Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Read all about it here at this article: http://www.xlcinema.com/viewtopic.php?t=145

Wow, I didn't know that. Good info!

Blast, yes you are correct on the image quality. However, the XL-H1 does not solve the DOF problems. Still fairly deep, thus videoish as is all these 1/3" camcorders. *sad face*

So the wide angle has been announced, and I am somewhat glad I held off on getting a 3x SD wide. I wonder how much it will cost. I really wish a set of primes were in the works. Would you rather have an Auto Focus HD Wide or a Manual 16x?

Hey Mike! I DON'T KNOW & NO.......... I DON'T KNOW = if it will playback recorded HD footage out the HD-SDI spigot. I have never tried that. NO = it won't playback 24f/30f HD footage on the viewfinder that you recorded with the Firestore FS-4 Pro HD recorder. It records it fine, but no confirmation playback. 60i? Hmmmm, I don't remember.

Hi Grimmett, The issue your editor is seeing is inherent in the HDV format. I fipped out last year when transferred footage from my Sony Z1U would show the video track longer then the audio track by a minimum of 5 frames. It always shows this at the ends of a clip. After research, it proved to be the GOP and being sliced on a B or P frame. However the "meat" of the clips were always timecode accurate. Same HDV traits show up at the ends of XLH1 HDV footage as well. What happened was, I employed a somewhat inexperienced director who would "CUT!" almost immediately after a take, leaving the editor very little to work with. From that day forward, I ensure the director calls "ACTION!" & "CUT!" with a few seconds of buffer time. Check that out and see if the 6 frames you are seeing is with the clip ends as with all HDV footage. But as far as synch, the XLH1 syncss to a slate just fine. I know because I own a Denecke TS-3 that I sometimes use for Music Videos. It also syncs to other XLH1's perfectly. I know because I have done it and editted the synced footage. It also syncs perfectly with a Sony F900. (as long as you don't change the battery or turn off the F900, otherwise you must keep both cameras tethered with a BNC one as a master and the other as a slave continuously) I know because I was told it did on a shoot that used both cameras. However I do not know how the editor feels. I never met him. But if you guys are using multiple XLH1's.....you should be good to go. Be sure to sync timecode "AND ALSO" genlock the cameras if you can (not required but better then just timecode alone). I hope that helps,

Matthew 26:17 Shot with a DVX100a by a phenomenal Cinematographer Brett Erskine of www.cinematographerreels.com/. I personally think the Director SUCKED and could have done a helluva better job. But *shrugs* oh well.....TBN seemed to like it enough to showcase the non-commercial creative works to 98 million households worldwide. It will air at various times over Easter Weekend, starting on Good Friday.....the actual DAY of the Passover meal, THE LAST SUPPER....how wonderful. that is all.

Hey Rob, They're working out excellently. The biggest gratification is the final image and how nice it looks for a video camera for this price. Since you have one, is it cool if I add you to my rolodex for future work as a director? What do you specialize in?

An awesome inventor & engineer, QUYEN LE, has succusessfully manufactured an adapter for basically any DV camera you want. It is called the LETUS35 adapter availbale now. Check it out at www.adapterplace.com for info on his LETUS35 adapter. Currently there is only one company that makes an adapter that mounts directly to the body of the Canon XL series of camcorders without the cumbersome need of using the long stock lens as a relay. They are the mighty P+S Mini35 adapter sold through ZGC. This is the mother of all camera adapters and is commonly considered the best camera adapter ever made. Well, QUYEN LE has taken the plunge to create an all new adapter that will also fit directly to the camera body of the Canon! The great news is that this new adapter from Adapter Place is so small and compact, it DOES NOT REQUIRE RODS to be upheld on your Canon Camera! After adding your 35mm SLR lens of choice to the front of it, you simply mount the entire device on your camera as if it was the stock lens. It is called the LETUS35XL adapter and is scheduled for release in the next 30-45 days. That's the great news....but the AWESOME NEWS is that this adapter will cost only about $800-900 bucks TOTAL!! So keep a lookout at www.adapterplace.com for the latest and greatest 35mm lens adaspter for the Canon XL series cameras.

David, Thanks for your wisdom. Everything worked out extremely well!

Thomas, I didn't mean to offend you bro. let's be friends. No I didn't do research on you. No time for that, I just like to come here and talk tech talk during my spare time, as I'm sure you and all the rest of us do. I never really go looking people up on the IMDB. That site is not very accurate anyhow, as I am sure it only has 1/2 of the work you've done. I know it only has a fraction of mine. My own websites aren't even updated. Additionally, you are correct, I am not a Director of Photography. I am absolutely confident that you can run circles around me when it comes to lighting a scene. Alls i'm saying is....thomas....bro.....you came at me wrong. be honest....didn't you? C'mon man, tell the truth. *smile* Go back and check the record and tell me if you couldn't have talked to me better then you did? I would have prefered you to simply answer the question at hand. But you didn't. You (and others) went off on me about some old stuff. I asked a simple question about the HVX200 and wanted to know opinions on the sensors an who considered that "High Definition" and whatnot, and you go slamming me about 24p and the XL-H1....da hell? Where did that discussion come in the picture? if "ANYBODY" else would have asked the EXACT same question, not changing a word, then it would have been all good. It would have been answered immediately. but because I asked it....a get jumped. My normal response is to sling mud back at you (i'm good at it too), but the last time that happened to me here, I got sent to the principals office and took the blame. I wasn't going to let that happen a 2nd time. So let's be cool *daps*. no need in hating people over the world wide web whom we never met. Thats almost as dumb as fighting with iraq when you're supposed to be looking for bin laden. You feel me? And since you're in L.A. (probably like right down the street for all I know), then I will in fact look at your reel and check you out. Unless ofourse you're not interested in working with me. it'd be funny if we make a couple of $mil$ together and tell stories on how we met. lol David, Thanks for your answer. I think I understand your position clearly now. . - ShannonRawls.com

David, Now...I started this conversation with YOU. Ofcourse this is an open discussion forum so others are allowed to join in, naturally. But this is exactly how the mudslinging started last time. I was nice, I was professional, and then WHAM BAM...here comes the sarcastic poop talking from those that never seen or touched the camera and just felt the need to butt-in (ofcourse they say they used it or tried it out or whatever in these web-forums, but we all know how internet DP's tend to skew their real-world experience) Now, since you are the guru of this site, you told me last time it's not WHAT I say but HOW I say it. Well.......how did I say it this time? Please go back and re-read my initial question on page-1 in this thread and tell me how/what I did so wrong. If you see no 'wrong' with my simple inquiry to you, which I doubt you will, then do you honestly expect me to just sit back and accept these cyber rat-packs without fighting back? After all, I am a VICTIM don't you think? *smile* If I begin to ridicule and smack these guys around makling them look stupid to the world, I will be labeled boisterous and provacative. Then people will start saying I came here and started trash talking and all that. Convienently, everybody will forget how cool calm and collective I was in the beginning. All they will do is go get their buddies to come on here and help them combat me and then I will be labeled the troublemaker. Do you see what I mean? I pray you do. because all I did was ask YOU a simple question about the Panasonic HVX200 camera in the Panasonic HVX-200 forum (and got attacked) and then you politely answered it in a very professional way.(thank you) I replied to your answer with more inquisitions, and here I am being attacked again by member #29 up there. LOLOL now if I reply directly to them (like i did last month) and begin to cyber-slam these guys turning this thread into a 10-page war on terror....will it be justified? Or will i again be the so-called 'troublemaker' around here? LOL for simply defending my internet personality. (shakin' my head) The irony of all this David: We're not even talking about the XL-H1. The discussion at hand is the HVX200. Even more Irony: I never once said the xl-h1 shoots 24p in this discussion. Why is that even being talked about? I was asking about a totally different manufacturer & camera. yet these guys are attempting to provoke me. Today as I scrolled through the replies, I thought you too were getting on the the XL-H1/24p debacle because you made a single post about that without answering my initial question. I didn't understand why you 'went there' with that when I never asked or wanted to talk about the Canon. We already covered that last month and got an understanding. But then 2-posts later you came back with the answer to my question. How we got on the XL-H1/24p topic is beyond me. I haven't discussed that cameras frame rate since we ended our convo in January, so I guess some people still had some things balled up like a knot inside them & they needed to get it out, and this was their opportunity. LOL I was asking about HVX200 and HD. Why on earth anybody brought the XL-H1 up is a mystery. I never asked any questions about that camera, I never said it shoots 24p, I never eluding to anything other then utilizing it as an illustration to reference my real question: the HVX200 and its sensors and HD. I guess some people are on a crusade against Canon or something, I don't know. Maybe they don't like ole' Shanny Shan for whatever reason. The human nature is a mystery. Whatever it is, I hope they get it out their system so we can stay on topic. lol Anyhow David, I still await your reply when you get some spare time and make it back to the forums. - ShannonRawls.com

