what's better for film transfer

[Philippe Orlando]

Hello,

Now with the advent of HDV I'm wondering what format is best suited for film transfer ON THE PAPER!

At everything else equal, CCD, lens, skills, etc... what do you think would give the best film transfer from a 1/3 cam?

24P from the DVX100B
720P from another 1/3ccd cam
or 1080i from again a 1/3 ccd cam?

Swisseffects doesn't know. But I'm sure somebody could speculate?
Thanks

[David Newman]

720p24 from a JVC 100U or 1080i on a Canon XL H1 in 24F mode, both will get excellent results easily leaving the DVX100B behind in resolution. There will be some shooting conditions where the additional light sensitivity of the DVX100B will help, otherwise go HD.

[Philippe Orlando]

Is the 24F on the Canon a decent option? Can somebody tell me more about those Canon 24 F options? It's not really progressive, right, just meant to look like it? Am I correct?
Thanks for your input

[David Newman]

Canon is being very conservative when they call it 24F and not 24P. It is a 24p acquistion in term of frame timing and it is looks very nice. A true a 1080p sensor would resolve a little more than a 1080i sensor, but the techniques they are using make it very hard to tell the difference. The 24F is a really good aquistion mode.

[Philippe Orlando]

A transfer house like Swisseffects or other would treat 24F the same way they'd treat 24P?

[David Newman]

Once the data is out of the M2T file, and stored as (perferably) a CineForm Intermediate AVI, the data is treated no deferently than any other 24p source. Yes, 24F should be handled as 24p.

[Philippe Orlando]

So from what you say I gather that 24f is real progressive frame.
So between the JVC and the Canon, which one would you choose?
I must say the canon is kind of expensive though.
P.

[David Newman]

For money you get a better lens with the Canon and HD-SDI for direct digital capturing (cool if you are familar with Prospect HD and the Wafian HR-1.) But the resolution of the Canon 24F mode is approximately the same as JVC 100U 720p24. If you are using the tape based compression, JVC is the least compressed, although Canon does an excellent job of this too. Both are excellent value cameras.

[Steven White]

If you are using the tape based compression, JVC is the least compressed, although Canon does an excellent job of this too. Both are excellent value cameras.

David, is this really a true statement? If the effective resolution going to tape in the Canon system is comparible to the effective resolution going to tape in the JVC system, we really just have an argument of 19 Mbps vs. 25 Mbps.

Sure, each individual bit of the 25 Mbps container is more compressed, but overall the actual information (i.e., the effective resolution) has more space in the 25 Mbps case. Won't it pretty much always look better coming out of the Canon?

-Steve

[David Newman]

I believe so, although I wouldn't use this fact as buying decision, because compression is very good on both cameras (both using the progressive MPEG2 modes.) If a 1280x720p images is scaled up to 1440x1080p and encoded with 30% more bits, yes there maybe value in that upscale have few compression artifacts (pretty much what appears to be happening with the HVX200.) However, Canon is shooting at 1440x1080 (through so clever processing to 24p) but there is noise that will affect compression. If the noise per pixel (random assumption) is the same, Canon has to work harder to encode (more pixels.) It might be a wash, but if any camera has a small compression edge it will be the JVC (assuming the same lens, image, and noise -- totally theoretical.)

[Roy Bemelmans]

Originally Posted by David Newman

compression is very good on both cameras (both using the progressive MPEG2 modes.)

I thought the Canon XL H1 stores 24F as 1080i HDV (segmented frame).

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Roy Bemelmans

I thought the Canon XL H1 stores 24F as 1080i HDV (segmented frame).

That's under discussion in another thread, but no, it looks like the Canon stores its 1080/24f as actually 24 progressive frames with no pulldown. That's why it won't play back in the Sony. But, in its favor, it would mean better compression all the way around -- 20% less data to compress, and progressive compression is going to be more efficient than interlace compression anyway.