Jump to content
Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

24f turns out to be as good or better then 24p...

Recommended Posts

Shannon,

 

What's the deal? You couldn't get everyone to bite on your argument at dvinfo.net, so you brought it over here?

 

Hey, I like your moxie, I love your posts and your energy. But, why force it to be 24p when Canon won't even say it's 24p?

 

You say you get 24 progressive frames. But you get that shooting 60i and converting in post. 24 progressive frames. That doesn't change the fact that it's a simulation, an interpolation, based on something else. It's 24 simulated progressive frames based on 48 interlaced fields. There is a difference, and there have been posts "over there" that indicate some interlacing artifacts slip through during high motion.

 

I'm sure it looks great, though. I wish I had one. I'd love for you to bring it out to Phoenix to shoot my next film. :)

 

Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument has mainly been due to some confusion over issues.

 

If you want to say that the Canon creates a good and practical simulation of 24P HD, especially when you consider its competition in the under $10,000 camera market, that's fine. If the picture is good, it doesn't really matter if there was some loss in the conversion from 48i to 24P because what are you comparing it to?

 

But when someone either insists that this camera does 24P even though Canon cannot and will not make that claim, for obvious reasons -- it doesn't do 24P -- or that cameras that actually do capture in 24P aren't true 24P cameras because they record the information in some other format, like 24PsF or 60P/720 or 60i/480, then I smell a political agenda or a marketing ploy, because now you're drifting towards advocacy and promotion rather than sticking to objective information.

 

The generally accepted definition of a 24P camera is one that has a progressive-scan CCD (or CMOS) and samples at 24 times per second.

 

That's pretty simple. It's also why Sony and Canon have to use terms like "24F" to describe their workaround solutions to not building the camera this way. This doesn't mean to say that some solutions aren't pretty effective and useful, but it also doesn't get around the fact that these aren't 24P cameras.

 

Just because we're saying that the Canon XL-H1 is not a true 24P camera doesn't mean we are saying that it's not a good camera, that it's not competitive with other cameras that actually offer 24P. For all I know, someone comparing 24P/720 on the JVC Pro-HD camera may prefer the quality of Canon's 24F version recorded to 60i/1080 HDV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Josh,

I never said anything about Canon XL-H1 shooting 60i mode creating 24p in POST Production.

 

*sigh* Gee wiz, am I not perfectly clear? Why does everyone insist on changing the story and my words to have something to say? Go back and re-read for clarification.

 

and now Josh...This XL-H1 forum is pretty dead, wouldn't you agree? *smile*all of 3 topics total before this one. It's just the Internet Josh. and being that this is the great "Cinematogrpahy" website, I figured Cinematographers come here for knowledge. So I gave some. Do you tell that to Barry Green when he posts knowledge at multuiple sites about the HVX-200? So why would you say that to me? Kinda unfair don't you think?

I'm not trying to get anyone to 'bite' anything. It was dead here, I decided to talk.

 

Anyhow, back on topic..... So Josh, what posts "over there" indicate interlacing artifacts? I'm curious. What 24p footage generated from the Canon XL-H1's 24f mode have you seen that showed you some interlacing artifacts?? Don't lie Josh. I wanna see it.

 

(in my Poker voice) "I'm calling you on this buddy" *smile*

 

Show me the footage that you seen shot in 24f that give you 1 ounce of interlacing artifacts. Otherwise, you should retract that statement and stop spreading untruths by typing it. It's that kind of mis-information that unsuspected DP's read when they come here to learn stuff. They'll take your word for gospel Josh, when in fact you never knew what you were talking about in the first place.

 

Yes, it does look great. Yes, I wish you had one too. Yes, i'd love to come to phoenix to shoot your nexy film. *smile*

 

- ShannonRawls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My goodness David, please read the "TOPIC" of this discussion thread. Please read the "FIRST" post that I made in regards to the topic. Everyting that was said is true! Every single word in the subject and body of the the #1 post of this thread is 100% absolutely TRUE. Why have we deviated from discussing that?

