higher Res in 24f (& great DOF) at DVinfo.net

John Benton · February 20th, 2006, 01:32 PM

Hello,
a few questions:

- Cannon's 24f lowers the resolution to be about 720, correct?

- This being the case, is it more advisable to shoot 1080i 60, capture to Final Cut, and then conform to 24p (DVCpro HD/...however one goes about it ) in post
to get the maximum amount of resolution? So you have something akin to 1080 24p.

- Or is this process gonna end up loosing res and it will make it more viable to shoot in 24f?
24f and the HVX200 24p are actually quite similar res correct?

Thanks,

Pappas and Barlow have pretty much convinced me to move towards the Canon...just waiting for a few more tests.

BTW : I was getting some fantastic DOF with the standard lens and really I wonder about the need to use a 35mm adapter (to achieve beautiful DOF) with the Canon

Vincent Rozenberg · February 20th, 2006, 01:34 PM

It's 24F and 25F (PAL XLH1's) 1080i.

John Benton · February 20th, 2006, 01:50 PM

Correct Vincent,
I am asking about converting the 1080i 60 to 1080 24 in post...
if it's possible & whether it's more trouble(loss) than it's worth.
Specifically in regards to FCP.
(I will change the first post to reflect this)

Thanks,

Jack Foley · February 20th, 2006, 02:18 PM

If you record to HDV tape:

You will get better resolution if there is no motion in the scene. But as soon as there is any motion, 24F/25F is _much_ better because a non-interlaced stream can be compressed better with MPEG than an interlaced one. Which means that you get less motion artifacts when shooting in an F mode.

For me the 24F/25F modes still have enough resolution and I do care more about better motion capture. But for other people it might be different.

If you record SDI:

It should be better to shoot 50i/60i there and de-interlace with Magic Bullet or another specialized de-interlace software. But do _not_ use the crappy builtin de-interlacers of FCP or PP/Vegas.

Jack

Vincent Rozenberg · February 20th, 2006, 02:38 PM

Maybe I'm totally missing the point but keep in mind as well that re-compressing in Post in any way is not good for your footage as well. So doing things as de-interlaceing in post always degrades the quality.

Barlow Elton · February 20th, 2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Benton

- Cannon's 24f lowers the resolution to be about 720, correct?

Not as far as I can tell. I'm not Adam Wilt, but 24F looks much higher res in 1080 24p than the JVC or Panny.

Quote:

- This being the case, is it more advisable to shoot 1080i 60, capture to Final Cut, and then conform to 24p (DVCpro HD/...however one goes about it ) in post
to get the maximum amount of resolution? So you have something akin to 1080 24p.

Not even worth the hassle. Whatever last tiny bit of resolution you might eke out this way isn't worth the trouble, not to mention the lesser bit rate alloted to each individual frame. MPEG2 isn't as efficient with interlace. The H1 is still very good at 1080i HDV, but if you're making a film I wouldn't create the extra work in post.

Quote:

- Or is this process gonna end up loosing res and it will make it more viable to shoot in 24f?
24f and the HVX200 24p are actually quite similar res correct?

IMHO, I don't think the HVX even comes close to the amount of detail the H1 does with 1080 24p.

You can also get more shallow DOF w/H1 simply because it has more telephoto, but if you're actually looking for that elegant, less compressed (optically) out-of-focus background than an adapter will be just the ticket. If it were me, I think I'd wait on the Cinemek as I'm not a big fan of the mini-35 image. I know guys like Nick can get great results, but I feel like it softens the image a bit too much, and there's all that stuff with the oscillating glass to be watchful of.

Hope that helps a little.

John Benton · February 20th, 2006, 04:02 PM

Thanks you guys,
The 24f I thought was closer in res to the HVX in 24p ( I thought Barry posted this at some point) But since the H1 records 24f @ 1080 then that's brilliant!
I was under the impression that say for filmout - 60i was better(?)
but
If 24f handles motion better - why would you record anything else, unless you wanted that video look?
So far from the footage I have seen the Canon's image is Marvelous !

Yes- I will wait for the Cinemek adapter (plus relay fro the Canon they have said they will make as well)
Buut the Stock lens seems to acheive much of the DOF that I was gonna use a 35mm lens for.
Here's another novice question about lenses though - Canon makes an EF adaptor, why couldn't you just use a 35mm straight on the Canon?
What other lenses are options? I have done a search and really am more confused than ever
Thanks fro your help,
J

Barlow Elton · February 20th, 2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Benton

Thanks you guys,
The 24f I thought was closer in res to the HVX in 24p ( I thought Barry posted this at some point) But since the H1 records 24f @ 1080 then that's brilliant!
I was under the impression that say for filmout - 60i was better(?)
but
If 24f handles motion better - why would you record anything else, unless you wanted that video look?
So far from the footage I have seen the Canon's image is Marvelous !

