After using our EX3 for a while now and reading this forum quite a bit, I'm starting to learn that their are two distinct personalities of users.

1) People that want the look of film
2) People that want the look of very high quality video (like on the Discovery Channel)

I think it's important understand the differences here (I'm no expert, feel free to chime in).

FILM LOOK
Shoot progressive (gives a slight shutter look)
Shoot 24p (this isn't always the case, 30P is also popular)
Shoot with detail off (I haven't tried this yet myself)
CINE Gamma settings (CINE4 is popular)
35mm adaptors are also popular

VIDEO LOOK
Shoot interlaced (smooth motion)
Shoot 1080 60i
Shoot with detail on (this is just a guess on my part....might be wrong about this)
STD or CINE gamma settings (both are popular)
Final delivery will be for broadcast use (normally interlaced)

The point is, going for "the film look" isn't the same as wanting the highest quality video. It depends on the look you're going for. I made this mistake as I always thought that the "film look" was the holy grail and had to be the look I wanted. I've found that I don't really like the look of 24p, but have settled on 30p as of now. (might try 60i soon)

There are lots of things that determine "video quality" and some of it comes down to personal taste.

I've found this journey very interesting and enlightening. Just thought I'd share. :)

There are lots of things that determine "video quality" and some of it comes down to personal taste.

Probably one of the most profound, insightful declarations on this entire site.

I don't see 'film look' and 'video look' any more. I just see 'a look'. My preference is high framerate progressive scan. High quality 1080/50p would look sublime and I can't wait for it to come onto the market in force.

Otherwise, aside from 720p/50/60 my preference is to shoot 25p, not for film look, but for versatility. I like the look of it too, but I don't use it any more for the purpose of trying dismally to make my video look like 35mm.

I have settled for 1080i 50i with shutter at 100 for shooting and 1080i 25p for delivery in pro res 422.

Then there is me that shoots for the internet. Pretty much the only place my video will be seen.

I always shoot progressive because I hate interlaced, and so far my "look" has been crappy white balance...LOL

I"m thinking of have it copyrighted...

And I shoot both - 1080i60 for real life looking material (for me that's how-to's, industrials and unscripted reality shows) and 720p30 for scripted dramatic programs, mainly because the stories I shoot have a substantial amount of slow motion and undercrank in them.

Will be experimenting with higher res and framerate progressive for drama if and when, but those are my main modes for now.

I have settled for 1080i 50i with shutter at 100 for shooting and 1080i 25p for delivery in pro res 422.

Gary, what's 1080i 25p? hehehehe (I assume that's a typo)

Thanks for sharing everyone. I think this is becoming a useful thread.

How bizzare - I posted a blog article musing the very same thing just yesterday...

You got the look TV Soup (http://tvsoup.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/you-got-the-look/)

But to save you the click, I reckon 'The Film Look' is going to become a quaint or stylistic expression, like doing something in black and white.

Lots of cameras have moved on from the 'video' look of narrow exposure range, artificial sharpening and interlaced motion. So are we going to dub the super-real 1080p50/60 clean sharp images 'the HD look'?

And whilst we're here thinking about looks is it my imagination, or has the 'Top Gear' vignette and fast shutter speed 'look', once used sparingly and with absolute precision in the aforementioned entertainment series, become a poultice to apply to 'reality' TV material to make it look 'exciting'? 'Looks'? Bah!

What the camera should be doing (says he, chewing on the meerschaum and kicking the Labrador) is getting a nice neutral image with a range of tones and a neutral demeanour so that the colourist has something to work upon. Interlace be damned. Shoot enough frames and let your format decide.

But what bugs me is that we're pushed higher and higher into the realms of technical quality, yet the biggest market seems to be 'the fourth screen' wherein we'd be lucky to get 640x360. I'd say that with scaling down, it would be hard for most audiences (or even buyers) to tell the difference between 35mm and a well sorted EX or HVX. So then we're into a whole other argument - video acting vs film acting, video script vs film script, video sound vs film sound.

But the nurse says I must rest now.

I thought interlaced looked better when I first got my EX1. However progressive is the way to go. I have found that you have to shoot in a completely different way.

