Frame Mode + post special effects
 

I remember reading somewhere here that frame mode was a no no if you intended to do sfx in post - is that true, and why?

As far as I can see, it wouldn't really be a problem if you knew what you were doing. Or perhaps they meant frame mode was a bad idea if you intended to transfer to film?

Alex

In my opinion shooting in frame mode increases your ability
to do post production. But it all depends on what you like and
how you think things look. EXPERIMENT!! Do not blindly follow
other peoples instructions but try them out and see what works
best for you. Frame mode looses some image quality that might
degrade your post work, however, it also removes interlacing
problems.

Whether or not frame mode is bad to process to film depends
entirely on the house that does that conversion. Some prefer
interlaced footage while others prefer progressive. Make sure
you inquire with them before shooting.

Personally I'm not caring for film distribution because there is
very little chance that I'll do that. My products will mainly be
put on DVD/VCD/Internet/VHS. If one turns out to be that great
I'll worry about film conversion then. In the meantime I'm trying
to get the highest quality and working with what I like best,
which is frame mode for me.

As I said in the beginning expirement and see what YOU like
best.

Frame Mode Described in Detail--Not Good
 

Read this article on 24p and Frame and Interlaced Mode by Steve Mullen in "Video Systems".
http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=127&releaseid=10439&magazinearticleid=154546&SiteID=15

After you digest this, see what you think of the dumbing down to 320 vertical lines of resolution that Frame Mode produces. My mostly positive position on the GL2 has been
taken down a bit by this.

I don't know how valid this statement is. I myself are shooting
mostly in frame mode and I think the picture lookes very nice.
Judge for yourself.

Like Rob said, who cares about numbers if it looks good. In the end that's all that matters.

True.

Four things in reply to the responses:
1. Have you read and fully understood how the Frame Mode is accomplished?
2. What looks good to some may show its deficiencies to others.
3. The lowered vertical resolution may become more noticeable if the camera tape is bumped up to a higher format in editing.
4. Rob is shooting with a PAL XM2, which has more scanning lines and more vertical resolution than the GL2.

One thing that puzzles me, is the line pair summation in interlaced scanning. This increases the strength of the image signal, but lowers the vertical resolution. Is it necessary to produce a CCD acquisition of adequate strength? Are there any models that don't use this pair summation? I wonder about the professional models with 1/2-inch and 2/3-inch CCDs.

Thus is what seperates us right brainers to the left brainers.

I can care less about a few less lines of resolution to compinsate
for the IMO "authentic" look the frame mode produces...It may however
effect very little of the image resolution when bumped up to a higher format,
yet i would rather risk the image loss than to shoot interlaced, becuase IMO
progressive or frame mode looks better than interlaced.

I agree that they should make a better CCD to compinsate for the loss
of resolution in frame mode.

That's my main point, that true progressive mode would look better than interlaced, but without the vertical resolution loss of frame mode. You can't compensate for the loss of vertical resolution in frame or interlaced modes by making a better CCD, as you'd have to increase the number of scanning lines to do so, which would make it incompatible with the video system. I wish they'd given the GL2 a true progressive set of CCDs. Maybe they will do this to the rumored "XL2" that may be floating around out there in the vaporware
zone.

The GL2/XM2 is a good and much improved model, but it's not as advanced as it could have been, which could be said for every camcorder ever made.

right....i would also like to see true 16:9 in conjunction with frame mode..
that would be nice...or maybe a camera just soley dedicated to frame mode
with 16:9 option

In the end it all comes down to performance vs cost. Maybe using a CCD that produces full progressive without the res loss would bump the camera up to a higher bracket. I like the look and for the work I do, video/DVD or web, the resolution loss isn't a big deal.

I'm afraid in the end it all boils down to what Adrian said... it's very much a matter of cost vs. performance. You want true 16:9, no problem... you just have to pay for it... the Sony DSR500 is only about $10,000 or so. I don't mean to be cynical about it, but in the long run it's all about what you're willing to pay.

Don't worry too much, with the amount of work going into CCD technology here in Japan at the moment, it shouldn't be long before we see some major improvements.

Cutting edge technology (bleeding edge?) is rarely, if ever, in prosumer cameras. If you want the latest and greatest technolgy expect to spend $50,000 and up. What we shoot with is really 6 to 8 year old technology. So, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, or is it? I bought an Avid Media Composer 1000 in December '94 for around $80,000 for everything. I sold it in the fall of '96 for $22,000. When I bought it I figured I had 18 months to pay for it and make my profit. It was a gamble, but it worked. I moved my company to a new level with that technology. I made my profit and more. The risk paid off. That old Avid of mine is still used by the company that bought it. It still does exactly what I bought it for, broadcast quality NLE digital editing. It's no longer state of the art by any means, that only lasted for several months. But it has made a ton of money for the guy that owns it. If you want the latest and greatest technology be prepared to spend serious cash and be prepared to do it every year or so. If you don't, your cutting edge clients will leave in a heart beat.

Jeff

Doesn't the new Panasonic ag-dvx100 have true progressive CCD's? This camera is only marginally more than an xl1s. Maybe I'm wrong here.

Cheers
Aaron