Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Camera choice for progressive recording

  1. #1

    Default Camera choice for progressive recording

    Hi there,
    I am producing short clips for internet use and I currently have a Sony FX1 camera.
    However, interlacing is a problem since all computer displays are progressive scan.
    Would I be better of with a camera that shoots in true progessive mode and if so, which is the best one?
    Martin

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,191

    Default

    Why not just deinterlace your captured footage and then simply edit it as 25p?

    or do what I do. Do all the editting from my own FX1 as 50i and then worry about deinterlacing on or not on my final export. That way, I still have the option of intelaced product if I care to make a DVD version of the project later on.
    Last edited by Alan Mills; 05-16-2007 at 02:18 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    Interesting reply (and quick)!
    I always thought it was best to deinterlace after the edit (I use VirtualDub with the Panasonic codec) . Am I wrong, should I deinterlace first?
    How do you deinterlace?
    And do you not see evidence of your interlacing nonetheless on a computer screen? I do, hence my original question.
    Thanks Alan.
    Martin

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Scotland!
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Emm depends what the guy wants for his progressive scan, if you want Progressive scan as in solid 50 or 60fps Progressive then IMO your best bet would be getting a camera that can record to 720p, however there are some pretty amazing deinterlacers out there that can make deinteralced 50i and 60i look like 50p/60p these days.
    It's not about what camera you use or how much it cost.

    It's about what you shoot,
    how you shot it,
    and how you edit it :P

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks for that. What deinterlacers / techniques do you recommend?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I agree - you dont really need a progressive camera, especially for net distribution what with all that compression.

    Progressive cameras are valued by many for that 'filmy' look, but this is only of great value if the end result is going to be shown as high quality progressive.

    If I need to deinteralace I usually do it in vegas but v dub does a good job too. There are some add on deinterlacers that give great results - cant remember the name. Will post if i recall.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

  8. #8

    Default

    I use that one already. It's good but not as good a job as I would like.
    I think I'll have to wait for an affordable progressive camera.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    IN the mean time i find avoiding fast shutter speeds can reduce interlace atrifacts. A bit.

  10. #10

    Default

    What about a faster frame rate?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Digital Camera recording mode
    By den1 in forum Technology advice and tips
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-22-2006, 10:05 PM
  2. Recording on the go (off camera)
    By Rob in forum Sound Recording and Audio Editing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2006, 03:12 PM
  3. recording from camera problems :(
    By Seejay in forum General video editing software help and advice
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2006, 11:41 PM
  4. "Jumpy" when recording back to camera
    By MaryD in forum Sony Vegas video editing apps
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-04-2004, 05:45 PM
  5. Camera Choice + Some other ?'s
    By p4ocer in forum Technology advice and tips
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-02-2004, 12:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •