Anyone still shooting interlaced?

[zac love]

I know many stations are still broadcasting in 1080i, but are people still shooting interlaced?

99.9% of what I shoot these days goes straight to the web, so I'm always shooting progressive, a lot of 24p (23.98), but often 30p (29.97) & some 60p (59.98).

I feel when I have put my progressive content into an interlaced stream it has always looked great. But shooting interlaced & going to the web, looks horrible unless you de-interlace (which loses some image detail). So I've been of the opinion that I'll always shoot progressive so things look good for web / digital, and if I need to transcode to interlaced I can do so.

Though I've had a discussion lately where I've heard that if I want my footage to be broadcast is HAS to be shot interlaced. If I shoot progressive & convert to interlaced the footage will be rejected.

Anyone else have some experience with this?

[Run&Gun]

Originally Posted by zac love

Though I've had a discussion lately where I've heard that if I want my footage to be broadcast is HAS to be shot interlaced. If I shoot progressive & convert to interlaced the footage will be rejected.

Anyone else have some experience with this?

Someone is badly mis-informed or just feeding you a lie. Pretty much everything I shoot is 720/60(59.94)P, 720/24(23.98)P, 1080/24(23.98)P and even some 1080/60(59.94)P(for MNF). I even shot 4K(which is progressive) for some Super Bowl stuff a few years ago for CBS, which broadcasts in 1080i.

I bet out of all of the HD shoots I've done in the last decade, maybe 1% were interlaced shoots.

[svp]

Station shoots everything interlaced. Everything I shoot through my business is progressive. I will say that when I've used some of my stock footage in a story for the station, the conversion in AVID does not come out looking very good on the air.

[At the scene]

Originally Posted by svp

Station shoots everything interlaced. Everything I shoot through my business is progressive. I will say that when I've used some of my stock footage in a story for the station, the conversion in AVID does not come out looking very good on the air.

Have I told you that I hate AVID!!!

Sorry had to do it.

[zac love]

Thanks for the replies.

Originally Posted by svp

the conversion in AVID does not come out looking very good on the air.

Which seems to me to be a problem with AVID and not a problem with shooting progressive.

Have you tried converting to interlaced w/ other software (Apple / Adobe) before going into AVID?

[The Thing on The Sticks]

Originally Posted by Run&Gun

Someone is badly mis-informed or just feeding you a lie. Pretty much everything I shoot is 720/60(59.94)P, 720/24(23.98)P, 1080/24(23.98)P and even some 1080/60(59.94)P(for MNF). I even shot 4K(which is progressive) for some Super Bowl stuff a few years ago for CBS, which broadcasts in 1080i.

I bet out of all of the HD shoots I've done in the last decade, maybe 1% were interlaced shoots.

Same here... the standard is trending (I say this because true hard standards have kind of gone out the window) in the direction progressive across the board. Though there may be some specific stations, shows or networks that want interlaced for some specific technical reason. The only real legitimate one I can think of is if they went to hd too early and never upgraded their encoders.

The other problem could be something again client specific involving avid as some of the older versions as I remember didn't like to mix interlaced and progressive on the same timeline. Though I still lean in the direction of run and guns answer.

[Lensmith]

I shoot almost everything, for network news and corporate, 30P.
But when it comes time to do the live shots for New York I have to switch the camera over to 60i...otherwise it somehow doesn't work for them.
Does not matter if it's a live shot via sat truck or LiveU...they go batty if I'm not on 60i.

[SamG]

Originally Posted by The Thing on The Sticks

The only real legitimate one I can think of is if they went to hd too early and never upgraded their encoders.

Are there OTA encoders that accept progressive? Also keep in mind before you get to the encoders, you have...

* Playout servers
* Routers
* Production Switcher
* Master Control Switcher
* Closed Caption Encoders
* Any processors (video or audio)

THEN you get to the encoders. ALL the equipment would need to accept progressive.

