I have to commend you guys, the intelligence on this board is great. I have been lurking here for sometime learning how to move into HD. Yesterday I received my JY-HD10 at 2:00 p.m. By 6:00 p.m. I had shot sample footage, imported it into my mac with DVHSCap, demuxed it with mpgtxwrap, converted the video to Pixlet with mm2c, converted the audio with iTunes and iMovie, rejoined the audio and video in Premiere 6.5 (I have FCE, but not FCP), made some sample edits, output to 1280x720 pixlet, then converted back to .ts with Paul's droplet. The process is complicated but it all works!!!

However, I'm returning the camera. It does not work right. How can they sell a camcorder with a rotating grip that cannot under any circumstances ever be used in hand-held situations? The pictures were great (I didn't even have any complaints about the color) when using a tripod without a pan or tilt on stationary objects, but introduce any motion whatsoever, and the image quality drops off dramatically -- and no, it is not a film look. I imagine that it can create acceptable images if always used on a tripod, with slow camera moves and no zooms, but I expect more from a $2,700 camera.

The problem is the frame rate. I tested the 480p/60 mode and it improve the judder or jitter problem, but I bought this camera for its HiDef capability -- which does not work! I guess I'll have to wait until the 1080i versions come out. The 60 fields per second should make a usable camcorder. The moral of the story is: 720p/60 yes, 1080i/30 yes, 720p/30 no!

Once again, you guys were great. I learned everything I needed to know how to edit with this camera.

Thomas,

This camcorder is more like an older film cameras, doesn't allow to much movements and need carefully chosen light conditions. About transferring your edited movie in m2t files to your "beloved" JVC camcorder or JVC DVHS deck you should look for Heuris (http://www.heuris.com/) solution HD Indie Toolkit and its app/QT-plugin XportHD that is coming up at the end of this month...

And if you really like a film-look like you should try out Apple Shake Compositing Tool and its filters for film grain look in many diverse EASTMAN KODAK granular customizable presets,


Sanjin

How do those people making feature films get away with 24 fps?
Are you doing some extreme sports stuff, or ?
-Les

Hi,

If you have a PAL version of JVC HDV Camcorder you can achieve P25 shooting mode in HD that is 25 fps and later with Apple Cinema Tools to "kick it of" one frame per second to get a famous 24p...no so bad option...try it out!

Sanjin

I know. Film uses 24fps and this camera does 30fps. So, if film looks good, so should this camera, because this camera has an even faster frame rate...

That is not necessarily the case. First, when film is projected, they repeat every frame twice so that there are 48 images per second. Second, and more importantly, with film each of the 24 frames consists of entirely new image material. With the MPEG compression, you get one key frame followed by several frames based on the prior. So, you don't really get 30 real discrete frames per second. you get 5 or 10 frames with the rest interpolated. (I'm not sure about the exact numbers) Anyway, 30fps is a low frame rate. This combined with the MPEG compression leaves you with a camera which is too unforgiving of motion (for a motion picture camera that is).

The 480p/60 looked really good though. I imagine it would make great footage for DVD's, but I want HiDef.

Your understanding of MPEG is a litte naive. MPEG is not the issue, as frames are not interpolated as you describe. Note: the 480P60 mode is also MPEG and it has twice as many frames between between keys (I-frames) as the 30P mode (480p60 has a GOP length of 12 vs 720p30 has a GOP of 6 -- the shorter the better for editing.) And you like the 480p60, yet it is has more interlopation (your term). There is nothing wrong with MPEG, given that all digital TV boardcasts and DVD are MPEG (15frame GOPs typically.) Also the analysis of the 48fps film presentation also doesn't hold up as 720p30 is always presented at 60fps on HDTV. So basically, you are simply not used to shooting at 24p or 30p, I understand it is tricky, but it is not a failure of the camera.

Note: 480p60 is bad for DVD creation as you have to discard vertical resolution to make it 60i or discard temporal resolution to make it 30p. 60p can't played from standard DVD. Now 720p30 is a good choice for DVD, the frame rate frame fits and the addition resolution provides oversampling to give the cleanest DVD output. This I highly recommend.

Thomas,

Try a shutter speed of 60 and you'll see much improvement...

(note: 24fps for film cameras is usually shot with a 180 degree shutter which means: 1/48th of a second shutter speed.)

g.

I'm not going to argue with an expert. I'm sure there is nothing wrong with the MPEG component of this camera. As I'm sure there is nothing wrong with a low frame rate of 30fps. However, it is my humble opinion that when you put the two together, you have a problem. One or the other by itself is fine, but together, in your image capture device, is a problem.

Perhaps some people are more sensitive to mpeg artifacts than others. I didn't care for the compression used on some of the lower bit rate channels on Direct TV ( The history channel, for one ). The artifacts were objects with a slight amount of motion, like looking out a plane window, and parts of the image just staying static. The oddest one I saw was a news man in his dark suit, his suit stayed static for a while, and his head and neck were moving around in it, like some kind of puppet!
Lord knows how much politics there must be in thier bitrate allocation plans.

Mpeg does motion tracking of pixel groups, and uses redundancy in inter frame spans to just 'move those around', in layman's terms.
I really haven't noticed too many artifacts on the JVC, other than banding in the sky. I use 1/30 or 1/60 second speeds.

-Les

I was thinking the same thing as Geoff. Motion is almost unwatchable at 30 shutter speed but video-like at 60--I wonder if that was the problem. As for the rotator grip, I love the feel of the camera in my hand, it may just take getting used to. You might learn to love it. Maybe play around with it a little more before you return it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit : How do those people making feature films get away with 24 fps?
Are you doing some extreme sports stuff, or ?
-Les -->>>

I'm in film school right now and I have to say that getting used to shooting at 24 fps after years of working in video production has taken a lot of getting used to. The kind of motion you capture at 24 fps isn't really very dynamic. A lot of the results are terrible. The thing is, once you get used to shooting at 24 fps and get used to how it behaves then you'll start noticing how crappy it behaves in a lot of commercial films. Post-production sound really polishes up most productions and if the sound is coherent most people don't notice too much if the images aren't nearly as coherent. The bottom line (IMO) is that 24 fps is a really crappy frame rate for shooting film. 30p is a little better, but still behaves pretty similarly to 24p. I haven't had the experience, but I'll bet 60p is really nice.

maybe to watch on a small screen 60p looks better but a big "silver" screen needs 24p...no compromise!

please read this on the link below (need registration):

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/feature/2003/wilt1003


Sanjin

Richard,

Why 24 fps?


There's a general impression that 24 fps is the One True Frame Rate, and only 24 fps is capable of capturing dramatic material with just the right amount of unreality for storytelling. A slower frame rate is too jerky, but what about a faster one? Sixty fps (okay, it's really 60 fields per second, but the motion is updated 60 times per second whether it's interlaced fields or proscanned frames) is fine for news, and the immediacy of video, but useless for drama. It's too real, too immediate, and it "looks like television, not like film."

more you can read on:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/feature/2003/wilt1003

Sanjin

<<<-- Originally posted by Sanjin Jukic : maybe to watch on a small screen 60p looks better but a big "silver" screen needs 24p...no compromise!
Sanjin -->>>

Actually, 24 fps was a compromise in the first place. As the author of the article you reference points out, younger audiences don't seem to have nearly as much trouble with 60 fps as older audiences. I'd bet that a lot of that is conditioning. Older audiences have been conditioned to respond to the "24 fps look" through years and years of theatric screenings. Younger audiences are much quicker to adapt to a new way of presenting moving pictures.

I watch a lot of 720p on HD cable that originates from video. It doesn't look like film, but it has a lot of appeal on its own terms. I think that clinging to 24p will fall away when enough people realize what higher frame rates can offer them.

Richard,

I must repeat again: it works for a small screen (60p on tv, computer, plasma or all electronic devices using a screen) but in movie theater 60p is too fast (by the way have you any real theatre experience?), for sure it is not about conditioning and it is about a nature and that is a human eye perception and human brain reception (that you mean to envolve conditioning) or maybe, i would say, you were perhaps conditioned to watch 60p, that's it...tv+computer games generation...

think about it once more...

Sanjin

<<<-- Originally posted by Sanjin Jukic : Richard,

I must repeat again: it works for a small screen (60p on tv, computer, plasma or all electronic devices using a screen) but in movie theater 60p is too fast (by the way have you any real theatre experience?), for sure it is not about conditioning and it is about a nature and that is a human eye perception and human brain reception (that you mean to envolve conditioning) or maybe, i would say, you were perhaps conditioned to watch 60p, that's it...tv+computer games generation...

think about it once more...

Sanjin -->>>

I haven't seen film projected at 60 fps, but a *lot* of well-known cinematogaphers preferred it when the Showscan process was first making the rounds. I've seen a lot of large-screen projection of video and I have no problem with it at all. I know there's this Cult of 24p and a lot of people who think the human brain evolved for the last ten million years into a 24p-appreciating machine, but I personally don't buy it.

