PDA

View Full Version : GH1 - Frame Rate Conversion Tests - 720 60p & 30p to 24p vs. HPX 170 1080 24p



Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 07:11 AM
GH1 720 60p & 30p to 24p vs. HPX 170 24p
Rate Conversion Tests
Mad Props to Luis Caffese for running out last minute in the dwindling sunlight and shooting this with me on his HPX-170.
And many thanks to Ninja HD Guru Barry Green for his help in figuring out how to set up the test.


5 min vid.


4 conversion methods using Cinema Tools, Compressor, and FCP
GH1 shoe mounted to the top of an HPX 170 for a similar frame
Shot cars crossing the frame since they move at a fairly similar rate and any cadence jumps, stuttering should be apparent.
All 20-faux p referenced against HPX 170's 1080 24p

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1323 (http://vimeo.com/5373927)
Click Image to go to Vimeo.
Orig file available for download there.
Tip: don't be afraid to turn HD off to eleminate possibility for streaming induced stutter vs. cadence issues.

I won't comment on the efficacy of each conversion method at this point (though I do have my opinions), but will point out some non frame rate stuff I found interesting:

GH1 handily wins for lattitude (HPX was a little over exposed in some shots, but you can see the latitude edge in all of the shots)

Even with the HPX 170 in 1080 mode and the GH1 in 720, it wins for resolution as well. Note the trees. But also note the murky gray pavement in the GH1 AVCHD shots. In 720 MJPEG shots everything is sharper than the 170's 1080 with no murkiness including the gravel. This is really interesting since in the AVCHD mods which are Long GOP, the still pavement should be where the codec excells and the blowing dancing tree leaves should challenge it, and yet the opposite seems to be true. I would suspect I had a big smear of sweat on my ND filter in the pavement if it weren't for the fact that the MJPEG (Intra frame shots) are smearless.

WHY NOT JUST SHOOT 108024p all the time? What's the point of these tests?
In 1080 24p because of the lack of B frames the camera is trying to predict frames as you shoot, and if you get a ahead of the prediction with your camera movement - you can get some macro blocking or "mud".
This problem is significantly reduced in 60p AVCHD making it suitable for most applications where 1080 24 might fail, and non existent in 720 30p MJPEG an intra frame codec. The good news is that 60p goes to 24p perfectly or near perfectly. 30p is a bit more of a challenge and should be avoided though it can still be used when mud is unavoidable. The good news here is that if you have a smooth moving subject or shot which would really reveal the stutteryness of 30p to 24p, you won't need to use 30p.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 07:11 AM
Reserved for Raw Files for you to play with.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 07:11 AM
******RECOMMENDED******
This method, METHOD 1, using COMPRESSOR only, is the best for quality and number of steps.


Under the "BEST - MOTION COMPENSATED" setting it is the absolute best rate conversion / motion you can get but it's slow.
Under the "BETTER - MOTION COMPENSATED" setting it's much faster and still uses advanced motion interpolation, and looks good.
Under the "GOOD - FRAME BLENDING" setting it will be very fast and 60p will be very smooth (though not so much with 30p), but the moving object or frame might look weird especially when frame by framing.

This method is all one step, where METHOD's 2 and 3 require several painstaking multi-part steps.

"Better - Motion Compensated" vs. "Best - Motion Compensated" setting. Either method takes advantage of Optical Flow Analysis found in Shake and Motion. On my computer "Best" took exactly 2.5 times longer to render the same clip then "Better" did. "Better" looks really good, if not identical to "Best" to me. If you are having trouble with 30 to 24p (harder than 60 to 24) try "Best" but otherwise stick with "Better" unless the footage seems jerky or its rendering weird. (you'll see these settings below)

Recommending this method over METHOD 2 which involves using Cinema tools and Compressor AND keeping track of the original duration of every clip you convert AND replacing the new audio with the old audio. So given all the manual stuff you have to do in METHOD 2, I'm recommending this Method, the Compressor Only Method, again, for the following reasons:


with the "Better" setting this might be the faster method
This method allows for easier batch processing in one step
you don't have to manually record the duration of each clip
you don't have to replace the audio for each converted clip with audio from the original clip.

The results are really good
If you run into trouble or aren't satisfied for one or two clips, use the "Best" setting.

For the absolute fastes process I'm ALSO gonna recommend this method over METHOD 3, conforming in Cinema Tools and speeding back up in FCP - which is pretty fast - but every single step is manual. If you choose "Good - Frame Blending" in Compressor in this method, METHOD 1, you are speeding up exactl the same way FCP will do it. Only doing it in Compressor and selecting the duration as "100% of Source" saves you from having to manually determine, note and enter the duration of each and every clip by hand. So given the fact that Compressor will do the speed up in the same manner as FCP and that all of the duration will be determined and entered automatically, this method is the way to go for all your conversion needs.

60 & 30p to 24 conformed & retimed in COMPRESSOR only

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1332

OK here we go.

This is a variation on method 2 which first appeared on MKII forum ____, but will get to that. Method 2 conforms in Cinema Tools and retimes in Compressor. This method does it all in Compressor.

SPEED RATING: FASTEST with "GOOD - FRAME BLENDING", MEDIUM with "BETTER" SETTING and FEWEST STEPS. PRETTY SLOW on "BEST" setting even though this method has the fewest steps. Just Export, Compressor, Import, and all is automated, even the duration of the final clip. Depending on the speed of your computer this may be faster than "Method 2" below, since it has fewer steps.
60p to 24p QUALITY: VERY HIGH EVEN IN "BETTER" SETTING, SMOOTH MOTION but perhaps some weird frames in "GOOD - FRAME BLENDING"
30p to 24p QUALITY: SOMEWHAT CHOPPY, but much better than just dropping 30p in a 24p timeline. "BEST" probably won't make 30p smoother than "BETTER" but might help if the render looks weird (overlapping images). "GOOD - FRAME BLENDING" will be choppy for 30p conversions.

A: Start with a 60p or 30p clip. Either out of FCP or the raw file. You may want to consider trimming the file to just the part you want. You know how to do this in FCP. In QuickTime you can open the file, set new in and outpoints as well, and SAVE AS a new trimmed file. If you go out of FCP you musty export the clip from a 60p or 30p timeline based on whatever the clip actually is, or from the browser (click on it in the browser, export from the viewer). If you export from a 24p timeline, or click on a clip in a 24p timeline and export from the viewer, you will be exporting 24p and nothing else will work. So use the original clips in whatever folder you stored them in, or if going out of FCP export from a 60 or 30p timeline, or from the browser. Never from a 24p timeline.

B. Open COMPRESSOR. Drag your clip in. Set your settings as follows or make a preset as follows:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1335
* Leave audio setting at "PASS-THROUGH", this means that the frame rate of the video will change but the audio will not be altered in anyway, and remain in sync since, while the frame rate of the video will change the duration of the clip will be set to 100% of it's original duration.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1336

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1341
Ignore the Resizing Controls unless you want to experiment with taking your footage from 720 to 1080 here. But the resize filter in FCP is pretty good and it will save you time to not do it here.

The example shows "Best - Motion Compensated" but "Better Motion Compensated" is more than twice as fast as "Best" and the results are very good. Both take advantage of the Optical Flow technology found in Shake and Motion, but "Best" will take more time.

