-
Interlaced Cameras(?)
(I’m going to put this question up in the cinematography forum as well. . .)
Are there any practical reasons for recording (or editing) interlaced videos these days, particularly since just about every (consumer) uses progressive scanning? Or is it just something of a relic left over from the old CRT days. . .a ‘transitional phase’? -
9 Replies
-
In my humble and personal opinion. There’s no reason to shoot interlaced unless that’s the camera you have. I’d aim for progressive if you’re buying new. A lot of camera will shoot both 1080i and 720p, 1080(p)sf these days.
I’m a big fan of the 720p format. Once 1080p60 becomes a broadcast reality, I’m sure I’ll like that too.
Jeremy
-
Many broadcasters are using 1080i.
-
[Gary Hazen] “Many broadcasters are using 1080i.”
Doesn’t mean you have to shoot it.
-
[Gary Hazen] “Many broadcasters are using 1080i.”
Doesn’t mean you have to shoot it.
No, but it does mean that you have to deliver it in that format.
You can shoot 24P as well, but you may still have to deliver in 29.97. -
[Brian Mulligan] “No, but it does mean that you have to deliver it in that format.”
Yes, but he’s asking about shooting. Delivery is totally different. You can shoot progressive and deliver interlace. I’d still vote to shoot progressive.
Jeremy
-
The reason why I asked the question, mostly, is because I was working on a couple of projects whose interlaced properties became apparent while editing. I managed to figure out how to adjust things so the fields synced together. . .but, regardless of that, my question became “Why are people still shooting on interlaced cameras/using interlaced media?” particularly since just about everything these days works with a progressive scan.
That broadcasters still use interlaced, to me, is a curious matter. First, every now and then you can see a video/commercial/etc. on youtube (or the likes) where the interlacing is just bad and distracting. . .you’d think that they, being major media, would take care of the matter–like by rendering a progressive version–before putting it online. But, if even that becomes an issue, Why are they still shooting interlaced. Etc. . .
Meh. . .mostly just curiosity, and I’ll stick with progressive, unless otherwise dictated. .
-
Broadcasters still use interlaced because at a higher resolution, it still takes up the same bandwidth. So 1080i and 720p (at the same framerate) have the same data rate. The bandwidth of 1080p, which for me is the only HD format worth paying extra for, would be considerably higher which is why it isn’t yet an option. Personally I would like to see them try 1080p24/25/30 broadcasts as these should take a similar bandwidth to their 1080i equivalents (1080i50/60) but would be perfect for watching anything cinematic.
Andy
-
“…would be perfect for watching anything cinematic.” – Andrew McKee
Horses for courses. 24p is fine for ‘anything cinematic’. For fast action sports 1080i provides smooth motion. Carlton appears to be asking for a single solution. It depends on the subject matter and the destination of the end product.
-
[Gary Hazen] “For fast action sports 1080i provides smooth motion. “
But you could easily shoot 720p60 (as a lot of sports stations do) and deliver a 1080i master.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up