Different frame rates and sizes for the EX1?

[Dominik Seibold]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I am not letterboxing anything.

I'm not a clairvoyant, so I don't know what exactly your authoring-software is doing with your files. Perhaps it converts your square 720x405 pixels to non-square widescreen ones with a sub-optimal scaling-algorithm. I don't know.
I only can ensure you that you can't get the best possible quality if you're starting off with 720x405, though the optimal size (= the native size on dvd) is 720x480.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Dominik Seibold

I'm not a clairvoyant, so I don't know what exactly your authoring-software is doing with your files. Perhaps it converts your square 720x405 pixels to non-square widescreen with a sub-optimal scaling-algorithm. I don't know.

LOL! So either I am a fool, or my software is faulty. :)


I only can ensure you that you can't get the best quality if you're starting off with 720x405, though the optimal size (= the native size on dvd) is 720x480.[/QUOTE]

You can't ensure me anything, because you don't know my source material. Suppose my source is native 2.39:1. Or 2:1 coming off RED.

However, You may be entirely correct that if trying to convert native 16:9 footage to DVD, using the full frame with a widescreen flag is the best way to present the material, without letterboxing.

[Dominik Seibold]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

You can't ensure me anything, because you don't know my source material. Suppose my source is native 2.39:1. Or 2:1 coming off RED.

However, You may be entirely correct that if trying to convert native 16:9 footage to DVD, using the full frame with a widescreen flag is the best way to present the material, without letterboxing.

I think we are agreed. :)
I wrongly assumed that you're working with 16:9-footage.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Dominik Seibold

I think we are agreed. :)
I wrongly assumed that you're working with 16:9-footage.

Usually I am, sometimes I am not. But anyone reading this needs to understand that what is "optimal' is greatly dependent on the source material. Someone coming to the table with 4:3 source material, or 2:1 would need to modify their numbers.

[Dominik Seibold]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Usually I am, sometimes I am not. But anyone reading this needs to understand that what is "optimal' is greatly dependent on the source material. Someone coming to the table with 4:3 source material, or 2:1 would need to modify their numbers.

I would recommend that optimal is to minimize dead pixels. So for 2.35:1 choose the 16:9 "container". For 5:4 choose 4:3. And so on...

[Nick Stone]

Some good advice posted here thanks,

Sverker I will try your setting once more.

Perrone would you mind sharing what software tools you use?

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Nick Stone

Perrone would you mind sharing what software tools you use?

NLE: Sony Vegas
DVD Authoring: DVD Architect
Outside Tools: Virtualdub with various filters

[Nick Stone]

Thanks Perrone,
Are you using Veags to downconvert to MPEG.
I used Veags for a long time and loved it.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Nick Stone

Thanks Perrone,
Are you using Veags to downconvert to MPEG.
I used Veags for a long time and loved it.

Not sure what you mean by "downcovert". I use Vegas to transcode and edit.

[Omar Idris]

Hi Perrone/Dominik,
You are both right. However with resizing to 720x405 (Image1) you are creating a letterboxed widescreen DVD (Image2) and not an anamorphic one, so technically not widescreen at all. Which is fine for standard TVs but a waste for widescreen TVs. Checking the widescreen flag it will appear squished in the case of NTSC or stretched in PAL when viewed on a widescreen TV and a 16:9 configured DVD player. At least that is what is meant to happen.

To get anamorphic widescreen resize to 720x480 (Image3). It shouldn't look right on a computer but with widescreen flag set will look perfect on a widescreen TV (Image4) without loss of vertical resolution.

[Adam Reuter]

Indeed if you are authoring widescreen DVDs correctly your clients with upconversion players will love you. If you do the incorrect 4:3 letterboxing you'll look like an amatuer! A lot of older DVDs were made non-anamorphic and it's a little distracting to watch on a big screen HD television.

[Nick Stone]

What frame rate and shutter speeds are people using with the EX1.
I'm doing some test with 720p but not sure what shutter settings I should be looking at using.
I guess the big one is, Shutter on or off.
Anyone with some info for me.
I'm about to shoot some surfing and I would like to get away from interlaced and have never shot in progressive, I would hate to stuff it up.
I have tried 1080/25p ago but seems to be a lot of motion when I pan and 720/50p seems smoother.

Anyone with some info for me.

[Perrone Ford]

Nick, from your question, I am going to assume that you are somewhat new to this game. So here are some basics.

Standard television in the US is broadcast at 30 frames per second, or rather 60 fields (which are half frames) per second. This is interlaced.. In PAL countries this is 25 frames per second and not interlaced.

Film is typically shot at 24 frames per second. Thus, to US viewers, film "feels" different than television, while for PAL countries, film and broadcast have a very similar cadence.

True film cameras are progressive, and they have real mechanical shutters which control how much light hits the film. That shutter typically runs for half of the framerate. So for film running at the standard 24 frames per second, the shutter would be open only half that, so the shutter is 1/48 of a second.

If we want to make motion appear more clearly, we can increase the shutter speed. This means the shutter is open for a shorter duration, and reduces the blur we normally see with motion. The tradeoff is that the footage can begin to appear to strobe. This is currently known as the "Saving Private Ryan" effect. But it's well understood and has been around for many years. As shutter speed increases, the amount of light hitting the film, or sensors in our case, decreases and thus we need more light to maintain a proper exposure.

In shooting surfing, the action is quite some distance away, and honestly, I don't know that I'd increase the shutter speed all that much. Maybe only to a 1/60th if you shoot 24fps, or maybe 1/100 if shooting 30p.

Go out and test. You'll find that shooting progressive will give gorgeous, film like images. Take notes and talk into the camera. Every time you try a new setting, talk into the mic. This is a great way to see the differences.

Have a good time and be thankful you can do this on erasable media, and not REAL film!

[Dominik Seibold]

Originally Posted by Omar Idris

However with resizing to 720x405 (Image1) you are creating a letterboxed widescreen DVD (Image2) and not an anamorphic one, so technically not widescreen at all.

If I assume that Perrone knows what he's doing, then he wasn't working in his example with 16:9, but with 2.1:1 footage. Because 2.1:1 would result in 720x405 pixels on a NTSC-widescreen-DVD.
But of course it is suspicious that 720/405 = 16/9. That actually was the base of my initial guess that Perrone doesn't know what he's doing.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Dominik Seibold

If I assume that Perrone knows what he's doing, then he wasn't working in his example with 16:9, but with 2.1:1 footage. And that would result in 720x405 pixels on a NTSC-widescreen-DVD.
But of course it is suspicious that 720/405 = 16/9. That was the base of my guessing that Perrone doesn't know what he's doing.

:)

You guys are awesome. I can assure you, with as many dvd projects as I've done, I do understand the difference. Even if I explain it poorly, or mess it up on here.

What always fools with me is the idea of rendering for 16:9 native with HD footage versus delivering 720p footage to HD and SD clients.