Do you ask brides whether they want progressive or interlaced?

[Douglas Villalba]

If we were delivering full resolution it would be just a matter of taste.
Most weddings are delivered on DVDs and progressive looks better than interlaced. It is even more important if it is going to be viewed on a Plasma or LCD. As you know they are a progressive based systems.

[Daniel Ross]

Quite extreme to take what I wrote as some sort of indirect insult. Ha.

My point is clear.

Brides want it to look professional. Why would they pay you money, rather than having their 5 year old nephew just shoot with their handycam? (In the case of the occasional bride who MIGHT want that--- they'd do it, not hire you.)

Might as well ask if they'd prefer you shoot with a single CCD or a camera that has a smaller exposure range.

I'm not saying that shooting interlaced is some evil sin, but progressive will look more like a movie, and they will be more happy. This, of course, assumes they don't know the difference, just that it "looks better".

Interlacing had it's place-- TV broadcasting. It's now being phased out, which is good. (Well, HD still has interlacing... hopefully that will end soon. Pretty stupid.)

The main point is that as the videographer your job is to make it the best it can be and give it to them. Also, make it as professional as it can be. No?
So, you'll have to decide what is best. I think that progressive falls into the pro look and most people will probably agree with me. Interlacing isn't a huge issue as I said, but I would certainly not prefer it.

I suggest asking the bride in a casual (certainly not insulting way) if she has a preference about any of the video things, ie, "I ask all of the brides I work with if they have any preference about how I shoot their weddings. Do you have any input about format? If not, that's fine and I'll do a good job, but I want to be sure you get what you want."
If they know what interlacing is, they'll probably speak up if they have some big interest in it.

In fact, just make clear your format--
"I shoot progressive 29.97fps for weddings", on your card, or site. Assume they will question you if they disagree. If they don't know what it means, they'll just dismiss it as some technobabble and assume you know what you're talking about.



Now, as for saying something against anyone who shoots interlaced professionally, I said nothing of the sort. If it fits the job, that's great. And if you were to have a worse camera, such as a smaller CCD like I said, then that doesn't mean your video will be bad, but simply that it would be better if you did have a better camera. No?

[Kenneth Johnson]

Now, as for saying something against anyone who shoots interlaced professionally, I said nothing of the sort. If it fits the job, that's great. And if you were to have a worse camera, such as a smaller CCD like I said, then that doesn't mean your video will be bad, but simply that it would be better if you did have a better camera. No?[/QUOTE]

I guess I do not know what I am doing. I only shoot SD and everybody still loves it. Maybe I should get with the times. Last time I looked at the stats,,, less than 20 percent of america have HD tv. My dad still has rotary dial phones. Guess we should all just throw away the old and get with the new and charge 4 times as much. I still edit with a CRT monitor. 750 lines of resolution. How much did you pay for your LCD HD??? My clients still love how I do things. Most of them DO NOT know the tech side of video.

YOU CAN NEVER WIN ARGUING ON THE WEB. EACH TO HIS OWN.
DO WHAT YOU DO BEST AND THEY WILL LOVE IT
KEN

jvc 5100
canon xl2
sony pd170
canon rebel
canon 30d
2 many lens to list

[Colby Knight]

Brides want it to look professional. Why would they pay you money, rather than having their 5 year old nephew just shoot with their handycam?

Under your 'logic,' as long as the 5 year old is shooting progressive, it's professional.

[Kenneth Johnson]

Originally Posted by Colby Knight

Under your 'logic,' as long as the 5 year old is shooting progressive, it's professional.

those 5 year olds are going to put us all out of business if we are not careful. anybody want to buy some equipment?? going to sell all of it and get some 500.00 camcorders and put the kids to work. guess it is time to retire

[Daniel Ross]

You guys have gone kinda crazy with the replies here.

The "movie look" is the main point of my reply. The brides would want it to look like a professional MOVIE, not something on TV. Poll enough people, and you'll find this out.

