Vegas can open the Panasonic DVX-100 files, no problem, and you can edit them in a normal DV project and render to 29.97 DV.

This means to me you can shoot 24p, edit, and output to NTSC. Since it was shot in 24P, it will look more movie(ish). Correct?

Vegas 3 does not have the ability to turn the Panasonic DVX-100 files into 24p- you could use DV Filmmaker for that.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Vegas can edit and render 24p or 23.976 or just about an other framerate.

Not sure what I am missing here, this sentence seems to contradict the previous sentence, could you clarify?

One further Question:

If I shot something on my VX-2000, edited in Vegas, I could then output to 24p, correct?

Hi Stephen,

>>>This means to me you can shoot 24p, edit, and output to NTSC. Since it was shot in 24P, it will look more movie(ish). Correct?<<<

It is shot in 24p and comes out the 1394 as 24p->60i, so it will have a film-like cadence.


>>>>Vegas 3 does not have the ability to turn the Panasonic DVX-100 files into 24p- you could use DV Filmmaker for that.

Not sure what you mean by this.<<<<

Software is available that will inverse-telecine the 24p->60i files back to true 24p.



>>>Vegas can edit and render 24p or 23.976 or just about an other framerate.

Not sure what I am missing here, this sentence seems to contradict the previous sentence, could you clarify?<<<

If you have files at 60i, you can use them in a 24p project... or if you have 24p files you can use them in a 60i project, Vegas can go any framerate to any framerate.


>>>If I shot something on my VX-2000, edited in Vegas, I could then output to 24p, correct?<<<<<

Yep, as above. Then you could print to film, render to multimedia or convert to 60i for video.

HTH, MPH

Hi Marty-

Thanks for your answers.

Questions:

>>>>Vegas 3 does not have the ability to turn the Panasonic DVX-100 files into 24p- you could use DV Filmmaker for that.

A: This indicates to me that I could shhot in 60i render to 24p then render back to 60i and it will preserve the 24p "look". If this is true, we can already do in post what this new cam is made for, correct? (Less of course 1 generation for film x-fer and 2 generations for NTSC output and mucho rendering.)

Hi swarrine,

"A: This indicates to me that I could shhot in 60i render to 24p then render back to 60i and it will preserve the 24p "look". If this is true, we can already do in post what this new cam is made for, correct? (Less of course 1 generation for film x-fer and 2 generations for NTSC output and mucho rendering.)"


You're pretty much bang-on.

The 60i-24p-60i is covered comprehensively in the "Intercutting Film and Video" materials at the SoFo FTP site.

(I personally prefer to render to 30p and then back to 60i.)



FWIW, the pana-cam actually does capture in 24p without interpolating two fields into one, and has a specific frame conversion that can be reversed with no re-(de?)-interpolation process. That's a distinction that purists will keep in the forefront. Between its other fine features and the time-saving element of 24p acquisition, MANY indies will be scooping this rig up.


My .02 MPH

I use DVFilmMaker but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with 24p. From what I understand and have experienced, it simply takes your interlaced footage and creates a non-interlaced look only in those areas where a certain threshold of motion is reached. Your final product is a 29.97fps video that has a little bit more of a film look in places where there was adequate motion. As I've stated before in the forum, the reason I like it is that it completely preserves the vertical resolution in areas where there is not much motion, compared to a completely deinterlaced avi where you lose resolution.

Thanks Marty-

BTW, I believe the DVX-100 does not have true 16:9 which, IYAM, kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing. At least for the video to film indies. I have only read pre-release reviews though, so I could be wrong.

>>>DVX-100 does not have true 16:9

you have to wait until they release the lens adapter. it is supposed to be out by the end of the year, somewhere up in the $1000 region. just what I heard. then it will have "true" 16:9.

I believe Virtual Dub can convert the 60i back to true 24p as well. the reason to do this is so you can apply effects in Vegas without ruining the 24p cadence. if you applied a moving keyframed effect to the 60i footage, you'll get 60 fields of 'effect' on top of 24p video, which would spoil the film cadence. so you convert, then effect, then render back to 60i.

that will be a problem because I think we'll have to render to an intermediary format that can handle 24p frame rate. so we'll be leaving the DV world.

oh well I'm sure this question has been discussed a million times... just haven't had time to read this forum regularly.

Hi Cheesehole-

Well, you opened another can of worms... I don't understand how a lens can make a video "true" 16:9. I mean after all, the CCD captures what it captures and the Century lens can't change that. It might mask 16:9 optically, how is that any different than what VV3 can do in post?

There are anamorphic lenses that are used for that purpose. They were primarily used for film where you did not have the benifit of pixel ratios to play with. They squish the image making everything look tall and thin.

They make an anamorphic projection lens for video projectors to take the resulting squished 4:3 video and project it 16:9 unsquished.

