|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 2nd, 2004, 08:43 AM
|
#1 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 12
|
When to use 24p & when not?
Hi all
This might seem a little unsophisticated but I've recently bought the new XL2 (after bashing my XL1 to the teeth for six years)...and it's the 25p progressive scan option which does me over... My question is when to use it? I've read on quite a few boards that the primary reason for doing so would be to get the 'film look' and although this is desirable I'm a little concerned that since a lot of the doc I've been shooting on has been shot on trad. interlaced 50 (whatever it is) and that intercutting the 25p with the rest will not give the piece some semblenace of visual continuity... any thoughts would be most helpful... |
|
|
|
November 2nd, 2004, 09:12 AM
|
#2 |
|
RED Code Chef
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
|
Your concern is understandable and mostly true as well. Due to
the different capture methods progressive has a very different temporal signature than interlaced. Depending on the amount of motion in your scene (by the camera or objects you are shooting) it can look very different and indeed look strange in combination with other footage. Whether or not this is a problem depends on the doc your making and the sections this difference would be in. If you don't want any difference I would suggest to shoot in just plain old interlaced!
__________________
Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge | Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
November 4th, 2004, 03:33 AM
|
#3 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 12
|
Thanks Rob your comments give me thoughtfood...cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
November 8th, 2004, 09:54 PM
|
#4 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,055
|
In PAL based world, 25p would be most useful for transferring to 24fps film, and is basically like the frame mode of the XL1 but with the full resolution offered by the CCD. It's like a pseudo "film look" that got everyone excited here in North America when it was first realized the XL1 first had it.
If you shoot everything 50i, you can always deinterlace in post to regenerate a "progressive" looking image. Of course some resolution may get lost, but that will depend on what software and method you use of course. 50i = reality tv shows 25p = film motion |
|
|
|
|
November 12th, 2004, 05:16 PM
|
#5 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
25i/p PAL to Film
I concur that there will be a visual mismatch intercutting 25i and 25P footage.
This thread seems a spot to post a question. When transfer 25i to film at a 1:1 frame rate, I assume it's necessary to de-interlace (resulting in some loss of vertical resolution) to 25P first? |
|
|
|
|
November 12th, 2004, 05:50 PM
|
#6 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,055
|
De-interlacing is not straight cut, nor that well understood I find.
Most people would tell you that when you deinterlace in post you end up with half the resolution because the fields are blended together to make a full frame. Other will tell you that when you deinterlace you interpolate fields to create a new frame and only a bit of resolution gets lost this way - say only 25%. Wrong again. (I have no idea where these numbers come from?!) Some will swear their deinterlacing results have been amazing... while others will curse it. The truth about deinterlacing is there are a variety of methods, some of which utilize complex algorithms and calculations to remove deinterlace artifacting - and others that for the most part really just "blend" fields. Honestly, no two deinterlacing processes are the same. Having said that, if you're planning to transfer to film you should ask the transfer house how exactly they will go about creating progressive full frames from your footage and ask them directly what kind of vertical resolution loss you might expect. |
|
|
|
|
November 12th, 2004, 06:28 PM
|
#7 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
but i am correct in saying that de-interlacing will be necessary?
but i am correct in saying that de-interlacing will be necessary at some point in the PAL to Film process, even if it's a 25 PAL > 25 FPS Film transfer?
|
|
|
|
|
November 12th, 2004, 06:32 PM
|
#8 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,055
|
For the best look you should deinterlace, but actually no you don't have to deinterlace at all. But then you end up with deinterlace artifacting on film print - this is that stairstepping looking effect on objects in motion and looks awful.
|
|
|
|
|
January 11th, 2005, 11:36 AM
|
#9 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 489
|
'but i am correct in saying that de-interlacing will be necessary at some point in the PAL to Film process, even if it's a 25 PAL > 25 FPS Film transfer?'
1. undeinterlaced 25i -- film = horrific 2. deinterlaced 25i -- film = clearly video originated 3. 25p -- film = has potential, depending on all the other technical and production elements of course Of course, no's 1 and 2 can be used if the viewer is okay knowing 'n feeling they're watching video.. see Farehneit 911
__________________
www.irishfilmmaker.com |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
