AG-HPX500, 1080i vs. 1080p at DVinfo.net

Ron Ambrose · November 23rd, 2008, 06:49 PM

I was hoping to get some information on the advantages and disadvantages of these 2 recording modes. Any issues people have encountered, benefits of one over the other and people opinion of which form is better/more useful.

Thanks for any help, sorry for being so vague, but new to these formats and camera and want to get peoples opinions.

Dan Brockett · November 23rd, 2008, 07:09 PM

1080i = interlaced, live video look. Personally after shooting interlaced for decades, I don't like the look of it for most subjects I shoot although it can look amazingly good for the right subject and lighting.

1080p = progressive, more filmic, fewer jagged edges on hi-contrast edges than interlaced. The HPX500 uses progressive CCDs so why convert to interlaced unless you need that specific "live" look?

Also depends on what your end product is, which audience, your subject matter, deliverable requirements. If shooting for broadcast, you should check with your client or broadcast outlet, most of them have very specific requirements and a wrong decision here can be expensive to mitigate later.

Dan

Spike Spiegel · November 23rd, 2008, 10:45 PM

anyone done any work for National Geographic International here? I'm in the same boat also... wondering whether to capture raw at 1080p or 1080i

Spike Spiegel · November 24th, 2008, 01:29 PM

well I found out that Nat Geo's preferred route is 1080i 29.97 delivered in HDCAM SR, for anyone curious.

TingSern Wong · November 25th, 2008, 06:47 AM

If your utimate target is for ordinary TV, shoot in interlaced. Otherwise, progressive.

November 23rd, 2008, 06:49 PM	#1
Ron Ambrose Tourist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 1	AG-HPX500, 1080i vs. 1080p I was hoping to get some information on the advantages and disadvantages of these 2 recording modes. Any issues people have encountered, benefits of one over the other and people opinion of which form is better/more useful. Thanks for any help, sorry for being so vague, but new to these formats and camera and want to get peoples opinions.

November 23rd, 2008, 07:09 PM	#2
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	1080i = interlaced, live video look. Personally after shooting interlaced for decades, I don't like the look of it for most subjects I shoot although it can look amazingly good for the right subject and lighting. 1080p = progressive, more filmic, fewer jagged edges on hi-contrast edges than interlaced. The HPX500 uses progressive CCDs so why convert to interlaced unless you need that specific "live" look? Also depends on what your end product is, which audience, your subject matter, deliverable requirements. If shooting for broadcast, you should check with your client or broadcast outlet, most of them have very specific requirements and a wrong decision here can be expensive to mitigate later. Dan

November 23rd, 2008, 10:45 PM	#3
Spike Spiegel Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 429	anyone done any work for National Geographic International here? I'm in the same boat also... wondering whether to capture raw at 1080p or 1080i

November 24th, 2008, 01:29 PM	#4
Spike Spiegel Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 429	well I found out that Nat Geo's preferred route is 1080i 29.97 delivered in HDCAM SR, for anyone curious.

November 25th, 2008, 06:47 AM	#5
TingSern Wong Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore, Rep of SINGAPORE Posts: 749	If your utimate target is for ordinary TV, shoot in interlaced. Otherwise, progressive.