Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

1080i? 1080p? an SD guy needs advice

S

stu aull

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
862
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cheers from the cheap seats-
forgive if this is the incorrect forum.
About to jump OUT of SD Beta IN to the Big New World of 2001 (?) Hi Def+ with my Scarlet. Putting the whole R3D/raw format aside (if that is possible in this conversation), can I ask a few basic Qs about HD/Mac/FCP7 workflow and output. Confession: I may net even be asking the _right_ questions here!

So. What is the +/- of recording/posting 1080 _i_ vs _p_ (either by PIX ProRes or via conversion in RCX)?
I am using a HP Dreamcolor monitor to grade out to TV, and it will only "see" 1080p. I guess that drives me down the _p_ road, but trying to grasp what (if any) negatives for my clients (again, 99% TV/corporate) by only outputting 1080p.
Having said that, we still produce client projects on 16x9 DVD in SD. (not everyone using blueray in this part of the world). I presume SD is only Interlaced, so I expect some conversion of 1080i-based projects to get them "SD'd" thru (in my case) Apple Compressor. This may be a separate workflow issue, but thought I'd mention it....

1080p "seems" to be the defacto home-tv standard. Too much to presume this is the case with broadcasters too (either local or nationally - we have BOTH)? so far so good then if this is the case.

Please feel free to refer me to any TV101 site on this - I just need some direction or affirmation from my RED peeps that I am looking the right way...

regards
Stu Aull
S-X #00199
Alaska
 
Always go with P "progressive". You can then create interlaced versions from that but not vice versa. You can burn progressive files to SD DVD with no problems. It's not limited to interlaced.

480p is SD and progressive... Take your 1080p master and burn it to a SD DVD and it looks cleaner than a SD file burned to DVD.

Bottom line is master in progressive, finish in progressive, and only if requested make an interlaced version from your progressive master. Interlaced is nasty and harsh. It's kind of a dead format.
 
:)
thanks guys. One check off a l-o-o-ong list...

Stu Aull
Alaska
 
stu aull said:
1080p "seems" to be the defacto home-tv standard. Too much to presume this is the case with broadcasters too (either local or nationally - we have BOTH)? so far so good then if this is the case.
Click to expand...
Find out from the clients first what the deliverables have to be. All the major U.S. networks and cable channels generally require 1080i files or HD videotapes, usually with very specific requirements for levels, aspect ratios, audio assignments, and so on. Producing in 1080 24p is pretty standard for all but reality shows and some documentaries, which are typically 1080i. And live shows are always 1080i.

It is possible to go from 1080i to 24p, but it's very clunky and problematic. Going the other way is much easier, and 24p is usually better for home video.
 
What about PsF? Just to further complicate things lets talk about that lol... The red sends out true progressive, most things take PsF...
 
PsF isn't a mastering format is it? I thought it was just a way to get a progressive signal to 60i for viewing. I think it's just a viewing format to make it more compatible with monitors.
 
Yeah PsF is a no-no for my grading monitor (Dreamcolor) input. Annoyingly (unless recent spec change), my uber Blackmagic 3D card SDI out is PsF, so I had to expend more $$ on a converter into the Dreamcolor...

Marc Wielage said:
Find out from the clients first what the deliverables have to be. All the major U.S. networks and cable channels generally require 1080i files or HD videotapes, usually with very specific requirements for levels, aspect ratios, audio assignments, and so on. Producing in 1080 24p is pretty standard for all but reality shows and some documentaries, which are typically 1080i. And live shows are always 1080i.

It is possible to go from 1080i to 24p, but it's very clunky and problematic. Going the other way is much easier, and 24p is usually better for home video.
Click to expand...

Jeez-uz. Really? i? I guess I am asking all this from a stock-footage standpoint. Obv I can shoot-to-spec for a particular client, but in general, for my own use/projects, it sounds like 1080p is the way to go.
??
Is there quality issues in converting Progressive footage to Interlace? (the opposite direction indicated in the quote above).

Can I stir the pot further here about formats?
Been a 29.97 guy since day one and had planned to shoot 30FPS (or 29.97) - what is the +/- of going to 24p?

Very helpful folks - continued thanks!

Stu Aull
Alaska
 
Like others said, it will be easier and better to convert from 24p (or 23.98) to 29.97 (or 59.94i). Another plus side is that 24 frames per second with 180 degree shutter gives you "film-like" motion blur that people are used to see in movies.

However, 24 frames might give you too much motion blur if you have a lot of moving objects or camera movements, which in fact is very unpleasant in some cases.

I'd always discuss with the client (or director) to conform the delivery format and preferable format for the type of the project. Also, it will help you to know the quality impact from source to delivery format.

This is from best to worst..

