Wow! Awsome GL-2 Trailer

Sean Hansen · September 15th, 2005, 05:26 AM

For joining and posting this good info. Being one of the many GL2 users here, it gives us a nice boost in confidence to our initial choice of purchasing this camera. Seeing what others (like yourself) can do, and learning new techniques for shooting and post work, really helps us all improve our own projects. Especially since most of us are seriously budget restricted.

I know I will be applying these tips in many areas of my own works to improve the over all look and feel of them.

Thanks again!

Sean Hansen

Jean-Francois Robichaud · September 21st, 2005, 12:05 PM

You said you shot Sundowning in the regular 60i mode, then used Magic Bullet to deinterlace. I participate in events where a short movie must be shot and edited in less than 48 hours, so it would be unrealistic for me to use Magic Bullet, due to the long rendering times. If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?

Bob Benkosky · September 21st, 2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean-Francois Robichaud

You said you shot Sundowning in the regular 60i mode, then used Magic Bullet to deinterlace. I participate in events where a short movie must be shot and edited in less than 48 hours, so it would be unrealistic for me to use Magic Bullet, due to the long rendering times. If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?

Absolutely shoot in frame mode otherwise it's going to look like total amatuer video.

Frame mode really doesn't look that much different than Magic bullet unless you look really careful. It is better, but not as much as 50%.

Justin Kohli · September 23rd, 2005, 06:19 AM

I saw this trailer over a week ago and I was impressed.

I thought it looked well even if it didn't have a big-budget appearance. In fact, the acting and the trailer were so intriguing that I didn't care, and I just took it as a complete package.

I won't be doing any film for a few years, I'm considering taking some classes at a nearby college and doing a 20 minute short first. I'm still learning, but after seeing "The Riddle" (which I believe was shot with an XL1S) I figured that the XL line, maybe an XL2, would be something to look into.

But now finding out your work was done with a GL2, and of course I'm not forgetting about post-production (in your trailer and "The Riddle") -- it is still inspiring, and I realised I could save some money by going with a GL2! So now I am weighing in on that option. There is one thing that kinda bothered me, the trailer had a "bloomy" highlight look. It was most noticable on scenes where some characters were wearing bright clothes like a white t-shirt.

What I have seen is inspiring, thank you.

Jean-Francois Robichaud · September 24th, 2005, 07:54 PM

About frame mode...

I just did a quick test, a 3/4 close up of myself (shoulders included) with soft key on the off-camera side, a reflector for fill on the on-camera side, and a hard backlight. Ratio at 16/9, shutter 1/60, aperture 2.0, gain 0dB (custom presets at default).

I repeated the same shot in both normal and frame modes, then watched it on my TV. Sure, the motion rendition is nice in frame mode, but the drop in resolution is pretty bad! I wear glasses and the frames of the glasses become all jagged in frame mode (this looks fine in interlaced mode). On a more extreme close-up however (basically part of the face, centered on the eyes), it's not as bad because the detail is bigger.

I need to see how this looks when I deinterlace the interlaced shot in post. But with this test, I don't know which is worst, the loss of resolution of frame mode, or the "video-like" motion of interlaced... BUT, my TV might make this look worse than it is, as it's pretty big (51").

So you know where I stand, I've always used my GL2 in normal mode, because I'd heard of the loss of resolution in frame mode. I had never made a side-by-side comparison before (I've only had it for 5 months). I'm going to do more tests now!

David Mackey · October 1st, 2005, 08:44 PM

great stuff!

Graham Bernard · January 14th, 2006, 03:05 AM

Jim, how did you "monitor" the in-camera 16:9 mode?

Grazie

Rob Lohman · January 14th, 2006, 08:02 AM

Grazie: you might want to send him an e-mail to get him back to this thread,
I'm not sure if he is still following it. Good luck!

Graham Bernard · January 14th, 2006, 08:35 AM

Yes, Rob .. I did this before posting here .. for the same reasons! But, it would appear I'm NOT getting a DVinfo "Your email has been sent" or any reference within my own emailer that I had in fact emailed Jim. Sooooo... that is why I posted here .. .

But thanks for the caring thought . . . vot a MENCH! ! !

Grazie

. .. note to self . .I must contact Chris and see what is happening with me emails . . .

Jim Cole · January 17th, 2006, 08:50 AM

Hi Graham et all -

re: 16:9 monitoring on the GL2.... it's a simple answer - I didn't. I basically just got used to looking at the stretched image on the GL2 LCD screen. I'd say this is do-able, and it is the kind of compromise one can easily make when trying to stick to a very low-budget. But of course, it's also a huge pain, and is definitely one of the drawbacks of the GL2. I would always be in favor of letterboxed monitoring on a built-in lcd. Of course, a 16:9 capable broadcast monitor would also do the trick, but if you can afford one of those on set, you're probably not using a GL2.

