FORUMS: list search recent posts

1080i vs 1080p

COW Forums : Sony XDCAM - EX & Related

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Teri Murphy
1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 2:27:53 pm

Hey guys,

We are preparing to do an industrial shoot with our new PMW-350. Not sure about shooting 1080i or 1080p. The output will be Flash for the Web and MPEG2 for DVD. Any recommendation would be appreciated.



Return to posts index

Greg Ondera
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 3:29:32 pm

P. If your output is to the web, 'P'.

Greg Ondera
http://www.Plexus.tv
http://www.SurgeonToday.org


Return to posts index

Chris Babbitt
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 3:54:15 pm

For DVD, I have gotten the best results with 720p. 1080p would be next. I cannot seem to get an acceptable DVD from 1080i material.



Return to posts index


john sharaf
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 3:57:33 pm

Teri,

Greg's answer is correct; always use progressive frame rates for media purposed for the web or dvd as the repeated frames (in 24 or 30 fps rates) are much easier for the compression to take place. In practice the compressor has the time period of two (or with 24p on some frames three) frames to do its work vs having to do it 60 times a second with interlace. That's why. As regards dvd's they are always de-interlaced to progressive anyway, this way they are able to fit as much as twice the information in the same space.

JS



Return to posts index

Teri Murphy
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 4:08:14 pm

What if we need to mix in some SD footing that is interlaced?



Return to posts index

Greg Ondera
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 4:13:03 pm

Still go with establishing your timeline as a progressive timeline first, then just drop in the SD footage and let turn to progressive with the better progressive footage. It's all you can do to make interlaced footage comply. I shoot in nothing but progressive anymore. The world is moving in that direction, or should I say it has for some time.

Greg Ondera
http://www.Plexus.tv
http://www.SurgeonToday.org


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 9:14:02 pm

If you are going to a web video, no reasons at all to shoot 1080, and many reasons for don't doing that.
Shoot a glorious 720p50.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

john sharaf
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 9:48:50 pm

But if you intend to also dvd publish, there's every reason to shoot in 1080!

JS



Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 11, 2011 at 2:14:29 am

[john sharaf] "But if you intend to also dvd publish, there's every reason to shoot in 1080!
"

The bigger the picture, the most complicated the downscallin.
If you want to go to SD Interlaced, you get thei50 from the p50 (or i30 from p60).
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index


Greg Ondera
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 7, 2011 at 9:52:53 pm

Yes, I often shoot 720 60p which makes fast motion more discernible over the web.

Greg Ondera
http://www.Plexus.tv
http://www.SurgeonToday.org


Return to posts index

Bob Tompkins
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 5:26:51 pm

Well...that certainly cleared that up...NOT!



Return to posts index

john sharaf
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 5:32:55 pm

This is exactly what I don't recommend; 60p stresses the compression more than anything. 30p is the ideal frame rate for the web as it allows the compressor the time of two frames (1/30th of a second) in which to do its business.

JS



Return to posts index


Greg Ondera
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 5:41:05 pm

So I am open. Tell me more, because I was going by Doug Jensen's guidelines on using 60p. So it's not so good for the web, eh?

Greg Ondera
http://www.Plexus.tv
http://www.SurgeonToday.org


Return to posts index

john sharaf
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 5:55:35 pm

Greg,

Think about it; if every frame is different at 60p (mostly so with aggressive motion) then the compression engine has to recalculate every frame. If it's 30p the math is half as hard, with much less chance of blocking up.

Furthermore when you shoot 60p and author to DVD you'll be converting to 30p anyway as this is the native frame rate in order to fit twice as much material (and to write twice as fast). The hardware within the DVD playback converts it to 60i for display, or you can choose to stay progressive and it simply repeats each frame to maintain the proper timing.

JS



Return to posts index

Chris Babbitt
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 6:35:04 pm

If we apply this same logic to frame size, doesn't the compressor workless hard when downrezing from 720 to 480 than it would when going from 1080 to 480?



Return to posts index


john sharaf
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 6:46:10 pm

Actually not, there's more "interrelation" required from 720 to 525/480 than from 1080.

JS



Return to posts index

john sharaf
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 6:47:58 pm

Damn that spellchecker! Interpolation.

