PDX10 "Film Look"
 

I have been looking for a cam for quite some time now, and for some time the only right choice seemed to be the DVX100. Then I came across the cheaper Sony PDX10, and that raised a lot of questions that I could not find any existing answers to.

1) I'm looking for a really clear and natural image, that tends to be cold. If you compare the PDX10 directly to the DVX100, ignoring the price difference, which one offers the most natural and cold image?

2) I will only be shooting for film purposes, and therefore I'm quite interrested in the 24p mode of the DVX100, but is there anyway that I can simulate this in preproduction with the DVX10?

Camera cost is not that important, so if the answers could be given presuming that these two devices are of same pricerange.

Hope some of you can answer my questions, thank you :0)

PDx10 is interlaced image.. instead of progressive.. there are plenty of topics discussing this. It is not an easy task simulating the interlaced image 60i to look like cinema. There is a product named Majic Bullet .. Havent used it but others who have tout it as a good program.. I think If your really that interested in the film look you will be alot better off with the DVX100 it is a great camera..

The PDx10 is a very neat lil unit.. It has issues with low light ability.. abysmal as its been described.. I have seen posts on the net of comparison frames.. It really is bad at low light.. I mean unusable.. So there is something for you to mull over.. If it were me I would go DVX 100 and Vegas video to edit in 24 P.. i bought a DVC 80 the equivilant of the DVX100 without the 24p.. It is a great camera.. I whole heartedly recommend it.. Although by some standards im a novice by others an expert.. lol

Try searching around I dont remember where but I read some extensive posts on another site about this same discussion.. many chimed in with real world experience and came to the conclusion I bring to you.. Good Luck

I guess I'll have to do some tests with the Magic Bullet on my current cam, to see if that is adequate(maybe even good!). I also saw a few tests on the low light, and yes it seemed like the PDX10 had major problems. But on the other hand, film would allow for good lighting possibilities...

But the 16:9 capabilities really are tempting, well thank you very much for you answers :0)

This is very like a thought I had recently. I'm wondering if there is a certain combination of softwares that will, in post, yield comparable results to what one could obtain with the dvx100, i.e., deinterlaced 60i, gamma controls, etc. I shoot with a PDX10, and may, over time want cams still other than the dvx100 for whatever reason, but, would love to, with the right, reasonably affordable concoction, create that film motion, with any cam. I'll stop here and continue this thought in our Film Look chapter.

DVFilm Maker
 

There is a software called Maker, by a company called DVFilm which claims to convert intelaced video to non-intelaced with good results. I have not tried it yet. There is a free demo on the web site. http://www.dvfilm.com/atlantis/index.htm

They also have Atlantis, a tool for converting 24fps interlaced PAL to 29.97fps non-interlaced so in NTSC land we can use the better resolution PAL cameras. Sound like a very good idea.

Both tools are available for both PC an Mac platforms.

'cold'?
 

Dennis,

I do not know exactly what you mean by 'cold'. But you can use the PDX10's custom setup to lower 'color', shift the white balance, modify 'sharpness' and shift AE. I use the camera with slightly less sharpness, the AE a little lower, white balance one or two points less red and chroma up one or two points. The result looks very nice. Further gamma processing and color processing, which I have used in Final Cut Pro let's you acheive a 'film' look which, as Adam Wilt would say: is "so film-like that real film looks like video by comparison" :-)

I have read that the 'curves' function in Adobe After Effects is good for this sort of thing, but I have not tried it out personally.

It seems that what is nice about 'film' look is some kind of contrast enhancement in the midtones. I presume you can acheive this through carefull exposure and post processing. Just a thought. I have more investigation to do on this subject.

Hello,

I use a plug-in called FilmFx, works in various Editing software on the PC and After Effects.. (not sure about Mac) it does a reasonably good job at mimicing film.. One nice thing it has is lots of presets to match your footge to all types of film stocks and speeds.. pretty cool program..
Link to their website is

www.bigfx.com

Mike

>Ignacio Rodriguez

When I said cold, I meant an image that projects the cold world as it is, and doesn't turn pale colors into unnatural colors. I saw a few examples from Canon cams, and these seemed to do that. I simply want as raw an image as possible from the shots, then I can always modify the colors manually in pre.

