PDA

View Full Version : EX1 playback



videodoc
04-26-2008, 07:12 AM
I just started using an EX1 with my VT5. While the colors look great, I am getting jaggy/jittery lines where hard, straight lines exist in the shot. Does anyone have an explanation or remedy for this?

ted
04-26-2008, 10:41 AM
Are you shooting on the same type footage that you are editing on? i.e. 720p 24fps, 480 30fps interlaced.

videodoc
04-26-2008, 11:14 AM
Are you shooting on the same type footage that you are editing on? i.e. 720p 24fps, 480 30fps interlaced.

I'm shooting 1080/60i. My understanding is that no adjustment needs to be maded in SE - that it will recognize whatever you puy on the timeline. Do you think it work better with 1080/30p?

ted
04-27-2008, 10:57 AM
Progressive might help since you won’t be dealing with fielding aliasing.
Over the last year or so I've noticed that you will get differing results mixing different resolutions and frame rates with various applications.
This isn't a SpeedEDIT thing. We get differing results going into After Effects, Encore even my FCP guys complain about this once in a while.

We sometimes get better results using a different/various timeline, then rendering it to a different resolution/frame rate. Sometimes you just gotta play with it a little.
We don't usually have to mess with this, but some combinations cause stuttering or jaggies.

Jim_C
04-27-2008, 11:23 AM
My understanding is that no adjustment needs to be maded in SE - that it will recognize whatever you puy on the timeline.

You still have to set a master project resolution. when you begin.

If you create and are working in a SD 720x480 DV project and drop a 1080p clip on the timeline, SpeedEdit will read the HD clip and scale it to match the SD project setting.

So make sure to create a project that matches your footage when first starting.

John Perkins
04-30-2008, 08:57 PM
As Ted mentioned, a lot of this is due to the resolution of the clip allowing extremely thin lines that when down converted to SD, end up only on one field.

You might try giving the footage a very slight blur or possibly enabling ISS. Both probably aren't needed, ISS will soften the footage just a fraction on it's own.

Shooting progressive might help, but be aware that you will get more of a film-ish look, for better or worse.

I think Ted and I are two of the only ones that see film look as a bad thing, but I don't like grainy images and I prefer the "realism" of video motion.

Low framerates just bug me. It's probably too many years of playing first person shooters ;)

Cineman
05-01-2008, 11:02 AM
Shooting progressive might help, but be aware that you will get more of a film-ish look, for better or worse.

I think Ted and I are two of the only ones that see film look as a bad thing, but I don't like grainy images and I prefer the "realism" of video motion.Shooting progressive might help, but be aware that you will get more of a film-ish look, for better or worse.

I think Ted and I are two of the only ones that see film look as a bad thing, but I don't like grainy images and I prefer the "realism" of video motion.
Make it three John. Might even consider making me President. Too many years struggling for resolution to ever want less than the best that I can get.

Nes Gurley

ScorpioProd
05-01-2008, 01:14 PM
Make it four. I only use 30p for internet intended footage. Everything else, interlace. Smooth motion==a good thing.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-01-2008, 09:38 PM
I think Ted and I are two of the only ones that see film look as a bad thing...Low framerates just bug me..Low frame-rates suck, and boy howdy, ain't *that* the truth!

So whats'at? Five?

Q1
:thumbsdow

ted
05-01-2008, 11:34 PM
I'm begining to feel vindicated. I love hearing your guys opinions on this! :thumbsup:
Most every time a client says he wants 24p I try and talk them out of it. Most every one of them wants to use it in typical fast pan and zoom productions! Arrrrgggg! Then they think my camera or edit system is at fault for the strobing. :(

There are times for 24p no doubt. But too many "creative types" don't know when and when not to use it. It's like the NYPD shakey cam look. It's great when done right, but not for everything. :agree:

ScorpioProd
05-02-2008, 01:56 AM
IMHO, the only time for 24p video is for true film out.

Other than that, it is rare that I find 24p video actually looks like film, in terms of the motion/judder characteristics.

