HVRZ1U film looks
- Thread starter jin
- Start date
Robert_Niemann
Well-known member
About the resolution in Cineframe 24:
During 10/60 seconds (10 fields) the camera creates 4 frames.
The 1st frame is built of field 1 (captured at the 1st/60th), field-doubling, so the resolution is 540 lines.
The 2nd frame is built of field 1 (captured at the 3rd/60th), field-doubling, so the resolution is 540 lines.
The 3rd frame is built of field 1 (captured at the 3rd/60th) and field 2 (captured at the 6th/60th), so the resolution is "all and nothing".
The 4th frame is built of field 2 (captured at the 6th/60th) and field 2 (captured at the 8th/60th), so the resolution is "all and nothing".
I do not know, how this "all and nothing" can be described as.
During 10/60 seconds (10 fields) the camera creates 4 frames.
The 1st frame is built of field 1 (captured at the 1st/60th), field-doubling, so the resolution is 540 lines.
The 2nd frame is built of field 1 (captured at the 3rd/60th), field-doubling, so the resolution is 540 lines.
The 3rd frame is built of field 1 (captured at the 3rd/60th) and field 2 (captured at the 6th/60th), so the resolution is "all and nothing".
The 4th frame is built of field 2 (captured at the 6th/60th) and field 2 (captured at the 8th/60th), so the resolution is "all and nothing".
I do not know, how this "all and nothing" can be described as.
I see you live in Seattle (me too :thumbsup: ), so it's safe to assume you have an FX1 that is NTSC based. Correct?
Videoclub was shot with a PAL format FX1 in Cineframe25. I don't believe he used CineForm software at all. Cineframe25 just looks alot better than Cineframe24.
Cineframe25 shoots 25 fps at a shutter speed of 1/50
Cineframe24 shoots 24 fps at a shutter speed of 1/60
U.S. Films shoot at 24 fps with a shutter speed of 1/48
U.K. Films shoot at 25 fps with a shutter speed of 1/50
Cineframe25 has a cadence closer to actual film than Cineframe24. Thats why the videoclub footage looks better than Cineframe24. I'm not sure that Shooting in Cineframe24 will get you the look you want. Even the people at Cineform suggest you shoot with Cineframe25 as opposed to Cineframe24. Then convert the Cineframe25 footage to NTSC 24p.
MacGregor, who shot the Videoclub stuff also used a Guerilla35 lens adapter. Plus the man knows how to light stuff quite well.
To make a long story short, Cineframe24=bad. Cineframe25=good
Yas Kassana
Well-known member
How much resolution do you loose when shooting in CF25?
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
Can the Z1 in Pal mode shoot 25 frames non 25f mode?
Barry_Green
Moderator
A Z1 delivers about 775 lines of resolution in interlaced mode, and about 575 in CF25 mode.Yas Kassana said:
Yas Kassana
Well-known member
575 lines of resolution, thats alot of compromise, what's the point of HDV, might as well shoot on the dvx100. so let me get this straight shooting cf25 mode gives you 1080 x 575?
Robert_Niemann
Well-known member
Barry, if one field is doubled, how can there be 575 lines in Cineframe 25 mode? 1080/2=540 for me.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, shooting CF25 gives you 1440x575. In actuality, it's probably 1440x540; when shooting a resolution chart it's a bit subjective as to where you actually draw the line of measuring. My guess is that it's a pure raw field, and as such, it's 540.Yas Kassana said:
And what's the point, vs. shooting on the DVX? Well, CF25 may have the same vertical resolution as a PAL DVX, but you're still gettting twice the horizontal resolution! You're still ending up with twice as many pixels in the frame.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Like I said in the other post, measuring is a bit subjective. It probably is 540.Robert_Niemann said:
But it's more than you would expect from straight de-interlacing; de-interlacing would give you about 380 lines (1/2 of 775). So CF25 is better than a straight de-interlace, although obviously not in the same ballpark as actual progressive-scan.
Don't forget to mention that while the effective resolution is only 1440x540, it's stored as 1440x1080 4:2:0 - which is to say that you essentially have 4:2:2 "ish" chroma for every effective pixel. Downsampling to SD (i.e., for direct comparison with the DVX), you end up with approximately 4:4:4 SD as opposed to 4:1:1.
