Boyd Ostoff posted an illustrated comparison of adaptive de-interlacers showing Joe’s De-Interlacer side-by-side with DVFilm Maker. Both de-interlacers yielded excellent results on his test footage. Unfortunately, rendering times were only cited from FCP 3, De-Interlacer renders more than twice as fast in FCP 4.

Here’s my reply to Boyd’s original post on

Boyd Ostroff: “So I ran a controlled test with a 30 second clip. It took Joe’s de-interlacer 378 seconds to render the clip, while DVFilm Maker only took 128 seconds, a three-fold speed difference. As noted above, both programs used their default settings (Joe’s de-interlacer was set to “fast interpolate”… can only guess how long it would take at “normal” speed ;-)”

Thank you for posting that Boyd. I’m curious what your numbers would be for Joe’s De-Interlacer with FCP 4.02. In my own highly unscientific testing, I’ve found De-Interlacer is more than twice as fast in FCP 4 as it was in FCP3. (and I was happy about the speed in 3!)

I just did a 10 second test at default settings (NTSC DV):

  • FCP 3: 217 seconds
  • FCP 4: 104 seconds

Multiplying that difference against your numbers, I’d expect FCP 4 to render De-Interlacer in about 181 seconds. That puts DVFilm Maker at only about 1.4x faster, much better than 3x faster. At any rate, the time savings of working inside FCP and not having to import/export and possible reconnect all your media should also be considered.

The ‘Normal De-Interlacing’ method uses a very precise field-preservation algorithm but I’ve been moving away from that since the difference is basically non-existant.

Any FXScript effect is going to be at the mercy of FCP’s rendering engine regarding speed. The benefit is that you don’t have to manage clips in and out of FCP, the disadvantge is speed and not having access to the unlimited tools available in Carbon or Objective C. Thankfully FCP is only getting better and faster.

Share |

link: Nov 09, 2003 4:09 am
posted in: misc.