Its good to hear that you can actually achieve filmlook in pre, if you have some good shots to work with :0)

Color up/down
 

Ok, so you would do the inverse of what I did, that is: use the custom preset to set down chroma a few points. Also use the 'sharpness' control to diminish edge enhancment

Fim Look through After Affects
 

Here are the links for the article about getting a 'film look' by Daniel Broadway.

http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/filmlook/broadway1.php
http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/filmlook/broadway2.php

It is directed to After Effects users, however the technique described might be possible through the use of other tools.

I think the important concept is in this paragraph:

"Digital video camcorders by default have their CCDs set to a flat gamma curve. What this means is that there is a gradual fading from white, to midtone, to black. This makes the image look rather flat. On the other hand, 35mm motion picture Film and HD Cinema cameras use a slight S-curve as a gamma curve. This makes blacks deeper, and highlights more soft. This also makes the midtones have more saturated colors and a pleasant contrast. This is one of the most crutical steps in making video look like film. "

Enjoy.

I'm working on a film look filter for Final Cut Pro - I also use a PDX10.

Some movies demonstrating the effect are on my website at www.nattress.com

The end result - especially when you watch it on the TV looks wonderful.

DV Film Maker just does de-interlacing. It's a good de-interlacer, but so are some very cheap plugins for FCP. DV Film maker doesn't make your video look like 24p - it makes it look like 30p, which is not the same!

Graeme

This is a topic I have played around with a lot, as I make short films and getting rid of that "video" look is crucial. I have shot some footage with a GL2, which has "Frame Mode." From what I understand, this attempts to de-interlace the video into discrete frames as it is recorded - sort of a pseudo-progressive effect. In After Effects, I adjust the curves to give a little darker tone in the shadows and more detail in the highlights. It's slight, but does improve the look. Once I letterbox it, the resulting image doesn't look exactly like film, but is quite close. Converting to 24 fps is also possible in After Effects, but I find that makes the footage look a little too choppy.

I am considering the PDX10 and it does lack any sort of "movie" or "frame" mode. However, I'm not sure this worries me. With the newer 3CCD cameras the quality of the image is pristine enough where it no longer looking like cheap video - it resembles clean, broadcast video instead of film. This isn't bad, and I bet I can get a decent result by adjusting the curves without de-interlacing, etc. Also, with the GL2 I haven't noticed that much of a difference between "frame mode" and standard. There is one, but they both look quite good.

The PDX10 produces a brilliant, beautiful (16:9) image. Deinterlace if you like, but you will not be disappointed.

<<<-- Originally posted by Shawn Mielke : The PDX10 produces a brilliant, beautiful (16:9) image. Deinterlace if you like, but you will not be disappointed. -->>>

Is the 4:3 image also good?

I think it looks good in both 4:3 and 16:9, but if 16:9 isn't a top priority then the PDX-10 may not be as attractive as some other cameras in its price range. I think I prefer the 4:3 image on my VX-2000, but there's really no comparison when it comes to 16:9.

Sorry, Evan, didn't mean to mislead. The PDX10's 4:3 image is as lustrous as the 16:9. Boyd helps make a key point, though. I don't know the GL2's image, so I can't help you understand what I know in terms of what you know. I can repeat what others have said, and that is that, in good light, the PDX10s image is comparable, and even sometimes preferrable, to the pd150's image, if that helps in the least. Between that and Boyd's comments about the vx2000, it (the PDX10) seems to be more or less in league with the much praised prosumer Sony 1/3" chip models.

ps Two years ago, I used the XL1S for one week with the standard lens. It was my first experience with DV, but I liked the images it produced very much....

