24F Not Good Enough For Film Transfer At DVFilm?

[Tony Tremble]

We have still not answered the question.

We only know that DVFilm Maker does a better job of 24P conversion than Vegas et al.

How does 60i-24P compare with straight 24F in terms of quality?

It is not just the resolution that is the important factor. I'd be very interested in seeing a side by side of 60i-24P compared to 24F. More specifically I'd like to know how 50i-25P compares to 25F. Marcus any comments?

TT

[Todd Mattson]

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

We have still not answered the question.

We only know that DVFilm Maker does a better job of 24P conversion than Vegas et al.

How does 60i-24P compare with straight 24F in terms of quality?

It is not just the resolution that is the important factor. I'd be very interested in seeing a side by side of 60i-24P compared to 24F. More specifically I'd like to know how 50i-25P compares to 25F. Marcus any comments?

TT

Actually, my original question, "is 24F good enough for film transfer", has been answered. It does pose some other issues, and I'm just guessing with the volume of A1 and possibly G1/H1 material increasing, that would be reflected in the material/questions DVFilm receives, likely prompting a page with a recommended list of origination preferences - perhaps replete with screen shots as well. Perhaps a test even comparing the HD-SDI out / analog component out / 60i to HDV / 24P to HDV. But, the original question, the reason SO many people read this thread in so little time, was answered, and promptly at that.

[Tony Tremble]

My apologies. I missed Marcus' post confirming 24F is OK.

Still, I'd be interested in quality comparisons between 60i-24P vs 24F if anyone had performed such a test.

TT

[Todd Mattson]

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

My apologies. I missed Marcus' post confirming 24F is OK.

Still, I'd be interested in quality comparisons between 60i-24P vs 24F if anyone had performed such a test.

TT

Was made aware of this here....

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....0&postcount=39

"60 i vs. 24F

XH-A1 60i:
824.3 Lines Horizontal (MTF50); 810 Lines Horizontal = Limit@Nyquist
674.8 Lines Vertical (MTF50)

XH-A1 24F:
810 Lines Horizontal (Limit@Nyquist)
590.4 Lines Vertical (MTF50)

Vertical losses: 12.5%
and less than 2% on horizontal resolution loss if beyond the 1440 restriction, slightly lower than the 60i."


While this quantifies the origination results, it doesn't really speak much to the far more important, and more subjective, issue - how does it look, and what's going to "look" the best; taking into account that some of us will place more importance on having 24 discrete frames at the point of origination at the "sacrifice" of the upper most resolution the camera has to offer - and gladly do so. That's the decision Barry Green said he would most likely choose, and I imagine most users would likely follow suit rather than convert from 60i, save the few resolution hounds. So I guess the question then becomes HDV vs. another way out of the camera during origination, say either the HD-SDI of the G1/H1 or perhaps even the analog component out of the A1, at 4:2:2, to an as yet uninvented Cineporter like device that accepts analog component in.

[Tony Tremble]

Todd

I am well aware of those resolution measurements but that is not what I am asking for. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I am interested in the conversion from 60i to 24P and how that compares to straight 24F. I.e what is the optimal solution for someone shooting with Xl-H1/Xh-A1/G1 and transferring to film. How much resolution is lost in the conversion process? Is it worth the extra steps in the workflow??

TT

[Todd Mattson]

The measurments are useful in the secondary quantification you're describing. The 60i to 24P conversion would need to lose less resolution than the amount that 24F loses in order to be useful at all, and that doesn't really take into account the subjective issue of preference of 24 discrete frames from origination vs. converting 60i to 24P in the first place. I guess only Marcus, and your eyes, could answer whether, resolution speaking only, if his software would cost less of a resolution hit than Canon's 24F or not - if it would actually be worth shooting 60i. It would be an interesting shootout to see - exactly how to get the best image to film from the H1/G1/A1 series cameras.

[Meryem Ersoz]

i thought pete bauer already answered this question. more to the point, i think it is implied. 24F is 24P, and all we're really comparing is the quality of film-out among flavors of cameras, which i don't believe has been done. i get the impression that there haven't been that many film-out tests conducted using 24F yet, and especially not as direct comparisons with other cameras. that's a pretty expensive and time-consuming test. most people spending the time and money testing for a film-out are trying to answer the question, "how is my existing choice of camera going to perform under the specific shooting environment(s) of my particular film?" rather than generalized testing or camera comparisons.

[Todd Mattson]

The original question has been resolved, the 24F to Film issue - it IS good enough, which isn't what the DVFilm site said up until yesterday morning. It think the question now is the "Canon cameras versus themselves" - since it was brought up as sort of a side topic, how does one get the BEST out of the camera for a film transfer? Perhaps that should be new topic altogether, since the original question has been answered by Marcus.

[Tony Tremble]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

i thought pete bauer already answered this question. more to the point, i think it is implied. 24F is 24P, and all we're really comparing is the quality of film-out among flavors of cameras, which i don't believe has been done. i get the impression that there haven't been that many film-out tests conducted using 24F yet, and especially not as direct comparisons with other cameras. that's a pretty expensive and time-consuming test. most people spending the time and money testing for a film-out are trying to answer the question, "how is my existing choice of camera going to perform under the specific shooting environment(s) of my particular film?" rather than generalized testing or camera comparisons.

I was NOT suggesting 24F was not 24P. I was using it to differentiate between 60i that had been converted to 24P by a software deinterlacer such as DVFilm and 24F(P) as recorded by a Canon camera.

