-
FS7 1080i footage doesn’t “look right”- Something in the dumping process?
So, recently our videographer, who has been in this business way longer than I have, said that our footage looks kinda choppy when it airs, like there’s been a 24p filter put on it or something. Further investigation found that the raw 1080i footage is in the editing computer’s drive as being 29.97 fps instead of 59.94, as per below.
He says that when he’s recording it, it says right on the screen that it’s at 59.94 fps and 50 MB/s.
So I’m guessing that it has something to do with the transfer process? Is there something else that could be causing this? Curiously, he said that viewing the raw footage playing in VLC looked fine to him. I can get into the nitty-gritty of my Premiere sequence settings and everything if you need me to.
-
9 Replies
-
Sorry, I can’t answer you question, but why are you shooting interlaced? That may be part of the problem, all TV’s are in Progressive mode.
Michael Slowe
-
I think it’s because our station broadcasts in 1080i.
-
Adam,
how are you getting the footage off the camera? Direct from the XQD or a recorder on either the SDI/hdmi port?If it is coming off the XQD, have a look at it with Catalyst Browse. What format does Browse claim it to be? Even Premiere Pro clip properties can be useful.
Also, are you on Mac or Win (rather whoever is pulling the footage off).
mark
-
regarding 1080i – I’m on the Freeview multiplex at Hannington and most of BBC HD News is 1080i. Posh nature shows are in 1080p. I know that because my tv announces the mode when you change channels. Also commercials are supposed to be submitted 1080i, probably for compatibility with SD services. I think I read that in the DPP guidelines.
So 1080i is a fact of life, for a little longer, unfortunately. This is in England, don’t know about the rest of the world.
mark
-
ditto australia.
i think the myth of progressive is linked more to computers than broadcast. i know that for most ‘action footage’ i much prefer shooting interlaced than progressive. of course, when 50p is standard then my opinion might well change 😉
-
I’ll ask the videographer about how exactly he’s dumping the footage. I know he does it via a Windows computer and then, via a local network, puts it onto an external drive connected to my computer (also Windows).
-
I’ll ask the videographer about how exactly he’s dumping the footage. I know he does it via a Windows computer and then, via a local network, puts it onto an external drive connected to my computer (also Windows).
UPDATE: He says it’s done directly from the XQD card.
I installed Catalyst Browse and analysed some of the footage there and found something interesting. It says it has a frame rate of 29.97 fps but a Capture FPS of 59.94i. So what does that mean for our problem?
-
Adam,
thanks for the details. That all looks good. The Frame Rate is 29.97, that is for a complete raster. The Capture FPS is 59.94 (I) that means 59.94 Fields (i.e. half a frame) per second. Which is what Interlaced footage should be from a Sony cam.
The Footage is 50 Mbps and color is 4:2:2. Normally you don’t broadcast that, the colorist/editor/post would work their magic and take it down to 4.2.0 and the bandwidth would go down to about 30 Mbps (or less). So what is doing that part of the process for you?What does he means by “choppy” , that is a bit of a loose term. Is it all the time? just sections with a lot of close up motion?
Does the footage look ok to you In Premiere?
Is there a clip small enough to post here that shows the problem?
mark
-
Whelp, I talked to him again and it turns out the thing that he saw on TV that looked so choppy was a graphics intro that was intentionally made to look choppy by a third party. He said that about one other thing as well, but I personally couldn’t see a difference there.
Only remaining question is if my export settings are the best they can be, and I think they are. Just exported it four different ways and the difference seems pretty marginal to me, if it exists at all.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up