Progressive scan

[marcin 0]

Just bought a PC330. Learning to use it (previously used PC5). Seems great btw!

Not sure what real advantage it's progressive scan mode has (I've read the theory behind). When I played the PS mode-recorded video on a TV or monitor, the moving objects looked like if theire were "jumping" (not moving in an even fashion), and the quality did not seem any better than non-PS mode.

Also, when I process the video in NLE program, what is the difference (no need to deinterlace for example?).

Anyway, If you have any experience with 25 fps PS mode, dont keep it for yourself :).

Marcin

[Clarkey 0]

Hi Marcin,

The progressive scan record mode only becomes useful if you are recording for the purpose of capturing frame grabs. As I understand it, under ‘normal’ record mode each frame contains only half the image (every other line), but when you use progressive scan it only records every other frame but with each frame containing the whole image (all lines are used). This is why it looks jumpy when you play it back normally because it has effectively recorded at half frame rate. What you are not noticing when playing it back is that each frame is full quality - try capturing a frame grab on your computer and you should see the difference in quality compared to a frame grab from a ‘normal’ recording.

Clarkey

[quade 4]

Progressive scan isn't just for stills.

Progressive scan is useful for a number of things but mostly HDTV upconversion or to give your footage a "film" look. Usually for NTSC output the progressive mode would shoot at 24 frames per second and record to tape at 30 fps as a 3:2 pulldown just like a telecine would. For PAL or SECAM, it would shoot and record at 25 fps.

Your footage will look different (not better or worse, just different) shot in any of these modes if played back on interlaced equipment. On a monitor capable of showing progressive, you should see quite a bit of difference and usually for the better.

One other thing that's nice about progressive and this is truely a geek special effects thing, if you shoot your footage in progressive and then do a lot of rendering effects or roto, then (at least in NTSC) you can save yourself 6 frames of rendering for every finished every second. Doesn't sound like a lot, but on an effects intensive program, it adds up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mccordia 74]

Hey Quade....is youz a fellow animator/compositor/fx-geek?

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[quade 4]

Yes, I'm a professional video geek.

When it comes to video, you name it and I've probably done it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[marcin 0]

Thanks!

So perhaps I'm not gonna have much benefit from using PS mode, since output will be mostly viewed on (normal) TV or through projector. And people are so excited about it when you read reviewes on the net.

Hope at least the widescreen mode is worth it. Also played with it, but difficult to tell if footage looks more "filmlike".

[quade 4]

Quote

And people are so excited about it when you read reviewes on the net.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but, people on the net can be somewhat -- obsessive.

BTW, 16:9 wide screen mode comes in a couple of "flavors". Not really certain how it's implemented in the PC330, but in either case, you'll probably only want to do that if you have access to a 16:9 monitor or some special project that requires it. For 4:3 production, you can -always- make a 16:9 letterbox mask if you shoot stuff with enough headroom, but making a 4:3 center cut out of 16:9 material is just a waste if your entire production was going to be 4:3 to begin with. Of course, we're talking about recording in standard definition here. If you could record to HDTV that would all change, but the PC330 DEFINTELY doesn't do that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[EricTheRed 0]

As Quade said above PS is good for more than just frame grabs. Although you may think most of your stuff will go to interlaced equip, if you make DVD's that are played back on HD ready monitors (much more common everyday) there is a very visible difference.
Slow motion is also much cleaner.

The PC330 does do a full 16:9 (not a 4:3) with matte) since it has a 3 MP CCD for the stills, it doesn't need to crop the image.

As stated though WS is not widely used (yet) BUT the image from my 330 on a HD widescreen monitor is very NICE! not HD but definately a step above interlaced 4:3 (cropped or not)

The only drawback to this camera is it shows the flaws in the optics of my Kenko WA lens. I guess I need to find a better WA.

illegible usually

[quade 4]

Quote

The only drawback to this camera is it shows the flaws in the optics of my Kenko WA lens. I guess I need to find a better WA.

Good luck. I've looked at a lot of wide angle lenses and I can't say I'm really impressed with the corner resolution of any of them. Then again, we're not paying thousands of dollars either, so, there's your trade off.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[EricTheRed 0]

I recently tried one of the Sony HG lenses and it was a good match but it was only a 0.6x and it was HUGE.

If you hear of something, let us know...

illegible usually

[marcin 0]

Speaking of lenses...I bought Sony's high definition tele x2 (I use it for ground footage - depth of field etc.). It was 3 times more expensive than regular tele lens, but the quality is really nice.

I am also about to order the Red (and Black ) Eye (Waycool's Diamond equivalent). Wondering how much that will affect picture quality on PC330? On my PC5, Diamond .3 was quite OK.

[JayhawkJumper 0]

It sounds like the 330 doesn't have true progressive scan. Cameras like the Panasonic DVX100 and 100A are the progressive cameras that I've heard of and worked with. They produce very film like looks. They basically capture everything in 24p and then use the 3:2 pulldown when recording it to DV. To edit, you then have to have a program that understands advanced pulldown to edit in 24 frames. It sounds like the 330 might be using single fields or duplicated fields to mimic 24p but I could be wrong. The 24p I've seen looks like film even on interlaced monitors.

Personally I think the next 10 years are going to be very interesting because there will come a point when you can get a PC camera for $1000 that will shot footage identicle in quality to 35mm. That will make things very interesting for the independent film market.

[Clarkey 0]

Hi Marcin,

More on lenses… I use my 330 with both the Blue Eye (0.45) and the Red Eye (0.3) lenses from WayCool with great results (despite being very inexperienced!) – these lenses are tiny! Not having used any other lenses, I don’t have a lot of comparison apart from with other people’s footage, but the image is very sharp on a large screen, and there is absolutely no visible distortion around the edges or corners, and no visible degradation in the image.

The method of getting the best set up is slightly different as the lenses are single element and the infinity focus does not work. For best results, turn of all AE modes then put on the lens and let the auto-focus adjust to a suitable distance before switching it to manual focus – you can of course still tweak the focus manually if you want too. You can then use any AE mode as normal once the focus is locked. I find I can also zoom in up to about half way without any problems if required (I have jumped with the Red Eye zoomed in to almost the Blue Eye level when I didn’t have time to swap them on a short call). The Blue Eye is great for outside stuff, and the Red Eye is great for inside stuff, and I’m very interested in seeing what the Black Eye will give here too.

WayCool have just modified their lens mount slightly on the Red/Blue/Black to accept a newly developed UV filter so check that you are getting the latest ones when you place your order (I think they are designated with an 'X'). Though I believe they have also created a UV filter that will fit securely over all existing lenses in the field.

[marcin 0]

Hi Clarkey,

Settings you describe is how I used my Diamond. Red eye should be no different I guess. I just wonder if with a higher quality camcorder (PC330) any deterioration in quality will be visible. It wasn't really with the PC5.

Red and Black eyes are on their way to me now. I want to use the Black Eye on the camera attached to my foot, so in a headdown position I hopefully get some exciting shots, with the other person also in the field of view. I am sure the quality with the Black Eye will be less than perfect, but that is not important for "specialty shots".