Mike Oveson |
February 15th, 2006 05:31 PM |
I like to argue too, so I guess we'll be here a while. =) I'm just kidding. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, and I hope I don't come across that way. But I do like to have intelligent discussions where everyone learns. So, with that said, let's dive back in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georg Liigand
So I don't think that progressive has only pro's and no con's... Doesn't it handle fast motion better?
|
Well, I'd love to say it does, but in general use it doesn't. Most sports shows that are shot in HD are shot in 1080i instead of 720p. Most people feel that interlaced video is easier to slow down. Not necessarily. If you are shooting in 60p (like with an HVX200) then you're going to get incredible slow motion because you have 60 solid frames per second instead of 60 fields that have to be interlaced. So, some of it has to deal with frame rate, but I'd have to say that in general interlaced is usually used when fast motion is being recorded (such as sporting events).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georg Liigand
The "home video feel" is actually a very subjective term :) It just depends what you are producing. All those things like progressive vs. interlaced, widescreen vs. old 4:3, etc etc begin to play a real role when you are trying to produce a professional-looking film. For example the footage of the well-known Jackass series looks exactly like home video, but it's still famous worldwide.
|
Well, you do bring up a good point there. TV shows such as Jackass can really have that "home video look", even if they are shot on better equipment. Part of that, at least in the case of Jackass, is due to very unstable hand held shots and rapid/erratic camera movements. I'm just saying that if you shot the same thing side by side with a progressive camera and an interlaced camera the "feel" of the footage would be different. I've actually been trying to get a clip of this exact thing shot. My buddy has a GL2 (which only shoots in 60i) and I have my DVX100A. I'd like to shoot something in 30P and 24P while he shoots the same thing in 60i. Hopefully this spring we can get that done.
One TV show that is rather popular (Extreme Makeover: Home Edition) appears to be shooting the interview sections of the show in progressive, while the part of the show where they build the house is shot interlaced. It's quite a stark difference. There's been discussion of this over on DVXuser.com. It's one popular example that you can see for yourself.
Anyway, I won't drone on and on about this. I just feel like progressive is misunderstood. One thing that I think lends to that is what I like to think of as the "24P crowd" of which I'll have to say I'm part of. When my friend got his GL2 about 9 months ago I was still researching which camera I wanted to buy. While I really liked the GL2, I was more interested in the DVX (and for many reasons). But when I got my DVX I was so excited about it and I kept telling my GL2 friend how cool mine was and how cool 24P is and all of that. I think he just gets sick of it. I think people who 60i don't like to be told it is an "inferior" format. Let me clarify, I'm not saying that 60i is worthless, but it is not the superior format. But no one likes to be told that what they have is less than what someone else has. We all get the same flak from the HDV crowd. I get sick of hearing "HDV is better, everyone must switch to HDV". And so I know what it is like. There's a certain resentment to statements like that. So, when someone says "Progressive is better!" there's a natural tendency to defy that. I'm not saying that you're being defiant Georg, I'm just saying that this is what I have observed. I may be wrong, I'm not Dr. Phil. I can't analyse everyone perfectly. But this is what I have observed and thought I might point it out. Take it for what it's worth.
|