This is very nice. Thanks for taking the time. Now to answer the question 24p dv or 24p hdv if therer is such a thing.

Nice work, David. Demystifies the subject completely. Thanks for sharing.

Jack

Very nice David--I like the pacing---made it almost fun!

Very nice! Thanks.

Thanks. Nothing new to me but a very well made and clear tutorial. Anymore?

Thanks, all -- yes, more is coming soon. Stay tuned!

David, excellent tutorial thanks for the hard work . you obviously are very knowledgable about the format.

question : Do you think 24 p looks better than 60i , if so why ?
not trying to be a smart @$# , and not taking away from the hard work you did,, because people love the format . I just don't see it, and of course could be these old eyes. but interested in why people love 24P.
Thanks

"Better" is a loaded term. Everyone reading can have a different definition, and the definition may change from context to context.

For what *I* do, I *love* 24p, especially as done by the DVX, because it really does look remarkably like 24 fps film. Yes, I know everyone loves to jump in and say that the "film look" is all about lighting, composition, etc., and that's true for style . . . but well-lit, well-shot 60i simply does not look like film would if everything else was the same; 24p will.

Conversely, badly-lit, badly shot 24p looks just like film would if the film were badly-lit and badly shot.

And the difference is almost entirely frame rate, about how the motion is reproduced. The motion rendering, for good AND for ill, is exactly identical between 24p and 24 fps film, and that's because 24p acquires its image by taking 24 full pictures per second, just like film. Shooting in 60i, you're taking 60 half-pictures per second. The two look and feel very different.

But "better"? It's a little like asking if a tank is better than a submarine if you're going to war. The question is, what are you using it for, and what are you trying to accomplish? Every format has its strengths and weaknesses.

(Yeah, yeah; there are different film stocks and different "looks" in film and the only thing which looks EXACTLY like film IS film . . . but while being true, these objections have always struck me as petty goalpost moving intended to tear down the format -- for whatever reason. If you use 24p effectively, you can fool people into thinking you shot 24 fps film. You never will in 60i.)

Could someone point me to why this 60i thing doesn't work mathmetically. or does it?

Seems that 60i could become 30p using the Vegas software since it is 30 upper and 30 lower fields. Am I missing something?

Yup Cooldraft...you missed one of the big differences between FRAMES and FIELDS.

Frames are FULL frames of video -- everything at once -- entire pictures.

Fields are essentially one half of a frame -- but not just the top or bottom (...or right or left) half -- rather every other "strip" or "line" (you've seen the diagrams of 'sliced' looking pictures)

****The trick is that no two corresponding fields are ever captured by the camera AT THE SAME TIME -- you get one, then the other. That means that objects can move BETWEEN fields. So you can't simply combine two corresponding fields and get a whole, complete FRAME. You end up with two halves, each from a different moment in time. This is OK if you're shooting non-moving (or REALLY slow-moving) objects. But if the camera or the subjects is/are moving, the difference between the 'top' field and the 'bottom' field is noticeable. There are also differences in motion blur.

Did that make any sense? (Note: I'm no expert on this, so if I said something stupid, somebody please correct me. However, I think I've got a handle on this concept; and putting an idea into words for somebody else always helps me to solidify what I *think* I know.)

Thanks, David. Finally got around to viewing. Perfect level for me. I know enough to be dangerous.

Thanks for sharing,

Dave

"Did that make any sense? (Note: I'm no expert on this, so if I said something stupid, somebody please correct me. However, I think I've got a handle on this concept; and putting an idea into words for somebody else always helps me to solidify what I *think* I know.)"

No, you nailed it.

This dovetails nicely into the two types of deinterlacing -- "blend fields" or "interpolate fields."

With "blend fields," it DOES perform a splice of two fields into a frame -- but because it does, something needs to be done about moving objects, because anything moving is going to have interlace artifacts -- that comb-like distortion along edges that everyone's probably familiar with. This is usually handles with some kind of blur.

Blending fields saves vertical resolution in non- or slow-moving objects, because every scan line of the picture is represented. But moving objects will often have ghost-like auras around them.

For moving footage, if you're going to deinterlace, best to use "interpolate." What this does is take a field and create a whole frame out of it, thus using only one moment in time. No artifacting needing to be blurred, but it's a whole picture made out of only half the information -- only half the scan lines -- so the vertical resolution is considerably less than progressive footage would be, theoretically half. But you won't have the ghosting. The motion will be much better.

So, use "blend fields" if you don't have much motion, if any. Use "interpolate fields" if you have motion.

"Thanks, David. Finally got around to viewing. Perfect level for me. I know enough to be dangerous.

Thanks for sharing,

Dave"

Thanks, Dave -- it's obviously not meant for total newbies. Glad you got something out of it.

Thanks for the concise deinterlacing summary. That was very helpful.

Thanks, David

I don't even know what pulldowns are and I am just a hobbiest... but I watched the whole video and really enjoyed (and learned from) it.

Great job

TomG

David: One thing as an after thought. You did not cover the capture of non 24p footage such as HDV 1080i.

Michael

I'm not sure what you mean -- it was meant to cover 24p only.

David? Question .. and I'm going to exhibit even MORE of my ignorance ..

I work in PAL = 25fps = 50 interlaced - Correct? - OK.

What would/could/can I achieve by dropping down to 24 fps and making it somehow Prog? Would this add a certain "stuttering" to the video?

I watched your video - great - I understood it. Now I'm wanting to know just what am I, and I may not be, missing out on?

See? I said I'd flaunt my ignorance!

TIA,

Grazie

Grazie, if you shoot 50i, it is not the same as 25fps. If you shoot 25fps, going to 50i can be done, but captured motion is slighty different between 25fps(complete frame) and 50i(partial frame). The different between 24fps vs 25 fps is really not a big deal, so if the video looks great at 25fps, 24fps conversion for the usa market is an option, but will not improve film look.

Quite correct, my "terms".

I should've said:

I Video in 50i; I open a project in Vegas and use the PAL format which is 25fps WITH lower field first. Sorry.

Having got that out of the way - yes? - and my XM2 has a "FRAME" mode - I believe is still 50i - I still wont get/achieve any advantage/difference?

TIA,

Grazie

The "Frame" mode on your XM2 will approximate 25p. The motion cadence should be right, but the resolution wil be a bit less, because it's performing an in-camera interpolation, as I described above.

Indy filmmakers in the US often used PAL cameras with Frame modes before 24p cameras came along, because it was reasonably close. PAL versions of cameras like the DVX100 have a 25p mode, but no 24p mode, because most people find them indistinguishible. There's only a 4% difference.

Jimmy:

I know you only covered 24p, my point was that the tutorial (being short anyway) could have covered converting non-24p footage to 24p also. This would help people like me who have the Sony FX1 that has no real 24p option and need shoot in 1080i and let Vegas take it to 24p

Michael