 

I did just reread your post and I stand by my reply, which is that I believe, looking at the Canon literature, you are incorrect to say that the camera records in 24P. Canon says the camera records 1080i. You may be able to extract 24P from that, but you specifically said that it RECORDS 24P. I see no evidence that the camera records 24P/1080 to HDV tape. Perhaps you can provide a link that says that the camera does because I looked around on the internet and everything says that the camera always records 1080i.

 

I don't disagree with anything else in the original post -- I just wanted to correct an inaccuracy.

Edited by David Mullen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument has mainly been due to some confusion over issues.

 

If you want to say that the Canon creates a good and practical simulation of 24P HD, especially when you consider its competition in the under $10,000 camera market, that's fine.

David,

 

Are you kidding me? Thats all I said! *fainting*

My goodness David, please read the "TOPIC" of this discussion thread. Please read the "FIRST" post that I made in regards to the topic. Everyting that was said is true! Every single word in the subject and body of the the #1 post of this thread is 100% absolutely TRUE. Why have we deviated from discussing that?

 

It's YOU who went off topic along with a few others that 'went there' with off-topic stuff. As if you have some underlying agenda to prove Canon's inability to be a good camera or something. All I wanted to talk about was how 24f is as good or better then 24p and that you actually get 24p footage recorded to tape. That's ALL I EVER SAID IN THE ORIGINAL POST. Why didn't we stay on "topic"? because of YOU David Mullen ole' buddy ole' pal. *smile*

Moreover, I have repreatedly tried to go BACK TO THE TOPIC by discussing the picture and 24f imagery....but NOOoooOO, you guys wanna still keep replying to the OFF TOPIC issue that you've created. *smile*

 

It's like you yelling at me, and when I yell back, you ask me why am I yelling. lolol

 

Nobody wants to talk about how wonderful the 24f footage is. You'd rather talk about how the camera scans the image at the CCD and all that OFF-TOPIC and EXTREMELY UNIMPORTANT stuff.

How the canon xl-h1 scans the image is as unimportant as Panasonic not releasing the pixel count of the hvx200 ccd sensors!

How the canon xl-h1 scans the image is as unimportant as JVC captures it's 24p footage

How the canon xl-h1 scans the image is as unimportant as Varicam is not true High Definition at the sensors

 

Does any of that stuff matter? NO... so long as the FINAL IMAGE is Gorgeous and True High Definition.

 

But for some reason.....you have gone on a crusade to discuss how the canon xl-h1 scans the image and you have made it the most important thing in the world to talk about. Just forget how it's the best looking 24p footage available for under $55,000.....all you care to discuss is UNIMPORTANT STUFF.

 

Can we stay on topic?

 

Seems nobody has nothing to say if we do.

 

Maybe it's a human trait. Forget the good, point out the bad. Don't praise little johnny for getting an "A" in mathematics on his report card, but if little johnny gets a "C" in gym class he's in big trouble and gets grounded and no allowance for a week.

 

C'mon guys....be fair...at the very least.

 

- ShannonRawls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but you specifically said that it RECORDS 24P. I see no evidence that the camera records 24P/1080 to HDV tape.

 

That's because you don't own one, havent tested one, and simply just don't know David.

 

and that's OK.

 

I am telling you what you get from the camera, because I own one, tested one and I do know. If it only "recorded" 60i like the Sony Z1U does then it would play in the Sony HDV cameras and decks...But it DOES NOT. How do I know that.....because I own one of those too!

 

The Sony, in ALL modes, will play on the Canon XL-H1 and the XL-H1 detects ALL MODES from the Z1U as 60i including CineFrame 24 & 30. The Sony will only play the Canon's 60i footage. it flashes "UNSUPPORTED FORMAT" if you try to play 24f or 30f footage.... Why is that...because its RECORDED TO TAPE as 24p and 30p!!!!!!

 

I realize it will probably take someone you admire to tell you the same thing I am trying to tell you before you actually beleive it. So I guess we'll just have to wait until that day comes. Lord knows after reading allot of your wisdom on this website I surely know that you know what you're talking about.....but this time, you don't. So until someone you trust tells you later what I am telling you now, you can take my advice or leave it.

 

- ShannonRawls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shannon,

 

I'm very seriously considering the purchase of Canon XL-H1. Based on the 24F footage I've seen, the camera creates a very pleasing picture that *appears* to very cleverly emulate 24P progressive scan images. I honestly could care less what's going inside the DigicII chip that produces the final "fake" progressive 24fps image. And because the final 24fps image is recorded to tape and can be easily resequenced in post, to me, it's what I need.

 

Also, there have been a lot of tests using Canon's SD lenses (the manual 14x, the manual 16x, and the 3x) which seem to be producing highly acceptable results. It's because I can easily reuse many of the XL2 accessories on this camera that has swayed me from purchasing the HVX to purchasing the XL-H1. Having the option to rent the Mini35 is also a great option for feature-film work. I just can't get beyond the HVX's fixed lens. I'm used to having numerous lens options. And I'm already very familiar with the XL form factor.

 

I know there's a lot of consternation about the HDV codec. Man, I don't know what everyone else is looking at because all the HDV footage I've seen looks great! I hear a lot of talk about motion artifacts, but I've never seen one. I've looked at HDV footage from FX1, the HD100 and XL-H1 and I'm amazed at how good it looks.

 

Also, because the XL-H1 has an HD-SDI output that bypasses the HDV encoder I will also have the option of shooting any/all bluescreen or greenscreen footage to a more robust format like HDCAM-SR or direct to disk.

 

I agree that the XL-H1 produces the best HD images under $10,000.

 

However, I would refrain from picking fights with David Mullen as he's one of the most respected cinematographers on these boards and his breadth of knowledge and expertise has been an invaluable resource for guys like us. One of the main reasons I successfully produced my first F900 HD production was because of the knowledgebase on this board, most of which was from his first-hand experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I would refrain from picking fights with David Mullen as he's one of the most respected cinematographers on these boards ...

 

*hands up*

What did "I" do?? All I said was 24f was great. David began cyber-smacking me around and I defended myself and had to prove I ain't no dumb punk. He ended up apologizing after I threw that last right hook. *smile*

 

I feel like the kid who got blamed for shooting a spit wad at the teacher, because it 'looked' like it came from my direction.

 

- ShannonRawls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*hands up*

What did "I" do??

 

'what you did' was join a forum 2 days ago and instantly start telling people that you know better than them. This place is here for an exchange of knowledge (mostly), so we usually like to leave the attitude until we know each other better :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*hands up*

What did "I" do?? All I said was 24f was great. David began cyber-smacking me around and I defended myself and had to prove I ain't no dumb punk. He ended up apologizing after I threw that last right hook. *smile*

 

I feel like the kid who got blamed for shooting a spit wad at the teacher, because it 'looked' like it came from my direction.

 

- ShannonRawls.com

 

 

I'm on your side. I'm going to buy this camera soon. Perhaps we can exchange notes as I know you're a proud new papa and I will be soon.

 

Are you a Final Cut Pro user by chance? Just wondering if you've been able to digitize 24F footage into FCP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This place is here for an exchange of knowledge (mostly), so we usually like to leave the attitude until we know each other better :-).

 

Isn't that what I did? I exchanged some friendly knowledge in a post I started for tohers to read and learn. no harm no foul.

 

and if someone is wrong they are wrong. What? I have to get to know y'all first before I can correct people around here? Even after I am told someting that "I KNOW" is not true?

 

c'mon man. be real.

 

anyhow....Stuart. So how's the weather in Bristol? (attempting to get to know you)

 

- ShannonRawls.com

 

Are you a Final Cut Pro user by chance? Just wondering if you've been able to digitize 24F footage into FCP?

