FX1™ footage - CF24 mode

Status
Not open for further replies.
reflex

reflex

Well-known member
Alright everyone, I noticed that some people were asking me how the CF24 mode really looks. So here is some sample footage.

I took some shots outdoors and indoors, some fast panning/motion of the camera, some static shots, no tripods or anything, everything shot in CF24 mode with cinematone ON, and then I applied magic bullet look No. 85 in post. Thats it.

Then I compressed this to a WMV 9 HD 1440 x 1080p ( deinterlacing in PPro 2.0 ) I didn't have time to make a QT file yet.. but if enough people scream I will do it.

This test was for people wanting to see how things look with fast camera action compared to slow camera action.

The only thing on the clips I'm not sure of is that I might have had the shutter speed set a bit higher than 60 ( maybe 250? ) for some of the geese and seagull shots.


Anyway, check it out if you can.... 95 MB's // WMV 9 HD // aprox 1.5 min long.


Same as always.... RIGHT CLICK AND SAVE AS PLEASE...

http://www.reflexive-cinematics.com/miscvideos/CF24.wmv


:dankk2:
 
Last edited:
Haya, broham. The footage looks really nice. What did you use to deintarlace? The first shoots are a very good example to everyone who keeps exagerating on how bad the FX1 handlles artifacts. You zoomed in and paned and I didn't see ANY artifacts. By the way, were you using a 35mm adapter? Some shots had a nice clean DOF.
 
Last edited:
rawfa said:
Haya, broham. The footage looks really nice. What did you use to deintarlace?
Click to expand...

I just used Premiere to deinterlace... I'm VERY suprised how well premiere deinterlaces.

The first shoots are a very good example to everyone who keeps exagerating on how bad the FX1 handling artifacts. You zoomed in and paned and I didn't ANY artifacts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all the 'bird' shots were done at full zoom.

By the way, were you using a 35mm adapter? Some shots had a nice clean DOF.
Click to expand...

No adapter. The lens is really nice on the FX, so even being the right distance and/or zooming just a little bit will get you a nice DOF.




:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
I prefer 60i in all situations but I will say this. I have seen a number of posts on this board and on dvinfo that are shot on the FX1 CF24, but posted as another camera, and out of the 2-3 posts with 30 replies, only one person said anything about it not looking like true 24.

Granted 24 looks horrible number wise, but unless your doing a fast movement I think it looks fine. I shoot little things for school such as openers etc.. in cf and no one could care less.
 
I can't wait for HD to be the main format (tvs, dvds, etc) so that everybody can apreciate HD as they should (on a proper HD display). I really like my footage once downconverted to SD... but when I see it in HD, oh boy, my heart really pumps!
 
I have seen a number of posts on this board and on dvinfo that are shot on the FX1 CF24, but posted as another camera
Click to expand...

Not sure your point on that but care to show us these threads and clips ?
 
Why would you want to deinterlace CF24? Is it not on tape as 60i with 2:3 pulldown? Would you not then just remove the pulldown?
 
Why not remove the pulldown? Well I was under the impression the CF 24 mode was some progressive frames and some interlaced. I can see some interlacing on the computer during the adobe media encoder view, when you can see what its going to look like... So it must be interlaced somewhat. Plus, I don't have aspect HD so this works just fine for what I do. I did try removing the pulldown with the trial version of aspect, and it worked well. I just think, like was mentioned before, that most people can't really tell 24p from CF24. I mean yeah there are people that can tell but the majority prob couldn't. In fact , I probably would have a hard time telling the difference most of the time. Adam Wilt's site also says that if you don't care too much about having true 24p, just want some 'in camera fakery', and CF30 is too smooth for you its a great tool to have in your toolbox.
 
Last edited:
Macgregor shot a very interesting comparison between the dvx100 and the Fx1, and after proper post it was amazing how similiar both looked. But I really don't want to get into ONE MORE X vs Z. These discussion are so stressfull.

Peace to you all! And Reflex...keep on filming and keep on posting ;-)
 
Reflex,

That footage looks great. I shot some geese also and switched around (60i and 24CF) and my 24 footage looked crappy. I'm thinking maybe that shutter speed had something to do with it. Your footage looks miles above mine.

Time to go back and use a higher shutter speed I guess.

Good stuff!
 
yeah, I mean taht high shutter speed for fast action has been around for quite a while, meaning a 'hot look'. I think it must just 'clean' things up a bit and get rid of blur that would otherwise make the image look a little crappier
 
Groupthink?

Groupthink?

Alright, I have yet to see the footage (I will in a sec.), but it seems like everyone is bashing the CF24 possibly because of bias; not necessarily based on evidence. Again, I'll see if I can tell the difference once I DO see the video. Thing is, most good footage I've seen on the FX1 has been shot using CF25; and it seems Barry Green would agree that CF24 looks like crap, while CF25 is okay.

I'm really hoping all the negative reviews of CF24 isn't a result of groupthink or some type of cognitive bias; cause if it is, that would mean I was a result of it (and probably many, many people) who have purchased another camera based on those negative reviews.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top