1080 30P Concerns - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Canon EOS Full Frame for HD
All about using the Canon 1D X, 6D, 5D Mk. IV / Mk. III / Mk. II D-SLR for 4K and HD video recording.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 28th, 2009, 07:57 AM   #16
Sponsor: Westside AV
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mount Washington Valley, NH, USA
Posts: 1,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Martins View Post
hi Olof

Did you try the filters, that Jon Fairhurst recommend in the other thread. If so, do you feel that solve the problem?

Pedro
I got the filter, but I have not had a chance to retry that clapboard shot yet, I will and I will then post result.

My shoots have been mostly soft focus w/o need for thin line correction. We are currently shooting a lot of nature and closeups of people, tourism promos. For these type of shots I find the Color softening works great. I don't like to stack filters, and I almost always use ND 6 or 9. But I will try the Tiffen Soft/fx 1 filter and ND9 soon.

I also just got a Fader vari ND, and that is already 2 pieces of glass, it will be interesting to see how that works with Tiffen Soft/fx 1.
Olof Ekbergh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2009, 08:39 AM   #17
New Boot
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh View Post
EX3 shoots 1080 29.97p among a bunch of other formats.

I use mkII footage with EX3 footage all the time now. Sometimes 29.97p.

I just conform mkII footage to 29.97 (Cinema Tools) then drop in a 29.97p timeline along with EX3 footage. Works great.

I set up timeline to be EX3 with render to Prores HQ. DEpending on your cpu speed and raid setup you may want to render mkII footage to Prores HQ before you start.

The mkII footage always need softening and grading to match EX3 or other video cams. Easy to do in Color. I have some presets to get me in the ballpark. But I usually grade all my shots these days anyway. Color roundtrip works very well.
Ive seent this in a couple of threads - what does it mean - easy to do in Color?

Thanks,
Fred
Fred LeFevre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2009, 08:54 AM   #18
Sponsor: Westside AV
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mount Washington Valley, NH, USA
Posts: 1,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred LeFevre View Post
Ive seent this in a couple of threads - what does it mean - easy to do in Color?

Thanks,
Fred
Color is a really fantastic color correction/grading program that comes with FinalCut Studio II, Mac only.

I am sure there are Windows programs that do similar adjustments.

The incredible thing about Color is that it is a really inexpensive replacement for grading suites. Used to cost many tens of thousands of dollars.

However a colorist is very specialized profession, and just having the program does not turn you into one. It is a great learning tool, and as you get more experience in it, very useful.

I used to think that Media100 had great color correction, and it does, but Color blows it out of the water.

Cinema tools is also a program, part of FCP suite.

Last edited by Olof Ekbergh; June 28th, 2009 at 08:56 AM. Reason: Add reference
Olof Ekbergh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2009, 09:27 AM   #19
New Boot
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 15
Color

Ahhh - thanks. If only they made a FCP version for PC!
Fred LeFevre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2009, 05:59 AM   #20
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 124
Aliasing and beyond

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathieu Kassovitz View Post
Aliasing? . . .
Mathieu, what I am talking about is the fact that - in my experience so far, and I would LOVE to be wrong here - MkII is great for internet but unusable for any professional broadcast. What I am getting out on my control monitor via Intensity Pro card is unacceptable for broadcast. Period.

Do not get me wrong, I love idea of having a still camera that can be used fro HD video, to the extent that I actually bought two, but so far I have not been able to get acceptable image outside computer monitor.

I am as the matter of fact quite surprised at the fact that this less then perfect codec is not been discussed more at this forum; we all were furious about lack of manual control, happy to get it, but so few people complained about the codec artifacts which - IMHO - is just not tolerable. And for me, the question of good codec is by far superior to the question of having manual control. Now, I have full manual control over bad image quality.

What I am getting is a sort of schizoid output: great video shoots on my computer becomes ugly beasts on my PAL/HD 1080p control monitor. And guess what - I am in broadcasting. So, unless I find some acceptable manner to maintain great image I have on my computer monitors once I output the footage to external/control monitor, my Canons will be just what they are meanbt to be - great still cameras with NON-broadcast able HD video option.

