Moderately paced -- that's probably why it was jerky.

Different people can see the same thing different ways, and there are many shooters on this board who can spot Frame Movie mode video in a heartbeat -- and from a locked down camera, too.

Nobody's going to be angry at you for your comments, Josh, however you should be aware that your findings directly conflict with the experience of most pro shooters here. And I wanted to point that out, that's all. Just because it doesn't look good to you doesn't mean it's this way for everybody else. The tools perform differently depending on the hands that are using them. Hope this helps,

i have found that persons that started off shooting film and looking at projected film have no problem with "frame mode"..
however i do find persons that started with shooting Video do have problems with frame mode as they are use to the very smooth motion of 60i .... i started in FILM and i only shoot frame mode and i say WHAT jerkyness ???? yes i can see that 60i is very smooth panning - i use BOTH - sometimes pan with frame mode /other times 60i ..sometimes on the GL 1 i'll switch between them in middle of a shot ....

i do find 24fps FILM that has been transferred to TAPE a bit distracting on pans/motion .... IMO weird jerks/movement !!!!

so this could be one of those you see jerky pan and i see normal pan ( what jerky ) ....

I'll do some tests. Maybe I'm wrong. We shall see.

I shot lots of stuff in progressive scan mode. You only see some jitters with faster moving stuff. And as a rule, I don't pan, tilt and zoom when I shoot in progressive, and the cam sits on my tripod! (But this is how I mostly shoot, in progressive).

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : I shot lots of stuff in progressive scan mode. You only see some jitters with faster moving stuff. -->>>

That's a big problem when you're shooting action. I saw one really bad Tomb Raider parody on Cable Access (I found out it was a 45 minute B movie called Mummy Raider with a grade B talent named Misty Mundane). They cheated the camera by not panning or tilting. It was all cuts. The action looked pretty good (ametuerish but it wasn't problematic or jittery really). I don't know what it was shot in but it looked like Canon's frame movie mode. They even had decent slow motion (Yep they tried to get that John Woo effect).

-Vinson

What if you shoot in frame mode . Can it be transferred to film?

never mind I just found a thread on that last post

I got to see one of the films by they guys who did "Mummy Raider" but it's bullcrap. It's softcore lez porn. They didn't even use a frame mode or anything like they did with MR. I was expecting them to atleast atempt some kind of DV "filmish" type feature, but it wasn't any of that, it was straight video, pathetic locations, truely bad acting and basically it was everything I didn't want to see. Hell, I don't even know if they shot this in DV.

-Vinson

Back to the jerky frame-mode thing. I went to see "Punch Drunk Love" last night. (great film....certainly the most beautifully strange, thoroughly conceived flic I've seen this year). The first half of the film has a lot of panning and steady cam work, and I was fully aware that the conditions I described in my earlier post were constantly present--there was very noticeable strobing on every shot with high contrast verticals.

Even out-of-focus items would skip across the screen. For the worst offense, watch for the closeup of the soup cans. Frankly, frame mode is certainly more smooth than 24fps film given the same camera movement (I just think we don't see much of this kind of movement in most hollywood films).

Barry

Well let me ask you guys this. If I can't get the DVX100 then I'm going to go with the GL2. What do you guys know about the Frame Mode on the GL-2. I saw a show shot in XL-1 framemode yesterday evening on Cable Access. The low light was grainy but that was probably just poor lightling, (although I like the look of shooting in natural lighting with just downtown street lights. That look is hot to death) but I had to admit the filmic quality couldn't be denied. And with good lighting I need look no further and it was pretty smooth. So let me also ask has anyone used DVFilmmaker? If so is it truely better as far as resolution goes than the Frame mode?

-Vinson

Vinson

I think the frame mode on the Gl2 is certainly worth looking at. A big question is where do you see your work ending up. If it is going to be broadcast, or viewed on an NTSC monitor, the dvx100 isn't really doing much for you. The extra resolution needs to be filtered out to minimize the twitter that happens when you playback progressive on a standard tv. If you plan to go to film, then the dvx100 is for you, as it's tailor-made for this purpose.

Panasonic makes the chips that are in the gl2, and from what I've seen, the color response seems very similar between the two cameras. Both the gl2, and dvx100 have lower contrast than the xl1s, which will give them a less hot look in most situations including when in low light. I think they are both decidedly less "video" than the xl1s for this reason.

When shooting in low light with the gl2, it's recommended that you have enough light that you can get a good exposure without increasing gain. I've found that the gl2 and xl1s are nearly identical in terms of sensitivity in low light, until you start upping the gain, where the gl2 shows its noise a little earlier, but produces a much sharper result. My guess is that the dvx100 is not significantly different than the canon cameras in this respect.

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : Vinson
When shooting in low light with the gl2, it's recommended that you have enough light that you can get a good exposure without increasing gain. I've found that the gl2 and xl1s are nearly identical in terms of sensitivity in low light, until you start upping the gain, where the gl2 shows its noise a little earlier, but produces a much sharper result. My guess is that the dvx100 is not significantly different than the canon cameras in this respect.

Barry -->>>

Thanks. The GL-2 is starting to look like the camera I'm going to get more and more everyday. I've practically decided to get one already and by the time I do (March or April) some people may even have them below 2 grand. My script is ready all I need is a cam and my Mac and I'm ready.

-Vinson

I posted some stuff way back earlier in this thread, and I'd just like to go back to it for a moment. Yes, my foot tastes mighty good as I say this. Seems that strobing effect IS only a problem with parts of the image containing lines that run vertically on camera. Unfortunately, in life, there are so many of those! People standing upright, trees, cups, the list goes on. I guess this is what confused me. My bad. Everyone may stone me now.

Josh

Indeed, especially if you are in a man-made or urban environment, verticals are a way of life. You can have some success by making sure these edges aren't too high contrast. A few months back in a thread similar to this, I experimented with dropping the sharpness and upping the setup, this seemed to eliminate strobing in all but the worst cases...give it a try, and let us know if it helps at all.

Barry

Thanks. I've also noticed it to be a problem with horizontal surfaces too. When tilting straight up or down, lines horizontal to the tilt strobe.