For Fastest speed choose "Good - Frame Blending" that's the same method that FCP uses in METHOD 3 "Conform in Cinema Tools & Retime in FCP". Here though, again, everything is automated. Using METHOD 3, will be the same as "Good - Frame Blending" but you will have to manually note the duration of each and every original clip and enter each duration manaully for each and every converted clip, which is not so fun even for 1 clip - and it's aobut as opposite from Batch Processing as you can get.

C. Bring the new clip back into FCP and drop it n your 24p timeline. For 60p to 24 conversions, marvel at the smoothness. For 30p to 24, sigh and know this is better than just dragging and dropping on a 24 timeline.

NOTE: For Slowmotion change step 7 above from "100% of source" to "so source plays at 23.98" as below:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1338
This will get you slow mo, BUT Cinema Tools is much, much faster for slow mo - instantaneous. So really there's no reason to do just slow mo this way, unless you wanted to preserve the real time audio which this method leave untouched. Cinema Tools will give you that slow mo audio effect that never gets old. ;)

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 07:11 AM
I read this basic method in a tutorial and wondered why you would go through Cinema Tools when you could do everthying in compressor, and automate half the steps outlined here with less chance for human error. I'm still wondering.

60 & 30 p to 24 conformed in CINEMA TOOLS & then retimed in COMPRESSOR

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1331

This is very much like Method 1, but starts with Cinema Tools which does very fast conforming to 23.98.
SPEED RATING: SLOW to MEDIUM SPEED but more steps than step 1 with less automation. If your computer is not super fast, this may be faster than "Method 1" above, even though it has more steps.
60p to 24p QUALITY: VERY HIGH
30p to 24p QUALITY: SOMEWHAT CHOPPY, but much better than just dropping 30p in a 24p timeline.

A: Start with a 60p or 30p clip. Either out of FCP or the raw file. You may want to consider trimming the file to just the part you want. You know how to do this in FCP. In QuickTime you can open the file, set new in and outpoints as well, and SAVE AS a new trimmed file. If you go out of FCP you musty export the clip from a 60p or 30p timeline based on whatever the clip actually is, or from the browser (click on it in the browser, export from the viewer). If you export from a 24p timeline, or click on a clip in a 24p timeline and export from the viewer, you will be exporting 24p and nothing else will work. So use the original clips in whatever folder you stored them in, or if going out of FCP export from a 60 or 30p timeline, or from the browser. Never from a 24p timeline.

So far everything so far has been identical to step "A" in the all Compressor Method, "Method 1" above. Here's where things get different for step "A". If you have started with a an original clip from the folder where you're storing them - MAKE A DUPLICATE OF THAT CLIP. Unlike Compressor, Cinema Tools will alter the original clip. "But I don't want that 30p clip anymore, I want to convert it, why do I need it?" you ask. You will need it as a reference for the duration of the clip a few steps later. If you forget to dulpicate the clip fro 60p AVCHD you can just convert the original MTS file again. If you forget to do this for a 30p MJPEG clip you will have to reconform it back to 30p in Cinema tools.

Now, IF you are coming out of FCP in the manner explained in step "A" you will be OK because your original clip will be sitting on your 30p or 60p timeline in FCP or in your browser in FCP. Just make sure you leave the in and out points set to where they were when you exported the clip.

B. Open Cinema tools, open the clip, and do like this:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1339

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1340

NOTE: IF YOU STOP HERE. YOU'VE JUST INSTANTANEOUSLY MADE GLORIOUS SLOW MO. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED, BRING YOUR CLIP BACK INTO FCP AND ENJOY. (Remember when shooting that 1/60th is the recommended typical shutter speed to be converted to 24p - you can go over but NEVER under. For Slow Motion 1/120th (or perhaps above) is the recommended shutter speed for 60p to be converted to slow motion.)

Anyway ... never mind slow mo. On to the next step for real time 24p.

C. Open COMPRESSOR. Drag your newly slowmowed clip in. Set your settings as follows or make a preset as follows:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1344
* You might as well use the "Disable Audio" setting. Your audio is all slow motiony sounding now. You'd think Compressor would speed it back up with the rest of the footage if you selected "Enable Audio" as opposed to "Audio - Pass Through" or "Disable Audio". Well it does. Sort of. It maintains sync but it won't change the PITCH back to normal! So if you export an actor talking, slow mowed that clip in Cinema Tools so the voice is all deep and evil sounding, Compressor will speed it back up and keep sync, but it will stay deep and evil sounding. So unless you want this effect, might as well disable the audio. This is one of the reasons you need to maintain a source clip with the same in and out as the one you're converting - so you can replace the converted audio with audio from the source clip. "PASS THROUGH" will leave it deep and out of sync. "ENABLE" will make it deep and in sync, but won't change the pitch back to normal.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1345
For step 8 you need to know the duration of your source clip if it were dropped into a 24p timeline. So go into FCP and paste your original 30p or 60p clip with the same in / out points on your 24 time line.

Again, RATE CONVERSION shows the "BEST" setting, but this will take 2.5 times as long to render than "BETTER". Use "BETTER" until you see a reason not to. Both "BETTER" and "BEST" use Optical Flow interpolation found in SHAKE and MOTION.

Right click (control click) the clip and it will show you it's duration:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1346

Now go back to compressor and enter that duration in step 8.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1345

D. When the clip is done exporting bring it back into FCP, drop it on your 24p timeline. Delete the audio from the converted clip if you stil have it and replace that audio with the audio from the non converted clip in the 24p timeline.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 07:11 AM
* FASTEST WITH GOOD SMOOTHNESS. THE FRAME BLENDING DONE HERE LOOKS LIKE 1/48th MOTION BLUR TO ME MOST OF THE TIME. BUT IT's NOT A VERY SOPHISTICATED METHOD COMPARED TO THE MOTION INTERPOLATION DONE IN COMPRESSOR. IT's MORE LIKELY TO MAKE DOUBLE IMAGES, FOR EXAMPLE, AND MY NOT WORK AS WELL FOR 30p to 24p.

Ultimately though you can do frame blending in METHOD 1, the one step all in Compressor method. Here you will have to determine and noteall the durations and manually enter them. With Method 1 you can get the same type fast conversion - FRAME BLENDING - and batch process all your clips with the correct durations auto determined. So - use METHOD 1 unless it's for 1 or two clips and you just want to do it this way.

60 & 30 p to 24 conformed in CINEMA TOOLS & retimed in FCP Timeline

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1330

SPEED RATING: MEDIUM to FASTER. Has some manual steps.
60p to 24p QUALITY: GOOD. The smoothness will be comparable to METHODS 1 & 2 but you may notice some weirdness from the frame blending.
30p to 24p QUALITY: Choppy.

A: Starts identical to the previous two methods: Start with a 60p or 30p clip. Either out of FCP or the raw file. You may want to consider trimming the file to just the part you want. You know how to do this in FCP. In QuickTime you can open the file, set new in and outpoints as well, and SAVE AS a new trimmed file. If you go out of FCP you musty export the clip from a 60p or 30p timeline based on whatever the clip actually is, or from the browser (click on it in the browser, export from the viewer). If you export from a 24p timeline, or click on a clip in a 24p timeline and export from the viewer, you will be exporting 24p and nothing else will work. So use the original clips in whatever folder you stored them in, or if going out of FCP export from a 60 or 30p timeline, or from the browser. Never from a 24p timeline.

As in the 2nd method above you need to save a source clip for duration refernce later: If you have started with a an original clip from the folder where you're storing them - MAKE A DUPLICATE OF THAT CLIP. Unlike Compressor, Cinema Tools will alter the original clip. "But I don't want that 30p clip anymore, I want to convert it, why do I need it?" you ask. You will need it as a reference for the duration of the clip a few steps later. If you forget to dulpicate the clip fro 60p AVCHD you can just convert the original MTS file again. If you forget to do this for a 30p MJPEG clip you will have to reconform it back to 30p in Cinema tools.

Now, IF you are coming out of FCP in the manner explained in step "A" you will be OK because your original clip will be sitting on your 30p or 60p timeline in FCP or in your browser in FCP. Just make sure you leave the in and out points set to where they were when you exported the clip.

B. Same as Method 2 above: Open Cinema tools, open the clip, and do like this:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1339

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1340

C. Bring the clip back into FCP. Drop both the originacl clip and the newly slow mowed clip on a 23.98 timeline. Control+click the origincal clip to get it's duration:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1347

Control click the new clip, select SPEED, set it to the duration of the original clip.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1348

Finally, replace the audio of the new clip with the audio of the old clip.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 07:36 AM
60 & 30 p to 24 conformed in CINEMA TOOLS & retimed in FCP Timeline

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1329

SPEED RATING: Fastest.
60p to 24p QUALITY: Acceptable to some.
30p to 24p QUALITY: Very bad.

A. Drag your 60 or 30p footage onto a 24p timeline.
B. Consider another method for 60p footage.
C. Choose another method for 30p footage.

Ben_B
06-29-2009, 08:25 AM
Amazing thank you so much!

I was planning to use reverse telecine for doing my Gh1 stuff to 24p, aside from the stutter effect are there any problems with it? I was going to use it for most shots and only go through compressor/cinema tools for shots where it would be more obvious (like a car driving from one side of a frame to another...hmmmm where have I seen that?)

SonicStates
06-29-2009, 08:35 AM
Thanks Jack. Nice to have a set of tests like this!! Cheers.
Sam.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 08:36 AM
You're welcome Sam :beer:

Ben - for 1080 24p - yes, use reverse telecine. You wind up with real 24p same as if you started out there natively.

For 60p or 30p to 24 you might as well save your time and just drop the footage in your NLE 24p timeline rather than rev telecine it because that will basically be the same thing. Advanced Reverse Telecine is for following breadcrumbs intentionally left in an interlaced stream which lead to 24p. When you go from 60p or 30p to 24 via rev telecine you're just deleting a sequence of frames that leave you with 24p. Dropping in your timeline will do the same.

For my workflow I'm going to do the following:
1080 24p - reverse telecine
60p - conform in Cinema Tools then retime in FCP or Compressor
30p - (if I just HAD to shoot 30p*) conform & retime in Compressor, or conform in Cinema Tools and Retime in Compressor.

*Reasons to shoot 30p MJPEG. A static shot where detail is being problematic in AVCHD. You are going nuts whipping the camera all over the place and need the one sure fire mud Rx - the intraframe MJPEG codec.

John Caballero
06-29-2009, 08:43 AM
Excellent test. Thank you very much.

Dalton Boettcher
06-29-2009, 08:46 AM
As others have said, thanks Jack! The hard work and time you've put into guides like this will make things easy on me, whenever I get my hands on a camera. Cheers :beer:

Nighthawk
06-29-2009, 09:03 AM
Like the others I can't thank you enough. Looking forward to the workflow tutorials. Your work here exemplifies why this forum's the best.

Ben_B
06-29-2009, 09:26 AM
60p - conform in Cinema Tools then retime in FCP or Compressor


You mean conform to 24p (making slow motion) and then changing the speed (command-J?) in Final Cut? Or reexporting it with compressor or what? How do you do that? Are there any advantages to this over just dropping the stuff in a 24p timeline in FCP? I know it does sort of a stutter-step thing but I don't think there's any way around that.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 09:39 AM
You mean conform to 24p (making slow motion) and then changing the speed (command-J?) in Final Cut? Or reexporting it with compressor or what? How do you do that? Are there any advantages to this over just dropping the stuff in a 24p timeline in FCP? I know it does sort of a stutter-step thing but I don't think there's any way around that.
Yeah the way around it is through method 1. Compressor alone, or 2. Cinema tools and then compressor or 3. Cinema tools and FCP. You get glass smooth 60p to 24p any of those three separate ways. Only dropping right into the timeline with 60p give you stutter.

Dropping 30p into a timeline is the worst, but method 1. or 2. help some. 3. and 4 (dropping in a timeline). are really bad.

For 60p, 1,2, and 3 are all really good. 4 may be fine for somethings of if you are not crazy picky.

For 60p to 24p with no stutter I'll be using one of the Cinema Tools combo methods (method 2, or 3):
In Cinema tools you "conform" to 23.98. That makes it slow mo.
Then you can
A. Set the duration of the newly slowed down clip back to the duration of the original in compressor (method 2)
OR
B. Set the duration of the newly slowed down clip back to the duration of the original in FCP. (method 3)
A or B gives you 24p.
B (FCP) uses frame blending. A (compressor) I think uses some more advanced interpolation where it's trying to render new frames. To my eye, the quicker method B yielded a result that looked a little more like 1/48th shutter motion blur, but it is frame blending, i.e., more of a fudge and not as good as whatever compressor does - in theory. Like I said, for the type of motion I was doing from 60 - 24p it looks more like 1/48th motion blur, but both the methods A and B looked smooth.

But this way you don't drop any frames, you kind of over (or would it be under?) crank the footage

THE TRICK: The trick is that you want to retime your duration to the duration of the original clip AS IF the original clip had been reverse telecined. Not the time of the original clip at it's original Frame Rate. For example. An almost 2 second clip will be 1.59 in 60 fps and 1.23 in 24 frames per second. When I get the tutorial up I can show you how to determine the target duration.

sdhurley
06-29-2009, 10:08 AM
Thanks for the thorough work on this, much appreciated.

on the results... is anyone else seeing some bad color rendition in the clouds/sky on the GH1 footage near the begining of the clips?

Ian-T
06-29-2009, 10:11 AM
on the results... is anyone else seeing some bad color rendition in the clouds/sky on the GH1 footage near the begining of the clips?I thought it was the other way around. The sky looks blue in the GH-1 footage where as the HPX seemed white and blown out a little.

Then again...in the GH-1 clips when you look at the pickup truck...or anything that is supposed to be white...they have some sort of blueish tint to it.

Thanks for this test JDS.

Ian-T
06-29-2009, 10:20 AM
I also find it amazing that the 720p in the GH-1 looks more detailed than the HPX. The 24p is super sharp...but unfortunatley very unpredictable. It wouldn't stop me from using it though.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 10:28 AM
Thanks for the thorough work on this, much appreciated.

on the results... is anyone else seeing some bad color rendition in the clouds/sky on the GH1 footage near the begining of the clips?


