Most people seem to agree that the resolution loss is probably
more in post with de-interlacing software because of the pixel
shift technology etc. employed by Canon on the GL2/XL1 series
to get frame mode.

While resolution isn't everything, it's still important. I don't know how someone could argue that resolution doesn't matter.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that it flat out doesn't matter. It's just that people seem to obsess over it in a way that doesn't take into account the limitations of the delivery system on which the end product will eventually be viewed. That's my take anyway. There's sort of a law of diminishing returns. I believe that the new Optura series camcorders are supposed to be much sharper than the 3 chip prosumer cams of just a few years ago, but that isn't enough to make people abandon their PD150s, for example. As I've posted in here previously, frame mode may theoretically degrade vertical resolution 25 percent or so (or whatever the figures is supposed to be), but the perceived difference is nowhere near as much. In fact, on a typical television there's no difference whatsoever. The degradation is clearly visible on a genuine production monitor, but nobody is going to see that but you.

Oh I totally agree that resolution is over rated. I'd rather have a GL2 than the new Optura any day. What good is resolution if you have a camera that isn't very useful.

That said I want to record all the detail I can. The more information you record the more you can retain after post processing.

I offcourse don't know what your end product is (movie, wedding, documentary) but I too think resolution isn't THAT important.
Okay, if you are going to a blowup, offcourse it's important.

But we can't forget DV is still 720x576 (or something, here in PAL land :-p).
I think controls, colors, motion, ... is much more important with a camera.
Maybe it is an cliché example, but look at 28 days later. They used the XL1 (isn't that cam from 1998??) and they did a blowup.
Ofcourse, they used big lenses, and professional lightning and spend many many dollars to preserve the quality in postproduction, but they still did a blowup.
And ofcourse you could see it wasn't 35mm quality, but I think many people didn't care, because colors were beautiful (many people who didn't know a lot about video and film, including me at that time, didn't even realise that!)
That's just because they were so intrigued by the story and how it was filmed. I think having a great steady dolly movement for example, looks much more professional than a handycam amateur with a 10 minute 35mm piece.

That said :-p, I wish you very much luck with your project, and I hope you can still shoot all the detail you want :-)

Well, I've found out this about Frame Mode.

Looks great "while" filming it, but adds too much smearing or strobing if you convert it to 24p. Maybe it's not meant to go to 24p, who knows.

Normal mode looks like garbage when filming, or more amatuer-like, but looks far better when put into 24p.

The thing I'm more confused about is what settings to use in Vegas for each way of shooting.

For example.

If you shoot everything normally, no FM or Widescreen, what's the optimal settings in Vegas?

NTSC DV - Field Order upper or lower, and when would you use progressive? Only if you shoot in Frame Mode or what? Then you can change the frame rate in the project settings which I believe just alters the way the footage looks in the window. Then what about the de-interlace method? None, Blend or interpolate?

I think I messed with these settings recently and rendered to quicktime and found massive artifacts in the name of interlacing. Usually I don't see the lines like that at all. I did select de-iterlace blend fields and it was shot 60i, not frame mode, at least I think it was. I was not filming most time so I forget.

All I know is that there are so many choices including if you do some post work in after effects as well.

Hope someone knows the best way to get the best footage because I'm all ears.

Bob, Frame mode indeed is not intended to convert to 24P :-)
It's on his own already a method to look like (a little bit) 24P.
They always tell you: if you want to go to 24P, shoot 60i, and if you don't want lots of render work, go Frame Mode.
Well not everyone agrees offcourse, but you can find thousands of topics, so you'll better do a search if you're interested.

On the rest of your questions I don't really have many answers, because I don't really know, but maybe do a search.
9/10 somebody already asked such a question.

Good luck.

I've only ever shot in frame mode, import it into FCP and roll. No rendering and it looks like film. I don't really know how it all works technically, but I know what my results are:

www.theweddingspotlight.com

Hi Everyone,
I have had my GL2 for about a year now and I love it and I have been visiting this site daily since I bought it, but for some reason I fear putting the camera in full frame mode because I use it exclusively for wildlife videography. I am mostly afraid of messing up a good shot because most of the time you only have a minute or two to get that awesome shot and there is no way to get it back if it looks crappy afterwards. I understand the difference between interlaced and full frame mode but what mode do you all recommend I keep the camera in. By the way I have gotten good results in the interlaced mode but maybe I could get even better results in full frame mode. Also, does either mode affect how well the camera does in low light situations? I appreciate all of your help. Thanks Jared

Hi Jared!

As you may know, Frame Mode doesn't capture a full progressive frame, but creates a frame that supposedly loses 25% resolution.
The differences really show up in moving shots. If you were shooting, say, still life stuff, then interlaced would actually give you a -slightly- sharper image.

If you have the time and tools to process the footage in post, then I'd say to capture interlaced - that way you have more information and more options for later, like converting to 30p with some of the avialable deinterlace plugins(at best, you'll still be losing around 25% resolution - at least on non-static shots), or converting to 60p (which can be further stretched in Twixtor, ReTimer, etc...giving nice overcranked footage).

However, if you do not have the time and tools, you may want to just shoot in Frame Mode. It looks good. (Yeah, nowadays you can't just say something looks "good" because it's all subjective and what not. How about...it looks "different" and since it's non-interlaced, closer to film.) I have done a lot of tests comparing footage shot interlaced and in Frame Mode, and as far as resolution, I don't think anyone will notice. (Maybe on diagonal lines you'll see that Frame Mode is a bit more blocky.)

Plus, it's easier to get framegrabs for print, web, etc if it was shot in Frame Mode.


I don't think there is a difference between interlaced and frame mode when as far as low-light shooting is concerned.

Thanks Frank,
I do have some time to put into post, but I think I will keep the camera in interlaced mode in order to avoid resolution loss because often my shots are in full telephoto and I want to keep the resolution as high as possible in order to keep the detail to a max. Thanks again for your reply. Jared

If you want a film look it's not all about 24p. I recently shot a snowboarding event on a gl2 in frame mode and my business partner shot on a dvx100a in 24p. With colour correcting I found that the gl2 footage had a "cinematic" look. It was the first time I filmed action sports in frame mode( I usually use it for dramatic and non sports shoots like music vids) and I was amazingly surprised at the results. I actually preferred the gl2 footage. It appears to have the 24 frame look but the colour was a little more saturated than the dvx100a so it had a sort of half video/ half film look that was very unique and pleasing to me. I don't think De-interlacing and frame mode should be compared too much as frame mode gives footage a motion effect that resembles 24fps. Technically it provides the same function and both have their advantages. De interlacing and converting your footage will not make your footage look identical to frame mode. Frame mode provides a unique aesthetic. As far as resolution loss goes I find it negligable. If you want to make gl2 footage look like film chances are your lookin at mini-35 and a few weeks rendering with magic bullet because colour and the amount of time lighting film are a major factor in why it looks so good, not just the frame rate. In my experience I find it's best to acheive as much of the film effect as you can before editing. If your not transferring your video to film try shooting frame mode with a good cstm preset and using a bit of filtering and colour correction in post. Less headache, less rendering and less artifacts and other issues that can arise from de interlacing and software frame rate changes. If you have a lot of time to spend on post or your transferring to film you probably want to shoot interlaced footage and make it look like film with software. This is only one mans opinion I don't really buy into numbers and stats concerning frame mode I just go with what my peepers tell me.

I had heard a lot about frame mode on the XL1 and when I purchased my GL2 I found it to be really pleasing and VERY film-like.

I was actually surprised with such good results. Of course it still looks a bit like video, but with colour correcting in post I've been able to give it a strong film look.

I also did a test shooting in 60i and then de-interlacing in post but for some reason it wasn't so convincing, still had somewhat a video look. Granted, I only used Premiere for this, but still the difference seems quite evident.

You can also add a bit of motion blur to 30p to make it look more like 24p.

Hello all,

If I am shooting in Frame-Mode on the Canon GL-2, is there a special non-interlaced setting I should be using in FCP for my Sequences?

The default "DV NTSC 48kHz" setting has a Lower (Even) Field Dominance setting. Is this going to mess things up with Frame Mode footage because it isn't exactly interlaced?

This thread is NOT intended to start a Frame-mode vs. Normal-mode debate. I am only wondering if any adjustments need to be made in Final Cut Pro when using Frame-mode.

Thanks!

Yes, the lower (even) setting is incorrect. You need to select none
or progressive or something along those lines. I'm not on Mac/FCP,
so I don't know what the setting is called. But a setting with that
name (or alike) should be in that list or on that screen.

Donovan, I posted your question over here too: xxxxx hopefully someone knows the answer to this....

:)

moderator note: cross-posting is not allowed at DVinfo. Sorry, I removed your link. If you would like this thread moved to the Mac forum I'll be happy to do so, but why not give it a chance here first? Please see our policy here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/announcement.php?s=&forumid=20

Thanks for your cooperation,

-Boyd

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Parker : Donovan, I posted your question over here too: xxxxx hopefully someone knows the answer to this....

:)

moderator note: cross-posting is not allowed at DVinfo. Sorry, I removed your link. If you would like this thread moved to the Mac forum I'll be happy to do so, but why not give it a chance here first? Please see our policy here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/announcement.php?s=&forumid=20

Thanks for your cooperation,

-Boyd -->>>

No problem!