A quick word about an earlier post re: frame mode.... to my eye, the loss of resolution in frame mode on the GL2 is very noticeable, and I would strongly advise against it for any work that will be shown on a big screen. I don't think shooting interlaced for narrative work is a good bet either... unfair as this may be, the general public/distributors/festival juries subconsciously but unfailingly associate the progressive look with that of "quality" in a narrative. This may change. In any case, that's why we chose to use Magic Bullet, rendering times and all. BUT, I think I've read that more recent releases of MB have dramatically increased rendering speed... somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Just finishing up post on a Varicam feature... and still using Magic Bullet (just MB for editors now, since cam shoots 24p.) Should have a trailer up on www.gumspirits.com/threepriests within a couple of weeks. Also, a quick plug (hope that's ok) "Sundowning" is gonna be released on DVD within the next 2 months, keep an eye on our website if interested for more info.

best
Jim

Jim Cole · January 17th, 2006, 08:55 AM

I missed this question: Jean -Francois asked: "If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?"

I guess it's a subjective decision... Personally I'd shoot in Frame Mode in this case, though I'm generally not in favor of it... although you'll take a hit either way, my feeling is that most audiences are far less aware of "resolution" than they are of the "feel" of the images, and progressive vs. interlaced has a very profound effect on the feel of a piece.

jim

Graham Bernard · January 17th, 2006, 01:17 PM

Thanks Jim. Yes I've heard from another "professional" source the, "I basically just got used to looking at the stretched image on the GL2 LCD screen." . . . oh!

I'm considering a lowly priced monitor just for frame and focus.

Grazie

Jean-Francois Robichaud · January 17th, 2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Cole

I missed this question: Jean -Francois asked: "If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?"

I guess it's a subjective decision... Personally I'd shoot in Frame Mode in this case, though I'm generally not in favor of it... although you'll take a hit either way, my feeling is that most audiences are far less aware of "resolution" than they are of the "feel" of the images, and progressive vs. interlaced has a very profound effect on the feel of a piece.

jim

Since my last tests with frame mode, I've shot 3 short movies, all of them in frame mode, as there was no time for deinterlacing. I prefer the look of it over 60i, but I can sure see the degradation when projected on the big screen. On one of the movies, I added some diffusion in post, which had the side effect of hiding the loss of resolution a bit. On my next few projects, I'll have more time available for post, so I'll probably shot 60i, and then deinterlace.

As for framing 16:9, I also do it from the LCD. The bad thing about this is that I sometimes end up with a little too much space left and/or right of the main subject, unless I make a conscious effort of "de-stretching" mentally.

Herman Chen · November 1st, 2006, 02:02 PM

How did you do the sound editing for the film?

David Ho · November 30th, 2006, 05:02 PM

That is an amazing video. Great shots with the GL2.

September 15th, 2005, 05:26 AM	#31
Sean Hansen Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 50	Thanks Jim For joining and posting this good info. Being one of the many GL2 users here, it gives us a nice boost in confidence to our initial choice of purchasing this camera. Seeing what others (like yourself) can do, and learning new techniques for shooting and post work, really helps us all improve our own projects. Especially since most of us are seriously budget restricted. I know I will be applying these tips in many areas of my own works to improve the over all look and feel of them. Thanks again! Sean Hansen

September 21st, 2005, 12:05 PM	#32
Jean-Francois Robichaud Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 142	Question to Jim Cole You said you shot Sundowning in the regular 60i mode, then used Magic Bullet to deinterlace. I participate in events where a short movie must be shot and edited in less than 48 hours, so it would be unrealistic for me to use Magic Bullet, due to the long rendering times. If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?

September 23rd, 2005, 06:19 AM	#34
Justin Kohli Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Appleton, WI, USA Posts: 77	I saw this trailer over a week ago and I was impressed. I thought it looked well even if it didn't have a big-budget appearance. In fact, the acting and the trailer were so intriguing that I didn't care, and I just took it as a complete package. I won't be doing any film for a few years, I'm considering taking some classes at a nearby college and doing a 20 minute short first. I'm still learning, but after seeing "The Riddle" (which I believe was shot with an XL1S) I figured that the XL line, maybe an XL2, would be something to look into. But now finding out your work was done with a GL2, and of course I'm not forgetting about post-production (in your trailer and "The Riddle") -- it is still inspiring, and I realised I could save some money by going with a GL2! So now I am weighing in on that option. There is one thing that kinda bothered me, the trailer had a "bloomy" highlight look. It was most noticable on scenes where some characters were wearing bright clothes like a white t-shirt. What I have seen is inspiring, thank you. __________________ Album Journal: http://carbonflaw.blogspot.com DV Blog: http://24-fps.blogspot.com Music & Media Label: phait-accompli.com Thoughts & Philosophies: http://jkohli.blogspot.com "The most important thing is to enjoy life, to be happy, that's all that matters." --Audrey Hepburn

