Whats the approx. persentage of resolution loss on the DVC30 and or the GS400 when they are in 30 fps (frame mode)? I'm not concerened about 16:9 or cinegamma, as I can get a similar gamma look in post.

Is it comparable to the 25% loss of resolution on the Canon's in frame mode?

You could ask Panasonic Technical. They should know. I have yet to get a straight answer about Pana's frame mode but Pana has claimed that resolution is increased.

Vertical resolution loss in frame mode is 25%. There is a pervasive article on this site by Steve Mullen on frame mode, progressive scan and interlaced scan that explains this very well.

Guy is correct about the loss in vertical resolution and definitely give Steve Mullen's article a look.

I'm not concerened about 16:9 or cinegamma, as I can get a similar gamma look in post.

Why not just use the in-camera cine-like gamma?

Tommy,
It seems this question gets asked a lot. I checked the DVX100 board and they don't have it stickied. Maybe it should be a Notice so folks have access to it before asking the question. The article is available as a reference on Panasonic's DVX100A catalog page.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : Guy is correct about the loss in vertical resolution and definitely give Steve Mullen's article a look.



Why not just use the in-camera cine-like gamma? -->>>

Personally, I prefer adding 'effects' in post. I am going to play with the cine-like gamma on the GS400, but I think keeping everything as pristine as possible on the tape is the way to go, and mess with it in post.

Ok, I have to say - no resolution loss in GS400 FRAME mode. At the least in PAL GS400.
Take a look:
Interlace mode 4:3 (http://www.videomax.ru/tests/gs400/hires/EIA1956_norm_400.jpg)
FRAME mode 4:3 (http://www.videomax.ru/tests/gs400/hires/EIA1956_frame_400.jpg)

Two words about PRO-CINEMA. No way to restore information in an overexposed area in postproduction. I use PRO-CINEMA or P.ADJ - EXPOSURE for preventing overexposure.
Normal 4:3 – white flowers are overexposed (http://www.videomax.ru/tests/gs400/hires/flowers_400.jpg)
PRO-CINEMA – much better. (http://www.videomax.ru/tests/gs400/hires/flowers_400cinema.jpg)

Mikhail, I see a resolution difference in those first two frames. The two vertical 400-800 sets show distinct and individual lines in interlaced but in frame mode the center becomes indistinguishable.

I don't know the proper way to read a resolution chart so the above may not apply.

Hey Michael! Thanks for providing those images!

Can you tell us how you obtain the images? Did you use any special processing (ie. deinterlacing).

Tommy is right about the fact that there is a distinctive difference between the images at the vertical 400-800 area, BUT since it's vertical resolution we're talking about here, shouldn't we be looking at the horizontal lines? (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm making an educated guess here :P)

Anywho, if you pay attention to the left horizontal 400-800 area, you'll notice Frame mode distinctively separates the lines while Interlaced shows some lines blurred together.

-KiN

That's really not a good test. Interlaced grabs will look worse than frame mode because frame mode has twice the information. A better test on a static target would be to snap a photoshot to tape with the cam set for Progressive mode then shoot the same image in frame mode and pull a frame. Then, compare those two.

You read the vertical resolution on the horizontal diagonal lines. You will have to have pretty good eyes to discern difference between the two.

I mean the resolution is very similar in both modes. If we look at XM2’s snapshots, or another cam that has FRAME mode, a difference will be evident.

I think modern DV-cams have very high resolution. To prevent thin horisontal lines flicker on interlace TV, digital processor have to apply vertical blur over the image. So horizontal resolution decreases. May be progressive images don’t need so much blur?

No processing used except jpeg compression. I use ScenalyzerLive for frame grabbing natural PAL-DV size (720x576). Each picture contains one frame (two fields).

Guy Bruner said: "That's really not a good test. Interlaced grabs will look worse than frame mode because frame mode has twice the information."

Isn't that the point though? Frame mode has twice the information which makes it better than Interlaced?

