Currently I have produced a video that looks fine on DVD with a regular tv screen. But on a LCD screen it has ragged edges around moving objects. I am familiar with the progressive and interlacing issue, but what exact settings do I need to produce a project that will look fine on both a computer LCD monitor and a regular TV monitor. Is this possible? This problem has not occured in the past or at least has not been so noticeable. It looks like some seetings have changed or something. I am using Media Composer, Sorenson Squeeze, and DVD It Pro.  Thank you!

You didn't tell us, what is wrong with your video on a computer screen. Please explain the problem, maybe then someone will be able to explain the solution...

DVD+TV vs. PC+LCD: apart from the obvious (different resolution and proportions) there most likely fact to cause problems is interlacing. Usually clips produced for dvd/tv are interlaced, because tv screens (at least crt ones) use that format (due to a variety of reasons). But computer monitors (crt and lcd/tft) work progressive, so without proper de-interlacing your interlaced clips will have ragged edges around moving objects. Is that your problem? There are others (like flipped field order), but that's the most likely one.

 Yes, that is the problem. The moving objects have ragged edges. Is there a way for both types of monitors to have a clean image? Maybe a setting that I need to change within Avid?

 You need to deinterlace your video before making the DVD or watch it on a DVD application that will deinterlace whilst playing it.

Best thing to do is shoot progressive and adhear to panning speeds to avoid strobing. 

Shooting progressine would be the best way. Otherwise you need to export a different format for PC/internet distribution. Quicktime, AVC, WMV, Flash, etc.

There is no "best" way, no "best" settings for MC. Progressive shots will look better on LCDs, but you'll notice the difference on TV screens, motion won't look as "smooth" as on interlaced material, because you'll loose half of the time resolution (only 25 / 30 frames per second instead of 50 / 60 fields per second). Some people actually like it, mistaking progressive for a "more cineastic look", but that's up to your choice of taste.

macjaeger have you tried fluid film progressive, it makes interlaced video progressive by clever motion vectors, which are adjustable if needed. It doesn't loose resolution like a duplicated field, half resolution, a quicker but slightly blurier effect is by interpolating the fields.

Thank you sasquatch, yes, I know about the tricks to make "good" progressive clips... But that's not my point in the above statement. I was referring to the general decision whether to use interlaced or progressive format at all.

We are rather often shooting sports events (we're a school, so a lot of our reports are about our "celebrities" in either music, arts or sports), and I find that fast motion filmed in 50i interlaced just looks smoother than when shot progressive. Of course our main audience is viewing our clips on "normal" tv sets, so interlacing is preferred anyway. The other distribution channel is web video, but only in qcif resolution. This process doesn't need complex deinterlacing as we are discarding every other field anyway.

Btw: I also like interlaced footage because it's a reliable source for high quality slow motion, especially when combined with MCs wonderfull fluid motion effect.

 The answer could still help Deric find a good solution to the problem though and has not been discussed, I thought your previous answer was a bit missleading as to the potential to fix a particular problem, maybe I should have read it twice.

Sure, Sasquatch, I didn't mean to correct you, quite the contrary. Fluid film is a very powerfull tool, often underestimated because it's name is a little misleading and it is well hidden in the effects array... It can work miracles if you have to combine interlaced and progressive footage, or help you achieve a specific look.

Sometimes I'm a little preoccupied with the things _I_ do most, forgetting that other people usually have very different needs and purposes...