higher Res in 24f (& great DOF)
 

Hello,
a few questions:

- Cannon's 24f lowers the resolution to be about 720, correct?

- This being the case, is it more advisable to shoot 1080i 60, capture to Final Cut, and then conform to 24p (DVCpro HD/...however one goes about it ) in post
to get the maximum amount of resolution? So you have something akin to 1080 24p.

- Or is this process gonna end up loosing res and it will make it more viable to shoot in 24f?
24f and the HVX200 24p are actually quite similar res correct?

Thanks,

Pappas and Barlow have pretty much convinced me to move towards the Canon...just waiting for a few more tests.

BTW : I was getting some fantastic DOF with the standard lens and really I wonder about the need to use a 35mm adapter (to achieve beautiful DOF) with the Canon

It's 24F and 25F (PAL XLH1's) 1080i.

Correct Vincent,
I am asking about converting the 1080i 60 to 1080 24 in post...
if it's possible & whether it's more trouble(loss) than it's worth.
Specifically in regards to FCP.
(I will change the first post to reflect this)

Thanks,

If you record to HDV tape:

You will get better resolution if there is no motion in the scene. But as soon as there is any motion, 24F/25F is _much_ better because a non-interlaced stream can be compressed better with MPEG than an interlaced one. Which means that you get less motion artifacts when shooting in an F mode.

For me the 24F/25F modes still have enough resolution and I do care more about better motion capture. But for other people it might be different.


If you record SDI:

It should be better to shoot 50i/60i there and de-interlace with Magic Bullet or another specialized de-interlace software. But do _not_ use the crappy builtin de-interlacers of FCP or PP/Vegas.

Jack

Maybe I'm totally missing the point but keep in mind as well that re-compressing in Post in any way is not good for your footage as well. So doing things as de-interlaceing in post always degrades the quality.

Not as far as I can tell. I'm not Adam Wilt, but 24F looks much higher res in 1080 24p than the JVC or Panny.

Not even worth the hassle. Whatever last tiny bit of resolution you might eke out this way isn't worth the trouble, not to mention the lesser bit rate alloted to each individual frame. MPEG2 isn't as efficient with interlace. The H1 is still very good at 1080i HDV, but if you're making a film I wouldn't create the extra work in post.

IMHO, I don't think the HVX even comes close to the amount of detail the H1 does with 1080 24p.

You can also get more shallow DOF w/H1 simply because it has more telephoto, but if you're actually looking for that elegant, less compressed (optically) out-of-focus background than an adapter will be just the ticket. If it were me, I think I'd wait on the Cinemek as I'm not a big fan of the mini-35 image. I know guys like Nick can get great results, but I feel like it softens the image a bit too much, and there's all that stuff with the oscillating glass to be watchful of.

Hope that helps a little.

Thanks you guys,
The 24f I thought was closer in res to the HVX in 24p ( I thought Barry posted this at some point) But since the H1 records 24f @ 1080 then that's brilliant!
I was under the impression that say for filmout - 60i was better(?)
but
If 24f handles motion better - why would you record anything else, unless you wanted that video look?
So far from the footage I have seen the Canon's image is Marvelous !

Yes- I will wait for the Cinemek adapter (plus relay fro the Canon they have said they will make as well)
Buut the Stock lens seems to acheive much of the DOF that I was gonna use a 35mm lens for.
Here's another novice question about lenses though - Canon makes an EF adaptor, why couldn't you just use a 35mm straight on the Canon?
What other lenses are options? I have done a search and really am more confused than ever
Thanks fro your help,
J

24F IS 24p to tape, and the motion is absolutely there, with the nice little bonus of gawdy resolution.

The EF adapter has a magnification effect that is meant more for wildlife videography and surveillance. Guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it something like 7x magnification? Not useful for narrative features, I think.

Nick, have any lens advice? Anyone else?

btw, John, if you want I'll send you some frames and clips of some more custom preset tests I've been doing. I'm testing for all sorts of things, including where the CA anomaly shows up most often,(no worries, it's acceptable) and trying different sharpness and color settings. Email me and we'll get in touch.

It would seem like right now there are not too many lens options without using a 35mm esque adapter. the ef adapter is great but like barlow said there's a 7x (at least, maybe 9 in 16x9) multiplication going on so you'll be kind of hindered when it comes to the wider side of things. The 20x stock lens is really good but I hate the forever rotating focus control. In fact actually I hate everything about the 20x lens except for the image quality, there I've said it, I can move on with my life now. Seems like 9 grand should be able to get you some sort of manual esque controls... I mean the JVC does it at 6k right?

In theory the next few months should bring us a wide lens of some sort (maybe manual, who knows) and a deck option as well. But only canon knows for sure.

Thanks Nick,
I agree about the forever rotating focus ring
Wouldn't a follow focus system help this though?

thanks,
J

You can set focus and zoom points on the XL lenses... most people who complain about the lens have not bothered to learn how to use it...



ash =o)

I'm a huge fan of follow focuses but to me (and this is only my personal opinion) it seems kinda silly to invest in them for stock lenses.

Now with the add on ring and a chrosziel FF you SHOULD be able to get accurate repeatable focus, but this won't stop the focus ring from perpetually spinning. I'm curious as to what other peoples experiences are.

P.S. ash is right I have never made any attempt to learn anything about the stock lens.

How is Cinemek adapter different from mini35? sorry if this is silly question.

Mini35 vs Cinemek
 

P+S Technik Mini 35 Digital Image Converter Series 400 Base Unit
$ 7,455

Nikon mount
$ 375

Canon XL1/XL1S/XL2/XL H1 Camera Adapter
$ 2,500

vs.

Cinemek G35
$ 999

Nikon mount
$ 150

XL mount
$ 150

or better, Relay lense
$ unknown

So, first the G35 is 1/10 of the cost of the mini35. But the real argument for the G35 is the footage. Look at the footage on the Cinemek homepage or look at http://hvx200.com/scifest/macgregor-...gor-similo.wmv (46MB)

Only backdraft of the G35 is that it is not available yet and that it will be a few months till the relay lense for the XL H1 will be out.

But for me it is worth the wait.

This is another reason I am leaning towards the Canon---
The light loss with a relay will be much less than with the lens.
The Canon will be a Fantastic G35 Cam.

Though in my trials, with the stock lens on the Canon, you get Great Depth of Field !

J

price I understand is a good part here, but is technology different? is quality better than mini35? is it based the same way on moving GG? is GG in cinemek of a better quality than mini35? does it have less grain than mini35?

I have no idea what exactly makes the G35 look better. I guess it is the combination of optics and GG. A good idea maybe to check out their forums. I'm currently on their preorder list for the first 300 devices, they don't take any new orders currently. They have been using a static GG, now they are switching to a moving one (because the static on was not good enough for HD cams it seems) which is of course delaying things.

So if you need something urgent, you need to go with a mini35.

One major difference, from what I know, is that the image doesn't flip back with the G35. The Mini35 does that for a couple of thousand $$ more...

Please!

bentoon@verizon.net