I should have been more clear and made it a point to say "when shooting PROGRESSIVE". I guess I made the mistake of thinking that was obvious. I haven't shot any interlaced video since 2006, but I guess there are still some people holding onto that old technology.

Anyway, you are missing the whole point of my original post. The person I was responding to stated that shutter should only be used when shooting under "natural" light. Certainly you must disagree with that ridiculous statement.

Sorry, didn't know you haven't shot interlaced! We still shoot in that "old" technology over here in the UK as a lot of Broadcasters insist on it.

I do agree that progressive does need shutter a lot of the time whether lit or unlit.

"Sorry, didn't know you haven't shot interlaced! We still shoot in that "old" technology over here in the UK as a lot of Broadcasters insist on it."

That's news to me, I always produce Progressive material these days, it results in cleaner frames and is easier for doing green screen work.

When I first purchased the EX3 I tried all the frame rates and hated the 720p 24fps look. Now two years later I shoot all my material on 24fps. 720 for my DVD output and 1920x1080 for broadcast material. (Getty, BBC etc)

Yes I do know why progressive can be better, but some of the production companies I work for ask for 50i even when shooting HD.

Interested that you shoot 24 fps and not 25 fps - is that for compatibility with film or easier export to NTSC areas?

Cheers

24fps is for Easier export to North America etc and Getty prefer this frame rate too.

NTSC DVDs will play on 98% of UK players. PAL will not play on the majority of US players (not sure of the figures for this)