Hi I’m looking at different recording frame rates and sizes.
I currently record in HQ1920 x 1080 /50i and I’m wondering for what application would I use 1280 x 720 /50p or 1280 x 720/25p. And what shutter speeds should I use with this format.

I know that the resolution is smaller but as I go to DVD anyway what would I gain using this format with the EX1?

I love this camera but the down conversion to DVD is shocking after seeing footage in HQ 1920 x1080

Thanks

Shooting 25p will allow you to do overcranking or slow motion shooting at up to less than half of real time. Shooting progressive has lots of intrinsic benefits if your final is going to end up both online and on DVD. Shooting at 25 frames will allow you to get more or a film look, if that is what you are after.

Shooting 1080 progressive gives you a lot of flexibility with your final output. 720 progressive is good if you are doing a lot of overcranking.

You also gain more stops (light) as you bring the frame rate down which can be really helpful.

I've found the best way to get a handle on it is to shoot in the different modes.

Hi Andy,
By bringing the frame rate down do you mean? 1920 to 720 I gain more light?
Yes your right testing.

I love this camera but the down conversion to DVD is shocking after seeing footage in HQ 1920 x1080

Thanks

You are about the 4th person I've heard say this recently. Tonight I did an experiment because I've not experienced this issue.

Last week I recorded a test interview. Shot under tungsten light, so not ideal, but still quite clean and detailed.

I used the following workflow:

1. Load XDCamEX footage into NLE
2. Render uncompressed 1080p file (compare to original... identical)
3. Take uncompressed file into Lanczos resize and change it to 720x405)
4. Do a slight de-noise on the footage to ensure it's clean
5. Bring 720x405 clean footage back into NLE
6. Render progressive widescreen mpeg2 file and AAC audio file
7. Open DVD Authoring program and load in mpeg2/aac files
8. Create .iso file so I don't have to burn a real disk.
9. Open .iso file in VLC

The image was gorgeous. I could even see the stray shirt fibers from wear on my collar. And each gray hair on my head was plainly clear. I could see my individual pores also.

So I am not sure what others are doing to produce their DVDs, but my workflow gives me results I am THOROUGHLY proud of. And I will be producing some corporate DVDs next month with this exact workflow.

Hi Perrone,
Sounds like you have a great workflow, I have just moved over to FCS from Vegas.
After seeing footage in it's glory from the EX1 and then seeing the end resulting DVD leaves me heart broken, I'm interested in your workflow.
What's Lanczos?

By bringing the frame rate down do you mean? 1920 to 720 I gain more light?

It is both resolution and frame rate. If you go from 50 frames to 25 you will see a definite increase in light. If you go from 1920 to 720 you will see a light increase as well. Combine the 2 and you get about a full stop increase in light.

3. Take uncompressed file into Lanczos resize and change it to 720x405)
You know that 720x405 is square-pixel and letterboxed, so it will look distorted on a TV and you're wasting 75 lines?
It is both resolution and frame rate. If you go from 50 frames to 25 you will see a definite increase in light.
You mean going from 720p50 to 720p25? If that makes your picture lighter then you're using a framerate dependend shutter-speed-setting. So it will also increase motion blur.
If you go from 1920 to 720 you will see a light increase as well.
Going from 1080p to 720p will give you about a half of a stop. But that half of a stop isn't a christmas-gift, but achieved by digital amplification in the same way as using the gain-control. So you are loosing latitude of a half of a stop.

Hi Perrone,
Sounds like you have a great workflow, I have just moved over to FCS from Vegas.
After seeing footage in it's glory from the EX1 and then seeing the end resulting DVD leaves me heart broken, I'm interested in your workflow.
What's Lanczos?


I'm using vegas to produce dvd's from my EX1, the pictures are great.

Paul.

Shooting in 1080i or 720p?
What's the better end product with the EX1 for down conversion to SD DVD.
This might seem silly but will 720p render out better quality SD than 1920?

