Bill:

Note that this camera also shoots 30P for those who don't like 24P. 30 fps is the same speed as frame-mode that this thread addresses.

I think 30p is a terrific format to shoot in. For that matter, having the CHOICE is a great thing.

Choosing 24p is a little problemmatic because of the current spate of NLE capabilities( or lack thereof) in 24p. Otherwise, 24p definitely has its advantages....Primarily in the ease of DV to film transfer.

I like both 30p and 24p. Actually, I liked 30p better in the beginning, but the aesthetics of 24p are really starting to grow on me. I just wish Apple would release a version of FCP that would take away a few of the hoops you have to leap through in order to use 24p.

Steven, I remember you had to unload a couple DVX's way back due to funding issues. Are you back in the DVX boat now?

Skip Hunt

Yes I am, thanks to 0% interest card for 12 months.

Glad to hear you got another one Stephen! Your initial reports were very helpful for many people.

Nobody has really answered the DP question:

Where would NTSC 29.97 Frame-Mode fail and
true 30p succeed? Why does the DP *need* it?

30P on this cam is 29.97fps - that's not the issue.

The issue is frame mode is not full resolution - only about 360 lines.

This camera is full resolution, 480 line. See www.adamwilt.com for more info.

Resolution, smezolution....the old traditional performance parameters still apply...like optical quality of the lens system. I submit the glass on this consumer cam is not up to par.

Both the MX3000 and DVX100 use Leica optics.

Also, the frame mode of the MX3000 gives you full vertical and horizontal resolution.

Re: "In what situations would 29.97 Frame-Mode fail where 24p would succeed?"

The DVX100's 24P mode uses 3:2 pull down so when viewing its footage on a TV, you'll also be seeing interlaced 29.97 frames, just like with the MX3000.

The MX3000 gives you 30 fps at 720X480 off the CCD's? I'm not sure that's correct. According to Panasonic, the AG-DVX1000 is the first 3-chip miniDV to do true progressive scan at the CCD and on tape.

I'm not sure if that's correct either, however:

"The MX300...provides suberb horizontal resolution equivalent to 1,530 lines of a broadcast camera." ---MX300A Brochure. Frame mode: "records full vertical and horizontal resolution." ---another MX300A brochure.

GL1 and Optura PI manuals state that in frame mode/progressive mode the resolution is increased by 1.5 - both vertical and horizontal.

So..., is this correct, or are these cam companies lying?

According to Pana, the MX5000 plays back the max which miniDV is capable of, both in interlaced, progessive and interlaced 16:9 and progressive 16:9. But then the MX5000 has a way more video effective CCD pixels than the DVX100, and does the better 16:9. One problem though: where's the lux? (Couldn't help it!)

It's confusing, but here's how it works:

GL1/XL1 - they use Pixel shift to increase the 240 lines per field to 360 line in one frame. Thus the "1.5 increase" in vertical.

Optura PI is full frame progressive, but one chip.

All Panasonic frame modes are GL1/XL1 methods. The MX5000 might be different, but I have not seen any hard evidence it's true progressive video.

Adam Wilt did a great article in DV mag about frame mode.

I have not seen any evidence that the MX5000 does full progressive scan either. You'd think Pana would point this out!

Until they do, I say it uses the same old FRAME mode of earlier cams. I hope someone can find evidence to prove it either way...

It seems from what I've read some of the DVX100's better picture w/ 24p or even 30p is do to the cinema gamma or whatever they call the altered gamma curve. Is there away to do this with software such as After Effects (hopefully the non-production bundle which I own). Premiere has a gamma adjustment but it's only a overall boost/decrease.

Yes - you can do it in After Effects. Check www.adamwilt.com for a graph of the gamma curve changes.

FM vs 24p
 

Here's a link to my tech story on this subject. It will answer your questions.

You are misreading the 3000 brochure I believe and looking at the still picture specs.

http://videosystems.com/ar/video_progressive_need_know/index.htm

Bill, regarding film's 24P playback on the big screen, " If you ask the average movie goer what they see, they don't know the difference."

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Each frame is repeated twice, so the "movie goer" actually sees 48fps.

<< Each frame is repeated twice >>

Well, it might be a little more accurate to say that each frame is *shown* twice, due to the spinning shutter blade in a standard 35mm motion picture film projector.

How to edit 24P on my Mac
 

Hello, erveyone, I usually edit movie use Apple Finial Cut pro on my Macintosh, and I bought a new camcorder - DVX100, but I don't know how to setup capture configration? coz that's first I use 24P camcorder. THX very much!

The search function in the upper right corner is invaluable in obtaining quick answers to topics. Many topics have been discussed in the past. This thread in the Mac editing forum discuss the process and links to in depth discussions.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : The search function in the upper right corner is invaluable in obtaining quick answers to topics. Many topics have been discussed in the past. This thread in the Mac editing forum discuss the process and links to in depth discussions. -->>>

That's good idea... Thanks for your help!