Personally, I prefer the additional frame rate over the impressionistic, jittery feeling of 24 fps. Not to say that even a crappy format like 24p doesn't have its place. Hell, if you want to hand-crank at 16 fps and that's the format that makes you feel most creative then more power to you. You'll never sell me on 24p as the One True Frame Rate. It never was. It never will be. It's just what a lot of people settled for with the coming of sound and now there are a lot of people clinging to it because it's familiar.

OK Robert,

You are on your own, but I am still thinking what is standing behind your opinion because you are a student, and you are influented by your environment...so that should be a key somehow of your opinion...but to change a standard is not so easy way...it is also about power...

Sanjin

<<<-- Originally posted by Sanjin Jukic : OK Robert,

You are on your own, but I am still thinking what is standing behind your opinion because you are a student, and you are influented by your environment...so that should be a key somehow of your opinion...but to change a standard is not so easy way...it is also about power...

Sanjin -->>>

Actually, what I call the "flicker people" are all around me. And I'm a returning student. I started working in video on 3/4" U-Matic 20 years ago. The "standard" will change as the industry slowly migrates to digital projection and people aren't tied to a set frame rate, IMO. The 24p people will probably cling to it for some time to come, but with as many professional cinematographers who've expressed a distaste for slow frame rates I imagine a lot of product will start shooting at 30p or 60p when the opportunity presents itself.

Robert,

as I said it is not so easy to change this standard, film started with 24p, computer and digital stuff came later, it is so called industry standard that is accepted all over the world and if you want to change it you must have a good reason for that, for example I have JVC HDV camcorder PAL and my shooting mode is 50p, so I do not fits in yours 60p or 30p, I would say do not observe the thing locally, have a look around the world and see how digital industry spread different standards for DV and DVD etc., but for the film it is unique one: 24p all over the globe, I remind you now on one example before Panasonic introduced DVX100 24p enabled camera that even so called award winning director Steven Sodebergh was shooting one film about two years ago with Canon XLS1 PAL just because it was closer to kick one frame from PAL to get 24p than do it and mess it from NTSC version that can make 60p or 30p. THIS IS NTSC PROBLEM AND THAT SHOULD BE A KEY OF YOUR 24p FRUSTRATION. Sorry but you must be deeply NTSC guy but the film world is not NTSC neither PAL, it is 24p only.

Sanjin

<<<-- Originally posted by Sanjin Jukic : Robert,

as I said it is not so easy to change this standard, film started with 24p>>

No, film started with no standardized frame rates at all. 24 fps was a consensus that was agreed to when sound came in 30 years or so later.

<<<-- I remind you now on one example before Panasonic introduced DVX100 24p enabled camera that even so called award winning director Steven Sodebergh was shooting one film about two years ago with Canon XLS1 PAL just because it was closer to kick one frame from PAL to get 24p than do it and mess it from NTSC version that can make 60p or 30p. THIS IS NTSC PROBLEM AND THAT SHOULD BE A KEY OF YOUR 24p FRUSTRATION. Sorry but you must be deeply NTSC guy but the film world is not NTSC neither PAL, it is 24p only.

Sanjin -->>>

Don't burst any blood vessels there, Sanjin. You've made it clear that you think 24 frames per second is the only choice for moving picture production. I encourage you to work in that format if that's the format that makes you happiest. 24p is the defacto standard right now because people want to be able to easily transfer to film. In the long term the ability to transfer to film isn't going to be an issue anymore. You can dance around in circles proclaiming that 24p is the One True Frame Rate and the only international standard and that 24p is the result of human evolution's intent, but that doesn't change the fact that many well-respected cinematographers (and even a few little guys like me) prefer a faster frame rate that eliminates the stuttering and strobing of 24p. As digital projection gains more acceptance I'm sure that 30p and 60p will become more common.

As for PAL? We'll always be working to accommodate non-NTSC programming. We've been working around your 25 fps film productions for decades because your broadcasting wouldn't comply with a standard that worked properly with our 24 fps production standards. Luckily, most of the production being done in the world is being done in NTSC nations and we don't really grind the wheels of progress to a halt because of some European nations that can't seem to agree to our standards until they're 100 years old and we're ready to move on.

