The shooting 720 60p conforming to 24p vs shooting native 1080 24p debate

Blackout

Blackout

Veteran
I have watched probably a gazillion pieces of GH1 footage and I see most people shoot 720 60p and conform to 24p or use some weird method of running the footage through a variety of different things to get 1280 x 720 24p but I have to say - it never looks right to my eyes as compared to 1080 24p footage.

Yes, as we all know, the 1080 route of the GH1 is encased in the horrid 60i garbage that must be extracted via some weird 3rd party software of which all have pros and cons, as well as the fact that the GH1 codec is MUCH more delicate in 1080p mode to artifacts if not handled with a master ninja's touch - but I have to say - 720 60p footage conformed to 24p NEVER looks as good to me... it never looks quite right. The motion cadence and characteristics looks wrong (comparatively to actual 24fps film), and stroby, and 'videoish' no matter what is done to it, and I think the 1080 24p (when extracted correctly and pull-down applied correctly) always looks SO much better, so much more film like. The motion blur and added detail offer such a better film like image to my eyes.

Why is it so many go the 720p route? Now I know, if shooting for a client and/or event, 1080p is too finicky and too dangerous unless you have complete control and time... yet still, most go this route even on personal projects it seems.

Why? Discuss...
 
Agreed. I shoot 1080/24p always, when wanting the 24p look. 720/60p is reserved for either the "live" look or for slow-mo.

But then again, for high-action or scenarios where you're pretty sure the codec might choke, there's an awfully good argument to be had for "why not go with the more robust shooting mode, and risk some motion-induced artifacts" vs. "shoot for the proper motion, but risk codec mud"?

But on personal projects, like "Depth of Phil", we used 1080/24 for just about everything, except slow-mo stuff...
 
And to the question of slo mo... when you have planned slo mo sequences that you want to incorporate into a 1080p edit.. how do you go about it? Shoot 720 60p and how do you upres the slo mo properly into a 1080 24p timline?
 
Reliability matters even on personal projects to me, which is why I leave it in 720p60. I want to shoot 1080 at 24, I really do, but I've seen it break down too much the couple of times I've used it, especially when I'm not using the kit lens (and thus no IS). I'd also like to use the kit lens and IS, but the lack of a real focus ring makes that usually worthless. Almost worth a switch to Canon, but not quite. Just really, really, really close.
 
Because I like my Canon lenses a lot more than my Panasonic lenses. My main issue there is that the Canon ones have markers that my focus puller can rely on and my tape measure can tell us. And I own a bunch of nice ones, since that's what my still camera uses.
 
I shoot 720p60 all the time and agree that it doesn't quite have that 24p motion blur feel, but generally I'm not shooting with a script - I'm run-&-gunning most of the time, and never really know what shots I may want to 'overcrank'(I use this term loosley) or not- so to be safe I just shot everything 720p60.....

However, I downloaded the 'twixtor' plug-in trial for FCP/ AE and have been messing around with a few various shots to just really see how slowwww I can get it, and how it will hold together, etc.

Now I know it has it's limitations, and in every situation it wouldn't completely work- however, it does have some pretty powerful frame interpolation renderings. I was able to get some shots to resemble that of a phantom cam - sick!!! I'm doing a water test- I don't think it will hold up...too many pixels oing too many things--in that regard I DON"T think it will hold a candle to a true overcrank cam like the phantom.

Back to the original point--- if this is an option, should I just shoot, and/or would you (Barry/Blackout) shoot 1080p24 all of the time if this software would help with your slow-mo shots???

Z
 
I have done more and more tests.. and the 720 60p to 24p is in no way the film look.. the more I look at it the more videoish it looks... I'll use it for quick client work because most people have no clue what they are looking at anyway... but without a doubt, the 1080 24p motion characteristics and detail blow it out of the water.

The more I look at these 720 60p conformed to 24p they look like every other person shooting with any old video camera.. and they have that video stoby shuttery look no matter how you do it.

I am not saying you can't produce some good stuff, but it looks like video to me.. it just does.

I am getting really good at overcoming the 1080p codecs limitations... but god damn it all to hell I can;t stand that damn 60i bullcrap... it makes me so angry because I like you shoot a lot of different tests and ideas and I want to edit them, not convert them to ridiculous beast files to have to edit them correctly...

The 60i wrapper makes me want to kill families of the engineers... argh it gets me so mad.
 
Blackout said:
The 60i wrapper makes me want to kill families of the engineers... argh it gets me so mad.
Click to expand...
I thought that the main problem of the GH1 is mud in 24p mode, not 60i wrapper. The wrapper does not alter 24p look, and if you want to edit in native 24p for free, then try Batch intermediate converter, it works fine for me, and 32-bit Vegas has no problems with DNxHD codec and files.

Other options are Cineform and Procoder, both convert AVCHD to intermediate format and both can remove pulldown.

Converting 60i or 60p into 24p is so Digital8. When I watched Genghis Blues I could not help noticing interlace artifacts. At least you will not see those when converting from 60p.
 
