Probably unintelligent question about DVD burning

ritsmer wrote on 4/27/2010, 7:41 AM

I have never burned my videos to DVD's before - but have to do it now in a single case - and then it is nice that 9.0d has got the make DVD feature which burns the DVD with no problems.

The DVD plays well and clear - but I must have done something wrong because as soon as the video shows over a certain level of movement (i.e. a person x-ing the scene) then the TV playing the DVD shows a heavy "comb"-ing. Not the usual fine comb from interlaced video but a heavy broad one - looking like some 20-30 lines wide.

My TL media is AVCHD 1080i 17 Mbps and project settings are 1080i.
What can I do to avoid this "comb"-ing on the DVD's.

Probably unintelligent?? oh, yeah - this must have been talked about in the DVD arch. forum 1000 times, but I could not find anything about it.

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 4/27/2010, 7:47 AM

Set project properties to "Progressive."

xberk wrote on 4/27/2010, 8:18 AM

Lots of ideas here on how to make a Standard DVD from HD material .. See this thread
HD to DVD suggestions

I'm still struggling with this myself -- I don't believe I'd use the new feature in Vegas to make the DVD straight from the timeline but rather I'd render to MPEG2 and use DV Architect to burn the disc.

MarkWWWW wrote on 4/27/2010, 8:36 AM

This "large comb" effect is what happens if you scale interlaced footage as though it were progressive footage. In order to avoid it you need to tell Vegas to scale the footage as interlaced, i.e. split each frame into two fields, scale each field separately, and then re-interlace the fields again. You do this by ensuring that your de-interlace method is set to "blend" or "interpolate" (doesn't make any difference which) rather than "none".

Mark

Laurence wrote on 4/27/2010, 8:38 AM

Like Mark said. This is definitely your problem. Resizing interlaced video without a deinterlace method selected will cause this every time.

ritsmer wrote on 4/27/2010, 8:53 AM

Right you are: the de-interlace method was NONE.
So I try this suggestion plus some of the other hints and ideas to see what fits my media and situation best.
Will also try to downscale with VD and then burn.
Thanks Gentlemen!

@Laurence: I know. Not complaining that my coffee gets colder after installing 9.0d :-)))

John_Cline wrote on 4/27/2010, 11:49 AM

First of all, don't just automatically set it to "progressive" that will throw away half of your temporal resolution. If you shot progressive or are creating content to be viewed exclusively on computer screens, the setting it to progressive might be appropriate

"set to "blend" or "interpolate" (doesn't make any difference which)"

Actually, in general it does make a difference. If the video is fairly static will little to no motion, then "blend" will help maintain vertical resolution. If there is any motion in the video, the "interpolate" would be the right choice.

MarkWWW wrote on 4/27/2010, 1:56 PM

> Actually, in general it does make a difference. If the video is fairly static will little to no motion, then "blend" will help maintain vertical resolution. If there is any motion in the video, the "interpolate" would be the right choice.

That is true if you are actually de-interlacing, i.e. combining information from two fields into a progressive frame. In that situation you do indeed want to take the trouble to choose the most appropriate de-interlace method. But in this case since we are not actually de-interlacing, merely using the presence of a de-interlace method to force Vegas to use the correct algorithm for the scaling operation, it doesn't make any difference which method you choose (as long as it is not "none").

Mark