24F Not Good Enough For Film Transfer At DVFilm?

[Todd Mattson]

I posted this over at DVXuser, and it seems to have elicited mostly shrugs, and "what the....", like myself, so far. Does anyone KNOW if DVFilm is alone in preferring 60i for film out from the H1, A1, & G1, or are Duart and DFG requesting the same? Not that it really effects that many projects for the most part, it would just be good information to have going into the purchase, or at the start of a planned HDV to Film. Anyone care to take a stab as to why Marcus is lumping Canon's 24F in with Sony's 24P, as opposed to saying that it is tomato/tomahto with Panny's 24P, as the arguments have sort led to here and at DVXuser. Who exactly IS accepting/preferring 24F for film outs?

Here's the link and important information from DVFilm....

http://www.dvfilm.com/fx1/

(I know it says FX1, but it is about the XL-H1, and I'm assuming G1, and A1 as well)

"FX1 or XL-H1 Euro model: Shoot HDV-mode 50i (interlaced) 1/50th sec shutter speed.

FX1 or XL-H1 US Model: Shoot HDV-mode 60i (interlaced) 1/60th sec shutter speed.

Z1: Shoot HDV-mode 60i (interlaced) 1/60th sec shutter speed.

It's very important that you use the recommended shutter speeds for a successful conversion to 24 or 25 fps.
Do not use Auto Exposure where the camera sets the shutter speed. Also watch the white clipping using the Zebra stripe feature. Do not allow significant white clipping particularly in scenes with camera movement, as the white clip areas will appear to have stuttered motion.
Do not use CF25, 25F, CF24 or 24F modes. These modes result in reduced vertical sharpness vs. the interlaced modes (see examples at bottom of this page). Do not use CF30 mode, it cannot be converted to 24P."

It's one thing to say that 24F and 24P are the same, but if film transfer houses are discriminating between the two, it should be amended to, they are the same, EXCEPT for film out purposes. It always seems Marcus has been ahead of the trends for the most part, seems odd that this distinction is being made for tape to film transfers, and probably should be more widely known, especially for those folks spending tons of buck to get their 35mm adapters for their A1's, what not, with the anticipation of transfering to film. Is 60i really the only/preferred way to do that with Canon's HD line?

[Tony Tremble]

It looks , to me at least, that the author of the article believes 24/25F from the Canon cameras is equivalent in quality to the Sony CF modes. The Canon F modes are far superior to the Sony CF modes as we know.

There was a film shot on the XL-H1 called "The Signal" it would be interesting to know what mode they shot in.

TT

[Chris Hurd]

Nick Hiltgen's "The Signal" has been heavily discussed here on DV Info Net. Please refer to our XL H1 forum for all of the details.

[Chuck Spaulding]

The reason for the shrugs is that most of the people on these forums have never, nor will ever do a film out. So debating 24P vs 24F, DVCProHD vs HDV, Sony vs Canon vs Panasonic is pointless.

If your planning on doing a film out start by working with the company thats going to do the film out and produce a test. The test will do several things for you, you'll get to see the quality of the output but more importantly together you will determine the EXACT workflow you need to follow to have good looking film.

Not only are there variables on the video side but also the type of film recorder, film stock, file format (some codecs lend themselves better to film outs than others) etc..

I think you'd find that no two film out facilities do it the same. So the best thing you can do is start working with the company you plan on doing the film out before you START production.

[Tony Tremble]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Nick Hiltgen's "The Signal" has been heavily discussed here on DV Info Net. Please refer to our XL H1 forum for all of the details.

Unfortunately I've only been able to find that they recorded to HDV tape. In the Avid article they go into some depth but there is no mention of which mode they recorded in.

Any ideas Chris?

TT

[Chris Hurd]

Well I think the easiest thing to do is to simply ask Nick. He shot it, and he is a regular, frequently contributing member of DV Info Net.

[Todd Mattson]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

The reason for the shrugs is that most of the people on these forums have never, nor will ever do a film out. So debating 24P vs 24F, DVCProHD vs HDV, Sony vs Canon vs Panasonic is pointless.

That's why I said this in the original post....

"Not that it really effects that many projects for the most part, it would just be good information to have going into the purchase, or at the start of a planned HDV to Film."