Lets remind Evan that the PDx10 is a 1/4 chipper not a 1/3 chipper.. Beautiful pic?? Yes very much so..
The crux is this.. Are we doing weddings or other low light work??? If this is so we need something that has a much higher low light ability.. its all in the lux.. Thanks

Scott, earlier you said: Just curious, do you base this on personal experience with the PDX-10, or on comments from others? There is no question that the low light abilities of the VX-2x00 and PD-1x0 are better. However I don't find the PDX-10 "unusable" in low light by any means. You can shoot with the gain up pretty high and still get a decent image due to the DXP chips. I just shot video of a REALLY dark opera with the PDX-10. I was wide open with the gain anywhere between 3dB and 12dB most of the time. But it really doesn't look so bad to my eyes. I've shot video by campfire light, and at night on the beach with only a flashlight as fill. There's noise, but again it looks pretty good to me. But of course I was going for more of an "arsty look" and not a documentary.

Now if you are really shooting most of your stuff under candle light or outside at night I'd agree you might not want a PDX-10. All along I've maintained that the primary question you need to answer for yourself is "how important is 16:9". Unless it's very important to you then there probably isn't a compelling reason to get the PDX-10. But if it's very important to you then I suspect you'll learn to live with its shortcomings. And for that matter, where is it written that one camera is the correct choice for all your needs? If I'm really worried about low light levels that's what my VX-2000 is for (although I use it primarily as a deck these days :-)

"Lets remind Evan that the PDx10 is a 1/4 chipper"

If you want to get technical, it's 1/4.7"... I have read that it's a full stop less sensitive than the GL2 in low light conditions. I don't intend to shoot in terrible lighting, but nonetheless, I prefer to use as little gain as possible, so I decided to go with the GL2. It wasn't just about the low-light though - I also wanted the control over the ND filters, larger CCDs, and 20x zoom. However, frame mode was the most important. I'd rather not have to de-interlace every single second of footage in post-production. It was a tough choice because I liked the PDX-10's audio capabilities, more compact form factor, and lighter weight. Native 16:9 would also have been fun. However, given that most of my work is destined for 4:3 ratio TVs, etc., I made the decision to go for the GL2, shoot in 4:3 with 16:9 framing guides, and letterbox in post.

Thanks for the help, everyone.

The GL2 is 6.5 oz heavier. I guess that could become substantial by the end of the day.

The PDX10 chips do a remarkable job of suppressing noise. Don't know how how well Canon chips handle this.

Not having ever been a 'film' guy, I am not after such look per se, however I find that there are things I can do to DV which give it a texture I like better than raw video and the result does seem to look like film transferred to video to some extent. This is what I use:

PDX10 in 16x9 mode, sometimes with 1/30 shutter. *
Sony 0.7 WA adapter. It softens the image a bit.
Set edge enhancement ('sharpening') to a minimum (custom preset).
Set chroma ('color level') to somewhat less than default (custom preset).
Deinterlace in FCP.
Desaturate highlights and lowlights in FCP.
Use Stib's Film Curves 1.0 (slightly) and Stib's Simple Levels.
Sometimes, use Too Much Too Soon's Noise Reduction plug in FCP. **
Use FCP4's Motion Blur slightly, reduces noise and creates film-like motion.

* even though most Sony DV cameras show a visible drop in vertical resolution when going below 1/30, It seems that this camera's image processing and high-res CCD array give out a much better picture than other models, but only when using 16x9, not 4x3.

** After using Stib's curves to get more contrast from the midtones, noise becomes more visible, so I usually apply some noise reduction algorithm and/or blurring to clean it up a bit. This is probably much worse if you are using a noisier camera.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : * even though most Sony DV cameras show a visible drop in vertical resolution when going below 1/30, It seems that this camera's image processing and high-res CCD array give out a much better picture than other models -->>>

Maybe this is just subjective? I also like that 1/30 "look", so just recently when shooting a very dark opera I tried using 1/30 sec shutter speed to gain an extra f-stop. Looking at the footage on the monitor at home, it was significantly worse than 1/60. When you think about it, seems the only way that 1/30 sec shutter speed could be implemented would be to write the same data to each of the interlaced fields. That would effectively halve the vertical resolution, and it looks this way to my eyes.

