Shooting options for optimal quality

[DaKrisht]

Hey Everyone,

New here on the boards and have a few questions regarding the PMW-EX1 frame rate settings:

I come from a film background and have been shoot S16mm, 16mm, S35mm, and 35mm for many years. In our world, we simply shoot 24fps and speed things up when we want slow motion.

The EX1 has simply begun to confuse us; 23.98, 30p, 24p, 60i, 50i, etc... Jesus.

We'll begin acquiring footage for a documentary film in May. Our goal is to sell it to NatGeo HD, History HD, or Discovery HD Theater (or the likes). The question is: which darn frame rate do we shoot this on?

We don't need to talk about the EX1's "24p" because we're not looking for a "film look" (that doesn't exist in the Digital World when you've shot on 35mm Arri and Panavision, so we're not interested in this).

Would 1080/60i or 1080/50i be ideal for a HD documentary?

Could someone please tell us about the frame rate options that are best-suited for Documentary films?

I've heard that 1080/30p is good, but again, coming from a "real 24fps" background, these numbers are foreign to me.

Thanks in advance,

Kristian

[matthew77]

24p. Gives a nice film look.

[FrankC]

First thing I'd do is check in with National Geographic HD, History Channel HD, and Discovery HD and find out what their specs are for deliverables. Don't want a big surprise when you find out you chose wrong. These guys will tell you want they expect and will require to even be considered.
Secondly, if the production is primerily going to go to video, I have never understood why people want to shoot in 24fps and introduce a studder! You can get a "film look" in post. The ultimate HD in my book is 1080/30p.

[DaKrisht]

First thing I'd do is check in with National Geographic HD, History Channel HD, and Discovery HD and find out what their specs are for deliverables. Don't want a big surprise when you find out you chose wrong. These guys will tell you want they expect and will require to even be considered.
Secondly, if the production is primerily going to go to video, I have never understood why people want to shoot in 24fps and introduce a studder! You can get a "film look" in post. The ultimate HD in my book is 1080/30p.

Hi Frank,

I agree about the 24p. It's a waste. Especially since I'm coming from a film background where NO camera (not even an F23) can compare with our 24fps when shooting 16mm or 35mm.

I have their standards and they do not mention anything about FRAME-RATES.

Why, in your opinion, is 1080/30p the "ultimate HD" (compared to a 50i or 60i, for example, for broadcast television).

(Remember, HDTV is broadcast in 1080i or 720p)

[DaKrisht]

24p. Gives a nice film look.

Thank you Matthew, but it's obvious you didn't read the post.

We're not interested in a digital version of 24fps (aka 24p) - it does not give a "nice film look", it gives a "fake" look. If we want a film look, we'll shoot on 35mm.

[DaKrisht]

From Discovery HD specifications:

"All video shall conform to SMPTE 274M, “1920 x 1080 Scanning and Analog and Parallel Digital Interfaces for Multiple Picture Rates” item 5 of table 1, which outlines 1920x1080 interlace at a frame rate of 59.94 Hz. "

Does this mean we must acquire in 60i?

[Stevet]

It sure looks like this might be the case, although, I can't imagine 720 59.94P is not an option.
Also, have you confirmed they will even take footage from the EX1?

The last I heard it was from the other XDCAM cams such as the F350, although they "may" have included the EX1. You will definately need to look into this and the accepted formats and other station particulars such as perfered delivery format. (XDCAM disc.. etc..?)

[kubalsky]

Thank you Matthew, but it's obvious you didn't read the post.

We're not interested in a digital version of 24fps (aka 24p) - it does not give a "nice film look", it gives a garbage look. If we want a film look, we'll shoot on 35mm.

Dakrisht, I'd shoot your documentary in SP 1080/60i. That should please the powers that be.

Ps, thats cool that you shot 35mm and all, but calling digital 24p mode garbage ain't gonna win you too many friends around here.

[DaKrisht]

Dakrisht, I'd shoot your documentary in SP 1080/60i. That should please the powers that be.