 

Nope, I'm a PC guy (republican). *smile*

 

Capturing 24f in PC is easy. For MAC you can use HDVxDV to capture 24f. Problem is, it will be an .m2t file and I don't think final cut can understand that file type just yet.

 

- ShannonRawls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and if someone is wrong they are wrong. What? I have to get to know y'all first before I can correct people around here?

 

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. The thing is, you come across like either a know-it-all, or someone on Canons' payroll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shannon, try and not take this the wrong way, but my original "correction" to your first post was completely cordial -- I said that I didn't believe that the camera records in 24P, just interlaced. That was not meant as an insult, but an attempt to make a correction based on some quick research that I did before responding (not being sure.)

 

All you had to do is reply by saying "no, actually the camera does record to HDV in 24P -- here is my evidence..."

 

And I would have said "thanks for the info and for correcting me." End of discussion.

 

Look, you do actually think someone like me -- "mr. answer-guy" -- wants to have incorrect information on any subject? One of the reasons I hang out on the internet is to not only instruct others, but have others inform me.

 

There is obviously a confusion being promoted by Canon as to exactly how the camera records 24P to tape. You have an opportunity to enlighten us, not antagonize us, by presenting verifiable information with as little attitude attached as possible.

 

I thank you for FINALLY backing up your opinions with some outside information; you could have saved us some unneeded tension here by doing it sooner! I look forward to any further light you can shed on the camera because I'm as curious as everyone else is about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All you had to do is reply by saying "no, actually the camera does record to HDV in 24P -- here is my evidence..."

 

And I would have said "thanks for the info and for correcting me." End of discussion.

 

click here: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...indpost&p=82170

 

thats the 3rd reply in this thread. See the happiness in my words? See how cool I was? See how cordial I was? See how friendly and polite I was? Do you see how I did in fact do what you said I should have done? Looks like thats what I did David. So where's that "thanks for the info" reply you said you would have given me. Instead you proceeded to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about, and your buddys jumped in to help you.

 

But now...

all of a sudden.....

 

"I'm" the one pinned with having an attitude and antagonizing you guys??????????

 

WOW!

 

Look...why don't everybody GO BACK to the beginning and re-read the order of things, and the words that were said. I don't come off as Anything, but I won't let you tell me one thing when I know it's someting else.

 

if it ain't one thing, it's another. If I eneded up being wrong, you would all be here laughing at me. But since that's not the case and I was correct, you now wanna call me a know-it-all antagonizer with an attitude and saying its "HOW" i say things. WHAT?? LOLOL

I guess I just can't win because I'm new here huh? LOL No problem. I'll stick around and build my post count up, and THEN i'll see if I am allowed to tell the truth about cameras around here.

 

As a matter of fact... I EVEN APOLOGIZED TO YOU GUYS...like twice!! and even said "I may be wrong" when I knew I wasn't..(cause i was trying to be sociable) I even said I WAS WRONG and YOU'RE RIGHT before anybody esle did.....but I'm the one with an attitude???? lol

 

what a joke.

 

Why did I have to "back-up" anything with outside information. My word wasn't good enough? The tensions came because you guys didn't want to hear what I had to say. What? do you hate Canon or something? Some of you were arguing with me and praising the HVX200 and you don't even own one! What's up with that? It took the canon manual to end this conversation that could have been ended from the very first post. Not my fault that I knew the capabilities of the camera I own, and you didn't. But that makes me a know-it-all?? I'm the LAST PERSON to act like that, but if I do know someting...then what's wrong with me posting a post about it?

 

Gee wiz. You guys are trippin' opver here. lol

 

- ShannonRawls.com

Edited by ShannonRawls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

I don't have a server to stream it from. However, you can find plenty of snips and clips over at www.DVINFO.net.

