1080 30P Concerns

[Michael Richard]

I am about to order the 5dMKII. I know it shoots 1080 30p. I have an XDCAM EX1 and hope to use the 5D as a B camera, for limited intercutting some of that sweet shallow depth of field stuff this unit is capable of with the EX1.

I have always shot 24p, back to my DVX 100 days. But I am thinking of trying out the 1080 30p for a a couple of projects coming up next month.

What are the downsides to 1080 30p? I am not particularly keen to downconvert footage to 24p, (have a HV30 so I know the conversion drill) and there are quality issues with that workflow anyway.

What are the options for delivering 1080 30p? Can i burn NTSC DVD's with that format? What about HD delivery? Doug Jensen says he shoots everything 30p so that leads me to believe I have been overlooking this format for too long. I am basically looking for advice from folks who are familiar with shooting 1080 30p.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Does the EX1 support 30.00? If so, shooting at that rate and then slowing the whole project to 29.97 makes a lot of sense.

A few years ago at NAB, there was a JVC shooter who preached that we should shoot 30p (okay 29.97) for US broadcast and DVD distribution, and 24p for film out. Of course, he wasn't thinking about international distribution, and HD wasn't done on the web back then.

US DVD players support 29.97 and 23.976. 29.97 can be interlaced or progressive.

[Alvise Tedesco]

Originally Posted by Michael Richard

What are the options for delivering 1080 30p? Can i burn NTSC DVD's with that format?

I burned a 1080p30 dvd, encoding a blu-ray compliant mpg4. It is an option (interesting for sure if you are on a 50hz country) and images were stunning

[Bryce Olejniczak]

Originally Posted by Alvise Tedesco

I burned a 1080p30 dvd, encoding a blu-ray compliant mpg4. It is an option (interesting for sure if you are on a 50hz country) and images were stunning

So you were ale to play HD content of a standard DVD? I assume you would have to use a much lower bit-rate than an actually blu-ray disc...?

[Olof Ekbergh]

EX3 shoots 1080 29.97p among a bunch of other formats.

I use mkII footage with EX3 footage all the time now. Sometimes 29.97p.

I just conform mkII footage to 29.97 (Cinema Tools) then drop in a 29.97p timeline along with EX3 footage. Works great.

I set up timeline to be EX3 with render to Prores HQ. DEpending on your cpu speed and raid setup you may want to render mkII footage to Prores HQ before you start.

The mkII footage always need softening and grading to match EX3 or other video cams. Easy to do in Color. I have some presets to get me in the ballpark. But I usually grade all my shots these days anyway. Color roundtrip works very well.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh

I use mkII footage with EX3 footage all the time now. Sometimes 29.97p.

.

Hi Olof, which camera produces the better image?

[Olof Ekbergh]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

Hi Olof, which camera produces the better image?

Both cameras are great. They both have strengths and weaknesses. I see them as tools to tell the story.

If I could only have one, it would be the EX3 for my work. We do mid level industrial work, commercials, promotional videos, a lot of fundraising video.

The EX3 has fantastic ergonomics, great viewfinder and is really very small for the quality it produces.

The mkII is a little awkward to shoot with. But it is really stealthy, the choice of lenses and low light performance is superior.

The Images from the EX3 are better, in my opinion. It does not have problems with thin horizontal lines, and has a very pleasant look. You can also have a lot of control over picture profiles. The quality of the compression is superior to the mkII. Also it shoots 23.976, 25, 29.97 and both i and p. It does over and under crank. But it can be hard to produce shallow DOF. It has a 1/2" chip, better than 1/3" but nowhere near the full 35mm imager in the mkII. It does have interchangeable lenses but they are very expensive. You can use Canon or Nikon etc. lenses but there is a 5.5 x multiplier factor.

It may sound like I don't like the mkII, not so. I love it. It just has some limitations. It has a more filmic look, in the right setting. It produces a better shallow focus (boketh) and that is how it really shines, the compression is just fine as long as there is a lot of soft focus in the shot. If you have a really detailed shot, like a house with clapboards that has to be in focus, don't use the mkII.

I almost always end up softening the mkII shots in Color FX room, normally to about .03 or so to look good, I do have some softening filters, but I almost always shoot with ND's and stacking to many filters can reduce quality in my opinion.

My conclusion. Right out of the box the EX3 excels, but with care and some fiddling the mkII can produce a superior image in the right circumstance.

I am really happy I can use both.

I am attaching 2 frame grabs, top one is mkII 400mm f5.6, second is EX3 std lens at 85mm f5.6.. Both shot at the same time no CC.

[Brian Luce]

Interesting comparison, on my macbook the canon looks sharper, and as you say, more filmic. Also interesting that the EX is able to *see* the shaded face of the subject, the canon shows a silhouette. Thanks for the review.

[Xavier Plagaro]

Nice example!

The EX3 is a videocamera and the 5D is a picture camera, for someone who need to make videos, the EX3 will make more sense 95% of the time!

[Mike Williams]

EX3 = 10K +
MK2= 3.4K with the 24-105 f4 box kit +/-

I have the EX1 and am seriously considering trading it in for a couple of MK2s. The main thing is the audio capture at this point, then which shoulder rig to buy.

Granted to get the ergonomics to where you want them will cost a chunk and even the playing field between the two cams.

My new MO is to shoot with the EX most of the time when the sun is "up" and use the MK2 when I need to go below 6db gain on my ex. I AVOID using any kind of light during my events.

You really need to try using the MK2 with a nikon 1.4 50mm !!!!!!! It can see better than you in the dark! OK maybe me :)

Peaking on the MK2 would be super. Focusing can be an issue unless you get a hoodman or other sort of focus help.

You know what I really love most about the MK2.... the weight! or lack of. my bag is like a before and after Jenny commercial when all I use is the MK2.

[Daniel Ridicki]

... the process of adjusting the MkII footage in Color. I am also mixing EX3 and MkII footage, and am extremely unhappy with the artifacts contained in MkII footage. I love, otherwise, working with both, but when MkII footage is viewed on external monitor, in most cases the edges are so jugged that the image is useless. It looks great on my Mac monitors, but exported via Intensity Pro card to the external monitor shows unacceptable artifacts.
So, I would (and I guess many other guys here) highly appreciate if you would share your workflow, and perhas presets being used in the Color. Many thanks.

[Mathieu Kassovitz]

Originally Posted by Daniel Ridicki

... the process of adjusting the MkII footage in Color. I am also mixing EX3 and MkII footage, and am extremely unhappy with the artifacts contained in MkII footage. I love, otherwise, working with both, but when MkII footage is viewed on external monitor, in most cases the edges are so jugged that the image is useless.

Aliasing? . . .

[Mathieu Kassovitz]

Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh

Both cameras are great. They both have strengths and weaknesses. I see them as tools to tell the story.

If I could only have one, it would be the EX3 for my work. We do mid level industrial work, commercials, promotional videos, a lot of fundraising video.

The EX3 has fantastic ergonomics, great viewfinder and is really very small for the quality it produces.

The mkII is a little awkward to shoot with. But it is really stealthy, the choice of lenses and low light performance is superior.

The Images from the EX3 are better, in my opinion. It does not have problems with thin horizontal lines, and has a very pleasant look. You can also have a lot of control over picture profiles. The quality of the compression is superior to the mkII. Also it shoots 23.976, 25, 29.97 and both i and p. It does over and under crank. But it can be hard to produce shallow DOF. It has a 1/2" chip, better than 1/3" but nowhere near the full 35mm imager in the mkII. It does have interchangeable lenses but they are very expensive. You can use Canon or Nikon etc. lenses but there is a 5.5 x multiplier factor.

It may sound like I don't like the mkII, not so. I love it. It just has some limitations. It has a more filmic look, in the right setting. It produces a better shallow focus (boketh) and that is how it really shines, the compression is just fine as long as there is a lot of soft focus in the shot. If you have a really detailed shot, like a house with clapboards that has to be in focus, don't use the mkII.