Ps, thats cool that you shot 35mm and all, but calling digital 24p mode garbage ain't gonna win you too many friends around here.

Hi kubalsky, agreed. 1080/60i looks like the way to go.


Sorry, but 24p doesn't impress me at all. If people want a "film look" they should go and shoot film and not try to be Ingmar Bergman with a DVX100.

I'll retract the "garbage" comment, but there's nothing "film like" about 24p or any digital imaging for that matter. Digital is digital.

[DaKrisht]

It sure looks like this might be the case, although, I can't imagine 720 59.94P is not an option.
Also, have you confirmed they will even take footage from the EX1?

The last I heard it was from the other XDCAM cams such as the F350, although they "may" have included the EX1. You will definately need to look into this and the accepted formats and other station particulars such as perfered delivery format. (XDCAM disc.. etc..?)

Hi Stevet,

I'd have to look into 720 59.94P. Do you think it's BETTER than 1080/60i and why? (I know it's progressive).

Yes, EX1 is fine because of the 1/2" sensor type, plus it's much better than the HVX200 (sharpness, resolution, etc...) and the HVX (via DVCPro HD is an accepted codec).
Additionally, the XDCAM HD is also acceptable (and that only shoots 1440x1080 via MPEG-2 long GOP).

It's hard to believe that Sony has released a camera like the EX1 that kills their $40k XDCAM HD full-sized.

[Stevet]

Oh no... don't bring that one up. I've heard both side with 1080i vs 720P.

I'm not sure if I'd say the EX1 kills their full size XDCAM cameras. They are different breeds with the EX1 owning a fixed lens.

As far as 24P being crap, I'm not sure about that. It's far more than just frame cadence w/180 deg. shutter that offers the "film" look. I'm sure you know this, but I brought it up since you singled out 24P.

[FrankC]

Kristian... For broadcast, I must agree with Steve T that 60i is the best bet. My 1080/30p comment was what I shoot when I think may also have a film-out or go to DVD. Obviously that would not be the case here.

[matthew77]

Thank you Matthew, but it's obvious you didn't read the post.

We're not interested in a digital version of 24fps (aka 24p) - it does not give a "nice film look", it gives a garbage look. If we want a film look, we'll shoot on 35mm.

Actually I did read the post. That doesn't change my opinion. The comment about film in your initial post is honestly a bit pretentious and I thought I'd point it out. I've been shooting 35 and 16 for many years, too. I've even shot 65mm and tons of 8-perf VistaVision, but that has nothing to do with what I might do with my EX1

The 24 frame cadence (film cadence) gives a look of quality (even though it's arguably lower quality) that many classic documentaries have - BBC, etc. and is a look that many viewers are comfortable with. It also translates well between the NTSC and PAL worlds - you do a 4% speedup for 50Hz. Keep an eye on your shutter angle and you'll get nice judder-free footage.

Interlace is an old workaround and is going away, so i am not sure why so many people recommend it. If you're doing fast action, 60p is the way to go. 24p will translate nicely into a 60p timeline as well.

And...there's no way to do slo-mo on the EX1 at 60i. You need to use one of the slower frame rates and overcrank with the S&Q menu.

And finally, just because you are shooting video doesn't mean you can't take advantage of some of the better aspects of film. It doesn't mean that you are trying and failing to exactly emulate a film look (a practice that I abhor but is common on these boards) but that you are using one of the many capabilities of your fine camera to evoke something in the viewer.

[DaKrisht]

Oh no... don't bring that one up. I've heard both side with 1080i vs 720P.

I'm not sure if I'd say the EX1 kills their full size XDCAM cameras. They are different breeds with the EX1 owning a fixed lens.

As far as 24P being crap, I'm not sure about that. It's far more than just frame cadence w/180 deg. shutter that offers the "film" look. I'm sure you know this, but I brought it up since you singled out 24P.

Hey Steve,

Don't get me wrong, the 24p isn't crap (and in particular I've heard great things about the 23.98 CineAlta but haven't used it yet), and it does give regular people (those who can't afford to shoot 35mm!! a film-like-effect).

Currently, we're shooting a doc that needs to be up to spec for Broadcast television. I'd love to try out the 30p and 23.98 CineAlta modes on the EX1 for more narrative work.

I'd love to hear some thoughts and comments on 30p + 23.98p compared to a 50i vs. 60i.

Additionally, it would be great (again, coming from a film background) if some members on here would elaborate a little more on: 50i and 60i.

[DaKrisht]

Interlace is an old workaround and is going away, so i am not sure why so many people recommend it. If you're doing fast action, 60p is the way to go. 24p will translate nicely into a 60p timeline as well.




Hi Matthew,

I don't understand why people want Interlaced video either.

Since we're shooting non-narrative work, we'd like to be able to get the "best" possible quality with the EX1. Crisp, stunning, well lit, outdoor shots (nature, wildlife, vibrant colors, exotic locations, etc.).

I feel that 60i or 50i is the way to go, but I am simply dumbfounded by all these frame-rates. As you might know, 24fps on a 16mm or 35mm camera is all we need to worry about. And if we want to slow things down, we just go to 80-150fps (Arri high speed, etc.).

With Digital the more options, the more confusing it becomes.

Could you please elaborate on some of the frame rates, their pros/cons? (i.e. 23.98, 50i, 60i, 30p, 60p, etc...)

Thanks in advance.

[DaKrisht]

Gentlemen (and ladies):

The general consensus here is to shoot this doc. in 1080/60i

Any objections? Reasons not to? Better options? Mix and match, maybe?


Footnote: The final product will be delivered via ProRes422 on HDCAM Master (if that matters for this discussion).

[matthew77]

I'd love to hear some thoughts and comments on 30p + 23.98p compared to a 50i vs. 60i.

Additionally, it would be great (again, coming from a film background) if some members on here would elaborate a little more on: 50i and 60i.

60i is an interlace format for 60Hz countries and 50i is for 50Hz countries. Both are there by necessity, but I would never shoot in either one - except maybe for a project that was airing in one region only and specifically required that setting. I am sure you can transfer 24p material to 59.94i to meet anyone's broadcast standards in that format. That's what happens when they broadcast feature films and docs originated on film.

Interlace formats run every other line on the screen in one pass (lines 1,3,5 etc), called a field, and then do every other pass on the frame (2,4,6 etc.). This was introduced in the 1930s as a way of increasing apparent refresh frequency but without increasing bandwidth (because they couldn't at the time).

Any please lay off this "film background" stuff. Unless you are cutting on a Moviola or and even rarer Avid Film Composer, you need you know about interlace video. When film is transferred to SD video (in NTSC countries), each frame is transferred to either 2 or 3 fields alternately as a way of reconciling 24 frames to 30 frame video. Hence the name 3-2 pulldown.

The reason there's 23.976p (and not 24p) is because of another thing that happened earlier in the 20th century. When color broadcasting started, sound and picture (as broadcast) frequencies interfered with one another. So Color NTSC was slowed down 0.1% to solve this - hence 29.97. All 24 frame material being broadcast (movies etc.) was actually playing at 24 minus 0.1% or 23.976.

When "24 frame" video emerged, it used the 23.976 speed mostly because it was being monitored and recorded at 29.97 on NTSC equipment, and so the speeds involved had to be proportional.

Film is still generally shot at an even 24, but is slowed down in telecine (along with sync sound) with the resulting tapes being 23.976. This is done even though most HD decks will do a true 24. In the real world this 24.000 fps format is mostly ignored.

[matthew77]

Any objections? Reasons not to? Better options? Mix and match, maybe?

I would never shoot 60i. But I don't want to jeopardize your options, if that's really what they want. 23.976p material on a 59.94 tape will probably be just fine with them. It's the way Michael Moore's documentaries (and all feature docs) are broadcast.

60 frame video really looks like video - it looks like a sports broadcast, or a soap opera, or the 6 o'clock news in terms of cadence. It looks very "live."

Anyway, you can test it and see if you like the look. Try shooting both and watching both on an NTSC monitor. That way you are seeing 59.94i native and 23.976 translated to 59.94i. I think you will like the latter better, especially because you have a film background.

If I were originating at 60fps, I would much prefer 720/60p to 1080/60i. It technically has more resolution.

But remember. there is no way to do proper slow motion on the EX1 when originating at 60 fps

And neither of these formats translates to PAL as well as 24p, which you can remaster into a 50Hz timeline with a 4% speedup.

[DeeZiD]

Why not shoot in 1080p/30p (29,97p) and then encode in 30psf (29,97psf, segmented frame for interlaced broadcast but with progressive quality) :thumbup:


regards Dennis

[matthew77]

Why not shoot in 1080p/30p (29,97p) and then encode in 30psf (29,97psf, segmented frame for interlaced broadcast but with progressive quality) :thumbup:


regards Dennis

Because is would make a terrible conversion to PAL/25Hz HD. And no elegant way to play theatrically.

[DeeZiD]

If the material is intended for Pal Television use 25p, so where's the problem?
Or use 24p for 3:2 converting for 29,97fps NTSC and 4% Speedup for 25fps Pal...


regards Dennis

[matthew77]

No problem - but its nice to shot a format that can do both.

25p would work fine for NTSC as well. Slow down 4% and add 3-2 pulldown.

Also - blu-ray doesn't support 30p.

[RCFisher]

I have been shooting about 10 months on the HVX200 and I find I like 720p24 of all the choices of frame rates and images sizes. The reason it looks better, not like video and not quite film. I tried 1080i and 720p60 and they just looked like video. I recently worked on an awards ceremony and had the 720p24 footage intercut with 1080i60 images originated at the venue from sony HD broadcast cameras and almost everyone I spoke with thought the 720p24 footage looked superior. The bonus is also gaining a bit of extra recording time 8 mins per 8GB card at 1080i60, 720p24 is 22 min per 8GB card. On the EX1 I think the same would hold true, you would get a bit more running time at 24 as opposed to 60i (this would be in HQ mode 35Mb). I had a brief opportunity to run some tests on a friends new EX1 and out of the box the image looks like a crappy video camera, my words, but using the cinegamas and making image adjustments you can craft a really nice image that's very pleasing. Check out some of Philip Bloom's shorts, they have very different looks and are really a great example to what you can achieve with the camera. Crappy images have too much sharpness, to the point of ringing around the edges or areas with sharp contrasts, too much contrast in the wrong places and sharp changes of contrasts in shoulder and knee areas of the images. The goal is to achieve good looking images.

I really look forward to my EX1 arriving in the near future.

Cheers
Robert C. Fisher
VR Photography / Cinematography

[matthew77]

On the EX1 I think the same would hold true, you would get a bit more running time at 24 as opposed to 60i

Spot-on, I agree with everything you say, RCFisher. Don't know why anyone would shoot interlaced. Unattractive and very limiting.

Except one thing: Running time is pretty much the same for all formats on the EX1 - they all go 35Mbps.

[Stevet]

Crappy images have too much sharpness, to the point of ringing around the edges or areas with sharp contrasts, too much contrast in the wrong places and sharp changes of contrasts in shoulder and knee areas of the images. The goal is to achieve good looking images.

I really look forward to my EX1 arriving in the near future.

Cheers
Robert C. Fisher
VR Photography / Cinematography

I hear you... Fortunately, the EX1 looks great with detail off. I know there are a lot of cameras that look real soft when detail is off. The EX1 detail off image looks organic and holds its detail. This is one important step in getting away from the video look.

[DeeZiD]

I hear you... Fortunately, the EX1 looks great with detail off. I know there are a lot of cameras that look real soft when detail is off. The EX1 detail off image looks organic and holds its detail. This is one important step in getting away from the video look.


agreeeeeed!

[matthew77]

I always shoot with detial off , too. I was amazed at how nice it looked when I tried it - to zoom in (on the NLE) and see the soft edges transitioning between colors - it has the look of a much more expensive camera, or scanned film.

[RCFisher]

I don't see how the data rate (or running time) for 1080i60/30p could be the same as 1080p24. There are 20% less frames to record. The EX1 records only the frames needed in the 35Mb mode not 60i with pull down. Can someone explain that!

Now this is not true of the HD-SDI out which only outputs 1080i in the 24p mode. It took a long time to find the right info on this since there is a ton of mis-information out there including from dealers. A friend told me that a dealer told him that the HD-SDI port only outputted a compressed signal, now that's not supported under the HD-SDI format. If it's a monitor signal it has to be a standard signal that most monitors can recognize. My initial question was why can you not output 1080p24 directly from the HD-SDI port? I think the answer is they don't want this camera to interfere with their other markets.

Cheers
RC Fisher
VR Photography / Cinematography

[matthew77]

35Mbps means 35 megabits per second, not per frame, or group of frames.

This means that the codec always encodes to this bitrate - 35 megabits per every second of screen time, regardless of mode. It compresses the faster speeds and higher res more than the lower speeds and lower res footage.

Give or take. It's a VBR (variable bit rate) codec that averages 35Mbps.

[mico]

Anyone have a link or can post some shots with detail on and detail off so I can get a view of what is so organic about having detail off.

Are there minus detail settings and if there are how do they compare.

Thanks

[matthew77]

There are minus detail settings.

Detail -40 looks about the same as detail off (though I am sure they are intrinsically different).

Going below -60 makes for some ugly, boxy blurriness and is a pretty useless zone.

The "other forum" has some samples in the EX1 footage section.

[mico]

Thanks Matthew i will go searching.

I'm more curious now about the minus settings too.

[Stevet]

LOL..
Organic bro!

For a lack of better words, I stole that from a post from the "other" forum where someone had posted an image with detail off.

What's important here is that the image STILL looks good with it off. This surely was not a claim from some of the sub $10K past cameras I've owned and tested.
I guess organic would be a good description, since you're looking at the raw image without artificial detail added to it.

[mico]

Don't get me wrong Steve , I wasn't questioning the word. I like its use here.

Searched the other forum and looked at the comparisons. I kind of liked the shots with the detail on specifically for a shot of a gravel ground with leaves on it. The texture of the leaves was great with detail on but lost with it off. But a shot of a store front with detail off looked great too.
So what happens when you do wide landscape shots when detail is important. On other cams like the HVX I'd have to tweek the detail up for wide. So if -40 is like detail off maybe a middle ground setting of -20 might keep fine detail in without the video look of the too much sharpness setting of 0?

[Stevet]

mico,
Actually, sometimes I use detail level at -20 and freq +5.
This adds just a tad to the raw image.

I'll have to post some wide comparisions with several different settings including off.

[DeeZiD]

I can tell you that there isn't any loss of detail with detail=off.
Detail=on adds artificial oversharpening to the raw video which leads to more artifacts in the resulting mpeg2 stream because it is more difficult to encode.

Better add a sharpening filter in post to the clean image (with detail=off) if you need it - it looks better.



regards Dennis

[matthew77]

Agreed - detail off is the way to go. I prefer it and don't even feel the need to add anything in post.

[DeeZiD]

Me neither.
Clips shot with detail=off look a lot more like film :thumbsup:


regards Dennis

[Carl Marxx]

:2vrolijk_08:If you are going from film to the EX-1 for the first time, your best bet would be to use the (HQ) 720p 24 format found on the camera's menu. This will give you the max amount of over and under cranking options while shooting, and also keeps it in a 24 frame per sec. mode, to my understanding. You should edit the movie in this mode for best transfer later to film for best image quality and lower transfer costs. The camera has the ability to output to the monitor in 30 fps for viewing. 1080p 24 (SD) is captured in the camera in 1080i and converted (3/2 pull-down) to give a "film look" on a monitor, and is not what a professional producer wants for a true movie image brought to the silver screen. Carl...

[sthops]

Is there a setting that gets close to the HVX200 cine gama?