I feel that the software is lagging behind camera devolpment and I think for myself this wonderfull camera is not showing it's true image at converted HD, to SD DVD.

How can these movies we get from the video shop look so clean. These films are shot on high grade cameras, HOW DO THEY CONVERT to SD DVD?

Man

Shooting in 1080i or 720p?
What's the better end product with the EX1 for down conversion to SD DVD.


1080p. Otherwise 1080i which offers more light and less noise than 720p.


This might seem silly but will 720p render out better quality SD than 1920?


No.


I feel that the software is lagging behind camera devolpment and I think for myself this wonderfull camera is not showing it's true image at converted HD, to SD DVD.


No its not. Perhaps the tools you are using are. Listen to what you are saying. The camera has delivered you gorgeous footage to your NLE. What happens from there is NOT up to the camera.


How can these movies we get from the video shop look so clean. These films are shot on high grade cameras, HOW DO THEY CONVERT to SD DVD?


They do it the way I outlined.

You know that 720x405 is square-pixel and letterboxed, so it will look distorted on a TV and you're wasting 75 lines?


No I am not wasting anything. The only thing in those 75 lines is black from the letterboxing. And no, my picture will not be distorted whatsoever, because the authoring software simply centers my image and letterboxes. I gain the advantage of not having to do a separate render for web use and waste storage saving it.


Going from 1080p to 720p will give you about a half of a stop. But that half of a stop isn't a christmas-gift, but achieved by digital amplification in the same way as using the gain-control. So you are loosing latitude of a half of a stop.

Exactly.

Hi Perrone,
Sounds like you have a great workflow, I have just moved over to FCS from Vegas.
After seeing footage in it's glory from the EX1 and then seeing the end resulting DVD leaves me heart broken, I'm interested in your workflow.
What's Lanczos?

When resizing footage, there are several methods to getting it done. Some produce MUCH cleaner footage than others. The best use Lanczos or Bicubic Splines to resize. The worst use "nearest neighbor". I believe the reason some of you are seeing poor results from your SD downconverts is because you are using software that uses bad algorithms to do the downcovert. I use a tool that lets me choose my method. I am VERY pleased with my downconverts.

I get good DV from FCS in this workflow:
1 Edit clips in timeline with XDCAM EX settings, but you do not have to render.
2 Create a DV sequence with these settings:
- Frame size - choose "CCIR / DV PAL (5:4)" from the menu and you get 720x576.
- Pixel aspect ratio : choose "PAL - CCIR 601 (720x576) from the menu and check "Anamorphic 16:9".
- Field dominance "None"
- Editing timebase "25"
- In QuickTime Video settings: click the button "Advanced" and choose "Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) - (don´t know if HQ is necessary)
3 Open this DV sequence and add your XDCAM EX sequences to it by dragging them to the canvas. You will get the question if you want to change the DV sequence settings to those which you are adding: then click the "No"-button
4 Render
5 Export to a QuickTime reference file (some people suggest a self-contained, but I find reference files have the same quality and they are smaller and faster to export)
6 Open Compressor and use one of the DVD settings; however I find that adding a sharpening filter with the "5" setting is worth it.
7 Add m2v and audio files as assets in DVD Studio Pro.

No I am not wasting anything. The only thing in those 75 lines is black from the letterboxing. And no, my picture will not be distorted whatsoever, because the authoring software simply centers my image and letterboxes.
You have to realize that DVDs are using non-square-pixels.
The frames build from the 720x480 pixels on a NTSC-DVD (or 720x576 in PAL-area) are displayed either as 4:3 or as 16:9 depending on the setting of your TV. But 720/480 is 3/2 which is neither 4/3 nor 16/9. So in any case those pixels won't be displayed as squares.
So if you want 16:9 letterboxed to 4:3, then you must resize your 1920x1080 footage to 720x360 (and add black bars to get 720x480).
But if you're using letterboxing then you're wasting lines, because you make them black instead of filling them with information. So you're loosing vertical resolution. You have to resize your 1920x1080 footage to 720x480 to get the highest resolution on a 16:9-TV. Your DVD-player (if properly configured) will letterbox it automatically if it is attached to a 4:3-TV.

