Jump to content

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


Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see how an interlaced scan chip can capture two fields simultaneously and yet not be a progressive chip.

Exactly, the Canon is pseudo 24p! Just like the Sony Cineframe 24p. Not to say that it looks bad but just not TURE 24p.

 

There is true 24p. It starts at the CCDs.

 

Cameras like the Sony F900,Panny Varicam, Panny SDX900, Panny DVX100 ccds all scan PROGRESSIVELY.

 

If the ccds were interlaced and convert interlaced video into 24p, how is that any better than NLE filmlook plugin?

 

I feel like Shannon has personally attacked our forums,and Mr. Mullens, who by the way is a very humble, talented, and knowledgable cinematographer.

 

Mr. Mullens and others were just attempting to help clear up the mis information you had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to say I feel like this forum has the more knowledgable people compared to other forums, and yet our members are some of the most humble. It seems like most of the other forums have beginners misunderstanding camera technology,then dishing out mis information, and alot of them have a cocky pre madonna attitude to boot.

 

I am thankful to have such a great information resource without having to deal with cocky attitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Well, to be fair, you could have a FIT CCD and be leveraging its characteristics to make it better at doing interlaced scan, and you could have a frame transfer imager (usually CMOS) which would, under some circumstances, have fewer compromises doing progressive scan.

 

But you're not talking about a lot, and I'd object to the use of the term "interlaced CCD" to describe the former.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by ShannonRawls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In tests being discussed the vertical resolution of the JVC HD100 at 700 lines in 24P, is higher than that of the Canon at 540 lines in 24f. This what you'd expect to find with a progressive v a field-doubling method. (In 60i mode the Canon had a vertical resolution of 700 + lines).

 

The horizontal resolution of the cameras doesn't enter into this particular issue, (The Canon came out at 800 lines v the JVC's 700 lines.) because one of the advantages of shooting progressive frames is the increased vertical resolution.

 

As the article states, the Panasonic AG-HVX200 looks like it should be retested with a different camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shannon, I think Brian beat me to it. That was what I was talking about. In 1080 24f the H1 produces 800x540 lines, so it’s obvious it loses resolution. I’m sorry but I will believe Adam Wilt before I believe a whole bunch of other people in this industry. I said I prefer a real progressive scan camera because it captures solid frames and loses no resolution.

Now Shannon, I know you like to play ball and just counter any and everything people will say against your arguments, but I would like to tell you I’m not going that down that road here. To me the H1 looks like video in it’s motion rendering. That’s nothing to do with how great it’s image control is. If you think it looks like film, great for you. I just haven’t seen anything shot on it that looked filmic, as opposed to the tons of DVX100 and now HD100 footage I have seen that “looks” like it came out of a film camera. I remember Nate shooting just some shots of downtown LA with the HD100 and it looked like he was just playing around with a film camera. No lighting, nothing, just the 24 frames progressive motion at work. Having said that, I hope you have lots of fun with your XL-H1 and do some filmic stuff with it and post online. A picture is worth a thousand words. When I see something from a XL-H1 that looks filmic, I will change my mind. Words will never do it, no matte how severe, strong, persistent or enthusiastic. But about the resolution, there’s nothing really to be done, it’s just what it is.

Again, have fun with your camera.

 

 

Either way, the HD100 does not resolve 700 verticle lines out of 720, no way.

 

As a matter of fact, it does and it's been shown several times by chart shots of many users over DVinfo. I have also done the test and got all the 700 lines, and that's with the sub-par stock lens.

Edited by Michael Maier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm not sure why 24F on the Canon would look less "filmic" than 24P on any of the other HDV cameras. Regardless of the loss of resolution, the final results are fairly indistinquishable from other 24P material. Maybe some further motion testing is needed, but what I saw of 24F material on display at DV Expo was consistent with the look of 24P HD in general. The only "cheat" was that this material was not recorded to the camera's internal HDV deck.

 

While it's true that there is some technical compromise to create 24F, you also have to consider the competition in that camera price range -- it sounds to me that people are finding the quality to be in the same ballpark with the other 24P HDV cameras. Now of course if Canon had put a true progressive-scan CCD in the thing, they'd get an even better 24P/1080 image, but I think the point is whether the Canon is comfortably in the same quality range with its 24P HDV competition, especially if the end product is not for film-out work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by ShannonRawls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only "cheat" was that this material was not recorded to the camera's internal HDV deck.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
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

 

I'd probably use an HDCAM-SR field deck, the SRW1. I don't know whether what comes out of the camera's HD-SDI is 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, 8-bit or 10-bit, though.

