-
Another format question
If done a lot of reading, just the EX3 makes it so hard to decide which format to roll with.
Lets just say you were the director for man vs wild, had a ex3, and had to decide which format to use. 24p, 30p, or 60i?One disadvantage I saw is when switching to 30p from 60i I lost light.
-
23 Replies
-
[Cade Muhlig] “One disadvantage I saw is when switching to 30p from 60i I lost light.”
Yes, indeed. Progressive needs more light than interlaced. To be honest, you’re going to get as many messages of advice about what shooting format to use as there are shooting formats.
If I was shooting for “man vs. wild” I’d be phoning Discovery Channel and asking them what they want.
I shoot 1080 30p but I’m not shooting broadcast stuff. HD Pioneer Gary Adcock is quoted as saying that “Interlaced is a delivery format, not an acquisition format.” Your choice of what to shoot is directly tied to what your client wants. If you’re shooting for yourself then I would go 24p for regular stuff because it’s easier to convert to 29.97p, 25p or 59.94i than 30p is. If you’re shooting fast paced stuff like sports or racing then I’d shoot 720 60p.
– Don
-
[Don Greening] “Interlaced is a delivery format, not an acquisition format.” “
Not exactly like that.
p1080 is always streamed as interlaced (psf).
When you record 30p1080 in your EX, the HD/SD-SDI output i60.
I stop shooting Interlaced long ago, but Interlaced still having its advantages.
For example If you want to slow down footage, i60/50 will work much better than p30/25.
In the end one or other option is about if you want progressive look or not.
For working, sure Progressive makes things easier.
rafael -
So 24p is easier to work with in post than 30p?
24p is so much different than what i usually work with, which is 60i. It might be a little to dramatic for what I do. I’m thinking that the jump to 30p will be more subtle.
We travel to extremes of the world to aid and tell people about Jesus. It needs to stay credible and realistic, because it is. Not overly color corrected or effected, or anything that would distract from what’s going on. That’s why I mentioned Man vs Wild. You hardly notice the production (though I know they do a lot).
So I guess this is more than about format, but any kind of other advise is welcome. -
Why would i want or not want a progressive look in a documentary. I don’t really see any advantages in interlaced anymore… technically or aesthetically.
-
[Cade Muhlig] “So 24p is easier to work with in post than 30p?”
Not easier to work with. Just easier to transcode to different delivery formats than 30p. Formats that include PAL.
– Don
-
[Cade Muhlig] “Why would i want or not want a progressive look in a documentary. I don’t really see any advantages in interlaced anymore… technically or aesthetically. “
I’m not talking about this particular case.
I mean that whatever the format you choose, at the end of the day the only difference will be the picture look.
Like or not, interlaced will always looks smoother. Progressive footage try to get back this smoothness by shooting p60 or p50.
rafael -
I have shot interlaced 1920 X 1080i on the EX 1 doing a ‘making of’ documentary whilst the feature itself was shot progressive on an EX 3 (with ‘movie tube’). I saw both films at a cinema showing and could see no difference whatsoever. I think people make too much of codecs and formats: it’s what’s in front of the camera that counts together with how well it’s shot and edited.
Michael Slowe
-
Eh, content is overrated.
-
I have shot extensively in 60i, 60p, and 24p, and I would say that there are pros and cons to each. Interlacing, like it or not, is still the standard for broadcast, and is a requirement for anybody who still uses an old CRT (more people than the industry likes to admit, I think). That being said, progressive has the advantage of a sharper image, albeit more juttery. 24p also has some serious advantages if your final output is DVD. For instance, 24p can be stored natively on a DVD in a PsF format. This allows progressive scan DVD players to work as intended, and the lower frame rate means the same bitrate in your MPEG-2 compression will yield better results. However, the tradeoff is that you must use good shooting technique, or your footage will look juttery. That is, be sure you are following you subjects as closely as possible, and always use your framing to lead the eye to the important part of the shot (which should be moving within the frame as little as possible).
If you don’t like the jutter of 24p, then IMO your best bet is either 720p60 or 1080i. 720 actually has a higher apparent clarity, since it boasts the same motion smoothness as interlaced without losing have the resolution. If your intended output is for Blu-Ray, this may be a good choice. If your project is headed for broadcast, however, you probably will want 1080i, since this is the broadcast standard for HD.
I personally do not care for 30p at all; the jutter does not look natural and there is no good way to get rid of it. 30p offers none of the compression advantages for DVD that 24p does, and unlike 24p it does not get a pulldown applied when being sent to an interlaced screen. The standard 2:3 pulldown applied by DVD players results in 2 progressive frames followed by 2 interlaced frames, and looks much smoother than anything 30p can produce. The only real reason I could see that anybody might want to shoot 30p would be if the only intended output was web distribution. LCD computer monitors are inherently progressive, and typically web video is compressed with a lower frame rate anyway. However, if web is your intended output, I see no reason to choose 30p over 24p.
The bottom line is, I would look carefully at the pros and cons of each format, and decide what to shoot in based on your intended output and what kind of look you are going for. For a film look shoot 24p. For a more realistic look I would go with either 720p60 or 1080i. Hope that helps!
-
One more thing, since I saw you mentioned light gain. I’m not really sure why you had better light gain in 60i than in 30p, since theoretically your gain should be better with twice the exposure time (unless you had a shutter on). 24p, however, I can vouch for as having far better light gain than 60i, especially with the shutter off. I typically keep my shutter at 1/48, to mimic a film camera, and seem to have slightly more gain than I do in 60i. In very low light situations (a wedding reception, for instance) I will turn the shutter off and see an instant jump in light sensitivity.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up