"live transfer" question

[reece]

Random question...why is that with live transfers such as concerts and documentaries, the makers almost always films with an interlaced picture instead of progressive? thanks

[richieb1971]

Maybe because its originally intended for TV broadcasting and the highest resolution at the moment is 1080i.

[reece]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

Maybe because its originally intended for TV broadcasting and the highest resolution at the moment is 1080i.

hmm well that would account for some of them..but I have Warren Millers Playground which is in 1080i (the profile on this site is inncorrect) but that definatly wasn't shot for television. thats just one example.

Is filming in 1080p a more difficult process that requires a more controlled environment? or do most of these features just have low budgets

[richieb1971]

You will notice a few documentaries are 1080i as well. Maybe the cameras used max out at this resolution. You have got to remember that movies are shot on 35mm/70mm film most of the time. The image from the negative can be scanned in at any resolution. I doubt a concert or documentary would use film as its medium just because its a bit clunky for the job.

If the camera used was a HD camera shooting a digital image, then of course it is more mobile and appropriate for the job, but also restricted by its highest resolution, which I would hazard a guess is 1080i.

Another thing to consider. Movies are broken up and cut/edited. Concerts are one continuous stream of data from beginning to end. If that is the case, you would need a hefty HDD and hope it doesn't crash half way through.

[4K2K]

It's because they want it to look like a "live" event. If they shot it at - or converted it to 1080p24 it would no longer have the "live event" look that 1080i60 gives. It would look more like a movie - it would look more like a movie than a live concert. It's probably also easier and cheaper to shoot at 1080i60 than 1080p24.

You're thinking just of progressive versus interlaced but progressive on Blu-ray at full res can only be 24fps which isn't as high as 60 fields per sec that 1080i allows so the later can give advantages to live recordings that you want to look like live recordings not 24fps movies.

They could also shoot 1080p30 and encode at 1080i60 like they say the Nine Inch Nails disc is encoded at, but no player will say that's progressive as far as I know - and that wouldn't have the 'live' look that 1080i60 gives which is probably better for a live concert.

Is filming in 1080p a more difficult process that requires a more controlled environment? or do most of these features just have low budgets

When they shoot feature films, at 24fps, aren't they very careful how they film it, and have to pan or move the camera at certain speeds to minimize judder that is inherent in 24fps filming? If shooting a live concert at 1080i60 they wouldn't need to be so careful while panning or moving the camera as the higher refresh and frame rate would mean much less judder* - or whatever the correct word for it is.

[c00lbeans]

its the camera. alot of docs are shot with the panasonic HVX200 wich will only shoot 1080i. Alot of the small mini dv type cameras max out at1080i newer ones and more expensive ones are 1080p. As for concerts they shoot most of those on bigger cameras that can shoot 1080p. its prob easyer/reliable to edit it live with 1080i.

[Schizzlefuzz]

Originally Posted by reece

hmm well that would account for some of them..but I have Warren Millers Playground which is in 1080i (the profile on this site is inncorrect) but that definatly wasn't shot for television. thats just one example.

Is filming in 1080p a more difficult process that requires a more controlled environment? or do most of these features just have low budgets

The Warren Miller's from the last few years have been shot with 1080i HD digital cameras, not film, that's why it's 1080i.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by c00lbeans

its the camera. alot of docs are shot with the panasonic HVX200 wich will only shoot 1080i. Alot of the small mini dv type cameras max out at1080i newer ones and more expensive ones are 1080p. As for concerts they shoot most of those on bigger cameras that can shoot 1080p. its prob easyer/reliable to edit it live with 1080i.

This is the reason why most concerts and documentaries are 1080i. They could convert it to 1080p but the costs of the Blu-ray production would rise and many of these types of releases barely break even to begin with.

[reece]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

It's because they want it to look like a "live" event. If they shot it at - or converted it to 1080p24 it would no longer have the "live event" look that 1080i60 gives. It would look more like a movie - it would look more like a movie than a live concert. It's probably also easier and cheaper to shoot at 1080i60 than 1080p24.

You're thinking just of progressive versus interlaced but progressive on Blu-ray at full res can only be 24fps which isn't as high as 60 fields per sec that 1080i allows so the later can give advantages to live recordings that you want to look like live recordings not 24fps movies.

They could also shoot 1080p30 and encode at 1080i60 like they say the Nine Inch Nails disc is encoded at, but no player will say that's progressive as far as I know - and that wouldn't have the 'live' look that 1080i60 gives which is probably better for a live concert.

When they shoot feature films, at 24fps, aren't they very careful how they film it, and have to pan or move the camera at certain speeds to minimize judder that is inherent in 24fps filming? If shooting a live convert at 1080i60 they wouldn't need to be so careful while panning or moving the camera as the higher refresh and frame rate would mean much less judder* - or whatever the correct word for it is.

thanks for the detailed answer. I wonder if future advancements in blu will allow for 1080p at 60fps...?

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by reece

thanks for the detailed answer. I wonder if future advancements in blu will allow for 1080p at 60fps...?

I hope so