I almost always end up softening the mkII shots in Color FX room, normally to about .03 or so to look good, I do have some softening filters, but I almost always shoot with ND's and stacking to many filters can reduce quality in my opinion.

My conclusion. Right out of the box the EX3 excels, but with care and some fiddling the mkII can produce a superior image in the right circumstance.

I am really happy I can use both.

I am attaching 2 frame grabs, top one is mkII 400mm f5.6, second is EX3 std lens at 85mm f5.6.. Both shot at the same time no CC.

And just about a single aspect . . . sharpness?

[Olof Ekbergh]

Originally Posted by Mathieu Kassovitz

And just about a single aspect . . . sharpness?

This is a reprint from an eariler post I made.

"I was out shooting this morning with an EX3 and the Canon 5DmkII.

Most of my MkII video is very good, but this was very disappointing, I am attaching a still from the video.

I have noticed problems with horizontal lines before but never this bad. In the video the banding moves around. It makes this shot unusable.

I guess the moral is don't shoot buildings with clapboards or anything else with strong horizontal lines in the distance."

Link to thread:http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-eos...-problems.html

It is not just about sharpness. It is about how the camera handles compression.

I work primarily for television or DVD releases, not WEB or computer viewing. The way a shot looks on a TV set even old CRT is very important to me. A lot of footage that looks great on a computer screen is unacceptable on a NTSC monitor.

I was responding to:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Brian Luce

Hi Olof, which camera produces the better image?

I have to do more work on a mkII shot than on a EX3 shot in general. And sometimes the mkII produces unusable shots. If you blow up the attached screen shots you will see what I mean.

Originally Posted by Originally posted by Daniel Ridicki

Olof, culd you elaborate in more details...
... the process of adjusting the MkII footage in Color. I am also mixing EX3 and MkII footage, and am extremely unhappy with the artifacts contained in MkII footage. I love, otherwise, working with both, but when MkII footage is viewed on external monitor, in most cases the edges are so jugged that the image is useless. It looks great on my Mac monitors, but exported via Intensity Pro card to the external monitor shows unacceptable artifacts.
So, I would (and I guess many other guys here) highly appreciate if you would share your workflow, and perhas presets being used in the Color. Many thanks

When I work in FCP or M100 I decide shots to be used in program on a simple timeline no transitions graphics etc. just shots in order t be used. I then send to Color (file menu). In Media 100 I export as XML and import XML in Color.

I then grade all the shots so they match and send back to FCP (file menu). I M100 export again as XML.

The new sequence (FCP) / program (m100) from Color has corrected shots, you now have to relink the audio but now proceed to edit as normal. Yes it takes time but it is well worth it. I always use a NTSC grading monitor and external scopes as well as the Color ones.

There are a number of tricks to working in Color, an important one is to uncheck "broadcast safe" in project setup before you grade, otherwise the whites will be clipped.
First I fix contrast then any colorcast, then I adjust anything that needs secondary (individual color or parts of shot). Then I go into FX room and drop blur into window and adjust initially to 0.03 or so, this is for mkII some shots don't need it but about 90% do. You can save the settings you like as a preset.

Not all shots need grading but it is nice to have them in color so you can compare shots. When you are done turn on broadcast safe again and render and send back, that is it.

The more you use Color the more you will love it. Thousands of pages could and are written about how to use it. Way beyond my Sunday morning musings.

Added info: I use a AJA HDe and a Matrox MXO2 to output to SDI pro HD monitors (JVC JVC DT-V20L3DU) and to Sony NTSC pro monitors by component as I am doing my grading and editing.

I can't seem to attach images, because I attached them in original thread. Click on link to that threa to view mkII image with serious problems and EX3 shot at the same time.

[Pedro Martins]

hi Olof

Did you try the filters, that Jon Fairhurst recommend in the other thread. If so, do you feel that solve the problem?

Pedro