Films were going to be shot at a higher framerate years ago, and this was tested and rejected by audiences. The jittery look was what people were used to and wanted. This is lacking with a consumer camera. Having the ability to shoot progressive will make it feel more like a movie to the bride. That's good. No?

1. Shooting interlaced says nothing about you personally. Even if I were to claim it's "wrong" (which I'm not), then you still may be a very good videographer.
2. Interlaced may have its place. But that place isn't on the big screen. And that's the "professional" look, whether you like it or not.
3. The example of a 5 year old with the camera was extreme. I don't mean to imply that you are not more talented. However, perhaps it would be more accurate to compare it to using a tripod. Sure, you can have a shaky shot and the bride might not know to tell you to use a tripod, but in the end, a locked down image will be more convincing of the "film look", making her feel like she got a real "movie" or "film" of her wedding, not just a "video".

"...if the 5 year old is shoot progressive, it's professional"

No. that's not what I said at all. I said there is a reason you were hired and not the 5 year old. With that should come a better recording in all aspects. Just having progressive wouldn't fix a bad video. But having progressive would make it a little better* than having the same video interlaced.
(*for the reasons above)


I don't mean to insult your work in any way. You were asking a very specific question-- interlaced or progressive, and I tried to explain the reasoning that makes sense to me.

What possible reason would a bride WANT interlaced?
If anything, she'd want progressive for the "movie look", or she might not care.

Interlacing is a stupid remnant of the TVs that couldn't show all the lines of resolution at the same time.

I don't see why you would be defending interlaced. Certainly you should be offended if I were insulting you, but I wasn't. If anything, I was just saying that interlaced is worse than progressive.
If anything, you're the victim of a stupid remnant, as I said, not that you are worse for using it.

On top of that, the question wasn't whether it would be a huge problem to have it be interlaced, but which would be BETTER. I don't see that as a huge factor in the video, but between the two, it's a clear choice of progressive, as I see it.

Would you be insulted if I said that 35mm is a better format than SD DV?


By the way, just to put it in perspective, I just shot a large project in interlaced SD. (I did deinterlace for progressive for FX and final output, though.)


Kenneth, as for your first post above, you say that arguing cannot be won, implying I shouldn't, then you do continue to argue with me. Hypocritical.
I'm not judging you. I'm just giving an opinion. As you say, you can't win an argument like this, so why not just accept my opinion even if you don't agree?
I don't have an HD camera (nor, at this point, even on that shoots progressive). And that isn't the issue. The issue is shooting progressive when the person in question already has that ability.
I don't have an LCD HD. Expensive indeed. I'd like one.
And I think I sense a bit of resentment in your posts. You are annoyed with me because I'm saying something is better, so you say it isn't, but what you really mean is that you don't like being told your stuff isn't good enough. Well, yeah, the world is marching forward toward progressive. You, me, and everyone else at some point must catch up. Just how it works.
I'm not very happy that I'll need to be spending a lot of money fairly soon on an HD camera. But I don't claim that HD is not worth something. (Though I'm not sure it's entirely ready yet.)

DO WHAT YOU DO BEST AND THEY WILL LOVE IT

That phrasing implies that just doing stuff will be the best. I don't agree.
Adjust and learn as you go, and do your best at doing the best, and it will probably be great.
But don't just do what you do and leave it at that.
Your original ideas might not be the best, but if you take the best of those and the best of other options, and do your best at making it work, then you will have a great result.

[Noa Put]

Daniel, you are right about the fact that progressive has a more appealing look to it, I have a sony vx2100 and a pana dvx100 so I've seen the difference for sd. Yet I still prefer my Sony for weddings because it handles much better in low light and gives a great image.

I think you hit a nerve saying the difference between the 2 is amateur/professional. You know David Lynch shot his last movie on a couple of pd150's and you really can't call him an amateur.

If I would ask a couple if they wanted interlaced/progressive out of 100 I think only one would know what it means, they don't know and they don't care. They just want to have a great memory of their precious day and it takes a professional to capture what your client had in mind, it's not just the camera nor the format.