-Rob

Rob,

You sound that as you would running kind of A New Motion Pictures Standard Organization and sounds like a warrior. For example one another Jackson (Peter) is coming from New Zealand, one another "poor" PAL country and maybe winning Oscar this year(?). Do not fight with your "brother" about FPS issue. Hollywood and NTSC TV did not discover the film either. Please, calm down a bit, and maybe give us a names of your's respective cinematographers who are "so crazy" about 60p/30p issue that we can have an idea in the rest of a "poor" PAL world. At first I see video and film as creative work and second as technology second or 24p, 60p, 30p, 25p, etc., doesn't matter, this is not making your movie better or worst. Movie is about an IDEA. One creative genius is standing behind all these technology numbers. Always think about an idea when you think about a film, about story, drama, about photography, acting, lighting, characters, time, place, editing, music, sound and fx etc....The most important numbers in film industry are numbers sold tickets or DVD, tapes and other similar media.

Sanjin

As projectors for 35mm film are slowly replaced with digital projectors, I think the issue of frame rates will be about as unstandardized as the various sound track formats there are on film today.
The blunt fact is that theater patrons don't give a hoot. They don't even complain of poor 35mm projection. I recently saw a film " The Return" in 35mm, and the projection quality was worse than DVD quality on a mediocre home TV. The audience did not seem to care one bit!
Again, the issue will dissolve when the jittery poorly registered 35mm prints go away.
-Les

I would like to see solved that frame issue by film makers but I am affraid that the Moguls are keeping the keys like always...

Sanjin

<<<-- Originally posted by Sanjin Jukic : I would like to see solved that frame issue by film makers but I am affraid that the Moguls are keeping the keys like always...

Sanjin -->>>

Sanjin,

What are you talking about? Moguls??

heath

We're getting a little off topic from the original post, which was why Thomas wanted to get rid of the HD10. Let's try and go back to that. Also, please stay as friendly as we always are. That's what our site is for, to help each other out, while keeping everything friendly!

Thanks,

heath

True Heath!
The further you get from Hollywood the odder it seems!
-Les

I think most people agree that PAL is a better standard for color representation. Calling NTSC "our standard" sounds nationalistic (isn't "our standard" an oxymoron anyway?). Les does that mean that I am only half as odd in New York as a person twice as far away, in Italy say? Maybe I am just being over sensitive.

Back in the hippie days, there was a study. Film cameras were given to some Native Americans living on the reservations. They were taught only the rudamentaries of film production. The study proponents wanted to see what filmic conventions crossed culteral barriers, and which new conventions these indiginous people might develop. The films produced (apart from being boring) showed the characters walking from place to place, and the study proponents thought this was evidence of the fact that the "journey of life" was more important to the native americans, etc. But in reality, they just had not learned how to compress action through editing. Their films looked just like the crap I made in my first film class, until I learned better.

How does this apply to your current debate? I'm not sure. In fact, I'm not sure if the native americans in the study were really australian aboriginals. In any event, what you may think is some ingrained culteral truism, might just be ignorance. We accept 24fps because we don't know any better. If we had an opportunity to see 60fps, we would see the increased spacial resolution and learn to prefer it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Sanjin Jukic : Please, calm down a bit, and maybe give us a names of your's respective cinematographers who are "so crazy" about 60p/30p issue that we can have an idea in the rest of a "poor" PAL world.>>>

Heh...well, Douglas Trumbull takes credit for coming up with the 70mm 60 fps Showscan process. At the time he was pitching the system to studios he assembled a round table of a fair number of prominent cinematographers who agreed that it was a superior presentation system and most of them commented on the fluid quality of the motion. If I'm not mistaken there was an article featuring comments by a number of them in American Cinematographer a while back. Even Michael Brinkman of Panasonic's HD team admits that the only reason 24P has gained acceptance is "cost savings and convenience." In the same article he goes on to say that "60 fps HD is a far better choice than 24 fps. With 2.5 times more frames per second, 60 fps brings a certain fluidity and grace to moving objects that few have experienced before."

You can read the rest of his comments about HD here:

http://2002newsarchive.broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_dtv_answer_book/

>>> Movie is about an IDEA. -->>>

Exactly. No need to get all worked up about whose preferred format is the "One True" format. Work in whatever you like. I prefer faster frame rates.

-Rob

Hi all,

This post has gotten so far off topic, I've decided to lock it. In the future, please try to keep on topic when our great discussions come up. Also, just a reminder, keep it friendly.

For more info, check out our FAQ. (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/misc.php?s=&action=faq)

Thanks,

heath