I thought it was the other way around. The sky looks blue in the GH-1 footage where as the HPX seemed white and blown out a little.

Then again...in the GH-1 clips when you look at the pickup truck...or anything that is supposed to be white...they have some sort of blueish tint to it.

Thanks for this test JDS.
I wouldn't judge any color from this. The HPX was a tad over exposed, the GH1 was not properly white balanced and I push / pulled a lot to try to get them into a similar look. And they seem more washed out than in FCP. Color grading this was what took the most time.

In terms of latitude the GH1 definitely seems more forgiving though and has more resolution even in 720.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 10:34 AM
I also find it amazing that the 720p in the GH-1 looks more detailed than the HPX. The 24p is super sharp...but unfortunatley very unpredictable. It wouldn't stop me from using it though.
Yeah. Make note of the smeary-ness of the asphalt in the AVCHD modes, and the super sharpness of the asphalt and everything else in MJPEG.

This is probably happening due to two things
1) You're starting with a 4K sensor, and no it doesn't do a crop of the sensor - it uses all of it then down rezes. Whether it does some kind of column skipping or something we don't know, but it's not a crop. So in terms of resolution, it's like starting with a Red and then downresing to 1K - make that 1920X180 vs. the 1280X1080 or 1280X720 vs 1280 X1080
2) the 170 is prefiltered to 1280X1080 (the subjet of much discussionb and debate around here) so starting 4K and going to 1280X720 seems better than starting 2K and going 12080X1080.

Ken7
06-29-2009, 10:48 AM
Jack, thanks for all your hard work. I'm a bit new at this 1080p 24 stuff, so I'm a bit confused. You mention "This problem is significantly reduced in 60p AVCHD making it suitable for most applications where 1080 24p might fail, and non existent in 720 30p MJPEG an intra frame codec".

I guess where I'm confused is your reference to 60p. I know that the GH1 doesn't have a 1080 60p option, so are you talking about dropping a 1080 24p clip into an editing project set up as 1080 60p? If that's the case, are you saying that this procedure doesn't require reverse pulldown (which I still can't find in my Edius Pro program)?

tonydvcoste
06-29-2009, 10:51 AM
with the abundance of FCP tutorials i should have gotten a mac :S

Ben_B
06-29-2009, 10:55 AM
Yeah the way around it is through method 1. Compressor alone, or 2. Cinema tools and then compressor or 3. Cinema tools and FCP. You get glass smooth 60p to 24p any of those three separate ways. Only dropping right into the timeline with 60p give you stutter.


Still a little confused by this workflow, probably because I don't have my GH1 yet and the test footage I have is difficult to make out differences because there is not much movement other than pans. I personally don't mind the stutter, and I think it will be unnoticable on most shots, except for ones like you did in your test, where a large object moves completely horizonitally, and we see that frames are being played in a weird pattern (3:2?)

EDIT: I'm talking about 60p to 24p here.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 11:07 AM
Jack, thanks for all your hard work. I'm a bit new at this 1080p 24 stuff, so I'm a bit confused. You mention "This problem is significantly reduced in 60p AVCHD making it suitable for most applications where 1080 24p might fail, and non existent in 720 30p MJPEG an intra frame codec".

I guess where I'm confused is your reference to 60p. I know that the GH1 doesn't have a 1080 60p option, so are you talking about dropping a 1080 24p clip into an editing project set up as 1080 60p? If that's the case, are you saying that this procedure doesn't require reverse pulldown (which I still can't find in my Edius Pro program)?
You're correct about no 1080 60p.
The modes are:
1080 24p AVCHD
720 60p AVCHD
720 30p AVCHD

Your goal is a 24p project. Whether that project is 1080 or 720 is up to you. There's an argument to be made for each:

1080 24p TIMELINE ARGUMENT: I've shot some 1080 material and I don't want to downrez that and I'm going out to blue ray or film or even down converting to SD I want to start with as much possible resolution. Besides I need to be able to tell my clients, sales agents, distributors that I'm delivering 1080 HD.

720 24p TIMELINE ARGUMENT: Why would I want to uprez my 720 footage to 1080 only to downrez it again. That has to create some kind of artifacts with all that digital manipulation. Besides I'm only going out to standard def DVD (blue ray burners are expensive) and 720 is plenty of resolution. I've seen stuff projeced from an SD DVD player in a movie theater and it looked great.

Now to the timeline setting question:
You want a 24p timeline. So any drag and drop approaches are dragging onto a 24p timeline.

60p and 30p are not really devised for reverse telecine but you can put them through reverse telecine and it will delete frames. 60i is.

If you drop them on a 24p timeline it does the exact same thing - delets frames to get to 24p. The result i somewhat choppy with 60p and very choppy with 30p.

So if you do reverse telecine with 60p or 30p material your kind of applying a process that was not designed to work.

The "Conform" then "Retime" method gets you 24p without dropping frames, but by changing the duration of the frames. First you conform, now all our 60p frames have grown longer and only 24 of them occur once a second. Now you have slow motion. So now you retime. You speed things back up and the software reinterprets the frames 24fps to a faster 24fps.

Make sense?

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 11:12 AM
Still a little confused by this workflow, probably because I don't have my GH1 yet and the test footage I have is difficult to make out differences because there is not much movement other than pans. I personally don't mind the stutter, and I think it will be unnoticable on most shots, except for ones like you did in your test, where a large object moves completely horizonitally, and we see that frames are being played in a weird pattern (3:2?)

EDIT: I'm talking about 60p to 24p here.
You may be right about it not being hat noticeable. To me it is not noticeable in the GH1 Action Short / Test in my signature banner but other's claim it is. And that's where I just threw everthing on a 24 timeline with no conversion.

The point here is to know the options and that's why the test was shot the way it was, almost the Yin to the GH1's Action short's Yang. This one was set up as a controlled experiment to really know what was going on. The Action short was about what you could get away with. So again, it's about knowing the options.

Using Cinema tools and compressor is pretty perfect. So if you want to have 24p that would look like you shot it with real 24p go that route. If the workflow seems daunting and you never notice a difference, just drop the 60p in your timeline and get on with being creative. But when you come to that tracking shot you want to be oh so smooth, then you will probably want the options of the "conform then retime" methods rather than drag and drop telecine. If you were editing Bourne Identity, drag and drop might be fine. If you have steady cam footage following Danny on his trike in the SHINING, then you would probably want the "conform and retime" over "drag and drop", or the glass smooth effect might be lost.

I don't want to make it sound like just dropping 60p footage into a 24p timeline is totally the way to go, but for some it may be fine.

Ben_B
06-29-2009, 11:17 AM
What happens to the on-camera sound when you conform and retime?

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 11:59 AM
It stays with it. Though you make a copy of the original that you can swap out the old audio for the new. Not sure why, just that I've seen this step recommended in some other workflows. Maybe there's some voodoo or subtle artifacting that may occur from slowing down your audio and speeding it up again? Dunno. But it stays in sync and with with it.

PappasArts
06-29-2009, 12:22 PM
I thought it was the other way around. The sky looks blue in the GH-1 footage where as the HPX seemed white and blown out a little.

