Best Export Setting for DJI Osmo?

I've been disappointed with the quality of Osmo footage at times.
One problem I have is sending material for broadcast tv which has to be delivered interlaced (50i), preferably as a mxf file but mov is ok too.
Is it best to edit the footage as progressive (how it's recorded) and then transcode/export as interlaced or put it directly onto an interlaced timeline?
I've been having some banding & blocking issues so far.
Therefore, I'm not sure which is the best codec to export it in - stay in H264 or change to Pro Res or XDCAM 422 (the codec the broadcaster uses).
The other problem is the tv company uses Avid and anything sent to them doesn't look great once it's placed on an Avid timeline.
I suppose the other option is just to send it as a native H264 progressive file and let them transcode it to interlaced inside Avid.
Any thoughts as to the best workflow to retain as much picture quality as possible?

I run production at a TV station, and we use Osmo cameras a LOT. Never had any issues with them. We deliver to other TV stations, also. Some are progressive broadcasters, some are interlace. The native H.264 should be fine for any editor. You should edit in the format you shoot, then transcode to what you need to deliver last.

Normally I'd say shoot and edit in the same format you're delivering in. But in broadcast that final product spec can vary so much, just stay in what format works for shooting and editing easiest, then transcode as you need to.

Thanks, but I've found transcoding the footage often produces poorer results.
What workflow/transcoding are you using where this isn't happening?

If you're transcoding to ProRes, you won't get worse image quality, unless you have something like Playback Performance set to "Better Playback" rather than "Better Quality".

Our Osmo units record 1080 .mov in H.264. We have no issues (except that the Osmo isn't great in bright sunlight).

I always use the better quality setting.
Maybe it's the mxf transcode or possibly it's Avid that's causing the problems.
It doesn't seem to deal as well/quickly with GoPro or Osmo as FCPX.

Just put some Osmo footage straight on to an interlaced timeline in FCPX and it looks far worse than the original progressive footage - lots of banding, etc.
I've even tried using Optical Flow which was an online tip, but no improvement.
What can be done to improve this?

Finbo wrote: Just put some Osmo footage straight on to an interlaced timeline in FCPX and it looks far worse than the original progressive footage - lots of banding, etc....

We shoot and edit lots of Osmo 4k content, and within the constraints of that sensor it looks pretty good. BTW the Osmo looks much better shooting in 4k, esp in low light -- even if final delivery is 1080p.

Re 50i "delivery", that is the final broadcast delivery not the content submission requirement. If they only accepted 50i content, then they couldn't take iPhone videos of a car wreck, or anything from a 4k progressive camera.

As FCPX.guru said, I'd suggest giving them 50p ProRes output at the highest available resolution, whether that's 1080p or 4k. If you don't shoot in 4k then 1080p. If that is too big then 1080p/50 H264. The default FCPX bit rate for H264 is pretty high -- roughly double what Youtube recommends, so it usually looks pretty good.

The TV station obviously has an ingest and encoding workflow already established for progressive content. Submitted content must be decoded, edited to a package, then re-encoded and exported for interlaced broadcast. Rather than trying to second guess this and providing them interlaced content, I'd suggest just sending them progressive content unless their acceptance criteria specifically disallows that.

I did a brief test using Osmo 4k/29.29p indoor content on a 1080p/29.97i and 1080p/29.97p timeline, exporting each as both ProRes 422 and H264 at 20 Mbps. They all looked pretty good and I didn't see any banding or obvious artifacts when viewed with Quicktime and VLC.

Thanks
You're right in the final broadcast delivery is 50i, but they do prefer it sent to them this way (usually via a ftp site) if possible.
I've tested sending the original progressive material through compressor too, but again really bad banding/lines on the screen. It looks the same as when I dropped the original video straight on to an interlaced timeline.
If I keep any export as progressive, whether H264 or Pro Res, then it's ok.
So the problem is always the transcode.
It's interesting that both you and FCPX.guru have not found the same problems after transcoding.
Therefore, can I ask what is your workflow for transcoding progressive to interlaced is and what you use so I can check to see if I'm doing anything wrong, etc.

Finbo wrote: ...they do prefer it sent to them this way (usually via a ftp site) if possible.

Understood; it makes sense to do whatever they ask.

Finbo wrote: ....can I ask what is your workflow for transcoding progressive to interlaced is and what you use so I can check to see if I'm doing anything wrong, etc.

I imported Osmo UHD/29.97p content to a 1080/29.97i project. Note the terminology is confusing, what Apple calls 29.97i is often called 60i or 59.94i. In your case that would be 25p content imported to a 25i (aka 50i) timeline. That is 50 fields/sec, interlaced, also called 25 frames/sec interlaced.

I then exported this directly from FCPX using this setting:

File>Share>Master File
Settings: Computer
Video codec: H.264 Better Quality
Resolution: 1920 x 1080

I also tried these settings:

File>Share>Master File
Settings: Video and Audio
Video codec: Apple ProRes 422

The content had horizontal moving subjects to better expose any comb artifacts from interlacing. I could see none, whether viewed in Quicktime Player 10.4 or VLC 2.2.4 (which has deinterlacing disabled by default). I then examined the video file metadata with Invisor, which has side-by-side spreadsheet-like comparison for multiple files. In Finder you select multiple video files, right-click and select Services>Analyze with Invisor: itunes.apple.com/us/app/invisor-media-fi...or/id442947586?mt=12

Invisor showed the video files had the expected parameters which 21 Mbps, 29.97, either interlaced or MBAFF, Top Field First, and Scan Type = Interleaved Fields.

If there is any possibility your Osmo source material is actually 24 fps, not 25 fps, that could cause a problem. I have noticed when I try to conform two differing frame rates plus add interlacing it doesn't look as good.

I suggest (1) Examining the project characteristics in FCPX to verify the project is actually 25i, and (2) Examine the Osmo video files with Invisor or some similar tool to verify it is 25p and not 24p.

Thanks for this.
All source material is 25fps and not 24fps.
What I have now found is there is marked difference if I put 4K material onto a 1080i timeline compared to 1080p onto a 1080i timeline.
The banding/lines virtually disappear - wow!
The footage is now usable.
So this is obviously the workflow to use if I'm delivering for broadcast tv in the requested interlaced format.
Interestingly, if I try some post production on the 4K footage, such as sharpen in FCPX, some of the banding/lines return...