Any HD100U shorts yet

Tom Lowe · October 18th, 2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

Twixtor is amazing, but there is rendering involved, and it still doesn't capture the nuances of motion captured by overcranking.

What is Twixtor?

Tim Dashwood · October 18th, 2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Lowe

What is Twixtor?

http://www.revisionfx.com/rstwixtor.htm

Ian E. Pearson · October 18th, 2005, 07:52 PM

cant you capture 720 60p from the component out? I thought that was possible maybe I'm wrong.

Joseph H. Moore · October 18th, 2005, 08:29 PM

The stream is indeed 60p, but it is made up of at most 30 actual frames (in that case, each one recorded twice.)

Nate Weaver · October 18th, 2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

The stream is indeed 60p, but it is made up of at most 30 actual frames (in that case, each one recorded twice.)

No. When shooting in 30/60 mode, the component outs are 60fps. Only 30fps gets recorded to tape, however

Ken Hodson · October 18th, 2005, 09:46 PM

I don't think people should dismiss the 60p SD mode. It is true widescreen SD not DV which has a lower effective pixel count. It up rez's very well to 720p and gives you some options in post. Including further slo-mo with software. While software can do a nice job for 720p, it does take quite a bit of rendering and isn't perfect.
I use this 480p60 mode often on the HD10, and after we output to DVD no one can tell that some shots were done at a lower rez. I have been asked how I got such a sweet slo-mo though ;>)

Ian E. Pearson · October 18th, 2005, 09:47 PM

The "SilverOak" device (described in another thread) is gonna be awesome for this very purpose if it can capture that 60p without a huge video village or laptop or whatever. It will also be great for fx because of the better colorspace.

Joseph H. Moore · October 19th, 2005, 07:32 AM

Thanks for the correction ... I didn't read carefully enough to catch the "component out" part of the question.

And sure, if the end-product is a DVD then you should have no concerns about shooting SD for slow-mo. My mind is "film, film, film" so the loss of spacial rez would be unacceptable.

Ken Hodson · October 19th, 2005, 12:40 PM

There are certain techniques, such as up-rezing and sharpening, that will help to bring the footage up to very close to 720p image wise.
Even if your mind is "film, film, film" you must comprehend that many features have made it to the big screen that used DV (340,000 effective pixels) while the HD100 offers true wide screen SD (460,000 effective pixels) @60p. Of course the HD100 does have DV mode as well but you wouldn't use it unless a project had to use that codec.

Joseph H. Moore · October 19th, 2005, 01:02 PM

Well, again, we are much more attuned to spacial rez than temporal rez ... that's why are brains are willing to be tricked into processing 24P as a moving image.

I know DP's like to do everything possible in camera, but given the choice between more pixels and less frames, I'll pick more pixels almost every time. It sucks to have to pick, but since we do, it's easier to fool the eye with interpolated slo-mo than it is to manufacturer pixels.

P.S. The claim that "many" films have been shot at SD is a bit disingenuous since any notable example does not even come close to looking like it is film. (Blair Witch, 28 Days, whatever.) They look like DV, and were shot with that in mind. Nobody tried to pass them off as anything other than what they are.

Dave Ferdinand · October 19th, 2005, 01:36 PM

About the slomo shots in SD... some of The Matrix bullet-time sequences were shot using dozens of PD150s, so I don't see any problem there.

I'm sure there will be plenty of other things you'll have to worry more about in your prodution then the fact your 5 seconds of slomo are 480p60.

Tom Lowe · October 20th, 2005, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

About the slomo shots in SD... some of The Matrix bullet-time sequences were shot using dozens of PD150s, so I don't see any problem there.

I'm sure there will be plenty of other things you'll have to worry more about in your prodution then the fact your 5 seconds of slomo are 480p60.

I thought these were filmed with still cameras?

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.co...lls_popup4.jpg

Yeah, I am concerned about downconverting the slo-mo, because I want a picture that matches, all in HD, in case the movie gets picked up for distribution (35mm blow up) and for HD-DVDs.

Joseph H. Moore · October 20th, 2005, 09:47 AM

I might not remember exactly how the "bullet-time" effect was created for the first installment, but I know for a fact that the later installments used hi-res digital cameras (still) for those shots.

I highly doubt that an SD camera was used for anything other than pre-viz, or maybe as highly manipulated raw material to fill in tiny gaps ... but it's been a long time since I read up on it, so I can't speak definitively.

All I'm suggesting is use your common sense. If the human brain will accept a crappy frame rate of 24 fps as "motion" but we need 35mm resolution to project height and width, then it is obvious that the spacial rez is more important than the temporal. This is just a fact.

So if you have to fudge something, more often than not it would be the slo-mo, and like I've said, there's some pretty incredible post solutions for doing just that.

Ken Hodson · October 20th, 2005, 12:39 PM

And there is some pretty incredible post solutions for up-rezing.
Few if any casual movie go'ers have a clue that Open Water, 28 days or Jackass the movie were DV/SD based. The studio's have some amazing kit when it comes to processing low rez footage. All did very well box-office wise. You wil notice that most slo-mo is usually very soft, but recently the Matix films and others such as Swordfish have given us the ultra sharp SFX slo-mo. Do not believe you will achieve such effect from 720p24 with software slo-mo. Not going to happen!

Higher rez and higher framerate. Both have their advantages. Here is the conundrum. You shoot at 720p24. You double that in post to 48fps. That is only a 50% slo-mo. The software should be able to handle it reasonably well. But, it's not that slow, and it will be softer. Now if you want to go slower, lets say 5X to 120fps, you will have a very soft image that will be prone to artifacts. At this point I would claim that SD60p up-rezed/sharpened then doubled only 2X to 120fps would give you a much cleaner image.
There is no "easy road" as both solutions require post software knowledge. Although SDp60 does 50% slo-mo right out of the box and it looks pretty sweet.

