Jumpy Pan Shots w/XL2

Chris Soucy · August 22nd, 2007, 03:34 AM

OK, even that last post came across negative on re - read (seriously not my intent). Let's try again!

Steve, do this for yourself. Tape the same sequence, whatever it is, at both 30p/f and at 60i. Fiddle, twiddle and whatever, and upload both, and see which one YOU think is the better (visual) version of the story you are trying to tell.

At the end of the day, you are trying to tell a story to people who don't know you, or your message, from a bar of soap. What they see is what they know. The story is the message. Get it across, you've won. Fail, obviously, you've lost.

IMHO it is totally irrelevant what format you shoot it in as long as the content and presentation come up to scratch - lest the former does, indeed, cause them to hurf into the CF's!

CS

Dale Guthormsen · August 22nd, 2007, 03:54 PM

Chris,

I would appreciate it if you could be a little more detailed about the specifics that , "don't cut it." when you use progressive. I find this really interesting because I shoot about 98% in progressive.

I am not trying to be argumentive!! I want to KNOW more about your perspective in relation to the actual physics and aesthetics of video imaging and the imagery you require.

For interest here is some of my perspective:

When I started video I did not expect video to look like film!! You know, video is video, film is film. I grew up shooting film of course ( I am 57 and just starting the second half of my life) and was making the step into the modern world.

As I started shooting I moved from my gl2 to the xl2 ( I love both). As I learned to use the presets I slowly tweeked my settings until they give me the closest appearance to what I see with my own eyes (and yes i see 20 20)

As it turns out, I shoot with a modified Technicolour preset shooting in 30p at 1/60th of a second as much as possible.

I shoot events on a professional level and wildlife as my amateur passion. In all regards I have found these to appear as close to how I would actually perceive them from my own eyes.

While I made no intention of trying to emulate film, but as it turns out that is actually what i did. Perhaps because that is what I grew up with, perhaps because that is what looks closest to real life to me.

My biggest issue with 60i is the flicker effect I get when filming fast movement. The only way I can make it right is to shoot in 30 P.

I Have come slowly to understand that it is not so much the exact clearity of a picture that is important (I am not refgering to focus), but rather more what the mind perceives.

Of course my mind may be totally screwed up, and my wife might agree with that assessment!!

Chris Soucy · August 23rd, 2007, 03:20 AM

Sorry it's taken a bit of time but, hey.....

No argument implied or taken.

My perspective... well, sounds like I'm a bit more of a novice than yourself (tho' we'd probably be pretty close in the thinning hair stakes).

When I first got the XH A1 I tried all sorts of tests to determine just what "P (f)" was all about. I shot scenes with "I" and the same scene with "P". I fiddled and fiddled and came to the conclusion - yep, "P" was sharper but jumpier, "I" was softer but smoother (hey, take this in context - I ain't been in a cinema in over 25 years!, sad but true, so everything I've watched has been "I").

So (as you're a wildlife bod too) I put it to the test - shoot fast moving, totally unpredictable whatevers requiring fast camera movements, quick pans etc. Every time I compared the two I came back to : P is sharper but stutters, I is softer but smoother.

I tried getting the best of both worlds: Shoot "P" for the long slow establishing shots of scenery etc and intercut it with "I" for the action. Both made the other look "odd" as they flipped back and forth from one to the other.

OK, so if you can't have both, I had to pick one. Given that most (if not all) of my "projects" are 70% (ish) wildlife and pretty quick wildlife at that, it had to be "I".

Does the video suffer from it? Well, not according to those who watch it.

Will I ever get my head around "P(F)"? If there was a switch on the camera labeled "50P" I'd use it in a flash, but would have to admit that the other "100I" option would get a pretty fair going over as well.

I am interested in your comment regarding "flicker" in your 60I on fast moving targets - my perception is that it is the other way round.

I suppose it's quite possible that 3+ decades of "I" innebriation have programmed my brain to assume that "I" is the "real" thing (not having anything apart from reality to duplicate "P" - tho' I do have my doubts that the human eye/ brain system actually "sees" in either).

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (not that I'm disagreeing with you - you haven't said anything to disagree with!).

Going back to Steves little problem, on second and third viewing I am not convinced there isn't something else going on with the posted video - the "stutter" seems so gross it's almost like there are complete groups of frames missing, I've seen mine jump, but never that much.

What do you think? Can you make your "P" look like that? I couldn't get "I" to do that in a fit.

CS

Steve Jakubowski · October 22nd, 2007, 01:07 AM

Its been a couple of months now and I have aquired a Canon XHA1 with a glidecam 2000. It is a major improvement but I 'm sure it will take alot more practice before I get the results I desire.

I still have the same problem, although on a much smaller scale. The source footage is nice and smooth however when I encode to .flv it gets this jerky/choppy hessitation to it every second or so. I have tried a zillion different compression formats to get rid of it. The H264 is the only one that seemed to get the smooth motion back but I use Brightcove and they just turn it back into .flv.

