MPB
Well-known member
i humbly apologize if i've overlooked explanations of this particular matter, i did go through quite a few posts before starting a new thread. but as you can imagine the search terms return a fairly broad set of issues. i did find some helpful posts, but they raised more questions as well as answering some.
most of my work these days is for a public broadcasting station that works primarily with the hvx200. i've shot for them since the SD days, both hired for in-house productions as well as working at some remove, through independent production companies who supply finished pieces to the station. all their studio work and most of the in-house work is recorded interlaced. ok, fine. however whenever i'm shooting for a show where i know i will be doing all the shooting, i prefer to shoot 1080 30p, for the simple fact that it looks better. as long as it doesn't have to be intercut with interlaced footage there doesn't seem to be a downside. everyone is happy with the result and i'm almost always the only person who ever notices that it's progressive.
however, the Official Shooting Specs for the station indicates recording 1080 60i. not that anyone can tell you why, it's just a matter of some engineer, some years ago, said the broadcast format for the station is interlaced. everyone else in the building, for years since, took that to mean that what's recorded in the field MUST be interlaced, presumably because this provided a higher resolution image. of course nothing blew up for the countless number of shows where i (and others) have recorded progressive, or when they've been delivered finished pieces that were acquired as progressive.
one time the subject came up on set, and one of the chief engineers for the station happend to be on hand. the LD had pre-lit the day before without any cameras or DP on hand, and it was all underexposed. the only way to make it work was to shoot progressive to suck up more of the light. so they had to entertain the question, and when they asked the engineer he had no real reply. we shot it progressive and everything was fine.
as far as i'm concerned, unless post can't easily process the footage, this is not an engineering decision. i'm responsible for making a good picture and i shoot progressive for the very simple reason that it looks better. but producers, AP's, directors, etc are all being told that post requires footage recorded interlaced. that's horses**t, but i need to be able to provide a suitable technical explanation as well.
what am i missing?
what are the potential downsides to shooting progressive for television? doesn't the 200 start with a progressive signal even when it writes interlaced video? is it not also the case that when recording progressive, it's progressive in an interlaced package? (is that what's meant by "30p over 60i?") what real difference does it make, besides looking better to my eye, if i record 30p?
most of my work these days is for a public broadcasting station that works primarily with the hvx200. i've shot for them since the SD days, both hired for in-house productions as well as working at some remove, through independent production companies who supply finished pieces to the station. all their studio work and most of the in-house work is recorded interlaced. ok, fine. however whenever i'm shooting for a show where i know i will be doing all the shooting, i prefer to shoot 1080 30p, for the simple fact that it looks better. as long as it doesn't have to be intercut with interlaced footage there doesn't seem to be a downside. everyone is happy with the result and i'm almost always the only person who ever notices that it's progressive.
however, the Official Shooting Specs for the station indicates recording 1080 60i. not that anyone can tell you why, it's just a matter of some engineer, some years ago, said the broadcast format for the station is interlaced. everyone else in the building, for years since, took that to mean that what's recorded in the field MUST be interlaced, presumably because this provided a higher resolution image. of course nothing blew up for the countless number of shows where i (and others) have recorded progressive, or when they've been delivered finished pieces that were acquired as progressive.
one time the subject came up on set, and one of the chief engineers for the station happend to be on hand. the LD had pre-lit the day before without any cameras or DP on hand, and it was all underexposed. the only way to make it work was to shoot progressive to suck up more of the light. so they had to entertain the question, and when they asked the engineer he had no real reply. we shot it progressive and everything was fine.
as far as i'm concerned, unless post can't easily process the footage, this is not an engineering decision. i'm responsible for making a good picture and i shoot progressive for the very simple reason that it looks better. but producers, AP's, directors, etc are all being told that post requires footage recorded interlaced. that's horses**t, but i need to be able to provide a suitable technical explanation as well.
what am i missing?
what are the potential downsides to shooting progressive for television? doesn't the 200 start with a progressive signal even when it writes interlaced video? is it not also the case that when recording progressive, it's progressive in an interlaced package? (is that what's meant by "30p over 60i?") what real difference does it make, besides looking better to my eye, if i record 30p?
Last edited:
