do you use frame mode for weddings? at DVinfo.net

David J. Payne · June 19th, 2006, 02:55 AM

I was just wondering if people generally used frame mode when shooting weddings? I was thinking surely if I intend on slowing some footage down, its better to shoot without frame mode as the frame rate is higher?

Don Palomaki · June 19th, 2006, 04:05 AM

Some people do. I use normal mode. Depends on whether or not you want the frame-mode motion artifacts.

Cole McDonald · June 19th, 2006, 07:27 AM

I prefer frame. Interlaced motion just bothers me. I'm picky though.

Tom Hardwick · June 19th, 2006, 08:32 AM

Interlaced for me. I'm out to present the couple with a beautifully flowing film of their day. Anything that disrupts this smoothness (progressive, frame, slow shutters, cineframe etc) is out as far as I'm concerned.

OK, the Reservoir Dogs sequence with the suits can be messed with, but for the girl keep it smooth and sweet, I say.

tom.

Cole McDonald · June 19th, 2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

keep it smooth and sweet, I say.

Interestingly, this is precisely the reason I shoot progressive/frame. 30p 1/60 shutter, iris as wide as possible to shorten DoF. Polarizer + ND as needed to keep the iris open and the shutter at 1/60. Set Zebras at 95% and at the least, try to hit just below the last strips on the subject/s. At best, one notch down from the last ones you see in the whole scene. You can spin the polarizer to help with skies and windows a bit.

Tom Hardwick · June 19th, 2006, 11:47 AM

Well maybe it makes a difference in PAL land, Cole. Over here 50i gives a smoothness to motion (camera or subject) that any progressive or pseudo progressive disrupts.

We accept 24p in the cinema for purely historical reasons, but off DVD and into her new LCD TV 50 different fields per second looks a lot smoother.

Like you though I'm constantly trying to shoot as wide open as possible to limit the dof. I've grown up with 100% zebras, so that's what I know and use.

tom.

David J. Payne · June 19th, 2006, 02:15 PM

hey tom you live down the road from me.. crazy.
anyway am I right in saying for sequences that are intended to be slowed in post production shooting on frame mode would be a disadvantage?

Cole McDonald · June 19th, 2006, 09:22 PM

I'm going to venture a guess the the difference is a purely aesthetic one as 25p is catching every other 1/50 sec timeslice where the 50i would catch all of the 1/50 sec timeslices. So, technically, 50i would be better, unless you intend to deinterlace at which point, you're throwing away information anyway.

The problem I have with interlacing is the combing during lateral motion within the frame. That is the one thing that kills my viewing pleasure with anything I watch. For that reason alone, I shoot frame mode...it has nothing to do with cinema history as far as I'm concerned, I'm a big fan of 30p over 24p, but I hate interlaced video...it just raises the hackles for me.

I was a photography hobbyist when I was younger and used to shoot sports for the high school newspaper. This perhaps is part of my problem with interlaced video, it ruins the photographic feel of the video for me. I believe each frame should stand alone.

The end though is that you shoot what you feel is the best footage you can which pleases the customer. Some of the difference may be the intended output medium as well, a television is specifically made to display interlaced video, whereas a computer monitor or a projector for a larger screen is made to show progressive.

Tom Hardwick · June 20th, 2006, 12:32 AM

You raise a very good point Cole - that the DVD content should suit the display medium. We've no idea if the client has a 4:3 CRT, a portable DVD player, a Mac or a 16:9 plasma, and anyway, she might want to take her wedding film round to show Auntie Maude who's still with VHS.

It's one of the reasons I delayed moving to 16:9 for so long. I really feel a 4:3 film can be shown in its correct aspect ratio on any screen, whereas a 16:9 film is iffy - some older 4:3 CRTs are happy to letterbox it, others not.

But then again, a good friend has bought an expensive 16:9 B & O TV. Beautiful picture, sure - but no 4:3 option in any of the menus! I was staggered, I can tell you. It's tops of heads or subtitles - you take your pick.

Yes David - in the great scheme of things we're neighbours. And yes, shoot at 1/50th interlaced if you want to slow the footage in post. Shooting in this mode means you record everything that happens in front of the camera, and a slow to half speed means individual fields now become frames.

