24F Not Good Enough For Film Transfer At DVFilm?

Todd Mattson · March 26th, 2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus van Bavel

My apologies to anyone who was misled by that webpage. We certainly did not mean to say that 24F was not good enough for a transfer to film.

The comments (which I've removed now) were based on the assumption that 24F works the same way as "frame movie mode" on the canon XL-1, where lines on the interlaced sensor are blended together to make a non-interlaced image. For the XL-1 frame movie mode, we did do tests many years ago that show it's softer than 60i. We didn't do that test for the XL-H1, however, and we should have done so before updating that web page, and I'm sorry about that.

But regardless, the XL-H1 24F is definitely good for a transfer to film at DVFilm or anywhere else.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR CLEARING THAT UP MARCUS!!! Glad that it was simply an oversight - happens to the best of us. You know, you're a little like EF Hutton - when Marcus talks, people listen.

Meryem Ersoz · March 26th, 2007, 10:53 AM

thanks for the response, marcus. i just came across this thread this morning, just in time to get an answer to this very question. timely! i'm sure that you're as crazy-busy as the rest of us, but it would be awesome if you could update your website to include some info on the Canon XH series of cameras. this is great info, and i'm sure you're going to get a lot of questions along this line.

Chuck Spaulding · March 26th, 2007, 11:02 AM

Yes, thanks so much for your reply Marcus. I guess some here will sleep better tonight.

However, don't shoot the messenger...

24P or 24F was never really a technical issue as much as it was that Panasonic was willing to license the patent from Film Look and Canon and Sony weren't. As far as the technology itself goes there really no decernable difference.

It is not a simple process doing a film out from an F900 let alone an A1 or HVX200. No matter who says one format is as good as another, if you complete your project and then take it to be filmed out you are probably in for a big dissapointment. Other than the fact that you get to see some really big pixels...

If you plan on doing a film out go to the company of choice and pay to do a test before you start your project. Most of the reputable facilities have people who work closely with independent producers to make sure the process is well understood and goes smoothly. It helps them set your expectations correctly and it helps you understand what you need to hand them so that everyone has a pleasant experience.

The relationship that you build with this company is as important as the relationship you have with your DP.

Todd Mattson · March 26th, 2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

thanks for the response, marcus. i just came across this thread this morning, just in time to get an answer to this very question. timely! i'm sure that you're as crazy-busy as the rest of us, but it would be awesome if you could update your website to include some info on the Canon XH series of cameras. this is great info, and i'm sure you're going to get a lot of questions along this line.

Yes, perhaps a descending in ideal preference list for the Canon series, like the HXV's list. Something like....

1) HD-SDI output - either 60i or 24F
2) 60i to HDV
3) 24F to HDV (loses approximately 10-15% vertical resolution compared to 60i)

Todd Mattson · March 26th, 2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

Yes, thanks so much for your reply Marcus. I guess some here will sleep better tonight.

However, don't shoot the messenger...

24P or 24F was never really a technical issue as much as it was that Panasonic was willing to license the patent from Film Look and Canan and Sony weren't. As far as the technology itself goes there really no decernable difference.

It is not a simple process doing a film out from an F900 let alone an A1 or HVX200. No matter who says one format is as good as another, if you complete your project and then take it to be filmed out you are probably in for a big dissapointment. Other than the fact that you get to see some really big pixels...

If you plan on doing a film out go to the company of choice and pay to do a test before you start your project. Most of the reputable facilities have people who work closely with independent producers to make sure the process is well understood and goes smoothly. It helps them set your expectations correctly and it helps you understand what you need to hand them so that everyone has a pleasant experience.

The relationship that you build with this company is as important as the relationship you have with your DP.

Well said. Thus ends another episode of "Resolution Blvd."....

Pete Bauer · March 26th, 2007, 11:18 AM

Just to repeat a perspective that a number of us have mentioned plenty of times in the past but that doesn't seem to be sticking: when measured on static rez charts, 24F has a little less vertical resolution than the same camera's 60i. HOWEVER, when comparing 24F to any other 24-anything in the price class, 24F has at least as high, if not HIGHER resolution. No way, no how are you going to deinterlace XL or XH 60i material to 24fps and get better results than 24F. If you want better 24fps output, spend a LOT more money. Things change with time, but that's where the sub-$10K market is at present.

EDIT: In regard to Chuck's comments about the film out...I know nothing about the film-out process but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if less than optimal circumstances could lead to, well, less than optimal results. But done right, sub-$10K cameras can look great transferred to film. I saw Andy Young's film frames from a JVC 720p film-out at NAB last year and they looked beautiful. No reason that expertly done 1080p24 shouldn't look beautiful, too, especially if the source was well-shot 24F.

