Matthew, if you want the best results for projection, especially on the big screen where resolution counts a lot, yes, you will need to reshoot in 24p 2:3:3:2 and edit (and output) in 24p. Check if FCP will detect and remove the extra fake frame by itself to recreate the 24p sequence, like Premiere Pro and Vegas do, otherwise you'll need to buy a stand alone software like DVFilm Maker to throw that bogus frame away and edit in a 24fps progressive timeline.

Pete, unfortunatelly if you've acquired your 8mm footage using interlaced video, there's not much you can do, aside from recapturing the whole thing with a progressive camera. There's different softwares and plugins to de-interlace your footage and get rid of most artifacts, but that will come at the expense of resolution as frames will be blended together.

I hope we'll some day watch the interlaced format die once we can get affordable full frame 60p (or more) video become the new standard. But for now we have to live with the hastles of interlacing.

Thanks David. What about filters. I don't think I would use any for this sort of thing, but I've been experimenting with a Tiffen Black Diffusion to get more of a film look and I do like the results - but that's on my TV. Would using such a filter make the image too soft for projection?

This is a personal opinion and others might not agree with me on this, but I never use filters unless they are absolutely necessary. If you want a certain look, you can dig deep in the XL2's menu and tweak the image to your liking. If that's not enough, you can manage in post.

But like I said, I'm biased, I do not like to put a potentially cheap piece of glass or worse, resine, in front of high resolution and very expensive lenses. Filters always increase to potential to soften the image, introduce distortion or worse, sometimes completely ruin a shot by creating ugly flares you might not notice when shooting.

I will often use a polarizer when shooting under a bright sky outside, or to eliminate reflections coming from windows or water, and sometimes you will have no choice but to use some NDs, but I would certainly not recommand using any kind of diffusion filters if the intent is big screen projection. Don't forget that blowing up DV footage will introduce softness, so you want to keep your image as sharp as you can between the shoot and the screening. If it already looks soft on TV, it will likely look too soft when projected.

Best solution is to add a diffusion filter in post to your version that will end up on TVs, and do nothing (to soften the image) to the version that will be projected.

David,

Would this still hold true if you weren't blowing up to 35mm but instead were going to be digitally projecting it?

Matt

I'm not sure I'd have to shoot that way for projection... I'm still a bit confused on that although I now understand the difference between the two modes.

Thank you so much, I appreciate the feedback!

Matt

I liked it immensely. I respect the amount of work that went into the making(especially getting your lady to agree to being filmed al fresco). I kinda invision a bit of a different soundtrack for it though. The lead reminds me more of a private investigator coming home from a trying case, so I hear a jazzier 40's style private dick movie sound for it...but thats just me. Keep on keeping on.

I'm a private investigator in my day job...

No, honest, I am.

You're right, but I know what's coming next. ;) Whether or not it actually works is another thing...

THANKS!!!!!!!

Matt

Matthew, you really want to shoot 2:3:3:2 for any kind of projection, digital or film. You want to keep your images clean (no diffusion filters or other smoothing techniques, because when blown up on a big screen it'll already soften), and you want progressive scaning all the way, without the resolution loss, that would occur if you had to deinterlace your 3:2 footage to edit it in 24p and project it in 24p.

So shoot 24p 2:3:3:2, edit in a 24p timeline by removing the fake frame (pull up) and when you're finished, you'll have the option to either keep it 24p for projection purposes or applying a 3:2 pull down for interlaced output such as TV.

Xl1
 

Can the Xl1 do the same thing as the XL2 with regards to the 24fps?

If you mean shooting 24fps, no the XL1 can't.
It can only shoot in normal mode, and frame mode. The lather is 30 fps per second, or if you live in PAL land where I live, 25fps per second.
Although you have a slight resolution loss, although that ain't much.

Then...
 

For a better film look would you suggest the dvx100a or the xl2?

Thanks for the info.

See was that so hard? THANKS DAVID!!!

Michael,

There are huge debates regarding the DVX and XL2 when it comes to "film look". If you would prefer to grab the highest resolution standard DV image you can in native 16:9 and tweak the color in post, the XL2 is the ticket. If you would rather have the look that the DVX produces in Camera without doing much in post, get the DVX. Both are wonderful cameras. Even though I bought the XL2 I am VERY impressed with the DVX.

Matt

Michael, Matthew is right. And I won't go in a too long debate about wich camera, because if you look in the XL2 forum or just perform a search here you will find a lot discussions about which one to choose and I'll think you'll find a lot more info there than I can give you.

In short: many people like the dvx100a cinema settings... a lot! The XL2 has also such a thing but there are still many people who still prefer the DVX.

