filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com

[filmman]

1080i 50i > 25p > - 1 FR = 24p

1080i 50i > 25p > - 1 FR = 24p

Yes, this is absolutely a trivial task. In fact, that's all the Sony does anyway -- when you put it in Cineframe 30 mode, it just drops one field out of each field pair. You could get identical results in post.

What about shooting 50i as an option to end up with 24p?
I understand slowing down 25 fps to 24 fps is much easier to achieve than going 60i > 24p which requires more steps (and complication?)

 

[David Jimerson]

What about shooting 50i as an option to end up with 24p?
I understand slowing down 25 fps to 24 fps is much easier to achieve than going 60i > 24p which requires more steps (and complication?)

No, the 60i to 24p conversion is much better than 50i to 24p. The latter may even require a speed change, changing the pitch of the audio.

And, 60i to 24p is done in a single step.

 

[filmman]

1080i 60i > 24p in one step?

1080i 60i > 24p in one step?

No, the 60i to 24p conversion is much better than 50i to 24p. The latter may even require a speed change, changing the pitch of the audio.

And, 60i to 24p is done in a single step.

Is this done with hardware? Or can it be done in FCP, for example?

Does it hold up qualitywise?

 

[David Jimerson]

Apparently 24p ends up as 29.97 fps with pulldown. And it's very hard to do 24 fps with cameras that shoot 24p on tape. I don't know this technology well, but this is what I've been told by people on user groups.

What do they say is hard about it? There are things you have to keep in mind while capturing, especially with FCP, but it's not generally much different from working with 60i footage. Once you get it captured, there's no functional difference.

When shooting, there's absolutely no difference between recording 24p to tape or recording to memory card. No difference between recording with pulldown (to tape or even to card) and recording 24pN (straight 23.976).

 

[David Jimerson]

Is this done with hardware? Or can it be done in FCP, for example?

There are numerous pieces of software which can do it. You can do it with Cinema Tools.

Does it hold up qualitywise?

It holds up as well as any conversion of interlaced to progressive will. There will be a loss of vertical resolution, sometimes up to 50%. But that'll happen no matter what you do, and would happen converting 50i to 25p, too -- or 60i to 30p.

What you have to watch out for, though, far more importantly than that, is how you handle the camera when you're shooting. You have to handle the camera just like you've been shooting 24p all along. You have to move it slooooooooowly -- slow pans, slow zooms, slow camera movement in general. If you're shooting 60i to BE 60i, you can pretty much move the camera around however you want. But you can't with 24p or you'll produce unwanted strobe.

If you shoot 60i willy-nilly and then convert it to 24p, the resulting footage will strobe exactly as it would have if you'd been shooting 24p all that time. Plus, you may find some ghosting and other conversion artifacts exacerbated.

So, just keep in mind -- you may be shooting in 60i, but it's really 24p.

 

[filmman]

24p, 24pA, 24pN -- which is best for 24p output?

24p, 24pA, 24pN -- which is best for 24p output?

What do they say is hard about it? There are things you have to keep in mind while capturing, especially with FCP, but it's not generally much different from working with 60i footage. Once you get it captured, there's no functional difference.

When shooting, there's absolutely no difference between recording 24p to tape or recording to memory card. No difference between recording with pulldown (to tape or even to card) and recording 24pN (straight 23.976).

I've been told on other user groups, 24p isn't easy unless you're shooting with a Sony 900 series cameras, etc.

They say even the Sony EX-1 & EX-3 aren't good enough for doing 24p.

And then I've been told that 24p is best with the P2 cameras.

All this kind of discouraged me and I thought I might as well shoot with my Arri 2c and avoid all this mess until everything is sorted out.

So now I'm finding out that it is possible to get ok results for the web using my Sony Z1U.

 

[David Jimerson]

I've been told on other user groups, 24p isn't easy unless you're shooting with a Sony 900 series cameras, etc.

They say even the Sony EX-1 & EX-3 aren't good enough for doing 24p.

I really have no idea what that could possibly mean. It's ridiculous, whatever it does mean. The "ease" of shooting with 24p doesn't go up as the price point goes up.

The only thing I can think of which might make a difference is that a big, heavy camera is easier to move more in keeping with shooting 24p, because you'll naturally move it slower, and it'll be more resistant to motion in general -- just like a big, heavy movie camera. But that's it.

And then I've been told that 24p is best with the P2 cameras..

I think 1) Panasonic has gotten it consistently right more than anyone else has, and 2) the intangible Panasonic mojo produces the most cinematic image, but that's true of the DVX100, too, not just the P2 cameras.


If you've been shooting 24 fps film and getting good results from it, then you've already got some of the hardest parts licked -- camera handling. Shooting 24p is exactly the same, in terms of camera motion.

The post stuff seems intimidating at first, but it really isn't anything to get into a fuss over.

 

[filmman]

getting through digital post without headaches

getting through digital post without headaches

I think

1) Panasonic has gotten it consistently right more than anyone else has, and

2) the intangible Panasonic mojo produces the most cinematic image, but that's true of the DVX100, too, not just the P2 cameras.

If you've been shooting 24 fps film and getting good results from it, then you've already got some of the hardest parts licked -- camera handling. Shooting 24p is exactly the same, in terms of camera motion.

The post stuff seems intimidating at first, but it really isn't anything to get into a fuss over.

I'm happy to hear all that. I will continue to experiment with work flows. I did a comparison test today with some scenes from an HDV feature I shot a couple of years ago with my Sony Z1U.

1) I exported a QT movie clip from my HDV time line with Compressor set to HDV. I then imported that into DVKitchen and did an output to 480x270 FLV file and posted it online.

2) I exported an mp4 from the same time line, this time as a conversion and made a 480x270 FLV file and posted that as well.
This version was a lot sharper and better in every way than the first one.

I'm using a FCP 5.04 Studio software with a G5 tower dual processor computer.

So I have a feeling the 720p file in the second example was much better to work with than the HDV file in the first example.

It tells me for the web shooting my Sony Z1U set to Cine Frame 30 might be better in terms of image sharpness. I'm definitely going to test this work flow. I want to see a side by side comparison myself using my own equipment.

It might be that I'm not doing the post correctly, however, because according to Barry it should not make any difference with respect to the web as long as I'm exporting 30p either way when exporting with the DVKitchen.

I'm amazed that Sony would simply drop one field in the Cine Frame mode of their Sony Z1U camera and call that Cine Frame 30. If 1080i 60i can do the same thing, why bother with a Cine Frame 30. I thought this was a sort of 30p version for the Sony Z1U.

 

[filmman]

60i vs 24p as far as shooting is concerned.

60i vs 24p as far as shooting is concerned.

There are numerous pieces of software which can do it. You can do it with Cinema Tools.

It holds up as well as any conversion of interlaced to progressive will. There will be a loss of vertical resolution, sometimes up to 50%. But that'll happen no matter what you do, and would happen converting 50i to 25p, too -- or 60i to 30p.

What you have to watch out for, though, far more importantly than that, is how you handle the camera when you're shooting. You have to handle the camera just like you've been shooting 24p all along. You have to move it slooooooooowly -- slow pans, slow zooms, slow camera movement in general. If you're shooting 60i to BE 60i, you can pretty much move the camera around however you want. But you can't with 24p or you'll produce unwanted strobe.

If you shoot 60i willy-nilly and then convert it to 24p, the resulting footage will strobe exactly as it would have if you'd been shooting 24p all that time. Plus, you may find some ghosting and other conversion artifacts exacerbated.

So, just keep in mind -- you may be shooting in 60i, but it's really 24p.

I missed this post the first time, David. Here are some of the things I needed to know and learn.

So it's good to keep in mind that 60i is more forgiving for fast action stuff and sports. No wonder they're shooting sports in 60i; it makes more sense now.

Thanks again.

Vic

 

[David Jimerson]

I missed this post the first time, David. Here are some of the things I needed to know and learn.

So it's good to keep in mind that 60i is more forgiving for fast action stuff and sports. No wonder they're shooting sports in 60i; it makes more sense now.

They generally shoot in 60i or 60p, depending on the network. It's the "60" that's important.

 

[Nathyn]

I'm amazed that Sony would simply drop one field in the Cine Frame mode of their Sony Z1U camera and call that Cine Frame 30. If 1080i 60i can do the same thing, why bother with a Cine Frame 30. I thought this was a sort of 30p version for the Sony Z1U.

Sony can be one of the most annoying companies in the world. They simply decide to NOT do things, then they do them too late. It's all about protecting their highend cameras. But almost all the Canon consumer cams do 24p, some of the Panasonics do progressive and it's no big deal anymore for Panasonic, Canon or JVC.

What made me decide not to buy Sony is they lied about the progressive modes, particularly the 24p mode on the FX1 and Z1u until they were caught. You my friend, were lied to. Then Sony waited really late and did on the FX1000 what they should've did on the FX1.

Seems to me Sony hates progressive modes on prosumer and consumer cams and only do it because they need to keep up with the market. Is the camera usable? Yes. With full disclosure would you have bought that camera? Maybe not. But it sure looks good.

-Nate

 

[filmman]

What is 24p for heaven's sake?

What is 24p for heaven's sake?

Sony can be one of the most annoying companies in the world. They simply decide to NOT do things, then they do them too late. It's all about protecting their highend cameras. But almost all the Canon consumer cams do 24p, some of the Panasonics do progressive and it's no big deal anymore for Panasonic, Canon or JVC.

What made me decide not to buy Sony is they lied about the progressive modes, particularly the 24p mode on the FX1 and Z1u until they were caught. You my friend, were lied to. Then Sony waited really late and did on the FX1000 what they should've did on the FX1.

Seems to me Sony hates progressive modes on prosumer and consumer cams and only do it because they need to keep up with the market. Is the camera usable? Yes. With full disclosure would you have bought that camera? Maybe not. But it sure looks good.

-Nate

I checked out the Sony FX1000. What does this mean?

Sony website said: In addition to 1080/60i recording, the HDR-FX1000 offers a 1080/24p and 1080/30p Progressive Scan mode that enables shooting with film-like results. Signals scanned at 24p/30p are converted to 60i (using 2-3 pulldown for 24p) and recorded on MiniDV tape, allowing footage to be played and edited using existing HDV products. In this way, progressive images can be handled in the conventional HDV editing environment.

 

[David Jimerson]

I'm amazed that Sony would simply drop one field in the Cine Frame mode of their Sony Z1U camera and call that Cine Frame 30. If 1080i 60i can do the same thing, why bother with a Cine Frame 30. I thought this was a sort of 30p version for the Sony Z1U.

You have to remember, though, that the Z1U was really the first camera of its kind (though there was a JVC HDV-ish cam a bit before it). When it came out, there were no prosumer HD cameras with 24p or 30p at all. In fact, if I recall the timing correctly, the only 24p camera which didn't cost tens of thousands of dollars was the DVX, as I believe the Z1U was out before the XL2. Prosumer true-progressive cameras were very few, and there were no prosumer progressive HD cameras.

The Z1U actually broke a lot of new ground. It just wasn't in the cards to have true progressive in that generation.

The Cineframe modes follow pretty much what Canon and Panasonic SD cameras had with their "Frame" modes, so it wasn't anything which hadn't been done before. Cineframe 30 is functionally identical to 30p, even though it doesn't have the full resolution of true 30p.

 

[filmman]

You have to remember, though, that the Z1U was really the first camera of its kind (though there was a JVC HDV-ish cam a bit before it). When it came out, there were no prosumer HD cameras with 24p or 30p at all. In fact, if I recall the timing correctly, the only 24p camera which didn't cost tens of thousands of dollars was the DVX, as I believe the Z1U was out before the XL2. Prosumer true-progressive cameras were very few, and there were no prosumer progressive HD cameras.

The Z1U actually broke a lot of new ground. It just wasn't in the cards to have true progressive in that generation.

The Cineframe modes follow pretty much what Canon and Panasonic SD cameras had with their "Frame" modes, so it wasn't anything which hadn't been done before. Cineframe 30 is functionally identical to 30p, even though it doesn't have the full resolution of true 30p.