JS



Return to posts index

Ron Pestes
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 7:10:28 pm

Why does it matter how hard Compressor has to work? The final "look" is what we are after not giving Compressor a break. Personally I have had the best luck shooting in 60i for both the web and DVD. Shooting in 720 does not give me as sharp a look and 1080p can be too strobe like.

Apple Certified Master Pro FCS 2
Sony EX-3
MacBook Pro


Return to posts index

Chris Babbitt
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 7:18:30 pm

Ron,

Would you mind sharing your Compressor settings for encoding a 1080i file for DVD? I cannot get acceptable results. I get far better results with 720p.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 7:31:17 pm

Basically the problem people have with downconverting from 1080 especially from the high resolving of the EX cameras are issues around line twitter and related to fine detail. As a result 720p tends to be easier to get good results. It does depends on content though. Shoot talking heads and you may not see much difference. Shoot thin moving tree branches and you may get lots have line twitter going to 480.



Return to posts index

Ron Pestes
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 7:40:03 pm

OK, first I did not get good results with FCS2 but when I upgraded to FCS3 things changed. Not sure why. Anyway here are my settings.
For an HD file converted to SD for DVD I set the following:

In compressor under the "encoder" section "Quality" tab set Mode to "Two Pass VBR Best",
Average bit rate to 6.7
Max bit rate to 7.9
Motion estimation to "best"

In the Frame Controls section set
Frame controls "on"
Resize filter "better"
Output fields "progressive"
Deinterlace "better"
Adaptive details check box is checked
Rate conversion "better"

This works great for footage shot with the Sony EX codec and also works well for HDV. But again for some reason this did not give me good results with Final Cut Studio 2, only FCS 3. Not sure why. Hope this helps.

Apple Certified Master Pro FCS 2
Sony EX-3
MacBook Pro


Return to posts index

Chris Babbitt
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 8:19:30 pm

So, you are de-interlacing? I'm on FCS2, by-the-way.



Return to posts index

Ron Pestes
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 8:48:18 pm

Yes, all DVD's end up with progressive frames as I understand it. I don't know why it works better with interlaced footage but I shot the same scenes in 60i, 1080/30p, and 720/30p and 60p but the best end result was the 60i footage even though it gets converted to progressive in Compressor. And again there was a big difference in FCS3. FCS2 never gave me the results I needed. I don't know if these results are typical but it is what works for me.

Apple Certified Master Pro FCS 2
Sony EX-3
MacBook Pro


Return to posts index

Chris Babbitt
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 10, 2011 at 10:17:30 pm

OK, I might get attacked for saying this, and I might be wrong. But I have had a couple of recognized experts tell me thus:

NTSC is interlaced. It is part of the NTSC spec. Therefore, an NTSC DVD can only be interlaced. This would explain why, when I try to make a progressive DVD in Compressor, the resulting .m2v file still comes out interlaced. Try this by opening one of your own "progressive" DVD files in Mpeg Streamclip and checking the properties. In my case, it still says it is 1080i. DVD players are able to de-interlace a DVD and put out a progressive signal, but all NTSC DVDs are progressive to begin with.



Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 11, 2011 at 2:40:08 am

[Chris Babbitt] "NTSC is interlaced. It is part of the NTSC spec."
Right. NTSC video signal is always Interlaced.

[Chris Babbitt] "Therefore, an NTSC DVD can only be interlaced."
Wrong.
A DVD is not a "Video Signal" so can be Interlaced or Progressive.
The video signal that the DVD will put out, will ALWAYS be interlaced, whatever the content is Interlace or Progressive. When the content is Progressive we get the famous "PSF" stuff.


[Chris Babbitt] "DVD players are able to de-interlace a DVD and put out a progressive signal, but all NTSC DVDs are progressive to begin with."
This is a contradiction on what we just said.
DVD players can not de-interlace nothing because they need to put out Intelaced (NTSC).
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Chris Babbitt
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 11, 2011 at 4:27:40 am

Sorry Raphael. I didn't check before posting. I meant to say, "all DVDs are interlaced to begin with."



