What's the advantage of Shooting with Sony DV cam as oppose a progressive DV cam.
 

Why doesn't Sony support progressive shooting? And, because they dont, whats the advangtage of shooting with a VX-1000-2100/PD -150,170/New HD cams as opposed to DVX-100,100A/XL1,1s,XL2? Do they they have great interlacing or something. Can someone please explain because I was pretty disappointed that the new HD don't shoot progressive 24 but that faux 24,25 crap. Whats the plus when blown up on film because Progressive I heard looks great on screen.

One can only guess to the reasons. My guess would be that their camera's
are used a lot in the broadcasting world where almost everything is still
interlaced.

If you want HD and progressive the new Panasonic AG-HVX200 that will come
out later this year (last quarter) will support progressive HD at 720p and 1080p.

Indeed, they fall a bit behind without shooting progressive.
You asked what would be the benefit of shooting with a Sony VX2100 or PD150. The answer would be low light. The Sony's are still the best in filming in Low light, which is very good for indeed the broadcast people.
But for filmwork, you'd better choose another cam (my opinion).

Well I think the real answer is the the VX/PD series is an older design. Remember, there were no true progressive scan prosumer cameras until the DVX-100 came along a few years ago. As long as Sony had good sales of these cameras I guess they didn't see any need to change. They were rather emphatic that they were only going to support 1080i with the HDV cameras, not really sure why.

In Sony's defence, I think you have to look at their approach to 24p in the context of their cameras and Vegas editing software together.

Vegas 5 did a horrible 24p render just like all other software. Vegas 6 does a render on par with AVISynth using a BOB filter. A Vegas 6 24P render from plain old NTSC looks really good, but you still have the resolution loss from the even/odd line averaging for gain. Other than that it's pretty much perfect. A Vegas 6 24P render from HDV looks incredible! You end up with full SD resolution 24P that is absolutely faultless!

Why not just go 24P to begin with? Well, you wouldn't gain anything. This will make absolutly no sense to anyone who hasn't done a Vegas 6 24P render and all the sense in the world to anyone who has.

another point might be perhaps ?
there is no 1080P broadcast delivery system ?
perhaps sony doesn't see projected 24fps film being around much in the future? also note that in some parts of the world many prefer 60i look better then 24+ pull down !!!
i too have to say that V6 HD 60i rendered to 24p looks excellent so you get the BEST of interlace & 24p ..however i have not seen 24p turned into excellent 60i ( i really dislike the pull down movement)

Laurence Hit The Nail
 

By jove I think you're on to something! (I feel like the two Guinness commericial guys a-la Monty Python:

"Render 1080i through Vegas 6 at 24p and make you SD video look absolutely faultless! BRILLIANT!")

I never gave that much thought but, wow.

It may look incredible with Vegas 6, but 24p is not only about progressive
as well. Since you only have 24 fps instead of 30 any motion by the camera
or subjects will LOOK different as well. A 60i -> 24p conversion will not
re-create this, however good the de-interlacing looks.

You will also loose resolution (at least when something moves) when doing
a de-interlace when your camera supports TRUE (!) progressive.

So I would definitely not claim that you don't need progressive camear's any
more. That's not to say you do NEED them either. It's just a choice you can
make. If I shoot only fictional work, why would I bother with a de-interlace
(rendering times as well) when I can just get a progressive camera and shoot
that way all the time?

Different camera's/options for every person.

Laurence,

Are you saying that raw 24p from a DVX or XL2 isn't as good as 60i from the DVX or XL2 pushed through the Vegas6 24p render?

Laurence,

You do lose something. Resolution. Rob is correct. I've seen the workflow results you mentioned, and while it does do a decent job of emulating the 24 frame per second motion signature, there is a drop in resolution.

Even if there wasn't a drop in resolution from the 60i to 24 frame conversion, there would still be a difference in resolution. Remember that interlaced video captures half frame fields. Thus you're never seeing a full frame of video at a time. Only half frames. When interlaced, the alternating fields creates a resolution effect called line pair summation. Due to line pair summation, 60i NTSC video only achieves aproximately 360 lines of vertical resolution. Since progressive scan captures a whole frame, you actually achieve a full 480 lines of vertical resolution when shooting 24P NTSC.

So Patrick, in response to your question regarding footage from a DVX or XL2 pushed through a 60i to 24 frame conversion vs straight 24P, there would be a huge difference in resolution.

The 60i video from a DVX/XL2 would start at 360 lines of vertical resolution. Depending on the amount of movement in the frame and the quality of the conversion process, the final output from the conversion could drop as low as 180 lines of vertical resolution. Now compare that to 24P video from a DVX/XL2 set to thin line mode which would start at 480 lines of vertical resolution and stay there.

I concur with the above... if you shoot XL2 in 24PA, capture and edit in 24P, then convert to DVD or 60i for broadcast it looks noticeably bett than footage shot at 60i and film looked by the method decsribed above.

I am not a fan of 24P for every application but when it is desired, it looks much better to shoot it at that rate...



ash =o)

Sony support progressive scan in their higher end cameras from the DSR450 upwards.

I believe the FX1 and Z1 were really designed for the Japanese market where interlacing is king. The Japanese view 24p as inferior. Techincally it is, and as Don mentioned there is not yet a 1080p broadcast spec.

I don't think it is about protecting their higher end cameras either because the advantages of a 2/3" camera remain whether the lower end cameras have 24p or not.

I think it is a case of Panasonic and Sony aiming for different markets with their respective low end HD cameras. But even then to be able to get 1080p on the new Panny you will have to pay for it. Progressive scan takes more processing and also reduces sensitivity. The lack of 24p in low end Sony cameras isn't about the company going out of their way to annoy customers!

another most crucial ellement thats missing is "Cinegamma" featured on Panasonic's DVX and baby brother DVC30 cam's!

Actually the new Sony cameras do have this feature which is called "Cinematone." The FX1 has one cinematone setting and the Z1 has two. This, and a number of other image parameters, can be saved as picture profiles where they can be recalled later.

DELETED...