The first answer would be 1080i/24pa of course. It's got a better resolution... Does it? Isn't 1080i interlaced? Since when interlaced is better than progressive? You shoot in progressive mode (24PA) but for output and recording the signal is converted to 60-field-per-second interlaced and stored in the P2 card. So isn't the 720P/24PN the best choice for Film-out Screening?
What´s best for Film-out Screening, shooting 720P/24PN or 1080i/24PA?
- Thread starter Guga
- Start date
thefilmaddict
Veteran
I've never owned a Panasonic 24p camera (until I ordered the HVX200), so progressive is new to me. I just want to throw in a few more questions while we are on this topic. I understand that the different 24p modes (like 24pn) have to do with shooting 24p, adding pull down, then using some mode in the edit process that removes the extra frames (right?).
I've heard many times that shooting 24p is great for film out because you get clean frame to frame transfer. I've also heard that it's better to shoot progressive than interlaced when shooting video that you plan to transfer to film (right?). So why is everyone so excited about the XLH1's higher interlaced resolution for film out? The Canon video is interlaced and I would imagine that when you de-interlace the footage, some resolution is lost. So doesn't this mean that the Canon's extra resolution doesn't mean that much when you compare it to HVX resolution when talking about shooting for film transfer (I'm not trying to say one camera is better than the other, I just want to know is shooting higher resolution interlaced video better than shooting lower resolution progressive video)?
I've also heard that when shooting for film, you do not want to over-expose and that you want to shoot video that has less contrast in it (you don't want to crush the blacks). I also believe that the HVX has a setting for this, correct?
So here's my real question (I'm sure you're thinking it's about time!): What do you do if you want to shoot 24p for Blu Ray and standard def distribution, but still want to shoot in a mode that would be fine for film transfer? Could I shoot with the low contrast setting (for later possible film out), then in post bring down the blacks or gamma to get a more pleasing looking image for HD DVD and SD distribution? Will a 24p frame mode on the HVX200 work for both types of output (if so, which one)?
Sorry if these are dumb questions. I think that most of us want to shoot in a way that will give us many options later. I'm sure we all want our films to be good enough to be distributed in movie theaters on film, but if this doesn't happen, we still want our movies to look great on the small screen. I appreciate any info on this matter.
I've heard many times that shooting 24p is great for film out because you get clean frame to frame transfer. I've also heard that it's better to shoot progressive than interlaced when shooting video that you plan to transfer to film (right?). So why is everyone so excited about the XLH1's higher interlaced resolution for film out? The Canon video is interlaced and I would imagine that when you de-interlace the footage, some resolution is lost. So doesn't this mean that the Canon's extra resolution doesn't mean that much when you compare it to HVX resolution when talking about shooting for film transfer (I'm not trying to say one camera is better than the other, I just want to know is shooting higher resolution interlaced video better than shooting lower resolution progressive video)?
I've also heard that when shooting for film, you do not want to over-expose and that you want to shoot video that has less contrast in it (you don't want to crush the blacks). I also believe that the HVX has a setting for this, correct?
So here's my real question (I'm sure you're thinking it's about time!): What do you do if you want to shoot 24p for Blu Ray and standard def distribution, but still want to shoot in a mode that would be fine for film transfer? Could I shoot with the low contrast setting (for later possible film out), then in post bring down the blacks or gamma to get a more pleasing looking image for HD DVD and SD distribution? Will a 24p frame mode on the HVX200 work for both types of output (if so, which one)?
Sorry if these are dumb questions. I think that most of us want to shoot in a way that will give us many options later. I'm sure we all want our films to be good enough to be distributed in movie theaters on film, but if this doesn't happen, we still want our movies to look great on the small screen. I appreciate any info on this matter.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
If the HDV format is highly compressed, approximately, 27:1 for 720p and 47:1 for 1080i according some source numbers, in the case of DVCPRO-HD will there have similar difference between the two modes? And in this case, 720p can be better than 1080i despite the resolution? Specially to 35mm film-out?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Basically yes. The different modes in the DVX were an accomodation to how the footage would be edited. In the HVX the 720/24pN mode is designed to allow longer recording times on the P2 card.thefilmaddict said:
Exactly.