The XL2 is sharper, has real 16:9 and has an interchangible lens system. If that matters to you (your options are a lot bigger, but it costs a lot, those options) then go for the XL2.

Price thag is a big difference. I think the DVX has a price thag from around the 3500 dollars, the XL2 5000, of 4500 I don't just know.

But there are many many differences, please do a search, I think you'll be happy to find all that information there.

But, as Chris (Hurd) here almost always says: pick up both in the shop and try and look what you like the most.

Good luck!
BTW: the XL2 still has the frame mode to, but with full resolution. Although I don't think many people will still use that if they have 24p.

To add to what I wrote above, you have to make sure before shooting 2:3:3:2 that your editing software will in fact recognize the footage as 24p with a pull down so that it can automatically remove the fake frame for 24p editing. I know Premiere Pro 1.5 and Vegas do it, but I do not know about FCP. Something to check out before doing the shooting. You wouldn't want to be stuck with 2:3:3:2 footage with nothing to edit it on (in the way it was intended to). At the very worst, you can buy the DVFilm Maker software, which costs $150 and is designed to remove the fake frame and make a true 24p Quick Time sequence you can then edit in your NLE software for 24p footage shot with the 2:3:3:2 mode on either the DVX-100 or the XL2.

Hey Matthew
 

Quick question for you, what lighting kit did you use for your movie?

Lowel DV Creator 55 Light Kit

<<<-- Originally posted by David Lach : To add to what I wrote above, you have to make sure before shooting 2:3:3:2 that your editing software will in fact recognize the footage as 24p with a pull down so that it can automatically remove the fake frame for 24p editing. I know Premiere Pro 1.5 and Vegas do it, but I do not know about FCP. Something to check out before doing the shooting. You wouldn't want to be stuck with 2:3:3:2 footage with nothing to edit it on (in the way it was intended to). At the very worst, you can buy the DVFilm Maker software, which costs $150 and is designed to remove the fake frame and make a true 24p Quick Time sequence you can then edit in your NLE software for 24p footage shot with the 2:3:3:2 mode on either the DVX-100 or the XL2. -->>>

Once you turn 2:3:3:2 footage to 24p , what do you sabve it in ? Since DV codec (good quality) can't handle 24p. What is a good quality codec to keep the 24p footage in for editing ?

Thanks !

Frank

Great job
 

Hey, I'm late to the game on seeing your short. Sorry! My comments are similar to others who posted, but I will say it's refreshing to see something with "style". Usually, I watch people's first shorts and their a rip-off the latest thing or an attempt to do "Star Wars" for about $7.50 in budget!

Anyway, I like seeing shorts like yours...they're actually watchable! Oh, and don't listen to modern day Hollywood studios...B&W is awesome.

Murph

Re: Nice work Mathew
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pennington : I do have a question though, if you shoot in 24p 2:3:3:2 for projection, what if you want to take that same footage and export to DVD? Would you loose anything? -->>>

No, since DVD's can be 24p as well. So you load the 2:3:3:2
footage in your 24p project in the NLE and then output a 24p
MPEG2 file and author it in 24p.

Re: Re: Nice work Mathew
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : <<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pennington : I do have a question though, if you shoot in 24p 2:3:3:2 for projection, what if you want to take that same footage and export to DVD? Would you loose anything? -->>>

No, since DVD's can be 24p as well. So you load the 2:3:3:2
footage in your 24p project in the NLE and then output a 24p
MPEG2 file and author it in 24p. -->>>

When you create a 24p mpeg and author it to DVD. Will the resulting DVD file be 3:2 pulled down data , or will the DVD player do that ?

Thanks !

Bravo Matthew!

Great job, and hard to believe it's a first attempt. The lighting and composition remind me of the Kirk Douglas films of the 50s. I agree that a bit more contrast will improve things...especially in the venetian blind scene. Don't forget the eye candy shots of things like a high contrast close up of a sweaty cocktail glass or billowing cigarette smoke appearing from a silhouette.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with next.

So how many times did you have to do the robe shot to get it just right?

great shooting for a first attempt. You do have a natural sense for lighting. My only comments would be that the shots on the glass/door handle would be a little shorter for timing purposes. I would not have used the zoomshot, but would have used a static shot. Rack focus shots rarely work well, I think, or they have to be extreme subtle....and you can wonder about its purpose in this short...
You definetly have talent and I if I where you id pursue a career in shooting...

greetings

Wow, thanks guys!!