This is most certainly not intended to spark a flame war, but I do think the lack of available information as to specifically which companies would do 24F to film transfers is worth having in the search somewhere, as right now the impression is that anything 24P can do, 24F can do just as well. Just like many DVX owners record on 24Pa for that just in case, it think it might be important, at the very least, and probably more likely for XL-H1 owners, or those who are planning on adding 35mm adapters or what not, for them to know that the "just in case" would be 60i, and that 24F is for HD projection and DVD distribution only - if that is correct, and I'm pretty much hoping it's not correct personally.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Todd Mattson

right now the impression is that anything 24P can do, 24F can do just as well.

Yes, and there is an important reason for that impression, because for all practical purposes, 24F is 24P. The means may be different but the results are the same.

The argument that "well, there's a slight loss in resolution in 24F" doesn't make much sense, because even with that slight loss, 1080p24 shot in Canon Frame mode is still at a higher res than 720p24.

So, once again:

1080p24 (minus the hit in vertical res from Canon Frame mode) is greater than (or at least equal to) 720p24.

As far as the "p24" part of that is concerned, Frame mode is progressive scan. There's no difference in the motion signature, the cadence of 24F vs. 24P. They're identical.

Chuck Spaulding is quite correct in his assessment that not many shooters in this forum or other web communities are transferring their projects to 35mm film, so I fully agree that this topic is pretty much a non-issue. The main requirement for a successful 35mm transfer is a previously established, good working relationship with a transfer house, whether it's DV Film or DuArt or whoever. Shoot it the way they particularly want to receive it, and everything will be fine.

[Tony Tibbetts]

I call BS on this one. It seems like more misconceptions and assumptions regarding the format.

Do not use CF25, 25F, CF24 or 24F modes. These modes result in reduced vertical sharpness vs. the interlaced modes

How is the footage from an XL2 or DVX100 any better than the reduced resolution of these Hi-Def cameras? It isn't. Especially in the case of the XL-H1, XH-G1, or XH-A1.

First, they never give any reasoning as to why they lump the XL-H1 in with the Sony cameras. Any common joe that reads these boards can tell you the frame modes are completely different. Second, the camera delivers 24 discreet frames per second. Ingest the footage properly into an NLE and it's no different than the other "24p" cameras they list. Third, in their list of deliverable formats how would they know the difference?

"File formats can be Quicktime 5(any codec) or nearly any image-file format such as JPEG, PICT, BMP, TGA, SGI or TIFF, and AIFF or WAV files for audio."

You see my point? As an example, you could deliver the film in an uncompressed Quicktime file, you could deliver the film DVCProHD, you could deliver the film in still images and they wouldn't know the difference.

I suggest that people continue to shoot in 24/25f for a film transfer.

[Todd Mattson]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

The argument that "well, there's a slight loss in resolution in 24F" doesn't make much sense, because even with that slight loss, 1080p24 shot in Canon Frame mode is still at a higher res than 720p24.

That's exactly where I'm coming from, yet that is exactly the reason cited by DVFilm for their preference of 60i origination material. Agreed it is a limited scope of people who this would ACTUALLY effect in the long run, however it just would be nice to have which transfer house DOES transfer 24F to film on the searchable record, as it's more or less not, in case the situation arises for some LUCKY DOG here.

[Todd Mattson]

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

I call BS on this one. It seems like more misconceptions and assumptions regarding the format. First, they never give any reasoning as to why they lump the XL-H1 in with the Sony cameras. Any common joe that reads these boards can tell you the frame modes are completely different. Second, the camera delivers 24 discreet frames per second. Ingest the footage properly into an NLE and it's no different than the other "24p" cameras they list. Third, in their list of deliverable formats how would they know the difference?

"File formats can be Quicktime 5(any codec) or nearly any image-file format such as JPEG, PICT, BMP, TGA, SGI or TIFF, and AIFF or WAV files for audio."

You see my point? As an example, you could deliver the film in an uncompressed Quicktime file, you could deliver the film DVCProHD, you could deliver the film in still images and they wouldn't know the difference.

It's just sad that the ignorance regarding this format extends to people who are supposed to be "professionals" at video to film transfers. They are only doing a disservice to potential clients.

So not only would I suggest that yes, people should shoot in 24/25f for a film transfer, I would also suggest they avoid having their movie transferred to film by this group.

Maybe, they haven't updated their site in awhile, but that only makes their lack of professionalism seem even greater.

That would be my feeling too - except for the fact that it's Marcus, someone whose opinion I've generally come to respect, and was one of the first guys transfering the DVX's 24Pa to film, while some dragged their feet still asking for 60i. I would hope he has a good reason for requesting 60i, one that has to do with HELPING the customer - as opposed to conforming to their existing gear or selling software; the likelihood that it would be that or something else, like a predisposed bias against Canon, just seems unlikely to me. I wonder if any other film transfer house has looked at this 24F thing and come to a different conclusion.

Here's the thing - in rereading it, I'm sort of unclear as to what he is saying. It should be made clear as to whether he is point blank saying that 24F is simply unusable for film transfers, or just that 60i might do it (a little) better. That's a considerable distance between the two statements, as Chris pointed out, with 24F, the resolution is STILL better than 720P, which last time I checked that was the Varicam's resolution, and probably the most often used HVX resolution. Is it just that he's trying to help the customer the MOST out of the camera, but 24F "will do", or like my original question asks "Is 24F Not Good Enough For A Film Transfer".

[Tony Tibbetts]

Well, I would like to believe that too, but the facts are right there. There's is no technical reason why 24f is an unacceptable format.

None.

Even with reduced resolution I'd rather have 24 progressive frames than trying to extrapolate them from full res 60i. So should people throw out there 720p HD100's to shoot with 1080i cameras? No.

On a timeline in an NLE the DVX 24pa is no different than Canon 24f. So what would be the problem?

Reduced resolution? That doesn't hold water.

There is no good reason for requesting 60i from a Canon that shoots 24f. I can understand requesting 60i from Sony cameras, but not from the Canon's.

Originally Posted by Todd Mattson

Here's the thing - in rereading it, I'm sort of unclear as to what he is saying. It should be made clear as to whether he is point blank saying that 24F is simply unusable for film transfers, or just that 60i might do it (a little) better. That's a considerable distance between the two statements, as Chris pointed out, with 24F, the resolution is STILL better than 720P, which last time I checked that was the Varicam's resolution, and probably the most often used HVX resolution. Is it just that he's trying to help the customer the MOST out of the camera, but 24F "will do", or like my original question asks "Is 24F Not Good Enough For A Film Transfer".

The people at dvfilm should know and understand the types of cameras and formats people will be using in regards to his services.

[Todd Mattson]

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

Well, I would like to believe that too, but the facts are right there. There's is no technical reason why 24f is an unacceptable format.

None.

On a timeline in an NLE the DVX 24pa is no different than Canon 24f. So what would be the problem?

Reduced resolution? That doesn't hold water.

Marcus is wrong. He has no good reason for requesting 60i from a Canon that shoots 24f. I can understand requesting 60i from Sony cameras, but not from the Canon's.

It is confounding. Probably should email Marcus so he can chime in as to his rationale for the why - especially considering that the resolution is higher, even with 24F on, than a HVX or Varicam in most circumstances. It would be interesting to find out what the others are saying. If these cameras are being treated like bastard stepchildren, like the Sonys rightfully deserves, there should be a clear why.

[Chris Hurd]

There's is no technical reason why 24f is an unacceptable format.

Excuse me, but there's no technical reason why 24f is an unacceptable format that we're aware of. There may very well be technical reasons that we are not aware of.

But no matter, because this is the point where a thread gets locked.

I really don't appreciate a technical discussion spilling over into accusations of a personal nature into the ad hominem realm of "ignorance" and "disservice" and "lack of professionalism." Such highly opinionated finger-pointing is simply NOT cool here, and will not be tolerated. I find it thoroughly disgusting in fact.

Marcus van Bavel is a valued, contributing member of DV Info Net, and I would never propose to tell him how to run his business, let alone know the first thing about the technical ins and outs of what he does for a living. Nor will I allow him to be attacked in this way on my forum.

If Marcus cares to respond and submit any input of a technical nature about the topic at hand, I will gladly open it up again and allow his reply... or Andy Young of DuArt for that matter, or anybody else who actually knows what they're talking about with regard to the fine art and science of HD to 35mm film transfer.

Until then, this subject is officially cooked to a crisp.

[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.