Debate between student and lecturer

R

RJB

New member
I am currently studying Film and Video at University, and we are currently planning to shoot a feature film, so we talked about a few different formats which we could shoot on, and the issue of Interlaced or Progressive came up? My lecturer thinks we should defiantly shoot Interlaced but i am not so sure,

Could people give there opinions, and what they would shoot on and why? Maybe also some credits as just a bit of backup?

That would be great,

thanks
 
interlaced is for tv, progressive is more film like, especially if its going to be transfered in the future.
 
I can't think of even one reason why shooting interlaced would be a good idea for a feature film (assuming it's a narrative fiction piece).
Did your lecturer give any reasons?

The first argument that comes to mind for progressive is that if you're shooting a feature film you would probably want it to most closely match in look and feel the way feature films have been shot for going on 100 years - and that is on film, which is a progressive medium, and at 24 fps (since the advent of sound at least).
 
Given the fact the film isn't interlaced, I'm at a loss to understand why you would shoot a feature film interlaced.
 
thats exaclty what i thought, but apparently it ruins your depth of field looks jerky as hell, as some guys from a local camera shop assured him it was the best
 
RJB said:
thats exaclty what i thought, but apparently it ruins your depth of field looks jerky as hell, as some guys from a local camera shop assured him it was the best
Click to expand...

Depth of Field is dictacted by subject distance, focal length and aperture.
Interlaced vs. Progressive has nothing to do with depth of field whatsoever.

As far as looking jerky - I suppose they might be referring to the judder that can be seen in 24 fps footage when it's not shot properly (not really a progressive issue specifically, but it comes with the 24P territory). This happens when people pan or tilt too quickly - causing a slight judder motion effect in the footage
(because 60i footage contains more temporal resolution, it doesn't have such a problem).

Point is - people have been shooting, tilting, and panning 24fps Progressive footage for decades upon decades without problems.
There is no rational reason to shoot a narrative feature film in an interlaced format - unless it is, for some odd reason, an artistic choice.
But there is surely no good workflow or technological reason as to why you would shoot interlaced.
 
Amazing.

Your "lecturer" should retire, if he thinks shooting a feature with an interlaced format is superior to progressive.
 
thanks for all the info guys, i will print this off and show him tommorow i am sure it wont make a differnece tho
 
Film has a shallow DOF, but DOF is irrelevant to progressive versus interlaced.

And because film is show at 24 fps, I don't know how anyone conclude it is "jerky as hell."

Exactly how jerky is hell?
 
The bottom line is that since the dawn of cinema films have been shot in a progressive format.
And since the creation of interlaced footage - the vast majority of films continue to be shot in a progressive format.

So the burden of proof is on those claiming that interlaced is a better choice for feature film work to make their case.
You should not have to defend yourself at all.





EDITED TO ADD:
if you actually print this out - you might want to remove the avatar.
I can't imagine anyone taking me seriously as they look at a wookie in a tux.
:)
 
He seems to think its better to shoot Interlaced and Deinterlace in post, as it provides a 'smoother image'
 
RJB said:
He seems to think its better to shoot Interlaced and Deinterlace in post, as it provides a 'smoother image'
Click to expand...

Feel free to tell him that it does not provide a 'smoother image' in any way -
What deinterlacing in post provides is resolution loss and workflow headaches.
 
i cant wait to see some footage from a 60fps camera, does anyone know if theres some floating about?
 
Just imagine 720 60P a little higher res than it is. Motion wise 720 60p is just slick. Almost doesnt look right its so smooth and silky.
 
RJB said:
i cant wait to see some footage from a 60fps camera, does anyone know if theres some floating about?
Click to expand...

I belive Red can do 120p at 2k. If you see a Red One floating around, though, send it my way. :)
 
Last edited:
Luis Caffesse said:
Feel free to tell him that it does not provide a 'smoother image' in any way -
What deinterlacing in post provides is resolution loss and workflow headaches.
Click to expand...


Well, pans can be smoother, but if you follow the rules, and shoot 24P, there's little to worry about.

The other aspect of shooting 24P is you can squeeze a higher quality (better looking) file onto a DVD than an interlaced video.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top