difference between thick and thin at DVinfo.net

Miguel Lopez · March 26th, 2003, 10:12 AM

Ok. I have seen the images in the computer, and the difference is clear. When seeing the thin images in a tv, they look bad, but in the computer much better than the thick mode.

Why? WHen do you use thin and thick?

Clayton Farr · March 26th, 2003, 12:33 PM

The Thick mode is in affect applying vertical blurring to aid with interlaced displays like your TV (akin to adding a 'flicker filter' to high res images.) The Thin mode has more vertical information which can cause interlaced display to flicker/flutter.

If you know that your content is destined for interlaced TV display solely than you could just shoot Thick to save extra steps in post.

But I would suggest shooting Thin and reducing the vertical sharpness to taste in post as your needs dictate. (ie - have the highest quality master which you could then create an adjusted version from for NTSC display.)

HTH,
Clayton

Miguel Lopez · March 26th, 2003, 12:46 PM

But what i do not understand is that thin images look softer, then why is the need of blurring even more the images so the video doesn´t flick?

Clayton Farr · March 26th, 2003, 01:19 PM

What do you mean by the Thin images looking 'softer'? Is this when displayed on the TV? The primary artifact you should be seeing is the flickering that comes from putting a higher res progressive image on an interlaced display (you can do the same thing by placing a detailed, higher res photo on your timeline.) The reason that the Thin footage looks best on your computer monitor is because it is a progressive display.

Is it the 'fluttering' of the image that is making it look softer on your TV set? (Also, this of course is different than having your play head parked on a 'pulldown' frame that is flickering two different progressive images together.)

Clayton

Miguel Lopez · March 26th, 2003, 01:47 PM

In a computer screen, the Thin images look slighlty softer (blur), with a little more quality, and less grain.

My camera is PAL, so there is no pulldown.

Clayton Farr · March 26th, 2003, 03:52 PM

I guess I'm not following - what do you mean by 'a little more quality' but also 'slightly softer'? (Also, how are you viewing them on your computer?)

<< My camera is PAL, so there is no pulldown. >>

So is it just laying down 25 progressive images to 50 fields per second for interlaced PAL?

March 26th, 2003, 10:12 AM	#1
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	difference between thick and thin Ok. I have seen the images in the computer, and the difference is clear. When seeing the thin images in a tv, they look bad, but in the computer much better than the thick mode. Why? WHen do you use thin and thick?

March 26th, 2003, 12:33 PM	#2
Clayton Farr Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 94	The Thick mode is in affect applying vertical blurring to aid with interlaced displays like your TV (akin to adding a 'flicker filter' to high res images.) The Thin mode has more vertical information which can cause interlaced display to flicker/flutter. If you know that your content is destined for interlaced TV display solely than you could just shoot Thick to save extra steps in post. But I would suggest shooting Thin and reducing the vertical sharpness to taste in post as your needs dictate. (ie - have the highest quality master which you could then create an adjusted version from for NTSC display.) HTH, Clayton

March 26th, 2003, 12:46 PM	#3
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	But what i do not understand is that thin images look softer, then why is the need of blurring even more the images so the video doesn´t flick?

March 26th, 2003, 01:19 PM	#4
Clayton Farr Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 94	What do you mean by the Thin images looking 'softer'? Is this when displayed on the TV? The primary artifact you should be seeing is the flickering that comes from putting a higher res progressive image on an interlaced display (you can do the same thing by placing a detailed, higher res photo on your timeline.) The reason that the Thin footage looks best on your computer monitor is because it is a progressive display. Is it the 'fluttering' of the image that is making it look softer on your TV set? (Also, this of course is different than having your play head parked on a 'pulldown' frame that is flickering two different progressive images together.) Clayton

March 26th, 2003, 01:47 PM	#5
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	In a computer screen, the Thin images look slighlty softer (blur), with a little more quality, and less grain. My camera is PAL, so there is no pulldown.

March 26th, 2003, 03:52 PM	#6
Clayton Farr Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 94	I guess I'm not following - what do you mean by 'a little more quality' but also 'slightly softer'? (Also, how are you viewing them on your computer?) << My camera is PAL, so there is no pulldown. >> So is it just laying down 25 progressive images to 50 fields per second for interlaced PAL?