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 :)

PROGRESSIVE vs. INTERLACED ??

We almost always work at 23.98p and then interlace our master before sending to DG Fastchannel or to other broadcast entities. DG mandates that the content be interlaced for both HD and SD.

For me, it's really a matter of workflow... progressive is much easier to work with, there is no de-interlacing or pulldown removal before doing vfx and at 23.98p there are fewer frames to rotoscope than 29.976i material.

The Red One always shoots progressive frames, regardless of frame rates.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The crude answer is that the progressive-scan look, regardless of its other merits, is similar to the look of film, which is also a "progressive scan" system in that it captures whole frames at a time, whereas interlaced-scan photography (not broadcast which is a separate issue since film material is shown all the time in interlaced-scan broadcast) looks unique to video.
Click to expand...

I'd say that it has more to do with the frame rate than progressive vs. interlaced: if you shoot and project analogue film at 60 fps, it will have most of the characteristics of the "video look".
 
Eki Halkka said:
I'd say that it has more to do with the frame rate than progressive vs. interlaced: if you shoot and project analogue film at 60 fps, it will have most of the characteristics of the "video look".
Click to expand...

Yes, it is more to do with frame rate, but has very much to do with 3:2 cadence (aka 3:2 pulldown) when you take the 23.98 to 29.97/59.94.
 
Interesting to note that Gavin and Brandon both shoot 24/23.98p for US TV. I've heard this before as a best option for US TV acquisition. It also converts very easily to Eurocentric framerates through increasing the speed by 1/24th
 
Brandon Kraemer said:
Yes, it is more to do with frame rate, but has very much to do with 3:2 cadence (aka 3:2 pulldown) when you take the 23.98 to 29.97/59.94.
Click to expand...

Oh - you may be right. I'm from a PAL country, everything is simpler here, it's all 25p or 50i, no odd cadences ,-)

...most of the features even shoot 25 fps, for TV compatibilty.
 
Yes, the higher sampling rate (60 times a second) is part of the distinctive look of interlaced-scan, which is why you can shoot at 720/60P and convert to 1080/60i and have it look the same; the other visual aspects are the toothcomb artifacts when recombining frames and the fact that a lot of 60i photography is shot with no shutter at 1/60th of a second, so no dark-light interval as with 180 degree shutters.

Eventually capturing interlaced-scan (versus broadcasting it) will go the way of the dodo bird, and eventually interlaced-scan broadcasting and TV sets will follow. So then the issue becomes picking a progressive-scan frame rate that you like for the type of production.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Yes, the higher sampling rate (60 times a second) is part of the distinctive look of interlaced-scan, which is why you can shoot at 720/60P and convert to 1080/60i and have it look the same; the other visual aspects are the toothcomb artifacts when recombining frames and the fact that a lot of 60i photography is shot with no shutter at 1/60th of a second, so no dark-light interval as with 180 degree shutters.

Eventually capturing interlaced-scan (versus broadcasting it) will go the way of the dodo bird, and eventually interlaced-scan broadcasting and TV sets will follow. So then the issue becomes picking a progressive-scan frame rate that you like for the type of production.
Click to expand...

So, it looks like to me, that if you're shooting a documentary for television, the best way to go is to shoot 1080 progressive, and let any necessary changes take place later in post.
 
Liam Hall said:
Only if you want it to look like the news...
Click to expand...

OK, then YOU tell me; if you want it to be the best HD quality possible, and look more like film than video, and be especially good for nature and wildlife, then WHAT should you shoot in?

You only really have two choices: 1080p or 1080i. Unless, of course, you need to shoot high speed which means 720p.
 
Liam Hall said:
Only if you want it to look like the news...
Click to expand...

Again... it's about frame rate not format... 1080p what? 23.98, 25, 29.97, 50, 59.94....

23.98 (aka 24p) will not look like the news.

@ George D... yes I think that is a nice standard frame rate and format, but there are times when depending on the action and the look you want, shooting at 29.97 might be preferred, like for some fast action sports where 24p has too much motion blur, etc. For narrative/documentary/TV spots, 24p works well and I convert it at the end of the process to interlaced.
 
I think Geroge D menat it the other way around.
On another note there are same cameras that shoot progressive material but wrap it in an interlaced stream. The first that comes to mind is the Panasonic DVX100. Who do they do this ? Is the quality the same or are there some downsides ?
 
George D. said:
OK, then YOU tell me; if you want it to be the best HD
Click to expand...

No need to SHOUT:) Over here in PAL land I mostly shoot 1080p25. I prefer the "filmic" look created by progressive capture with a 1/50th shutter to the smooth "reality" look created by an interlaced camera.

Some people can't stand the film style look of 1080p25 (and similar frame rates) others abhor 1080i at any frame rate (like myself). Ultimately, you have to decide what you prefer the look of.
 
George D. said:
THAT can't be true. If it is, why is it that National Geographic Television will ONLY use 1080i in their productions? And, that is one company that is ALWAYS on top of their game.
Click to expand...

It's 1080i delivery of 30p or 24p material. It's 30 or 24 full frames per second, broken up into pairs of fields only for broadcast. The TV then de-interlaces this, so you see 1080p at home. This is better than 720p for end result.

BUT - shooting 60i is not very smart, as the two field pairs would be different
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The crude answer is that the progressive-scan look, regardless of its other merits, is similar to the look of film, which is also a "progressive scan" system in that it captures whole frames at a time, whereas interlaced-scan photography (not broadcast which is a separate issue since film material is shown all the time in interlaced-scan broadcast) looks unique to video.

So there has been a rough division that narrative fiction is more likely to choose progressive and "reality" (news, sports, etc.) is more likely to choose interlaced-scan as a shooting format. But this has been muddled ever since video cameras started offering progressive-scan as an option... I've seen some cooking shows, for example, shot at 24P that look more like they were shot on film than video.

The trouble with 30P over 60i is that with only 30 motion samples per second, it's harder to make smooth conversions to 24 fps (for film-out) or 25 fps / 50i (for European broadcast). Not impossible, just harder. 30P is really 60 Hz television systems centric, or for web only. These days, you want to make sure your material is sellable worldwide and some European broadcasters loathe 30P conversions.
Click to expand...

Which is why we always master/shoot in 24p - a 1080i out from this is easy for broadcasters anywhere. This is how CSI, Lie to Me, and other big shows do things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top