 

Ultimately it's hard to beat the convenience of popping in a tape on location. But I'm sure how you intend on posting the material matters too. For example, would you make a downconversion DV tape for offline editing and then go back and do an HDCAM-SR online session at a post house? I mean, if you want to digitize the HD directly into your computer, you may want to record onto a hard drive rather than have to get an HDCAM-SR deck for playback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by ShannonRawls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

HDCAM-SR records 4:2:2 as well, single-cable I assume.

 

The only other 10-bit 4:2:2 tape format is HD-D5, a post house deck really but some people have dragged them out on location. But I wouldn't be surprised that an SRW1 field deck isn't really more expensive. But you did say if I could choose anything.

 

Another option would be the S-Two Digital Field Recorders (DFR's) but I think the SRW1 deck would be easier to use.

 

There is a field HDCAM deck now, but of course now you're recording a fairly compressed 8-bit 3:1:1 recording. Personally I don't think DVCPRO-HD is any better even though it is 4:2:2. It's still highly compressed. But if you're going to finish to HDCAM then I guess you might as well record to HDCAM. It's probably the most common HD tape format to go through the post houses because of the F900 shooters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should go with what ever formats and workflow your post production people can handle. It's very easy to come up with a system that introduces problems down the line.

 

I was reading an Article in "Showreel" that was about transferring 24p HDV from the JVC to 35mm and they had real problems getting it to work even in a high end production house because it's still early days for HDV (especially 24p). So, you really need to work all this out in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you using? Here we go with that wishful thinking I was talking about.

 

Wishful thinking? Since when test results are wishful thinking? Did you overlook the part I said I have done my own tests or did you ignore it on purpose to favor your point?

My results are that the camera indeed resolves 700 lines. I have read the post by Nate you linked to and I see he saying nowhere the HD100 doesn?t resolve 700 lines.

 

Also, there has NEVER been a resolution chart posted @ dvinfo for the HD100.

 

Dude, I could just embarrass your cocky ?I?m da man? attitude right now and post links to the posted charts. It would make your all capitals ?never? look pretty goofy. But I will just let you do your homework and look for them yourself. For one, Dashwood has posted his charts and so did a couple of other people.

 

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.

 

Now I don?t even now what to say about this last moronic comment. Being a straightforward person is one thing, being a jackass is another. That was totally uncalled for and you had no right to call me a liar, specially when I wasn?t lying. Next time before you open your mouth to ditch somebody publicly do your homework. Charts have been posted. Because you didn?t see them doesn?t mean they haven?t and doesn?t give you the right to be a jackass about it. It seems you?re not only calling me a liar, but Adam Wilt as well since he said the HD100 resolves 700 lines and you seem to somehow doubt it, even though you don?t even have the camera. You may have been there in the day, but he has the results from the day with him to look at anytime he wants. I will trust his word over a compressed Internet clip file any day of the week. I didn?t watch that clip by the way. I have seen it before and as I said I trust his first hand opinion. I?m mean, he?s Adam Wilt for pity?s sake. How many can claim to know more about this stuff than he?

I have nothing against Canon or you dude. I just speak my opinion (and if I?m writing it, it should be pretty clear it?s my opinion without me having to point that out, but here it is just for you) and in my opinion the Canon doesn?t look as filmic as the HD100 (you said it yourself) or the DVX100 for that matter. So I?m thinking it?s something to do with the 24f. Maybe not, but regardless I don?t like the images it makes and don?t like it?s an interlaced camcorder and don?t like it loses resolution when it tries to imitate progressive scanning. That?s all there is to it, my opinion, and that?s also my last reply to you on this matter, no matter what other acrobatic twisting comments you can come up with next. Think I?m exaggerating? Just go back to your last comment above and you will see I?m not.

As I said before, don?t talk, show it. There are tons of filmic HD100 clips online. Show me a single filmic one from the H1 and I will change my mind. Your words, twisted or not, won?t change it. It?s my right to have a different opinion and so is yours. Difference is I never fought yours, just posted mine.

Again, have fun with your camera.

 

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. .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Shannon,

 

SR will of course take single link, but I cant help but feel this is over kill for a prosumer camera. A D5 deck would be cheaper and give you pretty much identical results. If you are going to spend all this money on external recording then why not go the whole hog and just hire a pro camera? also stop reffering Canon 24f as 24p it isn't- so stop it. This forum, as fitting an artform grounded in science, should stick to actual facts- regardless of whether individuals wish those facts to change for their benefit.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Shannon, good luck with your project on your 24f camera! that wikipedia entry is not bad and reiterates why your camera is 24f not 24p, but this isn't going anywhere so i'll look forward to seeing some footage. I think the combination with a D5 will work out well and to be honest if you can avoid SR's I would- both the SR1 and the SRW-5000 are a pain to use. Having said that I always find it ammusing spending an hour or so trying to get my head round the worst Menus ever created. So if you are going down the SR route leave yourself some prep time.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...