Any suggestions?

http://www.reil.tv

August 22nd, 2007, 03:34 AM	#16
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,689 Images: 18	Reset........... OK, even that last post came across negative on re - read (seriously not my intent). Let's try again! Steve, do this for yourself. Tape the same sequence, whatever it is, at both 30p/f and at 60i. Fiddle, twiddle and whatever, and upload both, and see which one YOU think is the better (visual) version of the story you are trying to tell. At the end of the day, you are trying to tell a story to people who don't know you, or your message, from a bar of soap. What they see is what they know. The story is the message. Get it across, you've won. Fail, obviously, you've lost. IMHO it is totally irrelevant what format you shoot it in as long as the content and presentation come up to scratch - lest the former does, indeed, cause them to hurf into the CF's! CS

August 22nd, 2007, 03:54 PM	#17
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	60i 30 P Chris, I would appreciate it if you could be a little more detailed about the specifics that , "don't cut it." when you use progressive. I find this really interesting because I shoot about 98% in progressive. I am not trying to be argumentive!! I want to KNOW more about your perspective in relation to the actual physics and aesthetics of video imaging and the imagery you require. For interest here is some of my perspective: When I started video I did not expect video to look like film!! You know, video is video, film is film. I grew up shooting film of course ( I am 57 and just starting the second half of my life) and was making the step into the modern world. As I started shooting I moved from my gl2 to the xl2 ( I love both). As I learned to use the presets I slowly tweeked my settings until they give me the closest appearance to what I see with my own eyes (and yes i see 20 20) As it turns out, I shoot with a modified Technicolour preset shooting in 30p at 1/60th of a second as much as possible. I shoot events on a professional level and wildlife as my amateur passion. In all regards I have found these to appear as close to how I would actually perceive them from my own eyes. While I made no intention of trying to emulate film, but as it turns out that is actually what i did. Perhaps because that is what I grew up with, perhaps because that is what looks closest to real life to me. My biggest issue with 60i is the flicker effect I get when filming fast movement. The only way I can make it right is to shoot in 30 P. I Have come slowly to understand that it is not so much the exact clearity of a picture that is important (I am not refgering to focus), but rather more what the mind perceives. Of course my mind may be totally screwed up, and my wife might agree with that assessment!! __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

August 23rd, 2007, 03:20 AM	#18
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,689 Images: 18	Hi Dale............ Sorry it's taken a bit of time but, hey..... No argument implied or taken. My perspective... well, sounds like I'm a bit more of a novice than yourself (tho' we'd probably be pretty close in the thinning hair stakes). When I first got the XH A1 I tried all sorts of tests to determine just what "P (f)" was all about. I shot scenes with "I" and the same scene with "P". I fiddled and fiddled and came to the conclusion - yep, "P" was sharper but jumpier, "I" was softer but smoother (hey, take this in context - I ain't been in a cinema in over 25 years!, sad but true, so everything I've watched has been "I"). So (as you're a wildlife bod too) I put it to the test - shoot fast moving, totally unpredictable whatevers requiring fast camera movements, quick pans etc. Every time I compared the two I came back to : P is sharper but stutters, I is softer but smoother. I tried getting the best of both worlds: Shoot "P" for the long slow establishing shots of scenery etc and intercut it with "I" for the action. Both made the other look "odd" as they flipped back and forth from one to the other. OK, so if you can't have both, I had to pick one. Given that most (if not all) of my "projects" are 70% (ish) wildlife and pretty quick wildlife at that, it had to be "I". Does the video suffer from it? Well, not according to those who watch it. Will I ever get my head around "P(F)"? If there was a switch on the camera labeled "50P" I'd use it in a flash, but would have to admit that the other "100I" option would get a pretty fair going over as well. I am interested in your comment regarding "flicker" in your 60I on fast moving targets - my perception is that it is the other way round. I suppose it's quite possible that 3+ decades of "I" innebriation have programmed my brain to assume that "I" is the "real" thing (not having anything apart from reality to duplicate "P" - tho' I do have my doubts that the human eye/ brain system actually "sees" in either). Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (not that I'm disagreeing with you - you haven't said anything to disagree with!). Going back to Steves little problem, on second and third viewing I am not convinced there isn't something else going on with the posted video - the "stutter" seems so gross it's almost like there are complete groups of frames missing, I've seen mine jump, but never that much. What do you think? Can you make your "P" look like that? I couldn't get "I" to do that in a fit. CS

October 22nd, 2007, 01:07 AM	#19
Steve Jakubowski New Boot Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 16	Take 2 Its been a couple of months now and I have aquired a Canon XHA1 with a glidecam 2000. It is a major improvement but I 'm sure it will take alot more practice before I get the results I desire. I still have the same problem, although on a much smaller scale. The source footage is nice and smooth however when I encode to .flv it gets this jerky/choppy hessitation to it every second or so. I have tried a zillion different compression formats to get rid of it. The H264 is the only one that seemed to get the smooth motion back but I use Brightcove and they just turn it back into .flv. Any suggestions? http://www.reil.tv