John,

I really appreciate your comments. I have used this footage (although I may reshoot it) as the basis for a short 15 min film which we recently finished the script on. I have drawn all the storyboards and have been lining up cast and am now trying to lock in a few locations. Hopefully, I will shoot after the new year (everyone will be away for the holidays) and will go into post on it by the end of January. It probably seems stupid to be going through all of this for a dumb little short (I've actually filled most of a 1" binder on pre-production stuff) but I look at it like school (even though I'm 37). When I get it finished, I'll post it again. Oh and the robe shot took many, many takes... It's hard work, but someone had to do it... ;)

Can you say more about adding contrast, "especially in the venetian blind scene"?

David,
Thanks for the advice! I've already started editing this footage down to see just how short I could make it - the rack focus is out. Since this started out as an experiment rather than a short, the rack focus was there simply to see if I could pull it off by myself. Other than that it served no purpose.

When you mention the zoomshot I assume you mean when the girl puts on the robe? I actually took static shots first, but since the whole thing was static up to that point, I thought the zoom might be neat. Can you explain why you don't like it or why you would have preferred a static shot? Also, I'm in the process of building a small track and dolly. Would a dolly shot be better/best, or do you still think static is the way to go?

I selected a film noir style for a variety of reasons one of which was that they traditionally used a lot of static shots (since I was working alone this was pretty critical). Also, they tend to have a large DOF which works well with DV and then there's the main reason - the lighting.

Thanks again!!

Matt

my personal feeling is you should stay away from zoomshots unless you would like to reveal something when you go out? There is got to be some purpose for a zoomshot. Take your opening shot, its a tilt but its also a slight zoom. If you want to zoom you should 'hide' it. It works well in the openingshot. If you want to zoom by all means, but then you ought to make it the style of the film, as you have chosen for static shots I think you should stick to them. And in general zoomshots are difficult to pull on a dv-camera because the quality of the zoom is poor. You should try a broadcast lens and then pull a zoom, its one hell of a difference. But even then the zoom can start abrupt.. I have the canon xl1, its zoom is not half as good as the new canon and I never use it unless I am doing docu/style something because then you sometimes need to reframe... Oh and tilts pans and a dolly shot could work but its difficult to keep focus if you move away from the subject. It is very difficult to do that kind of shoot without a focuspuller. Sideways movements or other movements where your focus is not a really big issue are adviseable if you are shooting alone.

greetings and keep up the work!!!

<<<-- Once you turn 2:3:3:2 footage to 24p , what do you sabve it in ? Since DV codec (good quality) can't handle 24p. What is a good quality codec to keep the 24p footage in for editing ?

Thanks !

Frank -->>>

You don't need to save it in a different format. It will remain 60i DV, but some NLE softwares, such as Premiere Pro 1.5 for example, which I'm using right now, will recognise the 2:3:3:2 mode and recreate the true 24p sequence. But all your source DV files will be standard DV files, readable with your WM player or QT player as a 60i sequence.

When your project is done, if you want to save it as a 24p sequence, you can compress it to 24p MPEG2. But this should not serve as a master. Just a file to put on a DVD for example.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Lach :
You don't need to save it in a different format. It will remain 60i DV, but some NLE softwares, such as Premiere Pro 1.5 for example, which I'm using right now, will recognise the 2:3:3:2 mode and recreate the true 24p sequence. But all your source DV files will be standard DV files, readable with your WM player or QT player as a 60i sequence.

When your project is done, if you want to save it as a 24p sequence, you can compress it to 24p MPEG2. But this should not serve as a master. Just a file to put on a DVD for example. -->>>

Thanks for all the info everyone ! ;-)

Planning to get my XL2 in february . That's why I'm asking so many questions ! :-)

Frank

Re: Re: Re: Nice work Mathew
 

<<<-- When you create a 24p mpeg and author it to DVD. Will the resulting DVD file be 3:2 pulled down data , or will the DVD player do that ? -->>>

The DVD player does that on the fly if needed (usually the case)

Nice little film. The only flaw I think is the way too long shot with the woman lying on a bed (without no sound being heard) and the music in the end which just doesn't go with the plot. It's kind of intense while the woman just wants to make sweet love :), therefore a sax solo would be preffered (IMO).

Did you ever figure this out?

I have 8mm and 16mm I'd like to capture to mini-dv via my Canon XL-2... any suggestions for best frame modes to use? Ways to capture?

can't download the file
 

Hi,

I can't download the file, there is an error message from mac when trying to load the page.


thank you

I would like to see it as well. Please check the link to the page! It doesn't load! Looking forward to seeing it.

Thanks for the interest. I'm not sure what's wrong as it plays fine for me. Later tonight I will put each movie on it's own page. Hopefully that will help. Bear with me, I'll post when it's done.

Matt