Shooting with XL1 for CD-ROM
 

I'm used to shooting with the XL-1 for regular NTSC broadcast. I'm about to begin a project that will end up on CD-ROM as QuicTime movies.

Are there any particular settings I should keep in mind that would optimize the camera for QuickTime over CD-ROM? Or should I just shoot as always?

A second slightly unrelated question - I'll be using two cameras. Anyone has had any problems matching color between two XL1. How about mixing an XL1 with a Sony 900? Just trying to make it difficult to come up with a good answer.

Thank you in advance.

Ozzie

Shoot as always. I recommend using these settings for your Quicktime:

Sorenson Video (NOT Sorenson 3) Quality = 60%
320 x 240
29.97 frames per second, or 15 if there isn't a ton of motion.
key frame every 24 frames should be fine. The lower the number the bigger the Quicktime will be, but slightly higher quality.
UNCHECK the "limit data rate to..." box.

Sound:

QDesign Music 3
Frequency = 32000Hz
Bit rate (under options) = 48kbps
16 Bit (stereo or mono, your choice).

This configuration will play on all Windows and Mac computers. The Quicktime video may seem a tad dark, so you might want to shoot your scenes a little brighter than usual (not too much) now that I think about it.

Also, do NOT use Media Cleaner to make your Quicktime, unless you want your Quicktime to look like crap. Simply use Quicktime itself (Quicktime Pro is required for this, using the EXPORT option. $30).

I can't answer your second question since I have never even heard of the Sony 900. Maybe white balancing both cameras on the same object might help, but the 900 probably does not have 3 CCDs (I have no idea) so the XL1 will look better no matter what you do. But the end result (Quicktime) will be hard pressed to show MUCH difference.

Hi Ozzie,

I recently used an XL1S and Sony TRV510 on a project and the color match was terrible! It was corrected to some degree in post, but still noticable. Another thread on this board also discusses this problem.

I am currently trying to find a Custom Preset on the Canon that will more closely match the Sony so that when those two cameras are used there will be a closer match on the color. I'm getting there, but still haven't come up with the perfect settings. If anyone else has experimented with this, I would appreciate your comments or findings.

Ed Frazier

Very helpful replies. Thank you.

Any estimate of file size with the given specs? Say, for a 90 second scene?

The Sony if mention is a 3 chip camera I just forget the three letter prefix for the model. Although white balancing off the same card is the given, there are inherent differences between cameras. I've mixed the XL-1 and the 900 but never in a critical cross-cutting situation where skin tone is important.

I'm also looking into what lenses to use with the XL-1. I've used the one it came with and, as everyone has found out by now, it's impossible to do serious work with it - e.g. not being able to track and keep a zoom is a big problem and there's also a slight back focus problem. (Even though I had Canon "correct" it.)

I'm leaning toward the currently available wide angle lens from Canon since I'll be shooting in tight quarters - restaurants, offices, cars. But I've heard there are other wide angle options. I haven't used the Canon wide angle. Any suggestions from people who have used a variety of optics with the XL-1?

90 seconds would run anywhere between 7 and 10 megs. Could be closer to (or under) 5 Megs if you went with 15 frames per second. Sorry, but there really isn't a way to have a tiny file-sized Quicktime and have it look great as well.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Redifer : This configuration will play on all Windows and Mac computers. The Quicktime video may seem a tad dark, so you might want to shoot your scenes a little brighter than usual (not too much) now that I think about it.

Also, do NOT use Media Cleaner to make your Quicktime, unless you want your Quicktime to look like crap. Simply use Quicktime itself (Quicktime Pro is required for this, using the EXPORT option. $30). -->>>

Joe,

I've noticed the darkening effect QuickTime tends to have on many perfectly exposed footage. When you say "a little brighter than usual..." can yu be a little more specific - running the XL-1 manually do I "over expose" by 1/2 stop? 1 stop? I always keep the zebra stripes on and expose for a few stripes in the highlights if I'm shooting faces. Wold you err on the side of more stripes say in the mid tones?

Secondly, funny you should mention Media Cleaner - the client has specified it. Fortunatelly I didn't say anything because I'm not all that familiar with it. We use it sparingly and I don't know the criteria our tech people use to detetemine when to use it.

The problem with Media Cleaner is that you can't enter your parameters manually, at least I don't think so. It just asks you questions like:

Is this Quicktime for the web? YES NO
Please choose your size: BIG MEDIUM SMALL
Please choose your quality: CRAPPY MORE CRAPPY CRAPPY AS CAN POSSIBLY BE

Then it makes the Quicktime for you. I like a little more control than that.

As far as brighter, don't shoot it too much brighter. You don't want to wash out the details. Perhpas try adding a little brightness in post before encoding the Quicktime. I've done that and it works fairly well. Try it on a small sample until you get satisfactory results.

You have been most helpful. Thank you.
I'll probably be posting more questions as I begin to actually experience problems (hopefully minor) when shooting begins.

I'd still would like to get some comments on optics for the XL1. Anyone?

Ozzie,

"Optics" is a fairly broad topic. Please review the numerous threads about lenses and optics for the XL1, and then if you're still looking for an answer to a specific question, post that as a *new* topic so that it stands out better. Hope this helps,

my own experience has shown me that mpeg2 or divx is really the best way to go on cdrom. A two pass encoded divx has outstanding quality. the divx codec is a free download, as well as the xcoders TEMPGEnc and XMPEG. There are also bitrate calculators available that will help match the amount of compression to the file size and the number of cdroms you want to use. Overall, a much better solution than QT, IMHO.

