Finally! FX1 filmlook on par with true 24p

[Charles Papert]

So, I've lost track; is there any current software out there that can convert the Sony HDV camera's 60i output to any HD 24p format (i.e. HD versions of Magic Bullet, DVFilm etc.)

[Joshua Starnes]

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : So, I've lost track; is there any current software out there that can convert the Sony HDV camera's 60i output to any HD 24p format (i.e. HD versions of Magic Bullet, DVFilm etc.) -->>>

I believe Marcus has said that DVFilm will convert Sony's 60i to 24p.

[Charles Papert]

Thanks!

[Jon Fordham]

"Blasting" anything with light is always going to challenge a formats capability. However, when working to balance light levels, and color temperatures at a variety of points, it's not uncommon to use a source with higher output to compensate for the losses that the balancing will incur. Perhaps if you were experienced enough to know the light absorption ratings of an 85B filter, a single layer of Full CTB on a Tungsten balanced Fresnel, and the distance from that gelled 1K to the bounce then from the bounce to the subject, you could've understood why a 1K was used. Of course, just being a careful reader would've given you enough information to know that when I used a 1K, I was not "blasting" my subject with light. As I clearly stated, the 1K was bounced in to fill the shadows.

Furthermore, latitude has nothing to do with the amount of light. But rather the range from highlight to shadow that a particular format can resolve detail in before reaching pure white and pure black. So even if inexperienced shooters want to blast the FX1 with a 1K, and don't know that they are blowing out the image, their trusty camera assistants should know enough to stop the lens down or add ND in order to bring the exposure into range.

I would also suggest that if you do not posses the knowledge of how to calculate the wattage, volts, and load of a lighting set up and measure it against the ability of the power supply being used, that you should hire a professional gaffer to do so. Safety should be any productions first priority. Anyone who is foolish enough to risk damage to property or the lives of their fellow crew members by carelessly plugging massive amounts of electrical equipment into any source they choose, tripping breakers until they find the right combination, is someone with a complete lack of professionalism and total disrespect for everyone around them.

[Jon Fordham]

More importantly, my statements regarding the science of electricity and the importance of safety is a very serious statement that should be taken as sincere. It is dangerously unprofessional and disrespectful to use gear in the manner that Mark suggested. Blasting a 1K that trips breakers suggests that there was a lack of knowledge of how to properly use the light. A 1,000 watt that is tripping breakers is dangerous. And there’s nothing wrong or arrogant to suggest that an experienced person be on hand when operating such gear in the future. I submit that’s it’s arrogant to think you can operate such gear without the knowledge required to do it safely.

I understand that Mark’s revelation was not some new math or firmware. And I didn’t suggest that it was. I did however ask that he explain some very specific statements he made. I didn’t ask for a breakdown of the code behind the software application. But when someone states that an interpolation method "keeps the full resolution of your source material," or states that another level of compression "loses a lot of the artifacting" of a previous compression, then I would like to know how it’s doing that. Especially since it goes against the common sense (not to mention the science) behind the craft.

If the DVi community is truly about sharing accurate information, then I don’t see any harm or disrespect in questioning statements that seem to go against the common knowledge of the current state of technology and execution of the craft. It’s humble to question. And it’s irresponsible to assume.

Jon

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> But when someone states that an interpolation method “keeps
> the full resolution of your source material”, or states that
> another level of compression “loses a lot of the artifacting” of a
> previous compression

What I think he was referring to is that he keeps his origination material in higher resolution (as opposed to commiting to the cam's realtime lousy deinterlacing and/or SD) and that interlace artifacts of course go away as does some slight noise that might be visible in the HDV fotage after his deinterlacing and downrezzing.

[Dylan Pank]

While the material may look great on the footage Mark shot, IMO "filmlooks" are things that work on a case by case basing, a different approach may be suitable for certain kinds of shooting.

Ive found that just running interlaced footage through virtualDubs smart deinterlacer looks great for some shots, while not so good for others [full discosure: this is based only on experience with SD video: DV and Betacam, but I doubt HDV is very different in this regard].

Since Mark is changing the frame rate to 25fps,and then to 23.976 I assume that some kind of temporal frame blending is going on, not something I'd want to intoduce into my footage.

