50i convert to 25p = 50% slowmo...

D_Odell

D_Odell

Active member
Hi,
I have been trying today to get a good slowmo test. But the result wasn’t so good.
The result of the progressive frame shows a lot more noise than the original interlaced one, I would say double amount of grain.
Both are raw and no cc has been done:

Interlaced
interlacedxh5.jpg


Progressive
progressivefl0.jpg


Do anyone recognise this problem? I have seen some tests here at the forum with the same test but with no such grain...

The details in the DVX+M2 where -4 in detail and the Shutter was 1/50 ant not 1/120 which was critical. But this can't be the reason for the grain, or can it?

Followed this article: http://rarevision.com/articles/slow_motion.php#
 
Last edited:
Well I don't like the grain, but maybe that’s just me?
If somebody wonders, it's captured on Avid pro hd and converted on AE.

I would really like to know from somebody who also have done the convert, and if you have seen the same amount of gained grain?
 
I got a PAL, and honestly I believe that this is just a rumor.... I dont really see how the PAL looks more like film?
 
TheComo said:
ugh, why does pal look so filmish!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if its extra 'filmishness' (yeah, 'cos that's a word!), is anything unique to the PAL DVX100, it's probably just a 'PAL thing' generally. PAL cameras have 96 extra lines of res and a little more colourspace/colour reproduction. There's an old joke here in PAL-land that NTSC stands for 'Never The Same Colour'!

Those two things *might* give you some extra flimic quality on a PAL camera, but apart from that, it's all just down to how cinematically you can shoot I guess...
 
I sent a mail to Thomas who wrote the article he answered:

"What you're looking at is a result of the vertical "stretching" that occurs when you deinterlace the footage.
Since you had some video noise in the original footage, the noise is getting stretched roughly 50% vertically along with the image.
That's why it looks more pronounced."

So for me I just need to shot with more lights. The more light the less evident is the noise...

Regards,
David
 
While it's true that in analog broadcasts, PAL has better color, it's not true in DV. Both have 2 chroma samples for every 4 luma samples, but they're arranged differently. And in DVCPRO 25, they're arranged the same.
 
David Jimerson said:
While it's true that in analog broadcasts, PAL has better color, it's not true in DV. Both have 2 chroma samples for every 4 luma samples, but they're arranged differently. And in DVCPRO 25, they're arranged the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's spot on, sorry, I totally forgot that the colour issue is only for analog broadcasts.

Well forget what I said then, (except for that little extra res, which gives you very little and certainly nothing that would make PAL more 'filmish'!)
 
Here's why PAL looks better... consider where PAL is used compared to where NTSC is used. The old world vs. the new. Awesome looking locales that have been inhabited for thousands of years vs. the new world of strip malls and dirt.

Yes, I am a jealous filmlmaker. I wish I could shoot in Paris.
 
I love your perspective Joshua.... being from the old world myself, but currently living in the new one, I can partially share your thought. However, there are no deserts in Europe whereas I can find numerous beautiful natural settings here in SoCal..... and to me there is something about a desert, sand dunes.... and I guess afterall it even looks better on my PAL, right? :)
 
You're wrong , David !!

You're wrong , David !!

David Jimerson said:
While it's true that in analog broadcasts, PAL has better color, it's not true in DV. Both have 2 chroma samples for every 4 luma samples, but they're arranged differently. And in DVCPRO 25, they're arranged the same.
Click to expand...

- Not quite right, David.

Here in PAL land we don't have any "analog" broadcasts, and PAL has no "color" whatsoever.

What we DO have is SUPERB analogue PAL broadcasts in beautiful colour !! - However - for today only - tomorrow the digital switchover begins (2007 - 2010 phase-in )

Tee Hee !! Ruff !

( I blame Caxton! )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top