Optimal XL2 settings for 35mm blowup

[dvxStephen]

Barry Green, are you or anyone else you know working on an XL2 book in the vein of your fabulous DVXbook (and DVD!)?

I'm shooting a docu-drama (people-based) on some XL2s, that's destined for DVD, TV broadcast, and 35mm blowup. I'll be working in 16x9, 24p 2:3:3:2.

Question is, how to best set up XL2 cameras to give me a wide-laditude film look that will also blow up well?

For example, thanks to Barry's DVX book and DVD, I understand that I'm going to want to shoot with sharpness turned down to avoid artifacts in the blowup. But how much? The eventual 35mm "upres'- result is something that's obviously expensive to test!

To that end, I'm looking for information on the best settings (and a fuller description of how Canon's set up) all the more arcane functions in the menus such as SetUP level, Mast. Pedestal, Skin Detail, Coring, black, vertical detail, and sharpness.

Thanks!

Stephen
Westwood Creek Productions

[Barry_Green]

Hi Stephen,

There are several different projects in the pipeline; an XL2 Book/DVD is one of the foremost. Depends on a few things, I'll know more soon. It's certainly a project I'd like to take on!

As for film settings, I'd recommend you start with DVFilm.com's recommended settings:
http://dvfilm.com/xl2/index.htm

However, he recommends vertical detail be "low", and that seems backward to me. You'd want vertical detail set to "normal" for maximum resolution; "low" is for interlaced TV display.

For testing, some places will do a small test for a very low fee, so you can try 'em in advance and see if you like the results. Just contact the labs and ask.

[dvxStephen]

Barry,

Thanks so much for your prompt reply, and the web link. Most helpful! And great to hear a book may be in the offing.

Incidentally, do you have any recommendations for 35mm blow up labs? Gotchas to watch out for?
Stephen

[Barry_Green]

Only labs I've used for blow-up are 4MC, Film Craft and DVFilm. DVFilm provided the best service. The only "gotcha" that I can think of is, you've got to listen to them and work with them and give them the footage the way they want it. Pay attention to their recommendations for the best results; if you just go off and do it your own way without regard to what they need you to do, it may not turn out nearly as well. Call 'em and talk to 'em before you even start shooting.

[dvxStephen]

Barry, thanks again. Great advice; in fact I'm going to attempt to take your original suggestion and do a test shoot followed by a test blowup to 35 before we begin actual production.

Related question: When we're working outdoors, our budget is going to limit us to butterfly scrims and reflector fills, and sometimes not even that if we've got a moving subject.

When the sun's at play, do you have any further suggestions regarding ways to optomize the XL2's settings with huge dynamic range scenes like this -- where we want, as much as possible, a rich cine look?

I know there are limits of course, but how would you suggest we set up the camera, for example, to maximize usable shadows and minimize blown out highlights and background?

Thanks!
Stephen
Westwood Studio

[Barry_Green]

My best suggestion would be to bring along a well-versed, highly-skilled director of photography. Not being facetious, but just calling it like it is -- you're asking about THE most challenging circumstances for any video camera, and controlling light and controlling contrast range are very complex issues depending on each circumstance. Whether you scrim or flag or fill or bounce or whatnot is going to have more effect than any change in camera settings. For example, in a scene in a driveway, you might have a case of proper exposure on the faces, but the driveway itself is blowing out white and looks horrible. How do you control that? Old-school is to hose down the driveway, getting it wet will make it darker and less reflective, and thus less likely to blow out. But you can't do that with settings, you just have to have someone there who knows how to (and when to) do that stuff.

Contrast is controlled with flags, with nets, with graduated ND filters, with fill light, bounced light, the "black stretch" setting, all sorts of things. I'm sure you know that already, but I'm just spelling it out for those who may not.

I wish there were an easy answer, but there isn't. (actually, there may be, but if there is I don't know it). Use your zebras, and use DV Rack with both dark and light zebras and a waveform monitor so you can balance contrast and keep it within reach. Black Stretch may help a little, and setting the knee lower may help some, but overall it probably won't make much of a difference, certainly not as much as controlling the contrast from the beginning.

[dvxStephen]

Barry,

Thanks for your thoughtful answer re outdoors.

One question on your previous reply, "However, he recommends vertical detail be "low", and that seems backward to me. *You'd want vertical detail set to "normal" for maximum resolution; "low" is for interlaced TV display."

From your DVX book, as I understand it, one wants to make DV footage a bit on the soft side when the media target includes 35mm, since otherwise DV compression artifacts and "sharpening" edge detail enhancements are emphasized. From your reply, I gather this doesn't apply to vertical edge res?

[Barry_Green]

It's not the same thing. The "low" setting is akin to the "thick" setting on a DVX; the "normal" setting is akin to the "thin" setting on the DVX. It's actual real genuine resolution we're talking about with normal/low, vs. artificial edge enhancement or "sharpening".

You want as much real resolution as you can get, without resorting to fake sharpening.

[lacuna]

Barry, to take some of the sharpness off the XL2 whilst retaining resolution (and to prevent aliasing), would you recommend a mild grade of pro-mist, black pro-mist or black diffusion filter?

