24F Not Good Enough For Film Transfer?

Barry_Green said:
Just ask Marcus to come over here and offer his clarifications. He participates in this forum, his userid is "mvb". He probably wrote that recommendation and could tell you exactly the reasoning.

If I was shooting something on a Canon for film transfer, I'd shoot 24F as well. It may be a little softer, but I'd take that in exchange for the variabilities of a 60i->24P conversion. I'd also rather conduct my edit in 24 progressive frames rather than use a 60i source any day.
Click to expand...

I will drop him a line in regard to this question. I'm with you on flat out preferring 24F/24P to 60i generated 24P motion as well. I like the WYSIWYG aspect of it, and am just curious as to why A1/G1/H1 users, who would still, even at 24F, be operating at a resolution higher than the likely most often used HXV resolution (720P), would need to comprimise their motion quality due to a resolution hit. For the HXV the recommendations/caveats are as follows....


http://www.dvfilm.com/hvx200/index.htm

"Recommended Settings for the Panasonic HVX200 and Transfer to Film

Shoot 1080/24PA format (1080/25P for European model) with 1/48th sec (or 1/50th sec) shutter speed.

Or

Shoot 720/24pn (720/25pn fpr European model), 1/48th sec (or 1/50 sec) shutter speed.

The 720-line format will have about 15-20% reduced resolution on a transfer to film vs. the 1080 line format."


I'm curious as to why 24F doesn't appear to have the same type of caveat vs. it's 60i, instead of being lumped in with Sony's method, per issues of quality.


http://www.dvfilm.com/fx1/index.htm

"The Sony FX1 and Z1U, and the Canon XL-H1 have the potential to create a much sharper image for transfer to film than any DV camera. The frame size is 1440 by 1080, over four times the number of pixels as an NTSC camera. The cameras do not a have a high-quality 24P or 25P shooting mode, however interlaced video can be converted to 24P or 25P using DVFilm Maker, with excellent results."


I guess the problem here effecting Canon owners isn't necessarily that there is strong likelihood that any given project would be transfered to film, or that there isn't a place that would do it, it's the strong likelihood that a producer might use Marcus' statement as the basis for bias against a particular camera and it's associated user or not - despite the strong likelihood that that project would never even be transferred to film in the first place.

With the equally influential & respected voices like yourself and Chris Hurd stating that 24F should be fine, or in Chris' words, "There's no technical reason why 24f is an unacceptable format that we're aware of. There may very well be technical reasons that we are not aware of.", it will be very helpful for Marcus to distinguish between whether he is saying that 24F is unacceptable or just stating a caveat emptor.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Just ask Marcus to come over here and offer his clarifications. He participates in this forum, his userid is "mvb". He probably wrote that recommendation and could tell you exactly the reasoning.

If I was shooting something on a Canon for film transfer, I'd shoot 24F as well. It may be a little softer, but I'd take that in exchange for the variabilities of a 60i->24P conversion. I'd also rather conduct my edit in 24 progressive frames rather than use a 60i source any day.
Click to expand...

PM'ed him....
 
Every specialized film editing studio is working differently and prefer there own way of doing so. Its a difficult process that is highly calibrated to their own machinery, to realise the best quality they will ask you to conform to there methodology, mainly the way they know it works. With there own software in this case. Even so, the world is changing and so is the HDV progressive format.
 
That someone 'knows 2 successful Canon HDV 24F film transfers' is saying nothing, its a different studio with a different way of processing. There is not one solution.
 
scharky said:
You have to remember that this is DV FILM MAKER here. Remember what they do people, this is a site that sells software to deinterlace 60i to 24P, of course they are going to say that their way of doing things is better. Trust me, 24F has more than enough resolution to go to film, in fact the canon 24f has more lines of resolvable resolution than both the HVX and HD100, so if 24F isn't good enough that means that 24P from any other camera in this class wouldn't be either.
I think what they are trying to say on the website is that they feel the best way to go is to shoot 60i and let their software handle the conversion, however what they feel is better and what may actually be better are two different things.

Now I don't have anything against DV film maker whatsoever, I think they are a great company and make great products, I just don't happen to agree with this one statement.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well... again nothing against anyone... plus more people will buy the software than actually do a film out...

Like Elton said I believe EFilm has done a film out and maybe Laser Pacific... only probably with Laser... they like the bigger clients and give them more attention...

Have to add the normal disclaimer... just my .02...
 
I removed the comments about the XL-H1's 24F mode from that web page. They weren't based on any hard evidence, but from the assumption that the sensor is always scanned interlaced and the 24F mode is made by blending lines together such as with the XL-1's frame mode. I apologize to anyone that was misled by it.
 
Last edited:
GaryinCalifornia said:
My thoughts as well... again nothing against anyone... plus more people will buy the software than actually do a film out...

Like Elton said I believe EFilm has done a film out and maybe Laser Pacific... only probably with Laser... they like the bigger clients and give them more attention...

Have to add the normal disclaimer... just my .02...
Click to expand...

That's assuming it would become standard practice for people to shoot 60i with their H1/G1/A1, for that "just in case" moment, and using the software to get to 24P - something which isn't really going to happen en masse unless it's widely known, or that project definitely IS one of those that is going to film from a Canon, through DVFilm, in which case the price of the software is a pittance compared to the film transfer. I certainly can't see software sales as the reasoning in this case really, I just don't understand the reasoning behind not accepting 24F, even with the resolution hit, especially since it's still above 720P, or if he's simply trying to get the client to use the camera to it's maximum potential.
 
