When to use progressive scan and when not to at DVinfo.net

Linda Schodowsky · March 31st, 2004, 11:42 AM

I have been experimenting with all the features on my VX2000 (finally, after a year and a half of owning one) and tried out the progressive scan. I loved the results when I played it back on my eMac but got a little "barfy" feeling.

Two questions... what can I do to keep the "filmy" look... can I keep progressive scan, but adjust something else to take away the "barfy" feeling? (from what I read about this subject... I'm not the only one who experienced that feeling).

And number two... when should this be used, and when shouldn't it be used? Does lighting have anything to do with the choppiness of the picture? If not, then what?

By the way, this website is mind blowing, and everyone here is so professional and understanding. Even the most naive and novice people are treated with respect, and not like some inept, retarded individual!

Tavis Shaver · March 31st, 2004, 01:10 PM

it's my understanding that the vx2000 only does progressive at 15fps, which is likely why it made you feel "barfy". I think that the oly way to get rid of that feeling is to use progressive very sparingly or only when you are taking a static shot without much going on.

Rick Spilman · March 31st, 2004, 02:13 PM

On my PD150 I find the progressive scan to be effectively useless. It may have value if you want to do lots of still screen captures but in that case I will use my digital still camera.

I have played around with using a 30 fps shutter speed with some interesting, and much more satisfactory, results than the 15 fps progressive setting.

Boyd Ostroff · March 31st, 2004, 02:23 PM

If you're looking for a progressive scan soft of effect I think you'll be better served doing it in post with an adaptive deinterlacer. Shooting at 1/30 is like cutting your resolution in half as it writes the same data to both interlaced fields. One good use I've heard of for the VX-2000's progressive mode is time lapse photography however. As long as you're speeding the footage up by at least 200% in post then it should work very well for that.

Shawn Mielke · March 31st, 2004, 07:16 PM

I'm still working the sh*ts and giggles out of myself and my new PD170, and I have to say that I'm really enjoying this 15fps thing, especially in combination with a high shutter speed. If ever I shoot a music video, I'll be sure to call upon this combinant effect. In as far as "normal" shooting goes, I have no idea when I would employ such a look, but I do look forward to the day when it turns out to be just the right thing! :-)

Linda Schodowsky · March 31st, 2004, 07:19 PM

Thanks to all for the info.

Boyd... just what is an "adaptive deniterlacer"?

Boyd Ostroff · March 31st, 2004, 08:08 PM

Normal video consists of two fields; the odd numbered scan lines are displayed for 1/60 second, then the even numbered scan lines are shown for 1/60 second. So it takes 1/30 second to display the full picture. If you combine both fields into a single picture you there is a problem with areas that have motion because the fields are captured 1/60 second apart. An adaptive deinterlacer attempts to compensate for this by treating the static areas of the image differently from the areas with motion. The result is similar to progressive video shot at 30 frames per second.

Try doing a search for "deinterlacing" and you will find a wealth of knowledge on this topic.

Mike Rehmus · April 1st, 2004, 11:39 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Shawn Mielke : I'm still working the sh*ts and giggles out of myself and my new PD170, and I have to say that I'm really enjoying this 15fps thing, especially in combination with a high shutter speed. If ever I shoot a music video, I'll be sure to call upon this combinant effect. In as far as "normal" shooting goes, I have no idea when I would employ such a look, but I do look forward to the day when it turns out to be just the right thing! :-) -->>>

Try shooting at the lowest shutter speed.

I find this to give very interesting results in the following situations:

I had to tape a dance class practice session in a very ugly room with mirrors in back of the dancers and high windows on the same wall facing into a Western Sun. I sat the camera on a low tripod, at the slowest shutter speed with a WA adapter to capture most of the room. The dancers have this white flowing ghost look that gets even more interesting when several of them come together in the center.

Needed to tape a motorcycle officer driving down a street while I rode in a patrol car. Ugly footage in normal conditions. I cranked the speed all the way down and compensated with ND filters and a nearly-closed aperature. I sat in the back seat of the car (traveling at about 30 mph) with the camera held across my body, using the LCD panel flipped back against the camera body as the viewfinder.