[Daniel Ross]

I can see how it was taken like that, but, again, I didn't say it IS the difference, but it's part of the difference.
Progressive is more toward 35mm than VHS. In that spectrum, progressive is "better" than interlaced, but not to a huge degree.

[Vince Baker]

Originally Posted by Douglas Villalba

If we were delivering full resolution it would be just a matter of taste.
Most weddings are delivered on DVDs and progressive looks better than interlaced. It is even more important if it is going to be viewed on a Plasma or LCD. As you know they are a progressive based systems.

Douglas, not wishing to say anything else negative (this thread seems to be a negative one already) but Plasma and LCD are not all progessive based systems.... in fact the majority of plasmas are interlaced....

[Emre Safak]

Originally Posted by Adam Hoggatt

When brides hire professionals, they trust that professional to do what they do best. IMO, asking about interlacing is one step shy of having the bride sit in on the edit session and decide how to edit. Do what you think is best and brides will hire you based on your talent and expect you to make those decisions.

Amen, brother. Don't give clients information/choices they don't need. You think you are doing them a favor but they don't.

[John Miller]

Originally Posted by Daniel Ross

In fact, just make clear your format--
"I shoot progressive 29.97fps for weddings", on your card, or site. Assume they will question you if they disagree. If they don't know what it means, they'll just dismiss it as some technobabble and assume you know what you're talking about.

That's setting yourself up for trouble.

If, as you assert, most clients don't know progressive from interlaced then they will either look at that statement and shrug their shoulders or see the word "progressive" and think it means something advance in a general way rather than specifically how the video is recorded.

If I were such a client, received a progressive DVD and thought it looked odd, I'd be on the phone right away. Likewise if I received it in HD - not much use without HD equipment at home (which is still very common).

Not everyone likes the progressive look. Almost every "film look" video I've seen looks fake - except a few from Hollywood - but they have the money to make it look acceptable.

I'd play it safe and use the format that most people are familiar with unless they specifically ask otherwise.

[Daniel Ross]

Don't make it a bold heading on the site, but maybe as the answer to a FAQ. If they care, they'll find it and ask you about it. If they don't, assume you can figure it out yourself.

I also hate overdone "movie look" shots. But progressive isn't overdoing it. It's simple to do and will look closer to a real movie. Readjusting frame rate, gamma, adding grain, etc. can be a lot harder to control and not always a good idea. But I don't see the harm in progressive.

No one has been talking about HD. I think that would be a terrible idea for a wedding, unless you were to just convert to SD for the release (wouldn't hurt to have more rez to start).

[Mike Oveson]

I'd like to clarify, or at least expand, on one thing that has been brought up several times in this topic. Progressive video, in and of itself, does NOT necessarily bring about any sort of "film like" feel to it. 24p will certainly lend itself to such a feel. But what if you shot something in 60p? Or 30p? While progressive video certainly has a different look than interlaced video, it doesn't mean that it looks like film just because you're recording in it. I know, because I shoot with a DVX. I prefer 30p for weddings because it gives me better slow motion and I prefer it to interlaced. This isn't to say that interlaced video is bad or somehow invalid as a format, I just prefer progressive. So, just wanted to clarify that it's partially the nature of progressive recording and partially the frame rate that contributes to the "film look". More than anything, your framing and lighting will determine the look far more than your frame rate or recording method.

[Daniel Ross]

All things equal, progressive is closer to the film look than interlaced. Clearly it isn't the only factor.

60i shot with "film" lighting and "film" angles won't look as much like film as 30p shot the same way.

The question is specifically Progressive OR Interlaced? In choosing, which one is more helpful in creating a good product?

[Mike Oveson]

Ok, I can agree that progressive will get you closer to the film look than interlaced video. I'm not arguing with you over which one I think looks better. Personally I prefer progressive. But I've seen some incredibly well shot videos done in 60i. Tools will only get you so far. That's my main point.