|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 29th, 2009, 12:41 AM | #16 |
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chislehurst, London
Posts: 1,724
|
I guess someone has a use for it especially when shooting with fully auto.
__________________
Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes |
September 29th, 2009, 01:12 AM | #17 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 693
|
Quote:
Off if useful for low light situations. I was shooting a conference on Friday where I had the shutter off. I was shooting 1080i at 50fps. The only way to get a 1/50 shutter speed in that format is to turn the shutter off. It is confusing because on my B camera (a Z1) you can just select 1/50 as a shutter speed directly. |
|
September 29th, 2009, 02:47 AM | #18 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,409
|
I'm doing some freelance work for a post production house and everything is going to SD DVD.
This is what I'm doing. Shoot in 1080i Pal Sony EX1 Set up a SD FCP Seq and bring the footage into the FCP timeline. You will be asked to change settings to suit footage, select NO. You want to edit on the SD template. For some reason FCP re-scales footage better than Compressor...... I dont know why? Edit the footage out. Make a quicktime of the edit and bring this into Compressor. select Best 90 min template, render out. This, I do all day every day and things look good. Cheers I forgot to mention that FCP will insert a field change on the EX1 footage to bring this in line with the SD def settings. SD = lower field first |
September 29th, 2009, 08:48 AM | #19 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Varkaus Finland
Posts: 33
|
There are some many suggestions and solutions in this thread now.
For me, living in a Europen PAL-country and working with the EX3, it's getting a bit confusing. So, here's a short & straight question. And, hopefully, somebody will give a short & straigt answer: What's the real best setting for optimal SD-results? Thank you loads! |
September 29th, 2009, 09:27 AM | #20 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chislehurst, London
Posts: 1,724
|
Quote:
A better way would be to shoot a couple of minutes in each setting and write a DVD video disc and then decide for yourself which looks the best. Good luck
__________________
Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes |
|
September 29th, 2009, 02:33 PM | #21 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bereldange, Luxembourg
Posts: 41
|
I am recording 1080i.
Concerning my workflow, I am reposting here what I have already posted in another forum as it might be interesting for this thread. As I do a lot of processing, I want to eliminate multiple deinterlacing/reinterlacing generations. Therefore I now deinterlace everything to 1080p50 files, do all the editing and afterwards reinterlace. I also render at 1080p50. So if the final customer wants 50p, I give the files like they are. If he wants 25p, I throw every second frame. If he wants interlaced, I reinterlace. You need to have more space and convert source footage to 50p, but you have one workflow for all delivery formats. |
September 30th, 2009, 02:33 AM | #22 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 418
|
Quote:
DV/DVCPRO50=lower field first. IMX50/MPEG50=upper field first (a great codec to go to when going to SD from XDCAM EX BTW) PRORES=upper field first. I've been experimenting when going to interlaced SD a lot recently. Normally i'm shooting progressive and go to progressive SD so haven't really had any problems transcoding down from 720 25p. However when going from 1080i to interlaced SD i seemed to run into a lot of interlaced flickering under certain conditions, ugly. This was shooting with the detail setting ON in my picture profile. I turned it OFF yesterday and did another small interview in 1080i and it came out better. However after reading this thread i think i might give 720 50p a go. with the detail setting back ON. When detail was OFF the image was too soft for my liking (wanting the reality look here, hence needing SD interlaced). |
|
September 30th, 2009, 03:57 PM | #23 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
If you want "film-look" (or "jerky") motion - 1080p/25 That's if the end SD result is PAL - which in your case it will be. If it's to be NTSC, use the corresponding 60Hz based settings - 720p/60 and 1080p/30 respectively. |
|
October 1st, 2009, 01:33 AM | #24 |
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chislehurst, London
Posts: 1,724
|
Not sure of the logic behind 1080p/25, 720p/25 would be the better option (smaller frame size = less downscalling)
__________________
Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes |
| ||||||
|
|