Then again...in the GH-1 clips when you look at the pickup truck...or anything that is supposed to be white...they have some sort of blueish tint to it.

Thanks for this test JDS.


Yeah I was Pxl-peeping and the GH1 is considerably sharper; it handles the highlight edges like a DSLR instead of a camcorder. The big dense sensor playing the role here. The house in the center frame a few hundred yards away is soft in the hpx; the Gh1 still has detail and has way less edge softness like the HPX.


.

PappasArts
06-29-2009, 12:36 PM
Need some advice. I don't want to upgrade my older FCP at this moment since im not using it for business curently. I have the latest imovie, however never used it before cause I have FCP. Whenever my GH1 arrives, I would like to shoot in the 1080/24 mode however what can I use that is the best for extraction of the 1080/24 avchd. Then after extraction I need to make high quality 1080/24 M-jpeg files of those clips. Neoscene has been mentioned, I just don't want to assume that is the best option/ best quality.

So to summarize my planned process.

GH1 1080/24-> imovie capture/Neoscene or? -> Conversion of those files to M-Jpeg at 1080/24..

Am I missing any of the needed parts

BTW this is a bithchin thread, very informative and enlightening Jack!

.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 12:48 PM
Tutorial 1 is up in Post 3.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 12:56 PM
Need some advice. I don't want to upgrade my older FCP at this moment since im not using it for business curently. I have the latest imovie, however never used it before cause I have FCP. Whenever my GH1 arrives, I would like to shoot in the 1080/24 mode however what can I use that is the best for extraction of the 1080/24 avchd. Then after extraction I need to make high quality 1080/24 M-jpeg files of those clips. Neoscene has been mentioned, I just don't want to assume that is the best option/ best quality.

So to summarize my planned process.

GH1 1080/24-> imovie capture/Neoscene or? -> Conversion of those files to M-Jpeg at 1080/24..

Am I missing any of the needed parts

BTW this is a bithchin thread, very informative and enlightening Jack!

.

Voltaic or Neoscene are necessary for removing pulldown from 108024p AND properly reconstructing the interlaced chroma back to progresive.

Neoscene does one of 2 things.
1) remove pulldown and reconstruct chroma from your 108024p footage and convert the MTS files to either ProRes or Cineform.
2) convert your 60p AVCHD to Pro Res or Cineform (leaving it at 60p and and native resolution.

It doesn't do anything to the MJPEGs

The MJPEGS already come in a nice little QT wrapper from the camera. I convert them in compressor to ProRes or Quicktime.

So you need Voltaic or Neoscene for the 108024 pulldown and chroma reconstruction (can't remeber where JES deinterlacer rates, I think you can do the same but need other FCP Suite software working with it)

EDIT: I see you want to make MJPEG's not convert them. NeoScene won't do that. Only Pro Res or NeoScene QT's.

Voltaic will do it.

PappasArts
06-29-2009, 01:16 PM
EDIT: I see you want to make MJPEG's not convert them. NeoScene won't do that. Only Pro Res or NeoScene QT's.

Voltaic will do it.

I could export the cineframe file to M-Jpeg after?

I have never heard of Voltaic. How does it compare to NeoScene. I like that Neoscene does chroma correction, that sounds cool..



BTW, just DL'ed the file. It's crazy how the 720 gh1 is better than the HPX 170 @ 1080. It's almost evil wrong that a 1499 now gets you a core image jump like this and with removable endless optical choices. So evil that it taste sweet....... And this is only V.1

.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 01:22 PM
I could export the cineframe file to M-Jpeg after?

I have never heard of Voltaic. How does it compare to NeoScene. I like that Neoscene does chroma correction, that sounds cool..



BTW, just DL'ed the file. It's crazy how the 720 gh1 is better than the HPX 170 @ 1080. It's almost evil wrong that a 1499 now gets you a core image jump like this and with removable endless optical choices. So evil that it taste sweet....... And this is only V.1

.

Yes if only we could get B frames now :). If they put B frames in via firmware or in the GH1a next year, then it will be evil indeed. We're guessing that because encoding AVCHD is intensive, they got rid of B frames and made it easier on the processor by having only an I frames followed by Predictive frames.

From an email from Barry Green "So a normal long-GoP structure might look like IBBBPBBBPBBB, whereas with the GH1 there's no "B" frames so it's all IPPPPPPPPPP."

For Voltaic look at Isaac Brody's stickies in this section. It repairs the chroma as well and costs $39 vs. Cineform's $139 (I think). Cineform is a codec and so is MJPEG, so you can't have a Cineform MJPEG, you could output Cineform and then convert that to an MJPEG. But Cineform itsef only outputs two flavors. ProRes or Cineform. It's advanatage over Voltaic is that you get an awesome 422 codec that (I think) is better than ProRes and has smaller file sizes. Voltaic's advantage is more versatility. You can output to whatever you want.

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 02:06 PM
BTW, I'm going to go ahead an coin this right now...
Cam nickname = the "No 'B' H-1"
(you know for lack of B frames get it ... get it?)
Hey - I’m here all week. Try the veal. Don’t forget to tip your servers.

Ben_B
06-29-2009, 02:35 PM
How about naming it the "No 'G' H-1" because none of us have our freaking cameras yet...*grouse grouse grouse*

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-29-2009, 03:00 PM
I can semi-sympathize. Barry Green and I are sharing a camera and he has it right now for official lab testing stuff. I miss it.

http://badadvice.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c94c853ef0105362dd0a2970b-800wi

PappasArts
06-29-2009, 05:27 PM
Yes if only we could get B frames now :). If they put B frames in via firmware or in the GH1a next year, then it will be evil indeed. We're guessing that because encoding AVCHD is intensive, they got rid of B frames and made it easier on the processor by having only an I frames followed by Predictive frames.

From an email from Barry Green "So a normal long-GoP structure might look like IBBBPBBBPBBB, whereas with the GH1 there's no "B" frames so it's all IPPPPPPPPPP."

For Voltaic look at Isaac Brody's stickies in this section. It repairs the chroma as well and costs $39 vs. Cineform's $139 (I think). Cineform is a codec and so is MJPEG, so you can't have a Cineform MJPEG, you could output Cineform and then convert that to an MJPEG. But Cineform itsef only outputs two flavors. ProRes or Cineform. It's advanatage over Voltaic is that you get an awesome 422 codec that (I think) is better than ProRes and has smaller file sizes. Voltaic's advantage is more versatility. You can output to whatever you want.



Ok not evil good, however good seems more applicable....... Voltaic sounds interesting ( also sounds like a Harry Potter character ) I will download the trial.

Oh no, not that crying native American..... He makes me want to go and pick up my trash! ;-/


.

Mike@AF
06-29-2009, 07:29 PM
Voltaic or Neoscene are necessary for removing pulldown from 108024p AND properly reconstructing the interlaced chroma back to progresive.

Neoscene does one of 2 things.
1) remove pulldown and reconstruct chroma from your 108024p footage and convert the MTS files to either ProRes or Cineform.
2) convert your 60p AVCHD to Pro Res or Cineform (leaving it at 60p and and native resolution.

It doesn't do anything to the MJPEGs

The MJPEGS already come in a nice little QT wrapper from the camera. I convert them in compressor to ProRes or Quicktime.

