Posts
A few HD stations that I deliver to require that the footage was shot
interlaced. Go figure.
On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Robin S. Kurz wrote:
>
> On 22.10.2009, at 09:57, Tony Quinsee-Jover wrote:
>
>> "if it's going to TV, I surely wouldn't shoot progressive if I have
>> the
>> option"
>> Given that I spend half my life defielding interlaced stuff for UK TV
>> broadcasts I'd much rather the footage was shot progressive in the
>> first
>> place. It would save me throwing away half the vertical resolution.
>
> Sorry, but that's just plain silly in my opinion. Deinterlacing for
> subsequent broadcasting?
> you're doing to the footage, you have actually come up with something
> to justify it that makes some sort of sense? Since deinterlacing in
> the context of TV bears ZERO advantage whatsoever (quite the opposite)
> and no gain... well... other than a STUTTER that wasn't there before
> of course. Hooray. It makes as much sense as interlacing progressive
> footage, tho in that case there at least would be no actual LOSS.
>
> I've heard this so often in the past with the utterly ridiculous
> excuse "It looks like FILM!". Ouch. If I were to do that for any major
> broadcaster here it would be rejected in seconds (and has been from
> others). Quite understandably.
>
> - RK
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> To learn more about the FinalCutPro-
> http://groups.
>
>
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-L
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
No comments:
Post a Comment