Frame or Normal Mode

Don Donatello · July 24th, 2002, 10:56 AM

to make it more clear ...

if you shoot PAL - some houses prefer interlace - others progressive ( maybe frame mode)

of you shoot NTSC - today all houses prefer interlace - NO NTSC house prefers frame mode/ progressive ... they will work with it but ALL will tell you to shoot interlace ( if you haven't started shooting)

Nathan Gifford · July 24th, 2002, 12:02 PM

Does anyone know the scoop on frame vs. normal for TV or DVD production.

Nathan Gifford

Doug Thompson · August 10th, 2002, 07:19 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Nathan01 : Does anyone know the scoop on frame vs. normal for TV or DVD production.

Nathan Gifford -->>>

Nathan:

Depends on the application. I shoot news footage interlaced and documentary footage in frame (we do our own post for documentaries so translation is not an issue).

Most of our DVDs are produced in frame mode with good results. Again, doing your own post makes the decision easier. But some clients want a video look and we use interlaced for that.

Doug

Vinson Watson · October 7th, 2002, 11:50 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Nathan Gifford : Does anyone know the scoop on frame vs. normal for TV or DVD production.

Nathan Gifford -->>>

I've heard it's best to not use the frame mode. See if you use frame mode you have only frame mode footage, but if you shoot good solid video you can do all kinds of tweaking in the computer and with effects. Trust me on this, there's tons of ways to get the film look with DV and a good computer.

-Vinson

Josh Bass · October 8th, 2002, 02:53 AM

There is a free program called DVfilmmaker that will deinterlace your footage for your, giving you the frame mode look, at a supposedly higher resolution, and without the jerkiness of frame mode pans/tilts. I still haven't tried it myself. If you shoot interlaced, you have the option of keeping it that way, or using this program, frame mode-ing it.

Here's the link

http://www.dvfilm.com/maker/

Jay Henderson · October 9th, 2002, 07:38 PM

the program isn't free, last time i checked. they have a version of it you can download for free to test it out, but it burns their logo onto the processed footage.
i bought and use one of their other products, "dvfilm atlantis," which transfers pal interlaced or progressive (canon frame mode in my case) to ntsc progressive. it works well, and basically was the thing that enabled me to go ahead and get a pal camera, knowing that i would need to end up with ntsc footage.
you can also "add grain" and do a few other "film look" effects to your footage if you choose to with this program.

Josh Bass · October 10th, 2002, 02:21 AM

Damnit, that's right. Sorry, other guy. DVfilmmaker's only $100 or so, though, right?

Keith Luken · October 10th, 2002, 09:43 PM

I'm still a rather newbie, but have been playing with taking normal interlace and going to "progressive" aka "frame" look on the final post conversion. I have tried DVFilm meaker and also the capabilities built into TMPGENC. Both work wekk, TMPGENC give you much more control over how you want the conversion to non-interlaced handled, but both have some minor trade offs introducing some jerliness on fast pans. DV Filmmaker seems to get it better more often, I suspect that is becasue they have fewer user options, wehre as TMPGENC is so customizable that you really have to play with it a while to learn the pros and cons of each setting. My testing so far is FRAME original of FRAME added in post will still have some issues with fast pans and certain oan like movements.

Vinson Watson · October 12th, 2002, 07:24 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by jedibugs :

However, the fact that the project may never see the emulsion side of a strip of polyester is definitely in my mind and if someone wanted to show it on IFC or the Sundance channel or even do a straight-to-video/dvd release, I sure as hell wouldn't scoff at them.

-Shawn McBee -->>>

Frankly Shawn more people would probably see it if it went to cable. Seriously.

-Vinson

Ron Pfister · October 13th, 2002, 03:23 PM

Hello all!

A poster mentioned earlier in this thread that he thought that Frame mode had lower res than interlaced mode. I seem to remember the same from a previous thread (I think the poster might have been Chris Hurd).

However, I don't find the Frame-mode resolution specs in the manual of my XL-1s PAL. If anyone has the real figures of horizontal and vertical res in interlaced and frame modes for both NTSC and PAL versions of the XL-1s, I'd very much appreciate the info.

If it is in fact true that the res is lower in frame mode, I'd suggest shooting in interlaced mode, and to de-interlace as a last step in post.

I'm on the Mac-platform, and have fiddled with de-interlacing a bit. The QuickTime 5 de-interlace filter plainly sucks (haven't tried QT 6 yet). Discreet's Cleaner 5 will do very well, though. Anyone know of any other tools?

Regards,

Ron

Barry Goyette · October 13th, 2002, 03:39 PM

Ron

Frame mode has a 25% decrease in vertical resolution when compared to NTSC. Horizontal resolution stays the same. The frame mode versus deinterlacing thing has pro's and con's. Yes, Deinterlacing can give you slightly better resolution, but you also get more motion artifacts. Also, most "smart" deinterlacers take a long time to process, and have a lot of parameters to adjust, making the process even more time consuming. The frame mode just "is".

The xl1s frame mode in my experience noticeably softens the image, whereas the gl1, gl2 cameras show almost no difference. By upping the sharpness a little on the xl1s, I am able to get a nice, acceptable image. Typically, with the gl2, I turn the sharpness down a bit.

Barry

Josh Bass · October 13th, 2002, 11:51 PM

True Barry. I have a custom preset with +2 sharpness, among other things. Don't go to high with it or you'll get nasty grain. Also, sometimes that reduced resolution is a blessing. I'm currently shooting a stop-motion movie, and using frame mode to do it. The images still look sharp, to me, but all the myriad flaws in the clay produced by using it over and overagain are hidden . I tried upping the sharpness, and it makes the flaws more pronounced, even on wide shots.

Lorinda Norton · September 15th, 2003, 04:25 PM

Resurrecting a really old thread/subject here, but apparently, I just don't get it and need specific advice:

I'm shooting a commercial for tv, my first (as if you couldn't tell), so I called a local tv program manager and asked for specifics. One point he made clear was that the spot should be non-interlaced.

I thought that meant shooting in frame mode on the xl1s, but after reading these posts I'm seeing that anything for tv broadcast should be shot in normal mode--which means it will be interlaced?

Can someone give me some shooting/editing guidelines for this particular aspect, please? I don't want the guy at the station to have to call me because I messed up! BTW, we edit w/ Vegas 4, if that makes any difference.

Bill Ravens · September 15th, 2003, 05:01 PM

regradless of what anyone says, on the Canon XL1s, both normal and frame movie mode are interlaced. The difference is that the frame mode has no temporal artifacting because both frames are captured at the same moment in time. Normal NTSC broadcast is, in fact, interlaced, so, I'm not sure what your station guru is saying. The only thing I can think of is to make sure you clamp your color with the NTSC filter in Vegas. Also, be sure your audio signal doesn't exceed -6 Db

Lorinda Norton · September 15th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Mr. Ravens!

I was hoping you would weigh in on this question. I've been interested in and entertained by your comments from the first time I "set foot" on this forum.

Thanks so much for writing in understandable language. I think I get it!

July 24th, 2002, 12:02 PM	#32
Nathan Gifford Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tickfaw, LA Posts: 1,217	Is there a preference on TV or DVD? Does anyone know the scoop on frame vs. normal for TV or DVD production. Nathan Gifford

August 10th, 2002, 07:19 AM	#33
Doug Thompson Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Floyd, Virginia Posts: 99	Re: Is there a preference on TV or DVD? <<<-- Originally posted by Nathan01 : Does anyone know the scoop on frame vs. normal for TV or DVD production. Nathan Gifford -->>> Nathan: Depends on the application. I shoot news footage interlaced and documentary footage in frame (we do our own post for documentaries so translation is not an issue). Most of our DVDs are produced in frame mode with good results. Again, doing your own post makes the decision easier. But some clients want a video look and we use interlaced for that. Doug __________________ Doug Thompson http://www.blueridgemuse.com

October 7th, 2002, 11:50 PM	#34
Vinson Watson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 79	Re: Is there a preference on TV or DVD? <<<-- Originally posted by Nathan Gifford : Does anyone know the scoop on frame vs. normal for TV or DVD production. Nathan Gifford -->>> I've heard it's best to not use the frame mode. See if you use frame mode you have only frame mode footage, but if you shoot good solid video you can do all kinds of tweaking in the computer and with effects. Trust me on this, there's tons of ways to get the film look with DV and a good computer. -Vinson

October 8th, 2002, 02:53 AM	#35
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	There is a free program called DVfilmmaker that will deinterlace your footage for your, giving you the frame mode look, at a supposedly higher resolution, and without the jerkiness of frame mode pans/tilts. I still haven't tried it myself. If you shoot interlaced, you have the option of keeping it that way, or using this program, frame mode-ing it. Here's the link http://www.dvfilm.com/maker/ __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

October 10th, 2002, 02:21 AM	#37
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Damnit, that's right. Sorry, other guy. DVfilmmaker's only $100 or so, though, right? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

July 24th, 2002, 10:56 AM	#31
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	to make it more clear ... if you shoot PAL - some houses prefer interlace - others progressive ( maybe frame mode) of you shoot NTSC - today all houses prefer interlace - NO NTSC house prefers frame mode/ progressive ... they will work with it but ALL will tell you to shoot interlace ( if you haven't started shooting)

October 9th, 2002, 07:38 PM	#36
Jay Henderson Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 45	the program isn't free, last time i checked. they have a version of it you can download for free to test it out, but it burns their logo onto the processed footage. i bought and use one of their other products, "dvfilm atlantis," which transfers pal interlaced or progressive (canon frame mode in my case) to ntsc progressive. it works well, and basically was the thing that enabled me to go ahead and get a pal camera, knowing that i would need to end up with ntsc footage. you can also "add grain" and do a few other "film look" effects to your footage if you choose to with this program.

