Record family video in progressive or interlaced?

[bobn4burton]

Hi...I just have a question to ask all of you video guru's!

Is it worth an extra 100 bucks to get a camcorder that is capable of recording in 30fps progressive? I don't have any experience with a camera that actually records in progressive. I understand that basically you loose some temporal resolution but gain spatial resolution with progressive mode.

I've heard mixed reports of the usefulness of recording in 30p. Some say it looks great and others say the movement looks unnatural. I just thought it would be much nicer for video editing and such to have a progressive source. But I don't want to pay extra for a feature that I won't really use?

So does anyone have any opinions on this? I could really use some help!


********Here's the background on the camcorders I'm considering******
I'm just buying a new camcorder for family/kids/vacation/etc. I've narrowed it down to two camcorders: canon optura 50/Sony HC90.

The optura 50 has everything I want EXCEPT being able to record in 30p (30 fps progressive). The canon has two big pro's, optical image stabilization and cheaper.

The sony boasts being able to record in 30p mode. I "think" this would be a great feature to have especially with newer TV's. But I don't have a lot of experience here.

[Boulder]

I guess it depends on how the progressive mode is accomplished. If it's just throwing away the other field, it's no good:D Personally I hate the film look that is used so much nowadays in TV programs. I suppose the progressive mode would look just like that.

[jggimi]

...the film look...in TV programs...

The non-HDTV sitcoms that I've captured were all Telecined, so the progressive source seems to have been 24fps. I'm guessing they were shot on film -- likely 16mm. Local news broadcasts here were 29.97 interlaced, as was CNN.

This was when I first got an analog capture card about 3 years ago. But I haven't captured any NTSC broadcasts since those first few weeks when I was testing sources. All my captures since have been from tape.

I ought to go back and take a look at the SD simulcasts of HD broadcasts, and see if they are progressive.

[Boulder]

No, I don't mean the film look of some TV series or any Hollywood movie. I mean the stuff that looks like it was originally shot in video and then deinterlaced to create a film look. They use it quite a lot here these days, and it looks annoying, much much more jerkier motion than with regular film. I've never tried capturing such material so I can't say what it looks like on a frame-by-frame basis though.

Could be that you NTSC people don't have to stand that kind of material?

[bobn4burton]

Boulder,

I guess I'm not sure how it records the "progressive" video.

I don't think that it throws away every other field however. I think it has an interlaced CCD but uses a manual shutter at 30hz to get an effective progressive image from the interlaced CCD.

So anymore thoughts on this? Is it a wasted feature...or would it be good for editing->DVD?

[scharfis_brain]

I think, that 30p is a dead end.

Either use 60i or 24p.
but NOT use 30p.

30p either doesn't look as fluent as 60i nor it looks like 24p-Film.

further it is hard to convert to PAL (if this wish should come up).

[jggimi]

Should I move this to the DV forum? That's where digital camcorders are discussed; I assume this camera you're interested in is "captured" via Firewire? If so, this really ought to move there.

[bobn4burton]

jggimi,

Yes...sorry if I got it in the wrong forum. Please move it into the DV forum...if that's more applicable.

[theReal]

I tried recording 25p on a Panasonic DVX 100AE (we have one at work) and I didn't like the results too much when watched on tv. It had a film look to it but it didn't look like Hollywood, it rather looked like old 16mm tv footage from the 70ies...

The Hollywood film look is not achieved by 24p/25p - it is achieved through the super high resolution and low depth of sharpness of 35mm film, terribly expensive lenses and filters plus highly professional post production (digital color matching and so on). You can't imitate that by just recording 24p/25p on a 1/3" 3CCD camcorder - it will always look like old super16 tv footage from the 70ies...

For the best and most natural looking results on your tv screen I'd highly recommend you record in interlaced mode (or buy a HDV camera because the higher resolution really makes things look better!)

[scharfis_brain]

also needed for filmlook:
steadycam and tripod!

handycam recordings always look like crap, cause they do shake like hell!

