deinterlaced with the MJPEG B codec

does it matter if I choose the deinterlace footage button? I have done a few tests, and it doesn't seem to change the outcome. This is when I am going from my interlaced mpeg to the .mov codec of mJPEG B. Thanks guys.

I deinterlace all my footage (interlaced footage has that weird comb effect) ... However the curator told me photojpeg should be used if your footage is deinterlaced (or progressively scanned)

If you shoot it in 60i (interlaced) it's best to leave it in original format; interlaced processed to Motion JPEG. This will give a more true higher quality clip. If the buyer needs in Progressive I suggest letting them do it. The more processing you do the more chance of screwing it up.
Don

lol, uhh no, deinterlacing is considered higher quality (depending on which method you use)
http://www.axis.com/products/video/camera/progressive_scan.htm
but Don is right, it's probably best to just keep it as original as you can if you don't know what your doing, but if you do use progressive use photojpeg.

It really doesn't have anything to do with quality of interlaced versus progressive if you capture in interlaced. Most high end producers will use progressive, but I also from talking to high end buyers would rather deinterlace themself or have a production house do it. Most "home" programs including Premier Pro can do it but also many times will result in minor artifacts after being de-interlaced and saved as progressive. I de-interlaced many and when looking at original interlaced and deinterlaced and saved as Photo JPEG had to go back to the original and leave it interlaced. Of couse the highest quality clip is original straight from the camera in native format. Since most stock agencies don't want m2t format we as "artists" have to change it into a format that is acceptable. The safest ... leave it the way you shot it. Many cameras will shoot interlaced and progressive. The Canon 24f and 30f is not true progressive and if you want the highest quality shoot in 60i where the XH-A1 and HV-20/30 excel. The sight difference in 30f versus true 30p can cause a producer to do more work when trying to splice your clip into their true progressive movie or production. Close, yup very much so and in most cases may not be able to tell difference. For stock, IMHO leave it as close to native as possible. Quality is not the issue, easy of using as part of a larger production is important. The producer will be a lot happier if they know what they have instead of guessing how you processed the clip. With animations or computer generated clips, yup keep it progressive, again as close as possible to original or the way the animation is put together ... progressive.
Don

I understand where you are comming from, but the only problem with that is that motionjpegs are harder to deinterlace than the original mpg file that comes off the camera. The original mpg files can easily have the "upper field" seperated. Once I do that I convert it to photojpeg... BUT with a interlaced motionjpeg its a bit harder to deinterlace it. You have to do it 'manually' with line doubling or something, and it is kind of a hassle. BTW here is a tutorial on how to do it manually for anyone who wants to know..
http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials.html?id=58
Obviously people are buying your stuff though, so I guess the buyers must have a way to easily do it.

I heartily concur with Phantomewo's general point that its best to leave the clip as close as possible to the camera native footage as possible. Its impossible to anticipate all the myriad ways buyers will want to use stock footage. They know best what they need and how to get it into the shape they need. That's why I'd encourage all artists to not only avoid any unnecessary processing steps prior to uploading, but also to be as accurate and detailed as possible when describing what you used to shoot a clip with.

As far as interlaced vs progressive being better or worse, its never cut and dried. For example, a static interlaced shot is indistinguishable from the same shot in a progressive scan mode. For action stuff, like fast moving sports, interlaced footage makes for much smoother slomos. This is a rule of thumb only, I would hasten to add - there are some cameras that are exceptions to this, and it will be interesting to see how the RED affects the market.

I would also point out that its misleading to compare interlaced with progressive by using a freeze-frame that contains both fields. The viewer will never experience an interlaced clip in that way, and so its a false comparison.

The thing with after effects is that it automatically deinterlaces footage.

Here is a still from one of my original las vegas aerials:
http://i31.tinypic.com/abpmvb.jpg
it is very smogy, but I went ahead and color corrected to make these:
https://www.pond5.com/ja/stock-footage/116049
https://www.pond5.com/ja/stock-footage/116345
I also took away a lot of the camera shake,( I stablized them)
I also remove some of the dirt on the airplane window
I also did a broadcast color check

Now I personally find that clips that are touched up do better. I think big buyers a few and far in between and I think low to medium budget productions are more likely to buy stock footage, and I don't think these companies necessarily know how to stabilize motion or fix the colors. I know that p5 says not to change the original clips... but I am sorry Klipper I respectfully disagree. :) Some of my best selling clips have been heavily stylized.

This clip of a rolls royce looked horrible before I fixed it:
https://www.pond5.com/ja/stock-footage/117498

Well, you make a good point.

Stylizing a clip is fine - you're adding artistic value to a clip, after all. What I was thinking about, and I should have been more clear, were purely technical issues relating to format. Frame size, frame rate, field rendering specifically. Where possible, clips should be uploaded with those parameters the same as they were shot.

However, when you're adding artistic considerations, all bets are off. When you enhance a clip by color correcting, filtering, or what have you, then that added value is a big part of what you're selling. If you want to deinterlace in that situation, you should, of course.

Bear in mind that its possible to color correct and do a great deal of post-processing without changing any of these basic parameters.

the reason I asked this question was ... when I load my original captured mpeg files in say mpeg streamclip and watch them, you can really see the interlacing. But when I load the .mov file, after its been exported, you can't really see it anymore, if at all....