A "filmish" look of some sort I imagine...

Hey guys, can't really get away from all the activity right now but I will be back online tonight... in my opinion 24F looks great, but you be the judge: I'll post an AVI this evening which should show it off somewhat. Hope this helps,

Awesome Chris.

I just read your article on the chip etc., and if it is indeed correct, I've got to say that I think Canon is shooting themselves in the foot by giving their competitors buzzwords to hyperbolize. From what I can gather, 24F absolutely is equivalent to 24P... it's just a different way at arriving at the same result from an interlaced chip.

-Steve

Chris,

Is 24F a totally new format created by Canon or is it in use by other manufacturers as well? I've never seen it, but then again, I've never had a reason to look for it in the past.

I edit in Final Cut Pro 5 and did not see any settings at all for 24F. Will Apple, Avid, etc. be sending out software upgrades for this format? I know you can't speak for them directly, but what are your thoughts.

Is this even a valid concern or question that I have?

Is this even a valid concern or question that I have?

Not really. The output stream will be HDV 60i... and any implementation of 24p will be simply added with a 2:3 or a 2:3:3:2 pull-down (like it is on the XL2 and DVX100). In other words, if your editing system supports HDV, it will support this camera.

Oh - and if you had Premiere Pro with AspectHD - you could probably remove the pull-down on acquisition and edit native 24p hassle free!

-Steve

But if it is 24p, why not call it 24p? JVC calls their HDV 24p in the HD100 because it's 24 frames per second, full rez.

Processing like that may mean audio lag or artifacts or something else - DV Filmmaker on a chip maybe?

But if it is 24p, why not call it 24p? JVC calls their HDV 24p in the HD100 because it's 24 frames per second, full rez.

Processing like that may mean audio lag or artifacts or something else - DV Filmmaker on a chip maybe?

Well, since JVC's CCD is a Progressive CCD, I guess that's what lets them use 24P in their description. Its really shooting a progressive frame. Apparently no matter how good an interlaced CCD is, or the processing power behind it, its taboo to call anything it ouputs "progressive". Possible legal ramifications?

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Well, since JVC's CCD is a Progressive CCD, I guess that's what lets them use 24P in their description. Its really shooting a progressive frame. Apparently no matter how good an interlaced CCD is, or the processing power behind it, its taboo to call anything it ouputs "progressive". Possible legal ramifications?

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Exactly. They have to call it 24F because the ccd block is not progressive, it's interlaced.

How does the image compare to the other HD cameras? Especially fast moving objects? Does the Image still look good, or do you get a huge interlaced blob?

How does the 60fps look?

Any samples we can see of this?

Michael

Good news for XL-2 owners, the new console software for the XLH1 is fully compatible with the XL-2. Just can't figure out what the price is yet.

-gb-

Exactly. They have to call it 24F because the ccd block is not progressive, it's interlaced.

But Canon (from what the Skinny says) is saying that the CCD is sampling a progressive frame and then upsampling to 60i - something is still not clear about exactly how this works...

something is still not clear about exactly how this works...

It's clear.

Step 1: CCD shutter operates at 24 Hz
Step 2: CCD is sampled into the computer as interlaced fields
Step 3: Fields are recombined into complete frames
Step 4: Image processing
Step 5: Complete frames are pulled-down into 60i storage/broadcast format via 2:3 or 2:3:3:2 pull-down = "upsampling to 60i"
Step 6: Signal is output via HD-SDI, sent to HDV compressor
Step 7: 60i HDV signal is written to tape.

Steps 2 and 3 are different from the XL2 and DVX. All the rest of the steps are common to the XL2 and DVX.

-Steve

It's clear.

Step 1: CCD shutter operates at 24 Hz
Step 2: CCD is sampled into the computer as interlaced fields
Step 3: Fields are recombined into complete frames
Step 4: Image processing
Step 5: Complete frames are pulled-down into 60i storage/broadcast format via 2:3 or 2:3:3:2 pull-down = "upsampling to 60i"
Step 6: Signal is output via HD-SDI, sent to HDV compressor
Step 7: 60i HDV signal is written to tape.