Thoms Haas, relax brutha. it's not that serious. it's just the internet, and this is just your spare time. have fun with it, don't argue & yell and get wound up like your getting paid a salary. David, Thanks for your reply. I guess I'm just curious as to how you give one camera a "pass" on terminology and other cameras you don't. Seems bias. Common usage? So that's the definitive resource now? What happened to technical specs and definitive white papers? Why are we defining the camera by the chips for "this" guy, but not for "that" guy. Why all of a sudden has the rules changed? Let's forget the Sony Z1 because it neither captures nor records a progressive 24fps, ever. But for instance, you mention the Canon XL-H1 is only doing 'in-camera' what can actually be done 'in-post'....right? And as a result, we must call it what it is, right? Well........what is the HVX doing then? The chips in this camera misses the mark both ways. They are not HD vertically or horizontally. Not even at the lowest ATSC/EBU standard of High Definition of 1280x720. I could see if it met the requirement going at least in one direction, but it lacks both ways. Yet & Still, it "RECORDS" it as such. Something you have drilled into my head in our previous discussion that 'shouldn't matter'. As a matter of fact, I remember you telling me if we defined cameras by what they can record then ANY OLE' CAMERA could be called 24p since we could do it in post from ANY frame rate, therefore thats just not how its definied. Well........what is the HVX doing then? Is it not doing 'in-camera' what can be done in post as well? However for some reason, you give it the "HD" stamp of approval. Why is there doubt? Why is there a grey area? Seems black & white to me. Why apply 'common talk' now? 960x540 sounds more like ED then HD to me. The term "Enhanced Definition" is 'common'. Why has that been ommited? Why isn't this camera called an ED camera, great for those who own ED televisions? lol But because people call it HD (only because of 11 months of false advertising and late-2005 brainwashing) and because Panasonic called it HD, it's ok to be called HD, even though it is not? If you hate inaccuracies and don't want to be misleading, then it seems THIS should be at the top of your list, no? To be truly fair and brand agonistic, then the rules should apply to everybody that plays in the sandbox, dont you think? This is what we all grew up learning as kids. So why now when it comes to these handycams are the rules modified? And what about 4:2:2 colorspace? It is impossible to capture 4:2:2 from those chips, but it records it as such because of the codec.....so......is it still 4:2:2? It is 'commonly' understood that colorspace is definied by the chips. Did we change those rules as well? I'm not trying to be controversial here, I'm just trying to eradicate all confusion, fear, uncertainrty, doubt, spins and more importantly --- contradictions. Help me out Dave - ShannonRawls.com

EVS in burbank/glendale is the best! Speak with a guy named RUSH. - ShannonRawls.com

David, I was wondering.... If some people define the Canon XL-H1 by the CCD and not what it's actually recording, thereby some people giving it the name "fake 24p" then.....isn't it fair..... that we define all cameras by the CCD, thus labeling the HVX200 as a "fake HD" camera??? I mean, 960x540 is hardly HD, and thats the CCD we're talking about, right? just wondering what your expert thoughts are on that. - ShannonRawls.com P.S.: Actually, it may possibly be considered "fake 4:2:2" as well??

