Filmmaking...

P

Petanque

Active member
Ok, so at this point in the g13 evolution, here's a question:

If you were making a film (narrative, no action, with lighting rig), that someday would be projected on a big screen, which settings (mjpeg or avchd) would you use, and why?
 
I just made a fake movie trailer with high bitrate mjpeg...solely for the image,fx work and robustness when it came to using MBL.
 
You mean would i use 720 or 1080 for theatrical release? Neither, but i think the answer speaks for itself.
 
tonpole said:
You mean would i use 720 or 1080 for theatrical release? Neither, but i think the answer speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Thanks dude, this is the gh1 forum, if you don't like the camera, or the formats it shoots, might want to look elsewhere for a place to be grumpy.
 
I would say using lpowell reliable avchd settings and shooting 1080p. That's the best way to go on the gh13 for now I think.
 
Barry_Green said:
No question, 1080/24p.
Click to expand...
Thanks guys. Is it the 24 fps that's the deal breaker, or the resolution (I can't really get my head around some of the enthusiasm for mjpeg on here, it seems to me that the higher the resolution, the better, but that's another topic, I guess)?
 
its more about image quality when it comes to Mjpeg vs AVCHD. If its a narrative and static definitely shoot 1080.
 
I'm shooting a narrative on my Gh13 in 1080 native 24p. The actors see the footage on my 47" LCD HDTV and they can't believe the images that tiny little devil puts out.
 
Petanque said:
Could you please elaborate a bit on "Its more about image quality"?
Click to expand...

it used to be when the patch first started that with the upped bitrate mjpeg was capturing more detail and was not prone to mud (codec break up) but then progress in upping the avchd proved the same also. from the footages ive seen mjpeg shows less blocking artifacts in dense dark areas and you can record in 4.2.2 colour, good for grading and sfx, and easy to edit in NLE. limitation is file size so you can only record about 2-3mins depending on your bitrate and it is only 30fps and file size is large. Avchd is just as good in image quality now and it has no recording limit, smaller file size, and variable resolutions but abit harder to edit in NLE. So it all comes down to choosing the right format for your application. they are both even steven to me =)

so for your purposes for a static controlled interview stick with 1080 avchd.
 
mojo43 said:
He would not be the only one... I did what you said and came to the same conclusion as Petanque
Click to expand...
... especially considering the tone of many of his other posts in this forum.. But back to the topic at hand:

I was hoping to hear if anyone thought that the mjpeg settings would produce a (swallow) "better" quality image, even if scaled up six times. I know the word "better" is subjective, but so far as I can tell from exhaustive readings/re-readings, many folks here are of the opinion that the mjpeg settings can produce "better" low light detail (valuable no matter what/where you're shooting), as well as better colour rendering (4:2:2) for grading in post. Also, I have read some recent opinions that even when scaled up to 2k, the mjpeg produces a beautifully detailed image.
What I'd like to know, is if any of the guys on the mjpeg wagon would actually choose it at this point, if the destination of their work was big screen.
 
Psynoma said:
You didn't understand his statement. Read carefully
Click to expand...


At least someone gets it. Theatres might display at 1080, but thats from a minimum 2160v (3k) digital transfer which is often using a film source, that being in the realm of a 16k capture . I think a 1080 capture can be respectfully displayed at around 4.6', but definitely not 46'.
 
tonpole said:
At least someone gets it. Theatres might display at 1080, but thats from a minimum 2160v (3k) digital transfer which is often using a film source, that being in the realm of a 16k capture . I think a 1080 capture can be respectfully displayed at around 4.6', but definitely not 46'.
Click to expand...
Right. I was thinking of projecting a 1080p image on a 50 foot screen. Strange to demand that others deeply read into cryptic/sarcastic posts while demanding levels of detail, that should be obvious, in others. You seem to have a lot of insight, why not just answer the question?
 
petanque said:
right. I was thinking of projecting a 1080p image on a 50 foot screen. Strange to demand that others deeply read into cryptic/sarcastic posts while demanding levels of detail, that should be obvious, in others. You seem to have a lot of insight, why not just answer the question?
Click to expand...

+1
 
tonpole said:
I think a 1080 capture can be respectfully displayed at around 4.6', but definitely not 46'.
Click to expand...
Standard-def footage has been projected theatrically and looked fine to the audience. Don't worry about it.

We've shot stuff on the UNhacked GH1 with its awful codec, and projected on a reasonably large screen, and it looked fan-frickin'-tastic.

If I was in the position you're in, I would have no hesitation whatsoever - I would use the 1080/24p mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top