Hey, guys...another question here...I've been shooting interlaced and frame mode on my GL2 and I've been wondering what anyone's views are on how each one looks and what you think looks better with the projects you've been doing. I think what would be best would be to shoot interlaced and give it the film look in post with magic bullet. I don't know which will look better, though, as I don't have a lot of experience seeing it. Whatever, I just want to know what some of your ideas are and what you've found, what you shoot in. The colors seem stronger in interlaced and even maybe a little...should I say it?...softer? Anyway...let me know what any of you think, please...

This is a very personal thing. In the end it all boils down to what
looks good for you and works with your workflow. Magic Bullet
takes a lot of time to process everything for example. I personally
like the frame modes on the Canon, but that is a very personal thing.

frame mode for me all the way.

there seems to be such a noticeable difference between the two when looking at footage thru a monitor - im surprised that anyone would prefer the way interlaced looks when comparing the two on a tv monitor

Another vote for frame mode. The loss in resolution isn't noticeable on a regular television anyway.

quote from Frank: "If you were shooting, say, still life stuff, then interlaced would actually give you a -slightly- sharper image."

This means if i will be using my gl2 for wedding events it will be better with interlaced? thanks again.

When shooting a still object w/ no camera motion, you should get a sharper image if using interlaced vs. frame mode because interlaced is capturing plain fields as opposed to using an interpolation algorithm like frame mode does. But...how often will you be shooting something that doesn't move?

In events such as weddings, you'll naturally have lots of movement so you would see the effects of interlaced vs. frame-mode. As far as what would be better....well.....that's a tough one to answer because it depends on what look you're going for, what the bride & groom would want...etc...

The last wedding we did with our GL2 was shot in Frame Mode. The bride, groom and their friends / family noticed that it didn't look like a regular video, and they liked it. I can imagine in some cases, though, that they may want the 'regular video' look, because it's what they're used to.

If you wanted to play it safe, you can just shoot interlaced and if you decide to output it as pseudo-progressive (frame mode), then you can just do the After Effects (or other NLE) trick of blending upper/lower fields at 50% to give you that look.......or if you don't want to do that (or the customer doesn't want that look), then you have the interlaced footage.

Let me know if you need more details/clarification.

Thanks frank, one more question, that you shoot will GL2 in frame mode and it looks different, you mean it's like a cinema for frame mode? thanks in advance. :)

People (some more than others) detect a bit of stuttering in the motion of objects in frame mode sequences that they also detect in film.

So frame mode can contribute to achieving a cinematic look to video footage, but there are many more things to consider (camera moves, depth of field, diffusion filters, etc) if that is your goal, and many of them are said to be more significant than exposure modes .

Leonardo: Right - frame mode does look more cinematic than interlaced. This is due to the fact that film is 24 progressive frames per second, and TV is 60 interlaced frames per second.....so 30p is closer to 24p than 60i.

Fred is right, though - if you are going for the cinematic look, a lot of other factors contribute. (lighting, camera handling, grading/color correction etc...)

...but framerate still plays the largest role in giving a film/cinematic look.

Anyone know how to tell footage that was shot in FRAME mode in the GL2 while previewing it on a PC? I cannot tell the difference between interlaced and FRAME, and I'm not sure which I shot. Help appreciated.

On many, probably most, scenes it may be impossible to distinguish by watching footage on your computer monitor. Remember, the primary viewing target for video is a television. Your computer uses a completely different method for displaying video which, to a degree, eliminates the differences between these modes. As far as your computer is concerned bother are interlaced video.

Thanks, Ken.
During editing of footage shot in frame and interlaced, is it possible to have these rendered in each method in the same movie? Or, does it have to be all Frame or all interlaced? I use Media Studio Pro.

Again, from the computer's point of view there is no technical difference between Frame mode footage and Normal mode footage. Each comes in interlaced at 60i. Only the GL2 knows that it has preprocessed that footage to get more of a progressive-sccan look.

From an aesthetic view, however, it may be best to use a good production monitor (or at least a good consumer television) as you edit to best judge how well the footage looks when cut together. That's really the ultimate determinate, assuming that you plan for your work to be shown primarily on a television.

I haven't ever worked with Canon's frame mode, but I suspect you could see a difference in shots where there is some fast motion. With interlaced video you will see "combing" on the moving areas where the two fields don't match. I'm not familiar with PC editing software, but in FCP you can choose an option of whether or not to show both fields in the viewer. If you aren't viewing both fields in your software then you probably won't see any difference between frame and interlaced.

