Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Forums Cinematography progressive or bigger CCDs?

  • progressive or bigger CCDs?

     Ryan Santos updated 13 years, 4 months ago 4 Members · 12 Posts
  • Philippe Orlando

    September 7, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    What would you advise me to do.
    Shoot an film with a Sony DXC-D50 camera with DSR1 back, which has 2/3″ CCD and deinterlace in post or go with a DVX100b?
    I have access to the sony already but I could buy a DVX100 for 2700 bucks

  • Rick Amundson

    September 7, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    I’m a big fan of the DVX 100. I shot my feature using the DVX 100A. You can see a trailer at In my opinion, it is much better to acquire in a progressive format if you are going to finish in a progressive format. You will loose too much information and resolution

    by removing the interlacing in post. If you manipulate the camera correctly, the bigger CCD won’t be that much of an advantage, especially if you are not doing a 35mm blow up.

    My #1 advice … start progressive, stay progressive!

    ps. shallow depth of field

  • Philippe Orlando

    September 8, 2007 at 12:24 am

    I watched the trailer, pretty neat. Nice look. Are you going to a blow up to film? Why the DVX and why not the Sony V1?
    In other words, why not HDV or DVCPRO?
    Still your production looks good. I see very good lighting.

  • Philippe Orlando

    September 8, 2007 at 12:29 am

    Actually Rick, would you mind telling me what I see on this page?

    Is is an anamorphic adapter on your DVX100?
    The DVX has become so cheap now, I’m very tempted. I”m not convinced by HDV yet, well I don’t really have the means anyway.

  • Marco Solorio

    September 8, 2007 at 5:21 am

    I’m with Rick. In most cases, you’ll lose half the vertical resolution by deinterlacing interlaced footage. To deinterlace correctly and save as much vertical resolution as possible, you’ll be adding a ton of setup time and rendering time. We haven’t even talked about interpolating from 30 FPS to 24. For a feature this could all amount to loads of added post-production time. By the time your feature is done, you’ll be so sick of deinterlacing you’ll have wished you would have shot on the smaller CCD size of the DVX100!

    In cases of fast motion, the progressive frame can sometimes encode a better looking image in progressive than interlaced, so you’d have that going for you too.

    And if you do shoot on the DVX100 and you want lossless media transfer to stay in 24p, make sure to shoot in 24pA (Advanced) mode versus 24pS (Standard).

    And if you’re really lucky and have extra budget, rent a lens adapter (like the RedRock Micro unit or P+S Technik) to mount fast F-stop lenses for some serious narrow depth of field. Shot correctly, it can deliver some of the most incredible stuff you can lay your eyeballs on! You’ll swear it’s 35mm!!!

    Good luck!

    Marco Solorio | CreativeCow Host | OneRiver Media | Codec Resource Site | Cinesoft | Media Batch

  • Philippe Orlando

    September 8, 2007 at 10:57 am

    OK, now what if I have a couple of scenes, each of them 3 minutes long that are shot in interlaced. Should I try to deinterlace them and mix them with the footage from the DVX or should I reshoot? Reshooting is a problem, as far as actors availability, but in the worse scenario I could.
    Is it worth bothering about shooting 16×9? In the remote possibility of a blow up to film I should try to secure 16×9, right? And in the case of the DVX it’d be using an anamorphic adapter, right? Is there a decent one out there that doesn’t have too much barrel distortion?

  • Rick Amundson

    September 10, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    The reason I went with the DVX is that I have access to several of them. I shot almost the entire film with 2 cameras running at all times. That allowed me to get all the coverage I needed in the short amount of time I had. Also, I’m not a big fan of HDV yet. I shot the film 2 years ago and the options for post with HDV were very limited. I shot a lot in DVCPro, but I didn’t have access to the SDX900 when I shot Indelible.

    As for the photo, all that is on the camera is a matte box. I made the choice not to use the anamorphic adapter. The reasons were 1)it is hard to get a good focus with the adapter. I did a lot of handheld and action work and it takes a lot of time and care to set the focus. 2)the adapter has certain depth of field requirements for good focus. Using the small lighting package and dark locations (it is a dark drama) I knew I would always be fighting with the adapter. 3)I was using multiple cameras. That meant dealing with all of these issues multiple times per set up. 4)Knowing that I would not do a 35mm blowup (hey, I’m a realist) I decided that the 372 lines of resolution (the amount left over after adding 16X9 bars on top and bottom)would be good enough for DVD and the occasional projection.

    In the end, I shot in full frame 4X3 but framing for 16X9 (using tape on the LCD screen) so that I had the freedom to make adjustments up and down in post. I needed it a few times when a light or mic got in the shot. After posting the whole film in FCP I created a nested sequence that I pasted into a new time line set up as a DV/DVCPro anamorphic sequence. Then I expanded the image to 133% in the motion control panel. I will say that I have projected the film in a movie theater with a high end DVD player and a powerful projector and it looked great. You could not tell the film had been blown-up slightly.

    Also, I shot everything in 24P Advanced and edited in a 24pA timeline using FCP 5 on a G4 laptop. It was smooth as silk(although I like my MacPro much better).

    As for deinterlacing 3 minute interlaced clips or re-shooting them, de-interlace them. It’s only 3 minutes at a time and you could effect the footage to help make the lower resolution.

    Did I forget anything?

  • Philippe Orlando

    September 10, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    No, you didnt’ forget anything, thanks a lot.
    Now, for 500 more bucks I could get a Canon Xh-A1. What do you think? Is it worth the pain?

  • Rick Amundson

    September 10, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    I don’t know enough about the Canon to make a good comment. I will say that I’m not a big fan of the HDV yet. I’n sure with ProRes 422 it will be much easier to work with. I may be wrong but I don’t think the camera does a true 24p. Again, I don’t know the camera so I may be talking out of my a.. (wouldn’t be the first time)!

  • Marco Solorio

    September 10, 2007 at 9:04 pm

    This is correct. The cannon (nor any Canon video camera) shoots in true 24p (it’s interpolated). They’ll be the last company to jump on the band wagon if they ever do. Phorland, if you were going this route (60i) I’d definitely stick with the Sony you already have. Those larger CCDs can make a nice difference. But if you want true 24p, I’d probably go the DVX100 route.

    Marco Solorio | CreativeCow Host | OneRiver Media | Codec Resource Site | Cinesoft | Media Batch

Viewing 1 - 10 of 12 posts

Log in to reply.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy