720pn VS 1080 60i 24p Hard time deciding

I am having a very hard time deciding which format to record in.

Project is Feature length film,
Output is HDDVD and or BLUERAY when they become common.

My question is

What's the advantage of shooting in 1080i 60i 24FPS
vs. 720pn 24FPS

I know that i get much more storage space going 720pn but if p2 Cards were not an issue

Is 1080i 60i 24FPS going to give me more lattitude to work with in COLOR, and will it give me an overall better picture?

And will one pickup better in low light over the other?


Thank you

Quote

What's the advantage of shooting in 1080i 60i 24FPS
vs. 720pn 24FPS

Resolution. No brainer = I would go with 1080i because it's higher rez. Storage space shouldn't even come into play if this is a feature IMHO. I would make equipment adjustments to allow for the bigger files. I would want the highest resolution available especially if this will be on large screens.

The low light question depends on your camera.

Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

There is no "1080i 60i 24FPS" as such. The rest of what you're asking is unanswerable without knowing which cameras you're talking about except for the fact that if you're finishing to DVD, you'll want to shoot progressive. Interlace is for TV.

Even if you don't shoot progressive, you can always convert to progressive with the proper tools.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

He's shooting with an HVX, im assuming, as he mentioned P2 cards. And the HVX has a 1080 60i 24pa setting...you just pull it down to 24fps later

However, the real reason to shoot 720pn is the variable frame rates, which you cant get at 1080i. Especially for a feature, this can be a handy handy tool to have in your bag of tricks. It looks beautiful as well.

The resolution question is negligable. The camera is upressing the signal in the camera to fill a 1080 frame instead of a 720 frame. This same process can be done later on before mastering if you want to put out 1080 24p disc. Also, i think your Color grading will be better at 720 because you are not introducing any new noise into the signal by upressing. Same thing with low light, any noise will become more noticable at 1080... These are just my opinions tho, i love the camera but dont do feature work so others might be more knowledgable...

Quote

...he's shooting with an HVX, im assuming, as he mentioned P2 cards.

There's more than 1 P2 camera, scott (take your pick):

[catalog2.panasonic.com]

He could be using the HVX, but I don't like to assume anything when offering advice, I like to get the facts first

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

well, yeah Joe, thats true but regardless, this is a format question and all p2 cameras have the capabilities to do both. The only question the relates to the camera capabilites is in low light and noise. I was just explaining the advantages of 720pn on a P2 camera as opposed to 1080i.

Rick, If you're shooting with a $30,000+ camera, by all means disregard the noise issues as they wont be nearly as present as on the HVX.

All of you guys have been very helpful.

It is an HVX-200.
I only own a 4gig card and 8 gig card and ive learned the hard way that its a rat race to find any 16gig cards for sale i dont want to buy another 8 if i can hold off.
So if i can shoot in 720pn that would doulbe my space.

Scott that was very interesting, If it is true that the camera is upresing the signal to fill a 1080frame instead of 720.

I dont mean to question your info but if you can just tell me where i can confirm that i would love to read up on that and make a decision. I just have to be for sure.

Joe you really seem to know your stuff.
So your reply that its a no brainer to shoot in 1080 is the way to go.
Puts me into a hard place.

Let me ask you this Joe.

If it is confirmed that the camera is upresing the signal from 720 to 1080

what do you think about shooting in 720pn because it gives me lots more p2 card space which is great, it allows me to use slowmo and speed things up in the camera, it is true 24p native no pull down and i wont have to buy more cards.

THEN if i want to upres in the future for some reason. I just do it in software, either AE or compressor, or FCP export and so on.
I mean im only going to DVD for these first 2 years then if and only if the movie does well i may release to HD DVD and or BLUERAY.


The only real reason i would consider shooting in 1080i 60i 24p pulldown in computer / over 720pn is if it is giving me more latitude, and better results in low light. THATS IT.
If i can do more with that signal in COLOR basically and i mean significantly more.


What do you think Joe?

I don't own this camera but I deal with the footage in post. I can tell you (as can anyone else that uses this camera) that the HVX200 is NOT good in low light situations at both 720p + 1080i. Very dirty. If LOW LIGHT is your main concern (which it sounds like it is), the HVX200 is not the best choice in cameras.

You seem to be very concerned about space & buying more cards so 720p should be your choice. I personally would never let drive space dictate how I would shoot. Outfit accordingly. That takes the creativity out. That's like running a racecar at less than optimal speed just to save gas.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Sorry Joe, I gotta disagree. I have many many shots done in low light and they are great. i saw a music video played at a LAFCPUG meeting a few months back that was pretty much ALL LOW LIGHT, and it performed beautifully. You just need to fiddle with the settings inside the camera (there are many). I have night footage shot with the Varicam and HVX mixed, and you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

I guess my shooter doesn't know how to "fiddle". Shane knows more about this subject than I do by far so there you go

Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

[www.codekraft.com]

Im pretty sure this link is the video Shane's referring too. Its all HVX footage at least, and it looks great. As i recall, he said when he low light problems, the hollywood street footage, he said he overcranked the gain to get a noisy look on purpose, as he felt it looked more like film grain than most.

Anyway, the HVX has 1/3" chips, there's no getting around that, larger cameras will always have an advantage there. The chips are the limitation, not the frame size. The negative effects of low light will only be exagerated at 1080, be it though the camera or in post. My feeling is that if you Color grade at 720, when you uprez any noise issues will be less noticeable then dealing with larger noise at 1080.

Anyway, im not a color grader, i dont know for sure but i do know the camera. its great, its versatile, and in my opinion, the flexability of 720pn in shooting and storage outweighs having a larger framesize. Remember, both the 720 and the 1080 come from the same chip size, and that is determining your light levels...

That was done by Kenn Michael. I remember he said he did very little color correcting and bascially what you see is what was there. I'll try and get him into this to comment.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Good one Scott...that's the one.

Yes, he said that he did very little correcting for the dark areas. Mainly look coloring.

We were all impressed.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

The lit stuff looks phenomenal...period.

That dark street stuff looks awefully grainy / dirty IMHO. It looks so bad that it looks like grain was added to it to disguise it. That's what I am talking about when I say "low light".

Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Joe...we just said that the director/DP TURNED UP THE GAIN to get that look on purpose.

You can shoot in those conditions and it not look grainy. Lemme get home and compress and load a clip from our shoot so you can see.

-


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

I've read recently that if you're shooting 1080i60, you have to subtract some 200 lines of resolution due to the Kell factor, which happens in an interlaced image, besides the fact that in any one frame you have half the resolution (now 800 lines) leaving you with 400 lines. Compare that with 720 lines in a frame, and the choice is not that clear. Though I don't know how the 24pa works with the final pulldown; would you have 24 progressive, meaning 800 lines of resolution in the frame?

Several years ago at NAB, Harris had a demonstration of 720p vs 1080i using high end pedestal style studio camera heads shooting side by side at a sporting event. The point was to show how the effects of interlace and the resulting moire served to downgrade 1080i. Side by side with good cameras it was very difficult to see the difference. 1080p of course would be another story.

Quote

Joe...we just said that the director/DP TURNED UP THE GAIN to get that look on purpose.

Yes...I GOT THAT...doesn't mean I have to like it Just my opinion, Shane. Can't talk me out of it It's the only part of the piece that bugs me...sorry.

Sheesh.

Quote

You can shoot in those conditions and it not look grainy.

Not trying to bust chops - I really want to be proven wrong here. I would love to see an example = 5 seconds / 720p / street scene / at night / natural light / no plug-ins / no grain. Please post the camera settings as well if you don't mind

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

ive shown this clip before and its a two fisted violator - lots of red and low light. and there is hardly any grain at all.

[understandinc.com]

Shane,

Thank you for setting me straight by showing me the "night guns" clip (unbelievable low light HVX footage). I will never doubt that camera again. I stand corrected & the peeps that are still yammering about the HVX200 being bad in low light...they're gonna get an earful from me from now on

I wish I had 5 grand to throw at this right now.

Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.