You lose resolution of course, but at least you have all the info to play with. If you'd shot the original scene at 1/100th sec, say, you'd have ignored half of everything that happened in front of your lens. And beware - many camcorders that use EIS up the shutter speed to 1/100th when the anti-shake is turned on.

tom.

June 19th, 2006, 02:55 AM	#1
David J. Payne Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Southend-On-Sea, England Posts: 368	do you use frame mode for weddings? I was just wondering if people generally used frame mode when shooting weddings? I was thinking surely if I intend on slowing some footage down, its better to shoot without frame mode as the frame rate is higher?

June 19th, 2006, 04:05 AM	#2
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,487	Some people do. I use normal mode. Depends on whether or not you want the frame-mode motion artifacts. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

June 19th, 2006, 07:27 AM	#3
Cole McDonald Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA Posts: 1,675	I prefer frame. Interlaced motion just bothers me. I'm picky though. __________________ Web Youtube Facebook

June 19th, 2006, 09:22 PM	#8
Cole McDonald Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA Posts: 1,675	I'm going to venture a guess the the difference is a purely aesthetic one as 25p is catching every other 1/50 sec timeslice where the 50i would catch all of the 1/50 sec timeslices. So, technically, 50i would be better, unless you intend to deinterlace at which point, you're throwing away information anyway. The problem I have with interlacing is the combing during lateral motion within the frame. That is the one thing that kills my viewing pleasure with anything I watch. For that reason alone, I shoot frame mode...it has nothing to do with cinema history as far as I'm concerned, I'm a big fan of 30p over 24p, but I hate interlaced video...it just raises the hackles for me. I was a photography hobbyist when I was younger and used to shoot sports for the high school newspaper. This perhaps is part of my problem with interlaced video, it ruins the photographic feel of the video for me. I believe each frame should stand alone. The end though is that you shoot what you feel is the best footage you can which pleases the customer. Some of the difference may be the intended output medium as well, a television is specifically made to display interlaced video, whereas a computer monitor or a projector for a larger screen is made to show progressive. __________________ Web Youtube Facebook

June 19th, 2006, 08:32 AM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Interlaced for me. I'm out to present the couple with a beautifully flowing film of their day. Anything that disrupts this smoothness (progressive, frame, slow shutters, cineframe etc) is out as far as I'm concerned. OK, the Reservoir Dogs sequence with the suits can be messed with, but for the girl keep it smooth and sweet, I say. tom.

June 19th, 2006, 11:47 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Well maybe it makes a difference in PAL land, Cole. Over here 50i gives a smoothness to motion (camera or subject) that any progressive or pseudo progressive disrupts. We accept 24p in the cinema for purely historical reasons, but off DVD and into her new LCD TV 50 different fields per second looks a lot smoother. Like you though I'm constantly trying to shoot as wide open as possible to limit the dof. I've grown up with 100% zebras, so that's what I know and use. tom.

June 19th, 2006, 02:15 PM	#7
David J. Payne Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Southend-On-Sea, England Posts: 368	hey tom you live down the road from me.. crazy. anyway am I right in saying for sequences that are intended to be slowed in post production shooting on frame mode would be a disadvantage?

June 20th, 2006, 12:32 AM	#9
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You raise a very good point Cole - that the DVD content should suit the display medium. We've no idea if the client has a 4:3 CRT, a portable DVD player, a Mac or a 16:9 plasma, and anyway, she might want to take her wedding film round to show Auntie Maude who's still with VHS. It's one of the reasons I delayed moving to 16:9 for so long. I really feel a 4:3 film can be shown in its correct aspect ratio on any screen, whereas a 16:9 film is iffy - some older 4:3 CRTs are happy to letterbox it, others not. But then again, a good friend has bought an expensive 16:9 B & O TV. Beautiful picture, sure - but no 4:3 option in any of the menus! I was staggered, I can tell you. It's tops of heads or subtitles - you take your pick. Yes David - in the great scheme of things we're neighbours. And yes, shoot at 1/50th interlaced if you want to slow the footage in post. Shooting in this mode means you record everything that happens in front of the camera, and a slow to half speed means individual fields now become frames. You lose resolution of course, but at least you have all the info to play with. If you'd shot the original scene at 1/100th sec, say, you'd have ignored half of everything that happened in front of your lens. And beware - many camcorders that use EIS up the shutter speed to 1/100th when the anti-shake is turned on. tom.