Yes but EVERBODY can view Quicktime, not Divx.

hmmmm...not so sure that I buy that arguement, Joe. I can pack a divx player on the CDROM so that it will autorun when it's installed in the tray. I'd much rather give my customer quality, if he/she can read it. I'm not familiar with Mac's. Perhaps they can't play divx. In that case, I guess a mac owner is kinda stuck with QT, eh?

I'm willing to check out divx to compare the quality but the product we're producing has already picked QT as the video source. The client has already released two sets of CDs with QT and is not about to switch in midstream. It's more of a marketing consideration than a quality one. The only way to use divx is, if its quality is obviously better than QT, to make it completely transparent to the user.

I agree, I would not change formats in mid-stream. if you decide to use it, I would suggest an initial bitrate of not less than 3000 kilobits/sec. that seems to give me the same quality as DV compression.
one final thought, video distributed on CDROM and encoded in hi-quality svcd or dvd is distributable to dvd and svcd set top players. if your audience is viewing on a computer screen, be sure to de-interlace the output. If viewing on a TV, check the "de-interlace" radio button.

hope this helps
regards,

sorry for the typo in my last.....I meant to say that if the audience is viewing on a TV, leave the output interlaced. it looks bad on a computer monitor, but, won't be seen on a TV.

Macs can view Divx, but I have run across a couple that don't seem to work. Too bad it's not an official format of any kind. I've seen Divx's that look much worse than Quicktime. Anyway, I would never create a CD-ROM that couldn't be run on both Windows and Macs. That's like creating a web page that can only be viewed on Internet Explorer. The only exception would be if you KNOW the person who is getting the CD-ROM will only have Windows available to them. Plus, if the video ever ends up on the web, well then you should know that Quicktime is the de facto standard for web video (Real Video does not count as "video"... it falls into the "crap" category). If you want to spend mega bucks, then you can have Quicktimes that simply look awesome (check out the Star Wars trailers which were encoded with a professional Sorenson package).

Joe Redifer,

Earlier you said to shoot "as always" for generating QuickTime movies that will end up on CD-ROMs and/or the Internet. Would you recommend shooting in Movie mode (full frames and not fields)? I'm thinking the user might want to pause the QT. It would be good to have a full, clean frame while on pause.

I would recommend shooting in Frame mode (I assume Movie Mode is the same thing?) in any case, but even if you don't you are still OK. The only thing you will have to remember to get a clear paused and moving picture is the size of the Quicktime. You won't get the effects of interlacing if you shrink your QT down to 320 x 240 since that resolution just gets rid of every other line. The next step down would be 160 x 120. Just stick with those two sizes and it won't make any difference if what mode you shoot in. If you plan on having 640 x 480 QTs, then you will want Frame/Movie mode.

By the way, I've found that the full version of Media Cleaner (not the EZ version) is actually not bad... the Windows version that is. My previous opinions were of the Mac version. Windows doesn't make it's Sorenson QTs as horribly dark, even if you make your QT with Quicktime itself. I guess the compression codec they put in the Mac Quicktime is just not as good :(. Media Cleaner actually uses QT to do its QT compression. Just make sure you go to the mode where you can input all of your selections in manually, don't do the "wizard" or whatever it is called.

The specs we got for the QTs are: 240 x 180 at 15fps; MPEG Layer 3 audio, mono, 22.05kHz, 16 bits.

I guess what you're saying is that at that resolution it makes no difference if I shoot with the XL-1 in TV or Movie mode. I've seen some of what they have already shot and it looks okay. The only possible fly in the ointment is that we'll be making a BetaSP protection master since there's a chance this might end up on the air. At t his point I'm getting a little over my head since I've never shot Movie mode (or full frames - i.e. two fields at a time) for broadcast. I don't think it would make a difference since it would end up being broadcast with fields anyway but I'm wondering if there might be some problems looming.

At that resolution you might see some motion quirkiness in your Quicktime. Also, shooting if Frame mode will work fine for broadcast. It is still interlaced, it's just that both fields are of the same image instead of the two fields being of different points in time. Get what I'm saying here? Anyway you should be fine for the full Betacam version. Shoot in Frame mode just like you would in any other mode. Just be aware that it will look a little jerkier on playback and you may not be used to seeing that from video. It will go a long way into making it look more like film, which is slightly jerkier than that.

Try to make a test Quicktime of about 5 seconds or so at their resolution. Make sure to have lots of motion in that 5 seconds and make sure that you have shot it in interlaced mode. Then see if the Quicktime looks funky.

mac divx and media cleaner pro settings
 

you can have divx on a mac, quality is not that great in os 9.1 but in os x, the quality is excellent (and its still in beta!!!).
Regarding media cleaner pro......... settings CAN be entered manually. if you examine the package properly, you will see how, i cant remember right now!! Media cleaner pro does a very good job, if you use the right settings.

if you are shooting for cd, what are you gonna edit in? and on which platform, mac or pc?

greg
finito productions
stockholm, sweden

Joe,

>>Just be aware that it will look a little jerkier on playback and you may not be used to seeing that from video. It will go a long way into making it look more like film, which is slightly jerkier than that. <<

Of course at 15fps it WILL be jerky no matter how we shoot it. Regarding broadcast - the problems usually arise on how the signal is processd for uplinks and transmission. Engineers used to bitch a lot just because it was a compressed signal. I think they've gotten over it by now.

The client is asking for frame grabs for printing. This makes shooting in Movie mode even more appealing.

Bobby,

Using divx was mentioned earlier but it's not an option since the product was already started with QT prior to our taking it over and change is not possible.

We'll be editing the material on an AVID 1000, NT based. We'll be delivering the QTs on a PC formatted CD.