 

We are in the process of doing a 4-camera shootout. DVINFO will host the images and video. it's scheduled for next week. The HVX-200 just got in today and that's what we were waiting for.

 

- ShannonRawls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It took the canon manual to end this conversation that could have been ended from the very first post.

 

Shannon,

 

Contrary to what you might believe, we all care much more about how the Canons' pictures look, than how they are recorded. However, we have all heard so much hype about this and every other HDV camera that we remain sceptical until proof is offered, which, from your own quote above, you could have done immediately, but didn't, hence this four page thread.

 

Sorry if you feel mistreated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, you can find plenty of snips and clips over at www.DVINFO.net.

 

Hi Shannon,

 

I couldn't find the clips on dvinfo, could you please post a link to the 24p video footage?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Shannon wishes to continue to be so pugnacious about the whole thing, I don't know what to say.

 

I looked AGAIN at the whole thread and there was simple disagreement about the facts for the first five posts or so, which is fine (and I admit I was wrong about the facts) until this post appeared:

 

"I wouldn't call it "fake". if that's the case...then ALL 24P DV cameras are "Fake" if you want to get technical about it.

 

Is Varicam "Fake HD" because it doesn't scan resolution to the specs of the ATSC's definition of what HD should be? 960x720 is hardly HD when it comes to the standard. However, because the Varicam 'ends up' at 1280x720 then we happily consider it HD, now don't we?"

 

This was the point where I got more argumentative, not before. Before, it was a simple disagreement over facts. THAT post was more of a challenge to an argument about how do we define what 24P is, and unfortunately, I took the bait. Now I regret getting sucked into the whole thing; I should have been more mature on my part. A weakness of character, no doubt, so I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

 

For MY FOURTH ATTEMPT AT THIS....

 

Can we talk about something else?

 

Like Camera stuff? that's more interesting to me.

 

(i wonder who's gonna say someting this time to keep this flame burning?)

 

- ShannonRawls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, let's move on.

 

I honestly am interested in whatever you learn about the Canon XL-H1, Shannon, and hope you share it with us. This is all pretty new territory for all of us and any hands-on experience is valuable.

 

Both the Canon XL-H1 and the Panasonic HVX200 are so new that I curious to see which takes off, and which delivers better pictures. If I had to buy a prosumer HD camera right now, it would probably be one of those two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

To wrap this up, 1080i run through a vaguely competent deinterlacer will give you reasonable 720p (and really quite respectable SD, for whatever that's worth), especially if you have a pixel shift to bring into play. I should point out that pixel shift isn't something you can switch on and off; it's a welded-in characteristic of the CCD assembly, so if you're using it to create better 720p, then it's going to give you even better 1080i - so it's not a cureall.

 

As with many highly excited exchanges we get on here about some feature a camera manufacturer is touting, I find myself going "Yes, fine, but that isn't actually that clever." Having the facility to perform the operation on camera, pre-compression, is certainly a good thing though, and deinterlaced 24i is a hugely better bet than reprocessed 60i. Again, though, coming from a place where 25p is easily derived from the existing standard, that doesn't seem all that clever to me either!

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading an article abouth the 24f of the canon, I understood that the recorded image is treated as 24/1080i, but that the two fields are read from the ccd at the same time and that therefore no deinterlacing or else is needed. this would mean that the canon h1 delivers a full resolution 1080"p". I hope i understood the article right, and if this is true the canon should be the best choice in hdv for 35mm blowups at least wath regards the resolution.

unfortunately i don't remember where I read the article, but i belive I found it on the web and that it was in german language.

 

maybe this can be of help, maybe it just creates more confusion.

I personally have not had yet the cance to test the H1.

 

 

daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • G-Force Grips



    CineLab



    Serious Gear



    FJS International



    Wooden Camera



    Abel Cine



    Metropolis Post



    Glidecam



    Tai Audio



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Just Cinema Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Ritter Battery



    Paralinx LLC



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Visual Products



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS


×
×
  • Create New...