Editing on 24P
 

Rocky if you want to actually edit in 24P, you need to get additional software. Apple Cinema Tools is excellent, but it cost about $1,000, the next best thing is to get DV Film's software. It cost about $100. Check them out at dvfilm.com

Ernest

Yes, I got Apple Cinema Tools, very cool! but encoding here and encoding there, too trouble! :-( I hope include the great function in future FCP version.

A possible 24p Editor
 

Canopus has just released info on it's next Editor due for release in May. I'm posting this here because in the "Edius" specs I saw this bit:

"The engine operation is resolution independent and frame rate independent so future support of all video and audio formats is possible."


More can be found at:
http://www.canopus.com

I didn't see that bit before; that's great.

Now all we need to do is wait for Canopus's HD hardware card.

Bars in 24p mode
 

ANyone have any idea why you can't lay bars down while you're in 24p? Just noticed that... bizarre.

Why would you need SMPTE NTSC color bars when you're going to film?

Editing @ 24
 

Avid has announced support for 24p editing using this 'advanced pulldown' pattern in a soon-to-be-released version of XpressDV. Plus they've dropped prices onXPDV...Avid's been doing 24p the longest, something to think about! That editing product is available cross-platform, too, OSX and XP.

How to display native 24P on NTSC monitor during editing?
 

I think my subject asks the question we all want to know.....

24p on client monitor
 

Not really sure - I'll venture a guess it's something along the lines of how they've been doing for years with FilmComposer, but as far as specifics, I couldn't tell you.

NTSC is 29.97 FPS. It can not display anything 24P unless the 3:2 frames are present (making it 29.97). If you need to view 24 FPS then you'll need to use a computer monitor.

24fps is not NTSC
 

Very true - the DVX100, as well as DVD players, and the FIlmComposer, have been able to display 24fps media on NTSC monitors for a while. I believe one of the techniques has been to show fields instead of frames, sometimes hardware is used to 'translate' the 24fps media to stay compatible with the NTSC display rate. Again, I'm not sure how Avid will be doing this, or how FCP will either, for that matter.

This should explain how it is done in FCP. Also see the discussion I refer to in my first post in this thread.

NTSC monitor question
 

Todd's question was specifically about how 'native24p to display 'native 24p media will be displayed on an NTSC monitor'; I'm very familiar with how the software brings in and sorts out the corrrect pulldown ratio for editing purposes, but the question concerns how NTSC monitors, sometimes called Client monitors, are able to display 24p. I don't find that information on Mr Wilt's link you provided, nor on the Avid site; logic would dedicate that the NTSC monitor will probably NOT show the non-interlaced frame, since that wouldn't work, so some form of half-frame, or field, will be shown, and the pulldown algorithm will be re-inserted for display purposes, whether it's FCP or Avid, or other 24p editing solution.

FCP can play out to firewire from a 24P dv codec timeline right now.

From appearances. it's not inserting a standard pulldown cadence so much as it is just repeating one frame out of 4 to fill the gap.

It's not pretty, but it's not awful either and seems serviceable for the time being.

Here's why I asked about the 24P on NTSC monitor. I was at the DVFilm site (which is interesting BTW - a good deal about good transfers from the DVX), and it said that one should always shoot in the advanced mode, drop the extra frames, edit in 24P (or really 23.976), and then transfer either to film or bump back to 29.97 for video release. It apparently gives a better look either way, far better than 24P standard pulldown mode, due to the fact that you are never reconstructing a frame from two disparate, although adjacent frames. They say that they use a Radeon 7500 to display 24P on an NTSC monitor, and the Radeon does the conversion on the fly. I was just wondering if anyone had come up with a similar solution, or a better one perhaps....

24P standard and advanced mode question.....
 

Do the standard and advanced mode start with the same 24 frames, and then add the 2:3 or 3:2 pulldown, or are they 24 different frames altogether? Here's why I ask. If they are the same 24 frames couldn't you record in advanced mode, use DV Filmmaker to remove the redundant frames, and then perform a pulldown to get to 24P standard, allowing for regular video use, while still protecting for a possible film release. I know this would involve editing twice, once in 29.97, and once in 24P, but at least you could still go back to the 24P advanced version to do your cuts, if and when you transfer to film......If it's the other way around, 24 different frames, you can forget my question altother.....

Hi Todd,

Hopefully this answers what your after - I got a little lost in the middle there...

No, the pulldown will not affect the images captured and EITHER pulldown can be used for film output.

The 24p Standard footage can be edited with the pulldown intact to stay at 29.97 (although this will break the cadence) and still provide the look of film's 24fps frame rate. (Akin to editing telecined film with pulldown intact for broadcast.) This would work in applications where the cadence of the pulldown is not an issue. (Read: do not edit this way if planning on film or other 24fps output since it will be difficult to remove the pulldown after the edit.)

This 'Standard' pulldown can be removed to work at 24/23.976 fps. (For effects or if editing as a 24fps master.) Many software packages can handle this (ie - After Effects) although they will require a render pass to do so. (Unlike some hardware cards [ie - AJA Kona] that have built in uncompressed pulldown removal.)

Thus the point of having the 'Advanced' pulldown - rather than burying some of the progressive frames between mixed fields it creates 1 'dummy' frame every five frames to bring 24 (23.976) fps to 30 (29.97) fps. This allows systems which do not have uncompressed pulldown removal (most DV setups) to strip the pulldown without a render pass - the dummy frames are simply flagged as such and ignored. (See the DV Filmmaker utility at www.dvfilm.com.)

There might also be an additional benefit from the 'Advanced' pulldown in that none of the progressive frames are left solely in fields. As I understand it, the DV codec is frame based instead of field based and some loss occurs when pulling the original images out of the 'Standard' pulldown mixed fields even when uncompressed...

The one catch with the 'Advanced' pulldown is that it should be removed before editing even if you are only planning on a 29.97 master. Its cadence is non-standard and may look a bit odd if left intact. The idea would be to remove the pulldown, edit at 23.976fps and then reintroduce a 3:2 pulldown on the final edited piece. This is the process I would suggest if patience and time can afford it (a lot of the NLE packages are still a bit rough around the edges when it comes to handling 24fps editing.)

Otherwise the results are the same - you can still use whichever other camera settings you would like with either: thick/thin, gamma/matrix settings, color settings, etc. It really all revolves around how you perceive your post process.

FWIW, my current workflow is to: 1) shoot 24p Advanced ('thin', other settings to taste) using a clapboard, if narrative project; 2) capture footage at 29.97 (FCP); 3) bring stringers of selects out of FCP into DVFilmmaker; 4) convert to 23.976 in DVFilmmaker, *without* automatically adjusting audio sync; 5) reimport new clips into FCP; 6) manually sync audio to clapboard (primarily as confidence measure), relink clips with newly established sync; 7) edit footage/sequences at 23.976fps (if edit is very complicated*, then I proxy any titles, animations, composites, or filters for next step); 8) bring edit into After Effects if necessary (via Automatic Duck) for 'online' of animation, compositing, color correction, effects, etc; 9) add pulldown in After Effects on final render along with everything else.

Oh and I guess the audio prep, track building, and sound mix are in there as well somewhere... ;)

* FCP currently does not handle progressive imagery well when any movement is involved - animations, keyframed scaling/position, wipes, etc. These need to be done in AE for the time being to preserve resolution or progressive images. (This is a post all in itself...) If only doing cuts/fades and filters which do not move the image than one can probably stay in FCP (although an intermediate render pass will be necessary to add pulldown in AE.)

Although it is somewhat of a pain currently working at 23.976 fps, it is worth it to retain the progressive images and it also serves as the most versatile master frame rate - from there one can go to film, NTSC, PAL, web, etc.

Probably far more info than was asked for...

HTH,
Clayton

P.S. - Hey Todd, I just reread your post. Just in case in didn't come across in the babbling above - you do not need to 'edit twice', Just edit once at 23.976 and then add 3:2 pulldown to the finished piece for your NTSC master.

You posted the following comment:
"* FCP currently does not handle progressive imagery well when any movement is involved - animations, keyframed scaling/position, wipes, etc. These need to be done in AE for the time being to preserve resolution or progressive images. (This is a post all in itself...) If only doing cuts/fades and filters which do not move the image than one can probably stay in FCP (although an intermediate render pass will be necessary to add pulldown in AE.)"

Can you expand on this, please? I'm curious why FCP can't handle progressive imagery very well. Is it something the Apple is aware of and working on, or is it just the nature of the program? Or, is this something that is resolved with Apple's Cinema Tools? Does it lack the need support for progressive editing?

Curious,
Russell

Hi Russell,

It seems to come down to the way that FCP 3 works with fields or the lack there of.

When working with progressive footage you obviously don't want to introduce interlaced material when renders are created. If FCP's settings are left in their standard DV setup this will occur when a render has movement (ie - animation scale/position/rotation or a transition like a wipe.)

The solution would seem to be to set the sequence settings to 'None' for field order and/or turn off 'Field Rendering' within the render settings. Unfortunately, this does not work as expected and FCP essentially ignores every other line and cuts the vertical resolution in half.

The current 'fix' is to leave sequence field order settings to 'Lower' and keep 'Field Rendering' enabled. This will preserve the image quality but of course will get you back to having fields introduced if there is clip/transition animation. I don't believe it will become a problem if one is only cutting/dissolving and adding effects that do not animate the image.

The workaround for avoiding inappropriate renders is to cut in FCP as noted above and either bring just the animated / composited sections into After Effects or if the edit is very complicated, use FCP only for cutting and effects / placement proxy - ultimately bringing everything into After Effects for 'onlining'. (Either through importing reference sequences or with a utility like Automatic Duck.)

I don't know for certain if this will be addressed in the next update, but given that Apple is trying specifically to accommodate this camera and 24p editing, hopefully they have become aware that this bug is currently a large obstacle to that end.

Hope that helps,
Clayton


These links are to some of my posts at 2-pop with additional info/details:

http://www.2-pop.com/ubbthreads/show...rue#Post585149

http://www.2-pop.com/ubbthreads/show...rue#Post548963