GL2 / XM2 Frame mode

[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/announcem...?s=&forumid=20

Thanks for your cooperation,

-Boyd

[Dennis Parker]

<<<-- 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/announcem...?s=&forumid=20

Thanks for your cooperation,

-Boyd -->>>

No problem!

[Brian Neuls]

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...

[Rob Lohman]

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

[Marco Leavitt]

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

[Leonardo Silva Jr.]

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.

[Frank Ladner]

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.

[Leonardo Silva Jr.]

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. :)

[David Ennis]

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 .

[Frank Ladner]

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.

[Tim Agnew]

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.

[Ken Tanaka]

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.

[Tim Agnew]

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.

[Ken Tanaka]

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.