Resolution loss in frame mode?

Guy Bruner · August 11th, 2004, 02:39 PM

Yes, yes. I can pick apart my own post on this (and I started right after I posted but it is a long drive home :-( ). As long as your frame grab software doesn't do anything to alter the fields, if you shoot a static image, the two fields should integrate together (deinterlace) without any softening. Also, subject motion does not change the resolution which is set by the lens, CCD and processing method.

What I was trying to say and bungled was, in the measurement, not to introduce factors that would place frames shot in interlaced mode at a disadvantage.

Quote:

So are you saying that for static shots, interlaced would be the winner while frame mode would be preferred for motion shots?

If you are working on a frame basis, yes. Due to the way that the line pair information is combined in frame mode, it technically should have less resolution than interlaced mode by 25%. I have shot EIA1956 charts with the DV953 in frame mode and it is very hard to see any difference from the same chart shot in interlaced mode. Mikhail's shots are very similar to mine. Frame mode video has more judder than interlaced. If you pull a frame grab of a motion scene in each mode, the frame mode grab will have less softening because each field is recorded at the same time so there is no interfield motion blur. But the frame mode video can be "jerky," especially PAL.

Allan Rejoso · August 16th, 2004, 08:21 AM

Using the GS400, for those who might be interested in shooting 4:3 under Frame Mode, please note that Frame Mode becomes unavailable (in the menu) if card resolution is set to 1280 x 960. Set resolution to 640 x 480 first.

I don't know the reason for this so if anybody could give a technical explanation, it would be highly appreciated.

Mark Kubat · August 16th, 2004, 09:50 AM

Hi folks - I'll post some comparisons later today but can definitely say that any theoretical resolution loss in going to frame procinema mode on the GS400 is negligible compared to 4:3 mode to the naked eye... the procinema looks really good, really sharp. Looks better than xl1s frame mode in my humble opinion.

On the GS400: The cinegamma and progressive filmic look is so pleasing, I am quickly becoming very fond of shooting everything in procinema mode - it complements well with any work you want to do in post via Magic Bullet looks or any other colour-correcting - at least now you don't have to worry about deinterlacing to get "progressive" footage to make it look filmic.

Seeing is believing - I'm still grinning from ear to ear from the kind of resolution this nifty little cam is offering. Wow!

Tommy Haupfear · August 16th, 2004, 10:29 AM

Mark, I'm still looking forward to your comparison footage. Panasonic has on several occassions mentioned that their frame mode is not true progressive scan which leads me to believe there will be some resolution loss. I would be most interested in comparing 16:9 interlaced to 16:9 frame mode (not Cinema or Pro Cinema) to get the best idea of any resolution loss in its anamorphic widescreen.

Can you also verify if the cine-like gamma is non-adjustable as on my past GS100?

Rokta Bija · August 16th, 2004, 07:33 PM

The way I read Steve Mullens article, Frame mode only has a 7% loss when compared to Interlaced mode.

Both Interlaced and Frame mode take a 25% vertical resolution hit due to row pair summation. Which decreases vertical resolution from 480 lines to 360 lines.

In Frame mode he states that it takes another resolution hit due to the frame modes estimation process. So combined with the 25% row pair hit, it results in 320 lines of information, or a 33% loss of vertical resolution, only 7% more than Interlaced.

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasoni...ressive-WP.pdf

Jesse Bekas · August 18th, 2004, 09:53 AM

So when people mention the 25% resolution loss in using frame mode, they're actually referring to the difference between frame mode and true progressive scan? When people said there was a 25% loss I thought that they meant between frame mode and interlace mode, which seems like a lot, so I used to think that much loss was a big drawback, but if it's only 7% between the interlaced and frame modes, that's not bad at all...(sorry for the long run-on sentence)

Mark Kubat · August 19th, 2004, 11:46 PM

Sorry folks - I've had deadlines this week with some projects so I've had to shift away from testing the GS400... Give me a few more days to get clips ready...

Tommy, let me say definitely that there is no resolution loss to my naked eye - I am impressed by the frame mode on Pana compared to say Canon's and I like Pana's enough to use procinema on GS400 as my "film look" for narrative film projects.

Yup, you cannot adjust gamma in procinema mode. It's there. You can't take it off.

BUT
you can shoot wide (16:9) with frame (faux 30p?) WITHOUT gamma.

you can also shoot 4:3 in frame mode WITHOUT gamma.

Again, I am starting to realize that I like GS400 better when shooting in frame/30p than DVX100 BECAUSE shooting in frame mode on former allows for use of autofocus during "run-and-gun" style shooting whereas delay in doing 3:2 pulldown making only manual focus possible in latter, which, compounded by strobe display shooting in progressive make run-and-gun on DVX100 in progressive modes virtually impossible without getting the progressive monitor... it's late, does everybody understand my point?

Allan Rejoso · August 20th, 2004, 02:57 AM

Don't forget that you can still adjust picture quality (color intensity, detail, contrast, exposure compensation) even under procinema.

Tommy Haupfear · August 20th, 2004, 08:56 AM

I have a hard time believing that if there were no resolution loss that Panasonic wouldn't hesitate slapping the words Progressive Scan on side of the GS400.

Mark, I don't think anyone will disagree with you on the fact that run-n-gun will be better on the GS400 (opposed to the DVX100A).

I'm on my way to saving up for a black GS400 from Japan but my 1/3" 3CCD DVX100A and VX2000 won't be going anywhere. They are totally different cams in both capabilities and perforamnce compared to their sub 1/4" 3CCDs siblings.