I'll tell you.... my GH1 does not have a big issue with the mud as others I have seen... I don't know if I am crazy but it seems the first batch of GH1s have the mud problem a lot more... perhaps they updated the codec a little in the firmware? Now I haven't shot in too many forests but I have done a lot of shooting with wide very detailed shots and mud has only happened a very few times.. mostly the problem is the cmos skew or jello in wide shots if you have to pan or follow a subject too fast. That and I hate the 60i wrapper... I want to dump the footage out of the camera and start editing not worry about which 3rd part pulldown remover to use and how huge the file is going to get and they all effect the quality and color space in different ways...

I got a few clips to come out natively while editing in edius neo2 booster and they looked great, but in a more complex edit it got screwed up...

see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekc-WOlv61Q&hd=1

Make sure to select 1080p of course... some shots came out great, others got all weird like the people and cars in the city... they were all set the same on the timeline except for the bird taking off that I slowed down to 25%

I am on a PC.. are cineform and procoder cineform windows programs and what is the size?

I used to have procoder back in the day on my old pentium 4 2.8 rig built out to the max with a dvstorm2...
 
Blackout said:
I'll tell you.... my GH1 does not have a big issue with the mud as others I have seen... I don't know if I am crazy but it seems the first batch of GH1s have the mud problem a lot more... perhaps they updated the codec a little in the firmware? Now I haven't shot in too many forests but I have done a lot of shooting with wide very detailed shots and mud has only happened a very few times.. mostly the problem is the cmos skew or jello in wide shots if you have to pan or follow a subject too fast. That and I hate the 60i wrapper... I want to dump the footage out of the camera and start editing not worry about which 3rd part pulldown remover to use and how huge the file is going to get and they all effect the quality and color space in different ways...

I got a few clips to come out natively while editing in edius neo2 booster and they looked great, but in a more complex edit it got screwed up...

see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekc-WOlv61Q&hd=1

Make sure to select 1080p of course... some shots came out great, others got all weird like the people and cars in the city... they were all set the same on the timeline except for the bird taking off that I slowed down to 25%

I am on a PC.. are cineform and procoder cineform windows programs and what is the size?

I used to have procoder back in the day on my old pentium 4 2.8 rig built out to the max with a dvstorm2...
Click to expand...

No, it's just that the mud issue got exaggerated.
 
I own the very first GH1 delivered to Sweden and also have had very little problems with mud - when it pops up the shot is already unusable anyway in my eyes. Always thought it was a exaggerated issue propagated mostly by people who don't own one.
 
Well I saw it in a lot of the quicktime videos I downloaded off of vimeo when i was trying to make my decision between it and the 7D... but I don't use quicktime I use the sony mpeg 4 converter and haven't seen mud so far but in one shot.
 
I just want to weigh in real quick. I feel like converting the 720/60p to 24p works pretty flawlessly. In fact, it works perfectly well for maybe 80-90% of shots by just dropping the footage in a 24p timeline. For shots where the stuttering, etc, are too noticeable, just convert it another way using one of the methods in the Jack Daniel Stanley sticky. I typically use compressor, but I know you're on a PC, and I'm pretty sure there are ways outlined for you there, should you want to do some tests. He also has lots of footage up there to look at, with cars going by the camera horizontally.
 
Yeah I watched that test... pretty interesting stuff... but it is something in the motion blur that looks too sharp in the 60p converted to 24p to me, even in that exact test sequence you are talking about, and I watch these on a big 1080p monitor and all the 720 shots stand out to me with a big drop is resolution and sharpness although you are correct most would not notice, especially not on the web. project it on a big screen at a festival and the difference is huge though.
 
Blackout said:
all the 720 shots stand out to me with a big drop is resolution and sharpness
Click to expand...
When converting 60p to 24p you introduce motion irregularity and, possibly, blended fields. What is the point? Just to get the holy grail - 24p? Why would not you simply drop every other frame and convert 60p to 30p. It will look every bit as cinematic as 24p, but with no irregularities and no frame blending. And it will strobe less too. Unless you need to filmout, 30p is great middle ground, and is internet-friendly.
 
Oh no Cranky.. you are a spy from the 24p vs 30p vs 60p vs 59i vs 29.97 vs 23.97 vs 23.9842611111/3 debate.

You can't fool us.

and I agree with you with the motion irregularity... but in no way do I agree that 30p looks like film. It is its own weird look.... kind of like silly putty.
 
It's silly for us to really argue about it. 30p DOES NOT look like a 'movie' you would see in theaters or on cable, yet, it can be used to tell a story. If you like it, you like it... you don't have to defend it, but don't 'pretend' it's 24p or better. Hell 10p or 15p or 5i can be used to tell a story. What we are talking about the 'film look' as seen in theaters and seen in movies on DVD and blu-ray - and that look is 24p - plain and simple. 24 pictures per second generally with a 48 shutter speed which creates a very certain look. YOU may not like the look, YOU may think faster frames per second reduces strobe and this and that - bu it DOESN'T look like professionally released movies in the cinema nor on tv or cable.

That'snot saying it can't work for your story, but don't try and talk your way into saying 'oh it's film look but better'

It's different, way different, and perhaps your preference but I think it looks like amateur crap if I am trying to do a movie.

Looks great if I am filming some chics dance recital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top