Last edited:
Just found this, it's a year old, probably many have seen the article, but perhaps under a different context.

http://videoediting.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43573

Money quote right here.....

Billups had special praise for the 24 F feature of the XL H1 as well. “Canon's 24F system produces an output that looks and feels like 24-frame movie film,” he says. “While the technology is a closely guarded Canon secret, the proof is in the image. When digitally projected or PRINTED TO FILM, the image from the XLH1 compares more closely to those of ultra-high-end HD cameras than it does to the growing assortment of consumer HDV camcorders.

Now sure he was using the Wafian recorder, which some may or may not be using, still it does inject another view.
 
Crossposted from DVInfo, just in case Marcus doesn't get the time to, I'm just guessing he'd likely approve....upshot - record stands corrected!!!

"Marcus van Bavel
Contributor

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 88
My apologies to anyone who was misled by that webpage. We certainly did not mean to say that 24F was not good enough for a transfer to film.

The comments (which I've removed now) were based on the assumption that 24F works the same way as "frame movie mode" on the canon XL-1, where lines on the interlaced sensor are blended together to make a non-interlaced image. For the XL-1 frame movie mode, we did do tests many years ago that show it's softer than 60i. We didn't do that test for the XL-H1, however, and we should have done so before updating that web page, and I'm sorry about that.

But regardless, the XL-H1 24F is definitely good for a transfer to film at DVFilm or anywhere else."



And so I guess we are done here. Anything 24P can do, 24F can do just as well. The end.
 
Last edited:
Duct Tape Films said:
Anything 24P can do, 24F can do as well. The end.
Click to expand...

Not quite what I said. I suggest anyone who is concerned about it do your own tests with a focus chart comparing the sharpness of the XL-H1 24F vs. 60i. You may find 60i is better, but perhaps not worth the trouble to convert it to 24P in software. You might decide 24F is good enough, especially compared to a non-HD camera for example.
 
mvb said:
Not quite what I said. I suggest anyone who is concerned about it do your own tests with a focus chart comparing the sharpness of the XL-H1 24F vs. 60i. You may find 60i is better, but perhaps not worth the trouble to convert it to 24P in software. You might decide 24F is good enough, especially compared to a non-HD camera for example.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. So the qualification/distinction is here, 60i is better, but 24F is certainly acceptable, kind of the way you compare between the HVX's 1080P and 720P modes? Is that a fair reading? Also would it make a difference in any way, say if you were capturing out the HD-SDI, or even the analog component? There's a thread a couple lines down talking about the differences between the two - so I'm wondering how, if at all, that would fall in the line of preferred film out origination methods....
 
I think if you forgot to wipe the dust of your lens, have the aperture at wide open, or (most occuring) haven't focussed exactly on the right spot, you'll see much more difference than I vs F. It's the least of your worries.
 
Here is my humble contribution on topic:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=599180&postcount=39

And here is the previous test and its results:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=579582&postcount=17

60 i vs. 24F

XH-A1 60i:
824.3 Lines Horizontal (MTF50); 810 Lines Horizontal = Limit@Nyquist
674.8 Lines Vertical (MTF50)

XH-A1 24F:
810 Lines Horizontal (Limit@Nyquist)
590.4 Lines Vertical (MTF50)

Vertical losses: 12.5%
and less than 2% on horizontal resolution loss if beyond the 1440 restriction, slightly lower than the 60i.

So, between 14-14.5%. The point is: will it be acceptable for film-out purposes?

That said and taking the 1000 resolution lines over the CineAlta (gold label -- F900 series) outcome, what could or can we count? A half? My guess.

However, taken the same Limit@Nyquist*, I'd bet on the same Scott Billups insight. Barely noticeable sometimes, around the 12.5% mark. Quite interesting.


*Limit@Nyquist = (horizontal) resolution limit: 810 x 16/9 aspect = 1440 (same on HDV and HDCAM)
 
Emanuel said:
So, between 14-14.5%. The point is: will it be acceptable for film-out purposes?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by "acceptable." The 480p lines of the DVX100 were acceptable enough for The Aristocrats, Mad Hot Ballroom, 9 Songs, Sundance "best cinematography" winner "November", and Oscar nominees "Murderball" and "Iraq In Fragments". The 540-600 lines of 24F represent a 25% increase in vertical sharpness, and somewhere near twice the horizontal sharpness. So as a pure resolved resolution image, yes I'd wager 24F is going to be just fine for many people.

There are many, many factors other than resolution that need to be considered, so just saying that "x" camera has "600 lines" is about as valid a method of evaluating a given camera's suitability for a film-out as saying "hmm, that guy's 6' 7" tall, he would be suitable to be drafted into the NBA." In other words, there's lots more to it.

But if you're asking "does the resolution loss of 24F automatically rule it out for film transfer" then the answer is "of course not."
 
Fully agreed Barry.

Nevertheless, there are different results for different purposes...

Doc work or a 9 Songs stuff (terrible IMHO...), for instance, is another one-story. Some narrative work is worth(y) of a different story. :cheesy:

Here is another example seen today (the trailer@big_screen) shot on DVX100:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0799772/

It seemed promising indeed. After its screening (soon), I'll post my humble impressions on it (unfortunately, I hadn't this chance yet on November stuff, for example) and maybe it can be added to that list above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top