Return to posts index

Don Greening
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 8, 2011 at 10:47:26 pm

I kinda liked 'interrelation' better. Means 'keeping it in the family' :0

- Don

Don Greening
Reeltime Videoworks
http://www.reeltimevideoworks.com


Return to posts index

Michael Slowe
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 9, 2011 at 6:25:24 pm

Guys, I know this is a bit 'off thread' but since Compressor was referred to as an encoder may I just say how fabulous is the latest version of BitVice. I too used to get a lot of bother with EX footage (1080i) to DVD but now my discs are as good as tape. I edit in Media 100. Import EX footage in Apple ProRes HQ 422. export to QT still in ProRes, encode in BitVice (2 pass VBR average around 7 or less), format in Studio Pro and burn in Toast - to decent quality discs of course. BD's are of course even better and Toast 10 does the business there.

Michael Slowe


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 11, 2011 at 2:17:03 am

[john sharaf] "This is exactly what I don't recommend; 60p stresses the compression more than anything. 30p is the ideal frame rate for the web as it allows the compressor the time of two frames (1/30th of a second) in which to do its business."
P50/60 on the web is awesome.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

keith greenfield
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 11, 2011 at 4:58:45 pm

Hi can I just add my pennyworth 'the world as i see it':
I jumped ship to progressive as soon as I was able, heres the big question, is my logic sound?
Apart from those lucky enough to have a Samsung HD CRT, all footage ends up on a progressive scan device, be it PC screen, LCD or Plasma.
Any interlaced material will at sometime need to be 'de-interlaced'.
De-interlacing by means of taking 50% of the vertical information, throwing it away and replacing with interpolated content.
So, here goes, is the vertical resolution of 720p better than 1080i once it has been de-interlaced and up on a plasma? hmm.
True, DVD video disc data is indeed interlaced and the de-interlacing and if required, scaling, performed by the player or the onboard software in the screen. If not all scaler algorithms are created equal then does the same apply to de-interlacing software?
Answers on my desk before registration please.


Return to posts index

Bob Cole
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 14, 2011 at 9:02:36 pm

This discussion has centered on the web and DVD.

I sometimes need to create video news releases, which are put on a website for local tv stations to access and use in their own stories. What should I be shooting for that? 1080p30? 1080i60?

I would very much like to find a table on the web which lays out each format, with its optimal purpose. Has anyone seen anything like that (and accurate, too?).

Bob C


Return to posts index

Don Greening
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 14, 2011 at 9:16:11 pm

If I'm shooting exclusively for the web I use 1080p 30 or 720p 30, but mostly 1080p. I shoot for other video companies based in other cities (and countries) and they ask for progressive anyway, no matter what the final product is. As Gary Adcock likes to say: "Interlaced is a delivery codec, not an acquisition codec."

- Don

Don Greening
Reeltime Videoworks
http://www.reeltimevideoworks.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 14, 2011 at 9:52:41 pm

I like that Adcock quote. I've got to use it some place (with clients?).
Basically I shoot 1080p30 most of the time. If I need high temporal resolution I'll shoot 720p60 over 1080i60.



Return to posts index

Don Greening
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 14, 2011 at 10:02:40 pm

Yeah, I heard him say that when he did a web interview in 2007 while holding an EX1. I can't remember what trade how he was at. I don't think it was NAB but my memory is going.......

- Don

Don Greening
Reeltime Videoworks
http://www.reeltimevideoworks.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 14, 2011 at 9:19:35 pm

I think there have been posts on this forum about formats and targeted use. The problem is it's hard to hit a moving target. I do VNRs also.

Do you have broadcasters using HD VNRs?
Are you finding you have to repurpose material? I am.

It's not uncommon for me to use the same material to TV Spot in Standard Def, Digital Signage advertising in HD, and also versions for web use.

Broadcast is generally 1080i60 or, in some cases, 720p60.
60 is good if you have fast action subjects such as sports.

I prefer to shoot 1080p30 most of the time. If you're OK with the temporal motion it'll work going to i60. You can't add temporal motion though so you have to make sure it looks OK to begin with. It's fine for talking heads (interviews, product shots with careful camera movement). It would be hell if you had to go to PAL compatible though.