If one's only intent is to reduce aliasing for a more film like look, which filter would you recommend?

Thanks!

[Barry_Green]

I'm not sure that's the right approach -- after watching Jarred's filter DVD, it was distracting to see on the pro-mists how much of the filter pattern could be seen in the image!

I'd say a better choice would be to experiment with the in-camera menu option for detail level, cranking it down until you get the results you're looking for. *The XL2 seems overly artificially sharpened (as does the FX1) but both offer the ability to turn the detail down quite a way.

If I was going to use a pro-mist, I'd use a black pro-mist at a very mild grade.

[dvxStephen]

"The XL2 seems overly artificially sharpened (as does the FX1) but both offer the ability to turn the detail down quite a way."

With that in mind, for the XL, Do you agree with DVFilm.com's recommended XL2 > blowup settings in terms of sharpness?
Sharpness = 0
Noise Reduction = OFF
Skin Tone Detail = 0

One other question, which in the case of the HVR, just involves throwing a switch as I understand it, although with the XL2 it would require buying or renting a different body of course:

Several people have told me to look into PAL. Do you have any thoughts on shooting 16:9 in PAL 25 on either of these cameras as a way to optomize the 35 mm blowup potential?

From what I understand (partly from your past words on the subject, Barry), working in PAL is a waste of time if the target platform is DVDs and NTSC broadcast. But what if 35's also an option that we're trying to hold open?

As I understand it, the workflow would involve editing in PAL (to keep the high res version till fine cut, so it's still there during export for film upres).

As I understand it, the transistion to 24fps requires a 4% slowdown for best quality. If that's right, it suggests that there would be this moment, AFTER editing is complete when the project audio would loose about half a semi-tone in pitch and speed, and all on screen motion and shot timings would also slow by 4%. Yes? Seems like that might cause some reaction in a discerning client who's just approved a particular look in their fine cut!

Thoughts?
Thanks!

[Barry_Green]

I would recommend following the settings that are recommended by the lab that you're planning on having do the transfer. So if you're going with DVFilm, use their recommendations (although double-check on that normal/low situation). If you're using a different transfer house, don't use DVFilm's settings, use the settings recommended by that transfer place. Each system may perform differently and extract better results from different settings, so use what your place recommends.


Several people have told me to look into PAL. Do you have any thoughts on shooting 16:9 in PAL 25 on either of these cameras as a way to optomize the 35 mm blowup potential?
Yes, and here I differ with Marcus at DVFilm -- he says definitely go PAL if you can, because you get the best blowup from that. I say -- yes, PAL could give you a better-resolution blowup, BUT: if you're shooting specifically for a 35mm print, I think it's a silly, silly idea to shoot on DV in the first place. You'll spend about $30,000 to blow it up, and the results (even from PAL) won't compare at all to how it would have looked if you'd just shot on 35mm in the first place. And the net cost can be quite comparable.

So if you KNOW you're going to end up on 35mm, DO NOT SHOOT DV! Shoot on 35mm.

If you don't know whether you'll end up on 35mm (and 99% of projects who think they *might* end up on 35mm never do) then you're talking about compromising the workflow, spending more to rent a different camera, slowing down audio, motion compensation, resizing video, etc... all to get a worse-looking final product, just so you can potentially get a slightly better-looking film blowup which you're likely never to do anyway.

Back before there was 24P, the PAL advice made some sense, because you were really looking at a borderline situation between "acceptable" and "not acceptable" film transfer. But now with NTSC 24P, THIN line detail, you're getting 480 lines of resolution, quite a bit more than any PAL camera ever did. So your NTSC 24P film blowup is going to look quite a bit better than all those prior PAL blowups. A 25P PAL blowup can maybe look better still, but I think the risk/reward ratio is totally not in favor of using that method. Yes the film blowup will look a little better, but the DVD/broadcast/NTSC version will look worse, and be more of a pain to work with and generate, so you have to decide which is more important to you: the "maybe" of the film blowup, or the definite of the DVD release? And if the film blowup truly is more important, just shoot film in the first place.

For PAL release, it's a no-brainer, shoot 25P for both video and for film blowup. But for NTSC release with the "maybe" of a film blowup, NTSC 24P is the way I'd go.

[dvxStephen]

Barry, thanks once again for your generous willingness to share your expertise here. Your answer makes great sense.

We're firmly in the "don't know" re 35mm camp. In fact, I'd place the 35mm blowup chance at around 50%; there won't be a budget raising effort for it till we have a rough cut. Just need to keep the door propped open.

As such, the "thin line detail" setting may be problematic unless we deal with it in post, when exporting our product for CRT monitor-based markets, right? What's the best way to handle that in your view for the edit intended for DVD and broadcast? (We're cutting with Final Cut Pro.)

Also, are there any other camera settings that I'd need "to leave the 35 door open" that will require similar tweaks in post to be compatible with DVD & TV markets?

Finally, I've assumed I should go with 2:3:3:2, but maybe that's in error. Under the circumstances, would you recommend 2:3 24p?

Thanks!