24F IS 24p to tape, and the motion is absolutely there, with the nice little bonus of gawdy resolution.

Quote:

Yes- I will wait for the Cinemek adapter (plus relay fro the Canon they have said they will make as well)
Buut the Stock lens seems to acheive much of the DOF that I was gonna use a 35mm lens for.
Here's another novice question about lenses though - Canon makes an EF adaptor, why couldn't you just use a 35mm straight on the Canon?
What other lenses are options? I have done a search and really am more confused than ever
Thanks fro your help,
J

The EF adapter has a magnification effect that is meant more for wildlife videography and surveillance. Guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it something like 7x magnification? Not useful for narrative features, I think.

Nick, have any lens advice? Anyone else?

btw, John, if you want I'll send you some frames and clips of some more custom preset tests I've been doing. I'm testing for all sorts of things, including where the CA anomaly shows up most often,(no worries, it's acceptable) and trying different sharpness and color settings. Email me and we'll get in touch.

Nick Hiltgen · February 20th, 2006, 08:14 PM

It would seem like right now there are not too many lens options without using a 35mm esque adapter. the ef adapter is great but like barlow said there's a 7x (at least, maybe 9 in 16x9) multiplication going on so you'll be kind of hindered when it comes to the wider side of things. The 20x stock lens is really good but I hate the forever rotating focus control. In fact actually I hate everything about the 20x lens except for the image quality, there I've said it, I can move on with my life now. Seems like 9 grand should be able to get you some sort of manual esque controls... I mean the JVC does it at 6k right?

In theory the next few months should bring us a wide lens of some sort (maybe manual, who knows) and a deck option as well. But only canon knows for sure.

John Benton · February 20th, 2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

The 20x stock lens is really good but I hate the forever rotating focus control. In facty actually I hate everything about the 20x lens except for the image quality.

Thanks Nick,
I agree about the forever rotating focus ring
Wouldn't a follow focus system help this though?

thanks,
J

Ash Greyson · February 20th, 2006, 10:44 PM

You can set focus and zoom points on the XL lenses... most people who complain about the lens have not bothered to learn how to use it...

ash =o)

Nick Hiltgen · February 20th, 2006, 11:00 PM

I'm a huge fan of follow focuses but to me (and this is only my personal opinion) it seems kinda silly to invest in them for stock lenses.

Now with the add on ring and a chrosziel FF you SHOULD be able to get accurate repeatable focus, but this won't stop the focus ring from perpetually spinning. I'm curious as to what other peoples experiences are.

Nick Hiltgen · February 20th, 2006, 11:01 PM

P.S. ash is right I have never made any attempt to learn anything about the stock lens.

Levan Bakhia · February 22nd, 2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barlow Elton

You can also get more shallow DOF w/H1 simply because it has more telephoto, but if you're actually looking for that elegant, less compressed (optically) out-of-focus background than an adapter will be just the ticket. If it were me, I think I'd wait on the Cinemek as I'm not a big fan of the mini-35 image. I know guys like Nick can get great results, but I feel like it softens the image a bit too much, and there's all that stuff with the oscillating glass to be watchful of.

Hope that helps a little.

How is Cinemek adapter different from mini35? sorry if this is silly question.

Jack Foley · February 22nd, 2006, 01:19 PM

P+S Technik Mini 35 Digital Image Converter Series 400 Base Unit
$ 7,455

Nikon mount
$ 375

Canon XL1/XL1S/XL2/XL H1 Camera Adapter
$ 2,500

vs.

Cinemek G35
$ 999

Nikon mount
$ 150

XL mount
$ 150

or better, Relay lense
$ unknown

So, first the G35 is 1/10 of the cost of the mini35. But the real argument for the G35 is the footage. Look at the footage on the Cinemek homepage or look at http://hvx200.com/scifest/macgregor-...gor-similo.wmv (46MB)

Only backdraft of the G35 is that it is not available yet and that it will be a few months till the relay lense for the XL H1 will be out.

But for me it is worth the wait.

