Frame Mode vs. De-Interlaced 60i
 

I'm shooting a narrative short with my XL-1 next month, and while I know video will never look exactly like film, I want it to look as close as possible. Professional lights are being used and all of that, as well as CineLook for color correction. My question is about frame mode and de-interlaced 60i.
What looks better: Shooting in frame mode, or shooting in interlaced mode and using After Effects to render it at 24fps? Render times are not an issue and this short will never get transferred to film so thats not a concern. I heard there is a way to drop frame mode down to 24fps, but that resolution is lost that way. Does 60i deinterlaced to 24fps have a better resolution than 30fps frame mode or vice versa, and in anybodies opinion is the loss in resolution (if there is one) acceptable due to the increased cinematic look of 24fps? Thank you very much for your opinions.

i recently came across a article that review the different software that takes 60i and converts it to progressive .. "
"film look techniques for film "

http://www.2-pop.com/article/mainv/0,7220,34614,00.html

IMO you should be shooting TEST before your shoot . shoot frame mode , normal mode. take your normal video and convert it down in after effects - do the cinelook etc to it and YOU tell us what you think looks better ! ...

you've decided on cinelook based on ?? TEST ? based on something you saw shot with XL and they had cinelook ? perhaps lighting and frame mode will give you the look you want ? you won't know until you shoot some TEST ...

you should also do some lighting test to see what type lighting gives helps to give you the film look.

also go over to www.rocketchicken.com look at their trailer and production stills. they shot with XL 1 in 16x9 ... i saw the film digital projected ( digital beta) the lighting is EXCELLENT.

have a good shoot ...

Thanks for all your advice and for the article, it helped alot. I also checked out Come Together and heard that they used After Effects to get it down to 24fps from 60i. Do you know if that is true? Also, what would anyone here suggest I do, use Cinelook before or after deinterlacing to 24fps?

Looks like they are having some sort of server problems. I got an email with the step-by-step directions and was able to see the option for "media" only after refreshing a couple of times. I agree, definitely well done lighting.

Trent,

What is your final output medium going to be. Are you planning on transfering to film, or is it for TV.

I wouldn't waste time rendering down to 24fps unless it's going to be transfered to film.

I'd shoot in Frame mode, then use CineLook in post to give it the look you're after. Pay close attention to your lighting and camera movement because it also plays a big part in achiveing the look you're after.

The final medium will be video, transferring to film is way too expensive for my budget. I had been thinking about just using frame mode, but I read on this board from some people who are just diehard about 24fps and how that is simply the biggest way to make video look more cinematic (saying how its all about leaving those gaps in motion that your mind has to fill in, thereby drawing your brain in, etc.). Render times are also not an issue for me.

ive always shot in frame, color corrected in after effects and cinelook.
I also add some small grain in cinelook and some specifications to
spice up the color a little, then do some of my own processes as well.

no de-interlacing involved there.

try exporting your movie in 24p then bring it back in and export it 30p
with the 3:2 puuldown, if you trying for the 24p look.

note you will get jumpy video when zooming or panning if you go that route,
though adds to some effect if you will.

if you want to shoot 60i, deinterlace through after effects. cinelook does a good job as well. Photoshop actually does the best deinterlace job if you capture then render your video in frame sequence, batch rendered through photoshop. yet if your shooting a feature maybe that will be too much work.

basically shoot frame and use post to color correct or cinelook.
you will get the best overall look going that route. I am very happy
with the outcome of my video using this process. I just dont care for 60i myself, id rather shoot frame and bypass the deinterlacing process. plus
you get a more cinematic look doing that.

Personally I don't feel that there is a way to get the same 24fps motion that you see on DVD and studio videotapes using just a consumer video camera and After Effects/whatever yet. That's why we are excited about the advent of 24p. But for now I strictly use frame mode.

nah,

you wont get the true 24p look when converting frame rates, you often tend to get a jumpy pan or zoom when doing so.

personally i dont recomend it but its up to you what you want your video to look like. Yet ive seen some distinctive looking things with this method.

Trent,

I think that changing your movie to 24fps will ruin it. As mentioned it will end up jumpy.

Your best bet is to shoot in frame mode, and as I said before pay close attention to your lighting and camera movement. Frame rate plays a part in producing the film look but it's only a part of the 'big picture'. As Joe said that's why he's waiting to see what comes of the new Panasonic with native 24p.

With good lighting, composition, camera movement, frame mode and Cinelook, I'm sure you will get the look you're after.

Conserning the example posted
 

I just watched the COME TOGETHER trailer @ www.rocketchicken.com. That was a technological turn off for me. Does anyone know exactly what set up they were using? They are having serious focusing problems throughout the entire clip (and I don't think its the web compression). This is typical of cameras with smaller CCDs. The focus in medium shots seem to always be on the wall behind the actor (look at the clip with the guy when he is on the phone).

Also I think they could have done a much greater work in CC. As of know the trailer suffer from the typical "cold electronic" video look (especially apparent in the softly lit interiors). Chelsea Walls did a much, MUCH better job at this with the PD150.

Does anyone know if they where using a manual lens or the (yuk) electronic one? If they shot this with the manual lens they need to get a Mini 35 Digital adapter or a DP that understands the limitations of video.