[theReal]

I agree with you that a good tripod is necessary for some occasions, but recordings from a handycam don't have to look like crap - with some training you can make good scenes without a tripod, depending on the occasion. For example you definitely need a tripod to shoot a wedding (slow and steady pictures with slow zooms are needed) but you won't need the tripod a lot when shooting the birthday party of your 6 year old. You don't want slow zooms and pans when the kids are in action, what you want here is a moving camera. Of course "moving camera" doesn't mean "shaking" and every camera move has to have a clear start and end. It needs some training but it's possible.

But you're right, it's always good to have a tripod with you in every situation.

[scharfis_brain]

hmmm.
maybe I expressed it too harsh.

you are right. handycam footage isn't always bad.
but one needs some kind of training to get good videos with a handycam.

As I am doing a lot of VHS-capping of selfmade videos of friends and relatives I found that they all have one thing in common:
without deshaking(must be done properly!) and editing/cutting them I get drunken and bored very quick.

also the poeple tend to zoom on everything they can.
Faces as big as the screen all over the time.... :rolleyes:

[bobn4burton]

Thanks for all the input guys!

I guess just to clarify a little more...I'm not necessarily looking for a "film" look. The reason I'm considering recording in progressive was merely from a quality standpoint and since I do A LOT with computers. For instance...I'll always run all my footage through my computer with a little editing and then probably burned to dvd.

Sooooo...I was just trying to figure out if recording in progressive at 30fps would be beneficial to the whole editing->dvd process. Would progressive source film provide better results in the end after editing->dvd?

Or will I get better results with interlaced video source?

[theReal]

Sooooo...I was just trying to figure out if recording in progressive at 30fps would be beneficial to the whole editing->dvd process. Would progressive source film provide better results in the end after editing->dvd? No, all editing programs can work with interlaced video, you can edit the single fields just as good as a progressive picture. The quality on the tv screen is better interlaced.


Scharfi's Brain, I know what you mean - homevideos often tend to be horribly bad... I think not mainly because of the shaking but because the camera often moves around with no start and no aim.
If you're watching "24" (the series with Keifer Sutherland) you can see that the camera is shaking a lot, there is a lot of camera movement, rapid panning and zooming - but the movement always hits the right pictures and stops panning when it has to. That's one important point why it doesn't look like dad's birthday :D

Another point why homevideo always looks like homevideo is the light. People don't use camera lights and they don't light their scenes enough. For a good looking video the camera must not use digital gain (or maybe 9dB but not more). In a normal room with no daylight you'll need at least one 800-1000 Watt halogen light pointed to the ceiling to get enough light. An additional camera light with a diffusor filter makes people's eyes look livelier and lights up remaining shadows.

[bobn4burton]

Originally posted by theReal
The quality on the tv screen is better interlaced.


Would this be true even with newer HDTV "progressive" TV's?

If so...then it sounds like spending a little more for the progressive feature in a camcorder is not really worth it. I guess the only time it would really be worth it is if you were pulling stills out of your video footage....

[theReal]

I think in standard PAL or NTSC resolution progressive 25p or 24p is not worth it (unless you want to blow up the footage to film for the movie theater).
I don't know about HD, I've never really seen all the different HD resolutions in progressive/interlaced mode, so I can't tell. What does the standard PAL or NTSC resolution look like on an HD capable tv screen in interlaced versus progressive? I can't tell you, sorry.
What I can tell from computer games is that everything below 40-50 frames per second doesn't look very smooth and I guess you can apply that to television as well.

I'd say better spend more money on a camcorder with better lenses, 3CCD chips, bigger CCD chips... whatever, but don't spend more money for a 24p or 25p mode (of course if you buy one of the best camcorders like the Panasonic AG-DVX 100AE you'll get everything bundled, very good lens, 3 CCD 1/3" chips, very good manual handling AND 24p/25p, but you'll see you don't want to use the progressive mode)

Maybe you want one of the new HDV camcorders - as I said before, I heard very good things about them, but I'd rather check it out before I'd buy one...