October 10th, 2002, 09:43 PM	#38
Keith Luken Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 200	I'm still a rather newbie, but have been playing with taking normal interlace and going to "progressive" aka "frame" look on the final post conversion. I have tried DVFilm meaker and also the capabilities built into TMPGENC. Both work wekk, TMPGENC give you much more control over how you want the conversion to non-interlaced handled, but both have some minor trade offs introducing some jerliness on fast pans. DV Filmmaker seems to get it better more often, I suspect that is becasue they have fewer user options, wehre as TMPGENC is so customizable that you really have to play with it a while to learn the pros and cons of each setting. My testing so far is FRAME original of FRAME added in post will still have some issues with fast pans and certain oan like movements.

October 12th, 2002, 07:24 PM	#39
Vinson Watson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 79	<<<-- Originally posted by jedibugs : However, the fact that the project may never see the emulsion side of a strip of polyester is definitely in my mind and if someone wanted to show it on IFC or the Sundance channel or even do a straight-to-video/dvd release, I sure as hell wouldn't scoff at them. -Shawn McBee -->>> Frankly Shawn more people would probably see it if it went to cable. Seriously. -Vinson

October 13th, 2002, 03:23 PM	#40
Ron Pfister Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Basel area, Switzerland Posts: 285	Maximizing Resolution... Hello all! A poster mentioned earlier in this thread that he thought that Frame mode had lower res than interlaced mode. I seem to remember the same from a previous thread (I think the poster might have been Chris Hurd). However, I don't find the Frame-mode resolution specs in the manual of my XL-1s PAL. If anyone has the real figures of horizontal and vertical res in interlaced and frame modes for both NTSC and PAL versions of the XL-1s, I'd very much appreciate the info. If it is in fact true that the res is lower in frame mode, I'd suggest shooting in interlaced mode, and to de-interlace as a last step in post. I'm on the Mac-platform, and have fiddled with de-interlacing a bit. The QuickTime 5 de-interlace filter plainly sucks (haven't tried QT 6 yet). Discreet's Cleaner 5 will do very well, though. Anyone know of any other tools? Regards, Ron __________________ Ronald P. Pfister halimedia - digital solutions and services www.halimedia.com

October 13th, 2002, 03:39 PM	#41
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Ron Frame mode has a 25% decrease in vertical resolution when compared to NTSC. Horizontal resolution stays the same. The frame mode versus deinterlacing thing has pro's and con's. Yes, Deinterlacing can give you slightly better resolution, but you also get more motion artifacts. Also, most "smart" deinterlacers take a long time to process, and have a lot of parameters to adjust, making the process even more time consuming. The frame mode just "is". The xl1s frame mode in my experience noticeably softens the image, whereas the gl1, gl2 cameras show almost no difference. By upping the sharpness a little on the xl1s, I am able to get a nice, acceptable image. Typically, with the gl2, I turn the sharpness down a bit. Barry

October 13th, 2002, 11:51 PM	#42
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	True Barry. I have a custom preset with +2 sharpness, among other things. Don't go to high with it or you'll get nasty grain. Also, sometimes that reduced resolution is a blessing. I'm currently shooting a stop-motion movie, and using frame mode to do it. The images still look sharp, to me, but all the myriad flaws in the clay produced by using it over and overagain are hidden . I tried upping the sharpness, and it makes the flaws more pronounced, even on wide shots. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

September 15th, 2003, 04:25 PM	#43
Lorinda Norton Wrangler Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southwest Idaho, USA Posts: 3,066	still confused Resurrecting a really old thread/subject here, but apparently, I just don't get it and need specific advice: I'm shooting a commercial for tv, my first (as if you couldn't tell), so I called a local tv program manager and asked for specifics. One point he made clear was that the spot should be non-interlaced. I thought that meant shooting in frame mode on the xl1s, but after reading these posts I'm seeing that anything for tv broadcast should be shot in normal mode--which means it will be interlaced? Can someone give me some shooting/editing guidelines for this particular aspect, please? I don't want the guy at the station to have to call me because I messed up! BTW, we edit w/ Vegas 4, if that makes any difference.

September 15th, 2003, 05:01 PM	#44
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	regradless of what anyone says, on the Canon XL1s, both normal and frame movie mode are interlaced. The difference is that the frame mode has no temporal artifacting because both frames are captured at the same moment in time. Normal NTSC broadcast is, in fact, interlaced, so, I'm not sure what your station guru is saying. The only thing I can think of is to make sure you clamp your color with the NTSC filter in Vegas. Also, be sure your audio signal doesn't exceed -6 Db

September 15th, 2003, 07:01 PM	#45
Lorinda Norton Wrangler Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southwest Idaho, USA Posts: 3,066	Mr. Ravens! I was hoping you would weigh in on this question. I've been interested in and entertained by your comments from the first time I "set foot" on this forum. Thanks so much for writing in understandable language. I think I get it! __________________ Lorinda