I ended up shooting my opera at 1/60 and boosting the gain a click. This really gave better results. I think you're better off using a form of adaptive deinterlacing to create 30p if you want that sort of look. Does FCP 4 do this? FCP 3 doesn't, although you can do the old trick of stacking two copies with alternate fields and making the top one 50% transparent. In FCP 3 the deinterlacer also results in throwing away half of your data, with a noticeable loss of resolution. Joe's filters has a nice deinterlacer with motion differencing, and so does DVFilm Maker. But note that there isn't any point to using these if you're shooting at 1/30, they're intended to convert 60i to 30p.

Can you tell us some more about "Stib's curves" and "Too Much Too Soon"? Haven't heard of these and they sound interesting!

> Maybe this is just subjective? I also like that 1/30 "look",
> so just recently when shooting a very dark opera I tried
> using 1/30 sec shutter speed to gain an extra f-stop.
> Looking at the footage on the monitor at home, it was
> significantly worse than 1/60.

Perhaps you are right. The comparison I ran where I saw no difference was a quick test in a store, I don't have a 16x9 TV with S-video so the difference might be to subtle to be visible on my SDTV. I remember I could very much see the difference with my PC3 but that was a single-chip' toy...

I had always thought about doing what you mention, that is: underexposing and then using the NLE to bring the image up to the desired gain, bt have never really tried that.

FCP has some 'flicker filter' thing available when deinterlacing which seems to use both fields. Also there are some free deinterlacing filters whcih might be better than Apple's default. Stib's deinterlacer claims to be faster.

BTW, Stib's and other free plug-ins are available following this link:
http://www.digitalzoo.com.au/lunchti...ed_02_free.htm

I think the monitor does explain it. I'm using a 16:9 LCD fed by component video from a DVD recorder which is connected to my Mac via firewire. The quality improvement over s-video is significant. This setup highlights the PDX-10's stengths (and weaknesses) very nicely.

Regarding the gain, I was actually refering to clicking the gain up another stop on the camera, however I sometimes manipulate the image further while editing.

> Regarding the gain, I was actually refering to clicking the
> gain up another stop on the camera, however I
> sometimes manipulate the image further while editing.

Ohh I see... but when I use 1/30 is when light is getting so low that gain doesn't expose high enough at 1/60. If there is enough light I'll prefer 1/60... so I was usually doing the right thing but not for the same reason... for me it was because I can get smoother slow motion, which I tend to use often in documentary work.

Hmmmm... I wonder wether the PAL PDX10 besides having better res might also be slightly more sensitive to light thanks to the lower frame rate...

Do you mean you get smoother slow motion at 1/30? I would have to disagree with that. 1/60 gives you more temporal data for FCP's frame blending. I've done quite a bit of this and definitely prefer 1/60. But perhaps you're going for a different look?

> Do you mean you get smoother slow motion at 1/30?
> I would have to disagree with that. 1/60 gives you more
> temporal data for FCP's frame blending.

No, no perhaps I misexplained it. I meant that I was usually ONLY using 1/30 in the camera when there is not enough light, even for 1/60 with gain. And even though I could not see a difference in spatial quality when going down to 1/30, I preferred 1/60 becasue I would later be using slow-mo. So I was usually doing the right thing but not for the same reason.

My preferred method for getting a 'frame mode' look is by deinterlacing in FCP, not using 1/30 from the camera. I guess I did not explain that clearly.

Now regarding low light, what I have never tried to do is just let the image stay underexposed and fix it in post, which --as you stated later on-- is not exactly what you meant either. However, because of the line doubling phenomenon, the end result might be better by staying out of 1/30 as much as possible... when even the highest gain setting in the camera will not give you a correct exposure.

An interesting test would be to see whether an equivalent amount of gain is better applied in the camera or in the NLE... I wonder which result would yield less noise, better contrast, etc.

> When you think about it, seems the only way that 1/30
> sec shutter speed could be implemented would be to write
> the same data to each of the interlaced fields.

