UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panasonic!

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

[quote author=veganway link=board=Events;num=1077903628;start=25#43 date=03/04/04 at 00:55:00]You'll still have a product that the great majority of people -with an interlaced TV- won't be able to decently see.[/quote]

Okay, for everyone who has an issue here, I have got to ask you to do something. Go rent the movie NETWORK. Made in 1976, starring Faye Dunaway and William Holden. This movie won Oscars for Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Screenplay, and was nominated for Best Cinematography, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Editing, and Best Picture.

Watch the first 20 minutes. I was absolutely amazed at how much jarring strobing, double-images, and (yes) double-lines there were, ALL OVER. I've seen strobing in movies before, even when others don't see it, but I defy anyone to watch this film and then come to any conclusion other than "The DVX100 renders motion exactly like film."

There are many scenes where there are quick pans and tracking shots in the network offices, where the camera is following Faye Dunaway or someone else. Don't look at her, watch the background, and then compare that to what you're seeing with the DVX. It will be identical. It is so strobe-y that it will give you motion sickness. It is disturbingly strobey. It is what film looks like, when you move the camera like that. It is also EXACTLY what the DVX looks like, when you move the camera like that.

Second, watch for vertical lines with high-contrast transitions. In "Network" there were plenty of scenes where they pan past doorframes, where the door or the frame are white, and there's something black next to it (or vice versa). When they do, watch for the "double lines" -- you'll see them EVERYWHERE. Everywhere there's a doorframe, or a pictureframe on the wall, any vertical element -- when they pan by, you can see it break up into interlaced double-line artifacts.

This is what film looks like, guys. Shoot film like that, and it'll look like that.

AND THIS FILM WAS NOMINATED FOR AN OSCAR FOR BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY, so let's not think that Owen Roizman didn't know what he was doing. He's a five-time Oscar nominee for Best Cinematographer, for films like Tootsie and The Exorcist and The French Connection.

So. While I have been willing to entertain that perhaps the PAL camera may have a problem, I cannot any longer entertain the misguided notion that the NTSC camera looks "strobier" than film. It may sound "high and mighty" to say "learn how to move the camera like a film camera" to someone complaining about strobing, but, frankly, there is no other answer possible. The DVX acts exactly like a film camera. If you want it to look like a movie, shoot the way movies shoot.

For PAL users, all I can say is, rent Network. Watch this film. Watch the pans through the office, you'll see dozens of examples in the first 20 minutes. And then compare what you see there, to what you're seeing from the DVX. If it's noticeably different, well, perhaps there's a problem with the PAL version of the DVX. But I suspect that it'll be the same, that everyone is in for a surprise, and that the PAL DVX is doing exactly what it should (as witnessed by the universal agreement that the footage looks great on a computer screen).

and I find it even more crazy having to move the camera just in a certain way....come on....

Then you are not prepared to shoot film, or to shoot video that looks like film.

Over the last century, film cinematographers have had to learn that you move the camera in certain ways to avoid strobing. It is inherent in the 24fps frame rate. You absolutely must compensate, as cameraman, or your footage will strobe distractingly. There are articles written about proper camera movement technique published in the American Cinematographer's Manual.

It is the way things are. It is what film looks like. And the DVX renders motion exactly the same way film does. EXACTLY.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

[quote author=Jay_Blanchard link=board=Events;num=1077903628;start=25#41 date=03/03/04 at 16:01:03]Barry--A couple of problems.  First, the link you provided came up as an error page.  Secondly, the video posted didn't say which shot was the DVX and which was the 16mm (although i have a good idea).[/quote]

Are you sure? I just tried it and the link worked fine...

And yes, in the original thread I didn't say which was which, partly because I wanted people to engage in the age-old guessing game. The motion rendering was so identical that you do have to stop and ask "which is which" -- which is a good indication that the DVX is quite filmlike.

I don't remember which was which, but I know the film footage was overall softer and flatter, the DVX footage was much crisper.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso


Barry:

"Then you are not prepared to shoot film, or to shoot video that looks like film."

Maybe. Still I have to figure out how on earth can people like Lars Von Trier (just to name one) make movies....you know, no tripods at all, fast pans.....
Of course there's so much I have to learn. But I think this "much" is really more technical than this "move the camera slowly, use a tripod" attitude. Of course I could be wrong. If the DVX renders motion exactly the same way film does, I still have to understand why some people say progressive footage coming from other cameras looks fine, while footage coming from the DVX doesn't.

I'll rent that movie.

Cris
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

The 16mm is very easy to tell out of the shot--it's on the left. You easily tell by going frame by frame--look around frame 26 or 27: there's a huge interlacing issue, lots of jagged lines, etc. the 16mm never gets that: just normal motion blur when it moves too quickly.

i've watched thousands of films. shot thousands of feet of 16mm and super8, tripod, handheld, etc. edited thousands of feet of 16mm and super8 transfered to video. and with the exception of the stuff they came out of a budget telecine shop, the motion rendering is NEVER as choppy as DVX!

there's not really a question of whether DVX isn't CAPTURING the motion the same as 16mm, but there is about what the hell is happening to it by the time it gets to tape.

as for the "network" example, there are a lot of factors that could be causing the strobing--bad telecine? bad transfer to DVD/VHS? i've seen films released on video by one company that look like they're having a seizure, and then another company will release it and it looks fine.

it's not like the people having problems here are just swinging around the camera handheld & complaining they're getting strobes. many people (like myself) have shot a lot of film, know the rules for shooting film, and those rules don't include locking the camera down for every goddamn shot. there are plenty of films/television programs that are shot handheld on film, and it's very rare than you see strobing, and when you do, it's not even close to as drastic as what you see from a 24P Normal tape straight out of the camera.

i'm sorry for sound brash, but i'm getting sick of the excuses. We've all grown up watching films. Most of us have made them. We know what they're supposed to look like & how they are supposed to be shot. And when glaring, ugly artifacts start showing up in footage that wasn't there every other time we've shot with other cameras, there's only one conclusion to make--there's a problem here.

For the 24 & 25P users that are having issues, you have two choices:

1) Complain to Panasonic & insist they improve their motion rendering in whatever way that needs to be done.

2) Just don't buy a Panasonic camera again.

I'm leaning towards #2, but if anyone has a petition they want signed, send it on.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

"and I find it even more crazy having to move the camera just in a certain way....come on.... "

"Then you are not prepared to shoot film, or to shoot video that looks like film."

Actually, I've shot film extensively. And I've seen films shot handheld, with rapid pans, even running with the camera. You get motion blur, you get a distorted image--you DON'T get a picture with motion that looks like it just came out of Cleaner with a 200 kps bit rate.

Think of landscapes in films--you see them all the time. Nothing in the foreground, lots of sharp edges. You see a steady pan across the horizon on 16mm or 35mm--no problem, beautiful. You see the same thing on a DVX and it looks like a choppy mess!

If strobing is happening all the time, why aren't we seeing it? it's not just because "there are other objects in the foreground" because this isn't always the case. I've noticed strobing in a motion picture only in maybe a half dozen shots, and a few times in very cheaply telecined 16mm. I see it in my DVX footage constantly. Go figure.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso


About the petition.

I'm turning again to English motherlanguage people.

Maybe Jay and Brendan...? As experienced NTSC and PAL users aware of the issue, could you maybe try to put down a decent text for a petition/letter if you have the time??
You certainly would explain the matter far better than me or maybe other non-English language people...

What do you think?

Thanks

Cris

"If strobing is happening all the time, why aren't we seeing it? it's not just because "there are other objects in the foreground" because this isn't always the case. I've noticed strobing in a motion picture only in maybe a half dozen shots, and a few times in very cheaply telecined 16mm. I see it in my DVX footage constantly. Go figure."

Thanks for the support....you're helping me avoiding mental hospital.... ;)
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

check this out--5th paragraph down.

http://www.reelbutter.com/VideoFear.html

Notice the references to "strobing"--and these are direct comparisons of the SAME shots from a 35mm and 24P top-o'-the-line camera.

As for the petition, I'll try to write something up from the NTSC side of things.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

[quote author=Jay_Blanchard link=board=Events;num=1077903628;start=50#63 date=03/04/04 at 13:08:45]
there's not really a question of whether DVX isn't CAPTURING the motion the same as 16mm, but there is about what the hell is happening to it by the time it gets to tape.  
[/quote]
And yet, when it's on tape, you can pull it in and look at it frame-by-frame and see that it looks perfectly fine. You can play it back on a progressive monitor and see that it looks perfectly fine. It's fine on tape.

as for the "network" example, there are a lot of factors that could be causing the strobing--bad telecine?  bad transfer to DVD/VHS?
Neither should be the case, since it was a DVD transfer of a multi-oscar-winning film from a major studio. Still, the possibility exists, I guess.

it's not like the people having problems here are just swinging around the camera handheld & complaining they're getting strobes.
Some may not be, but I suspect that many are. When the DVX first came out we had a lot of this type of discussion, and that's basically exactly what was happening. Watch the "what I see" video... it's a guy shooting a hallway, swinging the camera back and forth (handheld, I think) and then complaining that it strobes. Of course it does. It's supposed to. It's shot at 24fps, not 60i.

there are plenty of films/television programs that are shot handheld on film, and it's very rare than you see strobing, and when you do, it's not even close to as drastic as what you see from a 24P Normal tape straight out of the camera.
Well, there we will have to disagree. I've seen plenty of film that strobes every bit as badly as the DVX, and I've never seen a DVX shot that strobes more than film would (when executing the same shot.) There are thousands of examples of over-the-top strobing in film. Look at "Pirates of the Caribbean", when they do the POV shot of Johnny Depp as he's sailing in to the port in the beginning -- that is a mind-numbingly stroby shot as it pans past the ship with all the guys on the ship are watching him (because his boat is sinking). LOTR has many examples, although I can't think of specific ones offhand. These are top-dollar, big-budget films, top-of-the-line transfers, latest technology... and they strobe violently. Just like the DVX would, in the same circumstances. Network is one example where I watched it with the strobing issue in mind. And it's very easy to see. I recommend everyone who's complaining about strobing to watch that film.

I've shot film next to DVX in order to get to the bottom of it. I went in with no preconceived notions, only the scientific interest of answering the question once and for all. And the answer is: they look the same (motion-wise). I'd love to see someone else do it and get different results. I don't think you can. Lock a film camera and a DVX onto a side-by-side platform, and shoot however you want -- handheld, tripod panning, whatever you want. Use the same shutter speed for both. Transfer the film to video and split-screen it, and you'll see that the motion rendering is identical. How can it not be? One is capturing 24 frames per second, and the other is capturing 24 frames per second. By all rights, by all theories, they should render motion the same. And, in my experience, testing them side-by-side, they do.

i'm sorry for sound brash, but i'm getting sick of the excuses.
I know where you're coming from, lots of people seem upset. But simple objective testing reveals that it is the same. Don't just try to shoot with it, test it side-by-side. Verify for yourself. Lots of people are shooting with a DVX and are quite satisfied with the results.

Please, someone else shoot film side-by-side with the DVX, and see if you can get different motion rendering. Analyzing the actual differences would go a long way towards figuring out what the problem is. (so far, I haven't found any differences, which is why I conclude that there isn't actually a problem.)
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Man, I am really surprised by all of the feedback that this post has gotten. As I am a fairly new user to the DVX100a, just got it in January, after reading this post I was fairly concerned that the last two shorts that I have shot would suffer from this stobing issue. I sat down and watched a documentary that i shot on the effects of stress at my University. there is a scene where a couple of people are walking infront of a big read brick wall, as I am panning with them. There are bright doorways and very defined mortar lines in the wall, so I thought it would be a perfect opportuninty to see this strobing issue first hand. This is a 24P dvd that I made, shooting in 24pn and then converting it to 24fps in Vegas using the 2:3 pulldown method. I watched it the first time. No noticable strobing. I watched it again. no strobing. I had my wife watch it, and asked her if she noticed something weird with the brick wall, she said "yeah, their is a big stain in that upper right hand corner of the wall", but she didn't see any strobing. I have looked all through this horribly shot documentary (all hand held, lots of zooming and panning (even really fast pans)) but no where near the problems that others have been explaining. I just don't get it. why would some cameras have this problem and others do not. Granted the footage does not look like interlaced 60i when i pan, it is not super smooth, but It didn't make me sick. In fact I put in my Matrix reloaded dvd and played the part where he is fighting the Smiths in the park and the cammera pans endlessly. I don't have a Progressive scan TV so I sat really close so that I could see the individual interlaced lines on the matrix dvd scene and they looked identicle to those of my poorly shot documentary. I really did pan that fast in some of the shots. Maybe it is because I mad a 24p dvd, however with the camera hooked up to my tv and shooting in 24p, I still don't get sick looking at the footage. Maybe there is another issue here that really isn't the camera. I would definatly say that it is more likely a codec issue and since I converted strait to mpeg 2 after having edited in a 24p environment, I didn't get that flickery stroby issue. if you would like, I will post (for a short time) a clip from that documentary of the panning shots at full res dv. Sorry it's not PAL but if you burn it to a 24p dvd it should play in the pal DVD players. If anyone is interested, let me know, it is still the beginning of the month so I have lots of bandwidth to use.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Barry:

"Watch the "what I see" video... it's a guy shooting a hallway, swinging the camera back and forth (handheld, I think) and then complaining that it strobes. Of course it does. It's supposed to. It's shot at 24fps, not 60i."

Ok...I'm that guy. Now, I really don't know how to say, once again, that was an "on the fly" shot, *believe it or not*, I made in a very busy day...didn't actually even have the time to take the tripod out as I said....!!! And of course that was not an artistic shot, so I just swang the camera back and forth of course to make you see those damn doubling lines. That was surely not intended to tell you: "hey, look at this great professional shot..."
Yes, it was handheld...But even if it was shot in a hurry, the pan was not so fast, and not so shaky. And as said a thousand times, the issue comes out even in *EXTREMELY SLOW, TRIPOD PANS* ok?

Mea culpa I didn't post a tripod, extremely slow pan shot. Too bad I didn't think about this and didn't get the time to make a better shot. That was a test, anyway. But then again, I can't see the point in having a so called great camera and being limited. What do I have to do? Get down on my knees and ask for forgiveness because of that shot?? I surely won't. That was no artistic shot, but no weird one eiter. If you say I was just using practicals, that's another question, but I really doubt pro light would solve the problem, anyways.

If there's strobing in movies or some movies, I still have to notice it, this meaning it's not the same as in DVX.

I still am with Jay.

Cris
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Veganway
I looked at the footage that you posted, and it did look way "strobbier" (I love the english language) than it should, or does in very similar footage from my documentary. The offer still stands if someone wants some raw footage to look at message me through the dvx message center and I'll send you the link. I don't want to post the link because it will shut down my site. that's what happened last time. :)
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

My friend,

Alot of people have tried in a lot of ways to help you with your problem(s). Over time it is now apparent to me, maybe to others, any amount of help will be in vain. You and your camera will not - can not be helped.

My suggestion is you sell your DVX and maybe go into still photography or something else entirely. It isn't the camera - its just a tool, no more no less. If you (and others of a similar kind) are unable to use it as you feel it should be used and with the results you expect it should deliver, understand that asking everyone to become upset with you, will not resolve your problem.

I'm trying to say this in as nice a way as I can, but understandably it will come off as harsh -- And maybe necessarily so.

So, with that I will say goodbye and I do hope you find what it is you're searching for, for yourself and by yourself, without trying to pull the rest of us along.

-Rodger
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Good idea ..good bye and adress this as well to hundreds of experienced 16mm, 35mm , 25 p HD shooters all over in the PAL world who experience a problem with this camera.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

@ Barry

I appreciate your work..Tip to the hat
some other thoughts:
"
both Panasonic and Thomson do produce 24P cameras with a genuine progressive output that has virtually the same visual pulldown artifacting as 3:2 film for television, without that (possible) imaging frame buffer. And for HD/video release it does create some interesting and unique judder exaggerations in scenes with higher panning rates. But if it is true, I wonder why, except for the transport/recording justification of HDCam recorders, it was done, without comment or explanation from the manufacturer since it is obviously possible to do otherwise based on observation of 24P cameras from the big three. If not I continue to seek the true source of the quirky judder.

All of that relates, of course, to HD for video and television release only, and, of course, at film out, judder should be nonexistent, so a non issue for film applications, leaving only qualitative and marketing issues to differentiate between the options and determine production methodology in that latter medium.

GEORGE C. PALMER
HDPIX, INC.
HD and Digital Imaging Services

I looked at a lot of footage in the last weeks to nail this strobing phenomena down - I wrote it before - best examples are the early Cinema noir
movies - Look at " Jules et Jim" and you see a lot of them- but I can `t help myself and it might be "psycological" the  Pana looks different.
I wrote it before- this may be due to the depth of field of the small 1/3 chips. Not the only problem but...
Everything is sharp as hell - every edge is accentuated - the camera in its normal factory settings has a much more enhanced sharpness even compared to a PD- 170 !!! You even can see sharpness Halos on straight lines. And so this strobing is much much more appearent. You never - I repeat never heard of complaints concerning strobiness using a DVX 100 with the 35 mm PS adapter. Why ? because you have a non existing DOF .
The whole background is blurred.


let me add:

concerning your contribution that the buzz and halos on interlaced PAL TV  are interlace artefacts -
but - there is no pulldown in PAL - the DVX stores the frames  as every interlaced DV movie before.
there are speculations as well  that the phosphors of CRT are to slow to
get along with the increased vertical resolution.
But I see these annoying buzzes and halos as well on a progressive display
if !! I activate the Cameramode of the deinterlacing chip. Thats nothing else than a chip which reacts as a field doubler to display a proper movie without interlacing artefacts. If I switch to filmode the monitor reacts in its progressive glory and all the holos and buzz are on the same location as the virtual strobe lines.  Strange.



Another consideration is the interlaced DV codec used in this camera. The DV codicis are well known for adding mosquito noise
in areas of high resolution and areas with high contrast
This would explain to a certain aspect that you
never hear complaints about the visual quality of footage deriving from Sony´s High End 24 p camcorders , which don´t use the DV Codec and store the footage with a much higher datarate.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Rodger:

I really can't see the point in you talking that way to me.

Seems very clear "my" problems are not due to some defective camera because many other people, newbies and professional have pointed out just the same issues, and even some Panasonic technicians (at least here) are aware of them.

I find your suggestion offensive as, once again, I just want to be able to *move* the camera in progressive mode, and not just use it for still photography, as this is what I could actually do now, without having to sell the camera to get into the business as you suggested.

I know a lot of people tried to help, and I really appreciate it.
I'm always thanking people, and I don't think I've ever been offensive. On the contrary, too many people are just able to say it's the operator's fault if you get to see strobe and flicker when it's clear there's a problem with the camera. I really can't see the point in this devil's advocate attitude towards Panasonic. If you experience no problems, well ok, maybe you got one of those 10 limited edition pieces of the camera, lucky guy. But you cannot tell someone to change his job just because you're satisfied with the camera.

Once again, I don't expect anything strange from the DVX...I never thought I would have reached 35mm look with it or I would have been able to shoot in the dark as someone pointed out. I never, ever said anything like that.

I would have not complained, anymore, if I knew all other progressive cameras gave the same results as the DVX, but guess what? Seems like it's not quite so.

I never said this camera sucks or stuff like some other guys could have done...You're talking to me like what I did from the start was this....Like I just started the thread saying: "hey, this camera sucks! I cannot shoot in the dark! I cannot get steady images during a earthquake! I cannot have the camera work inside a hoven!"....Come on!!!! I can't see why you're not able to give me credit. I made tests, I tried to figure out what the problem was, I tried to have other's suggestions and followed them...

"So, with that I will say goodbye and I do hope you find what it is you're searching for, for yourself and by yourself, without trying to pull the rest of us along."

Boy, seems like I obsessed you to help me with how to insert a tape in the camera!!! I didn't think you could get so easily upset.

So, yes, goodbye from me and in the name of "hundreds of experienced 16mm, 35mm , 25 p HD shooters all over in the PAL world who experience a problem with this camera."

Cris
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

I see different opinions on this matter, but I would say one thing : Do anything you need to do
For people that are unhappy, go write complaint to Panasonic
For those that are happy with DVX as is, live goes on and enjoy it
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso


Well said, Johan. ;D

I'm just trying to get as many opinions/signatures for complaints as possible before writing to Panasonic.
Jay from the NTSC world kindly said he'll write a text for a petition.

Looking forward to hearing from Brendan to see if he can do the same for PAL world. I would do it myself, but seems like sometimes it's hard for me to properly explain technical matters in English.