"A better test on a static target would be to snap a photoshot to tape with the cam set for Progressive mode then shoot the same image in frame mode and pull a frame. Then, compare those two."

Well, if we're looking at video quality, shouldn't we just compare the normal interlaced mode and progressive in video mode? I mean, even if the progressive photoshot that was recorded to tape is better than a frame pulled from the same scene recorded in frame mode, that doesn't mean much since you can't record videos in photo mode.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something. I also want to get a GS400 so I'm trying to get my information straight. :)

-KiN

We are talking about basic resolution measurements on a static image. Since the subject is static, there is no motion blur between the two fields. A progressive photoshot would be more representative of the frame resolution after combining the two fields from interlaced mode. Since both fields are taken at the same time in frame mode, there is no need to do that.

If you deinterlace the interlaced mode fields using software, you will degrade the resolution. If you do a frame grab and only take one field, you only have half the information and again degrade the image. All I'm saying is for a static comparision, it needs to be apples to apples.

For a motion shot, interlaced frames will look worse due to motion blur between the two fields while frame mode will look sharper because the two fields are taken at the same point in time.

"We are talking about basic resolution measurements on a static image. Since the subject is static, there is no motion blur between the two fields. A progressive photoshot would be more representative of the frame resolution after combining the two fields from interlaced mode. Since both fields are taken at the same time in frame mode, there is no need to do that."

Hmmm, since there's no motion blur between fields in a static image, wouldn't it work just as well if you compare an interlaced static video recorded to tape and a frame mode static video recorded to tape? If the shot has no motion involved, then an interlaced image would look just like a progressive one right? (since there's no difference between the fields) I don't understand what you mean by progressive photoshot. Are you talking about using the camcorder's still image mode?

"If you deinterlace the interlaced mode fields using software, you will degrade the resolution. If you do a frame grab and only take one field, you only have half the information and again degrade the image. All I'm saying is for a static comparision, it needs to be apples to apples."

There are quite a few software deinterlacers that do not degrade the resolution of an interlaced footage UNLESS there's motion. A smart deinterlacer would be able to leave the static areas alone and not interpolate and blend the fields.

"For a motion shot, interlaced frames will look worse due to motion blur between the two fields while frame mode will look sharper because the two fields are taken at the same point in time."

So are you saying that for static shots, interlaced would be the winner while frame mode would be preferred for motion shots?

Thanks for your patience, Guy!

Guy Bruner, I can't imagine moving EIA1956 chart. Can you? ;-)

>>> Interlaced grabs will look worse than frame mode because frame mode has twice the information.

It hasn’t. I believe you know as "progressive" video is stored on the DV-cassette? As two fields. Both you can see on the each grabs.

Yes, yes. I can pick apart my own post on this (and I started right after I posted but it is a long drive home :-( ). As long as your frame grab software doesn't do anything to alter the fields, if you shoot a static image, the two fields should integrate together (deinterlace) without any softening. Also, subject motion does not change the resolution which is set by the lens, CCD and processing method.

What I was trying to say and bungled was, in the measurement, not to introduce factors that would place frames shot in interlaced mode at a disadvantage.

So are you saying that for static shots, interlaced would be the winner while frame mode would be preferred for motion shots?If you are working on a frame basis, yes. Due to the way that the line pair information is combined in frame mode, it technically should have less resolution than interlaced mode by 25%. I have shot EIA1956 charts with the DV953 in frame mode and it is very hard to see any difference from the same chart shot in interlaced mode. Mikhail's shots are very similar to mine. Frame mode video has more judder than interlaced. If you pull a frame grab of a motion scene in each mode, the frame mode grab will have less softening because each field is recorded at the same time so there is no interfield motion blur. But the frame mode video can be "jerky," especially PAL.

Using the GS400, for those who might be interested in shooting 4:3 under Frame Mode, please note that Frame Mode becomes unavailable (in the menu) if card resolution is set to 1280 x 960. Set resolution to 640 x 480 first.

I don't know the reason for this so if anybody could give a technical explanation, it would be highly appreciated.

