GL2 / XM2 Frame mode

Brendan Getchel · September 6th, 2003, 04:42 PM

WHOA!

That's all I can say. Two weeks ago I shot some video with the GL2 at Ground Zero in the WTC, NYC. We're doing a memorial webcast of a documentary interview on Sept 12 with Alex Loutsky, who was both the first FDNY respondant (within 30 seconds of first impact) on scene and was the first to notify the Emergency Response System. As a quick aside, his ambulance was destroyed in the collapse, his partner injured and unable to return to his former duties, and, as they were running for their lives as the tower(s) came down the two FDNY running on either side of him were killed.

Back on topic...

I shot the interview using the GL2 in frame mode and an Azden SGM-2X XLR shotgun mic on a boom pole (wife/assistant) connected via 30-feet of XLR cable into the GL2 via MA-300. Most of it was shot tripod-mounted using the VZ-ROCK LANC controller.

We started around 6:30am on Sunday morning two weeks ago to minimize ambient noise and traffic -- but it was still pretty busy. Using "Frame Mode" infinitely ENHANCED all of that NYC hustle and bustle with what looks like a "Soderburg-Style" effect. I mean it REALLY looks nice and not at all "video-like."

I'm really impressed, and the results are awesome!

FYI, I am cutting the interview now on AXDV. The interview will be available for viewing on "WhereWasGodOn911.com" Friday, Sept 12 in the evening and then forever thereafter.

Graham Bernard · September 6th, 2003, 11:29 PM

Brendan - I know this is a cheek, but is it at all possible to see some "sample footage", even 5 seconds or so? Please? I'm interested in what my XM2 can do with this Frame Mode. I suppose I could the same . . . . but you sound so enthusiastic about its performance, I was just wondering - yeah?

Grazie

Brad Higerd · September 16th, 2003, 01:51 PM

Brendan,

Awesome! I am not one to dump platitudes. The interview was great. Some work will stand the test of time and prove itself worthy of our effort. I believe this interview qualifies.

Brad

Brendan Getchel · September 16th, 2003, 02:49 PM

Brad,

WOW! That's high praise. Now that the live webcast is over, we're thinking about breaking the interview off of the actual presentation and including about another 10-15 minutes more of the dialog and footage.

Thanks for the positive remarks. It was hastily thrown together. I'm not a NLE and have little Avid experience, so you post was very encouraging.

Rob Shoaff · September 24th, 2003, 09:15 AM

Greetings,

I am new to this forum and a recent owner of a GL2. I was testing out the frame mode and noticed that when zoomed in at 20X the video image is jitters a little bit. When I mean jitters it's as if the image is shifting a couple of pixels in all directions randomly.

I was recording with image stabilization on and in P mode. I have searched through this forum, but didn't find anyone talking about having a similar experience. I am wondering if it's a defect in my camera. I haven't noticed this happening in normal mode. I want to know if this is typical with the camera and is due to the technology of frame mode and the image stabilization.

Thanks,
Rob

Frank Granovski · September 24th, 2003, 09:58 AM

Use a tripod and turn off the OIS. Also, frame mode footage will look jittery in the LCD.

Rob Shoaff · September 26th, 2003, 12:21 PM

Frank thanks for the information. I'm looking forward to test the camera a bit more this weekend.

David Bohn · October 16th, 2003, 08:27 PM

I've done a lot of searches here and most state that there is a loss of resolution when shooting in frame mode because of a decreased contribution from the green CCD; but the owners manual states there is a "1.5X increase in vertical resolution" on pg. 50. Which is right ?

Nicholi Brossia · October 16th, 2003, 08:41 PM

Yeah, I thought I remembered reading that. I'm curious to see how that works too.

Frank Granovski · October 16th, 2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

but the owners manual states there is a "1.5X increase in vertical resolution"

Would that be the vertical resolution of 1 field or of an odd and even field? :)

David Bohn · October 16th, 2003, 10:24 PM

Good guestion, because that would equal the decreased resolution claims that I've found here, but the frame captures I've seen here from frame mode look way better than my interlaced frames.

