Recording in Progressive or Interlaced?
 

Hi,

I'm still not really firm on how to judge the need to record my Video.Progressive or Interlaced?

Though i'm not doing Action Movie...but while Walking, Swinging the Body and doing some light movement like picking a pen from the Floor and Stand up again...every movement while recorded isn't that really smooth or may say it'll presence the blurry effects on Subject ..and all the Stand Still object were clear enough...

Hope you understand how's my situation regarding my description above.

What do you think? it's all bout setting on Progressive and Interlaced? or...some other issue? or...it's quite normal situation? or...it'll solved when i "De-interlaced" it on NLE?

BTW, i've setup Lighting...means, lights is enough!!

Thanks and hope to hear from you soon!!!

I'd stay interlaced. You can always deinterlace in post and interlaced gives you better options if you want to slow the footage down and keep it looking smooth.

It also depends on your output media. Video for the Web should always be deinterlaced, but again you can do that in post.

I don't fully understand your problem, but I thought I would add more a little more to the interlaced/progressive discussion.

The best possible picture would most likely come from shooting in your camera sensors native format, either interlaced or progressive depending on the camera.

However, if you need a specific format, it would be best to let the camera do the interlaced or progressive conversion since it uses a raw signal at well above the 8 bit level that a NLE would use. Not all cameras are going to give this option.

Hi there,

I assumed that the output was more important when deciding interlaced or progressive. Is that a wrong assumption?

Isn't progressive better for any recording which will be for the internet? And aren't DVDs and LCDs also in that category?

I also thought (maybe wrongly) that interlaced was really only better for fast speed (e.g action or sports) or if you need to slow down and don't have a 60p option?

All clarification would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks!

Whilst it's true that one generally wants to shoot in the same or similar format as the intended output format, there are exceptions for 60/50i and 30/25p. If you want field data for use in post, such as for slomo and other effects that use fields, then one should shoot interlaced. If you're delivering 24p, then shoot 24p. There are generally no field options at this frame rate.

If you're only going to the Web, then shoot progressive. Keep in mind the caveats stated above. NTSC DVDs are 29.97i, full stop. Tricks can be applied for 30p and 24p emulation, but the actual format is 29.97i.

LCDs are natively progressive.

Each of the formats, 60i, 30p and 24p (NTSC) have their advantages. One must plan the entire production out before shooting the first frame. Choices made at the start will effect the ultimate finished appearance and workflow.

Thanks Tripp. Thats really helped me out. If you don't mind answering a few more question it would help me get my head around this stuff.

I'm Pal based (not me personally, but ... yeah...) I was wondering (and this is hypothetical) what type of option you would have if you were shooting something that was for the web but needed to burn of some DVDs too? Would it be better to deinterlace for the web or is there a progressive shooting option?

Also, what if your DVD gets played on an LCD?

Lastly, what tricks/option are there to emulate 24/25p for DVD once you've shot in 50i?

Thanks in advance for all your help!
:)

No worries. We've all been there.
That's a bit of a head scratcher because there are several factors that enter into making that decision. Most of them are creative and will effect the production workflow. And for us in NTSC-land, there's a big difference in the look betweek 60i and 24p.

To more directly answer your question, if you're going to both the Web and DVD there's nothing technically wrong with deinterlacing at any point in your workflow. I think that most, if not all DVD authoring tools from Encore to Nero can ingest both progressive and interlaced video and produce "legal" DVDs.

Progressive versus interlaced is really an artistic decision which create different "looks" to your production. In PAL, the differences are not huge and you'll figure out for yourself which look you prefer for your work over time. As long as you ultimately deinterlace your Web versions, you'll be just fine.

It will be fine if the DVD player is set up correctly, but that's not your concern. It's not something you need to consider as part of the production process.
You don't actually emulate progressive, per se, you convert to it. If you deinterlace 50i, you have 25p. It's that simple. The down side is that most deinterlacing discards either the even or odd fields so resolution is cut in half. Lost fields are recreated through interpolation in most cases. This is why it's usually best to shoot using the same format as your delivery media.