So you need Voltaic or Neoscene for the 108024 pulldown and chroma reconstruction (can't remeber where JES deinterlacer rates, I think you can do the same but need other FCP Suite software working with it)

EDIT: I see you want to make MJPEG's not convert them. NeoScene won't do that. Only Pro Res or NeoScene QT's.

Voltaic will do it.

First, Jack... WOW... thank you very much for taking the time to do these awesome tests. It's really going to help everyone with their workflow.

So ... this is where I was confused. Are you saying that for 720p footage from the GH1, to get to 24p, we can't use Neoscene? And that's why you're using Cinema Tools/Compressor/FCP?

And then for 1080p footage we can't use Cinema Tools/Compressor/FCP? This might be where I'm confused, because I don't understand why you can't do Log & Transfer with the 1080p media, then put that media (Pro Res) through Compressor or Cinema Tools to remove the pulldown. Or is this not necessary? How much of a difference would we see between ProRes and Cineform? Are there any examples anywhere?

So basically, there's not a one application solution if you're shooting in 720p and 1080p?

Between Methods 1 and 2... you say they are both very high quality for 60p -> 24p. Is one better than the other quality-wise?

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-30-2009, 01:17 AM
WHEW! All tutorials up. It's late and I'm tired and there's likely some mistakes there. If I change anything major, I'll also make a new post pointing it out so don't take them as in stone today and subscribe to the thread so you'll know if I post correcting some crucial step a week, a month or a year down the line.



First, Jack... WOW... thank you very much for taking the time to do these awesome tests. It's really going to help everyone with their workflow.

So ... this is where I was confused. Are you saying that for 720p footage from the GH1, to get to 24p, we can't use Neoscene? And that's why you're using Cinema Tools/Compressor/FCP?

And then for 1080p footage we can't use Cinema Tools/Compressor/FCP? This might be where I'm confused, because I don't understand why you can't do Log & Transfer with the 1080p media, then put that media (Pro Res) through Compressor or Cinema Tools to remove the pulldown. Or is this not necessary? How much of a difference would we see between ProRes and Cineform? Are there any examples anywhere?

So basically, there's not a one application solution if you're shooting in 720p and 1080p?

Between Methods 1 and 2... you say they are both very high quality for 60p -> 24p. Is one better than the other quality-wise?

Mike I can answer some of that but Isaac would be better suited to answer most of it. Let me see if I can get his attention for you.

Dalton Boettcher
06-30-2009, 07:07 AM
WHEW! All tutorials up.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Excellent tutorials Jack. Thanks for continuing to make this site what it is. :dankk2:

timbook2
06-30-2009, 07:21 AM
Very nice tutorials Jack ! even though I am PAL and dont need to do most of them, its so nice to see this step by step description you so tediously made!! :beer:

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-30-2009, 08:24 AM
Thanks guys and thanks for noting and commenting on the tedious of it.
This has actually turned out to be much more rewarding than I expected though, so it's been fun finally getting it all posted.

Ok ... done some editing on the tutorials, will continue to refine.

Basically I'm recommending the all in one Compressor method over the Cinema Tools / Compressor Method and the Cinema Tools / FCP method.

Reason being in the other two methods you have to manually record and enter the duration for everything whereas, by setting the duration to "100% of Source" in Compressor in Method 1, all of the duration determining, noting, and entering is done for you - something you would have to do manually in either the Cinema Tools / Compressor version or the Cinema Tools / FCP version for each and every clip.

In Compressor
"BEST-MOTION COMPENSATED" will get you the best conversion but is 2.5 times slower than
"BETTER-MOTION COMPENSATED" which will still use the Optical Flow technology of SHAKE but render much much faster and probably be indistinguishable from "BEST"
and
"GOOD-FRAME BLENDING" obsoletes the Cinema Tools /FCP method which uses frame blending and would be the fastest method except for entering and processing each clip manually. So the all Compressor Method with the "Good" setting would be the same as doing it in FCP but you can batch everything and have it all automated.

For my workflow I'm going to try the "BETTER" setting in the all in one COMPRESSOR method.

Abstract Photog
07-01-2009, 12:46 AM
thanks for doing this! i def need to get a better handle on compressor to help my work flow out. between your test here, and what iv shot so far...its clear to me 60p converts beautifully to 24p with this camera, even with a simple grab and drop to a 24p timelime. not to mention the GH1 right on par with the HPX 170 IQ

AdrianF
07-01-2009, 06:24 AM
Thanks for writing this all down! Although I'm also from PAL land, it's still a useful resource to have. On the tests, I was amazed at how the GH1 seemed to out resolve the HPX, being able see clear down the street without the details turning to mush was pretty impressive.

PappasArts
07-01-2009, 02:23 PM
Jack , what were the GH1 settings at; like ISO, Sharpness, color and contrast?

Was iexposure off or on?


.

dmoreno
07-01-2009, 02:28 PM
Reserved for Raw Files for you to play with.
Raw 60p and 24p from the GH1 would be great to let us PC users try our own frame rate conversion workflows!!
Thanks for the great efforts!

PappasArts
07-02-2009, 04:02 PM
Jack , what were the GH1 settings at; like ISO, Sharpness, color and contrast?

Was iexposure off or on?


.

Jack, are you there?

Jack Daniel Stanley
07-02-2009, 08:38 PM
Sorry guys, I've been swamped. Have 3 projects shooting starting 7/13.

Pappas for the frame rate test:
"standard film setting"
-2 contrast (I think)
-2 sharpening
-2 NR


For the GH1 action short it was:
Smooth Setting
-2 Contrast
-2 Sharpening
0 Color
-2 NR
I think iexposre off.

Though from Barry's preliminary tests it looks like he's finding that there's no reason to be scared of NR on this camera.

I think I would keep my Contrast at 0 now but would keep the sharpening at -2. Becuase really there's no such thing as -2 sharpening - it's not blurring the image in other words. -2,-1,0,1,2 is really 0,1,2,3,4,5. So I prefer to turn it down and add sharpening in post if I need it. There's plenty of resolution to be had and like I said -2 is not +2 blur, it's just sharpening off.

Dmoreno bear with me. It may be after the weekend before I get files up for you to play wuth.

PappasArts
07-02-2009, 10:12 PM
Sorry guys, I've been swamped. Have 3 projects shooting starting 7/13.

Pappas for the frame rate test:
"standard film setting"
-2 contrast (I think)
-2 sharpening
-2 NR


For the GH1 action short it was:
Smooth Setting
-2 Contrast
-2 Sharpening
0 Color
-2 NR
I think iexposre off.

Though from Barry's preliminary tests it looks like he's finding that there's no reason to be scared of NR on this camera.

I think I would keep my Contrast at 0 now but would keep the sharpening at -2. Becuase really there's no such thing as -2 sharpening - it's not blurring the image in other words. -2,-1,0,1,2 is really 0,1,2,3,4,5. So I prefer to turn it down and add sharpening in post if I need it. There's plenty of resolution to be had and like I said -2 is not +2 blur, it's just sharpening off.

Dmoreno bear with me. It may be after the weekend before I get files up for you to play wuth.


