it's a technique called field removed video.

it can be done on most edit suites using a mixer of some description (or using a non-linear system such as Media 100 or Avid).

you could broadcast it straight from a tape via a mixer - but I doubt this would be done - it would be less hassle to do a copy of the master (or make the master with this dire effect in the first place)

Uh... does that mean we can't achieve it with our camcorder and a video recorder...?

>Uh... does that mean we can't achieve it with our camcorder and a video recorder...?

Yeah .. I dunno - still none the wiser !

heh!

sorry!

errrrrrrrr dunno.

I expect that some camcorders will have it as a gimmick effect.

A VCR won't do it as such - you would need a mixer to produce the effect and then run it back to tape (you would need 2 VCRs).

*buys second vcr*

Now how owuld I do it...?

Never mind how, just don't! :)

....although, I think if you have a camcorder with a progressive scan setting, that should give a similar effect. Not much use for existing recordings though.

See, now that one made sense.

wouldnt wantto do it, unless somoene paid me huge amounts of money for it.







Yes, about 15p.

>*buys second vcr*

>Now how owuld I do it...?

You don't, not just with camcorders and VCRs.

A single frame of TV is made up of two interlaced fields. At its simplest and crudest, "film effect" is achieved by removing the second field and replacing it with a copy of the first. You can only do this with specialised video effects equipment or software.

Okay, thankyou.

finally someone explains it so i know what they're on about.

the progressive scan would work - but it was primarily intended to be used to shoot television screens and computer monitors.

using the regular method, if the screen was out of phase then you got the flickering effect, or the slow moving lines, depending on just how much out of kilter the camera and the screen were.

the progressive scan, having no vertical refresh rate (or one that is so high that it makes no odds) clears this.

but it does look a bit odd.

...does anyone have a phrasebook for techie-speak...?

just smile and nod usually works.... :O)

progressive scanning is something developed for use on Betacam cameras (and higer models) - they didn't have it on U-matic ones.

instaad of shooting with the two fields separately at 50HZ, the camera takes the whole CCD surface as one frame (ie, like one frame of film)

this does mean that the first and second fields will be identical however and causes problems when played back on a monitor with interlaced fields.

so... it just puts the two together in a bag and shakes them?

like thje topping on popcorn?

>the progressive scan would work - but it
>was primarily intended to be used to shoot
>television screens and computer monitors.

Erm, no - modern DigiBeta cameras do not use progressive scan. They simply have shutter speeds that are adjustable to the point where they can shoot computer monitors without flicker. And you don't need progressive scan to shoot an ordinary TV screen; you just set the shutter speed to 1/50 (all professional cameras can do this).

>this does mean that the first and second
>fields will be identical however and causes
>problems when played back on a monitor with
>interlaced fields.

Er, no - the fields may be identical, but they are still interlaced, so no problem.

It's worth pointing out that progressive scan is *not* used professionally by UK broadcasters. Even the very highest-end professional camera and monitor uses interlaced fields at 50Hz (none of these domestic 100Hz gimmicks).

When the UK finally moves to HDTV, progressive scan cameras, monitors and ancillary equipment will start to gain currency, but not until then.