-Spiff
Yas Kassana
Well-known member
I don't know about that Spiff, i thinks that's just hearsay. I remember Barry and the other guy(forget his name) did some tests with dvx, xl2 and fx1, same shots and put them to DVD - you can't really tell the difference.
myfriendimage
Carbonite Member
Yas Kassana said:
well you can tell the difference, but not by much, but most cameras arent dramatically different or else they wouldnt sell.
I've done some tests too - and the the difference is very dramatic if you're careful about what you're doing. Early tests made several mistakes, and often used incorrect down-sampling algorithms. Furthermore, appropriate use of sharpening filters yields a more mathematically correct down-sampling conversion than simple bi-cubic scaling. Conversion to DV will not yield superior image quality - only conversion to an uncompressed (or a 4:2:2) intermediate will yield substantially improved results.
For example:
This is a (worst case!) HDV compressed image down-sampled to 4:4:4 SD:
http://s94963366.onlinehome.us/HDRFX1/DV3.png
While this is an uncompressed HD image down-sampled to 4:4:4 SD and subsequently compressed to the DV format:
http://s94963366.onlinehome.us/HDRFX1/DV1.png
As you can see - the colour sampling available in the HDV picture is vastly superior. At 30 fps, the difference between these too is staggering. The HDV picture ends up super-crisp, while the DV image looks like fuzzy sludge. Most people who have experience with HDV have noticed this - and suggesting they go back to DV would cause them much consternation.
-Spiff
Yas Kassana
Well-known member
Actually both of those pics look really good to me. I can't tell the difference.
Really? Flip between them. If you have tab-browsing (i.e., Firefox) you should be able to see the horrendous smoothing and loss of detail as a result of the 4:1:1 sampling almost instantly. All sloping lines will be smudgy as all heck on the DV1.png file, with very noticable horizontal smearing of colour information. Upon 200-400% blowup, you should then be able notice the mosquito noise inherent in DV compression as well around the sharp edges in the picture.
-Spiff
-Spiff
Assuming people will still visit this, my question meant how could I get 70mm using that cam (Z1)? Do I get the adaptor, shoot it as wide as I can go, then get a 70mm print? It was a question by my employer, so, how do I do it? Or, how do I get the biggest, longest picture with a 35mm adaptor? Lenses? Think the film Baraka. Anyone?
Umm...the answer is...you can't. Unless you shoot on 70mm film. Your question as it stands has been answered previously. As Barry stated before it's a film gauge (i.e. the size of the film itself).
70mm is a film format, it doesn't apply to video. The question you ask has no answer because 70mm film has nothing to do with a video camera of any kind.
If you could tell us what you mean by the term "70mm" I'm sure more people could answer your question. As it is right now it doesn't make much sense. Asking the same question again is just gonna get more of the same answers. I think all of us understand the question (in as much as it is a sentence) I think your terminology is incorrect.
Until then, I'll speculate a guess as to what you mean and see if I can give you an answer. What I think you mean is Aspect Ratio.
I guessing you would like to acheive a 2:35 aspect ratio. If I'm reading your post correctly. I assume you want the most pixels you can get in a 2:35 framing? Am I correct?
To do this I've been told if you use an anamorphic adapter on a camera that is shooting 16x9 (16x9 native chips or 4:3 squeeze mode) you will get roughly a 2:35 framing using all the pixels available on the camcorders chip.
The Sony already has native 16x9 chips, so find an anamorphic lens and you're good to go.
...but, you can't use lens adapters like the M2 or G35 with an anamorphic lens. Or so I've heard.
Again 70mm is a film based fromat. Technically I could transfer my 1 chip Digtial8 footage to 70mm film. But it's never going to look like 70mm film even if I shot it using a Z1U/FX1
Can you transfer what you want to film, 70mm or otherwise? Yes.
You want the widest picture you can achieve with a Z1U utilizing all the pixels on the chips? Then shoot with an anamorphic adapter on the front of it. I'm not even sure they make one for the Z1U.
Still in the dark as to what you mean by "70mm".