David, Brian, Keith & Stephen, Thanks for your wonderful input. Let me explain what we are doing. Have you ever seen the movie "Able Edwards"? If not, check it out at www.AbleEdwards.com and peep the trailer. An excellent work by Graham Robertson. We are doing something similar to this, only it is a modern day dream sort of story where the character never leaves the screen. Lots of chromakey & visual effects. It's a short piece and we have 2 days to record it. Keith, I am using XL-H1's because I own two of them myself and a Z1U for insert shots. Going this route I can better use the budget to hire good people to operate 2 camera heads and 1 camcorder (for random inserts) thus speeding up the footage we capture rather then employing 1 studio camera and rushing all day. The directors father said "I will pay for the studio recorder...I don't care what they cost....you come up with the rest"....so I'm gonna take him up on that offer! We have two studios....one green for the main stuff and one small insert stage with a white syc-wall. Since I read up on David Mullen and it seems he is a SAGE at this stuff, I was curious as to what he would use if he were in this situation.....HDCAM-SR it is. I thank him for the free advice and the others as well. I wish I could hire him for the gig, but my budget only calls for $750/day for the DP and that's 1/4 of a music video DP's rate, so I saved myself the embarrassment. *smile* Post production will be offlined on an Avid Adrenaline (again paid for by dad) in whatever format we deliver to him, and so I was just trying to figure out how I can capture all three corners of the deadly production triangle (GOOD-FAST-CHEAP) with just two arms. Thanks guys, you've been most helpful. I forgot all about D5. I would MUCH rather have portable field recorders with us then lug two desktop computer systems and hire two people to man them. Keith, when I refer to 24f I am talking about what it is. That's the label printed near the switch on the camera. When I refer to 24p I am talking about what it does. That's the recording on the tape. I don't get worked up over labels and terminology. Would you rather I call it "24fps"? or maybe "24 frames per second progressive"? I don't mean to work you up Keith, you seem like a really cvool guy and undoubtedly an expert Director. Let's be internet friends bro and not argue over cheap camcorders (silly when you think about it). However, As fitting an art form, grounded in science this place is, then we should also respect the fact that are are no rights & wrong...only opinions. However Keith, because I would hate to use the term "24P" out of context, your statement has prompted me to refer to the famous Wikipedia Encyclopedia to find the offical definition of "24p" for the first time ever. This is what I have found: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p 24p is a video format which runs twenty-four progressive (hence the "P") frames per second, essentially the same as film does. Originally used for utilitarian purposes in non-linear editing, today the format is widely used for aesthetic reasons by both high-end professional and independent media makers. In particular, 24P HD already provides a reasonably viable alternative to the film format and may replace it altogether in the future. At standard analog NTSC video rates (30/second) a full "interlaced" frame, unlike a progressive frame, is 1/30th of a second and is composed of two separate "fields," each 1/60 per second. The first field containing the odd horizontal scan lines and the second, the even lines. What is seen onscreen is two of these fields, "interlaced" together, to produce a single full 1/30th per second frame. Conversion to 24P involves removing certain frames of the video (which will start for example at 60 fields interlaced per second or 60i) and staggering the remaining footage together to end up with 24 full images that show in sequence, or "progression." This is, of course, a digital process and usable only with digital video equipment. The process is known as a "pulldown." Older, analog NTSC video must still have everything converted (up or down) to 30 interlaced frames, so the resulting footage is for most purposes still just video, either on the NTSC or PAL standard and Standard Definition (SD) or High Definition (HD). Of course this video signal, and almost any television set, is still interlaced-- what you are getting with 24P is a sort of "simulated" progressive medium, the same thing that you are getting in any DVD, VHS or television broadcast of a Hollywood film. 24p was originally developed for non-linear editing systems such as Avid to create a frame-for-frame correlation between film and digitized video, in order to achieve the most accurate editing possible. But it began to be applied to footage originally acquired on video, along with other post-production effcts, to create a film-like effect. Increasingly, 24p is used to acquire video. In these cases a camera does an "on-board pulldown" as it shoots. The most prolific use of this has been with HDTV and digital cinema. Cameras such as the Panasonic AJ-SDX900 have been heavily used in TV and film work, and the Star Wars Prequels were shot on a very high-end digital 24P HD cameras. In 2002, Panasonic released the Prosumer DV camera AG-DVX100 (followed by the updated models AG-DVX100A in 2003 and AG-DVX100B in 2005). This camera was the first DV camera that can switch between different frame rates. The 24P feature on the camera produces film-like video generally agreed to be preferable to normal DV, especially for narrative filmmakers. Canon soon followed suit with the XL2. Although resembling film look in color and motion, the resolution of 24P DV is no higher than regular video-- a point of confusion for many film and video makers. Following the success of the DVX100, in December 2005 Panasonic plans to release the Panasonic AG-HVX200, which will offer true HD, 24P capacity at the prosumer level. Basically an HD version of the DVX100A, it will heavily target independent filmmakers, as HD has a much higher resolution than DV and will generally look fairly superior on a film blow-up. It is also noteworthy that the camera will record HD footage, complete with clip information, to static P2 memory cards instead of tape. This could potentially signify a radical change in the video editing workflow. For recording 24p to tape in formats which typically do not support 24p, such as DV, options include PsF, 3:2 Pulldown, advanced pulldown, and 24-over-60. So Keith, I don't see what's the beef. (that rhymed! *smile*) Wether I call it 24f or 24p, we all know what we're talking about. I call cars cars, you may call them automobiles. My dad calls the refrigerator an ICE BOX. lol What does your grandfaher call Coca Cola? *smile* I know what mine does. The fact of the matter is, the XL-H1's 24f mode records 24p footage, unlike the Sony Z1U's cf24 mode. I knew this already, proved it with the owners manual, shown it on computer, illustrated it on a Plasma TV....and now.....confirmed it with with Wikipedia. I hope we can close this 24p vs 24f discussion and move forward with more fun topics....like making movies with these low-cost camcorders. Either way, thanks guys for the input. You've been most helpful. As for Mr. Michael Maier....ummm, OK. - ShannonRawls.com

