Currently Being ModeratedMay 3, 2011 9:44 PM (in response to jdbellis)
NO one will know until it comes out. But note that 1080p60 is a non-standard format. Nothing plays that back in the real world. BluRay is 29.97 at 1080. Web...no one does 60fps for the web. Stuff that is 60fps is 720p. The point of shooting 1080o60 is to get nice slow motion...not to play it in that format. There isn't one delivery method that supports that frame rate at that resolution.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 21, 2011 7:10 AM (in response to Shane Ross)
Can anyone clarify this now that Final Cut Pro X has been released?
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 11:50 AM (in response to Gnaph)
I now own Final Cut pro X and am sad to say that it does NOT support the 1080p/60 settings from the Panasonic HDC-TM700. It did recognze the 29.97 footage, but when I had both kinds up, it only recognized the 29.97. Hopefully this will be part of the updates soon.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 2:56 PM (in response to oxynox)
This is false. I also have the Panasonic HDC-TM700, and while FCP X does not currently import the raw camera files, once transcoded IT ABSOLUTELY DOES IMPORT AND PLAY 1080/60p VIDEO.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 3:12 PM (in response to Shane Ross)
"There isn't one delivery method that supports that frame rate at that resolution."
There will be. Even James Cameron, for example, is considering shooting "Avatar 2" at 60fps, and the whole movie isn't going to be played back in slow motion.
"The point of shooting 1080 60p is to get nice slow motion..."
...or to capture movement smoothly and accurately.
True, currently most projects shot with 60 fps will have to be converted to a lower frame rate (for example, to post on Vimeo). But this WILL change eventually. We will not be stuck in the old 24 fps (film) and 30 fps (video) paradigm forever, just as with FCP X we will not all be stuck with the same editing methods, no matter how well they have served us, that we've been using for decades.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 3:35 PM (in response to ACE001)
>Even James Cameron, for example, is considering shooting "Avatar 2" at 60fps, and the whole movie isn't going to be played back in slow motion.
That means that it will play back in a theatre using a projector that costs a few hundred thousand dollars. Do you plan to do the same with your Panasonic HDC-TM700? Wow...ambitious.
>But this WILL change eventually.
HOW eventually? How soon? SMOOTH motion like 60p...is horrible for anything outside sports, news and documentary. Dramatic storytelling...narrative shows? People want 24p. Otherwise they get the soap opera look. EVERYONE (other than James Cameron), wants cameras that shoot 24p. Filmmakers want 24p. People making home indy films want 24p. Want ways to make the thing they shot at 30fps (60i) to look like 24p. because that is what we expect when we watch narrative. That is the look we like. 60fps looks too real. Not right.
Look at the HDTVs that smooth out 24p to look like 60i. It's horrible.
Whatever. Avatar sucked. 60p won't make it better. MORE reason to skip the movie.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 4:31 PM (in response to Shane Ross)
"Avatar sucked." Well thought-out review that completely missed the point, which wasn't about the film's narrative but about the fact that a major player in Hollywood, someone who has always been known to push technological boundaries, is considering shooting 60p. My point there was that this could help open things up a bit, for everyone.
"60p is horrible for anything outside sports, news and documentary. Dramatic storytelling... narrative shows? People want 24p."
You must know that 60p is only "horrible" because we are USED TO 24p, not because it is inherently horrible. It is technically better, in terms of capturing images.
I am currently shooting a documentary about bees, and have chosen to use 60p because I can capture their movements very well. I have used 30fps and it does not look as good. Perhaps when I make my next dramatic film I will use 24p (because this is what people identify as "dramatic" simply because it's been this way for nearly a century, and likely because this will facilitate an easier transfer to film). But perhaps I will go 60p and if the story is good enough people will watch it, no matter how many frames shoot by every second.
Larry Jordan, a very well-respected person in the video production and training industry, responded personally to my concerns about 1080 60p and possible broadcast problems:
"My recommendation is to shoot 1080p/60. It is the ideal format and can be transcoded to whatever you need."
Hopefully this helps someone to NOT be dissuaded from trying new things, or taking risks, or pushing boundaries, or succumbing to the expectations of a majority.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 5:14 PM (in response to ACE001)
I was just talking about importing the raw files directly. I'm sorry if it sounded otherwise. Do you have any preferred transcoding methods? I Just have a lot of 1080/60p footage that I won't be wanting to re-shoot.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 6:34 PM (in response to oxynox)
I purchased ClipWrap to transcode my files to ProRes 422. Many video professionals have said that there is no benefit to using anything other than just straight out 422 for this kind of footage. You can also use Toast to transcode the footage. Once converted to Quicktime files, import into FCP X and you'll be editing pure 1080p 60 footage.
Panasonic is supposed to be releasing a fix for this so that FCP X can transcode the footage, and it is supposed to be out this summer.
I've just done too much research, and have shot enough 1080 60p footage, to know that 1080 60p is very good, even with a sub $1,000 camera. And I don't like getting sarcastic and cocky comments (see above) when I'm simply trying to aid and encourage a fellow human being to pursue their craft.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 7:17 PM (in response to ACE001)
All I'm saying is why shoot and edit 1080p60 when the technology to play it doesn't exist in the low end? The web doesn't do it. Blu-Ray doesn't. So why do it? Wait until you can...IMHO. YOu don't have to heed my advice.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 7:24 PM (in response to Shane Ross)
I understand what you're saying, and it's a safe route to go. There are other video professionals who feel differently, and I'm choosing to take their advice on this matter. I'm sure you will give plenty of advice in the future that I will find very useful, and I will be grateful for that then.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 8:14 PM (in response to ACE001)
I just downloaded clipwrap and it seems to work quite well. Thanks for the help. Exactly what I was looking for.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 8:55 PM (in response to oxynox)
Honestly.. My opinion, (and I don't mean to say that anyone is wrong) is that many people in the video editing community have initially bad feelings toward actually releasing a film in 60p in instances when the film is a narrative or something dramatic.
My theory is that they just are not used to it because it feels and looks so drastically different from conventional 24p that they assume that it's a bad decision to do 60p altogether, whereas I say, yeah, it'll take some getting used to, consumers as well, but in the end, will we still be filming in 24p five years from now? 10 years from now?
How silly will it sound when we have technology capable of more than double that speed, and the people in charge simply refuse to use it? I mean, when I look at 60p footage, I love it, because you can see the motion like you would in real life.
I mean, part of the whole reason Apple made Final Cut Pro X such a drastically different product from its predecessors, in my opinion, is because this industry needed a little wake-up call to show them that we really need to keep the technology moving! We've been using 24p for ages! Not saying I'm not okay with 24p if that's what you do, but I'm just saying, I think 60p is where things are going, and if you have the capability, why restrict yourself? Just my thoughts on the issue. Reply yours!
Currently Being ModeratedJun 24, 2011 9:41 PM (in response to oxynox)
"I just downloaded clipwrap and it seems to work quite well. Thanks for the help. Exactly what I was looking for."
You are quite welcome.
Keep in mind, though, that while you have to select the actual .MTS files for Clipwrap to do it's thing, as far as keeping a copy of the raw camera data make sure you copy the ENTIRE contents of the memory card folder, not just the .MTS files. Important metadata is in those other folders. Once FCP X is able to ingest this footage, it won't work without the entire folder hierarchy. So please be careful!