How many non-amateur adult videos do you reckon are being shot on DSLRs (such as the Canons) rather than camcorders these days?
Also, if you sell DVDs, do you go for interlaced (video look), progressive (film look) or both from time to time?
Printable View
How many non-amateur adult videos do you reckon are being shot on DSLRs (such as the Canons) rather than camcorders these days?
Also, if you sell DVDs, do you go for interlaced (video look), progressive (film look) or both from time to time?
DVD Authoring software DVD Studio Pro likes Interlaced. If I give it a Progressive file, it says it can't.
Or, maybe because my settings template has been Interlaced since 2005. I don't mess with things that work.
HD files for VOD (like AEBN) are P, clips for download or local streaming can be I or P.
It was really more of an artistic question about the look of the video. Footage can be shot at 29.97fps but then turned into a 59.94fps interlaced file with two identical fields making up each frame. I don't see why any authoring software wouldn't accept that.
I will need to study this further. It begs the question as to how much technology customers who buy SD DVDs have... as SD DVD is not a Blu-Ray DVD which is separate hardware and technology.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread...art=0&tstart=0
http://www.dvdfab.com/blu-ray-creator-for-mac.htm
Yes I'm only talking about standard definition DVDs. Downsizing HD footage for those.
The Canon 600D DSLR shoots full HD 1920x1020 at either 24fps, 25 or 29.97. Or 1280x720 at 24, 25, 29.97, 50 or 59.94.
It would be possible to create interlaced video from the 1280x720 50 or 59.94 footage but for various reasons the image quality when shot at that size isn't good enough.
One can use Toast later to make an interlaced version... I'd keep the original 1920x1080p.
umm this is cool :)
So really what I'm getting at is that 24, 25 or 29.97 frames per second can be put into an interlaced file but it will still be a "film" look rather than the smoother "video" (on TV screen) look.
To get the video look you need 50 or 59.94 different fields per second and the Canon DSLR can't do that at 1920x1080.
So returning to my original question, do people prefer the smoother video look on videos that they watch from a DVD on their TV? Rather than a film look?