NX5 native clips from Sean Seah
 

Here are the download links:

http://files.dvinfo.net/samples/NXCAM/00002.MTS
http://files.dvinfo.net/samples/NXCAM/00008.MTS
http://files.dvinfo.net/samples/NXCAM/00012.MTS

Thanks Sean!

Sean question on the clips.
What were they shot as?

I can't get the clips to play smoothly, no matter what I try to convert it to.

My Quicktime shows 25fps.

I have tried native conversion unchanged as well as 30p and 24p, all with stuttery results.
Conversions were tried on MAC OSX Leopard in Cineform NeoHD as well as MPEG Streamclip.

Michael, it may not be the same issue, but I tried a lot of the same solutions with an mts file last week, converting to Cineform 1440 by 1080, even low quality, and the files always played with a stutter - regardless of the player. I installed a new video card yesterday and that fixed the problem (a problem I didn't have before). That was the first AVCHD file I ever processed. A 720 30p Cineform intermediate did play smoothly before the new card was installed.

Pat

Sean's footage is full raster 1080p25. The clips posted above were shot for his review of the camcorder. If you'd like a link to his review (downscaled to 720p) you can drop me a private message.

Hi Michael, Robert is right. 1920x1080 25p at 24Mbps FX mode. This is the highest quality that the NX5P does. It worked pretty well on Vegas 9 directly. The thing is I did NOT use the provided media management software to convert the files (I wasnt informed of the software at the time of the shoot) so I'm not sure if that is cause of your problems.

As Jason mentioned under the AX2000 thread, the media management software would have the files converted to m2ts from mts but I'm not sure if that would make a difference because it should be more of a metadata management.

Perhaps u like to check with Cineform on such instances?

I believe MTS and M2TS are exactly the same thing (identical data structure within the file). Unless I'm mistaken (which has been known to happen!), the only difference is using the legacy 8.3 naming convention (thus the three letter extension) vs long file names (and the four letter extension).

Full raster 1080 line AVCHD is taxing on a CPU, but almost any modern multi-core CPU should be able to playback files transcoded with Cineform's codec. Cineform uses intra-frame only wavelet compression (much less taxing on a CPU than DCT or DCT like compression). Are you able to playback any 1080 line video (regardless of source), transcoded with Cineform's codec, on your machine?

Say, how was your vacation Sean? :)

Robert I was playing the files, even transcoded files on my 2.53 dual core MacBook Pro.
The files would play, but the image seemed to be stuttery, as if fast in some speed changes were going on.

I tried converting them to 24p and even 30p all with the same results.
BTW, I tried both NeoHD and MPEG Streamclip for conversion to Cineform422 or ProResLT, all with the same results. The original files were just as stuttery, a little more so as they were still h.264 full raster files. Also of note, I have had no issues running Cineform or ProRes files on my systems (MacBook Pro/MacPro) as this was a first. Which is why I thought that it mihgt be something to do with the original files.

it seems that the videos are a bit glitchy? i dont know why but every single clip i have seen with the sony nx5u or the panasonic hmc150 are ALL shaky or glitchy?

i want to buy this camera but it seems that i'm just not sure of it yet until i can see a really nice video that is HD 24p and NOT glitch?

any thoughts anyone?

Remember, to playback 24 P you need a display refresh rate that is a whole multiple of 24. 60hz will not do. Ideally refresh would be 72 Hz emulating a 3 blade film projector, 120hz emulating a 5 blade film projector provided the playback software understands this relationship and takes advantage of the display otherwise it will judder the playback to keep the realtime the same. For interlace it will apply 3:2 pulldown but for progressive there is no choice but to repeat frames in a not consistent fashion similar to 2:3 pulldown. For NTSC, 60i, 60p will give smooth video, 30p will have some judder depending on motion and for 60hz displays 24p will always judder on any motion.
In PAL 25p will have much the same effects as 30 in NTSC as the refresh rate is twice the frame rate.

I disagree with Sean about 24p being the highest quality that the NX5U will shoot. How is quality measured? The fact that 24p judders on all but very specific displays rules it out as a useful frame rate for me. Granted it allows the slowest shutter speed but is that quality? Further, it ALWAYS judders on background motion that's the nature of slow frame rates ( also true for 25p and 30p). Slow frame rates are an effect in the modern world ( in film it was an economic decision of the film distribution industry from the last century, slowest frame rate i.e. amount of film stock, that allowed acceptable optical sound). Shooting 24p video is an economic way of going to a film master for projection. For video it will judder on almost all displays, TV or PC and for me not very useful.

Ron Evans

so there is no display that can handle 24p?

when i buy movies that are on dvd or blu-ray that are shot in 24p i can play them all back on my computer monitor and also my tv...

i think my monitor is 59hz, and i cant change it on 1080p....my tv is like 30hz....

what do i have to do so that my footage i shoot in 24 can be played back on all tvs?

do i have to de-interlace in premiere pro cs4, or can i interlace?

thanks

In North America your TV is likely 60hz refresh. Either CRT interlace at 60HZ or for LCD and plasma it is 60HZ progressive. Most PC LCD monitors are recommended to be set at 60hz too. 24p will not playback without modifying the frames. 24 doesn't divide into 60 evenly so some frames have to be repeated more than others , twice for some, 3 times for others. 24p is embedded into an interlace stream with 2:3 pulldown so that the TV can reconstruct the image in a progressive form. Hence the film cadence that we call the film look on TV. It isn't what is seen at the cinema since the film projector always projects at the frame rate ( normally 24fps ) with a shutter that flickers the image either 3 times per frame or 5 times a frame. So to reproduce the same feel at home one needs a 72 hz display ( some plasmas ) or a 120 or 240 hz LCD. In both these cases the TV will need to recognize the 24p input and display at the correct rate. Unfortunately some of these higher refresh rate TV's will interpolate extra frames and smooth out the film look!!!!
IF you want to transfer to film then by all means shoot 24p. If you want universal playback on any TV in North America shoot 60i. If you want the slow frame rate progressive look shoot 30p as this at least will not need any frame rate modification to display on North American TV or PC monitors( unfortunately not part of any DVD or Bluray spec so will need to be embedded in 60i or 60p for distribution and display). Remember DVD's are interlace format, Bluray is interlace 1080i, progressive 720p60 and progressive 24p. The 60i and 60p will playback on all the latest TV's but 24p needs 72, 120 or 240 to playback in a true 24 fps format. There are of course other issues with displays. A 720p display has to scale a 1080i image and a 1920x1080 display has to scale a 720p image. So most of the time the display quality is very dependent on the scalar and de interlacer in the display.

Ron Evans

what if i shoot 1080p 24p....23.96 fps....

and then when in premiere export as 29.96 and use the 3:2 pulldown? what would that do?

also what way should i shoot if i want the closest thing to film look without having to make it choppy?

i want to have film look but play on all tv's?

what about 60p?

EDIT: based off what you said it seems most people have no clue how to setup their videos on vimeo....

also for shutter effects i must use same theory 24p is in increments of 24, 48, 72, 96, right?

The film look is more than frame rate. Because of the economic decision for the slow frame rates, films had to be shot to mask the motion artifacts of slow frame rate. There are lots of books on the topic. Essentially, all action is shot with the central activity in focus and tracked in the frame with the rest out of focus to mask the motion judder of the slow frame rate. Hence the desire for very shallow depth of field, tracking shots rather than panning etc. Motion toward and away from the camera rather than across the screen etc. Emphasis was placed on making the subject really stand out and thus the saturation in colour etc that we associate with film. All these approaches can be used at any frame rate. If you just shoot at 24p and ignore all these techniques it will not look like film and may just look awful.
My comments on playback are not to say that 24p will not playback on TV's just that to see them as one would in a cinema, as intended by the director and producer, will require a display as mentioned in my other posts. On a normal TV with 2:3 pulldown one will see the slight shimmering cadence caused by some frames being repeated twice and others 3 times( 12 frames twice= 24, 12 frames 3 times=36, 24+36=60 the refresh rate). On a 120hz TV with correct film 24p response each frame is repeated 5 times( 5x24=120 the refresh rate) so playback is as smooth as 24p can be and just like a film projector.

Ron Evans

so it would be best to shoot 29.96 and and use and de-interlace? and use shallow depth of field?

or use 3:2 pulldown from 24p?

but thanks for all the responses your are awesome!

Hi Corey
If you want your video to look like film I would focus on framing of the shot, control of depth of field and even in post play with colour/saturation. Until you have these things set in your mind I would just shoot in 60i. Don't bother deinterlacing as DVD is interlace format and the TV will do a better job of deinterlacing anyway in most cases or if its a CRT it will not need deinterlacing.
As you can tell I see no need for 24p unless you are going to transfer to film for projection. 30p is a better choice for a slow frame rate for computers. I am not a fan of any slow frame rate as the juddering and motion artifacts really disturbs my senses.

Ron Evans

what about 60p?

60P is nice and smooth. I would love 1920x1080P60 but that is not available in many cameras at the moment. For most 1280x720P60 is good but until I have just got the NX5U I have not had a camera to shoot 720P.

Ron Evans

whats the difference between 60p and 60i?

Both have a frame rate of 60fps but 60i only records fields( half the vertical resolution alternating odd and even fields) whereas 60p records a full resolution frame. These fields are not odd and even fields from the same frame but are displaced by 1/60 sec so cannot just be added together. So the temporal motion is the same but the 60p video has more instantaneous vertical resolution. For a 1080i video 540 odd lines are recorded then 540 even lines 1/60 sec later. A CRT has latency in the phosphors that fool our eyes into thinking the full frame is there all the time. The combination of our eyes, brain and the phosphors make us think the image is at 60 frames a sec. A LCD or plasma has to construct a full frame from these alternating fields every 1/60 sec to display and its the quality and scaling of this deinterlacing that governs how good an LCD or plasma picture looks. Cheap ones do a really bad job good ones make 60i close to 60p.

Ron Evans

ron could you give me some insight on this, your thoughts are very awesome, and i trust your very much....


http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv-...l-sellers.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...ml#post1493448

Ron,

At the risk of further hijacking this thread, you're insights on formats to shoot are really interesting/helpful.

I understand the technical distinctions between the various formats, but hadn't considered how the refresh rates on users monitors would factor in!

I'm not a film maker / am not looking for the film look per se, and you've convinced me not to shoot 24p. 24p didn't seem that appealing anyway as it just has to have less temporal data than 30p or 60i.

I mainly shoot stuff that's going to get edited and uploaded to video sharing sites or encoded as MP4 files for playback on PC's. Often scaled down from it's native resolution. I do want to preserve the option to scale down and burn NTSC DVD's or keep native res and burn BluRays.

I'm inclined to shoot 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720 as it's just more pixels and I assume that I'm always better off scaling down than having to scale up. I had been leaning towards 60i, as it's just naively what we're all used to for video, and obviously most progressive displays are pretty good at de-interlacing.

However, I can imagine that scaling the interlaced source is harder than scaling a progressive source. Would you suggest I shoot 1080p30 as my primary format, if I'm most often playing back on PC's (typically with progressive only displays these days)?

I think 1080p30 is a native format on Bluray and I know it's all subjective and everything is a trade off, but I don't imagine that interlacing while downsampling from 1080p30 to NTSC is going to look THAT bad for DVD playback.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Unfortunately the Bluray spec for NTSC is only 1920x1080 60i, or 1920x1080 24p, 1440x1080 60i, or 24p, or 1280x720 24p. No 30p or 60p support. Scaling de-interlacing is an issue. I shoot 60i but my output is SD DVD or Bluray. I don't like the temporal motion of slow frame rates so my choice is easy. 30p has the same issues of camera movement and shot composition as 24p it will just playback easier on PC's and will be easier to integrate into a 60i stream.

Ron Evans