Panasonic HD-900 - 60p

Bill Paul · August 15, 2008

Hey guys,

Just shot with the $50,000 HDX-900. I am the director on this shoot not the cinematographer. And I have VERY LITTLE HD experience so I relied on my D.P. to shoot this correctly. I wanted a filmic look. We just didn't have the budget for film.

My D.P. told me that he was going to shoot this at 60p. And that it will "look great."

It looks like ass. It's crunchier than COURT TV. What do I do??? Why the heck didn't he shoot this at 24p. Now that it's at the editor and I see what I'm working with I'm freaked out!!! Can this be fixed? I mean I shot with a three thousand dollar 24p panasonic consumer camera on 24p and the footage looked WAY better than the crap we shot last week. HELP! Is there software I can use to fix this? Can I take it into flame? Do some crummy 3-2 pulldown? Or did he just totally screw the pooch by shooting this at 60p?

Thanks,

John Ealer · August 15, 2008

The HDX-900 of course shoots 24, 30 and 60p, and provides great results at all those frame rates. If you want the 24P look, you'll have to conform back to 24P...how you do that will depend on the edit platform you're using.

If using FCP, you may want to explore the DVCPROHD Frame Rate Converter Tool (in the TOOLS Menu) or Cinema Tools.

J

Saul Rodgar · August 15, 2008

Yeah, you will be able to change the frame rate somewhat easily. But you may have problems as to how it was lit and shot, which cannot be fixed very easily. Never underestimate the value of a good DP. Most people shoot 60p for slo mo / effects shots, I wonder what he was thinking.

Good luck.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

Phil Rhodes · August 15, 2008

You're sure this has actually been shot at 60, not 24 wrapped into 60?

if it really has, there are several ways you can approximate back to 24. The best way is a proper motion-compensated interpolation; this is about the only way I'd consider doing it. You can also try various pulldown tricks; these can look like total crap depending on what the picture content is like. Drop me a private message and I'll give you the details of an acquaintance of mine in LA who has recently done some of the better style of conversion in exactly these sorts of circumstances.

Of course, 24p alone won't make it look perfect...

P

Thomas Worth · August 15, 2008

I mean I shot with a three thousand dollar 24p panasonic consumer camera on 24p and the footage looked WAY better than the crap we shot last week. HELP!

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the lighting and composition is bad, or is it just a frame rate issue? In other words, would the actual image be acceptable if it was running at the proper frame rate?

As Phil mentioned, the correct way to convert this is to employ motion compensation. This is the only way to smooth out the temporal discrepancy and to compensate for the different shutter speeds (1/60 vs 1/48). Unfortunately, simply dropping a 60p clip into a 24p AE or FCP timeline will not fix these problems.

Andrew Koch · August 15, 2008

It looks like ass. It's crunchier than COURT TV.

Thanks,

What do you mean by "crunchy?" Are you referring to the motion, or are you referring to the lighting, contrast? Also, go to "My Controls" and change your screen name to your first name and last name separated by a space as this is a requirement of this forum.

Bill Paul · August 16, 2008

What do you mean by "crunchy?" Are you referring to the motion, or are you referring to the lighting, contrast? Also, go to "My Controls" and change your screen name to your first name and last name separated by a space as this is a requirement of this forum.

It is crisp. Not film-like. VIDEO like. Have you ever seen Court TV? or a used car commercial for a local business at 3 am in the morning. It looks like that. Like bad video.

John Ealer · August 16, 2008

Best guess is that the detail was cranked up on the camera settings. Detail is, basically, an electronic process that enhances the apparent sharpness of the image by accentuating edges. It was originally developed for SD back in the day to help make the image appear sharper despite the relatively low resolution.

Depending on the HD system you're using, little, if any, detail is generally needed. Again, it depends on what look you're going for.

You can try to add a bit of softness back in in post, but it's a bit tricky to get rid of that "detail"-y look without making the image look soft. It's one of those things that once it's baked into the image, it's tough to get out.

J

Phil Rhodes · August 16, 2008

In order to approach this in the right way, it's probably best to start thinking of "bad pictures" and "good pictures" as opposed to various types of film or video. It's possible to shoot beautiful, evocative, cinematic images on either.

The reason we're asking these questions is that we fear you may have problems above and beyond just the frame rate. It's possible to shoot video that grades very well and ends up looking lovely, regardless of frame rate. It's also possible to shoot video that's so far from what you want that that it is unsalvageable.

Can you post some frames?

P

Andrew Koch · August 16, 2008

I agree, frame grabs would be great. Another problem is the contrast could have been set way too high. Are your whites clipping and your blacks excessively crushed. This "crunchy" look could also be from bad lighting. Avid has some plugins that can do virtual diffusion. I believe 55mm is the company that makes them. They are certainly no substitute for on set filtration, but might be of some use to you. I believe the same filter pack is available for FCP as well and also for After Effects. If the contrast is excessively high on the images, it will be tough to make improvements, but it's worth a try.

What type of Gamma settings were used in the camera? This can result in more newslike footage when set a certain way.

Once again, you need to change your screen name to your first name, a space, and then your last name. This is a requirement and I don't want you to get banned.

Mitch Gross · August 17, 2008

From your description, it sounds like the issue you have with the 60p material has to do with the temporal effect of the last of motion blur one associates with 24p. You can try some post tricks to recreate this effect, but I'm afraid you will never precisely duplicate it. Did you have a monitor on set? The difference is obvious and immediately apparent.