2:3 or 2:3:3:2 for movie?

Aaron Shaw · September 28th, 2004, 07:58 AM

Darn. That would stink :(

Thanks for the info David

Kevin Gilvear · October 14th, 2004, 04:21 PM

Would it really matter in the end? I mean could you still transfer to film using either 2:3 or 2:3:3:2? and if so would one be slightly less quality then the other?

I'm still looking into this so haven't made a personal decision yet. I think 24p 2:3:3:2 wide sounds good but I am also thinking of playing with frame speeds for a particular look, that would mean I couldn't stick with 24p right? and then I would have a difficult time in editing?

Sorry if that sounded confusing

thanks

Barry Green · October 14th, 2004, 06:43 PM

With two years' experience on this subject on the DVX, let me offer some comment:

If you're intending on doing a film transfer, shoot 2:3:3:2 and edit in a 24P-aware application (such as Sony Vegas). Shooting 2:3 would unnecessarily limit quality.

If you're not going to film, then it all depends on how you're going to edit. If you're editing on a 60i timeline, use 2:3. If you're editing on a 24P timeline, use 2:3:3:2.

Yes you could edit 2:3 on a 24P timeline, and yes it would work, but there would be a minor quality hit that you would take, unnecessarily.

2:3:3:2 can be reconstituted into the original 24P frames without loss. 2:3 requires an uncompress and recombining of fields. But further, the DV compression algorithm has two ways it can encode frames: either field-based, or frame-based. If it detects a lot of interfield motion it'll use the field-based compression, but if it doesn't detect much difference it'll use the more efficient frame-based algorithm. 2:3:3:2 allows it to use frame-based for all the frames. 2:3 involves having to use field-based compression for 3 out of every 5 frames. So 2:3:3:2 can be reconstituted to 24P with no loss and can take advantage of frame-based compression.

Shoot 2:3:3:2 for film transfers. Shoot 2:3 when editing in a 60i timeline, and 2:3:3:2 when editing in a 24P timeline.

Kevin Gilvear · October 23rd, 2004, 02:18 PM

How do I find the 2:3:2:3 drop down? I can switch to 16x9 and shoot at 24p but can't find the pull down thing. Am I being silly or is it done in editing? I can't find anything in the manual.

David Lach · October 23rd, 2004, 03:53 PM

the 2:3:3:2 option is in the XL2 menu. Go to Camera Setup/24p mode select/3:2 or 2:3:3:2

Kevin Gilvear · November 20th, 2004, 10:13 AM

i'm realyy sorry but i can't find it. in camera setup i have:

zebra
skin d set
zoom handle
f speed pset
clear scan
self timer
interval t
int rec time

Matthew Cherry · November 20th, 2004, 11:52 AM

What about when shooting for digital projection. I'm working on something now that I would like to see digitally projected, and have a space where that could be possible. However, I wouldn't blow this up to film. Does it make a difference then?

Matt

Sid Tran · November 20th, 2004, 01:02 PM

Kevin - It should be the very first option in camera setup.

Kevin Gilvear · November 20th, 2004, 01:17 PM

does a pal xl2 even have it? I'm feeling a bit stupid if so. I'll have another look, thanks. I'll post back if I still have trouble

Kevin Gilvear · November 20th, 2004, 01:42 PM

the first option in menu is time code. next is camera set up which has the things i listed. this is worrying now, i don't get it :/

Barry Green · November 20th, 2004, 02:22 PM

A PAL XL2 should not have any options for pulldown. The 2:3 and 2:3:3:2 pulldown options are strictly for the NTSC camera. PAL cameras shoot at 25p and record that directly to a PAL video stream, no pulldown necessary.

Kevin Gilvear · November 20th, 2004, 02:43 PM

Thankyou Barry :)

So it is automatically preset for PAL? All I need to worry about is that it is set to 16:9

David Lach · November 20th, 2004, 11:27 PM

Barry's right, I didn't realize at the time I was answering to a UK user. Yes PAL models won't have the option. 50i = 25p x2. No weird pull down needed. Every progressive frame comes from exactly 2 interlaced fields.

Kevin Gilvear · November 21st, 2004, 03:47 AM

Well my amateur status clearly shows :D

I've learned quite a bit now from you guys so I hope my first test pieces turn out nice.

Douglas Robbins · November 23rd, 2004, 08:30 PM

I second the digital projection question.

This is a great discussion. Does the fact that you intend to project digitally (an probably not transfer to film) change, what appears to be, the general preference for 3:2:2:3?