Hmmm. I am not really sure about that being the only way... would then a 1/15 sec. shutter speed have 1/4 vertical resolution and so forth?

I am sure you know what you are talking about when you say you can see a difference on the monitor, I just think Sony could do better than that and give us real progressive scan for a better 1/30 sec shutter speed and slower.

The future is 16:9 and 30 fps. Ok, we don't get the high res yet... but we could sure use a firmware upgrade to proscan...

Ok. End of rant. Better get back to work so I can pay for my next cam, which WILL have real proscan ;-)

Hmm, this stuff is confusing to me too. But I don't think you'd get 1/4 resolution if you shot at 1/15 sec. I think there would still be the same data written to each interlaced field, but it would be in two successive frames (eg: 4 fields) and with motion blur spanning two frames.

Just my educated guess based on what I know. Perhaps someone with a better technical background can explain. I like the 30p feeling too, but it just isn't a feature of this camera. And for what it's worth, if you ever wanted to go to 24p then I don't think it can be properly done from 30p footage, however it can be approximated from 60i footage.

Buy a pdx10 PAL, get 20 pct more resolution, shoot as clean as you can and then play with the picture in post. Should look very nice.

> Buy a pdx10 PAL, get 20 pct more resolution,
> shoot as clean as you can and then play with the
> picture in post. Should look very nice.

Yes, should look nice. I actually thought about doing this, using a tool which I think is called DVFilm Atlantis. It's a great idea if you have the time for all that processing. And if you are transferring to film it should make even more sense. But I do some TV work so the prospect of processing everything just was not too attractive... also: in my market it costs more to get hands on PAL equipment.

I am thinking that applying a little motion blur will help achieve the film look for this reason. If you think about it there is persistance beyond the 1/60 or even 1/30 (1/24) for film that allows some after image to remain with the eye causing a slight overlap, in the mind anyway, of the preceeding and next images. A slight motion blur might help simulate this effect that would be naturally happening in your mind in a theater.

Just a thought.

Sean

On the Mac, Joe's Filters provides a nice plug-in for this. I found it useful for making computer animation look a bit more like real footage. Certainly worth experimenting with, but a good deinterlacer will probably do what you want. Joe's Filters also has that, or another option is DVFilm Maker.

Boyd, have you tested the new DV Film Maker yet that does 24p? I tried it but got very bad flicker that made it unusable.

Graeme

Motion Blur and more
 

Yes. Motion Blur is the way to go. In FCP I can control the strength and the amount of samples for motion blur. The more samples, the more render time, the smoother it looks.

If I add to this some non-linear transfer function (like Stib's Film Curves) then I get a really very 'film like' result. Well actually what I see is similar to that of film transferred to video.

Applying 'film' curves helps get more contrast from the mids, this especially helps if I underexpose a bit, wich also keeps the highlights from being slammed video style.

I also like to do other non-linear stuff like desaturating highlights and lowlights, you can do this with one of Apple's plugs.

It is also possible to use Stib's curves to seperately affect color channels, adding a non-linear tint to the picture. This makes for a really nice effect as seen on many music videos.

Of course, any blurring will --well-- blur the picture a little bit. This might seem like a resolution loss sometimes, but it has the added advantage of reducing noise and chroma artifacts, which is something good if using Stib's Film Curves or something like that with DV-originated material.

So as you see it all kind of fits together, 'film' curves, motion blur, underexposure.

Stib's free plugs:
http://www.scriptgeek.netfirms.com/

Graeme's plugs:
http://www.nattress.com/

Too Much Too Soon:
http://dtlx.datom.se/~mas/index2.html

CHV Silk & Fog:
http://www.chv-plugins.com/silkandfog_m1.html

More (the original link):
http://www.digitalzoo.com.au/lunchti...ed_02_free.htm



I would love to post some footage but I can't right now because of bandwidth and space limitations.

Sorry for the long post. Hope it helps.

Could you repost that link? The "..." are confusing my browser as the link was shortened somehow.

Thanks,

Sean

Ok, sorry for the inconvenience. Added some direct links and fixed the original one.