Perhaps Rob can explain a little more about how the Frame mode works. I currently have an original Canon Optura which films in progressive and I use this to catch fleeting moments, capturing 640 x 480 stills in action shots.

Would the GL2 in frame mode give better resolution than my old optura in progressive mode? I realize GL2 has better low light sensitivity, but assume there is plenty of light. What is the trade off between frame mode and progressive scan?

Sony uses progressive shutter. Is this the same as Canon's frame mode?

How can you capture an entire 640 x480 frame at one point in time using an interlace sensor?

I did some experiments comparing my Optura's progressive scan mode to deinterlaced interlace mode, using several different deinterlacers (Adobe Photoshop, iMovie, Image DV) and the progressive scan mode was always better.

I did find a thread that explained how frame mode in the GL2 has identical resolution to progressive scan using an interlace scanner(by scanning the green CCD of one field at the same point in time as the red and blue CCD scanning the second field). The picture resolution is maintained, but you lose some color resolution compared to true progressive scan.

I looks like I will work towards buying a GL2, unless a GL3 comes out soon.

I don't know why people complain about the "uselessness" of the two megapixel photo mode compared to just carying a separate digital camera. To my knowledge there are no digital camera offering a 20 X optical zoom

Does anyone know how Sony's progressive shutter works?

For an excellent article on the various flavours of progressive scan you can check out Steve Mullen's article at:

http://videosystems.com/ar/video_progressive_need_know/

Yikes! The paper by Steve Mullen is very good, but if I understand the paper correctly, there are some significant compromises by using frame mode compared to progressive scan.

The good news is that 1) frame mode collects twice as much light (6 dB more sensitive) so it will have better low light sensitivity. and 2) there is no interlace artifacts because both fields are collected at the same time. The bad news is that the vertical resolution is deteriorated from 480 effective scan lines down to 320 because of summations. Partial RGB Elements from 3 rows are summed together to give the information of a single row, elements being delayed one row time or two row times so they all are from the same point in time.

According to the paper the 320 vertical resolution of frame mode is slightly worse than the effective vertical resolution of 360 for interlace video. Frame mode, though, has no loss of horizontal resolution because no deinterlacing is needed, but interlace video would suffer this loss. The deinterlacer then can recover it.

I guess the bottom line is progressive scan is best as long as you are not in a low light situation. After that, frame mode would probably be next best in quality if significant movement is present; otherwise deinterlaced interlaced video would be next best.

I hope Canon puts progressive scan back in their high end cameras.

I probably should have also mentioned that the reason interlace video has a vertical resolution of 360 instead of 480 is because, according to the article, interlace video also does summation of two rows to make one row in an effort to boost sensitivity by 6 dB. Frame mode uses parts of 3 rows, giving you the 320. This summation stuff is therefore used by both interlace and frame mode methods.

Whenever I use frame mode on a tripod with OIS on, the pans seem "smoother" than when OIS is off...... maybe its just me?

Forgive me if this is a repeat topic, I did do some searching on google, but found the topic a bit confusing. Anyhow, I am just about to begin shooting a project on my new GL-2 (which is a fine piece of equipment). Anyhow, the final output of this project will be to DVD. I was wondering if it's considered better to shoot with FRAME mode or to shoot in regular video (interlaced) and then do the de-interlace in post. Does this give better results?

One more question, not quite sure exactly how FRAME mode works, but I am going to be shooting in a club (low light) is having this on going to decrease my shutter speed more than it should be?

Thanks a bunch!

Welcome Christopher,

Here are some threads (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=271561&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending) that will help to get you started on this subject. Make a pot of coffee end enjoy!

Welcome to the boards! Give the search button up in the upper right a try.

I did a search for a "deinterlace frame" and here are a few relevent results:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21738&highlight=frame+deinterlace
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22976&highlight=frame+deinterlace

Give those a read and do that search (or whatever you feel will get you close to the info you're looking for) and you should be able to find what you're looking for. If not just ask again and someone should have some good info for you.

Cheers,
Brian

Do some tests yourself! If you set your camera in manual mode
you can easily see if you loose light when changing modes (since
this will be apparent).

DVD might benefit from a "progressive" like video stream, but with
any system, do some tests prior. Keep in mind that de-interlacing
in post adds to render time and other things. You cannot get the
same look through de-interlacing as you can with frame mode
because the material originates differently in that mode.

