DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon GL Series DV Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-gl-series-dv-camcorders/)
-   -   GL2 / XM2 Frame mode (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-gl-series-dv-camcorders/3415-gl2-xm2-frame-mode.html)

Rob Lohman December 6th, 2004 05:12 AM

Most people seem to agree that the resolution loss is probably
more in post with de-interlacing software because of the pixel
shift technology etc. employed by Canon on the GL2/XL1 series
to get frame mode.

Tony Hall December 6th, 2004 12:40 PM

While resolution isn't everything, it's still important. I don't know how someone could argue that resolution doesn't matter.

Marco Leavitt December 6th, 2004 01:38 PM

I don't think that anyone is arguing that it flat out doesn't matter. It's just that people seem to obsess over it in a way that doesn't take into account the limitations of the delivery system on which the end product will eventually be viewed. That's my take anyway. There's sort of a law of diminishing returns. I believe that the new Optura series camcorders are supposed to be much sharper than the 3 chip prosumer cams of just a few years ago, but that isn't enough to make people abandon their PD150s, for example. As I've posted in here previously, frame mode may theoretically degrade vertical resolution 25 percent or so (or whatever the figures is supposed to be), but the perceived difference is nowhere near as much. In fact, on a typical television there's no difference whatsoever. The degradation is clearly visible on a genuine production monitor, but nobody is going to see that but you.

Tony Hall December 6th, 2004 01:46 PM

Oh I totally agree that resolution is over rated. I'd rather have a GL2 than the new Optura any day. What good is resolution if you have a camera that isn't very useful.

That said I want to record all the detail I can. The more information you record the more you can retain after post processing.

Mathieu Ghekiere December 7th, 2004 10:15 AM

I offcourse don't know what your end product is (movie, wedding, documentary) but I too think resolution isn't THAT important.
Okay, if you are going to a blowup, offcourse it's important.

But we can't forget DV is still 720x576 (or something, here in PAL land :-p).
I think controls, colors, motion, ... is much more important with a camera.
Maybe it is an cliché example, but look at 28 days later. They used the XL1 (isn't that cam from 1998??) and they did a blowup.
Ofcourse, they used big lenses, and professional lightning and spend many many dollars to preserve the quality in postproduction, but they still did a blowup.
And ofcourse you could see it wasn't 35mm quality, but I think many people didn't care, because colors were beautiful (many people who didn't know a lot about video and film, including me at that time, didn't even realise that!)
That's just because they were so intrigued by the story and how it was filmed. I think having a great steady dolly movement for example, looks much more professional than a handycam amateur with a 10 minute 35mm piece.

That said :-p, I wish you very much luck with your project, and I hope you can still shoot all the detail you want :-)

Bob Benkosky December 11th, 2004 04:02 PM

Well, I've found out this about Frame Mode.

Looks great "while" filming it, but adds too much smearing or strobing if you convert it to 24p. Maybe it's not meant to go to 24p, who knows.

Normal mode looks like garbage when filming, or more amatuer-like, but looks far better when put into 24p.

The thing I'm more confused about is what settings to use in Vegas for each way of shooting.

For example.

If you shoot everything normally, no FM or Widescreen, what's the optimal settings in Vegas?

NTSC DV - Field Order upper or lower, and when would you use progressive? Only if you shoot in Frame Mode or what? Then you can change the frame rate in the project settings which I believe just alters the way the footage looks in the window. Then what about the de-interlace method? None, Blend or interpolate?

I think I messed with these settings recently and rendered to quicktime and found massive artifacts in the name of interlacing. Usually I don't see the lines like that at all. I did select de-iterlace blend fields and it was shot 60i, not frame mode, at least I think it was. I was not filming most time so I forget.

All I know is that there are so many choices including if you do some post work in after effects as well.

Hope someone knows the best way to get the best footage because I'm all ears.

Mathieu Ghekiere December 11th, 2004 04:07 PM

Bob, Frame mode indeed is not intended to convert to 24P :-)
It's on his own already a method to look like (a little bit) 24P.
They always tell you: if you want to go to 24P, shoot 60i, and if you don't want lots of render work, go Frame Mode.
Well not everyone agrees offcourse, but you can find thousands of topics, so you'll better do a search if you're interested.

On the rest of your questions I don't really have many answers, because I don't really know, but maybe do a search.
9/10 somebody already asked such a question.

Good luck.

Guest December 21st, 2004 12:05 PM

I've only ever shot in frame mode, import it into FCP and roll. No rendering and it looks like film. I don't really know how it all works technically, but I know what my results are:


Jared Teter January 4th, 2005 03:36 PM

Frame mode or Interlaced?
Hi Everyone,
I have had my GL2 for about a year now and I love it and I have been visiting this site daily since I bought it, but for some reason I fear putting the camera in full frame mode because I use it exclusively for wildlife videography. I am mostly afraid of messing up a good shot because most of the time you only have a minute or two to get that awesome shot and there is no way to get it back if it looks crappy afterwards. I understand the difference between interlaced and full frame mode but what mode do you all recommend I keep the camera in. By the way I have gotten good results in the interlaced mode but maybe I could get even better results in full frame mode. Also, does either mode affect how well the camera does in low light situations? I appreciate all of your help. Thanks Jared

Frank Ladner January 4th, 2005 04:13 PM

Hi Jared!