1. progressive on progressive

2. interlace on interlace

3. progressive on interlace

4. interlace on progressive
 
Marc Wielage said:
Find out from the clients first what the deliverables have to be. All the major U.S. networks and cable channels generally require 1080i files or HD videotapes, usually with very specific requirements for levels, aspect ratios, audio assignments, and so on. Producing in 1080 24p is pretty standard for all but reality shows and some documentaries, which are typically 1080i. And live shows are always 1080i.

It is possible to go from 1080i to 24p, but it's very clunky and problematic. Going the other way is much easier, and 24p is usually better for home video.
Click to expand...

But network 1080i is a 1080i container of a progressive source split into fields. An interlaced source cannot be properly displayed on a digital monitor, only on a CRT.
 
Nook Kim said:
Like others said, it will be easier and better to convert from 24p (or 23.98) to 29.97 (or 59.94i). Another plus side is that 24 frames per second with 180 degree shutter gives you "film-like" motion blur that people are used to see in movies.

However, 24 frames might give you too much motion blur if you have a lot of moving objects or camera movements, which in fact is very unpleasant in some cases.

I'd always discuss with the client (or director) to conform the delivery format and preferable format for the type of the project. Also, it will help you to know the quality impact from source to delivery format.

This is from best to worst..

1. progressive on progressive

2. interlace on interlace

3. progressive on interlace

4. interlace on progressive
Click to expand...

NO. Interlaced 1080i to 1080i delivery means anyone with a TV newer than 8 years old will see heavy combing. Progressive converted to interlace will br much better, then the TV reconverts the 1080i container to progressive. NEVER master in interlaced.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
NO. Interlaced 1080i to 1080i delivery means anyone with a TV newer than 8 years old will see heavy combing. Progressive converted to interlace will br much better, then the TV reconverts the 1080i container to progressive. NEVER master in interlaced.
Click to expand...

Rob, I am afraid to say you are just plain wrong. interlaced 1080i60 delivered as an interlaced signal across broadcast architecture will be delivered correctly at the tv end and you will not see combing artifacts. Yes there will be a vertical resolution hit in exchange for increased temporal data, but if you are shooting 1080i60 and broadcasting 1080i60 what you shoot is what the viewers will receive. Lines will be interpolated on their screen but this will not create 'heavy combing' artifacts in a proper broadcadt chain. On computer (web) delivery this is not true, but in properly setup broadcast environments interlaced to interlaced is common.

Now, if you are shooting 1080p60 and can post at that, then you can derive a progressive master and interlaced master without any compromise to the progressive master, same temporal rate on both. There isn't a huge amount of post workflow support for this unfortunately, but it's something that you can do with high frame rate cameras like the epic.

As you are never shooting interlaced on a RED camera, working on a progressive timeline makes the most sense unless the RED camera is a B camera in a mostly interlaced environment (as it would often be in an EFP environment). That would ne an example where shooting at 60fps on the RED camera would make sense to deliver 60i footage to more seamlessly cut with other 60i footage.
 
Still trying to follow you all - my thanks!! - so 1080p still seems like best generic start point....





??


Stu Aull
Alaska
 
Matt Ryan said:
Interlaced is nasty and harsh. It's kind of a dead format.
Click to expand...
Not true really, at least in Europe.
There is no 25p format for Blu-ray, DCP or broadcast, so 50i is common.
BBC specs demand all motion graphics rendered in 50i - 25p lacks temporal resolution for some things.
50p would be worthwhile but bandwidth would choke digital broadcasters?
 
You want to keep your frames as frames and then if the container is p or i does not matter. People here are mixing up the pictures with the containers.
 
Björn Benckert said:
You want to keep your frames as frames and then if the container is p or i does not matter. People here are mixing up the pictures with the containers.
Click to expand...
Except when you pan/track the camera and the result is going to be exhibited in an i "container" [ie ALL UK broadcast].
Then it can look like stuttery cr*p unless you are VERY lucky.
 
Technical issue apart theres a creative choice also. Psf is nothing more than getting a progressive signal through what is basicaly a legacy processing chain.

Interlaced does have it place for Sport where you want solid motion for fast moving action. The only other way is to use a higher frame rate of 50P or 60P. The format creates a solid looking image some describe as more real as though your there.

Progressive at 24P or 25P creates less solid motion and a feeling of being in front of the screen looking in to a scene so to speak.

Motion at about 30P replay is much more solid (which I think is a phsyco visual issue) and the viewer does feel more part of the action more similar to an interlaced presentation but has the benfiit of full raster display and more solid motion and much fewer motion artifects than 24p or 25P have. Just try replaying a shot at 24P and then at 30P (making sure the actual display it self is set to play 24P or 30P) and see how you perceive it.

It depends on if you like or dislike 24P presentation or not. But this issue alone will open up a whole can of worms.

Im sure there are others who can describe all of this much better than I.
 
:D

Okaaaa.
"p" for sure. 1080 is a given. After that I am on my own I guess.
thanks All for discussion and opinion!

Stu Aull
Alaska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top