Is it better to videotape a show using CineFrame 24P or 60I using the Sony FX1 and Z1

[Richard Eary]

Is it better to videotape a show using CineFrame 24P or 60I using the Sony FX1 and Z1U camcorders? I am using Prospect 2K which supports special captures for CineFrame 24P recordings. It supposely smooths out some of the motion issues.

The other important issue is the color lighting effects and spotlights used at the indoor show. The mastered video will be broadcast, internet, and dvd.

[Ron Evans]

Why would you want to record in a format with motion issues? Broadcast is interlaced, DVD will likely be played back on an interlaced TV, transfer for the internet will degrade the image to whatever rate you wish to transfer but will be progressive. Getting 15fps progressive at reduced resolution should not be a problem from 60i HDV though 30fps progressive would be an easier transfer for the WEB video . For me 24fps just is not right for the world today. Its either 60p for nice smooth motion in HD or 15fps for the internet. Can't wait for this fad of 24p to end. Too many videos are shot at 24p with little regard for the camera work that requires film technique to make the end result watchable. Unfortunately a great number are really very poor. Pans are too fast, depth of field too large so that the background jumps around etc. The combination of poor source, bad encoding and transmission over cable means that a larger percentage of broadcasts have motion artifacts. Combine this with poor scaling on HD TV's and the pictures are awful. It is interesting that some time ago there was a clear quality difference between broadcast TV and the video an individual could produce with his VHS camcorder. We have now got to the point where the individual can produce better quality( as perceived on his HD TV) from his HDV or AVCHD camcorder than he sees over cable!!!!! I have an FX1 and Sony SR7 and viewed on my Panasonic Plasma these videos are cleaner and with less artifacts than anything other than the HD Preview channel( that repeatedly shows the one program they have at this quality level)!!!!

Ron Evans

[Richard Eary]

If I understand your email correctly, you are saying that interlaced will produce a smoother picture than progressive using the Sony FX1?

I have always thought that progressive was a smooth image compared to interlaced. Al though, the CineFrame 24P is not true progressive with the Sony FX1. Besides technique, are there other reasons to choose interlaced over progressive?

I have always used interlacing when videotaping. Never used the CineFrame 24P/25P mode on the camcorder. Al though, I found the below link that Cineform provided to be interesting in reference to CineFrame 24P/25P for the Sony FX1/Z1U.

http://www.cineform.com/products/Tec.../CineFrame.htm

Are there any good reasons to switch? Like you said, most televisions and DVD's play interlaced video.

[Ron Evans]

Interlace samples the image at 60 fields a second ( half odd fields half even fields)displayed on an interlaced display, in combination with the responses of our eyes and brain creates an effective image that mimics 60 frames a second. ( it isn't really its just we perceive it that way, our brain makes up for the missing information, half the vertical resolution, but displaced a scan line each time up and down. Its why thin horizontal line are a no no for interlaced as they tend to flutter in and out). The advantage is that horizontal movement is effectively sampled 60 times a second as apposed to 24p which only sample at 24 !! Hence 24P movement is juddery if the camera is panned( say panning a character on stage, who remains nice a smooth but the background is all juddering because it is only being sampled at too slow a rate for the pan speed, the character in the center of the image actually has the same problem but because there is little or no relative movement "looks" smooth)
Generally the higher the frame rate the smoother the image. So if you want smooth, shoot interlace or even 720P60( Sony's ( at least FX1 Z1) won't do this as they are 1080i. JVC will give you 720P)
People equate the film look with 24p but for me it is built around the need to cover for the low frame rate by camera techniques such as shallow depth of field, controlled lighting closeups and fixed camera positions. All arranged to mitigate the problems of the slow frame rate adopted by the film cameras of over a century ago and propagated because of the financial investment in the playback business( lots of projectors in lots of cinemas). I like the mood that the the film approach creates but we no longer need the limitations of low frame rate. As I said in my original post I feel 24P is a fad. 15P would be better for the WEB and 60 would be better for HD broadcasts. Neither is a multiple of 24. In other words in my opinion video shot at 24p will look equally bad on an interlace TV as the WEB!!!! You can see I am not a fan of 24p. Event videos that intend to create the event for the viewer as if they were there should be shot at the highest frame rate possible and with the biggest depth of field so that the viewer can decide what to look at in the image. Dramatic videos are different because the director wants to draw the viewer into they're interpretation of the story. To do this they can place things out of focus that are not significant, use focus transition to transport the viewer within the scene, music or sound effects etc. All fair game. But I don't need or want this to watch a concert or theatre production or even a documentary.

Ron Evans

[Dylan Pank]

Short answer: For event videography 60i is better.

You can (and indeed MUST) de-interlace for the web, to 30p.

The Sony FX1 NOT produce a progressive image. It crudely de-interlaces the 60i footage by dropping one field (thereby reducing resolution).

I actually like CF25 for fiction. because I want the film look for drama projects and I don't want the hassle of de-interlacing in post. For fiction I prefer 50i.

However I would never use CF24 as the crude discard field de-interlace causes major problems even on static shots. see the attachment on this post:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....74&postcount=3

[Richard Eary]

I believe I will stick with 60 interlaced based on the information you both provided and additional research I have done.

Thanks again.