It did get locked at one point, but was reopened for Marcus' comments, and the way it progessed after that, including everyone taking a deep breath, is a testament to this community as a whole. This will be great info to have in the search.

Do wish I could change the title though to read "24F IS Good Enough For Film Transfer". Chris? Anyway to do that?

Markus, since you're updating the out-dated information about what is or isn't suitable for film transfer at DVFilm: how about the Sony HVR-V1U/E/P progressive format, the 24/25/30 PsF?

It seems to me the only way a meaningful test can be done on this issue is for somebody to shoot something with the Canon camera at 24F, then shoot exactly the same thing from exactly the same position at 60i and send both to DVFilm. Then you can see if the resolution difference makes any difference.

From tape-to-film transfers I've done over the years, the most important things are the quality of the original video and your choice of facility to do the transfer. As I posted earlier, DVFilm did excellent work for me on a project a couple of years ago. It was all standard interlace DVCAM footage with two different cameras, a DSR500 and a DSR250. The 35mm print projected in a theater looked as good as the original video. And, in shooting 24p footage with the XH A1, the resolution in that mode is significantly higher than the DSR500 shooting DVCAM, so it's logical to expect a transfer to look as good or better than even the 2/3" chip camera shooting DVCAM.

One thing I remember from the transfer at DVFilm...they had recommended the titles be put on a separate file at 24p because the end quality would be better (my master was 60i). I didn't do that because there wasn't time, and the end product looked perfectly fine. I'm sure doing it right would have made it look even better, but my point is, with a good facility and good lab, you're going to get a good looking print if your original video is good. My attitude is that I'd rather keep everything progressive all the way even if it involves that slight loss in resolution. Remember that with the Canon system, you're talking about the difference between the Canon at 60i and the Canon at 24p, and its resolution is high enough to begin with in 60i that you can loose a bit with no big problem. But if you chose to shoot 60i and go to film, my experience is to let DVFilm do the conversion rather than doing your own deinterlacing in the computer.

I just had a project transfered to Dbeta by a fiend that works in a pro editing house in Nashville & we had a long talk on this subject.
Seems that for me 60i is the way to go. Just the fact that if you have a shot you want to slow down, you've got that possibility with all your clips & since I'm working on a new doc, having the footage for "stock" seems better in 60i also.
60i just seems to me to give you more choices as to what you can do with your footage overall.
Chris

film vs hdv
 

this is film trailer the few outdoor shot looks very much like hv20

http://www.camuser.co.kr/cam_vm/VID_...ark_h1080p.wmv

here's hv10 upconverted to 4:2:2

http://www.camuser.co.kr/cam_vm/VID_...2007/03/sd.wmv

http://www.stefweb.net/mantoman/Trailer%20TEST%205.wmv

for anyone who's interested. It is, by far, not the best but the best-employed 35mm adapter footage I have seen to date. It is effective, clean and unobtrusive. Most shots have little DOF effect, but the film look is there. Add some more resolution and you'd have a superb 16mm replacement digital video recorder.

heres a tip...

DONT TELL THEM ITS FRAME MODE

once you're done editing, simply render out as native with no pulldown..
voila problem solved..

Great advice
 

I love that! Will remember it. I guess same apply for those located in PAL world.

Pavel