deinterlaced with the MJPEG B codec

Yup, you may very well see the "strobing" or interlace on your computer monitor, that's more than likely ok, no problem. Once it is in MJPEG .mov file format it'll be ok for the user. Many people see this issue when processing and believe that is why progressive in better. Like Klipper said, different producers are looking to use the clip in many different ways and final formats. Keep it original as possible and they buyer knows what they have to do to use it or how much processing has been done already. I believe some buyers will pass on over processed clips because when they are trying to splice a 20 second clip into a movie it has to match the lighting, contrast and "look" of the rest of the movie. If the clip is over processed they may have to undo some of the processing. This may be impossible because the more processing you do the more data is lost and it may be impossible to get back to the original. Most big users have much better equipment and software than any of us. Yes, indeed there are also small time buyers that want a clip ready to use for a personal web page too.
It is entirely possible to use Adobe After Effects CS3 and stabilize movement, , adjust colors and contrast, brightness and shadows and still leave it in the original format. If you think buyers really want progressive native then I suggest you buy a camera that has than capability. I've shot both but still believe my XH-A1 which can shoot both is better engineered for 60i so I've gravitated back to interlaced. I do know a stock agency that wants everything in the original format but they convert it to progressive to sell. Again, they are far more experienced and much better equipment to do that. And, yes they can tell if an interlaced clip was de-interlaced and re-saved as a PJPEG clip, it will or could leave slight artifacts even when using CS3 Premier Pro and/or After Effects.
Soooo, yup you may see lines, that's ok if P5 accepts them then ya know ya did it right.
Good luck,
Don

Progressive vs. Interlaced

Interlaced video has been around as long as there have been televisions with cathode ray tubes (CRTs). All analog television standards are based on interlaced video, and we're so used to it that it's not something that we typically think about. High definition video can be either interlaced or progressively scanned. It's important to understand these terms, and it's really not too difficult.


Progressive scan video is scanned from side to side, top to bottom: line 1, line 2, line 3 etc, up to the end of the frame. It's as simple as that. In fact, it's exactly how you'd expect video to be scanned if you didn't know any better!


Interlaced video is scanned from side to side, top to bottom, as well. The difference is that every 60th of a second, every other line making up the complete frame is scanned. Then, a 60th of a second later, the lines in-between the lines that have already appeared are scanned. Effectively, half the picture's vertical resolution is sent in the first 60th of a second, and the second half is sent in the second 60th of a second. When the video is played back, the whole thing happens in reverse, giving the appearance of a complete frame. Each of these "halves" of a frame is called a "field."

The effect to the viewer is quite distinct. First, the image doesn't flicker as much as it would if it was a simple 30 FPS progressive scan. This is because, to the viewer, it looks as if they are seeing 60 frames per second. Of course, what they are actually seeing is 60 fields per second; but for flicker reduction, the effect is the same as seeing 60 frames.

If you were to look at an interlaced picture on a screen for a 60th of a second, you'd only see half the vertical resolution — every other line. But, because our eyes and brains conveniently offer a "persistence" effect, when you look at the screen "normally," what you actually see is something approaching full resolution. Persistence allows us to accumulate visual data from the two distinct fields, making them seem like one complete image.

I guess Klipper you are right about that combing thing. Logically there is no reason why that would be a problem when the video is in motion. However if the general belief is that combing is bad maybe it is better to deinterlace (lol because the customer is always right) ... and Don big production companies do use after effects, its not like there is anything 'better' out there, and I can add tons of effects without any quality loss. (its loseless) lol I figured out a way to remove grain and artifacts so it looks like it was shot on a way better camera. I can also make the curves equal to film and get rid of artifacts produced from increased contrast. If I wanted to I could remove watermarks. (which is why p5 should make them move) I learned how to do all this from people who are way more professional than I am, but I always mention that it was deinterlaced, its not like I am misleading customers. Stabilizing motion can not be done very easily with interlaced video, and I can recreate accurate motion blur, and people keep buying my stuff even though I clearly state that the footage was deinterlaced and stylized. According to my estimates I know I am rivaling some users with 1000 clips so I must be doing something right. :D It must be because my website is so professional ;)

Ill probably try to upload some interlaced stuff... A big reason why I do this is to gain experience so heck, why not.

This has been and interesting and educational discussion, thanks ya'll. And yes I need to learn more about CS3 After Effects since I have the full CS3 suite. I agree After Effects can do magic, some better capabilities than Premier Pro by it's self.
Thanks ya'll,
Don

Disadvantages of Interlaced and Progressive

Interlaced video does have some disadvantages in comparison with progressive. It's prone to causing "artifacts", which look like a kind of "comb" effect, especially in slow motion or in still grabs from moving video. They are caused by the relative movement between two fields that make up a single frame. It's a fact of life, though, that 1080p, (1920 by 1080 progressive), which might appear to be the perfect format for high definition video, would generate too much data for current consumer technology, so we might have to wait a while for that.

Just to be clear, unless you are doing a lot of manipulation in post (like ironstrike), it's best to leave interlaced footage interlaced. Deinterlacing causes quality loss.

So - if in doubt, do not deinterlace interlaced footage.

For reference, here's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing

curator, As a video repair technician with over 20 years in the field I even found the Wikipedia article enlighting. Thanks.

I didn't realize it was interlaced, until I full screened it ! Smart guy here. So all my clips that I did are actually interlaced... so I think I am doing everything right.