Any deck will work.

24p or 24pa for eventual uprez to HD?
 

Does it matter which 24p mode I shoot in if I'm thinking about eventual uprez to HD?

The only answer to the 24p/24pA question is: how are you going to edit it?

If editing on a 24P timeline, shoot 24PA. Always.

If editing on a 60i timeline, shoot 24P.

Doesn't matter what you plan to do to the footage afterwards (i.e., blow up to HD, to film, etc); it's all about how you intend to work with the footage.

And now that most every NLE (except Liquid) supports 24p ingest properly, the answer is almost always going to be the same from now on: shoot 24pA.

How to capture?
 

Not clear on how to capture 24p or 24pa in Final Cut Pro. I've searched for articles, and found (1) Gramme's piece at Ken Stone's Final Cut Pro site that says for capturing 24pa, use the easy setup for 23.98 (advanced pull down removal), but then found where Noah Kadner advises on Larry Jordan's site to capture 24pa in 29.97- he says capture at 23.98 will randomly remove frames, but not the flagged frames. Which is it or are they both right (ie the easy set up 23.98 (advanced pulldown removal) is capturing at 29.97?

Generally progressive footage upconverts better...




ash =o)

Hmm... this is news to me. If the pull down method in camera is the same as the pull down method in the NLE (i.e. 2:3:3:2) I don't see how this would be a problem. I'm no expert, but I haven't noticed what you are talking about. Here's a thread which goes into it in better detail I believe:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=40508

24p on the dvx.
 

newbie to video here. there is probably answers to my questions but they are most likely burried deep in the forums.

Few quick questions: Is having the 24p feature built into the camera better than having a camera without the 24p feature and adding the effect in post?

I ask this because i truly enjoy the look and feel of it but was wondering if i can achieve this effect just as well in post using a cheaper camera. Also, the same question about gamma settings. Can i acheive excellent gamma settings in post rather in the camera? Why would panasonic add these features in the camera if it can be produced just as well on the computer?

What is the ideal program for these effects? Magic Bullet? FCP? Aftereffects?

If program editing is just as good as in camera settings, should i concider getting panasonic DVC instead?

Thanks.

Few quick questions: Is having the 24p feature built into the camera better than having a camera without the 24p feature and adding the effect in post?
((Its not an effect.. it away of life.. lol.. no actually i'll start again..
Its NOT an effect.. i repeat.. its NOT an effect... please get that thinking out before u go any further..
Progressive scan is a format within DV.. on teh DVX, Porgressive frames are embeded with an interlaced stream.. that streams purpose is for transport only.. however the frames themselves are ACTUAL frames..
What this means is that you are shooting in FULL resolution PER FRAME... which is embeded within that 50/60i stresm..
Interlaced temporal resolution does not work this way.. interlaced, is half vertical res for each of the 2 fields per frame, hence the motion and luminance difference between Progressive and interlaced... less pixels in use, less CPU power required (ie faster auto modes), less exposure required to illuminate said pixels (ie interlaced is using half the pixels required), less pixels also means less noise.. and larger surface area.. in progressive, u have a larger CCD surface which requires more light.
If u intend to interpolate your interlaced footage to progressive, id strongly recomed u run a sharpness filter.. as you'll be defeating the purpose of the camra itself if u only choose to shoot interlaced...
Unlike hat some people believe, you wont be losing half ur reslution, but yourll be forcing the PC to interpolate the 2 fields into the one frame (very similar to an in cam frame mode, as found in Sony and Canon cameras and Panas own DVC30). Interpolation causes softness in the image, strobing of slowmotion (somtimes) interlace flicker (sometimes). In addition, interlaced footage cannot physically share the same dynamic range variance of a progressive frame, simply bause of teh CCD pickup method.. its like take 2 half photos to create the one picture, where as with progressive, your literally shooting THAT said frame AS IS.))

I ask this because i truly enjoy the look and feel of it but was wondering if i can achieve this effect just as well in post using a cheaper camera.

((Depends on how cheap you wan tto go.. u can do it in post, but it wont look the same.. it wont be as sharp or as defined... some camera have an inluilt frame mode.. this works in a similar way.. its not the same, but it is simialr.. ))

Also, the same question about gamma settings. Can i acheive excellent gamma settings in post rather in the camera?
((no.. to a point.. the camera has a range of gamma, knee and pedestal settings for u to tweak ur image for optimal acquisition. These offer higher dynamic Ranges and coupled with teh lense, and the CCD itself, make the image what they are.. If u start with an inferiro image, youll be spending more time in post correcting, curving and grading as oppsed to editing.. thre are no shortcuts with this... Start with a good clean image, and tweak later, or start with a good clean image which reporoduces what you want out of teh box and theres no need for tweaks in post. For me, the time i have saved in correcting and grading has been worth every extra penny.. ))

Why would panasonic add these features in the camera if it can be produced just as well on the computer?