As you may know, Frame Mode doesn't capture a full progressive frame, but creates a frame that supposedly loses 25% resolution.
The differences really show up in moving shots. If you were shooting, say, still life stuff, then interlaced would actually give you a -slightly- sharper image.

If you have the time and tools to process the footage in post, then I'd say to capture interlaced - that way you have more information and more options for later, like converting to 30p with some of the avialable deinterlace plugins(at best, you'll still be losing around 25% resolution - at least on non-static shots), or converting to 60p (which can be further stretched in Twixtor, ReTimer, etc...giving nice overcranked footage).

However, if you do not have the time and tools, you may want to just shoot in Frame Mode. It looks good. (Yeah, nowadays you can't just say something looks "good" because it's all subjective and what not. How about...it looks "different" and since it's non-interlaced, closer to film.) I have done a lot of tests comparing footage shot interlaced and in Frame Mode, and as far as resolution, I don't think anyone will notice. (Maybe on diagonal lines you'll see that Frame Mode is a bit more blocky.)

Plus, it's easier to get framegrabs for print, web, etc if it was shot in Frame Mode.

I don't think there is a difference between interlaced and frame mode when as far as low-light shooting is concerned.

Jared Teter January 4th, 2005 04:43 PM

Thanks Frank,
I do have some time to put into post, but I think I will keep the camera in interlaced mode in order to avoid resolution loss because often my shots are in full telephoto and I want to keep the resolution as high as possible in order to keep the detail to a max. Thanks again for your reply. Jared

Rob Lyons January 20th, 2005 10:39 PM

If you want a film look it's not all about 24p. I recently shot a snowboarding event on a gl2 in frame mode and my business partner shot on a dvx100a in 24p. With colour correcting I found that the gl2 footage had a "cinematic" look. It was the first time I filmed action sports in frame mode( I usually use it for dramatic and non sports shoots like music vids) and I was amazingly surprised at the results. I actually preferred the gl2 footage. It appears to have the 24 frame look but the colour was a little more saturated than the dvx100a so it had a sort of half video/ half film look that was very unique and pleasing to me. I don't think De-interlacing and frame mode should be compared too much as frame mode gives footage a motion effect that resembles 24fps. Technically it provides the same function and both have their advantages. De interlacing and converting your footage will not make your footage look identical to frame mode. Frame mode provides a unique aesthetic. As far as resolution loss goes I find it negligable. If you want to make gl2 footage look like film chances are your lookin at mini-35 and a few weeks rendering with magic bullet because colour and the amount of time lighting film are a major factor in why it looks so good, not just the frame rate. In my experience I find it's best to acheive as much of the film effect as you can before editing. If your not transferring your video to film try shooting frame mode with a good cstm preset and using a bit of filtering and colour correction in post. Less headache, less rendering and less artifacts and other issues that can arise from de interlacing and software frame rate changes. If you have a lot of time to spend on post or your transferring to film you probably want to shoot interlaced footage and make it look like film with software. This is only one mans opinion I don't really buy into numbers and stats concerning frame mode I just go with what my peepers tell me.

Dave Ferdinand January 21st, 2005 12:46 PM

I had heard a lot about frame mode on the XL1 and when I purchased my GL2 I found it to be really pleasing and VERY film-like.

I was actually surprised with such good results. Of course it still looks a bit like video, but with colour correcting in post I've been able to give it a strong film look.

I also did a test shooting in 60i and then de-interlacing in post but for some reason it wasn't so convincing, still had somewhat a video look. Granted, I only used Premiere for this, but still the difference seems quite evident.

You can also add a bit of motion blur to 30p to make it look more like 24p.

Donovan Kruger March 10th, 2005 08:56 PM

Canon GL-2 Frame Mode: Special FCP Settings?
Hello all,

If I am shooting in Frame-Mode on the Canon GL-2, is there a special non-interlaced setting I should be using in FCP for my Sequences?

The default "DV NTSC 48kHz" setting has a Lower (Even) Field Dominance setting. Is this going to mess things up with Frame Mode footage because it isn't exactly interlaced?

This thread is NOT intended to start a Frame-mode vs. Normal-mode debate. I am only wondering if any adjustments need to be made in Final Cut Pro when using Frame-mode.


Rob Lohman March 12th, 2005 08:54 AM

Yes, the lower (even) setting is incorrect. You need to select none
or progressive or something along those lines. I'm not on Mac/FCP,
so I don't know what the setting is called. But a setting with that
name (or alike) should be in that list or on that screen.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:31 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2020 The Digital Video Information Network