Thank you Jack! I agree, never liked detail circuits too... Interesting what Barry feels about NR. Good for when you gotta push the ISO!

Patiently waiting for my GH1 to arrive!
.

dvpixl
07-03-2009, 05:56 AM
didnt see this till now. Thanks for your hard work JDS.

dmoreno
07-13-2009, 01:42 AM
Reserved for Raw Files for you to play with.
I know you know... but still waiting for the 60p raw file to play with it! :beer::dankk2:

Polanski
08-01-2009, 08:36 AM
All this is GREAT! But what about us, people that don't use MAC? Yes, I know all lovers of MAC mabybe thinking now... I don't have a MAC, because I hate MAC. I have my reasons.
The point is: Can I find something similar for PC? What's the equivalent of Cinema Tools?

Thanks

submasonic
08-02-2009, 07:59 AM
Your "Machete vs. Pipe" link leads to a statistic page, Just wanted to check out your work with this camera, Is that what your useing now on all your projects? Thanks

Jack Daniel Stanley
08-02-2009, 09:41 AM
Not sure what you mean by static page - I guess you're referring to the Machete vs. Pipe thread?
The vimeo link to the actual film is about 6 lines down in large yellow letters on that page.

I don't know if I'd say I'm definitively using it for all of my projects, that's a project by project decision, but I'm very happy to own it and know I can go shoot great looking projects by myself whenever I want and I do plan to use it again.

submasonic
08-02-2009, 10:32 AM
Thanks for fixing the Link, I enjoyed that "down and dirty" short.

Jack Daniel Stanley
08-02-2009, 10:34 AM
LOL. I did nothing to the link - but glad you liked it. maybe you clicked on the link while they were updating the forum last night.
:beer:

submasonic
08-04-2009, 04:49 PM
Whatever, I 'm just happy that I was finally able to get to your short. So much I took the time to explore all your videos listed. As well as the horror-fest promo. I enjoyed all of them, and look forward to seeing your "Texas X files" treatment. Thanks Again!

Jack Daniel Stanley
08-04-2009, 05:45 PM
Hey thanks man, glad you enjoyed the box set (or at least what's publicly available right now):)
:beer:

yia
08-27-2009, 10:13 PM
when changing 720p60 to 1080p24 the setting is HD 10 bit uncompressed 1080p24 rite

Jack Daniel Stanley
08-27-2009, 11:26 PM
Your general timeline settings have no bearing on the frame rate conversion. Only the frame rate setting itself, which should be 23.98, is a factor.

My settings are ProRes 23.98 for example.

But they could be uncompressed 23.98. DvcPro HD 23.98, etc.

Mike@AF
08-29-2009, 03:37 PM
Wouldn't you do the 720p60 to 720p24 (23.98) conversion, then drop the 720p24 (23.98) clip on a 1080p24 (23.98) timeline? That's what I've always done and it's worked great. I suppose you could also directly convert 720p60 to 1080p24, but I've never tried it. Does it make a difference?

Jack Daniel Stanley
08-29-2009, 04:21 PM
Wouldn't you do the 720p60 to 720p24 (23.98) conversion, then drop the 720p24 (23.98) clip on a 1080p24 (23.98) timeline? That's what I've always done and it's worked great. I suppose you could also directly convert 720p60 to 1080p24, but I've never tried it. Does it make a difference?

It might. Scaling in FCP is pretty good compared to some NLE's. But who knows. Try it and see if it significantly increases your conversion time. Compressor will probably due a better job with all the scaling controls set to best, but again, FCP scaling is good.

I can't remember if I've updated the first part of the thread yet or not - but for most 720 60p I don't even convert. Just drop it in the timeline. I think with compressor doing the retiming you get weird Dali painting frames, hands with hoop shaped fingers, etc., whenever you have a lot of kinetic fast motion (like most of the machete vs. pipe fight). From 60p to 24 I'm just dropping in the NLE, for irregular, non constant motion it looks good and no weird frames. For any smooth constant motion like a car gldiing by or a dolly shot or a canoe floating by, that's when I'd use the time intensive conversion methods I outlined in the first page. For one thing, you need the smooth motion, that kind of instancs is where the slight jerkiness will show up if you just drop things in the timeline. For another thing you're less likely to get weird blended frames because the motion is constant so its easier for the software to interpolate what new made up frame should come betweem the two pre-existing frames.

Ben_B
09-15-2009, 01:36 AM
Lately my workflow has been 720p60-->720p24p by dropping in Final Cut...then going back and judging shot by shot if some don't look good, and redoing those specific ones with the pure compressor method.

1080i/24p been doing pulldown removal with compressor (but I don't shoot 1080 much but will probably start.) I'm not usually on a time crunch so I can plan the encoding times in.

ROCKMORE
11-26-2009, 02:00 AM
What happens when you drop a PAL 50p or 25p shot into a 24p timeline and export to NTSC 29.97? (Computer explodes?)

Chris Light
11-26-2009, 02:07 AM
What happens when you drop a PAL 50p or 25p shot into a 24p timeline and export to NTSC 29.97? (Computer explodes?)


that's just rebellious. :costumed-smiley-047

ROCKMORE
11-26-2009, 05:09 AM
What happens when you drop a PAL 50p or 25p shot into a 24p timeline and export to NTSC 29.97? (Computer explodes?)

Actually it was a serious question. I'm shooting in a PAL region and need to also convert to NTSC and wanted to know if anyone tried this conversion method.

Martti Ekstrand
11-26-2009, 05:24 AM
Going 25 to 24 and then 29.97 straight within a NLE like you suggest will either result in a badly stuttering clip or a mushy multiple frame-blended one depending of if you have frame blending on or off. Better to go straight from 25 to 29.97 if programme length is set in stone, it will still have a slight stutter or frame blending but as bad than the additive effect of your idea. Here in Europe in the past we often saw things done the other way: 24 fps first scanned to 29.97 with pulldown and then transferred to 25 - which looked just ghastly.

Barry_Green
11-26-2009, 08:51 AM
I would convert 25p to 24p frame-for-frame, and change the audio runtime length.

You can then add 3:2 pulldown to go to NTSC if necessary (if going to DVD, this step is not necessary, all DVD players support 24p files and will add pulldown when needed).

It'll look perfect.

ROCKMORE
11-26-2009, 12:09 PM
How would it work with the 7D shot at 24p (23.976) and edited in a 24p timeline for both PAL & NTSC export?

The 25p frame-for-frame conversion sounds like the best idea I've heard yet to go from 25p pal to 24p.
What is the best procedure to do that? Audio adjustment will just be about 4%.

Martti Ekstrand
11-26-2009, 01:30 PM
I already said a couple of times (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1816797) that 25 to 24 frame-for-frame and then go to 29.97 plus add pulldown is the best option unless one needs to fill a exact timeslot but I can concur once more :)

I don't know what options exist on PC. On OSX doing it in Cinema Tools is a very easy and fast process and any embedded audio just follows video. Some nitpickers thinks the 4% shift in pitch must be fixed and if so that's a pretty straightforward thing to do in most audio editors.

Barry_Green
11-26-2009, 08:08 PM
How would it work with the 7D shot at 24p (23.976) and edited in a 24p timeline for both PAL & NTSC export?

If it's for DVD, just master the 24p NTSC version. PAL DVD players can play NTSC 24p DVDs.

ROCKMORE
11-27-2009, 04:47 AM
If it's for DVD, just master the 24p NTSC version. PAL DVD players can play NTSC 24p DVDs.

They would be for broadcast NTSC & PAL

Chris Messineo
02-10-2010, 06:40 PM
I am late to the party on this thread, but just wanted to say how helpful it was.

Thanks a lot Jack.

jackcklam
02-22-2010, 03:34 AM
I have a documentary project coming. Obviously, it will be a real hassle to convert each clip from 720 60p to 24p in compressor before we even start editing.

What about dragging the 60p clips to a 30p timeline in fcp? That will give me a 30p output for DVD distribution. Then I can export the edited timeline to 24fps via Compressor if we need to make a film print.

Do you think it is the most streamlined and sensible workflow for such project? Am I going to run into trouble and get motion artifacts when I export to 24fps?

thx

Blackout
05-05-2010, 03:54 PM
Been looking at this again - does anyone have a PC workflow for this? Windows 7 64bit

blues
06-05-2010, 09:09 PM
My project has to be shot with a GH1 at 1080/24p and edited with FCP 6.01

my question is: if I my second cam is a GF1 which only shoots the maximum size of 720p ( am not sure what frame rates) and placed the clips in the 1080/24p timeline which my GH1 originally had, how will it affect the Gf1 clips, will it be pixelized or cropped? How do I integrate the GF1 in terms of frame rates and lookingeven in my timeline?

Barry_Green
06-05-2010, 10:16 PM
Well, that's a challenge. The GF1 only shoots 720/30p. That doesn't match either of your requirements (1080p and 24p). I don't think a GF1 is going to mix in very well at all.

I guess you have a few choices: you could shoot 720/30 and try to convert it to 1080/24, but I think that's gonna look pretty lousy. Or, you could shoot 720/30p on both of them, they'll match great, but they won't meet your deliverable requirement -- so then you can ask the client if it MUST be in 24p... you can upscale 720p to 1080p with little effort and it'll probably look okay, but changing 30p to 24p is not that easily accomplished.

Or, you can try to get a second GH1 as the B-camera...

If you have a GH1, you can try it out for yourself; put it in MJPG mode and that's 720/30p, so just try putting it in the timeline next to a 1080/24p clip and see if you're satisfied with the results...

blues
06-06-2010, 03:23 AM
I did just that put it in the timeline,looks ok but had to slow down the 720p clip by using the speed setting of FCP so it matches(more or less) since GF1 was shooting in 30fps..I slowed it down to 80 to look normal.The client is going to project this on a big cinema screen...am just afraid that the clips of GF1 outputted to 1080 might pixelize? I wont see the difference in my monitor but will it show in the big screen?

Jack Daniel Stanley
06-06-2010, 09:34 AM
speed setting will give you slow motion

FCP will auto scale up the 720 footage to match the 1080 and it will do a decent job.

If the GF1 is anything like the GH1 there may be all sorts of weirdness going on that will be accentuated once you blow it up though. So make sure you're getting a clean image with plenty of light without pushing the ISO too high.

Just dropping it on the time line will convert it to 24p as outlined in the methods at the beginning of this thread. For non fluid motion it will probably look OK. For fluid stuff it will look jerky - if you shot a hockey puck slowly sliding across ice it will now look jerky - if you shot someone having a coniption fit or talking it probably wont look noticebly jerky.

If you shot something that can be converted to slight slow mo - which is what using the speed function will do, i.e, anything without dialogue (can't do this unless you slow the dialogue down too) then you are golden in terms of the frame rate conversion. It will be flawless 24p but it will be a slight slow mo compared to the source footage.

So if it's something that can be in slight slow mo, and you shoot it incredibly clean, you might get away with it.

blues
06-06-2010, 11:05 AM
thanks a lot..would probably need the GF1 shots to service inserts or voice over without lip sync. Its also very handy being small in size so i can set it up where the bigger GH1 cannot.plus I have started to use nikon prime lenses on the GF1 that seems to produce sharper and a greater depth of field when apertures are set to minimum.

You are right that 720 /30p scales itself to 1080 in a FCP 24p timeline. I will try and test that mix (720 and 1080) into a dvd and project it on a much bigger screen and watch for that weirdness you mentioned that may appear.

Thanks again....

one dog
06-16-2010, 09:15 PM
quick q I can't get a straight answer to anywhere else... what shutter speed do I shoot in if I'm using AVCHD 720p 60fps? Thanks! I'm shooting a documentary and am about to buy a 2nd GH1 and I want to make triple sure I'm doing everything right. Oh... and what shutter speed to use if I'm doing slo-mo? Thanks again.

-Dan

Barry_Green
06-16-2010, 09:52 PM
1/60 for "live" footage. 1/120 for if you intend to use the footage for slow-mo.

one dog
06-16-2010, 11:15 PM
I've been over on the GH1 group on Vimeo for a while, and it seems like everyone is saying for 'live' footage you have to double the frame rate, ie. 60fps = 1/120 shutter speed (though it looks like 1/120th isn't even an option?). I'm not much of a techie, so I can't say why, and I could equally be misinterpreting what I'm reading.

So if I shoot my 720p 60fps at 1/60, I'll be good (and also give myself an easier conversion to 24p?)

thanks!

Barry_Green
06-16-2010, 11:18 PM
I can't believe how misunderstood the shutter speed is. It's amazing the kind of things people out there say.

Here's the absolute real deal: if you want the "live look", you shoot 720/60p at 1/60th, and that's it. Done. Forget about 1/120.

If you want to shoot 60fps for use as slow motion in a 24p or 30p project, THAT is when you'd use 1/120.

And if for some reason you want to convert 720/60p to 24p, you'll be much much much better off with 1/60th instead of 1/120th.

one dog
06-17-2010, 09:59 AM
Awesome... thanks!

kmoreau893
06-28-2010, 06:06 PM
I like to shoot 30P (29.97FPS to be more exact). Does anybody have experience in converting the GH1 1080i in AVCHD mode to 30 P, shutter speed, etc? Thanks much for any advice.

Barry_Green
06-28-2010, 08:03 PM
The GH1 doesn't have 1080i. It has 1080/24p embedded within 60i. No way to get 30p from that.

if you want 30p, best to just use the MJPG mode, which is 720/30p.

sebek
02-23-2011, 07:21 PM
I can't believe how misunderstood the shutter speed is. It's amazing the kind of things people out there say.

Here's the absolute real deal: if you want the "live look", you shoot 720/60p at 1/60th, and that's it. Done. Forget about 1/120.

If you want to shoot 60fps for use as slow motion in a 24p or 30p project, THAT is when you'd use 1/120.

And if for some reason you want to convert 720/60p to 24p, you'll be much much much better off with 1/60th instead of 1/120th.

Is this really true?? I was told as a beginner when shooting (regular not going for slow motion) at 720/60p to shoot at 120 shutter and at 1080/24p at 60 shutter speed. Now I'm really confused :(

sebek
02-23-2011, 07:35 PM
I think I found the answers: 720/60p - 1/60 shutter, 1080/24p - 1/60 or 1/40 or 1/30 correct?