24p questions

Barry Green · December 10th, 2003, 11:05 PM

People transfer to film all the time.

NOBODY TRANSFERS THAT BACK TO VIDEO.

That's the point you're missing. I mean, sure, someone could give you a videotape, and they could cut out a frame from their film transfer and send it to you, but would that be a useful comparison?

Like others have said, I also have never heard of anyone transferring their video up to film and then telecine'ing that back down to video. It just isn't done.

Mike Zorger · December 11th, 2003, 06:55 AM

i just want to see what is looks like transfered to film COMPARED (NOT BROUGHT BACK) to video. ONE clip of a clip brought to film and the OTHER CLIP OF WHAT IS LOOKED LIKE BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT TO FILM. NOT BROUGHT BACK TO DV.

Jeff Donald · December 11th, 2003, 07:18 AM

Mike, what everyone is trying to tell you, is that no one incurs the expense of transferring film back to video. They can't send you a few minutes of film. In order to post it to the net, it needs to be video in order to make a QuickTime etc. If you want to see film go to a movie theatre, then watch the video or DVD.

Please do not use all caps, it is considered yelling and very rude. Thanks for your cooperation.

Chris Mueller · December 11th, 2003, 08:47 AM

Wasn't there a clip like that online just recently with someone doing a massage? It might have been 24p standard, but its pretty much the same (considering you'd be converting to 24p native if you were using advanced). I'll see if I can find it.

Barry Green · December 11th, 2003, 10:23 AM

The massage clip was mine. That was film transferred to video, compared to the same footage shot straight on the DVX. Which is not what Mike's asking.

Mike, unless we're not understanding what you're asking, the only way you're going to see DVX footage that's been transferred to film is in a theater. And DuArt is one of the few places where that can be done, where they have transferred DVX footage.

How else do you propose to see footage that's been transferred to film, except on film?

I think Fotokem in L.A. also has some test screenings.

As for what you're asking, in a month or two I should have my test completed. I have a variety of things shot on the DVX that will be transferred to film, and the film print will be made available to anyone who wants to order a copy for a nominal charge, so they can project DVX100 footage themselves and see what it looks like.

You could also then look at the original footage on video. I assume that's what you're looking for?

Mike Zorger · December 11th, 2003, 01:16 PM

YES!

Barry Green · December 11th, 2003, 09:39 PM

Okay, well, like I said, it'll be about a month or so before the footage is ready.

The lab will make dupe prints available for interested parties, at a nominal charge.

You'd have to order a print from them, and then you'll also have to make arrangements with a local movie house to project the footage for you.

The footage on the test includes indoor & outdoor, primarily anamorphic adapter/24PA/thin line detail, but with some shots from the mini35 as well.

Mike Zorger · December 31st, 2003, 11:35 AM

Ok I shot the best 24p EVER a few days ago. Like no one can tops my shit yo. But I put the speed down to 60% in premier pro and it looks kind of funky, what should i do to make the picture more clear/smooth?????

Stephen van Vuuren · December 31st, 2003, 11:43 AM

Shoot 30p for slow mo. If you must slo mo, check the field settings (I don't have Premier Pro, used to use Premiere 5 some time ago). Premiere Pro may have issue when slow mo on 2:3 pulldown material.

Mark Monciardini · January 1st, 2004, 10:47 AM

Specially for weddings. I made a big mastake and used 24p for weddings. Looks pretty good. But come time to slow it down, it's very gittery. If there does come time when you have to do it. Slow the 24p clips down to 75% with frame blending turned on. Then save/render the clip, re-open it and then type in 75% again if you need to slow it down even more. Either that or apply maximium de-flicker filtering on the rendered clip. Final Cut Pro has a great filter for this.

Stuart Kupinsky · January 1st, 2004, 11:25 AM

I may be labeled a heretic for suggesting this, but wouldn't 60i be better (assuming you use a motion sensing app, as I do in AE, to separate and interpolate fields)? You'd have twice as much motion info (albeit at half the resolution, but with smart interpolation that reduction in resolution becomes less of a factor). Maybe I'm wrong....

Stephen van Vuuren · January 1st, 2004, 11:34 AM

That's a good point Stuart - what's the relative loss between shooting 30p and 60i for slow mo. One has twice the temporal sampling, other twice the resolution (for slow mo) - guess some testing might reveal which gives better results. My guess is that 30p with Twixtor would work the best, albeit expensive and slower while 60i might be best for Premier and othe NLE's that are designed to edit pulldown footage.

FCP and Vegas might be different as they both have different engines for handle speed changes.

Barry Green · January 1st, 2004, 03:13 PM

I spent quite a bit of time testing this to determine what would be the best. All testing was done with the idea that the main project would be a 24P timeline. Here's what I found:

By far the best results come from shooting 30P and importing directly into the 24P timeline for a 20% slow-mo. The only problem is you only get a slight 20% slow-mo effect -- but if that's all you need, 30P is the way to go.

Next, shoot 60i. The motion information is what you need, and 60i gives it to you. 60i brought into a 24P timeline, and played at 40% speed, gives an exquisite dramatic slow-motion effect. Yes there is a slight softening in the vertical direction, but nowhere near as noticeable as the jitter from slowing down progressive footage.

Next, if you find the vertical softening objectionable (and test it, you won't find it objectionable) you can sort of get away with 30P slowed down to 40%. It's sharper vertically but stuttery compared to 60i slow-mo'd.

Last, last, last resort: 24P slowed down. It just doesn't work well, there's not enough motion information available. Try it if you must, but recognize that it's going to stutter. Warning: do not try to slow down 24P footage in a 60i timeline: the pulldown will be present and will give you very stuttery results. Only try slowing down 24P in a 24P timeline.

One option I never explored: Twixtor on 24P footage. I haven't gotten satisfactory results from twixtor yet, but others swear by it. If it works for you, twixtor'd 24P might be the answer for some.

Barry Gribble · January 2nd, 2004, 12:28 PM

Just as a tangential...

On the special features for the Matrix II (whichever that was) where they did the crazy freeway crashes they said they had muliple cameras running at 120fps. Boy, that would help, eh?

Mike Zorger · January 2nd, 2004, 12:32 PM

what about if i shot a time laps in 24p and set the speed to about 4000. Would that turn out smooth, or should i still shot in 30.??
thanks

December 11th, 2003, 07:18 AM	#393
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Mike, what everyone is trying to tell you, is that no one incurs the expense of transferring film back to video. They can't send you a few minutes of film. In order to post it to the net, it needs to be video in order to make a QuickTime etc. If you want to see film go to a movie theatre, then watch the video or DVD. Please do not use all caps, it is considered yelling and very rude. Thanks for your cooperation. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

December 31st, 2003, 11:35 AM	#398
Mike Zorger Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Norther VA Posts: 163	24p in slow motion Ok I shot the best 24p EVER a few days ago. Like no one can tops my shit yo. But I put the speed down to 60% in premier pro and it looks kind of funky, what should i do to make the picture more clear/smooth?????

December 31st, 2003, 11:43 AM	#399
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Shoot 30p for slow mo. If you must slo mo, check the field settings (I don't have Premier Pro, used to use Premiere 5 some time ago). Premiere Pro may have issue when slow mo on 2:3 pulldown material. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

January 1st, 2004, 10:47 AM	#400
Mark Monciardini Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 158	Specially for weddings. I made a big mastake and used 24p for weddings. Looks pretty good. But come time to slow it down, it's very gittery. If there does come time when you have to do it. Slow the 24p clips down to 75% with frame blending turned on. Then save/render the clip, re-open it and then type in 75% again if you need to slow it down even more. Either that or apply maximium de-flicker filtering on the rendered clip. Final Cut Pro has a great filter for this. __________________ Best Regards, Mark T. Monciardini Riverlight Studios www.riverlightstudios.com DVX100/Final Cut Pro 4/Mac G5 Dual 1.8

January 1st, 2004, 11:25 AM	#401
Stuart Kupinsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 82	I may be labeled a heretic for suggesting this, but wouldn't 60i be better (assuming you use a motion sensing app, as I do in AE, to separate and interpolate fields)? You'd have twice as much motion info (albeit at half the resolution, but with smart interpolation that reduction in resolution becomes less of a factor). Maybe I'm wrong.... __________________ DVX100A/AT4071a/Vegas/After Effects Dual 2GHz Xeon PC

December 10th, 2003, 11:05 PM	#391
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	People transfer to film all the time. NOBODY TRANSFERS THAT BACK TO VIDEO. That's the point you're missing. I mean, sure, someone could give you a videotape, and they could cut out a frame from their film transfer and send it to you, but would that be a useful comparison? Like others have said, I also have never heard of anyone transferring their video up to film and then telecine'ing that back down to video. It just isn't done.

