Quantcast Cine film conversion, interlaced vs. progressive? - digitalFAQ Forum
Go Back    Forum > Digital Video > Video Project Help > Capture, Record, Transfer

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
08-27-2016, 05:45 AM
Sparx Sparx is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Posts: 24
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
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
Quote:
Panasonic advertises the GH1 as a 24P video camera, it’s really only a 60i camera. It shoots 60 frames of partly interlaced footage per second and relies on its users to remove all those extra unwanted frames in post
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.
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
08-27-2016, 09:03 AM
msgohan msgohan is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,200
Thanked 280 Times in 234 Posts
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.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank msgohan for this useful post: lordsmurf (08-27-2016)
  #3  
08-27-2016, 01:41 PM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is offline
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,125
Thanked 1,977 Times in 1,705 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post
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.

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.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Find television shows, cartoons, DVDs and Blu-ray releases at the TVPast forums.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
08-28-2016, 04:28 PM
Sparx Sparx is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Posts: 24
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suggested Film to DVD Professional Transfer/Conversion Services kpmedia Project Planning, Workflows 27 12-31-2019 04:59 PM
Capture interlaced, but how to to keep video interlaced when making DVDs? premiumcapture Encode, Convert for discs 11 12-21-2013 03:40 PM
Interlaced video to progressive (double frame rate) metaleonid Edit Video, Audio 23 09-29-2013 09:51 PM
Capturing 8mm Cine Film? Hessian Capture, Record, Transfer 3 06-06-2013 12:03 PM
Interlaced vs. non-interlaced artifacts? via Email or PM Capture, Record, Transfer 1 04-16-2009 05:37 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 PM