You have to realize that DVDs are using non-square-pixels.


Yes, I do realize that.


The frames build from 720x480 pixels on a NTSC-DVD (or 720x576 in PAL-area) are displayed either as 4:3 or as 16:9 depending on the setting of your TV.


Ok.


But 720/480 is 3/2 which is neither 4/3 nor 16/9. So in any case those pixels won't be displayed as squares.
So if you want 16:9 letterboxed to 4:3, then you must resize your 1920x1080 footage to 720x360.


You know it's an amazing thing. When I build my 720x480 mpeg2 videos and take them into the authoring software, as widescreen, they never work properly. However, if I do it my way, they look just fine. And if I drop the original 1920x1080 files onto the timeline in the authoring software, they also look just fine. I am doing this on my laptop as I am typing to simply confirm what I already know. My way is giving me the expected, and desired results.


But if you're using letterboxing then you're wasting lines, because you make them black instead of filling them with information. So you're loosing vertical resolution.


I am not letterboxing anything. Really.


You have to resize your 1920x1080 footage to 720x480 to get the highest resolution on a 16:9-TV.


No, actually I don't. But I know what you're trying to say.



Your DVD-player (if properly configured) will letterbox it automatically if it is attached to a 4:3-TV.

Yes it will. Which is why I enable the widescreen flag in the compression.

I am not letterboxing anything.
I'm not a clairvoyant, so I don't know what exactly your authoring-software is doing with your files. Perhaps it converts your square 720x405 pixels to non-square widescreen ones with a sub-optimal scaling-algorithm. I don't know.
I only can ensure you that you can't get the best possible quality if you're starting off with 720x405, though the optimal size (= the native size on dvd) is 720x480.

I'm not a clairvoyant, so I don't know what exactly your authoring-software is doing with your files. Perhaps it converts your square 720x405 pixels to non-square widescreen with a sub-optimal scaling-algorithm. I don't know.


LOL! So either I am a fool, or my software is faulty. :)


I only can ensure you that you can't get the best quality if you're starting off with 720x405, though the optimal size (= the native size on dvd) is 720x480.[/QUOTE]

You can't ensure me anything, because you don't know my source material. Suppose my source is native 2.39:1. Or 2:1 coming off RED.

However, You may be entirely correct that if trying to convert native 16:9 footage to DVD, using the full frame with a widescreen flag is the best way to present the material, without letterboxing.

You can't ensure me anything, because you don't know my source material. Suppose my source is native 2.39:1. Or 2:1 coming off RED.

However, You may be entirely correct that if trying to convert native 16:9 footage to DVD, using the full frame with a widescreen flag is the best way to present the material, without letterboxing.
I think we are agreed. :)
I wrongly assumed that you're working with 16:9-footage.

I think we are agreed. :)
I wrongly assumed that you're working with 16:9-footage.

Usually I am, sometimes I am not. But anyone reading this needs to understand that what is "optimal' is greatly dependent on the source material. Someone coming to the table with 4:3 source material, or 2:1 would need to modify their numbers.

Usually I am, sometimes I am not. But anyone reading this needs to understand that what is "optimal' is greatly dependent on the source material. Someone coming to the table with 4:3 source material, or 2:1 would need to modify their numbers.
I would recommend that optimal is to minimize dead pixels. So for 2.35:1 choose the 16:9 "container". For 5:4 choose 4:3. And so on...

Some good advice posted here thanks,

Sverker I will try your setting once more.

Perrone would you mind sharing what software tools you use?

Perrone would you mind sharing what software tools you use?

NLE: Sony Vegas
DVD Authoring: DVD Architect
Outside Tools: Virtualdub with various filters

Thanks Perrone,
Are you using Veags to downconvert to MPEG.
I used Veags for a long time and loved it.