Cris
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

I was working on some homework, with this message board lingering in the back of my head.  I was doing some Macromedia flash work, when it hit me.  I closed everything down and started up a new project.  Framerate 23.976fps, screen size 640x480 (getting my drift).  I ended up with two identical clips.  there is one at 24p and one at 30p, can't do interlaced stuff in flash.  Each clip has a slow moving red pole and a faster moving green pole from left to right.  I then brought the clips into vegas and exported a true 23.976fps quicktime file and an interlaced 29.976 quicktime file (60i).  Unfortunatley since the 60i was converted from 30p you are not getting true interlaced footage, however it does serve as a reference.  First watch the unaltered swf file of the 24p footage.

http://www.stefweb.net/WEBTEST.swf

If there are ripping lines in the scene you might try adjusting your monitor refresh rate to the closest multiple of 24.

Now look at the 24p exported from vegas

http://www.stefweb.net/24PTEST.mov
Notice how familiar that footage looks?  

Now take a look at the 60i test.  Again this is really 30p that has been interlaced so it is a little more choppy than true 60i would be.

http://www.stefweb.net/60iTEST.mov
Still choppy, but see what I'm getting at.

To complete this test, I would encourage all of you to export these to your cameras using vegas and the 24p 2:3 pulldown for the export.  Take a look at the footage on your monitor.  Let me know what everyone sees.

And for all you PAL people out there, don't worry I didn't forget you.  here you go

http://www.stefweb.net/25ptest.mov

Let me know what you guys see, and remember when watching on a computer monitor, tearing will occur, so whatch it on your big ol Boob tubes.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

[quote author=Brendan link=board=Events;num=1077903628;start=25#29 date=03/03/04 at 02:15:58]Jarred, come on now don’t be silly, the double image in those stills was definitely motion blur but you know this is something different.  :P
Barry I think ur right on the money. I figured that the cadence of the B field is to long so its still visible when the next A field appears. But surely as this cam is designed for PAL use this should have been a real obvious issue for the panny R&D techies and dealt with BEFORE the product was released. I don’t know how but film telecine to pal does work, and HD 25P displayed on a standard pal display DOES WORK, and without the double lines & detail buzz that we’re seeing. Trust me, over the past month every film I’ve seen {of HD or 35mm origin} on TV I’ve been looking for these interlaced artefacts and they’re just not there!!?? Now we’ve got a better understanding of what’s going on we just need to work out what we can do about it, even if it has to be fixed in post. An NL editor or FX plug in courtesy  of panny maybe!? I just want to go shoot some 25P stuff that I can USE in my pal projects. I’m sure my clients will love the look if I could just remove those interlaced artefacts!   :-/[/quote]

@Brendan

Yes the cadence issue
this is what I thought about as well . how did you measure that ?
Wonder if this has something to do with the settings in my service menu

C- : slow 00-00
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

ok, this is going to be my last post on the subject, mainly because I feel this is turning into a "chase your tail around" kind of exercise. it think it's simply coming down to the fact that there's a difference between the way the DVX and a film camera look once they're to video tape (very noticeable if you do it frame by frame--big ugly sharp interlace lines on pans with the DVX which you just don't see on the 16mm. the video that barry linked to proves it).

i watched stan brakhage's "the act of seeing with one's own eyes" last night. i don't have a progressive scan DVD player and i was watching it on a 27" television. He shot the whole think handheld in an autopsy room under harsh lighting conditions, camera flailing all over the place. guess what--not one strobing effect. i picked the most jarring, shaking & panning handheld shot i could find & played it back, frame for frame, over 200 frames: never once did it see interlacing artifacts, jagged lines, tearing, etc. just standard motion blur & grainy, soft edges.

i'm of the opinion that those folks who aren't seeing this problem simply don't want to see it or haven't shot film before. i have, i know what i'm seeing & i don't like it. i'll continue to use this camera for limited applications, but besides that, it won't replace 16mm for me, not by a long shot.

i don't know what's causing this issue--acquisition, pulldown, image stabilization, lack of resolution: it's not my job to know. i'm not a technician, i'm a media producer. i use my eyes for a living & i trust what they see. and unless i was half blind with cataracts, i can see the difference between footage others and myself have shot in 16mm and that shot with the DVX. and until panasonic does something to change that, there's no chance i'll be buying another 24P camera from them again, and it seems there are quite a few others who feel the same way.
 
Back
Top