Marcus van Bavel · March 26th, 2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

No way, no how are you going to deinterlace XL or XH 60i material to 24fps and get better results than 24F.

I would try DVFilm Maker. For example we show here that 60i can
be converted to 24P without reducing vertical resolution in areas
of the screen that are static, unlike with Vegas and many other
built-in deinterlacers:

http://dvfilm.com/maker/MakerVegas.htm

Tony Tibbetts · March 26th, 2007, 12:14 PM

Thanks for the clarification Marcus. I may have overreacted in my previous comments and have subsequently edited them. I read a lot of assumptions about the 24f mode not only on these boards, but various others. It's a bit infuriating how little people actually know about the format and then try to pass off that knowledge as fact.

My apologies.

Bill Pryor · March 26th, 2007, 01:58 PM

I've done video-to-film transfers at DVFilm with excellent results. The 35mm print looked great, projected at a huge drive-in theater screen. The original footage was shot with a DSR500 and a DSR250. I sent DVFilm a hard drive with the Avid QT. I'm confident if I shot the same stuff with the XH A1 in 24F mode, HDV, edited in a 24p timeline and sent that it, the transfer would be even better. The 24 fps progressive footage from the XH A1 is really nice, and actually looks better than very similar things I've shot with the same lighting setups with the DSR500.

Apparently the author of that info for the original post on here really didn't use 24f footage but made the statement based on Sony's version. I've see a lot of disinformation and just plain wrong information out there about this subject.

Todd Mattson · March 26th, 2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

Apparently the author of that info for the original post on here really didn't use 24f footage but made the statement based on Sony's version. I've see a lot of disinformation and just plain wrong information out there about this subject.

I was actually questioning the information that was on the DVFilm site, which lumped 24F in with Sony's 24P, as an inferior 24P process, until this very morning. I was wondering why that would be and posted it, thinking that if this were the case, it would be fairly common public knowledge. Turns out it wasn't, due to the fact that the original information on the DVFilm site was incorrect, due to an oversight. Marcus has corrected that page now, removed the 24F references, and I guessing will probably have a different page with updated 24F information. Upshot - 24F IS acceptable.

Bill Pryor · March 26th, 2007, 02:20 PM

Cool. I was referring to the DVFilm info, not your personal comment; thanks for making them aware of things and posting their correction. They're good guys at DVFilm, and I assumed that whoever made the web post on their site had just used the Sony CF thing rather than looking at Canon footage, and apparently that's what they did. There's lots of that kind of thing that happens on the web, like...hmmm, it's got an F like CF, so it must be the same thing...or however the thought processes may work with some people.

Just because the F seems to confuse so many people, I'm gonna start referring to the XH A1's footage as 24P, which it is. I may say 24F when referring to the camera setting, but 24P when referring to the footage.

Todd Mattson · March 26th, 2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

Cool. I was referring to the DVFilm info, not your personal comment; thanks for making them aware of things and posting their correction. They're good guys at DVFilm, and I assumed that whoever made the web post on their site had just used the Sony CF thing rather than looking at Canon footage, and apparently that's what they did. There's lots of that kind of thing that happens on the web, like...hmmm, it's got an F like CF, so it must be the same thing...or however the thought processes may work with some people.

Just because the F seems to confuse so many people, I'm gonna start referring to the XH A1's footage as 24P, which it is. I may say 24F when referring to the camera setting, but 24P when referring to the footage.

Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps that's what Canon's gonna do to, what with their having licenced "24P" and all, but that's a different topic altogether I guess.

Now here's the real topic that's been burning me up inside....

Kansas City BBQ vs. Texas BBQ!!!

Truth be told, I'll actually take Kansas City any day....guess that makes a traitor.

Bill Pryor · March 26th, 2007, 04:42 PM

Well, I'll take KC BBQ, in the form of Arthur Bryant's specifically.

However, I also will note that Arthur Bryant was born in east Texas and when he died his body was shipped back there for burial. And...I am also a Texas expatriate and consumed vast volumes of east and south Texas BBQ in my childhood. So, when I say I like KC BBQ better, I guess I could also be saying that I like it because it's the way BBQ used to be in Texas.

How's that for a good weasel-worded answer. I might run for president.

Todd Mattson · March 26th, 2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

How's that for a good weasel-worded answer. I might run for president.

Here's a platform for you - High Definition in EVERY home.

