One more Q/wish- that Sony reverted to putting good mics on the camera, as it did on the 4-capsule arrangement on theoriginal DV world-shaking cam, the VX1000 (which I bought when it 1st came out). The times when it can be advantageous Not to use an external mic (lower camera profile), or the possibility of mixing the blt-ins w/an external mic, made me recall how really decent-sounding and handy the VX1000's were.

John,

Progressive Scan delivers superior resolution due to the full frame image capture compared to the half frame fields of interlaced scan systems. When the Progressive Scan capture is run at a frame rate of 24fps, the images have the same motion signature of Film originated motion pictures. Many find the motion signature of Progressive Scan imaging to be more pleasing regardless of the frame rate. 60i interlaced imaging has such a strong visual association with home video and programming such as the evening news, that even a frame rate of 30P becomes more desirable for many digitally acquired projects. And sports programs benefit greatly from 60P frame rates not only in the higher resolution, but also the ability for clear and clean slow motion playback.

So "In a Nutshell", Progressive Scan is generally considered a superior, if not preferable method of shooting.

Thank you, Jon.
 

is it technically a 'higher resolution' - the 24p shot footage, as opposed to 30fps? or is it just more detailed and colorful, etc? thanks.

John

John,

It is legitimately higher resolution.

Remember that frame rates have nothing to do with resolution, color, etc. They are simply the number of times a particular camera acquires a new image. The higher the frame rate, the smoother and more fluid a moving image becomes. The slower the frame rate, the more strobed and stacato a moving image becomes. The higher frame rate, combined with the interlaced scanning of traditional video, give video a very fluid, unique, and recognizable motion signature. While the strobed motion of Film has become what the majority of the population perceives as the "look" of cinema.

Resolution is a seperate issue from frame rate and color. Furthermore, resolution is a seperate issue even from detail. For example, 35mm Film has the ability to capture more "resolution" than 1080/24P HD. However, while 35mm Film will show more subtle nuances in tone, color and an even fall off between highlight and shadow, 1080 HD will appear to have more detail, higher saturation of color and better contrast due to its electronically sharper picture, DSP enhanced color processing, and limited lattitude.

Just to add my 2 cents about 24-frame progressive scan. The most attention has been focused on wannabe indie filmmakers wanting to shoot in 24p "just in case" they get picked up at Sundance and need to secure a film release. Many folks say, rightly so, that the chances of that happening are slim, so who needs 24p? Either it's just marketing hype or feature bloat.

I would also make the case that 24p is the most flexible and future-proof frame rate you could shoot in today. If you want to distribute to NTSC's 60i, it's a simple and trivial pull-down at the end of production, plus you get the added benefit of having a more filmic look, which can add legitimacy even to productions intended only for video. If you want to take that same program and distribute to PAL's 50i, it's just a simple speed ramp up from 24p-25p-50i. Again, this is how all Hollywood features are sent to PAL territory. If your final destination is DVD, you can encode 24 frame progressive, using more encoding bandwidth for better quality, or fitting much more video onto a DVD as opposed to 60i. If you're going to web streaming or download, the same advantages apply to a progressive frame rate.

I would love to see interlace go away completely, as it really is a legacy of the limitations of analog broadcasting. A "cheat" if you will, of getting more percieved detail with less bandwidth. But I think that 24p is a marginal compromise at best. Unfortunately, as long as Hollywood holds on to 24fps film production, it's not going away any time soon. And Hollywood has no incentive whatsoever to move to a faster frame rate. 24p hides a lot of production flaws. If movies changed over to, say, 60 progressive frames, even at 720 or 1080 HD resolutions, the percieved sharpness and detail would rival an IMAX screen in every theater. Try pulling off a production design or hiring talent beautiful enough to pull that off!

Is there any technical reason why 1080 24p is harder to do than 1080 60i? Is it purely for marketing reasons that Sony reserves this for its most expensive camera? Or is 24p at that resolution truly cost prohibitive for prosumer camcorders? I know limited demand comes heavily into play but we all know that so aside from that what else is stopping Sony and JVC and all the others from giving us the whole hog?

Betsy,

Sony isn't doing 1080 60p with the HDV cameras, just 1080 60i.

Yes, it is more demanding to do 1080 24p than 1080 60i.

Sorry, I meant 1080i of course. How much more demanding? I we talking a quantum leap in technology or a slow evolution?

We are getting to an interesting point here, a question which has bothered me all along is: could not Sony just piggyback 1080/24p over 1080/60i much like the DVX100 and XL2 do 480/24p over 480/60i ?

One reason I always wondered was 24p is less information per second than 60i. HD tapes have longer recording times in 24p than 60i so I wondered if it was just more taxing on the chips themselves.

In this case, I would prefer for the camera to have real 24p imaging and store 24 discrete frames per second. Thus, the limited bandwidth of the DV tape could be used to get better quality frames. And then if some sorf of DVCAM-like tape speed were used and the data rate could be incremented... I guess THEN it might make sense for the pro version of the FX1 to cost twice as much. Otherwise, the XLR inputs and darker shell just don't add up. I am hoping that Sony just couldn't write the 24p "HDVPRO" firmware in time for IBC.

I agree with Scott that both 60i and 24p are really limitations of the past!! Both represent limitation of technology that have come to represent particular distribution means to the public. IF the aim is to reproduce the original image, just like a live performance, then 1080p at greater than 60 frames a second or above will be needed. 24p is not better than 60i just different masking of the facts. BOth leave out detail that would be seen in the live event. IT really comes down to personal preferences. I came to Canada in 1970 under the impresion that NTSC was terrible. When I went back to the UK for a holiday the flickering TV's drove me crazy until my brain ignored the flicker and I was impressed by the colour detail, I had never seen this flicker before I left!!!!!!!! Each system has a history that when viewed by todays technolgy and the original goal of reproducing the live event becomes seriously defective. In a live theatre the audience can only get so close so the lighting, set design etc can create an illusion for the audience, normally by creating shadow detailing too wide for a video camera to pickup but well within the range of the eye. Thats what live theatre is all about. Film and TV are different, who wants an incredibly detailed image of a spotty face?? The illusion has to be created some other way hence the nice soft images of 24p film. But please its not real , its an effect. Real for me is the creation of a wide screen image that reproduces the point of view of the live event in all its detail, as if I was sat in best seat in the audience. I think this is a little way off yet and of course with this approach there would be no multi camera shoots or editing!!!!!! Story telling is an illusion so its fair to use any available means to achieve the needed entertainment. Most of my interest is in recording events, as close as possible to real. For me 24p has no place I want the most detail at the highest frame rates with, if needed the fluid motion of reality.
I've ordered my HDR-FX1.

Ron Evans

I guess I'm one of those wannabe filmmakers. But I have line-produced or co-produced four 35mm features. I'm looking at doing a low budget film for my feature directing debate. That's why I'm looking at different ways of doing that. It could be because I'm older and did everything on film before. I guess I'm stuck in the 24p mode because I like that look. The motion etc.

But can you take the 1080i and do a film out and would it look just as good as a 24p film out.

I have seen clips of the films done with pd150, etc. But it seems like I still like the look of the 24p cameras better. So will the new pro model Sony camera give me a much better look than the DVX or XL2?

.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham : John,

electronically sharper picture, DSP enhanced color processing, and limited lattitude. -->>>

Jon if you read the BBC R&D White Paper WHP053
at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.html

He does mention that todays video cameras have about the same lattitude as film IF the cameras are setup correctly.

The owner and chief engineer of DV Film argues the same point.

heath