Hi folks - I'll post some comparisons later today but can definitely say that any theoretical resolution loss in going to frame procinema mode on the GS400 is negligible compared to 4:3 mode to the naked eye... the procinema looks really good, really sharp. Looks better than xl1s frame mode in my humble opinion.

On the GS400: The cinegamma and progressive filmic look is so pleasing, I am quickly becoming very fond of shooting everything in procinema mode - it complements well with any work you want to do in post via Magic Bullet looks or any other colour-correcting - at least now you don't have to worry about deinterlacing to get "progressive" footage to make it look filmic.

Seeing is believing - I'm still grinning from ear to ear from the kind of resolution this nifty little cam is offering. Wow!

Mark, I'm still looking forward to your comparison footage. Panasonic has on several occassions mentioned that their frame mode is not true progressive scan which leads me to believe there will be some resolution loss. I would be most interested in comparing 16:9 interlaced to 16:9 frame mode (not Cinema or Pro Cinema) to get the best idea of any resolution loss in its anamorphic widescreen.

Can you also verify if the cine-like gamma is non-adjustable as on my past GS100?

The way I read Steve Mullens article, Frame mode only has a 7% loss when compared to Interlaced mode.

Both Interlaced and Frame mode take a 25% vertical resolution hit due to row pair summation. Which decreases vertical resolution from 480 lines to 360 lines.

In Frame mode he states that it takes another resolution hit due to the frame modes estimation process. So combined with the 25% row pair hit, it results in 320 lines of information, or a 33% loss of vertical resolution, only 7% more than Interlaced.


ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/papers/Progressive-WP.pdf

So when people mention the 25% resolution loss in using frame mode, they're actually referring to the difference between frame mode and true progressive scan? When people said there was a 25% loss I thought that they meant between frame mode and interlace mode, which seems like a lot, so I used to think that much loss was a big drawback, but if it's only 7% between the interlaced and frame modes, that's not bad at all...(sorry for the long run-on sentence)

Sorry folks - I've had deadlines this week with some projects so I've had to shift away from testing the GS400... Give me a few more days to get clips ready...

Tommy, let me say definitely that there is no resolution loss to my naked eye - I am impressed by the frame mode on Pana compared to say Canon's and I like Pana's enough to use procinema on GS400 as my "film look" for narrative film projects.

Yup, you cannot adjust gamma in procinema mode. It's there. You can't take it off.

BUT
you can shoot wide (16:9) with frame (faux 30p?) WITHOUT gamma.

you can also shoot 4:3 in frame mode WITHOUT gamma.

Again, I am starting to realize that I like GS400 better when shooting in frame/30p than DVX100 BECAUSE shooting in frame mode on former allows for use of autofocus during "run-and-gun" style shooting whereas delay in doing 3:2 pulldown making only manual focus possible in latter, which, compounded by strobe display shooting in progressive make run-and-gun on DVX100 in progressive modes virtually impossible without getting the progressive monitor... it's late, does everybody understand my point?

Don't forget that you can still adjust picture quality (color intensity, detail, contrast, exposure compensation) even under procinema.

I have a hard time believing that if there were no resolution loss that Panasonic wouldn't hesitate slapping the words Progressive Scan on side of the GS400.

Mark, I don't think anyone will disagree with you on the fact that run-n-gun will be better on the GS400 (opposed to the DVX100A).

I'm on my way to saving up for a black GS400 from Japan but my 1/3" 3CCD DVX100A and VX2000 won't be going anywhere. They are totally different cams in both capabilities and perforamnce compared to their sub 1/4" 3CCDs siblings.

I look it at like lighting and mics. Different equipment for different tasks.

Can anybody answer my question about resolution loss from a few posts earlier? I asked if the 25% resolution loss commonly quoted about frame modes was a difference between frame mode and true progresssive scan, or frame mode and interlaced mode.

Yes, my post said interlaced mode and should have said progressive. Frame mode has only 11% less vertical resolution than interlaced mode...67% less vertical resolution than progressive.