-
Re-interlacing footage at the broadcasters request: normal or not?
-
Paulo,
What kind of tape are you delivering on, BTW?
Quite a discussion. From a technical standpoint that guy sounds like a troublemaker and doesn’t quite understand things. The only complaint they could be making is that YES 25p will look “jerkier” than 50i… or in other words, look more like shitty video camera vs film.
There’s no way to make progressive look like that. You could force the fields out of order so every frame is “jaggy” but that would look TERRIBLE played back in real time.
I have a suspicion that when you field-by-field in Avid, it’s duplicating the field being currently viewed so that you see a whole image, vs seeing only the 1 field and black filling half the screen. So yes, it would appear as if things only change every other frame.
-
We’re delivering a DVCPRO interlaced tape (made, of course, from a progressive source). And yes, wow. I didn’t think I was going to start such a discussion…
I take Walter’s point about requesting the network’s guidelines before starting work, but I don’t know if it would have been helped. After all, they would probably have told us to deliver an interlaced tape (which we already did), but would they have told us also how to shoot? After all, TV channels show progressive material all the time (movies, etc.). Remember, BTW, that this is all in the SD world, not HD.
Thanks to everybody who chimed in.
Paulo.
-
So yeah, progressive originated material on a interlaced tape.
You run into these “tech” people sometimes that have enough information to get themselves into trouble, and in the process try and make you look like a dumbass. I remember once a tech stopped a 11th hour satellite feed because of a similar lack of knowing his s***
-
[Dave LaRonde] “[Paulo Jan] “Have you ever found a broadcaster refusing to air progressive material because they are broadcasting in interlaced?”
Never.”
Absolutely they will refuse. Real world example is the Food Network delivery specs. 1080i/29.97. If I deliver 720p, 1080p or anything other than 1080i/29.97 the show fails before they even watch it. Wrong format, wrong frame rate, progressive instead of interlaced, Fail.
So yes, networks will refuse to accept a progressive show if their standard and their specs call for interlaced.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR
The new Color Training DVD now available from the Creative Cow! -
Ben Holmes,
Boo Boo, I never said FCP causes a lose in quality. As others have stated, like myself , who actually know what they are talking about it depends on the method used. You even admit the video will look jerky for parts with fast motion using FCP. So FCP is not doing as good of job as a telecine would with a Goerge Lucas Film.
Boo Boo, I never said progressive is not acceptable format. Can you read English? If the station demands PAL are you going to shot in NTSC and then converter the footage using FCP? NTSC, PAL and progressive all have their place.
Kris Anderson,
Please show me the contradictions. I am just glad I know what I am talking about unlike yourself. Keep in mind I was the first to go against what everyone else was posting because I knew I was right. If you agree or disssagre it makes no difference to me. You can continue to but heads with the techs if you want
One day soon progressive may become the standard but as of now it is up to all of us in video production to meet the specs of the station.
-
[arc nevada] “Boo Boo, I never said FCP causes a lose in quality. As others have stated, like myself , who actually know what they are talking about it depends on the method used. You even admit the video will look jerky for parts with fast motion using FCP. So FCP is not doing as good of job as a telecine would with a Goerge Lucas Film.
“We were having a perfectly sensible discussion about this, except for your inane ramblings inbetween. I appreciate you do not have a terrific grasp of english, and do not wish to appear patronising, but you started off your grand discussion by telling us that the field size of a 640×480 image (a size never used for broadcast video) was 320×240. Now you have resorted to using insults to prove a point you never made in the first place. None of what you have said makes any sense in relation to the original question, so I can only assume you don’t understand it.
Many people give a portion of their free time to help people on this forum, myself included. I like helping people. You, on the other hand are clearly trolling for the sake of it. WHY? Why do people come on a forum that exists (thankfully in an internet full of DV users asking basic questions) to help professionals learn and cause trouble. I like being here and having intelligent discussions. If you don’t, please leave, and stop trying to play with the grown-ups.
Honestly, this thread and the previous one (I think you all know the one I mean – this guy was involved as well) gets me down. Can’t we do something about the increasingly hostile trollers here?
Ben
Editec Broadcast Editing Ltd
EVS & FCP specialists for live broadcast.
OB Server 1 HD – Mobile FCP editing done right.
https://www.editecuk.com/OBServer2.html -
Walter,
I’ve delivered masters to the BBC, National Geographic, SBS (Australia) ABC (Australia) and a host of other broadcasters around the world. At various times there has been progressive footage included in some of the shows. It has always been accepted.
I agree you should follow the spec, that’s a given but there are techs who reject things because they don’t like them, not because it’s a technical fault or outside of spec. That’s my point. Specifications are there to unify production standards. Techs who reject masters based on subjective, personal tastes have no place in the chain of command as far as I’m concerned.
Arc Nevada, nevermind. It’s a circular argument and I’m not going there with you.
-
When you step through frame by frame or field by field in AVID, GENERALLY speaking it only displays one field at a time on the playback monitor. This in itself makes great images look rough. Like using the duplicated fields option to make slomo’s instead of blended interpolated.
Walter, your viewpoint that shooting progressive but delivering interlaced makes your film an interlaced film is flawed. It’s like saying that I shot on 35mm but because I delivered it on video tape it’s not a film project anymore. It might get you through your tech check but that just shows that the tech guys are just checking the 50i light on the deck, not the content. Again, another problem with some tech guys.
-
Ben Holmes,
Get a grip. 640 X 480 was used by the Targa 2000 capture cards. The Targa 2000 Pro uses 720 X 480. I posted that I used 640 X 480 as a reference. I did not post that it was a broadcast standard Boo Boo. Try to read my post a little better next time. You distort what you read at times. With the right software you can capture 640 X 240, 320 X 480 and even 320 X 240. This can be done with a Pinnacle DC 10 Plus as well.
-
Hey guys, hate to distract, but let’s keep this discussion light, alright? There’s some great information in this thread, it’d be a shame if it got deleted.
Can we all make up and move on?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up