Until someone can corroborate Marks rather over the top claims, or until Mark posts some examples, I will share Jon's scepticism.

[Eric Gorski]

could someone post the filmlook footage?? i would really like to see it... it would also shut some people up.. if its good :)

[Mark Kubat]

I'm on assignment this week and will contact Chris upon my return from a field assignment...

we'd be happy to share some footage...

[Charles Papert]

In the interest of clarification, not to stir the pot on the personality conflicts here:

There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about tripping breakers--that's why they exist in the first place. An understanding of the simple mathematics behind the determination of how many instruments can be placed on a given circuit is one thing; knowing how to operate an instrument is another (and I don't plan to get into the semantics of "blasting" a set with 1Ks when I've done the same thing with 18K's--yup, on a DV shoot, no less). Instead of mud-slinging, perhaps it would be more useful for our gentle readers if we were to share the magic formula, which has actually nothing at all to do with the film industry or one's degree of professionalism, since it equally applies to toasters, hair dryers or Christmas tree lights:

That formula being watts=volts x amps. Here in the US we run on 110VAC; to simplify things (and to allow a safety margin), call it 100. Using those basic rules of fractions that we all learned about in grade school, divide both sides by the voltage; thus watts/100=amps. Check your breaker box before the shoot to see what flavor of breaker is within; most household circuits are 15-20 amps. If a 20 amp breaker, the math quickly reveals that 2000 watts can just be squeezed onto that circuit (i.e, two 1ks). In practice, this may end up popping the breaker, especially if anything else is plugged in to this circuit. It's best to separate the 1K's, but fine to add a 650 to either.

This all said, Jon's message was coming from the right place. Electricity is nothing to screw around with, so don't jerry rig it casually. This means twist-tieing lampcord right up to doing tie-ins without an electrician's license (both dangerous AND illegal).

[Chris Hurd]

Moved here from the FX1 board as it has more to do with the post process than the camera itself. A small flame war has been excised. There's some off-topic stuff about electrical safety on the set which is beneficial to all, but the conversation should now be steered back to the original topic. Thanks,

[Mark Kubat]

Folks, I'm on some crazy deadlines this week again - will try to get some footage to Chris ASAP but maybe not till Thurs/Fri...

Now that I have Z1 footage that I'm playing with, perhaps I'll refine some of that - we shoot head-to-head vs. FX1 (50i vs. 60i) so maybe people want to see some of this...

cf25 as well...

Cheers!

[Mark Kubat]

Okay, I'm working with some 50i Z1 footage to maximize resolution, 24ish 25 fps cadence etc. - it's rendering out and I'll have it ready to send to Chris Hurd in under 24 hours...

[Greg Jacobson]

Mark,

Why not just shoot in CF25 instead of converting it in ProCoder? Or did you get the NTSE FX1?

If you hade the Z1 or PAL VX1 would you just shoot straight CF25 instead?

[Mark Kubat]

Okay, the testing got more involved than first thought and we DID try cf25 etc. and found the consensus to be true: shoot 60i or 50i for best results and deinterlace in post...

Most disappointing result: trying to get cf25 to look "good" ie. converting to 24p etc. Not working out - at least not the way we thought it would. A bit stuttery. At least via Sony Vegas 5d...

Now we've discovered that Prem. Pro deinterlacing seems to produce "cleaner" result so maybe will now try using that...

Some of our 50i/cf25 conversions in post produced end result that had "flicker" - this has been reported elsewhere and seems to somehow stem from the 50Hz vs. 60Hz issue... I can't remember how exactly we produced the result....

Our feeling now is that the NTSC FX1 is not so bad after all - you have to remember that here in North America if you want to produce a downconverted DVD, you can't necessarily make it from 50i/cf25 to produce DVD with frame rate of 25 because your DVD player will think the disc is PAL and either not play it or play with crazy rolling flicker (unless your player is dual format)... so that means re-rendering to 24 fps or 29.97 etc. and that means pretty much losing out any inherent advantage you might have achieved shooting 50i (due to 10 less interlaced frames per second at 1080 resolution vs. 60i/1080 - both with same bitrate - so 50i is less compressed...)

More soon...