Stephen L. Noe · October 20th, 2005, 01:37 PM

The 480p60 looks really good and is the same as a 50% time warp on the footage. The difference is that it is ultra smooth compaired to an NLE timewarp. With the footage already slowed down to half time in the camera you can get away with murder in your NLE because a 50% timewarp on already half speed video net's you 25% of actual real life shot speed. That is painfully slow.

October 18th, 2005, 07:52 PM	#18
Ian E. Pearson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Greeley, CO Posts: 52	720 60p cant you capture 720 60p from the component out? I thought that was possible maybe I'm wrong.

October 18th, 2005, 09:46 PM	#21
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	I don't think people should dismiss the 60p SD mode. It is true widescreen SD not DV which has a lower effective pixel count. It up rez's very well to 720p and gives you some options in post. Including further slo-mo with software. While software can do a nice job for 720p, it does take quite a bit of rendering and isn't perfect. I use this 480p60 mode often on the HD10, and after we output to DVD no one can tell that some shots were done at a lower rez. I have been asked how I got such a sweet slo-mo though ;>) __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 18th, 2005, 09:47 PM	#22
Ian E. Pearson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Greeley, CO Posts: 52	SilverOak The "SilverOak" device (described in another thread) is gonna be awesome for this very purpose if it can capture that 60p without a huge video village or laptop or whatever. It will also be great for fx because of the better colorspace.

October 19th, 2005, 12:40 PM	#24
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	There are certain techniques, such as up-rezing and sharpening, that will help to bring the footage up to very close to 720p image wise. Even if your mind is "film, film, film" you must comprehend that many features have made it to the big screen that used DV (340,000 effective pixels) while the HD100 offers true wide screen SD (460,000 effective pixels) @60p. Of course the HD100 does have DV mode as well but you wouldn't use it unless a project had to use that codec. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 19th, 2005, 01:36 PM	#26
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	About the slomo shots in SD... some of The Matrix bullet-time sequences were shot using dozens of PD150s, so I don't see any problem there. I'm sure there will be plenty of other things you'll have to worry more about in your prodution then the fact your 5 seconds of slomo are 480p60. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

October 18th, 2005, 08:29 PM	#19
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	The stream is indeed 60p, but it is made up of at most 30 actual frames (in that case, each one recorded twice.)

October 19th, 2005, 07:32 AM	#23
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Thanks for the correction ... I didn't read carefully enough to catch the "component out" part of the question. And sure, if the end-product is a DVD then you should have no concerns about shooting SD for slow-mo. My mind is "film, film, film" so the loss of spacial rez would be unacceptable.

October 19th, 2005, 01:02 PM	#25
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Well, again, we are much more attuned to spacial rez than temporal rez ... that's why are brains are willing to be tricked into processing 24P as a moving image. I know DP's like to do everything possible in camera, but given the choice between more pixels and less frames, I'll pick more pixels almost every time. It sucks to have to pick, but since we do, it's easier to fool the eye with interpolated slo-mo than it is to manufacturer pixels. P.S. The claim that "many" films have been shot at SD is a bit disingenuous since any notable example does not even come close to looking like it is film. (Blair Witch, 28 Days, whatever.) They look like DV, and were shot with that in mind. Nobody tried to pass them off as anything other than what they are.

October 20th, 2005, 09:47 AM	#28
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	I might not remember exactly how the "bullet-time" effect was created for the first installment, but I know for a fact that the later installments used hi-res digital cameras (still) for those shots. I highly doubt that an SD camera was used for anything other than pre-viz, or maybe as highly manipulated raw material to fill in tiny gaps ... but it's been a long time since I read up on it, so I can't speak definitively. All I'm suggesting is use your common sense. If the human brain will accept a crappy frame rate of 24 fps as "motion" but we need 35mm resolution to project height and width, then it is obvious that the spacial rez is more important than the temporal. This is just a fact. So if you have to fudge something, more often than not it would be the slo-mo, and like I've said, there's some pretty incredible post solutions for doing just that.

October 20th, 2005, 12:39 PM	#29
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	And there is some pretty incredible post solutions for up-rezing. Few if any casual movie go'ers have a clue that Open Water, 28 days or Jackass the movie were DV/SD based. The studio's have some amazing kit when it comes to processing low rez footage. All did very well box-office wise. You wil notice that most slo-mo is usually very soft, but recently the Matix films and others such as Swordfish have given us the ultra sharp SFX slo-mo. Do not believe you will achieve such effect from 720p24 with software slo-mo. Not going to happen! Higher rez and higher framerate. Both have their advantages. Here is the conundrum. You shoot at 720p24. You double that in post to 48fps. That is only a 50% slo-mo. The software should be able to handle it reasonably well. But, it's not that slow, and it will be softer. Now if you want to go slower, lets say 5X to 120fps, you will have a very soft image that will be prone to artifacts. At this point I would claim that SD60p up-rezed/sharpened then doubled only 2X to 120fps would give you a much cleaner image. There is no "easy road" as both solutions require post software knowledge. Although SDp60 does 50% slo-mo right out of the box and it looks pretty sweet. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 20th, 2005, 01:37 PM	#30
Stephen L. Noe Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,214	The 480p60 looks really good and is the same as a 50% time warp on the footage. The difference is that it is ultra smooth compaired to an NLE timewarp. With the footage already slowed down to half time in the camera you can get away with murder in your NLE because a 50% timewarp on already half speed video net's you 25% of actual real life shot speed. That is painfully slow.