Douglas

November 23rd, 2004, 08:30 PM	#30
Douglas Robbins Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: san bruno, ca Posts: 60	Digital Projection I second the digital projection question. This is a great discussion. Does the fact that you intend to project digitally (an probably not transfer to film) change, what appears to be, the general preference for 3:2:2:3? Douglas

September 28th, 2004, 07:58 AM	#16
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Darn. That would stink :( Thanks for the info David

October 14th, 2004, 04:21 PM	#17
Kevin Gilvear Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 126	Would it really matter in the end? I mean could you still transfer to film using either 2:3 or 2:3:3:2? and if so would one be slightly less quality then the other? I'm still looking into this so haven't made a personal decision yet. I think 24p 2:3:3:2 wide sounds good but I am also thinking of playing with frame speeds for a particular look, that would mean I couldn't stick with 24p right? and then I would have a difficult time in editing? Sorry if that sounded confusing thanks

October 14th, 2004, 06:43 PM	#18
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	With two years' experience on this subject on the DVX, let me offer some comment: If you're intending on doing a film transfer, shoot 2:3:3:2 and edit in a 24P-aware application (such as Sony Vegas). Shooting 2:3 would unnecessarily limit quality. If you're not going to film, then it all depends on how you're going to edit. If you're editing on a 60i timeline, use 2:3. If you're editing on a 24P timeline, use 2:3:3:2. Yes you could edit 2:3 on a 24P timeline, and yes it would work, but there would be a minor quality hit that you would take, unnecessarily. 2:3:3:2 can be reconstituted into the original 24P frames without loss. 2:3 requires an uncompress and recombining of fields. But further, the DV compression algorithm has two ways it can encode frames: either field-based, or frame-based. If it detects a lot of interfield motion it'll use the field-based compression, but if it doesn't detect much difference it'll use the more efficient frame-based algorithm. 2:3:3:2 allows it to use frame-based for all the frames. 2:3 involves having to use field-based compression for 3 out of every 5 frames. So 2:3:3:2 can be reconstituted to 24P with no loss and can take advantage of frame-based compression. Shoot 2:3:3:2 for film transfers. Shoot 2:3 when editing in a 60i timeline, and 2:3:3:2 when editing in a 24P timeline.

October 23rd, 2004, 02:18 PM	#19
Kevin Gilvear Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 126	How do I find the 2:3:2:3 drop down? I can switch to 16x9 and shoot at 24p but can't find the pull down thing. Am I being silly or is it done in editing? I can't find anything in the manual.

October 23rd, 2004, 03:53 PM	#20
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	the 2:3:3:2 option is in the XL2 menu. Go to Camera Setup/24p mode select/3:2 or 2:3:3:2

November 20th, 2004, 10:13 AM	#21
Kevin Gilvear Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 126	i'm realyy sorry but i can't find it. in camera setup i have: zebra skin d set zoom handle f speed pset clear scan self timer interval t int rec time

November 20th, 2004, 11:52 AM	#22
Matthew Cherry Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Stamford, CT United States Posts: 212	What about when shooting for digital projection. I'm working on something now that I would like to see digitally projected, and have a space where that could be possible. However, I wouldn't blow this up to film. Does it make a difference then? Matt

November 20th, 2004, 01:02 PM	#23
Sid Tran Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA / USA Posts: 33	Kevin - It should be the very first option in camera setup.

November 20th, 2004, 01:17 PM	#24
Kevin Gilvear Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 126	does a pal xl2 even have it? I'm feeling a bit stupid if so. I'll have another look, thanks. I'll post back if I still have trouble

November 20th, 2004, 01:42 PM	#25
Kevin Gilvear Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 126	the first option in menu is time code. next is camera set up which has the things i listed. this is worrying now, i don't get it :/

November 20th, 2004, 02:22 PM	#26
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	A PAL XL2 should not have any options for pulldown. The 2:3 and 2:3:3:2 pulldown options are strictly for the NTSC camera. PAL cameras shoot at 25p and record that directly to a PAL video stream, no pulldown necessary.

November 20th, 2004, 02:43 PM	#27
Kevin Gilvear Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 126	Thankyou Barry :) So it is automatically preset for PAL? All I need to worry about is that it is set to 16:9

November 20th, 2004, 11:27 PM	#28
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	Barry's right, I didn't realize at the time I was answering to a UK user. Yes PAL models won't have the option. 50i = 25p x2. No weird pull down needed. Every progressive frame comes from exactly 2 interlaced fields.

November 21st, 2004, 03:47 AM	#29
Kevin Gilvear Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 126	Well my amateur status clearly shows :D I've learned quite a bit now from you guys so I hope my first test pieces turn out nice.