Whats the difference between 25p progressive and 25p scan?

[Jon Oneill]

25p progressive seems to come into Final Cut from a HDV tape as field dominance 'None'

25p scan comes in as field dominance 'top or bottom' (i can remember which) i.e interlaced.

Also does CF only record 25p scan? 25p progressive footage recorded to tape and CF seems to record 25p progressive to tape and 25pscan to CF?

Is there any physical or quality difference between the two?

[Barry Wilkinson]

I didn't buy my 270 for 25P but did a short test shoot when I got the camera to see what all the fuss was about. I replayed the shoot via component on a 1080P tv and to be honest was not impressed at all. For me 25P= "jerky pictures" so why bother , or am I missing something here?

[John Knight]

Me too... I don't get it?

When shooting Progressive, it's even jerky through the viewfinder... not so bad in playback, but certainly not silky smooth like interlaced is.

I feel like I'm missing something too because people get all excited about Progressive and to me it looks shit.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by John Knight

Me too... I don't get it?

When shooting Progressive, it's even jerky through the viewfinder... not so bad in playback, but certainly not silky smooth like interlaced is.

I feel like I'm missing something too because people get all excited about Progressive and to me it looks shit.

There are many of us that feel this way, but everyone keeps shooting 1080p25 and 1080p24 with the EX1 and other camcorders.

[Paul Miley]

I'm new to all things HD/HDV but I read the threads on another forum about Plasma screens. This led me to a manufacturer's ad that promised their latest product would get rid of 24p judder from movies. Isn't this what Blu-Ray discs are formatted in?

I'm still confused about this issue. If people are shooting 24/25p why? Just to emulate film? I've read that if you are careful when shooting in these modes and restrict the shutter AND you are careful about keeping movement within the frame to a minimum (e.g. no faster than seven seconds for a pan), then you should be Ok to go.

Why is Sony using 'native progressive' as a selling point, I too am still trying to get my head around all of this.

One thread I read a while back advocated that a Z7 is probably best confined to 'event' photography and if you want to make movies then look to the EX1. Why? Why can't you make a feature on the Z7? Three new movies about to be released were shot on Z1's by professional teams.

Are we going to reach a point any time soon where the look of film becomes outdated and we accept the look of the new technology that we have bought into?

Regards

Paul

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

Originally Posted by Paul Miley

I'm new to all things HD/HDV but I read the threads on
Are we going to reach a point any time soon where the look of film becomes outdated and we accept the look of the new technology that we have bought into?

Regards

Paul

Yes, Paul. I think the day may not be too far off. When 1080/60p or 50p is available on the cameras in the Z7-EX1's price range.

Actually, progressive is not bad. It is in many ways superior to interlace in this age of web video and flat panel screens. The problem is the SLOW frame rates of 24/25-30p, not the progressive scan recording of the scenes. If you look at any decently shot (even with fast and whip panning)720/50-60p footage, you will agree with me that most of the motion issues you see in 24p are gone, provided that the shutter speed/angle is set properly.

But why quite a few people still shoot 24/25p and say they love the look of it? Only they can answer the question. It may have something to do with the memories of Hollywood movies as exquisitely projected on the theater screens. To me, 24p video coming out of sub-$10,000 cameras just looks as crappy as you said.

Wacharapong

[Jon Oneill]

i may be wrong, but i think even when film is treated in the same way as progressive video i.e fast pans, its is also jerky and stutters.

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

No! You are not. Film will behave similar to video if not done right. However, most of the 35mm film-originated movies we've seen were done right with perfect or near perfect lighting, appropriate use of depth of field control made possible by the physics of 35mm film size and the lenses. Last but not least, they were shot with highly experienced film crews who move the cameras within the limits of the 24p frame rate.

I've long wondered what those movies would have looked if shot with film run at 50 or 60p.

Wacharapong

[Jon Oneill]

So the 'quality' look of film is caused by its defect? Would people have shot at 50/60fps on film if budget was not an issue? I suppose they would have....

[Victor Muh]

I've asked myself that same question many a time.

[Gary Nattrass]

I always shoot 1080i 50i with my Z7 etc with a shutter speed of 100. I then drop it to 25p (or 24p for filmic look) in post prod. I agree 25p is too jerky in the camera.

I am having good results using greame nattress filters to do the filmic look, but if I just want 25p I use the pro res output route.

[Dennis Robinson]

Originally Posted by John Knight

Me too... I don't get it?

When shooting Progressive, it's even jerky through the viewfinder... not so bad in playback, but certainly not silky smooth like interlaced is.

I feel like I'm missing something too because people get all excited about Progressive and to me it looks shit.

When i first got my JVC and shot progressive I had the same problem. I thought it was a fault with the camera until someone told me I had to learn to shoot progressive like a film camera to avoid the judder. I read everything on the subject i could and now i shoot totally different and dont have any judder at all. Its a much different method of using a camera and we dont even think about the judder problem. We have learnt to set the camera moves up to avoid this. I love it and will never go back. The look is amazing.

[Paul Miley]

Dennis,

What is it that you do that is 'totally' different? Is this purely camera movement you are talking about? If so, would you say that there are NO judder problems in progressive mode when the camera is static?

Cheers

[Dennis Robinson]

Originally Posted by Paul Miley

Dennis,

What is it that you do that is 'totally' different? Is this purely camera movement you are talking about? If so, would you say that there are NO judder problems in progressive mode when the camera is static?

Cheers

Hi Paul,
The main thing I had to learn was to keep the action in the frame. There is no need to pan and all pans must be slow. In fact I rarely pan at all now. If a subject is moving the camera must track with it. This avoids all judder on the subject, only in the the background and gives that crisp sharp look e.g. at a car travelling down the road.
Also, if the camera is static the moving subject must be moving towards or away from the camera diagonally and not left to right or right to left across the lens. You will see this technique in every film and it is easy to do once you get used to knowing what to look for. I think now that I have learnt the techniques it would be difficult for me to introduce judder. I merely set up the shots to avoid it. I shoot mainly TV commercials as well and that includes retail shops and other events. You just cant wave the camera around panning like you can an interlaced cam... and you shouldnt need to.

[Paul Miley]

Dennis thanks for that information.

Gary, does the shutter speed of 100 that you use have any disadvantages?

Cheers

Paul