I haven't shot interlaced in forever but I'm shooting on my GH3 with another shooter who is shooting a Sony Z1 at 60i. Is there any benefit to me shooting 60i and matching his camera? I'd prefer to shoot at a higher bit rate at 30p. Would this pose any problems in editorial or will the 30p mix nicely? Thanks.
mixing 30p and 60i
- Thread starter rube
- Start date
You can esit them both with no problem on a 60i or 60p timeline. 30p will still look like 30p.
Or, you can edit both as 30p and when you export, the 60i will be converted to 30p, but it will lose some resolution.
So, it comes down to what you want the 60i to look like when it's all done.
Or, you can edit both as 30p and when you export, the 60i will be converted to 30p, but it will lose some resolution.
So, it comes down to what you want the 60i to look like when it's all done.
So if I want to match the look and feel of the Z1 then I will have to go 60i it seems. Does 30p and 60i look that different when output back to DVD? Seems like it would be the same since it's going back out as 60i.
On another forum some said that if I put a 30p clip in a 60i timeline that there's a quality loss on the 30p. Do you agree?
On another forum some said that if I put a 30p clip in a 60i timeline that there's a quality loss on the 30p. Do you agree?
Yeah, they do look very different. 60i looks live. 30p doesn't.
30p will not look the same as 60i when rendered out as 60i because in order for it to look like 60i, you need 60 motion samples per second. That is, everything must move 60 times per second. 30p will not do this, because only 30 pictures per second were taken, whereas with 60i, 60 pictures were taken. You can't create motions which aren't there, so when 30p is converted to 60i, it will simply show the same frame twice, still giving you 30 motions per second.
60i = 60 motions per second, even if each motion is represented by an interlaced field. You see all 60.
30p = 30 motions per second, each motion being a progressive frame. You only see 30.
30p rendered at 60i = 30 frames, each split into two interlaced fields, to give you 60 fields. But those two fields are from the same picture, so there's only one motion. You see 30 motions per second.
(This is why it's so confusing to keep referring to 60i as "30i," as Jim does above. 60i video simply is NOT 30 "frames" per second. To call 60i "30i" makes it sound like it should be the same as 30p, but it's not.)
There's no quality loss on the 30p, except that if you render it out as 60i, it becomes interlaced instead of progressive.
So, the question for you, as it ALWAYS is for deciding which frame rate to shoot -- what do you want your footage to look like? Do you want it to look "live," or do you want it to look more fictional? If you want it to look "live," then shoot 60i. If you want it to look fictional, then shoot 30p. (Or 24p, but you weren't asking about that.)
On the contrary. As you always and only list the frame rate, saying 60i is not conventionally correct, as it means 60 interlaced frames, and there just is no such thing.
You do not say "interlaced fields". As all fields are interlaced, it's redundant to say both, rather like saying a female woman. All woman are female, so you can say one or the other, but not both. You can say female human. The equivalent here being interlaced frames, which is the correct terminology.
Never list the field rate, always list the frame rate. Whether those 'frames' are progressive or interlaced is denoted by the i or p.
Jim, we've gone over this before -- there are no "frames" in interlaced video. There are only mash-ups of fields which come from two separate pictures. It's absolutely the same thing as taking two frames of film, slicing them into strips, assembling the strips together, and calling the mashup a "frame":
When it's clearly two different pictures.
Interlaced fields are never displayed as "frames," except on editing timelines. They're displayed one field at a time.
Then
You see each field by itself, which is why you see 60 movements per second, not 30. That's because you're seeing 60 separate moments in time, not 30.
This is true at acquisition, where what you're shooting is imaged 60, not 30, times per second, and it's true at display, where your footage is displayed 60, not 30, times per second, each being a separate, distinct movement.
"30i" is a convention which was put into place many decades ago when there was only one "frame" rate for video and there was no possibility of confusion. But that's not the case anymore, and "30i" should be abandoned, because it's just not accurate, and worse, in the age now where you can shoot many frame rates on video, it's just plain confusing.
There is no confusion when calling it "60i." It means 60 interlaced fields per second, where each field is a sample of movement. Compare to 60p, which is 60 progressive frames per second, where each frame is a sample of movement. They're both called 60, so they should appear similar -- and they do. The motion is the same. That one is interlaced and the other is progressive is irrelevant. They are equivalent to each other.
But if you call it "30i," the "30" has no meaning, other than pretending two fields mashed together create a "frame" when they don't. It's simply inaccurate. There are not 30 frames. There are 60 fields. There are not 30 pictures taken per second, there are 60. There are not 30 motions per second, there are 60. Calling it "30 frames per second, interlaced" confuses it with "30 frames per second, progressive." And indeed, many, many people think "30i" and "30p" are the same because they're both casually referred to as "30 frames per second." But they're very different.
Camera companies and software companies are moving away from the archaic "30i" designation with good reason. Continuing to use "30i" when discussing video is only going to get more and more confusing as less and less out there refers to it.
When it's clearly two different pictures.
Interlaced fields are never displayed as "frames," except on editing timelines. They're displayed one field at a time.
Then
You see each field by itself, which is why you see 60 movements per second, not 30. That's because you're seeing 60 separate moments in time, not 30.
This is true at acquisition, where what you're shooting is imaged 60, not 30, times per second, and it's true at display, where your footage is displayed 60, not 30, times per second, each being a separate, distinct movement.
"30i" is a convention which was put into place many decades ago when there was only one "frame" rate for video and there was no possibility of confusion. But that's not the case anymore, and "30i" should be abandoned, because it's just not accurate, and worse, in the age now where you can shoot many frame rates on video, it's just plain confusing.
There is no confusion when calling it "60i." It means 60 interlaced fields per second, where each field is a sample of movement. Compare to 60p, which is 60 progressive frames per second, where each frame is a sample of movement. They're both called 60, so they should appear similar -- and they do. The motion is the same. That one is interlaced and the other is progressive is irrelevant. They are equivalent to each other.
But if you call it "30i," the "30" has no meaning, other than pretending two fields mashed together create a "frame" when they don't. It's simply inaccurate. There are not 30 frames. There are 60 fields. There are not 30 pictures taken per second, there are 60. There are not 30 motions per second, there are 60. Calling it "30 frames per second, interlaced" confuses it with "30 frames per second, progressive." And indeed, many, many people think "30i" and "30p" are the same because they're both casually referred to as "30 frames per second." But they're very different.
Camera companies and software companies are moving away from the archaic "30i" designation with good reason. Continuing to use "30i" when discussing video is only going to get more and more confusing as less and less out there refers to it.