progressive vs. interlaced at DVinfo.net

March 13th, 2002, 09:14 AM

I've heard conflicting views on recording using the XL1's "movie mode" vs. interlaced. Some say do not under any circumstances use progressive scanning some say absolutely it is the only way to go. My editor is of the former belief saying light well, shoot clean. My DP of the later, says never let your video interlace. What are your views?

Bill Ravens · March 13th, 2002, 09:34 AM

Depends on the presentation media...TV or Computer monitor(HDTV). Use interlaced for TV and non-interlaced for computer monitor and HDTV. The interlacing artifacts on a computer monitor are just plain unacceptable in areas of fast motion. De-interlacing doesn't really fix the problem unless you do a temporal de-interlace. The only solution is to record in frame(pseudo-progressive) mode.

March 13th, 2002, 09:37 AM

The project is for a feature that will be put to DVD.

Bill Ravens · March 13th, 2002, 09:44 AM

DVD, which uses the MPEG2 format, accepts either interlaced or non-interlaced video. Frame mode(on the XL1s) has slightly lower res than standard mode. It shouldn't really matter, but, I would go with the standard mode.

Adam Lawrence · March 13th, 2002, 10:50 AM

I myself shoot frame mode (progressive)

I use this footage for web and DVD/kiosks..look great..

Id recomend shooting frame mode due to the better look.

It no longer "looks" like video when you shoot frame. If people
say not to use frame mode or progressive, Its their opinion.
maybe becuase its vaguely jumpy when you pan the camera. Your
audience isnt gonna degrade your footage becuase of that, especially
a client. Maybe its not "technically ideal" when transfering to film.
But if your just going to DVD then thats not a problem.

Why shoot video when you dont have to.

March 13th, 2002, 09:14 AM	#1
firehorse Posts: n/a	progressive vs. interlaced I've heard conflicting views on recording using the XL1's "movie mode" vs. interlaced. Some say do not under any circumstances use progressive scanning some say absolutely it is the only way to go. My editor is of the former belief saying light well, shoot clean. My DP of the later, says never let your video interlace. What are your views?

March 13th, 2002, 10:50 AM	#5
Adam Lawrence _redone_ Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 224	interlaced I myself shoot frame mode (progressive) I use this footage for web and DVD/kiosks..look great.. Id recomend shooting frame mode due to the better look. It no longer "looks" like video when you shoot frame. If people say not to use frame mode or progressive, Its their opinion. maybe becuase its vaguely jumpy when you pan the camera. Your audience isnt gonna degrade your footage becuase of that, especially a client. Maybe its not "technically ideal" when transfering to film. But if your just going to DVD then thats not a problem. Why shoot video when you dont have to.

March 13th, 2002, 09:34 AM	#2
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Depends on the presentation media...TV or Computer monitor(HDTV). Use interlaced for TV and non-interlaced for computer monitor and HDTV. The interlacing artifacts on a computer monitor are just plain unacceptable in areas of fast motion. De-interlacing doesn't really fix the problem unless you do a temporal de-interlace. The only solution is to record in frame(pseudo-progressive) mode.

March 13th, 2002, 09:37 AM	#3
firehorse Posts: n/a	The project is for a feature that will be put to DVD.

March 13th, 2002, 09:44 AM	#4
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	DVD, which uses the MPEG2 format, accepts either interlaced or non-interlaced video. Frame mode(on the XL1s) has slightly lower res than standard mode. It shouldn't really matter, but, I would go with the standard mode.