[cameragod]

I still have a few clients that will only accept interlaced.

[zac love]

Originally Posted by SamG

Are there OTA encoders that accept progressive?

Any station that is 720 should be able to do progressive with their OTA encoders since the 720 ATSC spec is progressive.

Originally Posted by SamG

THEN you get to the encoders. ALL the equipment would need to accept progressive.

My thing is I can shoot progressive & then deliver an interlaced file. If I hand over an interlaced file, none of the equipment should be conscious of the fact that the footage was originally shot progressive.

(Unless it is somehow paying attention to both fields & seeing that there are no jagged lines between upper & lower fields. But I'd think most interlaced equipment isn't drilling down that deep in analyzing & just wants to see "Field 1. Field 2. Field 1. etc." & if it sees that, then everything is alright.)

[svp]

Originally Posted by zac love

Thanks for the replies.



Which seems to me to be a problem with AVID and not a problem with shooting progressive.

Have you tried converting to interlaced w/ other software (Apple / Adobe) before going into AVID?

Honestly, its local news and we really don't have time to convert footage before putting it in AVID. You just figure out how to make it work and go with it. Here that means shooting interlaced.

[SamG]

Originally Posted by zac love

Any station that is 720 should be able to do progressive with their OTA encoders since the 720 ATSC spec is progressive.

But can they do 1080p? Just because they can handle 720p doesn't mean it will work at 1080.

My thing is I can shoot progressive & then deliver an interlaced file. If I hand over an interlaced file, none of the equipment should be conscious of the fact that the footage was originally shot progressive.

If what you shoot isn't time sensitive or the transcode from progressive to interlace doesn't take any extra time, sure, you can do that. IMO, it doesn't make sense for a staff photographer to shoot progressive if their editing & downstream systems need interlace.

[Run&Gun]

Originally Posted by SamG

But can they do 1080p? Just because they can handle 720p doesn't mean it will work at 1080.

One of the nets that I shoot for is 720P. They swore up and down whatever was fed in on the cell backpacks had to be 720P. I've been feeding 1080/23.98P from feature shoots for at least a year. Some people just do not know what they are talking about when they tell crews "information".

When in doubt, test.

[zac love]

Originally Posted by SamG

But can they do 1080p? Just because they can handle 720p doesn't mean it will work at 1080.

We're getting into the weeds, but I'm guessing when you said "Are there OTA encoders that accept progressive?" you meant "Are there *1080* OTA encoders...", in which case, I'm not sure. If it is an older encoder, I'm guessing it will only take one format, either 1080i or 720p. I'd think that newer encoders could do either 1080i or 720p and maybe 1080p too, but honestly I don't know.

Originally Posted by SamG

IMO, it doesn't make sense for a staff photographer to shoot progressive if their editing & downstream systems need interlace.

I agree 100%, workflow is so very important. If you're system is cemented in 1080i from all the software & hardware is 1080i based, then I agree you should be working with content that is in an interlaced video file. But there are cameras that can shoot 1080p30 in an interlaced file (it splits the progressive frame over two interlaced fields) which means you're equipment sees it as interlaced, but if displayed on the web you won't see any interlacing fields b/c it's a progressive frame.

IMO that is where I'd default to if I was required to work with an interlace system because I'd have video files that play nice with the system, but will also look nice on web / mobile devices w/o having to de-interlace the footage (and throw away half the image).

[The Thrill]

Still shooting 1080/59.94i here. Have for years.

Edit in 720p projects in Edius, station broadcasts 720p.

Have occasionally used 720p and 1080i video from our P2 cameras in the same projects. Can't tell any difference in editing or on-air.

[SamG]

Originally Posted by The Thrill

Still shooting 1080/59.94i here. Have for years.

Edit in 720p projects in Edius, station broadcasts 720p.

Have occasionally used 720p and 1080i video from our P2 cameras in the same projects. Can't tell any difference in editing or on-air.

Why shoot 1080i if you edit and air 720p?