DV Info Net - 24p for the Z1/FX1 Post-NAB?

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)

- Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-hvr-z1-hdr-fx1/)

- - 24p for the Z1/FX1 Post-NAB? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-hvr-z1-hdr-fx1/43507-24p-z1-fx1-post-nab.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Woods

So if the footage can be converted to 4:2:2 YUV uncompressed, will this allow for better color correction, compositing, greenscreening, etc., of the files in this format as opposed to the m2t files?

Absolutely.
Don't work on the native m2t files directly unless you're willing to suffer some loss. Of course, if it's just a single pass, the m2t files hold up fairly well, but the 4:2:2 YUV is a much better format for compositing, color correction, etc. But....Beware the MUCH larger file sizes. Be SURE that you have enough storage space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Jothi

You will always lose resolution when you deinterlace an image. Always.

Forget the numbers though and look at two exact examples of a progressive image and a deinterlaced image and you will see little difference. The difference is there, and on a monitor when you flick between deinterlaced and interlaced, you can see a slight loss in detail, but once you're watching on whatever it is being delivered to, you will wonder what all the fuss is about.

Chris, how much resolution loss? And also someone earlier said they thought Vegas did the same thing in post that Panasonic did in camera with its 24p--does Panasonic also have a resolution loss? What's the principle behind inherent loss when de-interlacing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsy Moore

And also someone earlier said they thought Vegas did the same thing in post that Panasonic did in camera with its 24p--does Panasonic also have a resolution loss?

That's a common misconception and 180-degrees mistaken. The in-camera 24p from the Panasonic (and Canon) products are imaging true progressive images. They are actually much *higher* in resolution than interlaced video. The post solutions are starting with interlaced video and then blending the fields together in a way that simulates the look of 24p.

There's nothing similar about the ways that are being implemented. With the in-camera solutions you're talking about a device that is progressively-scanning one frame every 1/24 of a second. With the post solutions, they're taking 60 fields and attempting to simulate the look of progressive capture.

What is similar is the overall feeling of the footage once you're done. And the post algorithms can be very good -- film transfer houses have been doing this for decades, so they've gotten quite good at it, and all reports are that the GearShift program, and Vegas' internal processing, do a great job of it.