((It cant.. u can get close to it.. but in the end, if u start with an inferior image, youll end up with inferior product.. How valuable is your time?? how many hours extra are u willing to put into an edit to recrete this "look"))

What is the ideal program for these effects? Magic Bullet? FCP? Aftereffects?

((Anyhting that can interpolate fields into frames... for the gamma curves, Vegas has incredible tweakability curves filter, as well as levels, colour correctors, balances, and gradient filters which are quite astounding considering the price of teh product. AE andMagic Bullet also work a treat.. as for MB, if u care to wait 8 to 12 times longer for your render then go for it.. for AE, if u can handle the Adobe interface go for it.. PremPro 2 has made some headway, but with premiere, progressive scan has never been its strong point.. ))

If program editing is just as good as in camera settings, should i concider getting panasonic DVC instead?

((if u go a DVC30, u can get close to the tweaks of the 100.. u can switch to frame mode and a pseudo 16:9 which looks rather good. Gamma and colour however are nowhere near as pristine as teh DVX though.. so if u think u can pass off a DVC30 to a 100, u can forget that notion before u even get it. Ive tried.. trust me.. i took teh 30 back and spent another 2k on a 100..

thanks peter!

you have been very helpful. After reviewing my funds, it appears that i will not be able to afford the 100...it seems that the 100 is the cheapest model offering true 24p.

*sigh

Thanks for giving me the heads-up on the drawbacks of post 24p.

hey, i found this site. not that you need to read it but it might be of interest: http://www.100fps.com/

24p interlacing
 

I imported some footage the other day through a small canon camcorder like z70 or something and it was originally shot with my DVX on 24p and i was curious why the footage is interlaced. i use adobe premiere pro 1. are there any import settings that i should adjust? any help would be appreciated.

-Chris

Hi Chris:

From what I can remember, the DVX shoots 24p to tape using one of two pulldowns, 24p (2:3) and 24pa (2:3:3:2). It's not true 24p on tape, it is actually interlaced on tape. It converts to 24p on your editing software. So I think if you set your Adobe PPro 1.0 capture settings to 24p you should be okay.

Now, for the REAL answer, fire off an e-mail to our resident expert Barry Green.

Good luck!

Chris, if you shoot in 24P Advanced mode, your editing software has to be able to remove the pulldown (the extra interlaced frames) to be able to give you 24 discreet frames per second. Not sure if Premere Pro 1 can do that (I believe 1.5 can). After Effects can interpret and convert 24PA footage to straight 24P.

But you should determine first whether you shot in regular 24P or 24PA. They will both have interlacing, but 24P Advanced will sort of stutter a bit on playback from tape. That is normal. Whereas regular 24P will playback smooth (and suited for a regular 29.97 timeline).

24p better always?
 

I will shoot a short with a dvx100, and I wonder is it better to shoot 24p instead of normal mode (interlaced) on all circumstances?

thank you

Of course not; there's a reason both modes are included.

24P is great for giving the filmlike "drama" look; 60i is appropriate for the "live" or "reality" look. Network dramas are shot on film or 24p video; news and reality shows are shot 60i for that "immediate" look. Sports is shot in 60i or 60p. Events that need to look "live" would be better off with the 60i setting.

Thank you for your answer Barry,

I'll ask one more thing, I also have a chance to shoot the movie with an fx-1. Should I shoot it 720p or 1080i? It's a drama, so progressive scan is what I'm looking for, but is hd resolution with interlaced scan(1080i) better?

And it's all meaningless to shoot it hd, if you'll watch the movie on a pal or ntsc system, right?

If you shoot with an FX1 you won't get 720p at all, it doesn't offer 720p.

I'd choose a DVX in 24P over an FX1 in 1080i. I'd take an HVX200 or a Canon XHA1 over either one of them though.

24P is what matters for the feeling of it having been shot on film. Hollywood has had access to interlaced high-def cameras for a long time, but never bothered to use them until they got the CineAlta F900, which combined high-def with 24p. FX1's a decent enough camera but moviemaking isn't what it was designed for. XHA1 in 24F, HVX in 1080/24p, or even a DVX in 24p would all give you the filmlike look.

I'm sure others will disagree, but that's the way I'd go.