Steps 2 and 3 are different from the XL2 and DVX. All the rest of the steps are common to the XL2 and DVX.

-Steve

Steve:

Where is the information from?

The bottom line is going to be how the image actually looks anyway, who cares how it's created.

The bottom line is going to be how the image actually looks anyway, who cares how it's created.

For those doing film blow-ups etc and other resolution intensive work, it does matter how it's created. And for figuring out if the 24F is available via SDI.

Steve:

Where is the information from?

He's interpolating step 2&3 from the rest of the information given in "The Skinny". While he could be wrong, so far I think he's right.

The golden nugget that has set my mind at ease is that they're saying the CCD is clocked at 24hz. To screw the chain up after that would be insanity. I agree with what somebody else said...for all practical purposes the camera operates as progressive it seems. They could have saved themselves some trouble...the F900 does a similar trick and nobody questions how that camera comes up with 24P.

For those doing film blow-ups etc and other resolution intensive work, it does matter how it's created. And for figuring out if the 24F is available via SDI.

So what if the image looked great on a film out, but wasn't technically progressive in its original incepetion, would you still have a problem with it? My point still applies to a film out as well, if it looks good on a film out, then it is good there as well. Transfer houses will surely test this cam out for film outs, so we'll all know soon enough.

Where is the information from?
I made it up based upon my understanding of sampling theory, pull-downs and video signals. Cramming 24 frames into 60i isn't exactly a new thing in video - it's been around a long time... and the rules are pretty standard.

The exact order of the operations/steps varies quite a bit... but it is sufficient to know that if the CCD is run at 24 Hz, regardless as to whether it's sampled as interlaced or progressive, the result is a single frame of information. The only information anyone should really be caring about right now is whether the CCD is clocked at 24 Hz. Once this is established (i.e., if Chris' article is correct), then there's very little to worry about except minor details in terms of compression flags etc.

-Steve

I think what everyone is trying to figure out, but doesn't seem to be saying, is that we are wondering if the 24F footage is full resolution, i.e. 1080 vertical lines, or if it is cut to 540 lines due to dropping one field.

Chris' article infers that it is the full 1080 lines.

-Steve

Well, that's the point -- if it delivers a full 1080 lines of resolution, and the image is captured properly at discrete 24hz intervals, then I don't care how they get there, as long as they get there. If it looks, smells, tastes and acts like genuine 24P, they can call it whatever they want and it'll still be exactly what we want.

Canon can't call it 24p because it isn't progressive.

For Final Cut pro users, I'm sure there will be updates. For the record, FCP 5 can't capture from the HD100, as I found out the other day. JVC says their equivilant deck can, but that's about a month from release.

heath

24P itself is only an imitation of 24fps film. 24F is just another imitation of filmic motion, but using a different letter.

Okay, the above posts contridict each other so many times it's kinda of fun.

I agree - it amounts to 24p and they call it whatever, everybody's happy. But perhaps I'm reading too much into why it's not called 24p and 24f because of negative experience with frame movie mode.

Frame movie mode was a similar adventure with people for years insisting it was equal to or better resolution before it become widely known it was lower resolution. And that info did not come from Canon. The "progressive modes" on the Sony HDV took much less to realize that they were not real progressive.

However, it is full rez 24 fps, they should ring the bell loudly as assuming the lens and CCD's perform well, that's quite exciting.

...I'll post an AVI this evening which should show it off somewhat...
Has the AVI been posted yet?

So (just to be sure), 24F is not equivalent to CF24 in the Z1U?

Is it true that even the 1080p of the HVX200 will be delivered in an interlaced stream? If so, will the 1080i at 24F be compared to a 1080p?

-EDWIN

From what I understand, 24F is NOT like CF24 in the FX1/Z1 (though we had some luck with it in my film 3 Sisters (www.904am.com/3sisters.php), but we won't do it again).

