Cine film conversion, interlaced vs. progressive?
 

Hello all I was wondering if you can help me stretch my noggin around something that is bothering me.

8mm film is not interlaced, all the cine-conversion companies I have come across seem to be transferring their 8mms using interlaced filming techniques. The one company I came across that claimed to be using progressive; were using was a Panasonic Lumix GH1. I got all excited but then read that
So is the reason they are all using interlaced cameras because of the frame rate difference? Would shooting it using a progressive method on a DSLR introduce flicker then? my mind is shouting at me "of course it would" but I need someone who actually knows about this stuff to set my mind at ease.

-------------
part 2
I'll continue writing under the assumption that it *has* to be interlaced in order to get it to play correctly at the right speed.

I want to upload to youtube, which as I read either forces it's own de-interlacing filter on the video, or requires you to deinterlace your own footage. letting youtube do the deinterlacing could potentially be very destructive to the video.

Why does it have to be interlaced that is the method? Can you not just duplicate frames and make a progressive recording? And if so, surely that must be the "correct" method and would cause the least destruction in the long run; as there would be no conversion for youtube or indeed other progressive viewing devices.

I don't think your quote about the GH1 is accurate. It sounds like a non-technical explanation of 3:2 pulldown. The camera offers a 24p mode but it's in a 60i wrapper. There are also hacks to make it output native 24p.

Personally I wouldn't pay anyone to convert film for me unless they do a frame-by-frame scan, but then again I don't have any such film so I haven't looked into the cost differences.

^ Same here, great reply. :congrats:

Also: Most people don't consider 8mm to be "cine" film, as it was almost never used professionally. The what 16mm (yuck), Super 16mm (almost yuck), 35mm, and others were for. That teeny tiny film was not very good shown at a large size.

Am going to give a call to a company who do a frame by frame scan to see what their end product is; whether the footage put together by the software at the end does some jiggerypokery to make an interlaced film or whether it spits out a progressive film at the end of it.

I find it strange that I couldn't find more people talking about it on the net, at the same time I get the feeling that those providing "old skool" telecine'd stuff are trying to avoid talking about the new scanning systems.