I know that this must seem a bit daunting now, but it will get simpler and more intuitive as you gain experience. You might try a couple of simple, short test projects using the different formats and see what you get. You can even get a couple of DVD-RWs to save money so you can burn test DVDs, erase them and try again.

Hope that helps.

Native interlaced displays (CRT televisions) are quickly dying out and being replaced with native progressive displays (LCD and the like). Also, it's much easier to display progressive images on a native interlaced display without degradation, than to display interlaced images on a native progressive display (some degradation is unavoidable). If you want temporal resolution of 60fps (for slo-mo or whatever) there are a number of cameras that can shoot 720p60, which will look better played back on a native progressive display than deinterlaced 1080i60.

It's also much much easier to convert between frame rates and convert from HD to SD with progressive material than interlace. I shoot stock footage which is sold globally. ALL the big stock libraries now want progressive material and not interlaced.

A de-interlaced image will never look as good as a true native progressive image (assuming the camera is a true progressive camera) if there is any movement as the temporal displacement of the fields will lead to some softening or other artifacts.

There seems to be less and less point in shooting interlace these days as display technology moves to progressive. It's harder to get a bad result with progressive material as if it is shown on an interlaced monitor or TV it still looks progressive while interlace on a progressive display can look terrible with all kinds of combing and other field artifacts. Additionally most modern codecs find it far easier to compress and encode progressive material than interlace which leads to better multi-generation results and higher picture quality for a given bit rate.

Note:

A SD DVD uses an interlaced MPEG-2 file.

All SD DVD players are natively outputting 60i (or 50i). All the high end ones allow you to select the output; auto-480i-480P-720P-1080i-1080P. 1080P only outputs over a HDMI cable, not component.

Bottom line, you have almost no control over how your material is viewed except off the internet.

I tend to shoot progressive, usually 720P30 or 1080P30, although I shot 1080i interlaced when I had an XH-A1. Stick to progressive if you can.

It really does not make a huge visible difference either way.

There are a couple of pros and cons which I consider before I pick a shooting mode:

Interlaced:
My choice if I need to slow the footage down. The main con for me is when I'm outputting in both HD and SD, and that's deinterlacing correctly. NTSC HD has the opposite field dominance than SD. This isn't true for PAL. So, I'll output an lossless intermediate file interlaced. I will then deinterlace in the transcodes to both HD and SD. It just adds to the complexity and if you get the settings wrong it will look like the dog's dinner.

Progressive:
Everything else. Eliminates any issues and time spent thinking about fields.

Until I get a 60p camera I really won't be able to abandon interlaced shooting, as much as I would like to.

I always shoot interlaced and do any progressive in post, I shoot 1080i 50i at 25fps with a shutter speed of 100 and then produce a pro res 422 master in 1080i 25p at 25fps.

A 60P camera (like the HMC-150) does bring a whole new level of quality to slo-mo material, pretty amazing.

Unfortunately Sony Vegas chokes on 60P material, but you can put it on a 30P timeline for perfect slo-mo effects.

I was pretty excited about the JVC until I learned that the low light performance is a bit ropey. For night outdoor sports, which I do a lot of, it's an imperative so I'll have to wait a bit longer. But if you don't need that or a long zoom, it's a good option for progressive capture.

I'm in a part of the world that uses PAL and always use interlaced 50i and even on an LCD it looks better than 25P the camera is a Canon HF10 and captures interlace as standard, the problem with 25P is it is to like watching the old films I grew up with, and I like the modern smooth flow of interlaced, it's probably not as noticeable in NTSC at 30fps, I only convert to progressive for the web and am never very pleased with the results, Vimeo seems to convert to some strange frame rate that causes slight freezes, not only for PAL but also for NTSC,

The only problem I have is PAL AVCHD is upper field first were as PAL SD mpeg2 is lower field first so if you are converting interlaced keep the field order the same as the original, not sure what Blue-ray as I never use it.