Thanks Perrone,
Are you using Veags to downconvert to MPEG.
I used Veags for a long time and loved it.

Not sure what you mean by "downcovert". I use Vegas to transcode and edit.

Hi Perrone/Dominik,
You are both right. However with resizing to 720x405 (Image1) you are creating a letterboxed widescreen DVD (Image2) and not an anamorphic one, so technically not widescreen at all. Which is fine for standard TVs but a waste for widescreen TVs. Checking the widescreen flag it will appear squished in the case of NTSC or stretched in PAL when viewed on a widescreen TV and a 16:9 configured DVD player. At least that is what is meant to happen.

To get anamorphic widescreen resize to 720x480 (Image3). It shouldn't look right on a computer but with widescreen flag set will look perfect on a widescreen TV (Image4) without loss of vertical resolution.

Indeed if you are authoring widescreen DVDs correctly your clients with upconversion players will love you. If you do the incorrect 4:3 letterboxing you'll look like an amatuer! A lot of older DVDs were made non-anamorphic and it's a little distracting to watch on a big screen HD television.

What frame rate and shutter speeds are people using with the EX1.
I'm doing some test with 720p but not sure what shutter settings I should be looking at using.
I guess the big one is, Shutter on or off.
Anyone with some info for me.
I'm about to shoot some surfing and I would like to get away from interlaced and have never shot in progressive, I would hate to stuff it up.
I have tried 1080/25p ago but seems to be a lot of motion when I pan and 720/50p seems smoother.

Anyone with some info for me.

Nick, from your question, I am going to assume that you are somewhat new to this game. So here are some basics.

Standard television in the US is broadcast at 30 frames per second, or rather 60 fields (which are half frames) per second. This is interlaced.. In PAL countries this is 25 frames per second and not interlaced.

Film is typically shot at 24 frames per second. Thus, to US viewers, film "feels" different than television, while for PAL countries, film and broadcast have a very similar cadence.

True film cameras are progressive, and they have real mechanical shutters which control how much light hits the film. That shutter typically runs for half of the framerate. So for film running at the standard 24 frames per second, the shutter would be open only half that, so the shutter is 1/48 of a second.

If we want to make motion appear more clearly, we can increase the shutter speed. This means the shutter is open for a shorter duration, and reduces the blur we normally see with motion. The tradeoff is that the footage can begin to appear to strobe. This is currently known as the "Saving Private Ryan" effect. But it's well understood and has been around for many years. As shutter speed increases, the amount of light hitting the film, or sensors in our case, decreases and thus we need more light to maintain a proper exposure.

In shooting surfing, the action is quite some distance away, and honestly, I don't know that I'd increase the shutter speed all that much. Maybe only to a 1/60th if you shoot 24fps, or maybe 1/100 if shooting 30p.

Go out and test. You'll find that shooting progressive will give gorgeous, film like images. Take notes and talk into the camera. Every time you try a new setting, talk into the mic. This is a great way to see the differences.

Have a good time and be thankful you can do this on erasable media, and not REAL film!

However with resizing to 720x405 (Image1) you are creating a letterboxed widescreen DVD (Image2) and not an anamorphic one, so technically not widescreen at all.
If I assume that Perrone knows what he's doing, then he wasn't working in his example with 16:9, but with 2.1:1 footage. Because 2.1:1 would result in 720x405 pixels on a NTSC-widescreen-DVD.
But of course it is suspicious that 720/405 = 16/9. That actually was the base of my initial guess that Perrone doesn't know what he's doing.

If I assume that Perrone knows what he's doing, then he wasn't working in his example with 16:9, but with 2.1:1 footage. And that would result in 720x405 pixels on a NTSC-widescreen-DVD.
But of course it is suspicious that 720/405 = 16/9. That was the base of my guessing that Perrone doesn't know what he's doing.

:)

You guys are awesome. I can assure you, with as many dvd projects as I've done, I do understand the difference. Even if I explain it poorly, or mess it up on here.

