Jump to content


Photo

cineframe or not cineframe


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 andres victorero

andres victorero
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain

Posted 17 January 2006 - 11:28 AM

Hi to all, well this is my dude. cineframe or not cineframe for a short film (INT/NIGHT - EXT/NIGHT - INT/DAY)
Is better shooting in cineframe mode or shoot normal mode and desinterlace in post with a REELSMART AE plugin.

Another question is if the final way will be a DVD is better shoot in HDV or simply is a lost of time and I would shoot in SD (DV) :unsure:

thanks a lot :)
  • 0

#2 warner brown

warner brown
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Other
  • petaluma, CA

Posted 17 January 2006 - 03:47 PM

I recently read that it's much better to shoot normal at 60i then deinterlace. heres a quote;
-
If you'd really have to choose between the two, choose 60i. De-interlaced in post works a lot better than CF24 which is just doubling frames etc. so you get uneven motion. Also, in 60i you leave more options open.
-
hope that helped
  • 0

#3 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 23 January 2006 - 11:10 AM

cineframe 25p works great. in my opinion and experience better sharpness and artifact wise than a regular deinterlace in post and about the same as a "smart" or adaptive deinterlace. the 24p emulation i've heard is awful.

/matt
  • 0

#4 Mike Crowhurst

Mike Crowhurst

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 31 January 2006 - 06:25 PM

I love shooting in cineframe 25 (in Australia with PAL base) as the results look great. I imagine that on NTSC, the 60i down to 24p would be a weird translation in-camera and might not convert as nicely as the 50i to 25p, so perhaps in that case de-interlace in post is best?
  • 0

#5 Tom Banks

Tom Banks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 January 2006 - 08:20 PM

I just got done shooting with the Z1. I used Cineframe 30p and shot usually w/ a shutter speed of 1/30th. www.banksfilm.com/valdemar has stills from footage.
  • 0

#6 andres victorero

andres victorero
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain

Posted 01 February 2006 - 04:42 PM

I just got done shooting with the Z1. I used Cineframe 30p and shot usually w/ a shutter speed of 1/30th. www.banksfilm.com/valdemar has stills from footage.



looks very good, congrats ;)
  • 0

#7 Lee Maisel

Lee Maisel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 67 posts
  • Student

Posted 11 May 2006 - 11:14 PM

looks very good, congrats ;)



The shots look absolutely AWESOME!! However, the WIG on that guy looks like an animal crawled up on his head and died! (sorry, I hope it was done on purpose)
  • 0

#8 Mike Crowhurst

Mike Crowhurst

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 27 July 2006 - 01:41 AM

The shots look absolutely AWESOME!! However, the WIG on that guy looks like an animal crawled up on his head and died! (sorry, I hope it was done on purpose)


LOL! Yeah, it's pretty funny, but the shots do look great!

I've gotten quite attached to using CineFrame25 here in Australia as the look is really nice softening effect. I wouldn't say it looks 100% "filmic" but it does fall somewhere in between film and video. I wouldn't use the 24p mode in NTSC though...it sounds poor
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 July 2006 - 02:30 AM

24F is to be avoided. Using 25F for 1080/50i or 30F for 1080/60i should be fine if you can live with some loss of vertical resolution, but 24F is just a bad design since it requires creating a fake 24P look from 60i capture and then adding pulldown to turn it back into 60i again for recording -- it's just overprocessing.

It's different than 24F in the Canon XLH1, which is a better design: at least there they take 48i, not 60i, to create 24 frames, and then they don't try and reconvert it to 60i, but leave it as 24P. There is still some loss of vertical resolution but there isn't the odd motion artifacts from turning 60 into 24 and back into 60.
  • 0

#10 Loi Banh

Loi Banh

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Producer

Posted 13 August 2006 - 08:05 PM

After doing some tests to get the closest approximation of the film look, I figured it was faster to use Cineframe than to do without. Part of the workflow was that de-interlacing in post was simply going to take too long. Cineframe knocks resolution down by about 15%-20% subjectively, whereas de-interlacing would knock it down by 20%-30% (depending on source material). (I could de-interlace in Compressor 2 for the ultimate in quality, but that method takes forever!) For the time savings vs amount of post-processing, Cineframe was the way to go for me.

If it were a locked-down establishing shot, I might consider turning off Cineframe. It's great for scenes with little to no movement.