I have just tried what Olof suggested to do with transfer to Color and apply some blur: no deal. In my case blur makes jugged edges even worse on wide shoots. Portraits done with 200mm lens are in most cases good, as long as any horizontal line does not appear in the shoot.

Again, I am not trying to be offensive to Canon here, I love my MkII and if anyone can point me in direction of solving the artifacts issues I mentioned - I will keep buying him rounds of beer for next two decades! Cheers!
Daniel Ridicki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2009, 06:46 AM   #21
Sponsor: Westside AV
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mount Washington Valley, NH, USA
Posts: 1,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ridicki View Post
Mathieu, what I am talking about is the fact that - in my experience so far, and I would LOVE to be wrong here - MkII is great for internet but unusable for any professional broadcast. What I am getting out on my control monitor via Intensity Pro card is unacceptable for broadcast. Period.

Do not get me wrong, I love idea of having a still camera that can be used fro HD video, to the extent that I actually bought two, but so far I have not been able to get acceptable image outside computer monitor.

I am as the matter of fact quite surprised at the fact that this less then perfect codec is not been discussed more at this forum; we all were furious about lack of manual control, happy to get it, but so few people complained about the codec artifacts which - IMHO - is just not tolerable. And for me, the question of good codec is by far superior to the question of having manual control. Now, I have full manual control over bad image quality.

What I am getting is a sort of schizoid output: great video shoots on my computer becomes ugly beasts on my PAL/HD 1080p control monitor. And guess what - I am in broadcasting. So, unless I find some acceptable manner to maintain great image I have on my computer monitors once I output the footage to external/control monitor, my Canons will be just what they are meanbt to be - great still cameras with NON-broadcast able HD video option.

I have just tried what Olof suggested to do with transfer to Color and apply some blur: no deal. In my case blur makes jugged edges even worse on wide shoots. Portraits done with 200mm lens are in most cases good, as long as any horizontal line does not appear in the shoot.

Again, I am not trying to be offensive to Canon here, I love my MkII and if anyone can point me in direction of solving the artifacts issues I mentioned - I will keep buying him rounds of beer for next two decades! Cheers!
I agree with you and I have stated that mII codec can not handle sharp thin lines and does a very poor job with highly detailed shots. Like lots of leafs and branches in focus. It also does some interesting things with small pinpoint lights (white pinpoint lights can become multicolored and twinkle).

But the mkII really excels in shots that are mostly out of focus (shallow DOF), these are very common shots for me at least. Also shots with a lot of even colors in it are fine.

The low light capabilities of the mkII are outstanding.

I have used mkII footage in broadcast SD commercials, and in bluray DVD and HD-DVD. And it looked fine. No one other than us here at Westside A V Studios would know it was not shot with a "video camera".

As I have stated before it is not a great all around ENG EFP cam, but a special tool and if used correctly produces wonderful broadcast acceptable shots.
Olof Ekbergh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2009, 07:16 AM   #22
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 124
Yes Olof...

.. quite right. It can do great stuff, but not in the realm of wide angle. With soft focus telephoto lens if fine. Pitty.
Daniel Ridicki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2009, 08:50 AM   #23
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ridicki View Post
but unusable for any professional broadcast. What I am getting out on my control monitor via Intensity Pro card is unacceptable for broadcast. Period.
Wow, it's nice to see people worried about quality around!

I have seen the worst content-less and quality-less videos on TV. I think there is no use for the term "broadcast" anymore!!! :-(
Xavier Plagaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2009, 03:06 PM   #24
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 124
This is not matter of semantic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier Plagaro View Post
Wow, it's nice to see people worried about quality around!

I have seen the worst content-less and quality-less videos on TV. I think there is no use for the term "broadcast" anymore!!! :-(
When you are commissioned by a broadcaster to produce a documentary in HD, believe me term ''broadcast quality'' is very much alive. Want to play with their technicians? You are most welcome to do so! I am not going to challenge them. Because any of those guys can pull out the plug pronouncing your program technically sub par, and you are gone.