What always fools with me is the idea of rendering for 16:9 native with HD footage versus delivering 720p footage to HD and SD clients.

Nick, from your question, I am going to assume that you are somewhat new to this game. So here are some basics.

Standard television in the US is broadcast at 30 frames per second, or rather 60 fields (which are half frames) per second. This is interlaced.. In PAL countries this is 25 frames per second and not interlaced.

Just to point out that PAL broadcasts are 50i.

The preference for either progressive acquisition (25p for PAL or 30p for NTSC) or interlaced (50i/60i) is something you should make based on the subject.

George/

Just to point out that PAL broadcasts are 50i.

The preference for either progressive acquisition (25p for PAL or 30p for NTSC) or interlaced (50i/60i) is something you should make based on the subject.

George/

Thanks George. I knew it but wasn't thinking about PAL fields. *sigh*

Thanks Perrone,

I have done some tests both in 720/50p and 1080/50i and to my eye the 720/50p looks better onto DVD.
I think that interlaced 1080i to interlaced SD for MPEG compression through compressor is the problem, the 720/50p seems to hold up through the conversion much better.
The only thing that I don’t like is the motion blur I get when panning in 720/50p, I think I would have to shoot differently if using progressive.
720p seems to have a great or richer texture than 1080i, I could be wrong because I’m shooting progressive and my eye is seeing this new format.
I wonder how my clients would feel if I started shooting progressive as the motion blur can at times look like there is a problem with the DVD.

I wonder how my clients would feel if I started shooting progressive as the motion blur can at times look like there is a problem with the DVD.

Experiment with shutter angle. Maybe a 120 degree?

The only thing that I don’t like is the motion blur I get when panning in 720/50p,
Switching between 50i and 50p can't change the shutter-speed/motion-blur. There must be something wrong with your viewing-method.

For what it's worth, shooting 720p50 and using Compressor to reinterlace fields whilst downconverting to Standard Definition gives you back that 'video' feel. Enable Frame Controls to get it. Render to DVCAM and lay off to tape (and compare with DSR570 rushes!).

But I've had really positive reaction from clients with my switch to 100% progressive shooting. 25fps has required a slight modification to shooting style, but nothing I'd lose sleep over. Shooting 50fps for 50fps playback is a rare luxury.

To be candid, it's cheaper to shoot 25p 'film look' - yet it's perceived as higher production value. To shoot 50p is more expensive in time/resources, but the resultant 'video' look is taken as something of lower value.

Personally, I would prefer to pan slower, have happier clients and be seen as a high quality option (with more earning power) over shooting at 50fps all the time just so I could wiggle the camera more. Now, where are those asbestos underpants?

To be candid, it's cheaper to shoot 25p 'film look' - yet it's perceived as higher production value. To shoot 50p is more expensive in time/resources, but the resultant 'video' look is taken as something of lower value.
Funny point. But I would really like to see tv-shows in 1080p60. :)

Yes I don’t know what happened as the motion blur was extremely excessive and stuttering very bad.
I must have rendered it to the wrong setting as I went out and shot some more, rendered again and now it’s exactly as it should look .

I have to say I still cant understand the shutter settings, on or off I can’t see the difference. I wish there was more info on this somewhere.
Maybe someone has some links for me?

I have to say I still cant understand the shutter settings, on or off I can’t see the difference. I wish there was more info on this somewhere.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/139380-enlighten-me-shutter-ex1.html

I’m looking at the difference in what gets chopped through down converting to SD MPEG through compression.

If I start with 1080i to get a Pal 576 DVD I lose 504 lines which is 46.6% resolution loss.
If I start with 720p to get a Pal 576 DVD I lose 144 lines which is 20% resolution loss

Is this correct?
If so, 720 holds more resolution to the end. Is this correct.

I’m might not know what I’m talking about and might have this completely wrong, I was hoping someone might confirm this for me.

The reason being I have a client that wants something shot and I think it should be recorder in 720p vs. 1080i or 1080p to hold quality through to compression and DVD.