I did a bunch of experiments with my XDCAM HD CineAlta, since CineAlta specifically means 24p capable in Sony lingo, and I didn't like it. IF I ever did film out, that's the only time I'd shoot 24p.

And as I always point out to people, 24p was an equipment limitation many decades ago, NOT an intentional creative choice.

While 30p, that I could see using on occassion for a specific effect, or for anything going specifically to web, like a project I am currently working on, since really everything for the web should be progressive.

Beyond that, it's 60i for me.

Adam_LightPlay
05-11-2008, 09:33 PM
Six.
I can't believe people have to see an artifact to enjoy a movie. If it's not there, it's too real?? Well let's get real! I'd rather have my fiction look real, isn't that the idea? If I'm watching the latest John Woo, "Flying Swords, Hidden Wires", I want to see a smooth swish of a sword or staff, not a stuttering, strobe that is kinda like motion.

I owe NewTek for pointing out the difference way back around 1994. When they added Field Rendering to Lightwave 4?, 5? Toaster 4000? Whatever. Their Demo Video showed the difference with a side by side render that looked like a steadycam floating over a rock walkway. The 60 fields interlaced was smooth as silk, the 30P was jittery. Now I see jitter all the time.
Maybe I'm more hyper-sensitive because I edit and can spot one bad frame.

ted
05-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Now I see jitter all the time.
Maybe I'm more hyper-sensitive because I edit and can spot one bad frame.

Jitter is the new cool look! :thumbsdow
I don't like it either. I think the real problem is that people don't know how to properly utilize film workflow. I constantly hear people on forums think the camera or editor is broke because their footage looks like crap. Well, they shot it that way. :D

And yeh, my guys always wonder how I can catch bad video on playback if a GFX or video overlay is off by a field.
You might not know what was wrong, but when you go to the timeline you'll find something off by a frame or field.

mvansomeren
05-12-2008, 11:12 AM
Although I agree with all of you that 24f/p doesn't look as good and smooth as 60i, the fact of the matter is that the paying customer is the determining factor. They and their audiences know subconciously that there is something different...something they are not used to. They find that distracting, sometimes enough that they don't like the final product regardless of the production quality. That is just a fact and it will probably be fact for quite some time before that culture changes.

A perfect example would be records vs. CDs. There is still a large group that feel that analog audio has a certain richness, even with the noise and scratches, that digital recordings on CDs just don't have.

I've shot some 24f/p footage, with fast camera pans included, that looks very much like film...the same kind of motion blur...it doesn't look choppy or suttery (is that a word? lol). I showed it to some folks who thought it looked very pleasing. No one said...eww, that doesn't look good. It's because that is what they are used to seeing on the big screen.

The point is, it really comes down to what your customer wants and expects and who the customer's viewing audience will be. Like it or not, so far, most want that "film look". If you try too hard to convince them otherwise or are unwilling to give them what they want, they will simply go somewhere else.

ted
05-12-2008, 10:57 PM
If you try too hard to convince them otherwise or are unwilling to give them what they want, they will simply go somewhere else.

So true. That's why we got the HVX 200. So whatever "flavor" of video the client wants, we can deliver. No matter how crazy their request may be. :D

Like I said, there are times for various formats. But it hurts sometimes when we gotta do what we know isn't right. :hey:
But I will admit, being open minded has surprised me a time or two. Sometimes they were right all along.

ScorpioProd
05-13-2008, 12:28 AM
Yup, same here with the F335.

Actually, I was thinking about this today when I was at the movies. A brand new Regal 13 theater, latest state of the art stadium style with all digital projection opened today. This was my first time ever watching a digital projected movie. It looked GREAT! I don't know what format they get the movies in, but I'm betting it's not 2:3 pulldown!

Anyway, it was so nice seeing a movie with no scratches or hairs or anything like that EVER appearing. :)

As for the 24p, it looked great! It looked surprisingly smooth compared to 24p I'd shot even with my camera just locked down. Makes me wonder if watching what I'd shot in 24p just on my computer monitors was more of the limitation in what I saw than the actual 24p. Hmmh.

And I have come around to enjoying cine gamma curves in my camera. :)