Which is BETTER solely depends on what look you are after and
which software you have available. Run some tests to see which
way you like.

Keep in mind that the best method for testing frame mode and
de-interlacing software is to do it with subjects moving in your
frame or your camera moving around. A still shot from a tripod
basically has no interlacing.

What give me a better image using the 1.7 M.P. camera in my GL2 or filming in frame mode and grab a frame and printing it ? If you were to convert a single frame to M.P. any idea what it would be?

Frame movie mode all the way for this one... for best results, just pickup a nice 3 mp camera, they're under 150 bucks at walmart.

I think the 1.7MP still would be better as its much bigger size than the Frame mode grabbed image. but with Frame mode you have heaps of stills to choose from.

I've used both and the 1.7mp is a better quality when printed to any size above 3".

After further review; you're correct the 1.7mp would work better for printing however with that amount of resolution you're really looking at small prints, IMHO 4x6 would be a problem and you may be very limited as to what you can do. For this again I suggest getting a kodak or similar 3mp cam, again they're cheap now.

For my work since I usually make slideshows of my projects for my customers, I usually shoot in Frame and do grabs for another sub-project or slide show.

I did not buy the GL2 to take photos with. BUT! after using the photo mode I think it takes damn good photos. I have a lot of outdoor photos of wildlife that a lot of my friends now use for wallpaper on desk tops. But I have not tried to grab any photo stills from the film yet. And not sure I know how to do that yet?

I don't know much about still cameras, but would you have the same type of zoom on a $150.00 3 meg pix camera as I do on my GL2? That would be hard for me to use a camera if it were less than my GL2 even tho it is only 1.7 mp. People think I have some big mp still camera that I take these photos with and they find it hard to belive that it is only 1.7

Steve

Depending on the software you are using to capture and edit your video, most if not all of them have an "export frame" option. I'm using Adobe premiere, and I just drag and drop the footage on the timeline. Then track to the frame that I want and select |file|, |export|, |frame|.

I use photoshop to manipulate.

See www.filekfilms.com/freudpics.html for some examples of frame mode with gl2 from actual footage.

My friends and I both shot 10 photos of the same subject under same lighting conditions, I used my GL2 1.7 MP . He used Canon Power Shot 3.2MP digital camera.
There was no difference in color or detail when we printed them at 4x6 at local photofinsher. Infact my GL2 shots were sharper, could be the lens on the GL2 makes up for the lower MP's?

The photo mode on the GL2 have one exellent point: you can use its very amazing 20x zoom, white balance, manual exposure adjustments, you can also be able to manipulate with DOF... On the other hand there is one big negative thing: only 1.7mp.

So you can make an exellent photos but you will not be able to do anything with them because of limited 1.7mp.

I am asking myself, is there any solution or must I buy for example Nikon D 70 (cheaper models are not satisfying my expectations and needs).

Marko Zorec

Hi all. New to the GL2 and looking for some tips.

What is the concensus for shutter speeds while in frame mode with the GL2?

My specific usage in question is for filming forward facing (road & scenery) driving sequences between 30-50mph. Usually in very bright, sunny conditions at very high altitude (8k-14k feet). Not that it should make any difference for shutter speed, but we're also using the 58H Wide Angle lens and no other filters.

Preliminary results look good with Tv 60, ND on, and possibly an AE Shift of +.25 to brighten the frame mode picture.

Our end product will be viewed on PC screens, so this is one reason for us to use frame mode (less post time by not deinterlacing).

Welcome Bryan,
In all modes, 1/60 is your native shutter speed for NTSC. That is, video will generally look best if you can shoot at that shutter speed. In fact it's not a bad idea just to assume that shutter speed is unchangeable from that number.

"However, if you’re locked off and the tripod is on an unsteady surface like a press platform or there is vibration from wind, etc., image stabilization can be very helpful."

from www.alanbarker.com

doesn't panasonic use a OIS&EIS combination?

Are there any?

There is a slight degradation of picture quality. You can test this for yourself by coupling the camera to a TV monitor and try switching from frame to normal. It can be quite acceptable however.
Here's a sequence I shot yesterday in frame mode with the Title Mix letterbox function enabled.
It's a big file, so you need ADSL ;-)
http://robindr.neptune.com?selectedalbum=robindr54027

Robin

Very pretty video, Robin. Reminds me of my trips to Ireland. I'm jealous that you folks in the British Isles have so many "scenic vistas" at your disposal!

You loose 25% of vertical resolution when using frame mode (horizontal resolution remain the same). But many folks, including me, prefer this softer look.

Jason,

Jason

The 25% resolution mentioned above, is accurate, and also overstated.There's a pretty good discussion of frame mode here (I should know, I wrote it):

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27777

skip down to the bottom of the first page, and onto the second for the skinny on frame mode...or do a search on all of dvinfo...as this has been a hot topic for years....lots of discussion.

Barry

I just got my GL2 this week, and in my (thusfar limited) tests, Frame Mode has produced some noticably "jittery" video. Especially when panning, one can almost see the picture "jumping" between frames. Is this normal? Is there some setting I can change to smooth this out?

Congratulations on your new GL2, Joe!

>> Is this normal?
This is normal.

>>Is there some setting I can change to smooth this out?

Smoother, slower pans. A good tripod is your friend. When shooting with any camera in progressive-scan mode (like Frame mode) handle the camera like a film camera. That is, use deliberate, controlled motion. It's also best to keep your shutter speed at 1/60.

Search this forum for more info on Frame mode matters. It's a well-worn topic.

I have a wedding I'm shooting for a friend here in the U.S. but then I need to convert the footage to PAL. I really like frame mode but I'm worried that it may cause me problems when I convert from NTSC. Any experiences or thoughts? Should I shoot it in normal interlaced mode or use frame mode?

I was wondering what the result of mixing footage shot with my GL2 in frame mode and footage shot with a PD-100 in 'normal' video mode would be?

Will their be a drastic difference in the way the footage looks? can it be edited together? or shoudl I just shot the footage in normal mode with my GL2?

The reason I ask, is because I was thinking of shooting the more 'dramatic' moments with the GL2 in frame mode.

Thanks

There will be a "drastic difference" between the two. I think the first difference you'll notice is that of color and sharpness. I've not seen footage from a PD-100, but Sony's generally lean toward cooler, more greenish skin tones than Canon. Sony's also tend to produce a sharper image, not always a good attribute but generally a crowd-pleaser.

So to get these two cameras to play nice you'll probably need to skip frame mode on the GL2 and do some color and sharpness adjustments on the GL2 to accommodate the Sony (which may not be as adaptable).

I have no experience but the best tip I can give you is to test your
workflow. If you have other wedding footage shot in NTSC frame
mode convert that to PAL. This firstly tests your NTSC to PAL
conversion methods and secondly how well it will look.

actually, the effect can be very interesting. the viewer will notice immediately but be at a loss to describe it. i've produced documentaries using frame mode as b-roll video for a voice-over and found it to be cool.

Hey gang,

I've been doing some test shots to compare video shot using frame mode and video shot interlaced.

I only see the difference on my computer. And sometimes it's a negative difference. If I shoot something with a lot of movement frame mode seems to get blurry sometimes.

On the television I can't tell a difference.. unless I'm in frame mode and there's a lot of movement. Kids running, that sort of movement.

So my question is, when would frame mode be a good option for shooting video? I'm not knocking it, just trying to figure out what people use it for and when.

Second, should I see a difference on a regular television? Maybe my television is too old or cheap because I just don't see the difference. I know televisions are interlaced. That's probably why frame mode isn't doing anything.

Thanks!

Charlie

"I only see the difference on my computer. And sometimes it's a negative difference. If I shoot something with a lot of movement frame mode seems to get blurry sometimes.

On the television I can't tell a difference.. unless I'm in frame mode and there's a lot of movement. Kids running, that sort of movement."

A television is where you -should- see a difference, as that medium is what video, and particularly "frame mode", is targeted towards. The view on a computer monitor is largely immaterial unless that's your planned primary venue.

"So my question is, when would frame mode be a good option for shooting video? I'm not knocking it, just trying to figure out what people use it for and when."
Use of frame mode (progressive scan) is largely a matter of aesthetic preference for most people. Fast motion will seem jittery because both scan fields are being recorded simultaneously. So there's less visual blurring that interlaced recording introduces.

We have hundreds of threads on frame mode so a Search will keep you entertained for quite a while.

And something more:

you LOSE resolution in frame mode with gl2!

I couldn't see too much of a difference on my TV either Ken. The
difference is mainly in the motion signatures as you already found
Charlie. At what shutter speed where you shooting? I would not
advise you to go under 1/60th unless it is for that effect. Because
it will strobe more indeed.