The motion issues are only a problem if you wave the camera around like a nutcase! I look at stuff on TV completely differently now. Most shots contain lots of movement in the frame rather than the camera moving around. Fast motion within the frame combined with fast cutting gives the feeling of motion without there actually being any, or very little, camera movement.

Music videos and TV ads are a good example. I believe that most commercials are still shot on film. HD cameras have to be handled a lot like film cameras. Film cameras get that "juddery" look too if not used properly.

I don't think I'd ever shoot interlaced again. I love the progressive look. Interlaced just looks far too stark.

I like the smooth motion of interlaced, I just like the solid look of the progressive framerates more. If 1080x60p ever gets widely adopted (by websites, TVs, and so on) and cameras start supporting it.. I'm there.

Good thoughts Mitchell.

It really does come down to what you like as well as what you need. The great thing is the EX can do it all. So here's my sentiments.

I don't like 24p. I don't like the lack of temporal resolution. Sure a good DP can work with it with the limits of camera moves etc. but me, I find it a handicap.

I shoot 1080p30 most of the time. I like progressive over interlace but I also like more temporal resolution that 30p affords.

Now if I'm shooting fast action I'll shoot 720p60.

I'll shoot 720p30 if I need to do a lot of overcranking.

If I'm really backed into a DARK corner I might shoot 1080i60 because interlace results in a major sensitivity increase but it's a really dark corner for me to make that choice.

For web, digital signage and corporate HDTV presentation it's progressive as well.

For Broadcast (SD TV spots in my case) I'm sorta torn given I need 480i60 in the end.

Generally 1080p30 is the all around best though. It gives me progressive I like and need for most delivery. It gives me a nice big frame size if I need to use it in a standard def timeline (reposition and "ken burn" type moves on moving video, etc). It gives reasonable temporal resolution for most of what I shoot. It also chroma keys much better than interlace.

Please, can somebody answer me...

What HD device can our viewers realistically buy now with even a shred of desire that natively displays interlaced video?

Shooting interlace is just a cheap way of getting twice the frame rate, but with the caveat that you get soft video with at least 25% less resolution as a best case scenario. Shoot 1080iXX and what you're getting is 720p

MATT: I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that most television is still broadcast in interlaced format, whether it's HD (Discovery HD, etc...) or SD. Why I don't know, but those are currently the parameters that some of us must work in.

But by responding to your question I am in no way condoning the use of interlaced video. I'm just simply trying to answer your question.

I like the look of 1080 30p. What is the final target of this progressive rate. I currently burn to blu-ray and shoot 1080 60i. I did not like 24p (which IS a legal blu-ray spec).

1080 30p looks good but what is your final destination for it?

Mark Miner

HDTV TV Channels in the USA/NTSC are 720p60 and 1080i60, so interlace is still very much in use for HD. Note that both formats have high temporal resolution.

I like the look of 1080 30p. What is the final target of this progressive rate. I currently burn to blu-ray and shoot 1080 60i. I did not like 24p (which IS a legal blu-ray spec).

1080 30p looks good but what is your final destination for it?

Mark Miner

Doug Jensen from Vortex Media keeps making the point that shooting 1080 30p and converting it to 1080 60i in post for blu-ray delivery is preferable to shooting 1080 60i. He has made the point in another thread that 1080 30p converted to 1080 60i looks better than video shot at 1080 60i. See the following link: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/143484-1080-60i-versus-1080-24p-2.html and read post # 17.

Okay, in my opinion there's more to the 60i vs 30P debate than meets the eye.

1. When you're editing a project (with video, graphics, etc...) in 60i the motion will look smoother than 30P. For example, try doing a lower third text crawl in 30p. It looks terrible. Do the same thing in 60i and it looks perfectly smooth.

2. While I agree with Doug Jensen 99% of the time (I just ordered another one of his videos) I'm not sure I agree with his statement that it's a simple process to convert 30p to 60i. Maybe it's because I use a lot of graphics with sharp edges, but converting from p to i normally gives me jagged edges. You could probably get away with this if you're just converting your footage (no graphics).

This is a good discussion. :)

Okay, in my opinion there's more to the 60i vs 30P debate than meets the eye.

