What is negative effects of movie Mode?
 

Beside the blur in the pan move is any other ill effects in this mode vs normal?
Thank to all that help me and others you real helping to keep the film community indepentent filmmaking (MaimI) I currently am working as camera operator on free films but it very hard to break into film just as a Loader gets me I will keep up trying find work and the help this community. so once again THANK YOU

It has that "XL1 frame mode look" which only the XL1 seems to have. I think people out there making a video or film don't use it if they what the "film look". They use the regular mode and the editing softwear does it latter. (atleast for the big screen!) I think? Someone help me out as I read that somewhere, sometime! Can you send the frame mode footage strait to film? Not sure. I guess I'm no help.....!

Mario,

The downside to using frame movie mode is that you reduce
color resolution. The resolution of your movie is the same
because the XL1(S) interpolates the signal. Since the
XL1(S)'s CCD chips are not truly progressive it needs to
perform tricks which reduce your resolution. Try to see for
yourself if you like it. A good software de-interlacing can be
good too. Although it will never beat a camera at this
(because of the timing differences in the fields).

Hope this has helped some

Frame mode is a bit softer and does not have that edgey video feel that all interlaced cameras have. To get frame mode, the XL1 uses "pixelshift" or whatever they call it. You get a much higher resolution image than a de-interlaced image from a normal camera. Diagonal lines are smooth and curves are actually round. No jaggies and minimal aliasing. Colors are still VERY good, but like I said, it is a bit softer overall, but that's not necesarily a bad thing. I prefer frame mode as it does not look like camcorder footage. I hate the look of camcorder footage. Once one gets used to film, video just does not cut it in any way, shape or form and I like to mimic the look of film as much as I can. The frame mode helps. I would rather not shoot video at all then shoot it at 60 fields per second.

The Sony VX2000 has a true progressive scan CCD that shoots at 15 frames per second. It is WAY too sharp and looks absolutely awful unless the image is paused. I'm glad the XL1 does what it does.

As far as whether the frame movie mode is appropriate for transferring to film, the recommendations I have seen from tape-to-film houses is that standard, interlaced footage is preferred. Apparently they have a much easier time interpolating the 24 frames from 60 fields rather than 30 frames.

And as for comparing the look of frame movie mode to video shot interlaced and then manipulated in post: on a short I shot last year, the director and I compared interlaced footage processed using the Cinelook software to simulate the 3:2 pulldown of film versus the frame movie mode, and we both preferred the look of the latter (not to mention the significant time savings of not having to render the final project through Cinelook). That project was never intended for blowup though.

I particularly like the look of frame movie mode, especially in terms of the softness mentioned in previous posts. As such, I rarely use filtration to augment that look.

(that short is viewable on iFilm,search under "First Born").

Joe & Mario,

As far as I understand it you will not increase your resolution.
Your resolution will not change at all...

The things that will change are:

- No more time differences in your fields: because the *whole*
image is composed in the same time you will not get any
small time diferences (1/25th of a second on PAL system
and 1/30th on NTSC).
- Your COLOR resolution will drop. Since the XL1 does NOT
use true progressive chips it uses shifting technology. What
they do is the following. Every odd line contains both Red
and blue from the CCD. The green signal is resampled from
the surrounding (green) lines. The even lines contain only
green from the CCD. The red and blue are here resampled
from the surround (red and blue) lines, thus loosing a bit
of color resolution (thats why it is a bit softer).

The primary difference is the way things move. Instead of
having two fields that have a small time difference everything
is in sync now. This can never be fixed in post. You can
however make a good approximation in post that looks
100% good too. It is only different.

A site that explains this with pictures (and concurs with my
thoughts on this) can be found here:
http://www.dv.com/magazine/2000/1100/wilt1100.html
I suggest giving it a good read!

Hope this has clearified some.

Good article and explanation, Rob!
 

Thank you for passing that along. I hadn't seen that article.

Ok
 

This is my first time DPing a short film so I really and happy with help I getting.I will run a Test with both modes but for the lack of time i will shoot in reg Mode or will I?Good thing I do not have HD cam I would go crazy I like to know everthing and try differnt things on set not really in post any way I will post my personal results from all these test iafter this fri and explain my results Thanks for taking the time to give info I express :) thoughts

Howdy from Texas,

The link mentioned in this thread to the DV Magazine article by Adam Wilt is widely considered to be the most accurate, throrough explanation available of Frame Movie mode and how it works.

Regarding DV-to-35mm film transfer houses, there are different processes available and some facilities prefer NTSC shot in normal video mode while others prefer PAL video shot in Frame movie mode. See the 4-part DV to 35mm Technology Guide in the Articles section of the XL1 Watchdog for more details.

This is a great site. Any question or problem that pops up is bound to find a responsive audience with authoritative answers here.

The idea of shooting in movie mode has been THE question to ponder for me this entire weekend. The project I'm embarking on will be distributed via CD-ROM (15fps), broadband, broadcast (PAL and NTSC) AND in print. Okay, how would you shoot this dramatic feature with the XL-1 and "S"?

The initial release will be on CD-ROM and print. The print component will carry frame grabs from the video throughout the accompanying text books. I would have no problem shooting in frame mode if this were the sum total of all the possible means of distribution. But it's also going to end up on the air - in China (PAL) and Japan (NTSC), even SECAM in Eastern Europe. It is here that I run right into the dilemma.

I usually shoot normally - interlaced mode - and de-interlace the frame grabs (usually PICT files) with PhotoShop. This works most of the time as long as the grabbed frame was not in the middle of a pan or in the middle of any kind of fast move.

My current thinking is to shoot in frame mode at a slightly faster than normal "shutter" speed - say 1/90th or 1/125th - both of which will freeze most body moves. This solves a problem but creates a number of others:

- I need to raise the level of lighting;
- The "sharpness" of each individual frame makes the "strobbing" effect even worse than it would be at 1/60;
- I need to keep in mind how this will look when broadcast. I don't want the client coming back in a year or two complaining the broadcast version "looks weird."

So you see the horns of my dilemma. A problem created only since we began to shoot in the digital domain. Now we need to cover all media with just one shoot.

Hmm, "is a puzzlement" as the King of Siam would mutter. For sharp frame grabs and also for CD-ROM, Frame Movie mode is ideal considering your circumstances. I think some thorough tests should be made and carefully reviewed in each of your eventual media distribution formats. Hopefully you have the time for at least some brief experiments!

Ozzie,

How long will the feature be and what frame size do you expect to use for the CD-ROM release?

Steadichupap:

How do you achieve the 3:2 pulldown effect in Cinelook? I don't see an option for that.

<<<-- Originally posted by KenTanaka : Ozzie,

How long will the feature be and what frame size do you expect to use for the CD-ROM release? -->>>

There are two almost identical scripts each running anywhere from 70 to 90 minutes made up of short episodes. Each episode runs 90 seconds to 3 minutes although the drama will be shot as one seamless story.

We will be delivering QuickTime movies at 240x180, 24-bit color, MPEG layer 3 audio mono 22.05 kHz, 16 bits at 15 frames per second. We will also be delivering a master copy on NTSC DigiBeta for future conversion.

Capturing video shot in Frame Mode
 

When capturing video shot in Frame Mode from an XL-1, should it be in standard 29.97 60hz NTSC, or 30 fps?

I personally really enjoy the look of Frame Mode, but I'm hesitant; I've always tried to shoot as cleanly as possible and do everything in post. Old habits die hard.

Thanks,
Jeff

It is dropframe if that's your question. All footage is stored in an
"interlaced" format (in digital on the DV tape). Frame mode truly
is 30fps (dropframe) or 25fps (PAL), only not from true progressive
CCD's.

I just checked that the original article I linked to is no longer
available. I also couldn't find it in their archive anymore.

Oh and Jeff? You should have waited one day to responding to
this. Then it would've been exactly 2 years later! <grin>

2 years?! haha. I had the question and didn't want to start a new thread.

I always assumed a few things:

- there's no need to capture video shot in frame mode any differently than you would normal DV.

- When outputing for compression (ie. to Cleaner), video shot in frame mode does not need to be deinterlaced like regular dv.

- the signal is only recorded differently in frame mode, but technically still interlaced on the tape (being NTSC).

but you're saying that it's actually electronically recorded interlaced due to the nature of the CCD's, then tweaked using pixel-shift technology and recorded at 30fps, drop-frame...

Jeff

Hey CR...punctuation is your friend.
 

Dude, I am exhasted from reading your last post! :)

I see you are trying to break into the film biz. Have you tried going to CineVideoTech in Miami? It is "the" rental house in Miami and would be a great place to:

A: Have the opportunity to work with all of the latest film cameras in the business, including the new ArriCam. I worked there back in the day when they still rented out BL-1s, Arri IICs and Mitchell BNCs! That is also where I took my IATSE test for AC. What a great way to gain experience!

B: Meet new people and make some great connections. There isn't a more valuable person on a camera crew than an AC that knows the camera, in and out, regardless of which one is being used, when you are on location, especially a remote one, and something goes wrong.

If you are not familiar with CVT, check out their website at : http://www.cinevideotech.com/

Click on the camera that is at the 10:00 position of the reel to see the coolest, XL-1 setup you have ever laid your eyes on!

Walking into that place, you would think you had died and went to camera heaven.

Good luck and remember to never let the dark leak out of your changing bag!

RB

Well no, not exactly. Let me try to get it clearer.

1) that is correct. The capture utility does not care what it is. It is merely copying a digital stream from device A (camera / deck) to device B (your computer)

2) no it doesn't indeed. If you are going to the web you don't need to de-interlace footage anyway. Output to other formats might be de-interlaced but perhaps not needed

3) recorded is not the right word here I think. It is a different acquisition process that results in full progressive frames (ie, no time difference between the two fields) which still gets stored as two fields on tape

So yes, it is electronically recorded in 60i of the CCD's. Then the
special algorithm with pixel-shift converts it to 30p (and in my
opinion this works a lot better then post de-interlacing somehow)
and then stores it as "interlaced" (ie, two fields). The difference
is that you lost some color resolution (and thus gained a bit of
softness) and the time difference between the two fields is gone.

But I think that we are basically talking about the same thing.

ok, yea that's exactly what I figured. it all makes sense now.

Regarding deinterlacing before output, it was a suggestion made in the documentation that came with Cleaner Pro. I suppose it depends what your final output is.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Jeff