines onscreen but it seems even more confusing than that!
I'm in the process of assembling misc parts that I will eventually put together and render for a video to be shown onscreen off of a minidv tape. In the past I would use standard FCP settings for NTSC and to add still pics I would create images at 720 x 540 then 72 res and squash them to 720 x 480 which would correct for square vs rectangular pixel distortion. If I'm going to be adding moho animations to the mix, and these moho animations will have mixed image layers that include vector, movie, and still image layers I'm not sure how to set up all the parts so that nothing conflicts. Can (Should) I...
1. Open 720 x 480 project settings in moho?
2. Create png non interlaced images at 720 x 540 (720 x 534?) images to use in moho?
3. Export as quicktime files (compression type? alpha?) to assemble in my movie editor (FCP) for final result?
4. Use the way I had been adding still images to FCP?
The project Im working on will be presented in 3 years.. so I have a while before I actually have to render anything out, but I'd like to have everything work when Im finally ready to put this all together.. So far Moho seems to be the perfect software for what I'm trying to do and the support on this forum has been FANTASTIC! thanks!
I'm in the process of assembling misc parts that I will eventually put together and render for a video to be shown onscreen off of a minidv tape. In the past I would use standard FCP settings for NTSC and to add still pics I would create images at 720 x 540 then 72 res and squash them to 720 x 480 which would correct for square vs rectangular pixel distortion. If I'm going to be adding moho animations to the mix, and these moho animations will have mixed image layers that include vector, movie, and still image layers I'm not sure how to set up all the parts so that nothing conflicts. Can (Should) I...
1. Open 720 x 480 project settings in moho?
2. Create png non interlaced images at 720 x 540 (720 x 534?) images to use in moho?
3. Export as quicktime files (compression type? alpha?) to assemble in my movie editor (FCP) for final result?
4. Use the way I had been adding still images to FCP?
The project Im working on will be presented in 3 years.. so I have a while before I actually have to render anything out, but I'd like to have everything work when Im finally ready to put this all together.. So far Moho seems to be the perfect software for what I'm trying to do and the support on this forum has been FANTASTIC! thanks!
Dale, working on you masters thesis piece already? Or is it Doctoral?
Yeah, interlaced ius all about video, a holdover from the earliest days of TV. In the US, vid, and TV, is 30 frames per second. But not really. Its really 60 frames per second, showing you 50% of a frame every 60th of a second. So that's 30 frames per second interlaced
For a bit, I was curious why many people were so gung ho about shooting in 24P. Huh? Then I realized that the P is for Progressive, so interlacing goes out the window and it looks a lot like film. Actaully, it's caused me problems because of the long exposure time per frame, and the very short time between frames. I thought I could get better stills, but on all the action there is some blur from motion. Great for feel, but dookie for my portfolio. Oh, well, progress is always painful.
Yeah, interlaced ius all about video, a holdover from the earliest days of TV. In the US, vid, and TV, is 30 frames per second. But not really. Its really 60 frames per second, showing you 50% of a frame every 60th of a second. So that's 30 frames per second interlaced
For a bit, I was curious why many people were so gung ho about shooting in 24P. Huh? Then I realized that the P is for Progressive, so interlacing goes out the window and it looks a lot like film. Actaully, it's caused me problems because of the long exposure time per frame, and the very short time between frames. I thought I could get better stills, but on all the action there is some blur from motion. Great for feel, but dookie for my portfolio. Oh, well, progress is always painful.
just a hobbyist
No masters.. just a hobbyist.
I made a video for my oldest daughter.. then felt I had to do even better for the middle child..
http://homepage.mac.com/garbdandl/Menu17.html
(I didnt post link in share your work because I didnt use moho yet)
Now I have to one up for the last child, which is why I'm trying to learn to use moho!
Any suggestions on the project settings to use?
Thanks!
I made a video for my oldest daughter.. then felt I had to do even better for the middle child..
http://homepage.mac.com/garbdandl/Menu17.html
(I didnt post link in share your work because I didnt use moho yet)
Now I have to one up for the last child, which is why I'm trying to learn to use moho!
Any suggestions on the project settings to use?
Thanks!
Maybe you should do a couple of small tests(a few seconds in length),in 720x540 and 720x480 so you can determine how the graphics are handled by the various programs you will be using. You will probably find that 720 x540 output from Moho gets corrected when imported into other applications. By the way in 3 years, interlaced video will most likely go the way of th dinosaurs, just my opinion.
"and then Man created god!"
video future
What will be replacing interlaced video.. (high definition?) I'm not opposed to other formats if it doesnt involve complete replacement of all my current equipment. Interlaced video is fulfilling what I need right now, but if its possible to plan ahead and stay on a hobbyist budget .. even better!
You said 'current equipment', and my thoughts on interlaced video have to do with the speed technology is evolving, with single layered DVD recorders being replaced by double layered, and computing processors speeds doubling also in such short periods of time, add to that the implementation of Mpeg4 And we'll all be forced to replace our "current equipment" in no time at all.
"and then Man created god!"
-
Pseud O'Nym
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:12 pm
But only because of CRT displays with field generators running at mains frequency. I suspect that the CRT will be with us for a bit more than 3 years before it's totally supplanted by LCD, but I don't think (I could be wrong) that modern field generators have to run at mains frequency.jorgy wrote:I keep hoping for this too, but it's been around since the 20s (advent of TV) so unfortunately, it seems here to stay.F.M. wrote:By the way in 3 years, interlaced video will most likely go the way of th dinosaurs, just my opinion.
You shouldn't worry about interlaced or not from Moho. Moho exports full frame which means that if you're a hobbyist that just want to output to a digital file that is going to look fine and if you want to burn to a DVD that is also going to look fine.
If you are going to put out something for broadcast Moho shouldn't be your final output stage, you would need to get it into some sort of postprocessing software for audiomixing, lighting and such, After Effects would be the most common. From that software you should output interlaced or not depending on the final media of your animation.
if you are going to put your moho animation into some sort of post processing software you should have uncompressed files to work with there, preferably a bitmap sequence. If you output a compresed file from Moho and use that in a Postprocessing software your end result would look bad (shit in, shit out).
(EDIT) Oh, another note, you shouldn't worry at all about interlaced or not until the very last stage before you output for broadcast since that ONLY apply for television broadcast. Work with full frame all the time and only output interlace when you KNOW that your material is going to be broadcasted, it is a very simple thing to output full frame material and convert to interlaced but helluva trickier to convert interlaced to full frame (with a good result).
If you are going to put out something for broadcast Moho shouldn't be your final output stage, you would need to get it into some sort of postprocessing software for audiomixing, lighting and such, After Effects would be the most common. From that software you should output interlaced or not depending on the final media of your animation.
if you are going to put your moho animation into some sort of post processing software you should have uncompressed files to work with there, preferably a bitmap sequence. If you output a compresed file from Moho and use that in a Postprocessing software your end result would look bad (shit in, shit out).
(EDIT) Oh, another note, you shouldn't worry at all about interlaced or not until the very last stage before you output for broadcast since that ONLY apply for television broadcast. Work with full frame all the time and only output interlace when you KNOW that your material is going to be broadcasted, it is a very simple thing to output full frame material and convert to interlaced but helluva trickier to convert interlaced to full frame (with a good result).