Again, I love my MkIIs, but I am reluctant to include footage made with them on my HD timeline due to described artifacts. I agree that contemporary TV programs are usually an insult for intelligent person, but that is not my battle.
Daniel Ridicki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2009, 08:00 AM   #25
Tourist
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Colmar, France
Posts: 2
image rates

i'm also the happy owner of an EX1 and i'm really intersted by the MK2 as a king of "b" camera. But what bothers me is the 30 images/sec. I live in France and we shoot in 25 images down here. So my question is : is it easy to match both rushes, one filmed with the MK2 at 30images and the other from an EX1 at 25 images. Exemple : if i shoot an interview with my EX1 and i want to integrate shots made with the mk2.
Thanks for your answers,
Fred
Fred Meon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2009, 10:55 AM   #26
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 124
Fred

I can only share my experience. I mostly use MkII for general shots, not intws. If sound is not important in the paricular shoot, I leave the shoot at 30fps, conform frame rate in Cinetools, ignore the sound (as it is slowed down) and use other ambiental sound that I record with propper sound gear.

OK, when I need original sound (last week I've shoot a performance of twirling dervishes in Cairo, using 70-200 lens with soft focus and thus acceptable amount of artifacts I mentioned above) I simply convert the MkII footage in Compressor or MPEG Streamclip to Pro Res HQ, and alter the frame rate to 25. No problem, except for two shoots with movement of the camera that revealed frame drops (because the frames are dropped in the process of converting from 30 to 25 fps). Simply did not use those takes.

Now, I recently made a video spot for a jazz singer friend of mine, in a jazz club, static, her sitting on the high stool, basic jazz trio setup, not much movement. All shoot with EX3 and MkII with 85 lens, full aperture, soft focus. Non frame drop was detectable, perfect sync. That would suggest - you being shooting intws - somewhat similar setup, the person being interviewed will most likely not move too much, so you should not have problem. Just - if I may advice - avoid if at all possible any lines and highly detailed background, to avoid codec artifacts.
Daniel Ridicki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2009, 07:19 PM   #27
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ridicki View Post
soft focus
Just curious what do you mean by "soft focus"?

Thanks.
Alex Raskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2009, 08:51 PM   #28
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ridicki View Post
I can only share my experience. I mostly use MkII for general shots, not intws. If sound is not important in the paricular shoot, I leave the shoot at 30fps, conform frame rate in Cinetools, ignore the sound (as it is slowed down) and use other ambiental sound that I record with propper sound gear.
Cineform (Neoscene in particular) properly adjusts pitch when converting to 29.97 so there is no audio slow-down you mention. While I am praising their product I will also say it converts very fast and the resulting format is very nice for editing.
Mark Hahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2009, 01:14 AM   #29
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 124
Alex

By soft focus I mean using telephoto lens at full aperture so that only a small portion of the image is in focus whereas foreground and background are out of focus, blurred. In this way sharp edges are almost eliminated from the image, thus avoiding jugged edges.

Also, in picture style, I use 'Portrait' and reduce contrast to the minimum, helps a bit. Using 'Landscape' with high contrast - nightmare.

Mark

What you do is fine in NTSC lands, not in PAL. Correct me if I am wrong, but Neoscene does not convert from 30 to 25 fps.
Daniel Ridicki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2009, 12:19 PM   #30
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ridicki View Post
...Neoscene does not convert from 30 to 25 fps.
True. Neoscene isn't a converter at all. It just slows the 30p by 0.1% so we don't drop frames on a 29.97 timeline. It resamples the audio to match.

The benefit of Neoscene isn't rate conversion. It's that it converts the video to independent frames with wavelet compression, so we can edit quickly, and get lower resolution proxy views as needed on the fly. It's similar to Pro Res, but can be used on any NLE and OS.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst
Jon Fairhurst is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:03 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network