Personally I loved the way it looked and how it was a tad softer
due to the resolution loss. But I guess that is personal.

Which mode is best for you depend on what you are trying to do
with it. If you are making a fictional dramatic piece most people
tend to agree that frame mode helps in this regard (gives it a
slightly more filmic look). However if you do home videos for the
family or broadcast stuff then I would stick with interlaced.

I have done a series of portraits shot in frame mode that will now be exhibited on LCD screens. In looking at the footage on these screens for the first time I am seeing that the edges are jagged and over all I am not happy with the look. Is there any way of dealing with this footage so these interlace issues look better or is the only choice (to get a decent picture) to view them on conventional TV monitors...

Help, please!

David what resolution are the LCD screens in question set at?

I edit with 2 LCD and preview / playback on 1 LCD TV of which all are fairly small (17" and 15") however I don't see what you're seeing. I'm wondering if this is a resolution or input issue?

I am using an LG Flatron RU-20LA61 LCD TV. It's 20".

I am going through the S-Video input so I don't know that a resolution can be set, can it? I assumed it would be automatic, but maybe not?

Think your problem could be the limited resolution of the LCD you have used. From what I gather it only has a resoltion of 640 x 480. This may be ok if your images are that otherwise the electronics can generate steps that are not there due to sizing changes. Can only suggest you try it on another better definition monitor.

David...

LCD's generally produce a sharper looking image than standard crt televisions...so it is possible that this is what you are seeing...you may be able to turn the sharpness down on the monitor, or your next step would be to decrease the sharpness of your footage...either in camera or by adjusting the sharpness, or adding some blur in your NLE.

The Gl2's default sharpness runs a little high for my taste...typically I have it turned down a couple of notches...As always, its best to test for your intended output so that your settings match (or work with) the intended output device.

Hi,

Also remember that a flat LCD screen is basically built from small-squares. A LCD screen is bult with ONE screensize in mind, a big screeen like 20" I'd is made for showing 1280x1024 or more like 1420x1280. All other sizes you try to show on the screen will be quantized thus producing a "ugly" picture... this is one of the the main reasons going DVI-I instead of analogue when you hook up a LCD screen to the computer.

More info on lcd/flats:

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/19990624/tft1-06.html

Best regards,

Lazze

Is it true that Frame mode and/or Opitical Image Stabliliztion operate at the expense of image resolution?

TIA

OIS: No.

Frame mode: to a degree.

Do a Search "frame mode" as this is a well-trodden subject here. Hundreds of threads and posts on it.

I just TRIED to read an article at videosystems.com about progressive scanning and I'm not sure that I got the jist of it. I'm pretty sure I understand 24P, but I'm not sure that I know how the GL2's frame movie mode works.

First, here's my interpretation of the rather confusing explaination in the article that I just read. Since an NTSC camcorder can only store 240 lines per frame and CCD's have 480 lines, what happens when you use frame movie mode on a camera like the GL2 is: The camera takes every two sensor rows and combines them into one NTSC line. To reduce flicker in NTSC lines, they slightly overlap part of the RGB signal from line 1 with line 2 and so on. These 240 NTSC lines are then written to the 480 lines in field 1 and field 2.

If anyone has a clearer explaination, I'd love to hear it. Here's the article that I'm referring to: http://videosystems.com/images/archive/209vsshexp.pdf

The article says that using frame movie reduces vertical resolution to about 320 lines. I think I've also heard that 30P is much more difficult to convert to 24P than 60i.

Both are hard to convert to 24p, however 60i will probably look
better indeed.

May I be so bold to ask why you care about the resolution (loss)?

Canon's frame mode has been discussed often and there once
was a great article explaining it in great detail on the internet,
but has since been removed unforunately.

Exact resolution "loss" is not really known, and may very well
vary depending on scene content etc. as well. I believe the
general consensus was that the loss is somewhere inbetween
25 - 50% range.

Personally I don't really care. It looks good enough for me or it
doesn't. I could care less how many actualy pixels I have left...

Rob is right, the resolution loss is hardly noticable. It's only a little softer (you can see it in close-ups if you look very careful) but I heard deinterlacing in post also gives you resolution loss, so, if you don't want much work afterwards, just go for the Frame Mode.

Offcourse if you want to keep your options open, shoot in 60i and look then what you want to do.

Good luck.