The officer, who was pacing the patrol car at a rear quarter, comes out quite clear against this very pretty flowing background of trees and houses. The uglies are gone and he really pops out against the way out-of-focus background. As the car and/or the motor bounce on street irregularities, his image sort of smoothly flows without being distorted.

Shawn Mielke · April 1st, 2004, 05:52 PM

Very cool. I have actually toyed with low shutter speeds while shooting dancing, with my PDX. I think I've been tending toward higher speeds in combination with the 170's 15fps because it brings some of the fluidic action back to such a low frame rate.

Is this Sony progressive of the same type that the DVX employs?

Tom Hardwick · April 2nd, 2004, 12:58 PM

The VX2000 makes an excellent motor-drive stills camera when you use progressive scan Linda. I've shot lots of footage of swimmers and divers using this mode, and (here in PAL land) I capture 12.5 frames every second. I don't use the ND filters, I simply select a high shutter speed (something like 1/600th sec) and a nice sharp apereture of around f4 (depending on the lighting of course).

Then I can shoot the divers and the butterfly boys all day long. An hour tape still lasts an hour of course, and records full stereo sound while you're at it. As you scrub through your timeline it's really easy to select the peak-of-the-action frames for printing or burning to CD ROM. I tried doing it with a 35mm SLR and in the end gave up. 3.5fps is nowhere near enough for a dive and invariably missed the peak points too.

tom.

Linda Schodowsky · April 2nd, 2004, 09:32 PM

I've been doing alot of searching to find out more on this, so I am not sure where I found this, in what forum, but this is what I came up with, and it works pretty good:

Custom preset with sharpness either at minumum or one click above

Turn color level down anywhere from one click to the minimum (depending on what you shoot)

Shoot at 1/60

I wish I could remember where I pulled this from. It came up when I searched for "film look". I went back and tried to find the post... couldn't find it. I wrote down this stuff late last night and just tried it out.

March 31st, 2004, 11:42 AM	#1
Linda Schodowsky Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Berea, Ohio Posts: 139	When to use progressive scan and when not to I have been experimenting with all the features on my VX2000 (finally, after a year and a half of owning one) and tried out the progressive scan. I loved the results when I played it back on my eMac but got a little "barfy" feeling. Two questions... what can I do to keep the "filmy" look... can I keep progressive scan, but adjust something else to take away the "barfy" feeling? (from what I read about this subject... I'm not the only one who experienced that feeling). And number two... when should this be used, and when shouldn't it be used? Does lighting have anything to do with the choppiness of the picture? If not, then what? By the way, this website is mind blowing, and everyone here is so professional and understanding. Even the most naive and novice people are treated with respect, and not like some inept, retarded individual!

March 31st, 2004, 07:16 PM	#5
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	I'm still working the sh*ts and giggles out of myself and my new PD170, and I have to say that I'm really enjoying this 15fps thing, especially in combination with a high shutter speed. If ever I shoot a music video, I'll be sure to call upon this combinant effect. In as far as "normal" shooting goes, I have no idea when I would employ such a look, but I do look forward to the day when it turns out to be just the right thing! :-) __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

April 1st, 2004, 11:39 AM	#8
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	<<<-- Originally posted by Shawn Mielke : I'm still working the sh*ts and giggles out of myself and my new PD170, and I have to say that I'm really enjoying this 15fps thing, especially in combination with a high shutter speed. If ever I shoot a music video, I'll be sure to call upon this combinant effect. In as far as "normal" shooting goes, I have no idea when I would employ such a look, but I do look forward to the day when it turns out to be just the right thing! :-) -->>> Try shooting at the lowest shutter speed. I find this to give very interesting results in the following situations: I had to tape a dance class practice session in a very ugly room with mirrors in back of the dancers and high windows on the same wall facing into a Western Sun. I sat the camera on a low tripod, at the slowest shutter speed with a WA adapter to capture most of the room. The dancers have this white flowing ghost look that gets even more interesting when several of them come together in the center. Needed to tape a motorcycle officer driving down a street while I rode in a patrol car. Ugly footage in normal conditions. I cranked the speed all the way down and compensated with ND filters and a nearly-closed aperature. I sat in the back seat of the car (traveling at about 30 mph) with the camera held across my body, using the LCD panel flipped back against the camera body as the viewfinder. The officer, who was pacing the patrol car at a rear quarter, comes out quite clear against this very pretty flowing background of trees and houses. The uglies are gone and he really pops out against the way out-of-focus background. As the car and/or the motor bounce on street irregularities, his image sort of smoothly flows without being distorted. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

