Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Marty Hamrick

24F

Recommended Posts


No, the difference is actually pretty huge. 24p, like on the xl2 camera is actually 24 frames per second taken progressivley by the ccd's. 24f is canons way of saying that the ccd's are actually taking 60 interlaced frames persecond and it is then using software to make it look like 24p. The two have different looks and 24f will lose some resolution. People say that the 24f on the xl-h1 is really good though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the difference is actually pretty huge. 24p, like on the xl2 camera is actually 24 frames per second taken progressivley by the ccd's. 24f is canons way of saying that the ccd's are actually taking 60 interlaced frames persecond and it is then using software to make it look like 24p. The two have different looks and 24f will lose some resolution. People say that the 24f on the xl-h1 is really good though.

 

It's better than that -- they change the clocking speed from 60 to 48 fields per second in order to make a cleaner conversion to 24 frames, and once they convert to 24 progressive frames, they leave it that way for recording rather than reconvert to 60 fields.

 

So it's a much better system that Sony's 24F CineFrame design which converts 60i to 24 frames and then converts it back to 60i again.

 

There is still a loss of vertical resolution though compared to a true 24P/1080 camera, but then you have to ask yourself what consumer HD cameras capture and record 24P/1080 with 1920 x 1080 CCD's... in other words, Canon's 24F HDV probably isn't as good as a pro HD camera that does true 24P/1080, but it is competitive with other HDV options.

 

You may also want to check out the JVC and Panasonic 24P/720 cameras though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion 720p is better than 1080i. What Canon should have done was to offer a 720p camera capable of shooting 720p24 and 720p60 and call it a day. But since Canon offers no 720p camera there is no way to compare what the picture quality of the Canon could have been. Unfortunately 1080i sells cameras because people think they are getting higher resolution. Unfortunately picture quality does not sell cameras because if it did everyone would buy 720p. Now I am not saying that 1080F is bad. A lot of factors determine picture quality such as the quality of the camera and the lens etc. But I do not think that 1080F is better than 720p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

Thomas has this thing for 720p and JVC. I think he/she is being paid to stir up the controversy to help sales of cameras that are strictly in the 720p format. He bounces around the more popular web forums standing on his soapbox trying to indoctrinate everyone with his 720p/jvc religion. When people come along and say "1080p60 is here today so what about that?", he then switches up and calls that Ultra Definition and says it doesn't qulify for HD. It's uterly ridiculous. He's a mole of some sort from somewhere.

 

He/She doesn't even own a camera or shoot or have any backstory or follow-through to who he/she is. Thomas James or Androbot2084 (as it goes by in other places) is just a screenname that popped up one day and began preaching...that's it.

 

He doesn't assist others in other questions, talk about sound or audio or even engage in any other meaningful discussion like lenses, post production workflows, recording formats, software, upcoming projects, personal experiences, or ANYTHNG else other then the 720p is better then 1080 & jvc is better then everyone else talk. Not to say that's illegal, but most 'discussion forum owners' consider that "trolling" and unwanted.

 

So just ignore him, or rather should I say... "it".

Edited by Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh, he's invaded internet forums too? Perhaps that's not surprising. I know the name Androbot very well. He regularly enters the Yahoo photography chat room 'The Darkroom' under that name and preaches on and on about High Definition, basically repeating the same things over and over again. He's like a parrot. He has proven many times that he knows very little about photography and videography and often gets his facts wrong. By the way, the regulars of the yahoo photography chat room are sick of him and most place him on ignore when he enters the room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Canon camera uses adaptive deinterlacing to achieve 24F then the camera can weave 2 fields together and come up with an image that has 800 lines of resolution which is slightly better than 720p. However once fast motion is introduced weaving of the fields is impossible without creating horrible cog artifacts so the camera must discard every other field and resort to line doubling in order to generate 24F. However with line doubling the resolution is reduced to 540 lines which is worse quality than 720p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of all the technical mumble jumble in many responses (stuff that mostly means little to the answer) 24F is nearly if not indistinguishable to the human eye. Or at least mine with the projects I have shot with it or to a room of a few hundred others who could not tell the difference at a showign I went to once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outside of all the technical mumble jumble in many responses (stuff that mostly means little to the answer) 24F is nearly if not indistinguishable to the human eye.

And that's really where it counts isn't it?A friend of mine just bought one because she is partial to Canon,she already owned an SD XL 1.She said virtually the same thing,comparing it to Sony,JVC and Panasonic lines of similar machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I wrote an article about this for Showreel; my conclusion was that the deinterlaced Canon image is probably still fractionally sharper than the native progressive JVC, but that probably has a lot more to do wth the lens than the chips. The Canon lens is very much better. That said, you can more easily put a decent lens on the JVC, and I found other aspects of the picture nicer.

 

Personally I would buy the JVC, but the Canon is very much sharper out of the box.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to research by the United States Department of Defense the apparent resolution of 720p outresolves 1080i. This was concluded after research with test subjects who were subjectively asked to pick out which was the sharpest image without knowing the format resolutions of the material they were looking at. Most of the time the test subjects declared that the 720p image looked sharper. Based on this research the Department of Defense picked the 720p format as the most reliable image to rely on to make key combat decisions. Also the Department of Defense declared the resolution mumber of the 1080i format does not accurately describe its true resolving capability and has proposed that the 1080i format be renamed 540i.

 

Deinterlacing the 1080i format really does not work. Bob Deinterlacing halves the resolution to 540p and weave deinterlacing introduces horrible cog artifacts caused by temporal displacements. Bob deinterlacing also causes damage to the picture making it unstable because it causes the picture to bob up and down.

 

Proponents of interlace scanning point to the over 50 year legacy of interlace broadcasting. However this is a very shamefull legacy. Originally broadcasting was all progressive and interlace scanning was chosen to improve resolution beyound the original 300 line system. Unfortunately all interlace did was to further damage picture quality and it faild to resolve its claimed 525 or 625 lines of resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really absolutely ridiculous; there isn't a serious bob deinterlacer in use today that doesn't vertically resample to mitigate the instability produced by the technique.

 

This guy is a source of dangerous misinformation.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest will griffith
That said, you can more easily put a decent lens on the JVC, and I found other aspects of the picture nicer.

The JVC with their 16mm PL mount looks mighty sharp. Have not done any side by side comparision though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest will griffith
This guy is a source of dangerous misinformation.

Take a look at his profile comments about JVC vs RED. Fan of RED or not it is funny how far this guys goes to sell his product.

Soon we may hear "JVC handgrip plastic is 7% more durable than ARRIFLEX D20", or "720p will soon take over DSLR market as format of choice".

:( Wish I had as much energy as Mr. James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:( Wish I had as much energy as Mr. James.

 

Well it's not that hard if you just say the same propaganda over and over, ignore evidence to the contrary, and to fail to participate in an actual conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not know why everyone has to bash me. If someone disagrees with me they can simply tell me why they disagree but I stand behind everything I say. Yes it is true that Red digital Cinema can benefit from JVC's single CCD hybrid primary color filteration technology but for some reason Red chooses to use an inferior Bayer color filteration system. Red's color filteration system may be good enough and it may even be overkill but it will never achieve 4:4:4 color like the JVC system can.

 

And I have long advocated that Hollywoods 24p is simply not high definition and the frame rate needs to be ramped up to 48p in order to correctly handle fast motion. So far the American Society of Cinematographers have accepted this proposal but they feel that 48p footage is inappropriate for use during the entire length of the film and insist that 48p footage be intercut with 24p footage so as to preserve the overall film look while allowing the immersive 48p footage to be used for special effects.

 

Now the argument I am facing is that deinterlacing technology has become so advanced that it is now impossible to distinguish native progressive footage from deinterlaced footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now back on topic the one thing I do not like about Canon's 24F is its long 12 frame GOP compression scheme. The JVC uses short 6 GOP compression which handles motion so much better. With the JVC you can shoot footage from the side of a car window and the compression holds up without blocking up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest will griffith
I really do not know why everyone has to bash me.

Not really trying to bash what you are saying. Just the way you keep coming back for more. :D

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.

Sign in to follow this  


  • Rig Wheels Passport



    Metropolis Post



    Serious Gear



    Just Cinema Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    CineLab



    Wooden Camera



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Paralinx LLC



    FJS International



    Tai Audio



    G-Force Grips



    Ritter Battery



    Visual Products



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Glidecam



    Abel Cine


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...