On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:50:40 GMT, "FLY135" <fly_135@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3e42d0ce.3116106@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 01:24:10 -0600, "Andrew McAllister"

>> <amcallis@DELETEDIS.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>> >> is it

>> >> better to film in progressive or interlaced mode?

>> >

>> >My $0.02: I've heard the argument that shooting with progressive scan on

>> >reproduces an image that is more reminiscent of film. Film is not

>> >interlaced, obviously. Now, the color depth is still a big factor in

>> >differentiating video from film, and other factors.

>> >-- I can see the logic, but is this true?

>> If you like the relatively poor motion-handling

>> of film, then, yes, the "fluttery" look of PS-mode

>> video with motion when viewed on a normal TV just

>> may remind you of one of the shortcomings of film...;-)

>Is that the same "fluttery" look you get when you watch a Hollywood title on

>DVD or VHS tape?

No, but both are related to scan lines and interlacing.

If you watch film, you see that almost never is a pan

done quickly (the result would be difficult to watch),

but even at "mid-speed", you see the flicker of the

frames in the pan, same as with PS-mode video...

With vertical motion, the continuous (slow) analogue

rendering of scrolling titles in film look smooth, but

in video, horizontal lines moving upward (and especially

with the small text in credits) interfere with the

"incremental" scan lines (horizontal image edges "jump"

as they go from one scan line to the next...).