Capturing from VHS, progressive or interlaced?

Question

Capturing from VHS, progressive or interlaced?

Hi,

I'm a complete newbee when it comes to FCP and video. I'm about to capture old footage from VHS through an ADVC-300 converter. I know the VHS is interlaced, but I've seen in the advanced capture options, under 'Compression' that I can choose 'Scan Mode' as interlaced or progressive. The video is going to be viewed on a computer only, which I understand is progressive (or perhaps burned to a DVD, that can be made in 480p), and I'm only concerned with capturing the video with the highest possible quality that leaves me with the most options for the future. Will choosing progressive in Scan Mode make a difference then, or how does this work?

P.S. I'm capturing PAL video with DV-PAL if that makes any difference but I have no intention of converting it to NTSC as I'm going to view it on a computer only.

Thanks,
Patrick

Dual PowerMac G5, 17" PowerBook G4, P4 PC, AMD 64 PC, Mac OS X (10.4.6), Motu 828 mkII & Digi 002R

Posted on May 24, 2006 6:45 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Studio X

Level 7

27,229 points

May 24, 2006 6:57 AM in response to Patrick Schannong

Patrick,

you ask an interesting question. My inclination would be to capture it interlaced and do the conversion to square pixel computer ready output in FCP.

But, it wouldn't hurt matters to do a side by side comparison. Try capturing the same segment twice - one as interlaced and one as progressive.

Which one looks better on replay?

Which one looks better after processing?

Please report back.

good luck.
x

Reply

Answer 2

loyed256

Level 4

2,265 points

May 24, 2006 7:07 AM in response to Studio X

Good advice above. I might capture the same clip both ways, sync them up on the timeline and do a split screen to see the side by side.

Reply

Answer 3

May 24, 2006 8:48 AM in response to Studio X

Thnaks for your replies,

I did try capturing both ways, and I only viewed the clips in the viewer. There however, they looked identical to me. The reason I'm still asking questings then, is that since I don't fully understand the concept of interlaced and progressive, I want to make sure I don't capture the footage in a way that will limit myself later.

I've heard that, for example, interlaced footage can sometimes look bad on the computer screen, but still look fine when viewed on an interlaced TV. So I have a hunch things are not always WYSIWYG.

And the there is the issue of compressing the DV video to MPEG if I want to burn a DVD. I guess there is another interlaced/progressive choice/issue as well?

An explination of these things would be greatly appreciated.
Patrick

Reply

Answer 4

Studio X

Level 7

27,229 points

May 24, 2006 9:15 AM in response to Patrick Schannong

The viewer (and canvas) is showing you a progressive scan proxy image of your interlaced non-square pixel footage. To see what they look like on an interlaced device, send the images to an external TV (firewire out>DV/analog converter>TV)

Any difference there?

Even though DVDs can be progressive, it you are sending them to a standard TV, the signal is processed to create the NTSC standard interlaced frame that the TV can understand.

I can't offer a whole lot more other than - if it was me and I was trying to keep some archival thing going - I'd try to make as few transformations as possible - that is - capture as interlaced, edit as interlaced and output as interlaced or whatever is most appropriate for the display medium.

good luck.
x

Reply

Answer 5

May 24, 2006 9:24 AM in response to Studio X

You certainly will not add any quality by converting to progressive, so probably not worth the trouble (even if it's no trouble at all!).

Reply

Answer 6

May 24, 2006 10:24 AM in response to Patrick Schannong

I'm not clear on where you're seeing the advanced options, but I'm interested to know what the answer is...here's my inclination:

Your not seeing any difference because there isn't any. Your selection is a means of indicating to the A/D converter how to interpret the incoming footage (field dominance, etc.). It's not changing it to a progressive image or deinterlacing. And it definitely shouldn't change your rectangular pixels to square pixels. My guess is that any info relating to the interlacing sequence might be disregarded if you don't flag the footage as interlaced PAL (or leave your settings on auto detect). As a result programs that you import the footage into might not recognize the proper field order.

Thoughts?

eric

p.s. I'd import your files to match your source footage and do any deinterlacing in post.

Reply