I would have thought this would be interesting and useful information for someone delivering on film but shooting with a Canon. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I didn't think what I wrote was too difficult to understand?? Am I wrong?

TT

[Todd Mattson]

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

I was NOT suggesting 24F was not 24P. I was using it to differentiate between 60i that had been converted to 24P by a software deinterlacer such as DVFilm and 24F(P) as recorded by a Canon camera.

I would have thought this would be interesting and useful information for someone delivering on film but shooting with a Canon. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I didn't think what I wrote was too difficult to understand?? Am I wrong?

TT

You're not wrong, and I'm pretty sure I get the crux of your question (see my post a few posts above) - I'm just not sure, even if the resolution loss going from 60i to 24P (say via DVFilmmaker) WAS smaller than the internal resolution loss of Canon's 24F, I'm not too sure that that would motivate too many users to forgo a 24P workflow, or origination. Since it has been resolved that 24F is acceptable for film transfer, I don't think anyone will look back on that issue. Now however, if it were proven that by going out the component output, using some as yet unnamed non-existent portable device, produced better images to film, as it might seeing as it is 4:2:2 full raster (according to Elton aka Barlow Elton), that might have a larger impact on A1 to film transfers at the very least, not as much so for G1/H1 since they have the HD-SDI.

[Meryem Ersoz]

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

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.

as i said, i think pete already answered this question. he's been involved in many static camera rez tests, so i think his info is trustworthy.

with the cost of a native 24F/P camera these days, why even bother with de-interlacing? if you can afford a film-out or even a film-out test, surely you can afford to shoot 24F/P in-camera.

[Tony Tremble]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

as i said, i think pete already answered this question. he's been involved in many static camera rez tests, so i think his info is trustworthy.

with the cost of a native 24F/P camera these days, why even bother with de-interlacing? if you can afford a film-out or even a film-out test, surely you can afford to shoot 24F/P in-camera.

That is not an answer from Pete Baur that is a question.

DVFilm obviously know their apples from bananas as they appear to make a better fist of the conversion than their rivals.

If you consider a static scene 24F will drop res by the default 12% but 60i-24P converted material would not. So I can see some advantage in converting from 60i to 24P. How much res one would lose in motion video is down to how clever the DVFilm deinterlacer is.

TT

[Todd Mattson]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

as i said, i think pete already answered this question. he's been involved in many static camera rez tests, so i think his info is trustworthy.

with the cost of a native 24F/P camera these days, why even bother with de-interlacing? if you can afford a film-out or even a film-out test, surely you can afford to shoot 24F/P in-camera.

With the fact that this has been cleared up, the removal of 24F from the CF24 category, in which it was only placed incedentally/accidentally, this will likely be the prevailing sentiment for the Canon HDV camera owners - why in the world shoot 60i when I can shoot 24F, even with a resolution hit? It would likely have to be a gain MUCH larger than 12-15% to convince most people to forgo a 24F origination and a 24P workflow. For many people, since the advent of and en masse migration to the DVX100, a 60i workflow has been simply a "thing of the past" - for better or for worse. Granted I don't work on many things that call for it, but I can't remember the last time I did ANYTHING with 60i origination, and I loathed every minute that I did - always looking for new solutions to "de-ugly" my video footage. Coming more from a film background, I've never liked the look of interlacing, it just seems crass to me. I am sure there are those who would disagree, or place more importance on lighting, depth of focus, etc. - for me it was always 24P that made me feel more at home - and you'd be hard pressed to get me to go back, it would have to be for a real good reason.

[Marcus van Bavel]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

as i said, i think pete already answered this question. he's been involved in many static camera rez tests, so i think his info is trustworthy.

with the cost of a native 24F/P camera these days, why even bother with de-interlacing? if you can afford a film-out or even a film-out test, surely you can afford to shoot 24F/P in-camera.

We're getting a lot of business lately converting FX1/Z1U from 60i to 24, or film outs from 60i/50i, or from 60i/50i where the clips were converted to 24P/25P before editing. Some examples are "Fastwalkers" a feature that was shot FX1 at 60i and "Deficit" a feature in Mexico that was shot Z1U at 60i. For _these_ cameras at least the benefit of the crystal-clear 60i/50i mode vs the somehat fuzzy look of CF25 or CF24 is apparent to everyone in involved in these projects and well worth the extra time and money.

The Canon and 24F has not been widely adopted yet for film transfer here. We get lots of footage now from the HVX200, and also that has been the focus for us in the last year with our Raylight product. Because the HVX200 cannot experience a 15-frame dropout like the HDV cameras I have been happy to recommend it, because filmakers always ask us to fix dropouts and the 15-frame ones where the ugly patch follows the object around for half a second are pretty hard to fix. But probably you could get equal results with the Canon 24F as long as you can avoid that situation.

Regarding canon 24F vs 60i converted to 24P, I would be happy to run a test if someone will send some test footage in the original (mpeg2 stream) format. Make sure the camera is locked down, perfectly in focus, and identical sharpen settings in each mode. A focus chart and some live action would be welcome. We have an upload site that I can email out.

[Todd Mattson]

Are you requesting this for DVFilm's internal usage in determining what will be the best for future customers, or for potential client use? More to the point are you needing footage from the H1/A1/G1 to run tests at no charge to the footage provider, or a test for the footage provider at their expense?