1080p with magic bullet?

S

sam_bond

Member
would it be possible to get 1080p from this camera if you filmed interlaced then put it through magic bullet in post? this may seem like a simple question but with all the 720p 1080i stuff im confused.
 
1080i is always inferior to 1080p. Magic Bullet is good, so in some cases it might give you a similar resolution, but really, I would much prefer filming excellent 720p than 1080i with compromise. I don't really need 1080i when it won't even be that sharp anyway. As far as I know, the CCD chips in the camera are not 1900x1080 so all the 1080 is upscaled.
 
You could make a lower-resolution simulation of 1080p. In fact, you can do it in-camera already -- just shoot CineFrame 25 or CineFrame 30, and it'll give you a lower-res version of something that looks like 1080p (just with 575 lines of resolution, or about half the res of what "real" 1080p would be).
 
The FX1 sensors are 960 x 1080 and with pixel shift is effectively 1440 x 1080.

DVFilm Maker will convert 1080i to 1080p without loss of resolution in
areas of the screen that are not in motion. See dvfilm.com/fx1


A couple things we are investigating:

1. the camera allows you to turn off the deflicker filter. Does this give you the full 1080 lines vertical?

2. The Panasonic 16x9 adaptor is a neat fit on the FX1's lens. This allows you to shoot 'Scope format wihtout discarding 262 lines as was done with the Star Wars movies.

3. interestingly enough, these two factors might make the FX1's vertical performance at least as good as the cinealta for shooting Scope, if you can control the focus.

I know there is a lot of excitement about the new cameras but I would not be too quick to discard the FX1, companies like ours are still learning how best to set up the camera for transfer to film. Our demo reel in LA now has some (16:9) FX1 samples on it so anyone is welcome to check that out.
 
Well the problem is

1. You cant get a fullres 1080P picture with the FX1. No matter how much you filter etc. Its an 1080i frame wich you can deinterlace in a number of ways. For example you take away half the lines you will get 540P as best. Or you manage to keep both lines wich will create full 1080P unless something moves on the screen.

2. Not sure if the 16:9 adapter can give that much of res? But i would be great if you tested it.

3. Even if you on papper can show the same res that a cinealta it aint so in real life. You cant compete against that cam with a 4:2:0 and 1/3 ccd Cam with pixelshift tec.

But that doesn´t mean you can´t make a better movie with the FX1.
 
Interlaced is interlaced. You can deinterlace with Magic Bullet, DVFilm, or MPEG Streamclip, but the results will never be like progressive, even if nothing moved. The very nature of interlacing requires artifacts and line blurrimg. It just doesn't work like progressive.

Accept and appreciate the fact that the camera is really 960x540, but 25 or 30 frames a second, and that's nice. My VX2000 has a 12.5 fps progressive frame mode, but individual frames look more high res than the 1080 that you get from the FX1. HDV footage only looks right when you play it a 50% size, because only at that resolution does your brain detect distinct information for each line.
 
A mostly static 1080i scene goes through DVFilm Maker mostly unchanged, becomes 1080P and there is no need to throw away any information. A camera shooting a mostly static scene at 1080P gives the same result.
 
Yes, but not if the low-pass filter can't be disabled on the 1080i image. On the DVX you get about 380 lines of resolution in the interlaced mode, and what looks like 550 TV lines of resolution with the progressive mode and the low-pass filter disabled.

The low-pass filter can't be disabled in interlace mode on any of these cameras so far. (Sony's "de-flicker" isn't what we were hoping, instead it's some sort of compensation for fluorescent light flicker).

So you'll never get the same raw pixel resolution from an interlaced camera that you could get from a properly-implemented progressive system.
 
Naw. It resolves about 775 lines before it's deinterlaced. Take away half when you do deinterlace, and you're talking about approximately 390p.
 
Barry, You've seen it. I've seen it. Would you please tell them again how great the picture looks on a propper screen. All those numbers have nothing to do with the mind blowing HD-reallity of the picture. And it will be the same knock out effect with the first pictures from the HVX. It's just about the look of it. Don't whatch it on your TV at home, unless of course it's HDTV ;)
 
Re samples of the FX1, our 35mm demo reel has a comparison between PAL, NTSC-DVX100/24P, the FX1 in 60i, 50i and CF25, the older Sony HDW-700 60i HD camera, and the CineAlta. Please go look at it for yourself (you can rent the demo reel from us if you're not in LA), it's the only way to make a comparison. My judgment is the FX1 50i and 60i material is way bettter than the PAL/NTSC/24P samples, but only about a third less sharp than the CineAlta (shooting 16:9).
 
When viewed on a 1080i HDTV, the Sony is capable of some very, very impressive imagery.

Trying to turn it into 1080/24p is going to result in a significant loss of resolution, and some increase in motion artifacts. The results will not be directly competitive with native 1080/24p footage shot from an equivalent camera. As Marcus says, you're still talking about something that's going to be higher res than any DV footage, but it's not going to compete with native 1080/24p acquisition.

It's best to use the Sony for what it's designed for, interlaced footage, rather than trying to force it to be something it's not. It can be done, but there are better tools for that job (soon there will be at least two in the same price range).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top