December 11th, 2003, 06:55 AM	#392
Mike Zorger Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Norther VA Posts: 163	i just want to see what is looks like transfered to film COMPARED (NOT BROUGHT BACK) to video. ONE clip of a clip brought to film and the OTHER CLIP OF WHAT IS LOOKED LIKE BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT TO FILM. NOT BROUGHT BACK TO DV.

December 11th, 2003, 08:47 AM	#394
Chris Mueller Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 49	Wasn't there a clip like that online just recently with someone doing a massage? It might have been 24p standard, but its pretty much the same (considering you'd be converting to 24p native if you were using advanced). I'll see if I can find it.

December 11th, 2003, 10:23 AM	#395
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	The massage clip was mine. That was film transferred to video, compared to the same footage shot straight on the DVX. Which is not what Mike's asking. Mike, unless we're not understanding what you're asking, the only way you're going to see DVX footage that's been transferred to film is in a theater. And DuArt is one of the few places where that can be done, where they have transferred DVX footage. How else do you propose to see footage that's been transferred to film, except on film? I think Fotokem in L.A. also has some test screenings. As for what you're asking, in a month or two I should have my test completed. I have a variety of things shot on the DVX that will be transferred to film, and the film print will be made available to anyone who wants to order a copy for a nominal charge, so they can project DVX100 footage themselves and see what it looks like. You could also then look at the original footage on video. I assume that's what you're looking for?

December 11th, 2003, 01:16 PM	#396
Mike Zorger Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Norther VA Posts: 163	YES!

December 11th, 2003, 09:39 PM	#397
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Okay, well, like I said, it'll be about a month or so before the footage is ready. The lab will make dupe prints available for interested parties, at a nominal charge. You'd have to order a print from them, and then you'll also have to make arrangements with a local movie house to project the footage for you. The footage on the test includes indoor & outdoor, primarily anamorphic adapter/24PA/thin line detail, but with some shots from the mini35 as well.

January 1st, 2004, 11:34 AM	#402
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	That's a good point Stuart - what's the relative loss between shooting 30p and 60i for slow mo. One has twice the temporal sampling, other twice the resolution (for slow mo) - guess some testing might reveal which gives better results. My guess is that 30p with Twixtor would work the best, albeit expensive and slower while 60i might be best for Premier and othe NLE's that are designed to edit pulldown footage. FCP and Vegas might be different as they both have different engines for handle speed changes. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

January 1st, 2004, 03:13 PM	#403
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	I spent quite a bit of time testing this to determine what would be the best. All testing was done with the idea that the main project would be a 24P timeline. Here's what I found: By far the best results come from shooting 30P and importing directly into the 24P timeline for a 20% slow-mo. The only problem is you only get a slight 20% slow-mo effect -- but if that's all you need, 30P is the way to go. Next, shoot 60i. The motion information is what you need, and 60i gives it to you. 60i brought into a 24P timeline, and played at 40% speed, gives an exquisite dramatic slow-motion effect. Yes there is a slight softening in the vertical direction, but nowhere near as noticeable as the jitter from slowing down progressive footage. Next, if you find the vertical softening objectionable (and test it, you won't find it objectionable) you can sort of get away with 30P slowed down to 40%. It's sharper vertically but stuttery compared to 60i slow-mo'd. Last, last, last resort: 24P slowed down. It just doesn't work well, there's not enough motion information available. Try it if you must, but recognize that it's going to stutter. Warning: do not try to slow down 24P footage in a 60i timeline: the pulldown will be present and will give you very stuttery results. Only try slowing down 24P in a 24P timeline. One option I never explored: Twixtor on 24P footage. I haven't gotten satisfactory results from twixtor yet, but others swear by it. If it works for you, twixtor'd 24P might be the answer for some.

January 2nd, 2004, 12:28 PM	#404
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	Just as a tangential... On the special features for the Matrix II (whichever that was) where they did the crazy freeway crashes they said they had muliple cameras running at 120fps. Boy, that would help, eh?

January 2nd, 2004, 12:32 PM	#405
Mike Zorger Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Norther VA Posts: 163	what about if i shot a time laps in 24p and set the speed to about 4000. Would that turn out smooth, or should i still shot in 30.?? thanks