View Full Version : Finally! FX1 filmlook on par with true 24p


Mark Kubat
January 9th, 2005, 11:17 AM
Hi folks.

Know this post/thread will eventually be moved to the editing section but I wanted to share the good news with you all so I thought I'd post here where a lot of you would see it:

we've done extensive testing this past week at our t.v. station with Edius 3.1 working with a rented FX1 (NTSC)...

The big news so far is we've found a really good way to get a true 24p type look as demonstrated by the DVX100/A... our method below beats CF24/CF30 hands down.

We captured native 1080/60i m2t's into Edius and edited our project. To make a final render, you have to use procoder express 2.0 for edius 3 which has a number of export options for HDV...

We selected to render out as 720/25p PAL.

Next, we imported this rendered m2t into Sony Vegas 5.0b to use Mainconcept mpeg2 (we could have stayed in procoder/Canopus but a lot of people here swear by vegas mpeg2 capability and it's been adopted by many here - we're more familiar with it, using custom 2-pass templates etc.) - we rendered out as 29.97p (progressive) mpeg 2, 2-pass, high bit-rate avg. 7.5...

Wow, the end result is truly amazing - very film like.

Okay, okay - I know people are going to ask - why 29.97p? why not 2:3 pulldown? what about audio?

This was just our first test going this route with edius out to 25p to see if it made a difference - sure enough, it does. The resulting 29.97p mpeg2 we created looks very clean - I don't know how canopus procoder takes 1080/60i and converts it to 720/25p PAL (ie. what algorithm, etc.) but the bottom line is yes, you can really really get nice 24p type effect from your 1080/60i footage going this route...

interlacing artifacts we saw in original mpeg2 derived directly from 1080/60i like "dancing" power lines and a lot of the motion artifacts typically acredited to HDV2 now seem to be gone - it's a very clean, progressive image - really, imagine that the FX1 has 24p type image and that's what our end result looks like! No cf24-type drop frame stutter crap! No cheap frame blending resulting in motion artifacts - this looks really good! In going to final mpeg 2 SD DVD, the detail is much higher/sharper and much less noise in low-light, higher gain settings... it is UNREAL how well the FX1 produces a CLEAN image in low-light...

We'll continue to experiment but right now just want to say this bodes well for us who want to do projects with the FX1 that look "filmic" - it is a better result than originally tried by those trying to use Vegas 2:3 pulldown with cf24 to get useable result...

The switchability of the Z1 is definitely going to be helpful... Hooray, hooray - the FX1 can definitely be used for indie filmmaking type projects!

Dave Perry
January 9th, 2005, 11:50 AM
I was under the impression that the FX1 shot 24p any way, but admittedly, I know very little about it.

Hayden Rivers
January 9th, 2005, 01:53 PM
Dave, the FX1 doesn't shoot native 24p.

Mark, any chance we're going to see some clips of this magic?

Dylan Pank
January 9th, 2005, 03:24 PM
<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Perry : I was under the impression that the FX1 shot 24p any way, but admittedly, I know very little about it. -->>>

Dave, the FX1 mode Cineframe 24 sort of simulates 24 fps. It does this by discarding a field (to affect the "p"). How it gets the "24" is unclear but it seems that there is a certain uneveness about the frame rate in CF24 which implies it scans at 60hz, then either deinterlaces then drops one frame in 6, or it's choosy about which fields it's discarding when it de-interlaces. It then inserts a 2:3 pulldown to produce 29.97 fps, so every 3rd and 4th frame out of 5 will contain interlace artefacts.

It's a long way from what most people here would consider real 24p, i.e. what the XL2 or the DVX100 do, which is scan the whole CCD at 24hz, and then interlace that into 29fps, or what DVDs have which is real 24 frames per second with 2:3 flags.

Mark Kubat
January 9th, 2005, 10:54 PM
What would be the best option for you guys to make you true believers? Okay, how's this? Is Chris Hurd able to host stuff here? I'll provide some m2t's if that'll do the trick - just want to confirm too that audio doesn't seem to be an issue. Guess it's adjusting automatically...

For me as an indie filmmaker, this right now is the way I'd go if I wanted to use the FX1 for a project. The indie t.v. station I work at broadcasts in SD, but we broadcast mpeg2 program streams (as is the norm for digital television/satellite) so I have to laugh that even m2t's are recognized natively in our software/apps here for broadcasting...

Re: clips - I guess some "before" and "after" stuff might be the order of the day?

Let's get some input from our wranglers here - maybe they can suggest something.

Rob Lohman
January 10th, 2005, 04:21 AM
Actually, you would've been better of using the MPEG-2 encoder
in ProCoder. It is vastly superior to the MainConcept one in Vegas
and is currently the best software encoder out on the PC for an
affordable price!

The current list goes like:

1. Canopus ProCoder
2. CCE / TMPGEnc
3. MainConcept (Vegas, Premiere)

I also don't see how you got 24p since you got 25p in between
and 29.97p (or 30p) at the end. No 24p anywhere.

You are also doing double MPEG-2 compression (or actually triple
of you count the first pass in the camera). Why not output output
from Canopus ProCoder to 24p directly? Since the output to 25p
(according to your story) makes this look so good I would assume
it would make 24p look just as good since it is just a 1 frame
difference.

In the end it looks like ProCoder is doing a very good job on such
framerate conversions, which isn't too surprising to myself since it
has such a kick ass MPEG-2 encoder onboard.

Hayden Rivers
January 10th, 2005, 05:41 AM
I think Chris has often offered to host clips, so that might be a good route. Some before and after stuff might be good, but that's 2x the bandwidth and I think I might rather want 2x the After.

So ask Chris. I've told Chris I think DVinfo.net needs a bittorrent tracker specifically for trading these clips. Hopefully one day it'll happen.

Alex Raskin
January 10th, 2005, 09:04 AM
My experiments with quality deinterlacing in post concluded as follows: FX1's built-in deinterlacer in CF30 mode is better.

Mark Kubat
January 10th, 2005, 07:38 PM
Well, it's good to see some discussion of this - clearly, there is an interest in trying to maximize the film-look potential of the FX1/Z1 - yes, I know a bunch of people will now post saying "but I love 60i" - well, I love it too but the producers I try to sell my projects too are trying to sell the final product to a market that goes for that film look... 'nuff said on the "philosophy."

Rob: I was suggesting that the end 25p matched the cadence/look of 24p DVX100 projects I've put out to DVD fairly closely (ie. identical) in terms of cadence, filmic look that is not the traditional 60i look. I didn't obviously get exactly 24p with what I've done, although I'm glad for the other responses suggesting how that can be done...

At our t.v. station we get a lot of PAL newsfeeds shot in 25 fps and to me it's just as good as 24 - I sometimes find the DVX 24p a bit too "stuttery" - more like an old 8mm home movie camera rather than the look of today's 35mm - 25p is good enough for us...

I guess the bottom line I'm trying to hit home is you can take 1080/60i that looks so "videolike" and do something nice to it via Canopus edius/procoder that gives you a filmic looking end result that in the end works waaaay better than cf24 ever could. You keep the full resolution of your source material and lose a lot of the artifacting due to m2t limitations I guess also tied in to the fact that it's interlaced - there is an appreciable improvement when you make a final SD DVD and I am 100% willing to say without a doubt that there is a superior end product compared to what the DVX100A gives you in 24p... sorry Barry Green! I do comparisons on a daily basis here at the station and everyone surveyed (including the UPS guy) picks the FX1 DVD over the DVX100 when asked simply "what looks better to you?" They go "what do you mean by better" and I say "well, just watch and tell me which one you prefer" - they make a call and pick the FX1 DVD EVERY SINGLE TIME... I ask why. They say stuff like "Oh, it's sharper. You can see more." stuff like that...

cheers!

Of course, when I showed it to them on an 8" CRT, they said there was no difference - that is an in-joke, folks!

Chris Hurd
January 10th, 2005, 09:04 PM
<< Is Chris Hurd able to host stuff here? >>

Yes I am. Contact me offline via email.

John Gaspain
January 11th, 2005, 03:56 AM
Its interesting news...im curious.

Jon Fordham
January 11th, 2005, 07:18 PM
Mark,

I am not involved in post production and therefore don't quite follow your methodology or how exactly that methodology is producing a non interlaced motion signature with natural movement. More importantly, I am very curious as to how the workflow you've outlined "keeps the full resolution of your source material and loses a lot of the artifacting". How does the interpolation of the interlaced fields maintain the full vertical resolution? How does the resolution and clarity not take a hit when going through those multiple levels of compression and rendering? And how exactly do those multiple levels of compression and rendering remove the artifacting that m2t produces?

Mark Kubat
January 12th, 2005, 05:08 AM
er, well, Jon....

did I mention that when we BLASTED our set with 1K fresnels we found that "latitude" of the FX1, like, sucked? But then my trusty camera assistant, "Beaker," pointed out that we were blowing out the image, afterall...

It was only when a couple of breakers tripped that we had 1/4 of the light and, voila, shots that looked better than "Collateral."

Cheers!

Hayden Rivers
January 13th, 2005, 02:50 PM
I couldn't care less about another DVX, XL2, FX1 debate. I've seen plenty of DVX footage and it's great. I've seen some XL2 footage and it's pretty great too.

Now I want to see how far people can push the FX1/Z1. I'm sure 24p HDV or some 24p HD prosumer variant is going to arrive, but until then, I want to see the FX1 footage in question.

Mark Kubat
January 13th, 2005, 09:38 PM
Well, I'll add to the report and say that use of Magic Bullet looks to the HDV footage in Vegas in going to mpeg-2 for DVD output looks very very nice - the big plus here is the very "clean" image you get from the Sony under low light conditions. A lot of the Magic Bullet looks work to increase saturation, contrast etc. and if you have low-light pixel noise in your mini-dv footage, using Magic Bullet actually will hurt you rather than help in many cases.

This is not so with HDV - it's really hard to get noise so in fact look presets like Color Reversal do a great job of treating your footage to give it the look of something that was acquired on film - in combination with the 25 fps methodology here, it works great... what can I say? Black is BLACK and you don't see pixels in low light... it's really nifty.

I'm preparing some materials to send to Chris Hurd so we can host them here. Give me a few more days (busy busy at work).

Cheers!

Charles Papert
January 13th, 2005, 10:28 PM
So, I've lost track; is there any current software out there that can convert the Sony HDV camera's 60i output to any HD 24p format (i.e. HD versions of Magic Bullet, DVFilm etc.)

Joshua Starnes
January 13th, 2005, 10:31 PM
<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : So, I've lost track; is there any current software out there that can convert the Sony HDV camera's 60i output to any HD 24p format (i.e. HD versions of Magic Bullet, DVFilm etc.) -->>>

I believe Marcus has said that DVFilm will convert Sony's 60i to 24p.

Charles Papert
January 14th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Thanks!

Jon Fordham
January 16th, 2005, 04:35 PM
"Blasting" anything with light is always going to challenge a formats capability. However, when working to balance light levels, and color temperatures at a variety of points, it's not uncommon to use a source with higher output to compensate for the losses that the balancing will incur. Perhaps if you were experienced enough to know the light absorption ratings of an 85B filter, a single layer of Full CTB on a Tungsten balanced Fresnel, and the distance from that gelled 1K to the bounce then from the bounce to the subject, you could've understood why a 1K was used. Of course, just being a careful reader would've given you enough information to know that when I used a 1K, I was not "blasting" my subject with light. As I clearly stated, the 1K was bounced in to fill the shadows.

Furthermore, latitude has nothing to do with the amount of light. But rather the range from highlight to shadow that a particular format can resolve detail in before reaching pure white and pure black. So even if inexperienced shooters want to blast the FX1 with a 1K, and don't know that they are blowing out the image, their trusty camera assistants should know enough to stop the lens down or add ND in order to bring the exposure into range.

I would also suggest that if you do not posses the knowledge of how to calculate the wattage, volts, and load of a lighting set up and measure it against the ability of the power supply being used, that you should hire a professional gaffer to do so. Safety should be any productions first priority. Anyone who is foolish enough to risk damage to property or the lives of their fellow crew members by carelessly plugging massive amounts of electrical equipment into any source they choose, tripping breakers until they find the right combination, is someone with a complete lack of professionalism and total disrespect for everyone around them.

Jon Fordham
January 16th, 2005, 09:35 PM
More importantly, my statements regarding the science of electricity and the importance of safety is a very serious statement that should be taken as sincere. It is dangerously unprofessional and disrespectful to use gear in the manner that Mark suggested. Blasting a 1K that trips breakers suggests that there was a lack of knowledge of how to properly use the light. A 1,000 watt that is tripping breakers is dangerous. And there’s nothing wrong or arrogant to suggest that an experienced person be on hand when operating such gear in the future. I submit that’s it’s arrogant to think you can operate such gear without the knowledge required to do it safely.

I understand that Mark’s revelation was not some new math or firmware. And I didn’t suggest that it was. I did however ask that he explain some very specific statements he made. I didn’t ask for a breakdown of the code behind the software application. But when someone states that an interpolation method "keeps the full resolution of your source material," or states that another level of compression "loses a lot of the artifacting" of a previous compression, then I would like to know how it’s doing that. Especially since it goes against the common sense (not to mention the science) behind the craft.

If the DVi community is truly about sharing accurate information, then I don’t see any harm or disrespect in questioning statements that seem to go against the common knowledge of the current state of technology and execution of the craft. It’s humble to question. And it’s irresponsible to assume.

Jon

Ignacio Rodriguez
January 16th, 2005, 09:45 PM
> But when someone states that an interpolation method “keeps
> the full resolution of your source material”, or states that
> another level of compression “loses a lot of the artifacting” of a
> previous compression

What I think he was referring to is that he keeps his origination material in higher resolution (as opposed to commiting to the cam's realtime lousy deinterlacing and/or SD) and that interlace artifacts of course go away as does some slight noise that might be visible in the HDV fotage after his deinterlacing and downrezzing.

Dylan Pank
January 17th, 2005, 06:53 AM
While the material may look great on the footage Mark shot, IMO "filmlooks" are things that work on a case by case basing, a different approach may be suitable for certain kinds of shooting.