1. When you're editing a project (with video, graphics, etc...) in 60i the motion will look smoother than 30P. For example, try doing a lower third text crawl in 30p. It looks terrible. Do the same thing in 60i and it looks perfectly smooth.

2. While I agree with Doug Jensen 99% of the time (I just ordered another one of his videos) I'm not sure I agree with his statement that it's a simple process to convert 30p to 60i. Maybe it's because I use a lot of graphics with sharp edges, but converting from p to i normally gives me jagged edges. You could probably get away with this if you're just converting your footage (no graphics).

This is a good discussion. :)

Since I am a hobbyist I don't do a lot of graphics except for titles for which I use Ulead Cool 3D Studio (yeah, I know it is rather "basic") and output 32 bit avi's as graphic overlays for my title shots. Since I am rendering from the timeline to a blu-ray legal format would that necessarily give me the jagged edges that you associate with 30p (in the final product) since the entire timeline (including the avi overlays) are being rendered to 60i at the same time?

Are you saying that on a 30p timeline you are seeing jagged edges with graphics both before and after rendering to a blu-ray format?

Viewing graphics (and video) in a 30P timeline looks great. It's when you try and convert it to a interlaced format (720i, etc...)that you have problems with jagged edges (aliasing)

It's easy to test. See for yourself. Maybe you'll figure something out that I haven't yet. :)

My preference is to shoot 25p whether it be 720 or 1080. I like the way it looks and can convert to most formats without scratching my head too much! Maybe I've watched too many films :)

Shooting interlace is just a cheap way of getting twice the frame rate, but with the caveat that you get soft video with at least 25% less resolution as a best case scenario. Shoot 1080iXX and what you're getting is 720p

Although on the EX1, 1080i is about twice as sensitive to light as 1080p30 or 720pXX. So, you don't have to shoot wide open for soft video or bump the gain for grainier video.

Although on the EX1, 1080i is about twice as sensitive to light as 1080p30 or 720pXX. So, you don't have to shoot wide open for soft video or bump the gain for grainier video.

720p25 gains a stop over 1080p, I'd be guessing that the two (1080i and 720p25) are pretty close in terms of sensitivity.

Quoting Adam Wilt

Sensitivity

To measure sensitivity, I set the exposure of an 18% gray card at 50% on the waveform monitor with the camera in its default Standard Gamma 3. I metered the card with a Gossen Starlite and incident light with a Spectra Pro IV, and varied the ISO settings until the shutter speeds and apertures matched the camera (both meters agreed within 1/10 stop). I determined the sensitivity of the camera to be:
• ISO 400 in 1080p modes
• ISO 800 in 1080i modes (just as you’d expect: with dual-row summation, you get twice the sensitivity), and
• ISO 500 in 720p modes.
Apparently Sony is picking up some gain during downsampling to 720p, analogous to what happens in dual-row summation.

• ISO 500 in 720p modes.
Apparently Sony is picking up some gain during downsampling to 720p, analogous to what happens in dual-row summation.

Not that I'm doubting his figures, but I'd figure at a stop between 720p and 1080p. It doesn't 'feel' such a minor difference.

Frame rates and interlaced/progressive are important issues, but I would put more emphasis on other aspects which directly affect the image. An important variable is the gamma curve and how you employ it, as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. This link is to a very nice description of what is what, but in the general application rather then to the EX1/3 specifically; the information applies. ProVideo Coalition.com: Stunning Good Looks by Art Adams | Cinematography (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/the_not_so_technical_guide_to_s_log_and_log_gamma_curves/)

I agree. The look of interlaced versus progressive footage isn't a big deal, especially when you compare 1080 60i to 720 60p.

But down the line, it can become a big problem if you are shooting interlaced and converting to progressive (for the web for example). The edges on text and graphics will look terrible with this type of conversion.

We just did a action sport film in the Nissan Outdoor Games in Chamonix. We decided to shoot 720 50P and it looked great in my opinion. Not video look, but not film look either, just really slick looking footage.
This way we easily dropped in overcranked 60fps footage that matched perfectly.

Before we have shot 1080 i and 25p when doing actionsports, btu the slo-mo have always stood out, and often you don´t manage to get smooth looking action in 25p.
I´d love to be able to shoot 1080 50P though.