January 14th, 2006, 08:02 AM	#38
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Grazie: you might want to send him an e-mail to get him back to this thread, I'm not sure if he is still following it. Good luck! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 17th, 2006, 08:50 AM	#40
Jim Cole New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 12	16:9 monitoring Hi Graham et all - re: 16:9 monitoring on the GL2.... it's a simple answer - I didn't. I basically just got used to looking at the stretched image on the GL2 LCD screen. I'd say this is do-able, and it is the kind of compromise one can easily make when trying to stick to a very low-budget. But of course, it's also a huge pain, and is definitely one of the drawbacks of the GL2. I would always be in favor of letterboxed monitoring on a built-in lcd. Of course, a 16:9 capable broadcast monitor would also do the trick, but if you can afford one of those on set, you're probably not using a GL2. A quick word about an earlier post re: frame mode.... to my eye, the loss of resolution in frame mode on the GL2 is very noticeable, and I would strongly advise against it for any work that will be shown on a big screen. I don't think shooting interlaced for narrative work is a good bet either... unfair as this may be, the general public/distributors/festival juries subconsciously but unfailingly associate the progressive look with that of "quality" in a narrative. This may change. In any case, that's why we chose to use Magic Bullet, rendering times and all. BUT, I think I've read that more recent releases of MB have dramatically increased rendering speed... somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this. Just finishing up post on a Varicam feature... and still using Magic Bullet (just MB for editors now, since cam shoots 24p.) Should have a trailer up on www.gumspirits.com/threepriests within a couple of weeks. Also, a quick plug (hope that's ok) "Sundowning" is gonna be released on DVD within the next 2 months, keep an eye on our website if interested for more info. best Jim

September 24th, 2005, 07:54 PM	#35
Jean-Francois Robichaud Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 142	About frame mode... I just did a quick test, a 3/4 close up of myself (shoulders included) with soft key on the off-camera side, a reflector for fill on the on-camera side, and a hard backlight. Ratio at 16/9, shutter 1/60, aperture 2.0, gain 0dB (custom presets at default). I repeated the same shot in both normal and frame modes, then watched it on my TV. Sure, the motion rendition is nice in frame mode, but the drop in resolution is pretty bad! I wear glasses and the frames of the glasses become all jagged in frame mode (this looks fine in interlaced mode). On a more extreme close-up however (basically part of the face, centered on the eyes), it's not as bad because the detail is bigger. I need to see how this looks when I deinterlace the interlaced shot in post. But with this test, I don't know which is worst, the loss of resolution of frame mode, or the "video-like" motion of interlaced... BUT, my TV might make this look worse than it is, as it's pretty big (51"). So you know where I stand, I've always used my GL2 in normal mode, because I'd heard of the loss of resolution in frame mode. I had never made a side-by-side comparison before (I've only had it for 5 months). I'm going to do more tests now!

October 1st, 2005, 08:44 PM	#36
David Mackey New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5	great stuff!

January 14th, 2006, 03:05 AM	#37
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Jim, how did you "monitor" the in-camera 16:9 mode? Grazie

January 14th, 2006, 08:35 AM	#39
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Yes, Rob .. I did this before posting here .. for the same reasons! But, it would appear I'm NOT getting a DVinfo "Your email has been sent" or any reference within my own emailer that I had in fact emailed Jim. Sooooo... that is why I posted here .. . But thanks for the caring thought . . . vot a MENCH! ! ! Grazie . .. note to self . .I must contact Chris and see what is happening with me emails . . .

January 17th, 2006, 08:55 AM	#41
Jim Cole New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 12	one more thought... I missed this question: Jean -Francois asked: "If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?" I guess it's a subjective decision... Personally I'd shoot in Frame Mode in this case, though I'm generally not in favor of it... although you'll take a hit either way, my feeling is that most audiences are far less aware of "resolution" than they are of the "feel" of the images, and progressive vs. interlaced has a very profound effect on the feel of a piece. jim

January 17th, 2006, 01:17 PM	#42
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Thanks Jim. Yes I've heard from another "professional" source the, "I basically just got used to looking at the stretched image on the GL2 LCD screen." . . . oh! I'm considering a lowly priced monitor just for frame and focus. Grazie

November 1st, 2006, 02:02 PM	#44
Herman Chen New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 23	How did you do the sound editing for the film?

November 30th, 2006, 05:02 PM	#45
David Ho Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 354	That is an amazing video. Great shots with the GL2. __________________ "Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film."