Does it make sense to shoot in 1080 60i if im not sure what my fina output will be?

O

oxband

Well-known member
I'm doing some shooting for someone who doesnt know what frame rate he wants the final piece in. My logic then is to shoot in 60i so i can easily change to either one? Does that logic make sense?
 
not necessarily.

for instance, if the final venue is the web, it will have to be de-interlaced.
 
Ah! Will deinterlacing make it look really bad? Is the image quality that affected when you do it?
 
de-interlacing can create certain "artifacts" that degrade the image quality.

but that's just an example. it's good to know what you're shooting, and what it's being shot for, when making a determination about frame rate.
 
MPB said:
de-interlacing can create certain "artifacts" that degrade the image quality.

but that's just an example. it's good to know what you're shooting, and what it's being shot for, when making a determination about frame rate.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree...there are more things to consider than the deinterlacing. Each rate will achieve different looks for different scenarios, you should shoot what is appropriate for the content
 
I think it makes the most sense to shoot in a progressive format if you don't know how the final product will be used.

I usually choose 1080/30p, which is great for the web and direct viewing of video files on a computer, but unfortunately is not directly supported on Blu-Ray discs. But you can transcode to 1080/60i from there with no loss of visual quality.

If action is more important than the last little bit of resolution (think sports), then 720/60p would be my choice.

The only time I'd ever shoot interlaced is if a broadcaster absolutely insisted on it for a paying job. I think the whole concept of interlacing is outdated in an all-digital era where nobody is watching CRTs anymore.

- Greg
 
My suggestion would be 720/60p. You can go up to 1080/60i and down to 480/60i. And if you ever go out to a TV release where the TV network is natively 720/60p, you're set. 1080/30p to 720/60p, while doable (with 2:2 pull down) will give more motion artifacts, then if it were shot in that format natively. Out to a theatrical screening might be difficult going from 60p to 24p, but is also doable.

720p has about the same noticable resolution as 1080i.

The only time I'd ever shoot interlaced is if a broadcaster absolutely insisted on it for a paying job. I think the whole concept of interlacing is outdated in an all-digital era where nobody is watching CRTs anymore.
Click to expand...

Not true, we still have two CRTs in our house.



As a side note, I really wish broadcasters would rename their channels. Getting rid of HD on their HD channels, and adding LD (Low Definition) on their "SD" channels. HD is pretty much now the standard.
 
If there was even a remote chance it would go to SD - DVD and/or Blu-Ray then I would shoot 1080 60i. If for the web, then 720 30p or 60p. But it may not really matter that much which format as most have work-a-rounds. Here is a link to a video that I shot 1080i and de-interlaced via TMPGE4 for the web. I think it deinterlaced fairly well as flowing water is one of the best subjects to test. http://vimeo.com/6741349
 
Mark Williams said:
If there was even a remote chance it would go to SD - DVD and/or Blu-Ray then I would shoot 1080 60i. If for the web, then 720 30p or 60p. But it may not really matter that much which format as most have work-a-rounds. Here is a link to a video that I shot 1080i and de-interlaced via TMPGE4 for the web. I think it deinterlaced fairly well as flowing water is one of the best subjects to test. http://vimeo.com/6741349
Click to expand...

That video you posted is in 720... Scaling down from 1080 to 720 on the web tends to hide any artifacts.
 
Ill vote on the 1080/30p or 720/60p... these are the only 2 settings I use on the HMC... I dont normally shot film style otherwise that would be 1080/24p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top