Whats the difference between 25p progressive and 25p scan? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z7 / HVR-S270

Sony HVR-Z7 / HVR-S270
Handheld and shoulder mount versions of this Sony 3-CMOS HDV camcorder.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 24th, 2008, 09:33 AM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nottingham UK
Posts: 37
Whats the difference between 25p progressive and 25p scan?

25p progressive seems to come into Final Cut from a HDV tape as field dominance 'None'

25p scan comes in as field dominance 'top or bottom' (i can remember which) i.e interlaced.

Also does CF only record 25p scan? 25p progressive footage recorded to tape and CF seems to record 25p progressive to tape and 25pscan to CF?

Is there any physical or quality difference between the two?
Jon Oneill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2008, 08:42 AM   #2
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Grange over Sands UK
Posts: 99
I didn't buy my 270 for 25P but did a short test shoot when I got the camera to see what all the fuss was about. I replayed the shoot via component on a 1080P tv and to be honest was not impressed at all. For me 25P= "jerky pictures" so why bother , or am I missing something here?
__________________
Cameraman BBC and ITV since 1966
Barry Wilkinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2008, 09:05 PM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 588
Me too... I don't get it?

When shooting Progressive, it's even jerky through the viewfinder... not so bad in playback, but certainly not silky smooth like interlaced is.

I feel like I'm missing something too because people get all excited about Progressive and to me it looks shit.
__________________
Over 28 years watching TV
John Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2008, 11:06 PM   #4
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Knight View Post
Me too... I don't get it?

When shooting Progressive, it's even jerky through the viewfinder... not so bad in playback, but certainly not silky smooth like interlaced is.

I feel like I'm missing something too because people get all excited about Progressive and to me it looks shit.
There are many of us that feel this way, but everyone keeps shooting 1080p25 and 1080p24 with the EX1 and other camcorders.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2008, 08:48 AM   #5
New Boot
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dorset UK
Posts: 21
I'm new to all things HD/HDV but I read the threads on another forum about Plasma screens. This led me to a manufacturer's ad that promised their latest product would get rid of 24p judder from movies. Isn't this what Blu-Ray discs are formatted in?

I'm still confused about this issue. If people are shooting 24/25p why? Just to emulate film? I've read that if you are careful when shooting in these modes and restrict the shutter AND you are careful about keeping movement within the frame to a minimum (e.g. no faster than seven seconds for a pan), then you should be Ok to go.

Why is Sony using 'native progressive' as a selling point, I too am still trying to get my head around all of this.

One thread I read a while back advocated that a Z7 is probably best confined to 'event' photography and if you want to make movies then look to the EX1. Why? Why can't you make a feature on the Z7? Three new movies about to be released were shot on Z1's by professional teams.

Are we going to reach a point any time soon where the look of film becomes outdated and we accept the look of the new technology that we have bought into?

Regards

Paul
Paul Miley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2008, 11:16 AM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Miley View Post
I'm new to all things HD/HDV but I read the threads on
Are we going to reach a point any time soon where the look of film becomes outdated and we accept the look of the new technology that we have bought into?

Regards

Paul
Yes, Paul. I think the day may not be too far off. When 1080/60p or 50p is available on the cameras in the Z7-EX1's price range.

Actually, progressive is not bad. It is in many ways superior to interlace in this age of web video and flat panel screens. The problem is the SLOW frame rates of 24/25-30p, not the progressive scan recording of the scenes. If you look at any decently shot (even with fast and whip panning)720/50-60p footage, you will agree with me that most of the motion issues you see in 24p are gone, provided that the shutter speed/angle is set properly.

But why quite a few people still shoot 24/25p and say they love the look of it? Only they can answer the question. It may have something to do with the memories of Hollywood movies as exquisitely projected on the theater screens. To me, 24p video coming out of sub-$10,000 cameras just looks as crappy as you said.

Wacharapong
Wacharapong Chiowanich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2008, 12:57 PM   #7
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nottingham UK
Posts: 37
i may be wrong, but i think even when film is treated in the same way as progressive video i.e fast pans, its is also jerky and stutters.
Jon Oneill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2008, 08:58 PM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Posts: 400
No! You are not. Film will behave similar to video if not done right. However, most of the 35mm film-originated movies we've seen were done right with perfect or near perfect lighting, appropriate use of depth of field control made possible by the physics of 35mm film size and the lenses. Last but not least, they were shot with highly experienced film crews who move the cameras within the limits of the 24p frame rate.

I've long wondered what those movies would have looked if shot with film run at 50 or 60p.

Wacharapong
Wacharapong Chiowanich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2008, 10:23 AM   #9
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nottingham UK
Posts: 37
So the 'quality' look of film is caused by its defect? Would people have shot at 50/60fps on film if budget was not an issue? I suppose they would have....
Jon Oneill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2008, 01:24 AM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 126
I've asked myself that same question many a time.
__________________
Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. - Albert Einstein

http://advaloreminternational.com
Victor Muh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2008, 03:54 AM   #11
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
I always shoot 1080i 50i with my Z7 etc with a shutter speed of 100. I then drop it to 25p (or 24p for filmic look) in post prod. I agree 25p is too jerky in the camera.

I am having good results using greame nattress filters to do the filmic look, but if I just want 25p I use the pro res output route.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2008, 09:50 AM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Knight View Post
Me too... I don't get it?

When shooting Progressive, it's even jerky through the viewfinder... not so bad in playback, but certainly not silky smooth like interlaced is.

I feel like I'm missing something too because people get all excited about Progressive and to me it looks shit.
When i first got my JVC and shot progressive I had the same problem. I thought it was a fault with the camera until someone told me I had to learn to shoot progressive like a film camera to avoid the judder. I read everything on the subject i could and now i shoot totally different and dont have any judder at all. Its a much different method of using a camera and we dont even think about the judder problem. We have learnt to set the camera moves up to avoid this. I love it and will never go back. The look is amazing.
__________________
Dennis Robinson
G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111
Dennis Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2008, 10:45 AM   #13
New Boot
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dorset UK
Posts: 21
Dennis,

What is it that you do that is 'totally' different? Is this purely camera movement you are talking about? If so, would you say that there are NO judder problems in progressive mode when the camera is static?

Cheers
Paul Miley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2008, 10:58 AM   #14
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Miley View Post
Dennis,

What is it that you do that is 'totally' different? Is this purely camera movement you are talking about? If so, would you say that there are NO judder problems in progressive mode when the camera is static?

Cheers
Hi Paul,
The main thing I had to learn was to keep the action in the frame. There is no need to pan and all pans must be slow. In fact I rarely pan at all now. If a subject is moving the camera must track with it. This avoids all judder on the subject, only in the the background and gives that crisp sharp look e.g. at a car travelling down the road.
Also, if the camera is static the moving subject must be moving towards or away from the camera diagonally and not left to right or right to left across the lens. You will see this technique in every film and it is easy to do once you get used to knowing what to look for. I think now that I have learnt the techniques it would be difficult for me to introduce judder. I merely set up the shots to avoid it. I shoot mainly TV commercials as well and that includes retail shops and other events. You just cant wave the camera around panning like you can an interlaced cam... and you shouldnt need to.
__________________
Dennis Robinson
G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111
Dennis Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2008, 01:09 PM   #15
New Boot
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dorset UK
Posts: 21
Dennis thanks for that information.

Gary, does the shutter speed of 100 that you use have any disadvantages?

Cheers

Paul
Paul Miley is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z7 / HVR-S270

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:41 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network