P.S.: I said in another thread that I had a few words with someone who was shooting a documentary on the new Sony HDV camcorder. He seemed to be a pro but still he was amazed by the HDV camcorder. I had been reluctant to the HDV technique because of the relatively low data rate together with MPEG2 I/P/B compression

[khmann]

Originally posted by bobn4burton
recording in 30fps progressive?


I've heard mixed reports of the usefulness of recording in 30p. Some say it looks great and others say the movement looks unnatural.

The optura 50 has everything I want EXCEPT being able to record in 30p (30 fps progressive). The canon has two big pro's, optical image stabilization and cheaper.



I can't speak to the Sony unit, but I have a Canon Optura Xi (older version of Optura 40, 50). This unit has the 16:9, Optical Image Stabilizer with a 1/3.4" CCD. This unit also has a "progressive" (slow shutter, night) mode that likely equals the Sony in quality. One note about some sonys is that they can't do 16:9 + progressive + image stabalizer all at the same time...

Anyway, my NTSC Canon XI uses a form of interpolated field blending to achieve it's 30p mode. It actually works very well, with almost no visible artifacts (except on slowly moving thin horizontal lines - ie: venetian blinds). Other than that I have been using this 1/30 mode extensively for some time, and (for my money) it produces progressive footage much more natural looking than any form of "deinterlacing" I have yet tried. (and it's way faster.... :)

Anyway, to achive this mode on my camera, I set to "TV" (fixed shutter speed) mode and "30". In my case I add neutral density filters when shooting outdoors as the camera is more sensitive to light at this speed and I want to keep my iris open for min. depth of field.

Another reason I would recommend the Canon is that it's 1/3.4" CCD is much larger than many of it's competitors, especially the "consumer" 3CCD models which are typically 1/6". This can translate into a much narrower depth of field, which in turn helps the professional (film) look of your footage.

Anyway, I can't say enough good things about this camera (Optura Xi). I use it for "home movies", but I try and do everything as cinematically as possible - google for "dv cinematography" for some good hints about using optical filtration (I use white tiffen promist 1/8, black diffusion fx 1/4 with a B+W linear polarizer) to reduce excessive contrast and sharpness which also helps with the pro look.

As far as increased resolution, I dunno. One of my main reasons for progressive video is DVD MPEG encoding - progressive footage needs less bitrate...

[defaulk9]

This is a little offtopic, but the Optura Xi doesn't achieve 30p as you say it does. I have the same camera. Setting it to Tv mode just sets the camera to Shutter priority mode, but the way it's recorded to the tape is always the same. After all, using that same switch, you can increase the shutter speed up to 2000, but you certainly aren't recording a 2000 fps progressive video!

Unless I am mistaken, shutter speed is really only a question of how long the shutter is open to record a certain frame, but it doesn't determine the amount of frames recorded really.

But I agree that it is a really good camcorder :)

[Meat_PoPsiclez]

But if you set the shutter to be open 1/30 of a second it would be open for both fields of the frame (at 1/60), or maybe the end half of one and beginning half of the other. The effect would be a somewhat temporaly blended interlace, with much less combing than normal. Not true progressive, but closer.


Edit

I just tested a similiar idea on my jvc gr-d70u. It has a "Old movie" effect. Looking at the video frame by frame, it produces duplicate frames (15fps effective) BUT, produces perfect progressive scan! No combing artifacts at all, which leads me to believe that the camera internally is progressive, which I already suspected due to the decent quality during low multiplier digital zoom shots. If only this camera had upgradable firmware, I might be able to hack progressive all the time. Other users might want to check their cameras various settings too. 15fps is too low for smooth motion on tv, but for webvideo, or if processed with one of the various frame interpolating (motion vectors used to create new frames) it might be usable. If someone can recommend such a filter to me, I'll see how the results are.

[theReal]

The main purpose of manually adjustable shutters is to avoid flicker when filming monitors. If the monitor is at 85Hz then set the shutter to 85Hz as well and it's flicker free.

Consumer camcorders without ND filters also use the shutter to reduce the amount of light that hits the CCD. It's more advisable though to use ND filters instead because the picture will always look different with a high shutter speed (but most consumer models don't even allow to turn off the auto shutter...)