Thoughts on DVd rendering

HWright · #1 (**permalink**) 03-25-2009, 09:49 PM

I am interested in getting your personal thoughts on progressive scan vs field rendering for DVDs, along with your reasons supporting your choices . . . thanks in advance.

Mark W · #2 (**permalink**) 03-30-2009, 07:40 PM

Progressive scan at 24p is horrible.
The only proof I need is my eyes. How does it look to you ?

If you shoot in interalce so should your dvds be.

This progressive thing is just hype and bollox. 50p is the future but at 24 frames interlace is best.

Cinema is only 24/5 p as that is as fast as stuff could be made to run. Some new stuff is now being shot digitally at 50 p.

Mark W · #3 (**permalink**) 03-30-2009, 07:43 PM

Here are some more er sober thts on progressive scan...

The Big Judder Problem and the Overhyping of 24p

HWright · #4 (**permalink**) 03-30-2009, 11:06 PM

Thanks for the link and the feedback! Progressive scan doesn't look nearly as good for high movement footage, or most other footage (to me). But I did want to get some feedback to see if I was completely wrong and could learn something . . . thanks!

wandering-free · #5 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 05:02 AM

How nice to know I'm not the only one to prefer interlaced, I can't understand why any one would want to get the film look, the only thing it had going for it was a greater contrast range, even that can be had in digital if you have the money to throw at it.

Chapman Photography · #6 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 05:08 AM

heres my thoughts on "film look" personaly Id rather watch a movie on 35mm.. Alot of times. with digital everything is sharp an in focus.. things are not like that in real life.. and with some movies digital just looks fake...

wandering-free · #7 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 08:18 AM

I see there are lens adapters that make it possible to use your old still camera lenses to give you more controll over DOF, I saw a remarkable demonstration of what is possible using the SGblade, the video is on Vimeo it's some tests done by Henry Olonga vimeo.com/3760053

Mark W · #8 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Chapman Photography

heres my thoughts on "film look" personaly Id rather watch a movie on 35mm.. Alot of times. with digital everything is sharp an in focus.. things are not like that in real life.. and with some movies digital just looks fake...

For sure - you have to spend legendary amounts of cash to get a real cinema look at home. My home cinema toally rules but it is not as good as the real thing.

And as W free points out - digital cameras that cost less then a house just dont have the exposure range of film.

Mark W · #9 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by wandering-free

I see there are lens adapters that make it possible to use your old still camera lenses to give you more controll over DOF, I saw a remarkable demonstration of what is possible using the SGblade, the video is on Vimeo it's some tests done by Henry Olonga vimeo.com/3760053

Indeed - but thay look like hassle hassle and shallow dof aint that great really - just another tool.

It amuses me that it seems to be some sort of holy grail for filmanistas often - lols.

wandering-free · #10 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 08:32 PM

For sure Mark, OK in a studio situation, but hardly practical for most of us, I like lots of depth of field so the viewer picks what they want to focus on.