February 20th, 2006, 01:32 PM	#1
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	higher Res in 24f (& great DOF) Hello, a few questions: - Cannon's 24f lowers the resolution to be about 720, correct? - This being the case, is it more advisable to shoot 1080i 60, capture to Final Cut, and then conform to 24p (DVCpro HD/...however one goes about it ) in post to get the maximum amount of resolution? So you have something akin to 1080 24p. - Or is this process gonna end up loosing res and it will make it more viable to shoot in 24f? 24f and the HVX200 24p are actually quite similar res correct? Thanks, Pappas and Barlow have pretty much convinced me to move towards the Canon...just waiting for a few more tests. BTW : I was getting some fantastic DOF with the standard lens and really I wonder about the need to use a 35mm adapter (to achieve beautiful DOF) with the Canon

February 20th, 2006, 08:14 PM	#9
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	It would seem like right now there are not too many lens options without using a 35mm esque adapter. the ef adapter is great but like barlow said there's a 7x (at least, maybe 9 in 16x9) multiplication going on so you'll be kind of hindered when it comes to the wider side of things. The 20x stock lens is really good but I hate the forever rotating focus control. In fact actually I hate everything about the 20x lens except for the image quality, there I've said it, I can move on with my life now. Seems like 9 grand should be able to get you some sort of manual esque controls... I mean the JVC does it at 6k right? In theory the next few months should bring us a wide lens of some sort (maybe manual, who knows) and a deck option as well. But only canon knows for sure. __________________ I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome... Last edited by Nick Hiltgen; February 20th, 2006 at 11:02 PM.

February 20th, 2006, 11:00 PM	#12
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	I'm a huge fan of follow focuses but to me (and this is only my personal opinion) it seems kinda silly to invest in them for stock lenses. Now with the add on ring and a chrosziel FF you SHOULD be able to get accurate repeatable focus, but this won't stop the focus ring from perpetually spinning. I'm curious as to what other peoples experiences are. __________________ I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome...

February 20th, 2006, 11:01 PM	#13
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	P.S. ash is right I have never made any attempt to learn anything about the stock lens. __________________ I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome...

February 22nd, 2006, 01:19 PM	#15
Jack Foley Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 42	Mini35 vs Cinemek P+S Technik Mini 35 Digital Image Converter Series 400 Base Unit $ 7,455 Nikon mount $ 375 Canon XL1/XL1S/XL2/XL H1 Camera Adapter $ 2,500 vs. Cinemek G35 $ 999 Nikon mount $ 150 XL mount $ 150 or better, Relay lense $ unknown So, first the G35 is 1/10 of the cost of the mini35. But the real argument for the G35 is the footage. Look at the footage on the Cinemek homepage or look at http://hvx200.com/scifest/macgregor-...gor-similo.wmv (46MB) Only backdraft of the G35 is that it is not available yet and that it will be a few months till the relay lense for the XL H1 will be out. But for me it is worth the wait.

February 20th, 2006, 01:34 PM	#2
Vincent Rozenberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 475	It's 24F and 25F (PAL XLH1's) 1080i.

February 20th, 2006, 01:50 PM	#3
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	Correct Vincent, I am asking about converting the 1080i 60 to 1080 24 in post... if it's possible & whether it's more trouble(loss) than it's worth. Specifically in regards to FCP. (I will change the first post to reflect this) Thanks,

February 20th, 2006, 02:18 PM	#4
Jack Foley Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 42	If you record to HDV tape: You will get better resolution if there is no motion in the scene. But as soon as there is any motion, 24F/25F is _much_ better because a non-interlaced stream can be compressed better with MPEG than an interlaced one. Which means that you get less motion artifacts when shooting in an F mode. For me the 24F/25F modes still have enough resolution and I do care more about better motion capture. But for other people it might be different. If you record SDI: It should be better to shoot 50i/60i there and de-interlace with Magic Bullet or another specialized de-interlace software. But do _not_ use the crappy builtin de-interlacers of FCP or PP/Vegas. Jack

February 20th, 2006, 02:38 PM	#5
Vincent Rozenberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 475	Maybe I'm totally missing the point but keep in mind as well that re-compressing in Post in any way is not good for your footage as well. So doing things as de-interlaceing in post always degrades the quality.

February 20th, 2006, 04:02 PM	#7
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	Thanks you guys, The 24f I thought was closer in res to the HVX in 24p ( I thought Barry posted this at some point) But since the H1 records 24f @ 1080 then that's brilliant! I was under the impression that say for filmout - 60i was better(?) but If 24f handles motion better - why would you record anything else, unless you wanted that video look? So far from the footage I have seen the Canon's image is Marvelous ! Yes- I will wait for the Cinemek adapter (plus relay fro the Canon they have said they will make as well) Buut the Stock lens seems to acheive much of the DOF that I was gonna use a 35mm lens for. Here's another novice question about lenses though - Canon makes an EF adaptor, why couldn't you just use a 35mm straight on the Canon? What other lenses are options? I have done a search and really am more confused than ever Thanks fro your help, J

February 20th, 2006, 10:44 PM	#11
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	You can set focus and zoom points on the XL lenses... most people who complain about the lens have not bothered to learn how to use it... ash =o)