April 1st, 2004, 05:52 PM	#9
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Very cool. I have actually toyed with low shutter speeds while shooting dancing, with my PDX. I think I've been tending toward higher speeds in combination with the 170's 15fps because it brings some of the fluidic action back to such a low frame rate. Is this Sony progressive of the same type that the DVX employs? __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

March 31st, 2004, 01:10 PM	#2
Tavis Shaver Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC. Canada Posts: 209	it's my understanding that the vx2000 only does progressive at 15fps, which is likely why it made you feel "barfy". I think that the oly way to get rid of that feeling is to use progressive very sparingly or only when you are taking a static shot without much going on.

March 31st, 2004, 02:13 PM	#3
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	On my PD150 I find the progressive scan to be effectively useless. It may have value if you want to do lots of still screen captures but in that case I will use my digital still camera. I have played around with using a 30 fps shutter speed with some interesting, and much more satisfactory, results than the 15 fps progressive setting.

March 31st, 2004, 02:23 PM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	If you're looking for a progressive scan soft of effect I think you'll be better served doing it in post with an adaptive deinterlacer. Shooting at 1/30 is like cutting your resolution in half as it writes the same data to both interlaced fields. One good use I've heard of for the VX-2000's progressive mode is time lapse photography however. As long as you're speeding the footage up by at least 200% in post then it should work very well for that.

March 31st, 2004, 07:19 PM	#6
Linda Schodowsky Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Berea, Ohio Posts: 139	Thanks to all for the info. Boyd... just what is an "adaptive deniterlacer"?

March 31st, 2004, 08:08 PM	#7
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Normal video consists of two fields; the odd numbered scan lines are displayed for 1/60 second, then the even numbered scan lines are shown for 1/60 second. So it takes 1/30 second to display the full picture. If you combine both fields into a single picture you there is a problem with areas that have motion because the fields are captured 1/60 second apart. An adaptive deinterlacer attempts to compensate for this by treating the static areas of the image differently from the areas with motion. The result is similar to progressive video shot at 30 frames per second. Try doing a search for "deinterlacing" and you will find a wealth of knowledge on this topic.

April 2nd, 2004, 12:58 PM	#10
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The VX2000 makes an excellent motor-drive stills camera when you use progressive scan Linda. I've shot lots of footage of swimmers and divers using this mode, and (here in PAL land) I capture 12.5 frames every second. I don't use the ND filters, I simply select a high shutter speed (something like 1/600th sec) and a nice sharp apereture of around f4 (depending on the lighting of course). Then I can shoot the divers and the butterfly boys all day long. An hour tape still lasts an hour of course, and records full stereo sound while you're at it. As you scrub through your timeline it's really easy to select the peak-of-the-action frames for printing or burning to CD ROM. I tried doing it with a 35mm SLR and in the end gave up. 3.5fps is nowhere near enough for a dive and invariably missed the peak points too. tom.

April 2nd, 2004, 09:32 PM	#11
Linda Schodowsky Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Berea, Ohio Posts: 139	I've been doing alot of searching to find out more on this, so I am not sure where I found this, in what forum, but this is what I came up with, and it works pretty good: Custom preset with sharpness either at minumum or one click above Turn color level down anywhere from one click to the minimum (depending on what you shoot) Shoot at 1/60 I wish I could remember where I pulled this from. It came up when I searched for "film look". I went back and tried to find the post... couldn't find it. I wrote down this stuff late last night and just tried it out.