Some people shoot everything 24p. It certainly works with pulldown in i60. Many if not most episodic TV is shot 24p. Sans pulldown and you're all set for web and blu-ray use and you can certainly use it for DVD (see any feature film on DVD). 24p can throw lots of folks who aren't familiar with the shooting guides regarding camera movement.



Return to posts index

keith greenfield
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 14, 2011 at 9:34:23 pm

Bob,
if its web and web only...then 1080/30 is just fine. The web content is going to end up at around 640x360 and the web site is most likely to use h.264 as a codec.
VIMEO is a great place to test your content using that codec. I use it all the time. I tend not to bother trancoding and uploading full HD as it eats up my bit budget, 640x360 is fine for most things.


I much prefer to shoot 30p or even 60p here in the UK if I know its going to end on web or as HD streaming from a media player direct into a plasma/lcd panel. That was one of the reason for buying into Sony XDCAM. Hey if anybody wants UK footage just let me know...you can be sure its going to work just fine over there.

If you use Compressor then this is the set up I find works ok for web. If the web site needs a higher res version for download then up the frame size and data rate.

Audio Encoder
AAC, Stereo (L R), 44.100 kHz
Video Encoder
Format: QT
Width: 640
Height: 360
Pixel aspect ratio: Square
Crop: None
Padding: None
Frame rate: (100% of source)
Frame Controls: Off
Codec Type: H.264
Multi-pass: On, frame reorder: On
Pixel depth: 24
Spatial quality: 75
Min. Spatial quality: 25
Key frame interval: 30
Temporal quality: 50
Min. temporal quality: 25
Average data rate: 3.584 (Mbps)

regards


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 15, 2011 at 2:14:57 am

I stopped shooting Interlaced as soon as I started using my EX-1.
Normally I end up on SD or Web, so no point to shoot 1080.
I shoot 720p25 or 720p50.
If 1080 is needed, I would shoot 1080p25.
I080 Interlaced would be OK if needed 1080 in Slow motion or was requested an Interlaced video.

No I'm shooting with the NANO and mostly shoot 720p50. Works as p25 and is great to get Interlaced or Slow Mow.
Again, going to SD or Web, 1080 is not just a burden but also compromise the quality on downscaling.
I have streamlined my downscaling workflow because is critical. I use only SHAKE.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bob Cole
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 15, 2011 at 2:20:23 am

[Rafael Amador] "I have streamlined my downscaling workflow because is critical."

Not quite clear what you mean by this. Could you explain further, please?

Bob C


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 16, 2011 at 12:24:31 pm

Hi Bob,
Last year I made a bunch of test with all the "downscaling" solutions I had at hand.
I tried with FC, Compressor, VideoPurifier, Motion and SHAKE.
FC, Compressor, VideoPurifier and Motion made quite similar job and all of them very poor compared with SHAKE. SHAKE offers like 8 different filters for up or down-scaling.
If tried with 1080 and 720 to SD and web videos of different sizes. The results are noticeable at first sight when done on Prores, and even more noticeable after the H264 compression.
Cheers,
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bob Cole
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 16, 2011 at 5:25:27 pm

Hi Rafael,

Where would I learn more about Shake? Can't seem to find good info on it on the web - probably too generic a term, or I'm not using the right search words.

What little I found made it seem like very very expensive software.

Bob C


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 1080i vs 1080p
on Feb 18, 2011 at 2:39:38 am

Hi Bob,
Sorry for the delay.
Apple discontinued SHAKE some three years ago (although have been updating the application).
At that time, they slashed the price from 3.000 to 499 US$. Versions for AVID or UNIX (5.000 US$) disappeared.
The functionality of SHAKE now is very limited compared with AE, however people still using (and buying) SHAKE because the unique quality of the internal filters.
I use it for Speed changes, Standard conversions and up/downscaling.
BTW, I haven't see any other piece of software with such good manual and tutorial.

The best Downscaling option on FCS, may be in MOTION: The "Lanczos" filter. is in the "Image units".

There is apiece of free software (http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/Main_Page) that uses basically the same filters, the only problem is that is PC based.
here there are some tips on how to use it:
http://www.precomposed.com/blog/2009/07/hd-to-sd-dvd-best-methods/
cheers,
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]