Anyone de interlacing?

[Heath McKnight]

With the Z1, shoot in 50i with CF25, then just conform to 24p in whichever NLE you use.

FX1, try some filters from www.dvfilm.com/maker or www.nattress.com or Magic Bullet.

hwm

[Matt Vanecek]

Originally Posted by Betsy Moore

Unfortunately 30 fps doesn't do me much good since J-Ro and I are going for the film look and the last camera we had was that JVC HD-1 which did 30p--which was still enough fps to make it look video-y.

Betsy,
re your first response to me, yeah, that's about right. Can't deinterlace without losing some information.

re getting the "film look", there's a different forum dedicated to that which includes topics about footage FX1 can take. If you had a Z1 it would probably be a bit easier (there's a trick, I hear, of shooting at 50i, which makes the math easier), but I think your best bet is going to be to shoot at 60i and use something like DVFilm Maker or Magic Bullet. VirtualDub can do a great deinterlace, but I haven't tried using it to go to 24p. I did try a demo of DVFilm Maker, and the result looked OK on my computer but real stuttery on my TV. Dunno, maybe I did something wrong. Anyhow, everybody will tell you that lighting, dialog, camera work, and creative editing/color correction are just as if not more important than frame rate, for achieving a film look. Check out the Film Look topic, though, at http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=34. It's a topic that spans more than just FX1's 60i.

HTH,
Matt

[Betsy Moore]

Dear Matt, thanks we're doing all that other stuff to get the film look too but sometimes artists (like chefs who just have to have a certain spice) know what they want and what we want for our "stew" is a certain fps (Roger Ebert speaks eloquently on why 24fps hits a physiological/neural sweet spot for many viewers)--and we're pretty excellent at the lighting, mis en scene, etc.--it's just the math of interlacing that baffles me. Wouldn't have brought up that "film look" can of worms in this forum except to questions of why 30p wouldn't work in my case. And yes, mathmatically it is supposedly much easier to convert when you shoot 50i, which is why we got the FX1e, not the US version. As for CF25, that's always looked too blurry to me--feel safer shooting 50i, doing the best available deinterlacer in post and that way if five years down the line a better deinterlacing solution arises we could go back and remaster our "masterpiece"--which we couldn't do if we did the de-interlace in-camera.

[Heath McKnight]

I'm a firm believer that 24p is only part of the film look equation. You also have lighting, certain camera moves seen more in films than TV, depth of field and more that all lend to the film look.

heath

[Betsy Moore]

Absolutely. They're all important.

[Dale Connelly]

I strongly believe that what people perceive to be "the film look" will soon be the old look as theaters go digital. For me to make my video choppy, I have to ignore the logic of my brain.

[Betsy Moore]

No, I believe that the right look for the particular movie could be anything. Black and White, color, videoy, filmic, it all depends. It gets unfortunate to focus on just one look for the future. As for whether a faster frame rate is as good at easing the audience into their suspension of disbelief and into their acceptance of dramatic edits I hope so but only time will tell. Douglas Trumbell tried it years ago, all excited, and loathed the results.

[Heath McKnight]

Because movies, for the most part, are 24p, that will probably not change.

heath

[Duane Harper Grant]

Originally Posted by Betsy Moore

No, I believe that the right look for the particular movie could be anything. Black and White, color, videoy, filmic, it all depends. It gets unfortunate to focus on just one look for the future. As for whether a faster frame rate is as good at easing the audience into their suspension of disbelief and into their acceptance of dramatic edits I hope so but only time will tell. Douglas Trumbell tried it years ago, all excited, and loathed the results.

So my question to primarily Betsy but anyone who wants go chime in is welcomed;
(this is not intended to be baiting and I realize that it's getting a little of topic but did not want to start another thread)

The question: given all the above posts, especially taking into account yours Betsy, and I'm also assuming that your primary work is in the genre of film and documentary, why did you opt in for sony hdv as opposed to native 24p i.e. dvx100, xl2, hvx200. Given that this thread has talked about work flow in order to de-interlace and get to 224/25p why not go there initially?

btw - As an recent Z1U buyer and user, I guess lately (especialy after reading all of the posts in this and the other forums about the magic of 24p) I've been asking myself the same thing. As someone new to dv production and video and shooting, I needed a camera to start shooting interviews and short documentary footage - long form is one place that I would like to head soon.

[Heath McKnight]

Here's something I think is relevant to what you're wondering:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=71143

Feel free to post there so we can keep this particular thread on topic.

heath

[Duane Harper Grant]

Thank you Heath,

I had read that thread a few times actually and I do find it really interesting.
Most interesting is what you can do with light especially as it relates to
hd/hdv.

Thanks for the info and will look into posting a question or comment there.

dhg

[Heath McKnight]

Hope to hear from you on that subject there and hope to hear de-interlacing-related questions here.

hwm

[David Delaney]

I am also at the point where I need to deinterlace. I am just lookingfor the easiest software package for this.

[Heath McKnight]

Most NLEs have great ones built in, but I like www.nattress.com for Mac and I've enjoyed using www.dvfilm.com/maker for both Mac and PC.

heath