Mathieu Ghekiere · March 27th, 2007, 03:29 AM

I'm glad this thread didn't get closed, and Marcus from DVFilm chimed in and corrected the error and cleared up the understanding.
Now this thread (as sooo many threads here) has valuable information again and a solution to someone's question :-)

March 26th, 2007, 11:18 AM	#21
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Just to repeat a perspective that a number of us have mentioned plenty of times in the past but that doesn't seem to be sticking: when measured on static rez charts, 24F has a little less vertical resolution than the same camera's 60i. HOWEVER, when comparing 24F to any other 24-anything in the price class, 24F has at least as high, if not HIGHER resolution. No way, no how are you going to deinterlace XL or XH 60i material to 24fps and get better results than 24F. If you want better 24fps output, spend a LOT more money. Things change with time, but that's where the sub-$10K market is at present. EDIT: In regard to Chuck's comments about the film out...I know nothing about the film-out process but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if less than optimal circumstances could lead to, well, less than optimal results. But done right, sub-$10K cameras can look great transferred to film. I saw Andy Young's film frames from a JVC 720p film-out at NAB last year and they looked beautiful. No reason that expertly done 1080p24 shouldn't look beautiful, too, especially if the source was well-shot 24F. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress! Last edited by Pete Bauer; March 26th, 2007 at 11:29 AM. Reason: added commentary

March 27th, 2007, 03:29 AM	#30
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	I'm glad this thread didn't get closed, and Marcus from DVFilm chimed in and corrected the error and cleared up the understanding. Now this thread (as sooo many threads here) has valuable information again and a solution to someone's question :-) __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

March 26th, 2007, 10:53 AM	#17
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	thanks for the response, marcus. i just came across this thread this morning, just in time to get an answer to this very question. timely! i'm sure that you're as crazy-busy as the rest of us, but it would be awesome if you could update your website to include some info on the Canon XH series of cameras. this is great info, and i'm sure you're going to get a lot of questions along this line.

March 26th, 2007, 11:02 AM	#18
Chuck Spaulding Trustee Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Thousand Oaks Posts: 1,104	Yes, thanks so much for your reply Marcus. I guess some here will sleep better tonight. However, don't shoot the messenger... 24P or 24F was never really a technical issue as much as it was that Panasonic was willing to license the patent from Film Look and Canon and Sony weren't. As far as the technology itself goes there really no decernable difference. It is not a simple process doing a film out from an F900 let alone an A1 or HVX200. No matter who says one format is as good as another, if you complete your project and then take it to be filmed out you are probably in for a big dissapointment. Other than the fact that you get to see some really big pixels... If you plan on doing a film out go to the company of choice and pay to do a test before you start your project. Most of the reputable facilities have people who work closely with independent producers to make sure the process is well understood and goes smoothly. It helps them set your expectations correctly and it helps you understand what you need to hand them so that everyone has a pleasant experience. The relationship that you build with this company is as important as the relationship you have with your DP.

March 26th, 2007, 12:14 PM	#23
Tony Tibbetts Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 385	Thanks for the clarification Marcus. I may have overreacted in my previous comments and have subsequently edited them. I read a lot of assumptions about the 24f mode not only on these boards, but various others. It's a bit infuriating how little people actually know about the format and then try to pass off that knowledge as fact. My apologies.

March 26th, 2007, 01:58 PM	#24
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I've done video-to-film transfers at DVFilm with excellent results. The 35mm print looked great, projected at a huge drive-in theater screen. The original footage was shot with a DSR500 and a DSR250. I sent DVFilm a hard drive with the Avid QT. I'm confident if I shot the same stuff with the XH A1 in 24F mode, HDV, edited in a 24p timeline and sent that it, the transfer would be even better. The 24 fps progressive footage from the XH A1 is really nice, and actually looks better than very similar things I've shot with the same lighting setups with the DSR500. Apparently the author of that info for the original post on here really didn't use 24f footage but made the statement based on Sony's version. I've see a lot of disinformation and just plain wrong information out there about this subject.

March 26th, 2007, 02:20 PM	#26
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Cool. I was referring to the DVFilm info, not your personal comment; thanks for making them aware of things and posting their correction. They're good guys at DVFilm, and I assumed that whoever made the web post on their site had just used the Sony CF thing rather than looking at Canon footage, and apparently that's what they did. There's lots of that kind of thing that happens on the web, like...hmmm, it's got an F like CF, so it must be the same thing...or however the thought processes may work with some people. Just because the F seems to confuse so many people, I'm gonna start referring to the XH A1's footage as 24P, which it is. I may say 24F when referring to the camera setting, but 24P when referring to the footage.

March 26th, 2007, 04:42 PM	#28
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Well, I'll take KC BBQ, in the form of Arthur Bryant's specifically. However, I also will note that Arthur Bryant was born in east Texas and when he died his body was shipped back there for burial. And...I am also a Texas expatriate and consumed vast volumes of east and south Texas BBQ in my childhood. So, when I say I like KC BBQ better, I guess I could also be saying that I like it because it's the way BBQ used to be in Texas. How's that for a good weasel-worded answer. I might run for president.