I'm interested in some method of combining the two 60i fields into 30 progressive frames. I know there is a frame blending option, interpolation, motion compensation, etc. in FCP 5.04 Studio; but I'm told that none of these produce great results, and some experts say that all these methods produce unacceptable results -- nothing to compare with true 24p.

So I was thinking about shutter speeds. As you know in 35mm cinematography, the Arri 2c, for example, shoots 24fps at 180 degree shutter and the images are slightly blurred and cannot be used for 8x10 stills for distribution.

Why, then, is blur in certain moving shot frames a factor in digital cameras? Digital camera filmmakers don't like the blur in digital shooting; they are always looking for sharper images. I don't understand the difference between the blur in 35mm and digital.

And isn't there a way to reduce the blur in digital cameras by shooting instead of 1/60th of a frame exposure 1/120th of a second exposures for example? And if you do "blending" of the 60i fields when outputting 30p, wouldn't the progressive images be twice as sharp?

So this way I could increase shutter speed to 1/250th even and get much better results in sharpness of the progressive images from my 1080i 60i format.

 

[Nathyn]

You have to remember, though, that the Z1U was really the first camera of its kind (though there was a JVC HDV-ish cam a bit before it). When it came out, there were no prosumer HD cameras with 24p or 30p at all. In fact, if I recall the timing correctly, the only 24p camera which didn't cost tens of thousands of dollars was the DVX, as I believe the Z1U was out before the XL2. Prosumer true-progressive cameras were very few, and there were no prosumer progressive HD cameras.

I could be wrong but I do believe the HVX and JVC's HD100 were out not to mention the original HD1 that started the HDV craze which did 720/30p. I saw two on ebay for about $1000 bucks each.

The Cineframe modes follow pretty much what Canon and Panasonic SD cameras had with their "Frame" modes, so it wasn't anything which hadn't been done before. Cineframe 30 is functionally identical to 30p, even though it doesn't have the full resolution of true 30p.

But by this time Panasonic, Canon and JVC where doing some form of progressive that either was or acted as true progressive. Progressive was a no brain, getting the best HD/HDV was the hard part by that point. I remembered being shocked that Sony still wouldn't do 24p or even 30p when everyone else was and they could've owned the market. Canon came out with a hot looking camera that did to 24p HD and that was the Xh-A1 that I originally wanted.

I checked out the Sony FX1000. What does this mean?

Sony website said: In addition to 1080/60i recording, the HDR-FX1000 offers a 1080/24p and 1080/30p Progressive Scan mode that enables shooting with film-like results. Signals scanned at 24p/30p are converted to 60i (using 2-3 pulldown for 24p) and recorded on MiniDV tape, allowing footage to be played and edited using existing HDV products. In this way, progressive images can be handled in the conventional HDV editing environment.

That's just how they do their 30p and 24p modes. It just means you have to do a pulldown once you record in to 24p or 30p to get true 24 or 30p. It's pretty standard. Sony were just the last to do it on a prosumer camera. The image quality should be as good as the Z1u. If I were to buy a Sony it would be this.

-Nate

 

[David Jimerson]

I could be wrong but I do believe the HVX and JVC's HD100 were out not to mention the original HD1 that started the HDV craze which did 720/30p. I saw two on ebay for about $1000 bucks each.

The FX1/Z1 was released in 2004, the first actual HDV camera. The HD100 was released in 2005 and the HVX in very late 2005.

The HD1 was a terrible, terrible camera which shouldn't even be counted, it was so bad. It was unusable. It wasn't "officially" HDV, either, just called HDV retroactively.

But by this time Panasonic, Canon and JVC where doing some form of progressive that either was or acted as true progressive. Progressive was a no brain

In SD, yes.

 

[Nathyn]

The FX1/Z1 was released in 2004, the first actual HDV camera. The HD100 was released in 2005 and the HVX in very late 2005.

It was the first to bare the name HDV, but the HD1 was truly the first. JVC created HDV and the companies ran with it making their own different versions.

The HD1 was a terrible, terrible camera which shouldn't even be counted, it was so bad. It was unusable. It wasn't "officially" HDV, either, just called HDV retroactively.

