Shooting for PAL

[Richard Lowther]

Do you get as good as picture when shooting for Pal TV at 50 frames 3k redcode 36 as you do when shooting for NTSC at 29.97 4k redcode 36?
Thanks

 

[Peter Karlsson]

3K, at 50fps is will give you an excellent picture, but why not shot 4K 25fps?

 

[Kim Frank]

I would go for 25p, quad HD
And of course frame rate doesn't influence picture Quality and even 3K is more than enough for PAL finishing, but remember you'll have a slight sensor cropping.

 

[Richard Lowther]

Thanks for your input...I am shooting 50 frames so I can do slow mo and I can always every second frame if I want 25 frames. Thanks

 

[Damien Molineaux]

I would go for 25p, quad HD
And of course frame rate doesn't influence picture Quality and even 3K is more than enough for PAL finishing, but remember you'll have a slight sensor cropping.

Well... true, it's not frame rate that influences the picture, but exposure time does. In PAL, which is 25 fps, the normal exposure time is 1/50 sec. If you're shooting 50 fps, are you exposing at 1/50th or 1/100th ? Your images will look different if shot at 1/100th.

Cheers,
Damien

 

[James Press]

At 50fps and 1/100th shutter the images will look the same as 25fps at 1/50th ie no video smear, unless I'm missing something.

 

[fusion]

You will get a good picture at 50fps, 3K

 

[Kim Frank]

At 50fps and 1/100th shutter the images will look the same as 25fps at 1/50th ie no video smear, unless I'm missing something.

Yes beause you keep the 180° shutter.
But if the OP wants to drop every second frame to get non Slow motion when played back at 25 fps this would result in a shorter shutter because than he would expose 25 fps with a shutter of 100th what would be about 90°. This might not get visible exept for really fast movements. Also you could always add some motion blur back in if it gets too stuttery for your taste.

 

[PaulClements]

I would go for 25p, quad HD
And of course frame rate doesn't influence picture Quality and even 3K is more than enough for PAL finishing, but remember you'll have a slight sensor cropping.

Hi Kim,

I personally prefer to shoot 4K 16:9, 3K 16:9 or 2K 16:9 because they're multiples of the 16:9 Pal format on height and width.

4K 16:9
4096/4 = 1024
2304/4 = 576

3K 16:9
3072/3 = 1024
1728/3 = 576

2k 16:9
2048/2 = 1024
1152/2 = 576

It should give a cleaner down conversion than coming from 4K HD especially with software conversions. Of course it's not essential but every bit helps. A lot of the time the format gets squeezed too and from 4:3 (720x576) in which case it matters a bit less.

Paul

 

[Nick Shaw]

A lot of the time the format gets squeezed too and from 4:3 (720x576) in which case it matters a bit less.

Not "a lot of the time" but "all the time". PAL is always 720x576, whether that is DVD or any (digital) tape format. 1024x576 is only ever used for computer display in software which only understands square pixels.

 

[Kim Frank]

Thats a good point Paul!
If finishing just for PAL you're absoloutly right and I have to correct my quote.
4K HD is best for 1080p finishing - what I normally do (for future use) and than do the anamorphic downscaling. So absoloutly... If finishing for PAL only, one of the multiples you mentioned would have to give the best results, even for anamorphic finishing

 

[PaulClements]

Not "a lot of the time" but "all the time". PAL is always 720x576, whether that is DVD or any (digital) tape format. 1024x576 is only ever used for computer display in software which only understands square pixels.

Fair enough, I didn't want to say catagorically as I wasn't 100% sure (especially since I've even been asked to supply 1024x576 by some post houses before, presumably for doing effects etc before squeezing to 4:3), still the down conversion for the vertical is divisable when coming from any of the 16:9 formats and therefore an overall better down conversion wouldn't you agree?
Paul