[Barry_Green]

Definitely 2:3:3:2, definitely thin line detail, those are the two most important settings. And if shooting on the XL2 for widescreen DVD and preserving the film option, obviously you're going to want to shoot in 16:9 as well.

You can overcome the interline twitter on thin line detail for your DVD release by using whatever FCP incorporates for a "flicker reduction" filter, so that's not a worry at all. I don't know FCP, so if it doesn't have "flicker reduction", you can also do it by applying a vertical-only gaussian blur at probably the smallest amount possible.

[dvxStephen]

This exchange has been incredibly useful. The next logical question would be, I guess: what editing timeline protocol, say in Final Cut ProHD, would you recommend in the scenario we're talking about here? That is, would you suggest editing in 24 fps, or doing the major assembly work using the native DV NTSC 29.97 that the footage will initially import with?

[Unix]

hey Barry does that DVfilm Maker program really enhance 24pa footage?

or what does it do for cameras that already shoot at 24p?

[Barry_Green]

I'm not the guy to ask. *I'd ditch FCP and use Vegas in 24P mode, but I understand that there are many devoted FCP users. *Most definitely for film print release or for DVD release, you should be editing in a native 24P timeline. Your master version should be a 24P DVD and you'll also be able to output a raw 24P sequence for film xfer.

[mgalvan]

This exchange has been incredibly useful. The next logical question would be, I guess: what editing timeline protocol, say in Final Cut ProHD, would you recommend in the scenario we're talking about here? That is, would you suggest editing in 24 fps, or doing the major assembly work using the native DV NTSC 29.97 that the footage will initially import with?

Hi dvxStephen,

If you are shooting in 24pa (2:3:3:2), then you definitely want to work in a 23.98 timeline in FCPHD. FCPHD can remove the advanced pulldown cadence upon capture of your footage and revert it back to its true 24fps(23.98) glory. This would allow you to edit in a true 24fps timeline. With your final product, you can do a clean transfer to film if that does indeed become an option. You can also take your project then and make a 24p DVD and let DVD players do the 3:2 pulldown for playback.

Only use DV NTSC 29.97 if you only shot in 24p (not advanced) and your intended final viewing is on an interlaced monitor. In other words for your case, shoot 24pa and follow what I said above.

Hope this helps ...

[dvxStephen]

Thanks, mgalvan, for the clarification. And Barry, if you ever do write an XL2 book, I'll buy 2 and give one to my AC. Hey- it's the least I can do for all your generous advice here!

What you've both written here sounds right. It's also helped me to clarify what I was actually trying to ask. It's a bit reminiscent of the PAL question:

I know about the 24 fps editing option. But since much of my market is broadcast-based, and a 35 mm blowup is uncertain, I assume this suggests a workflow where it goes like this:

1) shooting in 24pa, (saved as 60i to tape inside camera)

2) converting the 24pa (2:3:3:2) scheme back to 24 fps in Final Cut or whatever the editor of choice is. I understand there's an advantage to this in that hard drive file sizes generated by (and after) the conversion will be smaller at 24fps.

editing to a fine cut

outputting at 24 fps for DVD use or possible up-res to film -- which also means more material can fit on the DVD compared to 30fps material.

And - converting BACK to 60i standard NTSC for output that I'd be giving to the broadcast folks. I assume they will require standard 29.997 fps, right? But -- is there any noticible quality loss in this last step?

That is, my alternative is to just shoot in 24p, edit at 30fps, and do any 24 fps conversions at the end instead of at the beginning of post. I know this involves the somewhat less advantagous pulldown scheme that 24p introduces when going back to 24fps, not to mention losing the other 24 fps advantages described above -- but my broadcast target material won't have gone through the shenanagins described above. That's how I'm thinking this may be a bit like the PAL question -- I don't want to significantly compromise my primary markets (broadcast/DVD) to optomize the option of 35mm blowup that may never happen.

Related q: are there any particular "usability" disadvantages of editing in 24fps on the timeline?

Thanks!

[Barry_Green]

Your first scenario is the way you want to do it. Do *not* try to edit 24PN on a 60i timeline and then try to convert back to 24P at the end! It'll be nearly impossible to avoid cutting on a split frame, which would make the conversion back impossible (or at least uglier than necessary!)

The 24P edit, and 60i for broadcast is the right way to do it. Converting the true 24P to 60i will involve a quick recompression but if you're using an editing program with a good solid codec, it should be a nearly transparent conversion.

As far as "usability disadvantages"... can't speak for FCP, but on Vegas all I can say is that using a 24P timeline means it's faster, cleaner, quicker rendering, less rotoscoping... no disadvantages at all.

[dvxStephen]

Barry, in your first message of this thread, you mention that the one way you disagree with DVFilm's XL2 to 35mm settings recommendations is with their request that Vertical Detail be set to Low. I checked with Marcus van Bavel of DV films about this. He reports that Canon's web site has an apparent typo where they have the descriptions reversed, see http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=114&mo delid=10350#custcine under "Vertical Detail"

Marcus has since updated his XL2 vertical detail recommendation to match yours -- to Normal. (At http://dvfilm.com/xl2/index.htm)

Nice catch, Barry!

Stephen

[strancali]

Barry is the man!