Well, the HD-SDI for the XL-H1 is 4:2:2 10-bit quantatized from an 8-bit DSP. Some say the extra 2 bits are turned off. Either way, it's 4:2:2 10-bit. To get full 4:4:4 10-bit HD-SDI, you need a double BNC connection. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends on how you look at it), the XL-H1 is on a single BNC connection limtiing it to 4:2:2. So would going with HDCAM-SR may be overkill? Especially since i'm only using 4:2:2 from the camera head? Trust me, the thought crossed my mind but I wonder if you can even record to HDCAM-SR with a single cable stream of HD-SDI...that would be good to find out. *smile* Yes, all post production will be done using downconverted timecode-accurate DV proxy clips and onlined back to HDCAM for delivery. Digitizing on set to a hard drive is an option and it sounds great, but the convience of having a deck is nicer (and cheaper). If I cannot use HDCAM-SR because of it's 4:4:4 dual HD-SDI connection requirements, that leaves me with a few choices: 1. HDCAM (deck) 2. DVCPRO-HD (deck or computer) 3. XDCAM-HD (deck) 4. CINEFORM HD (pc computer) 5. SONY YUV 4:2:2 (pc computer) 6. APPLE INTERMEDIATE CODEC (mac computer) 7. UNCOMPRESSED (mac or pc computer) <-- I don't like this because I will need a raid system, that I really don't want to deal with that day. I just don't know what's best. - ShannonRawls.com

*smile* Touche' Trevor, Touche'! - ShannonRawls.com

David, If you had any choice in the world. ANY CHOICE......What format/codec would you chose to record to? I have a project coming up, and I have the oportunity to drag along a PC or MAC system...or even rent a deck. This is not timecode or audio sensitive, so I pretty much have a choice what to record to from the HD-SDI spigot. What would you chose? - ShannonRawls.com