I don't know if the HVX200 will do 1080p. I'm not sure how many will do that. Unless it's like you say, 1080p in some sort of interlaced delivery.

heath

The HVX does genuine 24p, yes.

It won't take more than five minutes to figure out if the 24F mode is legit or not; all we have to do is shoot a res chart with/without 24f mode on to determine resolution, and then shoot some constant-motion objects next to a true 24p camera to determine motion sampling.

Barry's right--we should also do it with the JVC.

heath

OK guys, you talked me into it. I have an HD resolution chart, if you send me the XL-HDQWERTY1 and the HD100U for a week I'll shoot the charts, but I'll only do it if it's during the next dv challenge...

Oh and uh, where's that .avi?

Barry's right--we should also do it with the JVC.

heath

The JVC IS genuine 24p also. Untill the HVX (it seems), it's the only true progressive camcorder in the bunch.

I don't know if the HVX200 will do 1080p. I'm not sure how many will do that. Unless it's like you say, 1080p in some sort of interlaced delivery.



The HVX will shoot true 1080p but due to the DVCPRO HD codec it uses, will record it using a 1080i stream. It is the same method as used on the DVX100 and XL2, which record their progressive footage using a 50i/60i DV stream.

Chris, I don't know what you have been able to see so far, but what is your impression of the camera's general picture quality?

Check out my brief thoughts on the JVC here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=50903

Reply to those thoughts on that thread.

heath

The DVX100 calls itself 24p and they put progressive material in an interlaced format then you use pulldown to acheive the 24p, if that is what Canon is doing then why not call it 24p. Some people are saying it's a "legal" thing, but does that mean that Panasonic is screwed legally for calling it's DVX100 a 24p camera. It seems there has to be something different going on.

I heard a rumor someone owned the trademark to 24p and was to receive money for that right. But I think that's been debunked.

Though, as we all know with HDV, to use the logo, you gotta pay some money:

http://www.hdv-info.org/

heath

The DVX100 calls itself 24p and they put progressive material in an interlaced format then you use pulldown to acheive the 24p, if that is what Canon is doing then why not call it 24p. Some people are saying it's a "legal" thing, but does that mean that Panasonic is screwed legally for calling it's DVX100 a 24p camera. It seems there has to be something different going on.

It is different - the Canon uses a interlaced CCD and interlaced video stream to carry the footage, the DVX uses a progressive CCD and that progressive footage is only carried in an interlaced stream.

Canon has come up with a way to create a progressive effect using interlaced CCDs. Sony merely de-interlaces the interlaced footage to make CineFrame mode, loosing resolution. Apparently the Canon manages to maintain the full 1080, maybe by scanning both fields at once..??

kind of think of it as when you watch progressive video on your TV. The TV is still an interlaced device and it displays first the even lines and then the odd lines. Your video looks like and is progressive.

I do not know this 100% but think of the Canon as the opposite. You have an interlaced device but each of those fields is taken at the same time but still alternated. I don't know how they do it. This would give you a full 1440x1080 pixels at one moment in time but a different way of getting to that point. Maybe there are two processors that sample the odd fields and the even fields at the exact same time.

I expect it's going to be something like the Frame mode on the XL1s. Canon's press release talks about the individual frames in 24F as opposed to the "exceptional resolution" in 60i impling that there is a resolution loss. I can't remember (or find) anything on how frame mode worked in the XL1s but I do recall that it involved averaging of adjacent lines which gave better SNR but cost somewhat in resolution. These musings are just that: musings.

I expect it's going to be something like the Frame mode on the XL1s. Canon's press release talks about the individual frames in 24F as opposed to the "exceptional resolution" in 60i impling that there is a resolution loss. I can't remember (or find) anything on how frame mode worked in the XL1s but I do recall that it involved averaging of adjacent lines which gave better SNR but cost somewhat in resolution. These musings are just that: musings.


If it is like FRAME mode, that is a back step for them... although I personally liked frame mode, it is now consider limited.

