1080i/60 vs 1080p/30 for fast-action scenes?

C

calchip

Active member
k, this might be a silly question, hoping those of you with practical experience can help out.

I'm going to be shooting a bunch of content that has some pretty fast-moving action (think orchestra conductor's arms during an energetic part of the performance, tennis matches, etc.)

I've read everything I could find here, and also Barry's wonderfully clear and detailed description in the HVX book about the theoretical and practical differences between 1080p(30) and 1080i(60).

So... here's the question.

I could see that capturing a half-frame 60 times a second would more accurately capture a faster-moving object, but with more visible differences between the first and second halves of the frame, resulting in a more artifact laden image.

However, I could also see that capturing a full frame at half the capture rate (30 times/sec) might also result in a more blurred image than one captured at twice the capture rate.

Are there rules of thumb for when you go with interlaced vs progressive (or vice-versa) in a circumstance like this?
 
Calchip -

First you need to think about what your delivery format will be, what playback devices it will be watched on, and what your clients interests are. For your "conductor's arms" example, I know that 90% of classical musicians dislike the 30p/24p progressive look, and want to see the smoothest images possible. I imagine sports viewers would be the same. So if you are documenting fast action, I'd suggest 60i. If you're shooting narrative, then progressive may be a good aesthetic choice.
 
Thanks for the input.

For the time being, most of the video will be downrezzed for either standard DVD, or web-based delivery (Flash or Windows Media).

Some of the video will eventually make its way onto Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD, and at some point in the future, there may be a demand for HD Windows Media.

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, it sounds like the advantage of a smoother look in 60i for the fast action material is the way to go. I'm assuming, then, that any artifacting introduced by the half-frames and interlacing is minimal and not really noticeable when the images are flying by at 60 (half) fps?
 
"I know that 90% of classical musicians dislike the 30p/24p progressive look"

...

90% of classical musicians you know.......in the entire world, LA or what? did you run a poll?
I know this is kind of irrelevant but my curiosity wont let me just brush that statistic off.
 
calchip said:
Thanks for the input.

For the time being, most of the video will be downrezzed for either standard DVD, or web-based delivery (Flash or Windows Media).

Some of the video will eventually make its way onto Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD, and at some point in the future, there may be a demand for HD Windows Media.

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, it sounds like the advantage of a smoother look in 60i for the fast action material is the way to go. I'm assuming, then, that any artifacting introduced by the half-frames and interlacing is minimal and not really noticeable when the images are flying by at 60 (half) fps?
Click to expand...

Then 1080 30p. If you shoot and edit 1080 60i, you will need to de-interlace the video for most of the uses you specified. Interlaced video only looks good on regular TV sets. Most viewing is now taking place with LCD, Plasma etc.
Please go out and do your own testing...
Shoot some cars in both 1080 30p and 60i....
Then edit a clip in progressive and one in interlaced....
Then produce a DVD and the other formats you specified....
 
I'd suggest 720/60p. It'll cross-convert to DVD or to 1080/60i gorgeously, but it's progressive and preserves the clearest image.
 
adam powell said:
"I know that 90% of classical musicians dislike the 30p/24p progressive look"

...

90% of classical musicians you know.......in the entire world, LA or what? did you run a poll?
I know this is kind of irrelevant but my curiosity wont let me just brush that statistic off.
Click to expand...


When one sits in the Taj Mahal, during the 3rd hour of the Mysterium, one attains unity with the minds of all classical musicians.

'Course, I haven't done that yet. Somehow in my head "I know" was meant to be "in my experience." Sorry - I don't like when people spew such unqualified numbers either!


And, Calchip - if you offered 720p as an option, I'd'a suggested that, too!
 
Thanks much for your help. I really do need to go shoot some cars driving by at each of the different resolutions and look for myself... but until I do that...

I think that I'm hearing that 720/60p will offer the best combination of catching the fast action with minimal artifacting, offering the high, progressive frame rate.

So there's a trade off between the higher progressive frame rate of 720/60p and a somewhat smaller image resolution than I would have with 1080/30p.

Is the HD/Blu-Ray viewer, watching on a decent hi-def TV, likely to notice a significant difference between 1080p/30 vs 720p/60?

Sorry this is so confusing, just trying to get a clear idea.
 
Again, for fast motion, I think there will be a big difference in smoothness (720p60 wwill be much smoother) and a much less significant difference in image detail. Further, there is likely to be a lot more blur in 30p, so it's possible 720p60 will "seem" sharper in some instances.

Frankly, the HVX 1080 images are not the sharpest 1080 around. And I don't know that even most 1080p capable TVs show anything near 1080p. So I don't think you lose much with 720. You WILL gain a lot with 60p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top