Progressive or interlaced video for weddings?

[Bill Edmunds]

Given the choice between progressive or interlaced video, what is your choice for weddings and why? Do you think brides care one way or another?

[Phil Bloom]

my choice is progressive all the way. Looks more professional and gives a pleasing look to the eye that they will just like. But hey I could be wrong. I hardly ever shoot anything interlaced even these days. Even when I do news stuff, albeit the more feature type stories everything is shot progressive.

[Ian Broadbent]

Progressive looks nicer - My hd110 is progressive only, although my hd7 cam I use for b-roll is interlaced its converted to progressive in post to match the hd110 (not quite the same but down rezzed to SD it look ok)

Ian

[Michael Wisniewski]

Anyone have a preference for 24p or 30p?

[Warren Kawamoto]

I'm using a lot of slo-mo for weddings, and I've been using 60i because when I tried slo-mo on progressive, I got unacceptable jerkiness. That was awhile back though. Maybe everyone is using 60p now for better slo-mo?

[Scott Jaco]

Originally Posted by Michael Wisniewski

Anyone have a preference for 24p or 30p?

I'm shooting 30p right now but I would love to try 24p, I just don't have the guts yet. Do people complain about the strobe w/ 24p?

[Bill Edmunds]

One thing regarding this issue still nags at me: you can easily achieve a "film look" with interlaced video via any number of software packages, but you can't achieve an interlaced look with progressive video (unless you shoot 60p). I guess what I'm saying is...it seems that shooting interlaced video gives you more options. If a client wants the film look, you can achieve it with interlaced video (without the strobing motion of 24p to boot)... but if your client wants HD with an interlaced look, you're up a creek if you have a JVC HD100 or something like that (that only shoots progressive HD). Thoughts?

Are any of the networks shooting native progressive video? I shot a wedding for a guy who works for Avid installing and designing network broadcast NLE systems, and he says his experience with these installations is that interlaced video is more efficient and that (in his words), the networks are all set up to work with interlaced HD, not progressive.

[Harm Millaard]

Can somebody please enlighten me, because I don't understand the 24P hype.

Getting the film look is dependent on superior cameras, the resolution of 35 mm film, the lighting, the DOF, the dynamic range, the use of primes, etc. None of these are sufficiently available in video cameras, either from a technical point of view or because of lacking means like lighting equipment or glass.

Hollywood shoots 24P. Agreed. But when distributing their movies on DVD everything is back to 50i or 60i. Where is the value added, especially when displayed on a interlaced CRT TV?

[Ian Holb]

Originally Posted by Bill Edmunds

One thing regarding this issue still nags at me: you can easily achieve a "film look" with interlaced video via any number of software packages, but you can't achieve an interlaced look with progressive video (unless you shoot 60p).

You can with software packages like Apple's Compressor 2 & 3. I've shot footage in 25P and converted it to 60i, easily. (The only downside is rendering time as Compressor has to rebuild the missing frames, but that's merely a function of processing power.)

With today's powerful software, converting between frame rates and formats is high quality and easy.

[Bill Edmunds]

Originally Posted by Ian Holb

You can with software packages like Apple's Compressor 2 & 3. I've shot footage in 25P and converted it to 60i, easily. (The only downside is rendering time as Compressor has to rebuild the missing frames, but that's merely a function of processing power.)

You can? Does it look like interlaced video when its done?

[Bill Edmunds]

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard

Getting the film look is dependent on superior cameras, the resolution of 35 mm film, the lighting, the DOF, the dynamic range, the use of primes, etc. None of these are sufficiently available in video cameras, either from a technical point of view or because of lacking means like lighting equipment or glass.

Ever see Doctor Who on the SciFi channel or the BBC? It looks like film from top to bottom but is shot on interlaced SD video, then processed in post to look like film. Obviously they have great lighting and maintain shallow DOF, but its still interlaced video.

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard

Hollywood shoots 24P. Agreed. But when distributing their movies on DVD everything is back to 50i or 60i. Where is the value added, especially when displayed on a interlaced CRT TV?

That's what I'm starting to wonder.

[Ian Holb]

Originally Posted by Bill Edmunds

You can? Does it look like interlaced video when its done?

Yes, in glorious "soap opera" reality feel. ;-)

[Bill Edmunds]

Originally Posted by Ian Holb

Yes, in glorious "soap opera" reality feel. ;-)

I had no idea you could do that with progressive video. Would I convert to 59.94 fps if the original was shot at 24p? Guess I'll have to experiment. Can you tell me what settings you use to make such a conversion?

[Ian Holb]

T'was easier for me to do a Google search.

http://digitalproducer.digitalmedian...e.jsp?id=33819

[Bill Edmunds]

Originally Posted by Ian Holb

T'was easier for me to do a Google search.

http://digitalproducer.digitalmedian...e.jsp?id=33819

Sweet! Thank you!