Ive found that just running interlaced footage through virtualDubs smart deinterlacer looks great for some shots, while not so good for others [full discosure: this is based only on experience with SD video: DV and Betacam, but I doubt HDV is very different in this regard].

Since Mark is changing the frame rate to 25fps,and then to 23.976 I assume that some kind of temporal frame blending is going on, not something I'd want to intoduce into my footage.

Until someone can corroborate Marks rather over the top claims, or until Mark posts some examples, I will share Jon's scepticism.

Eric Gorski
January 17th, 2005, 10:17 PM
could someone post the filmlook footage?? i would really like to see it... it would also shut some people up.. if its good :)

Mark Kubat
January 18th, 2005, 12:05 AM
I'm on assignment this week and will contact Chris upon my return from a field assignment...

we'd be happy to share some footage...

Charles Papert
January 18th, 2005, 01:49 AM
In the interest of clarification, not to stir the pot on the personality conflicts here:

There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about tripping breakers--that's why they exist in the first place. An understanding of the simple mathematics behind the determination of how many instruments can be placed on a given circuit is one thing; knowing how to operate an instrument is another (and I don't plan to get into the semantics of "blasting" a set with 1Ks when I've done the same thing with 18K's--yup, on a DV shoot, no less). Instead of mud-slinging, perhaps it would be more useful for our gentle readers if we were to share the magic formula, which has actually nothing at all to do with the film industry or one's degree of professionalism, since it equally applies to toasters, hair dryers or Christmas tree lights:

That formula being watts=volts x amps. Here in the US we run on 110VAC; to simplify things (and to allow a safety margin), call it 100. Using those basic rules of fractions that we all learned about in grade school, divide both sides by the voltage; thus watts/100=amps. Check your breaker box before the shoot to see what flavor of breaker is within; most household circuits are 15-20 amps. If a 20 amp breaker, the math quickly reveals that 2000 watts can just be squeezed onto that circuit (i.e, two 1ks). In practice, this may end up popping the breaker, especially if anything else is plugged in to this circuit. It's best to separate the 1K's, but fine to add a 650 to either.

This all said, Jon's message was coming from the right place. Electricity is nothing to screw around with, so don't jerry rig it casually. This means twist-tieing lampcord right up to doing tie-ins without an electrician's license (both dangerous AND illegal).

Chris Hurd
January 28th, 2005, 01:40 PM
Moved here from the FX1 board as it has more to do with the post process than the camera itself. A small flame war has been excised. There's some off-topic stuff about electrical safety on the set which is beneficial to all, but the conversation should now be steered back to the original topic. Thanks,

Mark Kubat
January 31st, 2005, 03:50 PM
Folks, I'm on some crazy deadlines this week again - will try to get some footage to Chris ASAP but maybe not till Thurs/Fri...

Now that I have Z1 footage that I'm playing with, perhaps I'll refine some of that - we shoot head-to-head vs. FX1 (50i vs. 60i) so maybe people want to see some of this...

cf25 as well...

Cheers!

Mark Kubat
February 1st, 2005, 07:39 PM
Okay, I'm working with some 50i Z1 footage to maximize resolution, 24ish 25 fps cadence etc. - it's rendering out and I'll have it ready to send to Chris Hurd in under 24 hours...

Greg Jacobson
February 8th, 2005, 07:17 PM
Mark,

Why not just shoot in CF25 instead of converting it in ProCoder? Or did you get the NTSE FX1?

If you hade the Z1 or PAL VX1 would you just shoot straight CF25 instead?

Mark Kubat
February 9th, 2005, 05:09 AM
Okay, the testing got more involved than first thought and we DID try cf25 etc. and found the consensus to be true: shoot 60i or 50i for best results and deinterlace in post...

Most disappointing result: trying to get cf25 to look "good" ie. converting to 24p etc. Not working out - at least not the way we thought it would. A bit stuttery. At least via Sony Vegas 5d...

Now we've discovered that Prem. Pro deinterlacing seems to produce "cleaner" result so maybe will now try using that...

Some of our 50i/cf25 conversions in post produced end result that had "flicker" - this has been reported elsewhere and seems to somehow stem from the 50Hz vs. 60Hz issue... I can't remember how exactly we produced the result....

Our feeling now is that the NTSC FX1 is not so bad after all - you have to remember that here in North America if you want to produce a downconverted DVD, you can't necessarily make it from 50i/cf25 to produce DVD with frame rate of 25 because your DVD player will think the disc is PAL and either not play it or play with crazy rolling flicker (unless your player is dual format)... so that means re-rendering to 24 fps or 29.97 etc. and that means pretty much losing out any inherent advantage you might have achieved shooting 50i (due to 10 less interlaced frames per second at 1080 resolution vs. 60i/1080 - both with same bitrate - so 50i is less compressed...)

More soon...