K

Hi Swarrine,

>>>>>>I don't understand how a lens can make a video "true" 16:9. I mean after all, the CCD captures what it captures and the Century lens can't change that. It might mask 16:9 optically, how is that any different than what VV3 can do in post?<<<<<


My little brain is trying to recall the difference...

If you crop a 4:3 image to 16:9, you "lose" vertical resolution... yer cutting off lines at the top and bottom, eh?

If you take a tall-skinny image mash it down, you at least captured using the available vertical image sensors.

The next question is, if you don't mash-down the image to letterbox (like dvd?), are you stretching the image wider to display widescreen, and thus losing horizontal resolution?


mph

mph, that's exactly what you're doing. Anamorphic DV and DVD are both 720x480 for 16:9, the same number of pixels used for 4:3. You're just stretching them wider. An anamorphic camera lens has wider field of view horzontally (and the same vertically) as a similar 4:3 aspect lens.

Many widescreen films are shown from narrower stock with an anamorphic projector lens.

Anamorphic DVD's get stretched electronically in widescreen sets to use the full width and have the correct aspect ratio. For 4:3 sets, the DVD player squashes vertically, adding letterboxes, to get the 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen.

///d@

I don't think I will ever get the external anamorphic lens thing...

The anamorphic lens was invented somewhere in the 1800's and was put
to use in the early 50's with "cinemascope" movies. The taking lens
compresses the horizontal plane onto the film without affecting the
vertical plane. The compressed wide angle image is applied to the film
in a standard 4 x 3 format and when viewed without a lens all people and
objects appear to be skinny. When projected on a screen the projection
lens is rotated 90 degrees from the taking lens and provided it is the
same ratio expands the horizontal plane only without affecting the vertical
plane, hence---wide angle from a 4 x 3 film format. The ratios of these
first lenses were 2.66 x 1 with slight variations. Another ratio of 2 x 1
was prevalent in Europe but never took hold. Toddao (and others) then flipped
the full wide angle image vertically on the film to improve resolution which
of course ate up gobs of film. There were a ton of variations all trying
to improve resolution. "Cinerama" took three separate films side by side
and combined them to a wide angle of view of 180 degrees. The vertical
lines that occurred where the films were combined was not very desirable.
The optical anamorphic adapters will give you the best resolution no matter
what kind of camera you have at this time. All of the cameras I have seen use
some kind of electronic trick to get 16 x 9 and hence loose resolution.
The 16 x 9 (1.85 x 1)format to me is a total waste of time for true wide angle performance and I feel it should be at least 2.5 x 1 for movies and maybe 2 x 1
for photos. These lenses are costly to say the least except the projection
lenses for 16mm applications. Since Century is only making 16 x 9 you don't
have much choice unless you have unlimited funds and can have a custom lens
made. Adapting a 35mm zoom anamorphic lens to your existing set-up would
triple the weight of the camera and be cost prohibitive. It would be really
kool though.

James J. Kizak

That sounds accurate except for the part about rotating the lens 90 degrees between shooting and projecting -- you wouldn't do that. You keep the lens the same way, and when the optical path is reversed from film to screen, the image gets stretched back out wide again.

///d@

You know I think your right. its been a few years since I was messing
with that stuff.

James J. Kizak

Panasonic dvx 100 vs. Canon xl1s in a battle for 24p...final destination= theater
wich is better?

So from what I read above the panasonic films 24p60i and then you put it through dvfilmmaker and it converts it to a true 24p. you put that in vegas and edit, add effects and then convert it back to 24p60i.

How about the canon xl1s...in movie mode it films 30fps...so I quess you take the 30p and upload it into dvfilmaker and convert it to 24p upload 24p in vegas edit and add effects and you are ready for hollywood....am I thinking correctly.

I am ready to purchase a camcorder and It is between these 2...any advice?

Panasonic dvx 100 vs. Canon xl1s in a battle for 24p...final destination= theater
wich is better?

So from what I read above the panasonic films 24p60i and then you put it through dvfilmmaker and it converts it to a true 24p. you put that in vegas and edit, add effects and then convert it back to 24p60i.

How about the canon xl1s...in movie mode it films 30fps...so I quess you take the 30p and upload it into dvfilmaker and convert it to 24p upload 24p in vegas edit and add effects and you are ready for hollywood....am I thinking correctly.

I am ready to purchase a camcorder and It is between these 2...any advice?

final destination= theatre: does this mean you are going to make a film print? If so the panasonic is definitely better on paper...probably better in reality too.

If you are doing video projection in a large room, either should work just fine.

Could someone point me to the DV Filmaker software mentioned above? Entering that term in a search engine returns tons of info sites but no products.

Thanks.

G

DV Film Maker
As I've said before I don't think it has anything to do with 24fps, just does a great job of turning your 60i into progressive. Read up on it. You might still be interested.