Slow motion at DVinfo.net

John Wheeler · September 18th, 2006, 09:13 PM

Been wanting to buy the HVX for 1 main reason. It can shoot 60p ...

Without getting too technical, is there anyway to achieve 60p with this new Canon?

thanks,

j.

Philip Williams · September 19th, 2006, 05:03 AM

I seem to recall that 1080i converts nicely to 720/60P (and vice versa for that matter). Maybe someone that's done the conversion can chime in...

Gene Crucean · September 19th, 2006, 06:17 AM

Yeah this is a HUGE selling point for me too, and pretty much the single selling point of the HVX for me.

I didn't think this camera could overcrank but maybe I'm wrong. And I hope I'm wrong if it does it at 1080.

Kaku Ito · September 19th, 2006, 12:11 PM

Barlow Elton had done some nice conversion from 1080/60i to overcrank looking slow motion by using Cinema Tools.

I also did some editing by speed control of FCP then convert the clip via Compressor 2 to progressive format.

Barlow Elton · September 19th, 2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wheeler

Without getting too technical, is there anyway to achieve 60p with this new Canon?

Shoot 1080i and convert fields to frames with AE or FCP and a Nattress plug-in. It can look really good.

Take a look at this clip: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=75384

Gene Crucean · September 20th, 2006, 06:32 AM

To me this doesn't look like an overcrank at all. It seems like a 50 or so % slowdown of 60i.

Can someone explain to me how either of the above mentioned methods can add frames that you didn't originally film?

60i = 30p (frame rate wise). 60i does not equal 60p no matter how you look at it unless you are using every field as a frame but that's going to drop vertical resolution in half and introduce some interesting problems.

Here is a true overcrank shot with the hvx. It was shot at 60p and played back at 30p. http://www.genecrucean.com/misc/danny_whip_web_05.mov

Marty Hudzik · September 20th, 2006, 07:20 AM

I have to agree here. That particular clip of the trampoline girl doesn't look right. I have seen some other tests that Barlow has done using the Natress plugin and they looked dead on like an in camera overcrank clip....what makes this one different? Is it playing choppy in QT or something? Cause it definitely is not "smooth" like real overcranking.

Let us know Barlow......is there something wrong with this particular clip or with the settings?

Barlow Elton · September 20th, 2006, 08:13 AM

Maybe it was the slightly slower shutter speed I used. Try this: http://www.realm.cc/upload/Elton/BackyardMeltdown.mov

It was converted to 720p.

Marty Hudzik · September 20th, 2006, 08:23 AM

Barlow,
The backyard meltdown is the one I was thinking of. TO me that looks like true overcrank. The one with the girl on the trampoline looks "jumpy" or drops frames or something. Are you seeing this on your end too?

Edit: Ok....upon viewing the properties in quicktime I am only getting a playback of 12-14 frames per second even thought the clip itself is 24fps. I shrunk the window down as small as I could and the playback doesn't get any smoother. When I move through the clip frame by frame I see all the discrete images....but upon playing it drops ove half creating a "fake" slowmo look. I'll try to convert it to something more freindly to playback and then judge the motion signature.

Marty Hudzik · September 20th, 2006, 08:44 AM

I converted the clip to 1280x720 Sorenson using Squeeze and the playback is smooth as butter. I think it would look a little better if it had been shot with a higher shutter speed. However it looks very good. What shutter speed was this?

Barlow Elton · September 20th, 2006, 10:30 AM

I keep forgetting that full 1920x1080 PhotoJPEG QT format doesn't play well on most PC's. The trampoline clip and the backyard clip were 1/100 shutter. Sometimes that feels like the most natural shutter speed for deinterlace/slow mo conversion, and sometimes maybe a faster speed would work better.

Overall, I think it's possible to get great slow mo from 1080i for use in 1080 or 720 timelines.

Barlow Elton · September 20th, 2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gene Crucean

To me this doesn't look like an overcrank at all. It seems like a 50 or so % slowdown of 60i.

Can someone explain to me how either of the above mentioned methods can add frames that you didn't originally film?