Definitely.
Well, not so fast though. The Canon has a 24F mode which simulates the feel of progressive scan and which gets recorded progressively, so it doesn't need to be de-interlaced at all. It's not like other interlaced cameras that need to do field-blending and frame conversions; it has interlaced CCDs but it does make a progressive-like frame in its 24F mode. It's true that its 24F is lower resolution than its interlaced 1080i frame, but it's likely that 24F would still be preferable for a film transfer than converting 60i would.
Depends on the difference in resolution, and the film transfer house's success in converting the footage.
Let's put it this way -- the DVX is almost good enough to do a film transfer without worrying about the amount of detail. With the PD150 and XL1 and other interlaced cameras, transfers were always just soft enough to be irritating. The DVX, being an extended-definition camera when in 24p mode, just about crossed the line into being "good enough". From the back of the theater it's plenty good enough; from close up it can still look soft. But when you start talking about these high-definition cameras, you're seeing so much more res that it almost becomes irrelevant. Whether one has a hundred lines more here or there, on a percentage basis it's really not enough to even worry about. These HD cameras are recording an astonishing amount of detail as compared to the standard-def cameras that came before them.
So in a roundabout way you're asking if an HVX can make an excellent film transfer? I think it will likely prove to make a superb film transfer, something I intend to explore shortly.
If shooting for a film transfer, you want to retain as much dynamic range as possible; avoid blowing out the highlights and avoid crushing the dark tones. Using the knee and master pedestal you can control these elements, yes.
Yes, you can do all that. Any of the 24p modes can work for filmouts and for authoring SD and HD DVDs.
thefilmaddict
Veteran
I'm always blown away by the great responses I get on this website. Thanks to everyone. Barry you are a treasure. Thanks for taking the time to respond to all of my silly questions. After I get the HVX200 and start using it, I hope to start answerring question.
Barry_Green
Moderator
HVX 1080 is higher res than 720, mostly in the horizontal. I'd previously said in both directions, but using the moving-camera method of testing that we employed it looks like vertical res is not too different.
PappasArts
Veteran
Barry,
In your opinion is 1080p 24 even worth filming in over 720p?
If there is no vertical gain in res which is very important why waist the storage on the 1080P?
Isn't the compression less in 720P 24 vs 1080P 24?
How is it that there is no vertical gain since it's 1080/60p scan off the ccd?
In your opinion is 1080p 24 even worth filming in over 720p?
If there is no vertical gain in res which is very important why waist the storage on the 1080P?
Isn't the compression less in 720P 24 vs 1080P 24?
How is it that there is no vertical gain since it's 1080/60p scan off the ccd?
Barry_Green
Moderator
The compression is identical, per pixel, in 1080 and 720. And there's a very big gain in horizontal resolution. I'm not decided on vertical resolution yet -- early testing showed a noticeable gain, but this aliasing moving method kind of narrowed down the differences. I still think there's more to be had in 1080 than 720.
Not that 720 doesn't look great, because it does, but no doubt there's noticeably more res in 1080, especially on the horizontal.
Ultimately the choice is up to the user I guess.
Not that 720 doesn't look great, because it does, but no doubt there's noticeably more res in 1080, especially on the horizontal.
Ultimately the choice is up to the user I guess.
PappasArts
Veteran
Thanks Barry, that's good to hear.
pappas
pappas
Barry_Green said:
Barry, are you going to do a filmout and compare 720p and 1080p ? If you do, I would like to know how much discernable difference there really is on the silver screen. :beer:
Since shooting 720p is easier in a lot of ways regarding workflow, this could be valuable info.
How would a mini35's softness affect the resolution on the screen ?
Cheers.
Since shooting 720p is easier in a lot of ways regarding workflow, this could be valuable info.
How would a mini35's softness affect the resolution on the screen ?
Cheers.
Green Hornet
Veteran
FullRez said:
ADVANCED