Frame mode in camera or film look in post??? at DVinfo.net

Daniel Chan · August 11th, 2002, 08:21 PM

Dear all,

I have always been a strong believer of the frame mode on the Xl1s, but after seeing footage from Tadpole and Personal Velocity, I am starting to change my mind. As I understand it, both films were shot with the Sony PD-150 PAL and were shot with normal interlaced mode instead of the popular frame mode.

many fromt he forum has said that if you intend to do a film print then you should use interlaced mode, but here is an interesting fact.

Both films I mentioned were cut digitally and had the film look put on digitally as well in post and were screened through a digital projector at sundance before they got the film print for theatrical screenings.

Here is my question, I have no money for a film transfer, and I want my footage to look like film, should I A) use frame mode and the digital enhancements available on the camera??? or B) shoot interlaced in camera to get a clean effects free picture and try to get the film look in post?

Any advice?

Thanks

Daniel

Charles Papert · August 12th, 2002, 12:57 AM

Assuming you are never intending to film-out your project, my belief is that the frame mode provides the most natural film-type motion available. I have heard good things about the Magic Bullet software but haven't had a chance to try it yet (Martin, I know you are a fan). If you don't want to deal with the rendering time, going into frame mode is a pretty sure fire way to get a pleasing look.

Regarding those films, remember that they were transferred to 35mm and thus have taken on the motion characteristics of 24 frame. That's not the same as a film-looked digital master.

The best thing to do is shoot the same footage in both normal and frame mode, and put the normal footage through whichever post process you choose (since it sounds like you are operating on a budget, the commercial Filmlook process is going to be out of reach, so I assume this means a software based system like Magic Bullet or Cinelook). Make sure to include both static frames and plenty of movement like pans so you can evaluate the motion characteristic: also shoot wide vistas as well as closeups so you can see what is happening from a resolution standpoint (frame mode does lose some resolution).

good luck!

fargogogo · August 12th, 2002, 09:59 AM

"(frame mode does lose some resolution)"

Any idea why? I can see why it might be more "stuttery" - less frames per second. But why less resolution?

Alex Ratson · August 12th, 2002, 11:17 PM

I do not have a answer to why you loose resolution but I can say that there is no less frames in frame move mode. It is 30 frames per second, in normal move mode it is 60 fields per second. The reason frame move mode is choppy on movement is due to the fact that it is picking op every single thing in the frame, wears when interlaced (60 fields per second) is get only part of the action in the frame.

Daniel Chan · August 12th, 2002, 11:49 PM

Does that mean if the fields are rendered into a frame in a software, the quality of the image will be better than the XL1s frame mode treatment,

and also, will software deinterlacing give a progressive scan image?? Is that why deinterlacing in post is better??

Daniel

Jay Henderson · August 15th, 2002, 10:35 AM

i'd really like to hear an answer to that last question, also...
the question of going progressive (frame move mode) in camera, or doing it in post with a program like dvfilm atlantis.
i use a pal canon xl1 and fcp3. hoping to get atlantis and aftereffects soon...

August 11th, 2002, 08:21 PM	#1
Daniel Chan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 30	Frame mode in camera or film look in post??? Dear all, I have always been a strong believer of the frame mode on the Xl1s, but after seeing footage from Tadpole and Personal Velocity, I am starting to change my mind. As I understand it, both films were shot with the Sony PD-150 PAL and were shot with normal interlaced mode instead of the popular frame mode. many fromt he forum has said that if you intend to do a film print then you should use interlaced mode, but here is an interesting fact. Both films I mentioned were cut digitally and had the film look put on digitally as well in post and were screened through a digital projector at sundance before they got the film print for theatrical screenings. Here is my question, I have no money for a film transfer, and I want my footage to look like film, should I A) use frame mode and the digital enhancements available on the camera??? or B) shoot interlaced in camera to get a clean effects free picture and try to get the film look in post? Any advice? Thanks Daniel

August 12th, 2002, 12:57 AM	#2
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Assuming you are never intending to film-out your project, my belief is that the frame mode provides the most natural film-type motion available. I have heard good things about the Magic Bullet software but haven't had a chance to try it yet (Martin, I know you are a fan). If you don't want to deal with the rendering time, going into frame mode is a pretty sure fire way to get a pleasing look. Regarding those films, remember that they were transferred to 35mm and thus have taken on the motion characteristics of 24 frame. That's not the same as a film-looked digital master. The best thing to do is shoot the same footage in both normal and frame mode, and put the normal footage through whichever post process you choose (since it sounds like you are operating on a budget, the commercial Filmlook process is going to be out of reach, so I assume this means a software based system like Magic Bullet or Cinelook). Make sure to include both static frames and plenty of movement like pans so you can evaluate the motion characteristic: also shoot wide vistas as well as closeups so you can see what is happening from a resolution standpoint (frame mode does lose some resolution). good luck! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

August 12th, 2002, 11:49 PM	#5
Daniel Chan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 30	software rendering Does that mean if the fields are rendered into a frame in a software, the quality of the image will be better than the XL1s frame mode treatment, and also, will software deinterlacing give a progressive scan image?? Is that why deinterlacing in post is better?? Daniel

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 12th, 2002, 09:59 AM	#3
fargogogo Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 49	"(frame mode does lose some resolution)" Any idea why? I can see why it might be more "stuttery" - less frames per second. But why less resolution?

August 12th, 2002, 11:17 PM	#4
Alex Ratson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Squamish, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 149	I do not have a answer to why you loose resolution but I can say that there is no less frames in frame move mode. It is 30 frames per second, in normal move mode it is 60 fields per second. The reason frame move mode is choppy on movement is due to the fact that it is picking op every single thing in the frame, wears when interlaced (60 fields per second) is get only part of the action in the frame.

August 15th, 2002, 10:35 AM	#6
Jay Henderson Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 45	i'd really like to hear an answer to that last question, also... the question of going progressive (frame move mode) in camera, or doing it in post with a program like dvfilm atlantis. i use a pal canon xl1 and fcp3. hoping to get atlantis and aftereffects soon...