Frederic Lumiere (of the Lumiere software fame who created the original software to edit HD1 footage) shot the movie "Tommorow is Today" on the HD1 starring runaway (literally) actress Scout Taylor-Compton. This film did get distributed and it got distributed and has a 7.1 rating on IMDB (as of now). And used HD1s still sell close to $1000 so someone is finding them useful. People actually started creating their own workflows with these camera. Some would record footage then dub to HD master via HD Deck and then edit that way.

In SD, yes.

But a no brainer still. Sony didn't even bother with SD 24p for prosumer cams and they should've instead of giving us that "progressive shutter" nonsense or whatever it was called. They tried every way possible to simple not put a usable progressive mode on a prosumer camera.

-Nate

 

[David Jimerson]

It was the first to bare the name HDV, but the HD1 was truly the first. JVC created HDV and the companies ran with it making their own different versions.


Frederic Lumiere (of the Lumiere software fame who created the original software to edit HD1 footage) shot the movie "Tommorow is Today" on the HD1 starring runaway (literally) actress Scout Taylor-Compton. This film did get distributed and it got distributed and has a 7.1 rating on IMDB (as of now). And used HD1s still sell close to $1000 so someone is finding them useful. People actually started creating their own workflows with these camera. Some would record footage then dub to HD master via HD Deck and then edit that way.


But a no brainer still. Sony didn't even bother with SD 24p for prosumer cams and they should've instead of giving us that "progressive shutter" nonsense or whatever it was called. They tried every way possible to simple not put a usable progressive mode on a prosumer camera.

-Nate

The point is, it's not like when the FX1/Z1 was released that anyone thought it was really missing anything for not having true progressive modes. It might have been nice at the time, but no one really expected it. The only two prosumer 24p cameras which even existed at the time were the DVX and the XL2, and the XL2 only just barely.

It's only 6 years and dozens of cameras later that people wonder "why no 24p?" No one really worried about it then. They knew it was a first offering.

I'm no fan of Sony, but this is a bashing bandwagon I just can't get on.

And I really don't care who did what with it, the HD1 was still a terrible, terrible camera.

 

[Nathyn]

The point is, it's not like when the FX1/Z1 was released that anyone thought it was really missing anything for not having true progressive modes.

I'm no fan of Sony, but this is a bashing bandwagon I just can't get on.

I'm not a Sony basher at all, I just have an issue with a company telling me they do real 24p only to find out it's a framemode. Suppose someone actually wanted to shoot a film in 24p and do a film out. They would've gotten scammed and Sony wouldn't have cared as long as they sold a camera. Before 24p people longed for Sony to do 30p and they wouldn't. And if they didn't think 24p was a big deal they would've lied about it.

Also I've been known to compliment Sony on their imaging, but that one act rubbed me the wrong way. Seemed like Sony didn't care what the customer wanted and were willing to go out of their way to NOT give it to them. But this is just my opinion. Canon could've simply said they did 24p in the Xh-A1 and no one could argue with it, but they broke it down and were honest about it as was Panasonic about their 1080 upscaling. And in the past I've considered the FX1000 because it did have a lot of things I wanted, but by that time I was hung up on the Xh-A1 and the Canon cams.

And I really don't care who did what with it, the HD1 was still a terrible, terrible camera.

Just thought I'd point it out. And I know it got lackluster reviews but it was still usable.

But none of this matters unless Filmman's going to buy a new camera which I doubt. The Z1u is definitely good enough. If he does buy a new one I suggest an HV20 or HV30 since he has the tape based workflow down and HDV is readily accepted by all the programs now. And these cameras can be had for under $1000 and their are adapter available if he wants to put 35mm lens on. He can still get his film look without the cost. He can shoot without the adapter and then add the adapter and lens for shots where he wants to get better depth of field.

-Nate

 

[Why4009]

The budget is doubling for the next film... guess if you call that a B-movie that's fine, whatever...

My advice... stop while you're ahead dude.

Brandon, may I ask what your budget is? NGL trailer looked good, can only imagine what you can do with twice the budget.