|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 23rd, 2007, 08:12 AM
|
#1 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 591
|
60i looks like progressive footage?
I've disco'd something interesting....
Did a beer pour in the studio yesterday with the z1u.... http://www.witzke-studio.com/hd/beer2.mov shot 60i, 1/60th, no cinegamma, blackstretch on or cineframe, 0 gain.... Imported the HDV footage into FCP.... then slowed the clips down to 30% with "blend" checked.... and all combing artifacts have disappeared! The footage actually looks like progressive footage! and viewed 100% on 23" cinema it looks like no loss in resolution like my other deinterlaced footage! |
|
|
|
February 23rd, 2007, 10:05 AM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 463
|
Isn't your footage running at 30% of its natural speed? The progressive look is probably a result of the frame blending option being selected.
|
|
|
|
|
February 23rd, 2007, 12:14 PM
|
#3 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 591
|
yes.... then speeding it back up it looks pretty clean.
no biggy... just mess'n round. |
|
|
|
|
February 23rd, 2007, 03:25 PM
|
#4 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,787
|
I'm sure it was the frame blending like Eric says. Interesting approach, but it probably makes more sense to use an adaptive deinterlacer like Joe's Filters, Nattress, DVFilm, etc. if you're trying to create a progressive look.
|
|
|
|
|
February 23rd, 2007, 05:00 PM
|
#5 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 463
|
I would tend to think that it's not the best method to achieve a progressive look, since you'd be putting two passes on the footage, when only one is really necessary. Of course, it's a workable poor-man's solution, if you don't have the extra $$$ to spend on the filters.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