Ahhhh Michael. That's not fair. I don't counter any and everything people say. I just like to see proof, not just FUD or hypothetics. When I speak, I speak fact, not what I wish or want or think or would like to have. But what is real. That's all. People argue with me based on guesses and wishful thinking. I will say this....during the test....the HD100 picture was the prettiest in my eyes! Nate Weaver dialed that camera in nicely, and it's picture did look like I was watching a movie....that's the truth! Much more then the Z1U, XL-H1, HVX200, Varicam and F900! There was just something about that image that was super-nice. Ofcourse this is my own personal and subjective opinion. And as far as motion goes for the 24F...identical to XL2 24p. So I'm admit, I am a tad bit confused. If you just don't like the way Canon does 24p then that's fine, but that's subjectively your opinion and should be noted as such. As far as resolution goes....The HD100 simply does not resolve 700 lines Michael. Ok, you don't trust me, but you trust Nate right? You know me and nate were both at the test on January 12th, right? He's a great guy and extremely honest. Well read what Nate says here about the RESOLUTION test that occured: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=412068&postcount=9 OK, so why do you think Nate would say that if it's not true? He says the same thing I say. You believe your own eyes don't you? Well look at the video clips posted by Adam from that day: http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/videos/4cam-1080cams.mov and http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/videos/4cam-720cams.mov What do you see? So with all humilty and respect, what are you talking about? I'm not interested in arguing with you Michael, there's better things for us to do, but like I said in the 1st paragrapgh, I use facts....I'm telling you what I've tested with my own eyes. What are you using? Here we go with that wishful thinking I was talking about. Also, there has NEVER been a resolution chart posted @ dvinfo for the HD100. So how can you say it's been shown several times? Why would you say that and it's not true? Are you just making up things to sound cool and get people who read this thread to believe you? Don't do that Michael, that's not fair to the discussion and it's misleading to those who are indecisive on what camera to buy and will take your word for gospel. Look, we don't have to discuss this any longer. I don't know if you have some personal beef with Canon or not or maybe just like to argue with Shannon Rawls. So we can just stop. It seems you like JVC, so get one if you don't already have one and enjoy it. Make some cool 'filmic' pictures with it. - ShannonRawls.com

Thomas, May I have permission to re-post your image elsewhere. It's a great visual aid for those that would like to know. Also, I think this only works for 35mm lenses. The XL1SOLUTIONS adapter in question is for using 16mm lenses. I beleive the zoom becomes only 2x for 16mm straight adapter/lens instead of 7x like it does with 35mm straight adapter/lens. Do you have a visual aid we can see for 16mm lens adapter & lens? - ShannonRawls.com

Hi Brian. You must be talking about the test I was in over at www.DV.com. Honestly, if the HVX200 need retesting then ALL 4 cameras need to be retested as well. Also, the Verticle numbers for the HD100 is a misprint. It did/does not yield higher then the XL-H1 verticly (even in 24f mode). We never even tested the resolution of the XL-H1 in 60i mode, so I'm not sure where Adam got that number from. Adam Wilt & Barry Green are AWESOME guys and they were under allot of pressure that day. There will be a 3-day comprehensive test in Texas in about a week. This test will be more controlled and documented. Either way, the HD100 does not resolve 700 verticle lines out of 720, no way. And you can take a look for yourself at the downloads at DV.com, or simply click here and view them: http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/videos/4cam-1080cams.mov and http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/videos/4cam-720cams.mov Make sure your Quicktime player is on "REPEAT" so you can see the motion characteristics of each clip. It clearly shows the Sony F900 resolving the best resolution of all the cameras. Some people argue that the XL-H1 is higher then the Varicam horizontally, but I do not agree. I think the Varicam is higher. The XL-H1 resolves higher then all the other affordable HD cameras, as you can see for yourself. Personally, I don't think resolution is all what it needs to be in the grand scheme of things. For a film out, yes, but overall, no. And just how many people using these sub-$10k cameras will be actually doing a film out? LOL Most all of them will be going to SD DVD. I was just trying to get clarity on what Michael was saying above. - ShannonRawls.com

