This content has been marked as final. Show 19 replies
Yes and no. It is possible to convert i to p, but no it will not give the filmic look. You need to SHOOT the filmic look. It can not be created in post. To shoot it, you need the proper lighting, lighting, lighting, DOF, dynamic range of chemical film and extensive grading for starters. You need your camera setup to reflect the proper emulsion settings and there are hardly any cameras below $ 10K to allow that, if any.
Could not have said it better myself.
Those are opinions! Everybody has one. And now mine. If you convert interlaced to progressive you definitely get a different look. If you convert to 24p even a more different look. It will definitely help get rid of a soap opera look. Also you can ad different things in post to enhance the output.
Take people's opinion with a grain of salt. The best way is to experiment and do research in this forum:
It has a lot of good information.
> If you convert interlaced to progressive you definitely get a different look. If you convert to 24p even a more different look.
I quite agree on that, but you will still be lacking the dynamic range of chemical film, you will still be lacking the DOF of film and you will still have the 'video look' in terms of color, what you call the soap opera look.
> Those are opinions!
No it is fact, film is progressive frames, you cannot shoot interlaced and convert it to progressive and expect it to look like film.
Harm took my words away, film is about dynamic range which video does not have!! Only the RED and the Dalsa Origin has DR close to film.
The film look is about DR and DOF (again as Harm said) DOF comes from the lenses and not from it being film or video. In the case of video the larger you CCD or CMOS the greater DOF.
You cannot create a film look without filming it with these scientific fundamentals in place. All you can do in post is make your video stylized to have a "look like film but NOT film but better than video".
Thanks everyone for such an amazingly quick response to my query.
If I could just expand a little. Working in SD pal (720 X 576)I have a camera that shoots in progressive mode, so in Premiere Pro, I always set the projects up in progressive mode. On the occasion I imported footage shot in interlaced format, I assumed that "Pro" combined the two passes to create progressive footage. Now I could be wrong here (and probably am) and "Pro" could just have cut the frame rate in half using just one of the passes. Does anyone know which of these scenarios is correct. Because if Pro CS3 works the same way in 1080 mode (cutting the frame rate in half by using just one pass), then I'll just have to bight the bullet and get a camera that shoots in true 1080p mode, and that will really hurt!
All the best,
PS Understand completely that 35mm is King, but we all have to do are best with the budgets we're given.
It all ends up being interlace in any case.
Even on HD ready LCD and Plasma screens receiving digital signal?
Play a Hollywood DVD and it is still interlaced. That is the delivery format. The built-in scaler will adjust to optimal settings for plasma or LCD.
Blu-ray movies can and currently are being encoded at 1080/24p. But don't expect to reproduce that with a video camera that a Premiere user can afford.
Deinterlacing does make video look "more like" film, but at some cost of resolution. Premiere simply throws out half the scan lines. Your Blu-ray player or display device will likely do a better job of upresing your 1080i material.
The OP starts with SD material, so BR material is not really relevant. Starting with 480 vertical resolution and throwing away half may succeed in creating the 'filmic look' of the 1920's, but you have to remove color and sound as well and one wonders who is waiting for that 'filmic look'.
> "Thinking of shooting ‘The Last Emperor’ on mini-DV is silly, and you are not going to have a filter or menu setting that can change that and give you that look on the Mini-DV format. On the other hand ‘The Blair Witch Project’ was shot using a DV camera that will constantly make you realize it’s a personal and scary video diary. It's not the paintbrush but the painter that makes the art. When people ask me what is good lighting or what makes a good picture, I always give the same answer, the one that serves the story."
Professional Lighting Cameraman Franz Pagot AIC (Association of Italian Cinematographers) about how digital formats are transforming the film industry.
>The OP starts with SD material
How do you figure? The original question asked about 1080i video.
Look guys. I keep seeing this argument. Can we just up with a new word like "Vilm" or "Fideo." I would bet a fortune and pay a fortune to see what Franz Pagot could come with using DV. No it won't be 'The Last Emporer' but would it be crap? Would he scale down his skill level to fit the camera? Would he take it to the next level? Would he turn his nose up at it? I don't know.
My original enquiry was a technical one and I think that Jim Simon has answered my query - "Premiere simply throws out half the scan lines", so I'll leave it at that.
But on the subject of aesthetics I'd just like to pose one more conundrum.
Shooting on a 1080i camera and then downscaling the footage to SD pal will the quality of the resulting picture be better than if I'd shot it with a good SD camera like the Canon XL for instance.
Any thoughts please.
I can only compare apples and pears. SD shot with a DSR-250, PD-150/170, VX-2000 on the one hand and HDV shot with the Z1 and XL-H1 down converted to SD with CS3. Of course the cameras used are completely different and thus incomparable. Nevertheless, I had the subjective feeling that the down converted (HDV to SD) images were a bit sharper than SD. A number of people seem to think so as well if you read reactions on these forums.
Of course the comparison is further confounded by the difference of 4x3 versus 16x9 recording formats.
>will the quality of the resulting picture be better than if I'd shot it with a good SD camera
That may depend on some factors. Having seen some HDV wedding footage downscaled to DVD, it did look good during the ceremony, but not really any better than my DVC80 does (in fact I thought my camera produces better color), and certainly not as good as a Sony 250. But it did fall short during the reception, where the MPEG encoding of HDV has a hard time with fast moving dancers/camera moves and flashing lights. Here my SD Panasonic clearly looks better.
So on the end, it may well depend on what you're shooting
Quote: "Premiere simply throws out half the scan lines."
Well that seems like a stupid thing to do. At least they should give you the - option - to "throws out half the scan lines" or merge the two fields which i think would be better.
But that's always been the issue with converting interlaced to progressive. By its nature, the two interlaced fields are shot a fraction of a second apart. That's not really a problem with still, sedate images, but with action footage you get severe disparities from field to field. When you try and interpolate that into a full resolution progressive frame it just looks silly.
There are options to discard a single field then try and build a new field based on the information, filling in the "gaps" based on what surrounds it, but that's a little more expensive.