This site has some good examples of interlaced vs deinterlaced frames: http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?14@811.UBWaabUU2Dl.0@.68ab7b77

I've used Panasonic's frame mode for a few things, and it's pretty easy to tell the difference - first your preview must be at full resolution, then go to a frame where there is a horizontal movement of either subject or camera eg a person running across the frame, or better still a pan or dolly shot. If it is interlaced (and the NLE is setup to show the full frame) you'll see interlace combing. If there is no combing, it must be frame mode.

As Boyd said, if the NLE is set to deinterlace the preview you won't see it. In Vegas set the preview window quality to best-full.

In Vegas, "project manager" or whatever the name of the window - where you see all the clips you're using in the project - look at the clip's properties. It says if its interlace or progressive.

In Vegas, "project manager" or whatever the name of the window - where you see all the clips you're using in the project - look at the clip's properties. It says if its interlace or progressive.I never noticed that before. Now I see it works in Vegas's version of explorer too, and you can point to any directory with that.

The comb effect gives a very clear indication, but this is much quicker and easier. Great tip, Cosmin, Thanks!

The clip properties is a good, fast indication. The frame mode on my panasonic is automatically picked up by Vegas as progressive. But the footage can lose this flag sometimes, depending how it is rendered, etc. but viewing the footage and looking for combing is a sure way of identifying interlaced video.

Howdy all,
Using my XM2 as a second camera for weddings, trying to match 25p prog on my XL2 used as the primary camera, I've used it a couple of times in normal 50i mode and then de-interlaced using Mike smart(sony vegas) and DVFilm Maker, would I be better shooting in frame mode, and would it save me some resolution and sharpness, plus would the motion be closer to the 25p of the XL2.??

Cheers Mike

If the XL2 is in 25p mode I would opt for frame mode on the XM2 indeed. However,
as always, do TEST this BEFORE you shoot a one-time event like a wedding!

Anyone know if I need to set my capture settings to Frame when moving footage shot in the "Frame" mode on the Gl2? I had been capturing with the DV setting and it renders fine- just curious if I should be changing this.

Help appreciated.

Tim

I think you'll best just leave it at DV, especially if you haven't had problems with that so far.
Actually I don't really understand your question very well, could you explain somewhat better, more in detail?
If that's your question - Frame mode is just being read as interlaced DV. It looks like progressive, but it isn't (in PAL, in NTSC it almost looks like progressive, but a little bit different)
So settings to capture frame mode are usually the normal setting to capture normal interlaced DV.

You answered it, thanks. So, Media Studio Pro reads this footage as regular DV interlaced, correct? Thanks again

I don't have Media Studio Pro, but I think it should work fine, capturing it as interlaced.
Best regards,

Hi
What is frame mode and what does it do?

If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts then here's an article which discusses frame mode and compares it to true progressive scanning:

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

Nathaniel it's very wise for you to do a search on the topic on these boards too. I found this for you:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=47537&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=37282&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=42498&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=35912&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=35158&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=30396&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=21738&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=16477&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=14672&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=1483&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=13946&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=12554&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=861&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=9380&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=6050&highlight=frame+mode

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=81&highlight=frame+mode

As you see, the topic has been discussed to death.
Have fun reading ;-)!

Hi all...I'm a new Gl2 user and was wondering about frame mode shooting....Who here uses it regularily?
I find the look of it very hard to discern as opposed to the regular interlaced mode and was wondering if I still capture it into my computer the regualar way?....or do I have to change the settings in my software too?....Is the rendered video then output still in the frame mode or would it be converted to 30fps interlaced?....and would the final output still retain any of the differences that the frame mode introduced?
thanks
Len

As far as I know, your editing software doesn't know the difference between regular 60i and frame mode. Just capture and edit it the way you would edit regular footage. And yes, the rendered video will retain the qualities of frame mode.

I have read posts discussing shooting 60i and then converting to 24p especially for possible film transfer, but what about straight to DVD? I have a few projects planned that I would like to distribute solely on DVD. Should I shoot in 60i and then convert to 30p or just use the 30p FRAME MODE.

thanks,
The Gian!

Why not place a bit of each mode, using scenes typical of the planned final production, especially fast action scenes, on a test DVD or two to see which you prefer?

Test wil probably work best if tested using intended primary viewing equipment and the bit rates planned for the final DVD.

i say use 60i and convert to 24p using magic bullet. purely because some programs are better than others at deinterlacing (theres a few articles out there showing this). Magic bullets results are much nicer.

I never really realized this but today while I was filming with my GL2 when I switched between frame mode, which I always film in, and normal mode, I noticed that there is noticably more grain in frame mode. It seems as if frame mode lowers the quality of the image drastically and adds a lot of grain, even in very well lit situations.

I have magic bullet and mainly used it for the look suite. Now I have decided now to film in 60i and deinterlace to 24p in post.

Try it for yourself and if you notice the quality loss then I would suggest filming in 60i and deinterlacing later.