60i = 30p (frame rate wise). 60i does not equal 60p no matter how you look at it unless you are using every field as a frame but that's going to drop vertical resolution in half and introduce some interesting problems.

I've found that with good software interpolation, converting the 60 interlace fields into frames can make for very convincing "overcrank" slow mo. It isn't perfect in the 1080 frame, but I think it looks better than the usual NLE field blending look. It does work especially well when converting to 720 60p however. The horizontal resolution of the 1080i frame helps to compensate somewhat for the vertical res loss--at least perceptually.

There's no doubt that true progressive 60p recording is a better method, but tweaking 1080i with software can yield a pretty convincing facsimile.

September 18th, 2006, 09:13 PM	#1
John Wheeler Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio Texas Posts: 85	Slow motion Been wanting to buy the HVX for 1 main reason. It can shoot 60p ... Without getting too technical, is there anyway to achieve 60p with this new Canon? thanks, j.

September 19th, 2006, 05:03 AM	#2
Philip Williams Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Snellville, Georgia Posts: 614	I seem to recall that 1080i converts nicely to 720/60P (and vice versa for that matter). Maybe someone that's done the conversion can chime in...

September 19th, 2006, 06:17 AM	#3
Gene Crucean Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 295	Yeah this is a HUGE selling point for me too, and pretty much the single selling point of the HVX for me. I didn't think this camera could overcrank but maybe I'm wrong. And I hope I'm wrong if it does it at 1080.

September 19th, 2006, 12:11 PM	#4
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	Barlow Elton had done some nice conversion from 1080/60i to overcrank looking slow motion by using Cinema Tools. I also did some editing by speed control of FCP then convert the clip via Compressor 2 to progressive format.

September 20th, 2006, 06:32 AM	#6
Gene Crucean Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 295	To me this doesn't look like an overcrank at all. It seems like a 50 or so % slowdown of 60i. Can someone explain to me how either of the above mentioned methods can add frames that you didn't originally film? 60i = 30p (frame rate wise). 60i does not equal 60p no matter how you look at it unless you are using every field as a frame but that's going to drop vertical resolution in half and introduce some interesting problems. Here is a true overcrank shot with the hvx. It was shot at 60p and played back at 30p. http://www.genecrucean.com/misc/danny_whip_web_05.mov

September 20th, 2006, 07:20 AM	#7
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	I have to agree here. That particular clip of the trampoline girl doesn't look right. I have seen some other tests that Barlow has done using the Natress plugin and they looked dead on like an in camera overcrank clip....what makes this one different? Is it playing choppy in QT or something? Cause it definitely is not "smooth" like real overcranking. Let us know Barlow......is there something wrong with this particular clip or with the settings?

September 20th, 2006, 08:13 AM	#8
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	Maybe it was the slightly slower shutter speed I used. Try this: http://www.realm.cc/upload/Elton/BackyardMeltdown.mov It was converted to 720p.

September 20th, 2006, 08:23 AM	#9
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Barlow, The backyard meltdown is the one I was thinking of. TO me that looks like true overcrank. The one with the girl on the trampoline looks "jumpy" or drops frames or something. Are you seeing this on your end too? Edit: Ok....upon viewing the properties in quicktime I am only getting a playback of 12-14 frames per second even thought the clip itself is 24fps. I shrunk the window down as small as I could and the playback doesn't get any smoother. When I move through the clip frame by frame I see all the discrete images....but upon playing it drops ove half creating a "fake" slowmo look. I'll try to convert it to something more freindly to playback and then judge the motion signature.

September 20th, 2006, 08:44 AM	#10
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	I converted the clip to 1280x720 Sorenson using Squeeze and the playback is smooth as butter. I think it would look a little better if it had been shot with a higher shutter speed. However it looks very good. What shutter speed was this?

September 20th, 2006, 10:30 AM	#11
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	I keep forgetting that full 1920x1080 PhotoJPEG QT format doesn't play well on most PC's. The trampoline clip and the backyard clip were 1/100 shutter. Sometimes that feels like the most natural shutter speed for deinterlace/slow mo conversion, and sometimes maybe a faster speed would work better. Overall, I think it's possible to get great slow mo from 1080i for use in 1080 or 720 timelines.