Go to:

www.usa.canon.com

And click on Consumer, Digital Camcorders, then the camera. That may answer some questions.

heath

Even "if" it was frame mode (which I doubt it is) that might still be better than 720p.

Somebody mentioned that frame mode on the XL1 had about 360 lines compared to 480 instead of only 240 from one field. Based on that ratio "if" the XLH! used frame mode we should get about 810 lines instead of only 540 from the Z1 and 720 from the HD100. The only other camera that might beat that is the HVX200 but we do not yet know how they will get 1080p. It may be interpolated from 720p chips so it may not be any better than 810 lines from frame movie mode.

Again this is a what if it is situation.

I don't think it's like Frame Mode. Also, check this out:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=12507&highlight=28+days

heath

A little confusion seems to be being introduced to this question of 24P. Lets set aside the naming of names point initially: The key issue is that if the data on the CCD is clocked at the same moment AT 24 FPS but then read out off the block as two interlaced fields, we really don't care about how it is read do we? The key issue is that the image capture is at one moment in time and at 24Hz

The important issue then becomes do they then recombine the two fileds to form a FRAME at 24 Hz BEFORE any image processing. They would be crazy not to, but maybe there are processing limitations on this (like no actual full frame store anywhere). What happens to get the data into the HDV transport stream seems irrelavant then, provided the field sequence is marked, and recoverable.

Then back to the naming of names: 24P implies the data can be read off the block progressively. 24F implies the data can be CAPTURED at 24Hz but is read as FIELDS. So there is a difference, and maybe it would affect noise patterns or something, but it probably is simply a technical difference, not one that affects the actual image we finally get to use.

Or is this too logical?

Someone say yes Charles...this is what we do....

Thank you Mr. Spock, that is very logical.

I heard a rumor someone owned the trademark to 24p and was to receive money for that right. But I think that's been debunked.

http://www.filmlook.com/

The key issue is that the image capture is at one moment in time and at 24Hz
I'd say the key issue is how the final product looks, not how it does it. If it delivers full 1080p resolution, and the motion is sampled once every 24hz, and it looks like a high-def version of the DVX's 24p, then I don't think it matters how they do it or what they call it.

CineFrame24 is hated because it is neither full-resolution, nor 24hz motion. If 24F is full-res and 24hz motion, it will be embraced regardless of what they name it or how they accomplish it.

Thanks, Charles! BTW, saw your HD100 footage at an HDV show with Ken Freed. Nice stuff.

heath

Under this light then they ARE indeed getting a WHOLE frame from each ccd at 1/24th of a sec? then the readout is interlaced? I don't care a rip about the "readout" if the CCD is getting a WHOLE frame every 1/24 of a sec....is this the deal with 24f??


A little confusion seems to be being introduced to this question of 24P. Lets set aside the naming of names point initially: The key issue is that if the data on the CCD is clocked at the same moment AT 24 FPS but then read out off the block as two interlaced fields, we really don't care about how it is read do we? The key issue is that the image capture is at one moment in time and at 24Hz

The important issue then becomes do they then recombine the two fileds to form a FRAME at 24 Hz BEFORE any image processing. They would be crazy not to, but maybe there are processing limitations on this (like no actual full frame store anywhere). What happens to get the data into the HDV transport stream seems irrelavant then, provided the field sequence is marked, and recoverable.

Then back to the naming of names: 24P implies the data can be read off the block progressively. 24F implies the data can be CAPTURED at 24Hz but is read as FIELDS. So there is a difference, and maybe it would affect noise patterns or something, but it probably is simply a technical difference, not one that affects the actual image we finally get to use.

Or is this too logical?




Someone say yes Charles...this is what we do....

Doesn't happen often, but when it does; we've got two Charles in the same thread. Heath, thanks for the nod for the JVC footage. How were they showing it? on a monitor loop or as part of a presentation? just curious.

Charles Wood, welcome to DVInfo.net...and, mind if we call you Bruce?!