Question regarding AVCHD's kind of 24p

[Chris Hurd]

That's fine; my point was that it's not just Canon's evil conspiracy but an industry wide one.

It's annoying to see fingers pointed at a particular manufacturer when *all* of them are equally guilty.

Where's the justified outrage against Sony, JVC and Panasonic? That's what I want to know.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

I personally don't only point my finger just to Canon, but every company that does such things. Being a geek, and a reviewer writing for a popular tech magazine, I have a problem with all companies that cripple their products. However, I did mention Canon specifically because they particularly push 24p on their consumer cameras (more so than the other manufacturers), and also because I don't see me buying anything else than Canon as I am happy with their customer service (they fixed my broken, out of warranty, old camcorder for free just 3 months ago).

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru

I have a problem with all companies that cripple their products..

I see having native 24p as being the crippling factor in a consumer product. If you're a tech geek who writes for magazines, then perhaps you should touch base with those who read the magazines. Consumers don't understand, and don't *want* to understand 24p. Period.
Spend time at a Best Buy, Comp USA, Circuit City (we do this on a reasonably regular basis) and interview a few folks in the camera section of the store. They don't get it, they get frustrated when you ask deep questions, and they don't give a damn about the "movie look" or anything else.
They want to shoot video that looks good. End of story for them. 24p requires special care and handling, and it irritates soccer mom/dad to even have to HEAR about anything other than "turn it on and shoot." Seriously.
IMO, Canon made a mistake putting 24p on a low-end, consumer-oriented camera. it would have been a bigger mistake putting native 24p in there, IMO.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Doug, I don't think it was a mistake. I am a consumer (ok, I am more than that, videography is my serious hobby), and I DO want 24p. But I don't want to pay $3000+ to get it though. Don't forget that the HV20 is one of the best-selling camcorders ever. It sells like hot cakes, and part of it is BECAUSE of its 24p/cinemode support. In fact, my 24p pulldown removal tutorial on my site is my most linked/read blog post ever.

Maybe I am looking for a product that is truly prosumer, rather than in a weird balance between consumer, prosumer and semi-pro. I think there is a market for it in the $1000 to $1500 range.

BTW, I did call Canon earlier, and they put a note on their "customer voice care" programme about it, that takes care of consumer feedback.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

This may be so, but at the end of the day, you're the odd duck out.
I'll argue my point til hell freezes over, simply because roughly once every 6-8 weeks, or whenever I'm asked to do an article on small cams ie; CX7 et al, I'll spend time talking to consumers in stores. Fortunately for me, there is a corner in SLC where I can hit a Circuit City, Best Buy, Comp USA, Sears, RC Willey, and Ritz Camera all within a very short distance. All different markets, but one thing that is resoundingly clear when talking with folks buying these cams; they don't want it if it makes any aspect of their life different, or if they have to think.
99.99% of the AVCHD camcorders that will be sold in the sub 2K range are going to Ma & Pa Kettle. You're the odd man out. If Canon marketed to you, they'd go bankrupt. I like 24p too, whether it's native or embedded in a stream, as it's useful for some things. 24p on a palmcorder (IMO) is a waste anyway IMO, but that's another discussion.
Either way...Canon offers it and it's very kind of them. I'll wager a dozen doughnuts it comes back to bite them in the butt from a tech support/call center perspective. It'll likely be their #1 asked question "Why does my video look so jittery?" from consumers. Consider that every one of those phone calls costs them around $14.00 per call, ouch.

[Michael Jouravlev]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

I see having native 24p as being the crippling factor in a consumer product. If you're a tech geek who writes for magazines, then perhaps you should touch base with those who read the magazines. Consumers don't understand, and don't *want* to understand 24p. Period.
Spend time at a Best Buy, Comp USA, Circuit City (we do this on a reasonably regular basis) and interview a few folks in the camera section of the store. They don't get it, they get frustrated when you ask deep questions, and they don't give a damn about the "movie look" or anything else.
They want to shoot video that looks good. End of story for them. 24p requires special care and handling, and it irritates soccer mom/dad to even have to HEAR about anything other than "turn it on and shoot." Seriously.
IMO, Canon made a mistake putting 24p on a low-end, consumer-oriented camera. it would have been a bigger mistake putting native 24p in there, IMO.

Hello from a former lurker,

I myself am a computer professional and cannot fully agree with your arguments. The fact that camcorders are sold in big stores does not mean that their usage should be as easy as peeling a banana. Best Buy, Circuit City and such sell computers as well, why a camcorder should be easier to use than computer?

If all consumer wants is recording family gatherings and first "mama" and "papa" of their newborn child, then DVD camcorders (plain old DVD, not AVCHD-over-DVD) is the best fit for them. Put the disk, record, pop out, stick to DVD player, enjoy. And so they should be directed by salespeople.

An HDD-based camcorder inevitably requires computer interaction for saving, processing and storing video. Hence, HDD-based and solid-state-based camcorders are intended for slightly brighter audience. This audience watch video from YouTube and Stage6. They may even edit clips in VirtualDub (like downloading one-minute porn episodes once a day and knitting them together; whoa, a movie for free and some editing experience to boot). They will understand the idea of 24fps easier than the idea of pulldown process. A file is a file, it can have any frame rate one desires, this rate is not constrained by head rotation speed or tape speed or other mechanical issues. This is just computer data and should be treated as such. Geez.

I agree that 24fps is not consumer format, regular people do not shoot movies. But since HDD-based camcorders are just computers with a lens -- why not? 24, 30, 50, 60, as long as bandwidth, processing power and storage allows -- bring it on. And since AVCHD gathering is just like writing data to a computer drive, they should use computer-friendly formats as well, in particular all video should be progressive. Interlace must die.

[Ian G. Thompson]

I don't think it's a mistake putting 24P on a consumer cam. I think that had a lot to do with marketing. Think about it...this kind of marketing whetted the appetite for some folks (like myself) who would eventually go up to a higher cam with more bells and whistles. But in the mean time the HV20 is much much more affordable option than a prosumer cam. Call it a consumer cam with prosumer aspirations (sort of like how the Panasonic GS400 was when it first came out).

What I do think is a mistake is when people refer to the 24p on the HV20 as not real. I often wonder if the HV20 included flags would people still make the same claim. Think about it...no one complained about the DVX, JVC etc.

[Michael Jouravlev]

Originally Posted by Ian G. Thompson

What I do think is a mistake is when people refer to the 24p on the HV20 as not real. I often wonder if the HV20 included flags would people still make the same claim. Think about it...no one complained about the DVX, JVC etc.

They did on DVX board. Although right now I am trying to recall what the reason was and I am not getting it. It was claimed that color information is being lost because two fields are coded in one logical frame during pulldown, once for every 4 frames. But DVX is DV, and DV is 4:1:1, so there IS color information for each line, so I don't get where the loss is.

On the other hand, HDV and DVD are 4:2:0, so you have color for two adjacent lines in a frame, and if you have two totally different fields, you lose color. But since DVX is not HDV I don't see why it was blamed to lose color.

In any case, for a consumer format losing color just in one frame out of four is not that bad.

[Ron Evans]

Why anyone would want to make a nice new technology emulate something from the last century is beyond me. 24P was a limitation of the technology in the last century we don't need to do that anymore. It forces film technique to hide the flaws in the format( stuttering) shallow depth of field/contrast is use to also hide the fact that the frame rate isn't enough to hid this stuttering. A bit like buying a new car and asking that it ride like a model T Ford!!!!!
I am a 65 year old and started in film with the goal that I would one day like to film so that the result was just like being there and looking through a window. High frame rate, large depth of filed ( like our eyes) the exact opposite I know of the desire for 24P. Control of depth of field and colour for dramatic effect is possible without resorting to the low frame rate of 24P and consequent stuttering. With electronic distribution there is no need to pander to transfer to film.
Most consumers want to shoot a record of an event and view it as if they were there again. Ideally this would be in HD at high frame rate progressive. Nice sharp images with no stuttering. 720 or 1080 P60.
I am disappointed by this almost religious drive to 24P with lots of very poor quality TV images following this approach, panning and zooming do not work very well in 24P!!!!. I just hope this changes in the future.

Ron Evans

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Rob, I agree with you. I am the last person who would cheer about 24p (in fact, a few months ago I got head to head against some old fashioned directors about this).

However, when I am promised something on a product, I like it to be just that and nothing that looks like that, but it's not quite. Besides, market "pressure" does not allow me to shoot anything else other than 24p for my music video clip projects (I help indie rock bands, for free).

[Graham Hickling]

Originally Posted by Michael Jouravlev

They will understand the idea of 24fps easier than the idea of pulldown process.

Thank you for making this very sensible point, Michael. The thing that makes 24fps complicated/confusing for Ma and Pa is the (currently) poor NLE support for it, not the format per se.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Graham Hickling

Thank you for making this very sensible point, Michael. The thing that makes 24fps complicated/confusing for Ma and Pa is the (currently) poor NLE support for it, not the format per se.

I strongly disagree.
Find a neighbor who knows nothing about video. Don't cloud his mind with anything, just hand him/her a camera in 24p mode and tell them to go shoot Johnny playing soccer.
I guarantee they'll come back wondering why it looks so jittery, and why it gives them a headache.
Sports, particularly youth sports, plus theme park activity, family gatherings, travel/vacation, holiday events are the prime reason people purchase camcorders. Sports, high speed rides, and vacation videos don't lend themselves very well to small format, hand-held cameras shooting 24p.
*many* tests were done by broadcasters, and it's no secret that 24p and 30p are not useful for sports outside the cinematic production world. 60p, 60i are. 24p and 30p with high action and high camera movement (unless used by knowledgeable people) simply doesn't work.
Try it for yourself. Grab a small format 24p cam, go shoot a high school football or basketball game while trying to follow the ball or one particular player while handholding the cam. It'll look terrible. If it doesn't, I'd respectfully suggest you get your eyes examined.
Ma and Pa Kettle don't want to know why it's juddered. They just know it is, and will return the camcorder PDQ.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Doug, you don't seem to get it. These people who know nothing about 24p, they will simply never switch their camera to that mode. The feature is there for those who do know about it and want the feature for cheap -- people like me. But we would prefer the feature without the extra pulldown removal work. Why is that too much to ask?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Eug,
Again I disagree. You don't seem to get it. If you write for consumer magazines, I'd think you'd be in better touch with what consumers do. I'm asking you to do exactly that. Spend a weekend, preferably in November before Thksgiving (store managers aren't too keen on people being interviewed during the holidays).
Ask consumers if they play with their cameras. Better yet, google and look at CONSUMER forums, not DVInfo.net. Look at all the hate posts about the Cineframe 24 in the FX1. From consumers. Not prosumers or pros.
Of *course* they play with the menus, and more often than not, don't know what they did to get into a menu. The feature is there. Doesn't matter if you know about it or not...Canon's phone lines will be burning up over this one due to the price.
Personally, I couldn't care less, because it doesn't affect me one way or the other. From a business perspective, we get calls each and every day about 24p confusion in two particular NLE systems. Even the pros don't understand how to manage it. How in the world do you expect consumers to manage it, particularly when low-cost NLE support for it is almost non-existent?
Yes, I do "get it." Part of my job is being in contact with consumers. Spend more time thinking "CES" and less time thinking "NAB" and maybe *you'll* get it too.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Look at it this way: hardware always preceded software in features. AVCHD camcorders are out, and yet most NLEs have very spotty support for it. The RED camera is out, and yet only few NLEs can deal with it directly (I think only FCP?).

Now, we get to the point where manufacturers sell 24p-capable camcorders. Eventually, NLEs *will have* to follow. It will take some time, but usually, it's how it is. Software adds full widespread support for specific new features (even if the 24p thing is just software), about 2 years after the hardware release. So, yes, I do expect all major NLEs to have 24p support eventually.

Just like widescreen NTSC DV support was spotty a few years back on NLEs too. They couldn't get the "anamorphic" bit right. But they managed.

I know what you are saying. No one wants support calls. But if they didn't want support calls, they shouldn't have put the feature there in the first place. But now that they have, all I am asking is to do it right. As I said, if they don't want consumers to play with these features, they should create a clear prosumer line for $1500. The HV20 hot sales have shown that there is market for this.

And btw. If AVCHD's standard asks for "clean" 24p on their certification program instead of 24p-in-60i, how the heck did Canon get the AVCHD logo on their cameras? Isn't there any certification going on?