Closer To Film at DVinfo.net

Donnie Wagner · August 19th, 2005, 12:43 PM

Since these 35mm adapters are trying to emulate the look and feel of film, I was thinking about what I could do with my NTSC VX2000. 60i is does not look like film at all. The 35mm lens adapter is great, but for me, I'm still stuck with 60i footage. And I'm sure a lot of other people are too.

This is a senerio that I think might work for people stuck with a NTSC 60i camera...

According to this website http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...features5.html
you can rent one of these camera-remotes and with the proper code, change your camera from NTSC to PAL. Now you'd be sooting 50i (PAL). According to Scott Billups in his book, www.pixelmonger.com, PAL has 20% more color and resolution than NTSC. OK.

G-film converter (www.nattress.com) has received some great reviews for it's ability to deinterlace footage the similar way that magic bullet does, but for a fraction of the cost; $100. It can take 60i or 50i, and render it into 24p. You may be saying, so why bother switching your camera to PAL? Besides better resolution and color, I think that there would be less problems because the format is mathmatically closer (50i, 25p= almost 24p).

Whether or not this whole effort would make the output look more like film is the question. The answer is probably yes, but is the effort worth the improvement?

Hey! Anyone have NTSC or PAL footage that has been converted to 24p via G-film converter? Could you post some of it? Did it happen to be shot with a 35mm lens adapter?

Crickets, I'm sure......

Giroud Francois · August 19th, 2005, 03:47 PM

Hello

I have been trying a lot of mix between hard and soft.
Frankly, whetever you are trying, there is always a result at the end.
Specifically what you are looking for is something that only you can evaluate.
there are so many parameters you can tweak and by so many ways, that the result i would be happy for, would probably not please you.

The main thing to keep in mind, is the workflow you follow should include the minimum of recompression except if you are working uncompressed or uncompressed-like (DVC50, huffyhuv for example).
Personally i prefer to build the movie and apply the final look at the end, except for the deinterlacing made just after the capture, because interlaced frames are a pain for most of image processing filters (specially when resizing pictures)
For example, virtualdub is good for deinterlacing and is able to work with many codecs and is free.
for tweaking colors, i like the plugin for premiere FilmFX (a bit old and slow) with some nice presets.
KODAK gem is a plugin for photoshop able to smooth skin details (nice for close shots) , but unfortunately you need to mak some batch conversion (picture by picture) with photoshop that is a bit tedious (or just add more makeup on the actors).

Your main concern was about PAL vs NTSC.
I work mainly in PAL (except for HDV), so i can confirm that PAL is a lot better than NTSC, so if you can find a camera able to shoot in that format, do not hesitate.

I use VX2000 and home made mini35 or 16/9 century adapter or WD58 canon wid angle (never camera alone as far as i remember)

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · August 20th, 2005, 12:15 PM

TWO basic things:
PAL DV has better resolution (720x576) and a simillar speed and look as film (25 fps or 50 fields with a 1/50 shutter)

NTSC DV has better color resolution.For every 4 pixels of luma you get one pixel of blue and one of Red.(YUV 4:1:1)

PAL is YUV 4:2:0 (aka 4:0:2) which in plain english means that for every 4 pixels of luma you are getting just 2 pixel of either blue or red.

Anyway the first prize goes to PAL when you want to transfer that DV stuff to 35mm, mainly because of the higher resolution and lower framerate.
Hope this helps.

Giroud Francois · August 20th, 2005, 02:29 PM

Hmm.. I do not buy your explanation of NTSC 4:2:1 vs PAL 4:2:0
Basically there is the same amount of color resolution here, they are simply distributed differently.
Fact is keying on NTSC is a pain, better on PAL, so PAL should be even better too on color resolution.

read http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...07.10.02.shtml

Donnie Wagner · August 20th, 2005, 03:46 PM

So, Any experience with the RM-95. Can you actually switch a camera from NTSC to PAL with a LANC remote?

Meryem Ersoz · August 20th, 2005, 04:19 PM

don't overthink it...get the nattress filters. they're fantastic, fabulous. graeme nattress is a genius!

when i first purchased my 3-chip camcorder, i managed to capture a lot of cool, interesting spectacles, but i had no clue how to use the camera. getting the nattress filters is resurrecting some of that footage for me. it makes crappy footage shot on auto focus at 60i look pretty good, maybe not what i'd call film-like, but at least it softens that hard, cold video look into something palatable. nice, even. it will make your weak footage look strong. and, i'm hoping, good footage look great. i'll know, after i render out the current documentary which i'm working on--where the footage is already pretty nice straight out of the camera.

Giroud Francois · August 20th, 2005, 05:06 PM

no problem with that... except i am on windows, and unless osx86, allows me to run OSX and FCP on my PC, it is useless for me.

Xander Christ · August 20th, 2005, 07:21 PM

The RM-95 will not change a Sony SD NTSC camera to PAL or vice versa. I'm not going to go into to much detail as why, but typically, the CCDs are different part numbers in the manufacturer's catalog and have different voltages, resolutions and pixel aspect ratios. You'd be changing a lot more than just a 'bit' in the EEPROM if it were possible.

Your best bet is to shoot in your native format with your lens adapter and do frame rate conversion in post. CineLook, MagicBullet, FilmFX, Nattress, dvfilm, Re:vision fx, etc., all make good convertors albeit it takes a hefty processor to crank out the video.

August 19th, 2005, 12:43 PM	#1
Donnie Wagner Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 135	Closer To Film Since these 35mm adapters are trying to emulate the look and feel of film, I was thinking about what I could do with my NTSC VX2000. 60i is does not look like film at all. The 35mm lens adapter is great, but for me, I'm still stuck with 60i footage. And I'm sure a lot of other people are too. This is a senerio that I think might work for people stuck with a NTSC 60i camera... According to this website http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...features5.html you can rent one of these camera-remotes and with the proper code, change your camera from NTSC to PAL. Now you'd be sooting 50i (PAL). According to Scott Billups in his book, www.pixelmonger.com, PAL has 20% more color and resolution than NTSC. OK. G-film converter (www.nattress.com) has received some great reviews for it's ability to deinterlace footage the similar way that magic bullet does, but for a fraction of the cost; $100. It can take 60i or 50i, and render it into 24p. You may be saying, so why bother switching your camera to PAL? Besides better resolution and color, I think that there would be less problems because the format is mathmatically closer (50i, 25p= almost 24p). Whether or not this whole effort would make the output look more like film is the question. The answer is probably yes, but is the effort worth the improvement? Hey! Anyone have NTSC or PAL footage that has been converted to 24p via G-film converter? Could you post some of it? Did it happen to be shot with a 35mm lens adapter? Crickets, I'm sure......

August 19th, 2005, 03:47 PM	#2
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	Hello I have been trying a lot of mix between hard and soft. Frankly, whetever you are trying, there is always a result at the end. Specifically what you are looking for is something that only you can evaluate. there are so many parameters you can tweak and by so many ways, that the result i would be happy for, would probably not please you. The main thing to keep in mind, is the workflow you follow should include the minimum of recompression except if you are working uncompressed or uncompressed-like (DVC50, huffyhuv for example). Personally i prefer to build the movie and apply the final look at the end, except for the deinterlacing made just after the capture, because interlaced frames are a pain for most of image processing filters (specially when resizing pictures) For example, virtualdub is good for deinterlacing and is able to work with many codecs and is free. for tweaking colors, i like the plugin for premiere FilmFX (a bit old and slow) with some nice presets. KODAK gem is a plugin for photoshop able to smooth skin details (nice for close shots) , but unfortunately you need to mak some batch conversion (picture by picture) with photoshop that is a bit tedious (or just add more makeup on the actors). Your main concern was about PAL vs NTSC. I work mainly in PAL (except for HDV), so i can confirm that PAL is a lot better than NTSC, so if you can find a camera able to shoot in that format, do not hesitate. I use VX2000 and home made mini35 or 16/9 century adapter or WD58 canon wid angle (never camera alone as far as i remember)

August 20th, 2005, 12:15 PM	#3
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	TWO basic things: PAL DV has better resolution (720x576) and a simillar speed and look as film (25 fps or 50 fields with a 1/50 shutter) NTSC DV has better color resolution.For every 4 pixels of luma you get one pixel of blue and one of Red.(YUV 4:1:1) PAL is YUV 4:2:0 (aka 4:0:2) which in plain english means that for every 4 pixels of luma you are getting just 2 pixel of either blue or red. Anyway the first prize goes to PAL when you want to transfer that DV stuff to 35mm, mainly because of the higher resolution and lower framerate. Hope this helps.

August 20th, 2005, 02:29 PM	#4
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	Hmm.. I do not buy your explanation of NTSC 4:2:1 vs PAL 4:2:0 Basically there is the same amount of color resolution here, they are simply distributed differently. Fact is keying on NTSC is a pain, better on PAL, so PAL should be even better too on color resolution. read http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...07.10.02.shtml

August 20th, 2005, 03:46 PM	#5
Donnie Wagner Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 135	So, Any experience with the RM-95. Can you actually switch a camera from NTSC to PAL with a LANC remote?

August 20th, 2005, 04:19 PM	#6
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	don't overthink it...get the nattress filters. they're fantastic, fabulous. graeme nattress is a genius! when i first purchased my 3-chip camcorder, i managed to capture a lot of cool, interesting spectacles, but i had no clue how to use the camera. getting the nattress filters is resurrecting some of that footage for me. it makes crappy footage shot on auto focus at 60i look pretty good, maybe not what i'd call film-like, but at least it softens that hard, cold video look into something palatable. nice, even. it will make your weak footage look strong. and, i'm hoping, good footage look great. i'll know, after i render out the current documentary which i'm working on--where the footage is already pretty nice straight out of the camera.

August 20th, 2005, 05:06 PM	#7
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	no problem with that... except i am on windows, and unless osx86, allows me to run OSX and FCP on my PC, it is useless for me.

August 20th, 2005, 07:21 PM	#8
Xander Christ Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 115	The RM-95 will not change a Sony SD NTSC camera to PAL or vice versa. I'm not going to go into to much detail as why, but typically, the CCDs are different part numbers in the manufacturer's catalog and have different voltages, resolutions and pixel aspect ratios. You'd be changing a lot more than just a 'bit' in the EEPROM if it were possible. Your best bet is to shoot in your native format with your lens adapter and do frame rate conversion in post. CineLook, MagicBullet, FilmFX, Nattress, dvfilm, Re:vision fx, etc., all make good convertors albeit it takes a hefty processor to crank out the video.