I look it at like lighting and mics. Different equipment for different tasks.

Jesse Bekas · August 21st, 2004, 01:29 PM

Can anybody answer my question about resolution loss from a few posts earlier? I asked if the 25% resolution loss commonly quoted about frame modes was a difference between frame mode and true progresssive scan, or frame mode and interlaced mode.

Guy Bruner · August 21st, 2004, 02:49 PM

Yes, my post said interlaced mode and should have said progressive. Frame mode has only 11% less vertical resolution than interlaced mode...67% less vertical resolution than progressive.

August 16th, 2004, 09:50 AM	#18
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	NTSC frame mode vs 4:3 interlaced - hardly a difference Hi folks - I'll post some comparisons later today but can definitely say that any theoretical resolution loss in going to frame procinema mode on the GS400 is negligible compared to 4:3 mode to the naked eye... the procinema looks really good, really sharp. Looks better than xl1s frame mode in my humble opinion. On the GS400: The cinegamma and progressive filmic look is so pleasing, I am quickly becoming very fond of shooting everything in procinema mode - it complements well with any work you want to do in post via Magic Bullet looks or any other colour-correcting - at least now you don't have to worry about deinterlacing to get "progressive" footage to make it look filmic. Seeing is believing - I'm still grinning from ear to ear from the kind of resolution this nifty little cam is offering. Wow!

August 19th, 2004, 11:46 PM	#22
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	my apologies for delay in posting footage Sorry folks - I've had deadlines this week with some projects so I've had to shift away from testing the GS400... Give me a few more days to get clips ready... Tommy, let me say definitely that there is no resolution loss to my naked eye - I am impressed by the frame mode on Pana compared to say Canon's and I like Pana's enough to use procinema on GS400 as my "film look" for narrative film projects. Yup, you cannot adjust gamma in procinema mode. It's there. You can't take it off. BUT you can shoot wide (16:9) with frame (faux 30p?) WITHOUT gamma. you can also shoot 4:3 in frame mode WITHOUT gamma. Again, I am starting to realize that I like GS400 better when shooting in frame/30p than DVX100 BECAUSE shooting in frame mode on former allows for use of autofocus during "run-and-gun" style shooting whereas delay in doing 3:2 pulldown making only manual focus possible in latter, which, compounded by strobe display shooting in progressive make run-and-gun on DVX100 in progressive modes virtually impossible without getting the progressive monitor... it's late, does everybody understand my point?

August 16th, 2004, 08:21 AM	#17
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Using the GS400, for those who might be interested in shooting 4:3 under Frame Mode, please note that Frame Mode becomes unavailable (in the menu) if card resolution is set to 1280 x 960. Set resolution to 640 x 480 first. I don't know the reason for this so if anybody could give a technical explanation, it would be highly appreciated.

August 16th, 2004, 10:29 AM	#19
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Mark, I'm still looking forward to your comparison footage. Panasonic has on several occassions mentioned that their frame mode is not true progressive scan which leads me to believe there will be some resolution loss. I would be most interested in comparing 16:9 interlaced to 16:9 frame mode (not Cinema or Pro Cinema) to get the best idea of any resolution loss in its anamorphic widescreen. Can you also verify if the cine-like gamma is non-adjustable as on my past GS100?

August 16th, 2004, 07:33 PM	#20
Rokta Bija Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 61	The way I read Steve Mullens article, Frame mode only has a 7% loss when compared to Interlaced mode. Both Interlaced and Frame mode take a 25% vertical resolution hit due to row pair summation. Which decreases vertical resolution from 480 lines to 360 lines. In Frame mode he states that it takes another resolution hit due to the frame modes estimation process. So combined with the 25% row pair hit, it results in 320 lines of information, or a 33% loss of vertical resolution, only 7% more than Interlaced. ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasoni...ressive-WP.pdf

August 18th, 2004, 09:53 AM	#21
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	So when people mention the 25% resolution loss in using frame mode, they're actually referring to the difference between frame mode and true progressive scan? When people said there was a 25% loss I thought that they meant between frame mode and interlace mode, which seems like a lot, so I used to think that much loss was a big drawback, but if it's only 7% between the interlaced and frame modes, that's not bad at all...(sorry for the long run-on sentence)

August 20th, 2004, 02:57 AM	#23
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Don't forget that you can still adjust picture quality (color intensity, detail, contrast, exposure compensation) even under procinema.

August 20th, 2004, 08:56 AM	#24
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I have a hard time believing that if there were no resolution loss that Panasonic wouldn't hesitate slapping the words Progressive Scan on side of the GS400. Mark, I don't think anyone will disagree with you on the fact that run-n-gun will be better on the GS400 (opposed to the DVX100A). I'm on my way to saving up for a black GS400 from Japan but my 1/3" 3CCD DVX100A and VX2000 won't be going anywhere. They are totally different cams in both capabilities and perforamnce compared to their sub 1/4" 3CCDs siblings. I look it at like lighting and mics. Different equipment for different tasks.

August 21st, 2004, 01:29 PM	#25
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	Can anybody answer my question about resolution loss from a few posts earlier? I asked if the 25% resolution loss commonly quoted about frame modes was a difference between frame mode and true progresssive scan, or frame mode and interlaced mode.

August 21st, 2004, 02:49 PM	#26
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Yes, my post said interlaced mode and should have said progressive. Frame mode has only 11% less vertical resolution than interlaced mode...67% less vertical resolution than progressive.