Michael, Good day to you. Just a couple friendly questions. 24f loses resolution? compared to what camera? It yields the highest 24p recorded resolution then any other camera available under $90,000.00. Only the F900 is higher. This makes it excellent for film-outs. Is this not one of the main reason we want HIGH definition in the first place? The resolution. And because this camera is the highest in its class, even in 24f mode, that's a good thing, wouldn't you agree? It looks like video? Well....what Video Camera doesn't? It's in the hands of our DP's & Directors to make Video look & move like Film....not just the camera. Your statement gives me indication that you are placing all your bets with the camera you chose and not the talent behind it. As if you can flip on one of the competing video camera and you instantly have an Arri 535A and your movie will look like "King Kong" out the box. *smile* In that regard, the XL-H1 has more camera image settings then any other camera in its class, which effectively can make the camera look like Video, as you say, or Film if you wanted and knew how to. Last question. I'm curious....you would much more have real progressive scanning to achieve what goal Michael? - ShannonRawls.com

Excellent answer Thomas...and that's a superb visual aid. - ShannonRawls.com

But that's the thing Thomas.....No other gear "WILL" read 24f it except another XL-H1. *smile* Which gives indication it is in fact 24p recorded. Additionally, programs like Vegas does not add pulldown when reading the files and that confirms it even more. it's crazy but it's true. You may not believe me, but trust me, that's the case. otherwise, the Sony would read the 24f footage just fine....but it does not. However, I tend to beleive you are correct, and so is David Mullen. I was wrong before about recording to tape. The 24f "recorded to tape" is in fact 24p with 3:2 pulldown as David said it was. At least I think it is. I think it is 60i in all forms on tape, just like the XL2, DVX100, SDX900 or any other 24p camera that needs to conform to a 29.97 tape spec. It is however 23.976 progressive coming directly out of the firewire....no pulldown added. That's where I got mixed up when talking with David in the other post. Also, why would you use Kaku's old footage as an example? It was from a pre-production model XL-H1 he got almost 6 months ago! dvinfo has removed that as a sticky and doesn't even use that as example footage anymore. Moreover, some of Kaku's footage was at question to what format it was in and set on. 24p footage was 29.97 when we all now the camera spits out 23.976 in 24f mode. So that footage is not quantified as a good example to use. Thomas, why not use more modern PRODUCTION MODEL footage to illustrate 24f? From cameras that people have purchased and own. There is plenty of it on the net. Actually...there is footage being shot at SUNDANCE 2006 THIS WEEK (right now) with the Canon XL-H1 that you can use for illustration purposes...this is from an over-the-counter camera final production camera that we can all go get at your local pro video store. From the reports, everybody is BLOWN AWAY from the 24p HD stuff it is producing. The footage aired on Sundance channel this past Monday and WILL BE AIRING MORE 24F FOOTAGE TONIGHT AS WELL. However I think tonites showcase was captured in SD and not HD s monday's stuff was. Find more about that here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=44581 or http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=59050 I think that's a bit more fair, wouldn't you agree? As far as Aliasing goes...heck...even the HVX200 with it's progressive scanning chips has aliasing. It comes from the artificial edge enhancement these cameras uses when the DETAIL setting is turned up too much. Kaku did not dial the camera in like it should have. He just pulled it out the box, pointed and shot. We have already done a camera shootout and many many many other people have already checked this out, and the question of 24f recording 24p is no longer a question. It is. PRODUCTION MODEL 24f footage has been examined, disected, scrutinized, inspected, evaluated, microscoped and given a full autopsy by many people already. The XL-H1 records every bit of 24p as the XL2 does (actually, it looks better). In High Definition, 24f resolves more resolution then any other camera available for under $60,000. And it looks better then any other camera too. Ofcourse that's a subjective opinion, but isn't everything in Video? *smile* I agree with you, I do not beleive the CCD's are scanning both fields simultaneously. But then again nobody knows the 'design of the CCD' either. It's all speculative. Some people think its a native 1440x1080 pixel shifting chip. Others say its a full 1920x1080 pixel shifting chip. Crazy I know...but the point is, we just don't know for sure. These companies got spin on everything they do. It's ridiculous. *smile* I guess what I'm saying is some of the issues you are attempting to clear up are already clear....just the results are different I suppose. - ShannonRawls.com