24p
 

I have a camera that shoots nice 24p video, 1920x1080. In fact it is superior to any other shooting mode the camera has.. How do I prepare it to play best on a Bluray player when using Vegas? I'm thinking of shooting everything possible in 24p, which I NEVER in a million years expected to say, but this darn camera just does best in 24p, and records at a rate of 24mbps, which is much higher than the rate in the other modes the camera has.

Of course, it may end up being impractical to shoot a wedding in 24p (which I will find out soon enough)but I'm certainly going to shoot anything I can in this mode, so I need to be able to make a Bluray DVD anyway. Any suggestions?

I don't have a Bluray burner yet. But I rendered out some footage in SD widescreen 24p, but it rendered out at 29fps. Why is that?

Vegas is adding pulldown to comply with DVD disc requirements. DVD must play at 29.97, so pull down is being added, This is standard practice for commercial films transferred to DVD too. Also, I think Blueray adds pull down.

By the way, in shooting 24p, just keep your pans at a a bit slower rate, or you will see some strobing. You will become atuned to what works well with 24p.

Thank you Chris.

Have you tried the basic Vegas template for Blu-Ray 24p? Save As Type: MainConcept MPEG-2. Template: Blu-Ray 1920 x 1080-24p, 25 Mbps Video Stream.

I just did, James, thanks. It appears the footage must be cropped in Vegas to fill the screen, is that correct? Or is there something I'm missing?

I remember earlier threads from last year (when I sometimes followed discussions about bluray) that when making bluray discs some found they needed to lower the bit rate for them to play. Is that still adviseable? Since I don't have a burner yet, I can't experiment. And naturally at the cost of the discs I'd hate to make coasters for nothing when my burner does arrive.

Quick suggestion: get a RW Blu-ray disc. All of my initial burns wind up on it, then into my BR player for a test on the 52" flatscreen. I've lost track of how many rewrites I've burned, but I can tell you that I've never had a glitch...and I don't have coasters anymore. :)

-Steve

Why would you want to shoot in 24P? Playback on anything other than Bluray over HDMI and to a 120HZ or a refresh rate at least multiple of 24 ( 72hz, 120, 240 etc) will needed 2:3 pulldown resulting in a cadence that personally I find disturbing. Shooting style has to be strict film camera style to avoid judder in the background movement( closeups with no or little camera movement, tracking of subject in slow pans with shallow depth of field etc) and this requires a larger sensor camera to pull off successfully. So very few actually see 24p like in the cinema. For me the only reason to shoot 24p video is to eventually go to film for projection. 60P would be my choice but it isn't part of the Bluray spec at 1920x1080. For slower frame rate 30P would be good for playback etc since it will not result in the need for pulldown but it too isn't part of the spec !!!

Ron Evans

Ron, thanks for the feedback.

As you can see from the attached chart, my camera shoots at a full 30% higher data rate (24mbps) in 24p mode than it will in 60i. That is why I asked if it would be advantageous to shoot in 24p, because of the higher data rate offered. In all other modes, the camera only offers 17mbps or less. The extra data sounds attractive.

The sensor in my camera is 4/3" so I am working with a decent-sized sensor. But while I do have a conservative shooting style and stay on tripod virtually all of the time, I do have concerns about the jerkiness of 24p.

I suppose I will just have to try it out to really know. Many that shoot in 24p are merely obsessed with the film look, I am not. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a cinematic look. On the other hand if it's going to look worse after running through the TVs and/or Bluray player's process, than it would not be advantageous and would be foolish.

Bottom line, I wonder if the extra data would make for a superior image despite the conversion process in the TV and player.

Jeff, is the new cam a GH2? Interested to know how you like it, I've been itching to try some 4/3" gear.

Were it me, benchmarking, I'd add the 720p in 60i at 17Mbps to the list to test out. I'm not assuming that 1080i is always superior, as 720p has proven to be a surprisingly useful format, and sometimes looks better than the math and theory would indicate.

720p, hmmm, why didn't I think of that? Yes, Seth it's the GH2 and it is both amazing, and frustrating. If you dip into the GH2 forum Panasonic LUMIX GF / GH Series Forum at DVinfo.net you will see sprinkled throughout various posts complaints about the manual, the worst any of us have seen.

The video and photo instructions are mixed together and figuring out the zillions of settings is not fun. Then you see video like this: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...capes-gh2.html and it make you jump in and work with it.

I've sold all my conventional video gear save for a HV30, and have plunged in. The GH2/GH1 is really revolutionary. I have been actually describing this camera in those terms. There is a revolution in the video world right now and this camera, for the moment, is at the forefront, along with a few competitors.

Many agree it beats out the Mark 5D, etc. Canon has a new one on the way 2nd Qtr of 2011 and it promises to be very good. A few details have been leaked...I would have waited for it, buy my gear was losing value everyday, so I sold it and took the leap.

Seth, here's another sample:

YouTube - PANASONIC GH2-TEST--Summer Morning

Yes 720P may give a nice picture in most situations though I am a little confused by the comment to record at 60i in the data sheet. Must look at the information on the GH2 again. I do not shoot weddings all my projects are theatre so requirements are different. I want large depth of field not shallow, smooth movement etc almost the opposite of the film look !!! My NX5U records at 24Mbps and the XR500 at 17, frankly I can't see much difference for most subjects. Leaves blowing in the wind and grass etc then the NX5U has a cleaner image with more detail. For faces the XR500 with face recognition results in a better picture than the NX5U which requires too much manual control to achieve the same image.

For your wedding shoots Jeff I would think you may need several cameras with different characteristics. Large sensor for the film look , artistic shots.GH2 etc. Small sensor video camera for those action shots giving large depth of field, long record times etc. Low light camera for the reception etc.

Ron Evans

Ron, I must say you bring to mind situations where progressive shooting would be impractical, such as events at the reception.

Otherwise, the camera I'm using has unbelievable low light, recording time limited only by the size of my card (64GB if I choose to risk all my data on it!). The days of 12 minute limits are gone, thank goodness.

I can achieve a large depth of field through the use of aperture, etc., and by using a longer lens, which as you point out would be best for a bouquet toss. But with two cams, why not have both shallow and large?

I just realized how awesome a shallow depth of field will be for the first dance. Cut to second cam w/larger depth of field showing not only the bride and groom but the family in the background, nice.

Your suggestion for a variety of cams is excellent of course, but I do just enough wedding where trying to keep them matched up color wise, etc. would drive me crazy.

Re: 60i, it is the only option for 60, no progressive offered at that rate. It is mind numbing they would not offer it, but there you have it.

Yes I think 720P60 would require a higher data throughput than 24P at 24Mbps so it may be the processor limit in the camera. At 24P there will be a need to encode 49,766,400 pixels a sec. At 1280x720P60 there will be 55,296,000 pixels to encode every sec. At 1920x1080P60 there would be 124,416,000 pixels to encode every sec. So you can see how the processor load increases. Interlace will be half these numbers. Since these really also represent the definition of the video it also indicates which will look the most detailed if they are all played back at 60P on a flat panel display. 1920x1080 interlace still has more pixels displayed per second than either 24p or 720p. assuming equal encodes. This may also explain why its possible to encode 24p at 24Mbps while only 17Mbps for higher frame rates. Probably represents the same processor load.

Ron Evans

What you say make it seem logical. On a somewhat related note, interestingly the GH1 has been hacked by nearly everyone who owns it to shoot 60p. It does look great.