Barry Goyette · October 17th, 2003, 11:01 AM

David

The canon manual is confusing on this point. The 1.5x increase refers to a still frame comparison of one interlaced field with one frame mode field (vertical resolution only). In this case the manual is correct. In practical use, the temporal resolution created by two interlaced fields per frame is double that of one interlaced field, and thus is 25% greater than the two indentical frame mode fields that make up a frame...thus the correct claim that frame mode causes a slight decrease in resolution.

In actual use, especially with the gl2, this loss in resolution is barely, if at all, visible on an SD NTSC monitor. I play my footage on an HD set, and except for the jaggies that plague all DV footage, the resolution in frame mode is substantially better than any SD broadcast source.

Barry

Corey MacGregor · October 17th, 2003, 01:54 PM

Who really cares about all the specs on paper. Frame mode looks rad. The person watching your video doesn't care about lines of resolution, vertical lines, etc... You should spend more energy on shooting, lighting and the message that your trying to get across, let the engineers worry about all that tech stuff! Just my opinion.

Corey

Alex Dunn · October 17th, 2003, 02:04 PM

That's true Corey, but then we wouldn't have anything to argue about. You can't shoot ALL the time.

The fact is, Frame mode clips look better than any deinterlaced clips I've seen. I've personally done HOURS of tests with my GL2 and several software de-interlacers. Some are obviously better than others, and I can't afford to even talk about Magic Bullet ($1000), but so far I'm happier with Frame Mode.

I shoot EVERYTHING frame mode.

Nicholi Brossia · October 17th, 2003, 06:36 PM

I agree with you guys. I tried frame mode once right after receiving my camera and didn't like the way it looked all strobed on the lcd (which I later found out doesn't apply on computer or tv). Then, after reading all the hooplah about loss of resolution, I completely ignored that feature... until last week. I finally figured I'd give frame mode a try, thinking it would be okay. As soon as I saw the result on my computer, I was hooked. For starters, its a great picture. And to top that off, I don't have to settle for fuzzy or stair-step looking de-interlaced video... not to mention the render times.
There are probably uses when interlaced will provide an advantage over frame mode (slow motion maybe?), but I'll deal with that when the time comes.
Sure folks can analyze this feature to death, and probably make some pretty good points. While they're doing that, I'll be out making movies.

nicholi

September 6th, 2003, 04:42 PM	#151
Brendan Getchel Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Waterbury, CT Posts: 101	Frame mode ROCKS! WHOA! That's all I can say. Two weeks ago I shot some video with the GL2 at Ground Zero in the WTC, NYC. We're doing a memorial webcast of a documentary interview on Sept 12 with Alex Loutsky, who was both the first FDNY respondant (within 30 seconds of first impact) on scene and was the first to notify the Emergency Response System. As a quick aside, his ambulance was destroyed in the collapse, his partner injured and unable to return to his former duties, and, as they were running for their lives as the tower(s) came down the two FDNY running on either side of him were killed. Back on topic... I shot the interview using the GL2 in frame mode and an Azden SGM-2X XLR shotgun mic on a boom pole (wife/assistant) connected via 30-feet of XLR cable into the GL2 via MA-300. Most of it was shot tripod-mounted using the VZ-ROCK LANC controller. We started around 6:30am on Sunday morning two weeks ago to minimize ambient noise and traffic -- but it was still pretty busy. Using "Frame Mode" infinitely ENHANCED all of that NYC hustle and bustle with what looks like a "Soderburg-Style" effect. I mean it REALLY looks nice and not at all "video-like." I'm really impressed, and the results are awesome! FYI, I am cutting the interview now on AXDV. The interview will be available for viewing on "WhereWasGodOn911.com" Friday, Sept 12 in the evening and then forever thereafter. __________________ Dumb Guy.

September 16th, 2003, 02:49 PM	#154
Brendan Getchel Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Waterbury, CT Posts: 101	Brad, WOW! That's high praise. Now that the live webcast is over, we're thinking about breaking the interview off of the actual presentation and including about another 10-15 minutes more of the dialog and footage. Thanks for the positive remarks. It was hastily thrown together. I'm not a NLE and have little Avid experience, so you post was very encouraging. __________________ Dumb Guy.

September 24th, 2003, 09:15 AM	#155
Rob Shoaff Tourist Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 2	Frame Mode Jitters Greetings, I am new to this forum and a recent owner of a GL2. I was testing out the frame mode and noticed that when zoomed in at 20X the video image is jitters a little bit. When I mean jitters it's as if the image is shifting a couple of pixels in all directions randomly. I was recording with image stabilization on and in P mode. I have searched through this forum, but didn't find anyone talking about having a similar experience. I am wondering if it's a defect in my camera. I haven't noticed this happening in normal mode. I want to know if this is typical with the camera and is due to the technology of frame mode and the image stabilization. Thanks, Rob

October 16th, 2003, 08:27 PM	#158
David Bohn Tourist Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4	Frame Mode Confusion I've done a lot of searches here and most state that there is a loss of resolution when shooting in frame mode because of a decreased contribution from the green CCD; but the owners manual states there is a "1.5X increase in vertical resolution" on pg. 50. Which is right ?

September 6th, 2003, 11:29 PM	#152
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Brendan - I know this is a cheek, but is it at all possible to see some "sample footage", even 5 seconds or so? Please? I'm interested in what my XM2 can do with this Frame Mode. I suppose I could the same . . . . but you sound so enthusiastic about its performance, I was just wondering - yeah? Grazie

September 16th, 2003, 01:51 PM	#153
Brad Higerd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 186	Brendan, Awesome! I am not one to dump platitudes. The interview was great. Some work will stand the test of time and prove itself worthy of our effort. I believe this interview qualifies. Brad

September 24th, 2003, 09:58 AM	#156
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Use a tripod and turn off the OIS. Also, frame mode footage will look jittery in the LCD.

September 26th, 2003, 12:21 PM	#157
Rob Shoaff Tourist Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 2	Frank thanks for the information. I'm looking forward to test the camera a bit more this weekend.

October 16th, 2003, 08:41 PM	#159
Nicholi Brossia Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Posts: 389	Yeah, I thought I remembered reading that. I'm curious to see how that works too.

October 16th, 2003, 10:24 PM	#161
David Bohn Tourist Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 4	Good guestion, because that would equal the decreased resolution claims that I've found here, but the frame captures I've seen here from frame mode look way better than my interlaced frames.

October 17th, 2003, 11:01 AM	#162
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	David The canon manual is confusing on this point. The 1.5x increase refers to a still frame comparison of one interlaced field with one frame mode field (vertical resolution only). In this case the manual is correct. In practical use, the temporal resolution created by two interlaced fields per frame is double that of one interlaced field, and thus is 25% greater than the two indentical frame mode fields that make up a frame...thus the correct claim that frame mode causes a slight decrease in resolution. In actual use, especially with the gl2, this loss in resolution is barely, if at all, visible on an SD NTSC monitor. I play my footage on an HD set, and except for the jaggies that plague all DV footage, the resolution in frame mode is substantially better than any SD broadcast source. Barry

October 17th, 2003, 01:54 PM	#163
Corey MacGregor Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 74	Who really cares about all the specs on paper. Frame mode looks rad. The person watching your video doesn't care about lines of resolution, vertical lines, etc... You should spend more energy on shooting, lighting and the message that your trying to get across, let the engineers worry about all that tech stuff! Just my opinion. Corey

October 17th, 2003, 02:04 PM	#164
Alex Dunn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 202	That's true Corey, but then we wouldn't have anything to argue about. You can't shoot ALL the time. The fact is, Frame mode clips look better than any deinterlaced clips I've seen. I've personally done HOURS of tests with my GL2 and several software de-interlacers. Some are obviously better than others, and I can't afford to even talk about Magic Bullet ($1000), but so far I'm happier with Frame Mode. I shoot EVERYTHING frame mode.

October 17th, 2003, 06:36 PM	#165
Nicholi Brossia Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Posts: 389	I agree with you guys. I tried frame mode once right after receiving my camera and didn't like the way it looked all strobed on the lcd (which I later found out doesn't apply on computer or tv). Then, after reading all the hooplah about loss of resolution, I completely ignored that feature... until last week. I finally figured I'd give frame mode a try, thinking it would be okay. As soon as I saw the result on my computer, I was hooked. For starters, its a great picture. And to top that off, I don't have to settle for fuzzy or stair-step looking de-interlaced video... not to mention the render times. There are probably uses when interlaced will provide an advantage over frame mode (slow motion maybe?), but I'll deal with that when the time comes. Sure folks can analyze this feature to death, and probably make some pretty good points. While they're doing that, I'll be out making movies. nicholi