Shoots with the Z1 are in 25 fps and later slowed to 23.976 fps for the film-look. B)
  • 0

#11 Michael J. Murphy

Michael J. Murphy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Director
  • Nacogdoches, TX

Posted 06 September 2006 - 11:49 AM

Hi-
While CineFrame is nice in the Z1, what if it happens to look better on the LCD screen than played back on a TV screen? What I would recommend is to shoot without CineFrame and work with your NLE (and possibly use Boris FX) to manually adjust how you want the film to look. To me, editing is always easier when you're dealing with footage that hasn't been digitally altered in the camera.

Mike
  • 0

#12 Thanasis Diamantopoulos

Thanasis Diamantopoulos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • greece

Posted 06 September 2006 - 05:35 PM

Hi last year i testd some footage from fx1 for transfer to film. About a feature snall badget movie.
The resalts of cineframe was not good at hall. The image lost the depth of the colors and a lot of sharpness during the transfer of course. I tryed a lot of difrent transfer labs an the resalts were about the same.
Finaly i used 50i (europe) and the image looks better after deinterlasing in post.
The dvds from the project looks pretty nice at cineframe exept when the camera moves alot looks blury.

SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH :rolleyes:
  • 0

#13 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 11 September 2006 - 10:47 AM

my experience is that when the camera is still deinterlacing in post looks much better, while if the camera's moving cineframe 25/30 looks better. this also fits my understanding of the theory of signal processing and compression behind it, so i'm fairly sure i'm right. there should be no difference in colors and such, and i haven't seen any of that either.

for a feature i worked on recently (1st ad and 2nd unit dp) we shot interlaced because the post compnay told us to. usually i go with cineframe though becasue of the easier post production, often much more important than a very slight difference in image quality.

/matt
  • 0

#14 rdegracia

rdegracia
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2006 - 07:34 AM

even accepting that cineframe implies overprocessing... we have to trust our eyes: and looks good to me. It's not about signal quality... is about personal or esthetic preference. To me looks good. but have not compared it to the postpo convertion option

what it looks not to be recommendable at all is to shoot in cineframe when blow up to films is in mind. That seems to make evident to the maximum the little artifacts created.
  • 0

#15 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 14 September 2006 - 07:09 PM

are you honestly talking about cineframe24? while i won't question your aesthetic preference, this look might very well be what you want, i must question your eyes if you say it looks good. the artifacts are more than easily noticeable, especially for those of us in the pal world who aren't even used to regular 3:2 pulldown.

/matt
  • 0

#16 Jay Cowley

Jay Cowley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 October 2006 - 04:05 PM

umm just a question, i was hoping to rent the HDRFX1 over here in Canada, will it still have the option to shoot with Cineframe25 or what your all calling it?

one of the reasons i was going to rent this camera was because of the filmlook modes that came with it, but if these cameras are only NTSC and don't work well with the Cineframe (which would be 24p) thats a dissapointment.

if they do give you the option for PAL and NTSC, would it be difficult authoring a DVD from my film if it's at 50i /25p...do most DVD players in North America play that?
  • 0

#17 Barbu balasoiu

Barbu balasoiu

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 November 2006 - 09:43 AM

I just got done shooting with the Z1. I used Cineframe 30p and shot usually w/ a shutter speed of 1/30th. www.banksfilm.com/valdemar has stills from footage.



Hello Tom. It looks verry good what you have shot. I am preparing to shoot a 30 min feature film my self in 2 weeks time and I was wandering what settings have you used and if you changed them when swiching int/ext night/day?

Thank you
Barbu
  • 0

#18 Mark Simkiss

Mark Simkiss

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Other
  • Philadelphia, PA

Posted 08 January 2007 - 09:30 AM

I'm using a Z1 and I shoot everything in 50i then convert to 25p. Surely 24p is "ideal" (or used to be) but 25p is just as good if you ask me. The reason I use 50i instead of 60i is purely for quality, not for film look as that can be achieved on the PC, though easier with 25p if you convert to 24p at all (which I don't). Filming at 60i requires the camera use a 19 Mbps stream to tape, while filming at 50i you get a 23 Mbps stream because 20% less compression is required with 10 fewer frames per second.

I am based in Philadelphia and to answer an earlier question posed, I haven't come across any devices in recent time that cannot play the PAL/SECAM/50i/25p standard even though we live in NTSC world. When I like, I just plug my component out cable into my projector, for example, and it automatically knows it's 1920x1080 50i at 50Hz.

  • 0


Visual Products

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Abel Cine

CineLab

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

CineTape

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

CineTape

Opal

The Slider

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc