Forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but could someone explain to me how 24p and 24f differ? Someone told me that 24f works like the XL1's frame mode, which effectively cuts resolution in half.

Why didn't they make it a true 24p?

I think there are a coupld of threads about this. The 24F mode is because (I believe) the chip is not a full progressive chip but an interlaced one. No one is 100% on how the camera does it's magic though steve mullen has a theory that checks out with me. IF you read some of the other threads you'll find that the resolution is in debate as well. My findings suggest that the camera does much better in 24F then 540 (1080 cut in half) but I suggest you do your own research.

I believe that they didn't make it true 24p because it would have been really expensive (more so then it already is.)

Frame mode resolution is *not* cut in half. This isn't your grandmother's Frame mode from a 1998 XL1. Canon has had seven years to improve Frame mode.

They are not progressive CCD's because this is a 1080i camera. Frame mode produces the same results as progressive scan. It's a mistake to get hung up on "true" progressive vs. emulated progressive. How the image is made is meaningless compared to how it looks. What does Frame mode look like to your eye, that is all that really counts.

Chris, I hate to say it but that's pretty misleading.

I've used a GL2 and its frame mode cuts resolution not in half but reduces it by about 30% (pixel shift fills in the rest). I assume the same is true of the XL1.

The XL1h uses pixel shifted interlace CCDs and there is a CLEAR reduction in resolution. Quite visible on a computer screen, possibly not as visible on a TV. I'd say at least a 20% reduction in resolution (other tests have confirmed a loss, none have thrown out specific numbers.)

Still, this beats the Sony, beats the JVC, and beats the HVX. The Canon is sharper in 60i than 24f, but the softness in 24f reduces interlace flicker, helps the codec to deal with the high amount of information, and is so minor that it doesn't matter that much on anything but the largest screen. Plus, since it's interlace and not progressive, you don't lose a stop of sensetivity.

So, yes, you do lose resolution, and it's probably similar to what is lost on the XL1. The difference is that the XL1 has low res sensors, the XL1h has an absurdly high resolution sensor.

Edit: Of course, it is TRUE 24fps even if there is a resolution drop (a very minor one, though.)

Canon folks still won't talk much about what they're doing, but isn't it similar to what Sony does with 24psF for their HDCAM?

<http://www.broadcastpapers.com/telecine/Evertz1080p04.htm>

It's not perfect, but my experience with 24psF has been pretty positive (it better be at the rental prices we pay)...

Happy to be enlightened about this more, though...

Jim

Chris is not misleading, he's right on point. Actually the only thing misleading is the title of this thread. I don't even agree with Nick with saying "they didn't make it true 24p because it would have been expensive". Nick, THEY DID make it 24p!

Guys listen...
What does the term "Twenty Four Pee" mean to you? The sensor type? NO...THATS WRONG. That's not what it means. Please use the terminology correctly, because if you don't YOU will in fact be 'misleading' the world. This camera will record every bit of 24 frames per second (which is why the title of this thread is a lie) and it will do it PROGRESSIVELY (one single hi-res/hi-def picture at a time). Additionally, it does it in the correct cadence and fashion that a film camera would have done it.
Heck, when you think about it, then there is NO VIDEO CAMERA that records to minidv tape that is TRUE 24P. I can't for the life of me figure out why Canon called it "F" other then they decided to be truthful, just like Sony is with the F900. Which makes me think, now that I've brought up the Sony F900......
The XL-H1 is no less 24p then the $100,000.00 F900 is 24p, but I don't see anyone jumping down the F900 throat calling it "fake". It's amazing the level of miseducation people have when it comes to video cameras and terminology like the word "Fake" and "True" and "Real". *smile*

Here's a little education for those that don't know...: "The F900 CineAlta cannot record true progressive-scan, it can only record interlaced, so it breaks progressive frames into interlaced data for the purposes of recording it (which they then call PsF, for Progressive: segmented frame)." Can you guess what expert made that statement who I whole-heartedly beleive? Well, if that's what the Sony does, then what do you think the XL-H1 is doing?

And Matthew....where did you "hear" about the resolution loss of 24f vs. 60i? I know you couldn't have "seen" it, because I don't think it's there. You can't determine this on a televison "OR" a computer screen by just looking at regular ole' day-to-day footage as you would lead someone to beleive Matthew. What your eyeballs seen was 60i motion vs. 24p motion, not resolution loss. The only way to KNOW this is to TEST it with a resolution chart on a Professional High Definition Reference Monitor....something I DID with Nick. I would even like to retract part of my statements in my test as far as a resolution drop and what not, because now that I slow down and think, I kinda remember 24f being as good as OR HIGHER then 60i on the chart.

Now...can we please move on about this. The XL-H1 is a 24(pee) camera. If you wanna call it 24(eff) then fine, but it's all the same in the end. And I challenge anybody elses HDV camera to a head to head duel if you doubt me. If you still contend that this is 'fake' (lol) then let's call the f900 & jvchd100 'fake' as well. Leaving Panasonic DVX100 & HVX200 the only 'true' 24p cameras in exsistence. Fair?

*smile*

- ShannonRawls.com

Whoa, easy killer! I wasn't trying to put the XL H1 down, I swear. I'm just confused and not sure whether to buy it or not. I just almost bought it this weekend and didn't because of talking to bystanders at B&H.

First, thanks for the info, everyone.

I went to B&H in NYC this past weekend to play with some of the High Def cameras (and to purchase one). The XL H1 was there on display but not hooked up yet. I played with one of the other ones (don't remember which one) and switched it to "frame" mode. What I noticed was a fake strobing effect which looked remarkably like that cheesy 15fps 80's dance video effect - I'm very familiar with the 24p look (as I have the XL2 and the DVX) - but this was downright horrible. I talked to two guys who joked the "F" in 24F stands for "fake", as in "fake 24p". The sales guy said it works just like the XL1s's frame mode. Thinking about how much resolution loss this fake frame mode creates in the XL1s, I figured it creates the same percentage of resolution loss in the H1. I mean, same process... just HD. Why wouldn't it?

One of the guys I talked to has the H1. He said that there is a slight loss of resolution between 60i and 24"fake" (I'm just doing that as a joke, now) but, since we're working in HD, it's not so noticeable. He said that 24f is still a more amazing picture than any of the others in 60i even.

I left there scratching my head, wondering why Canon would do this. I did a little research (as I know very little about HD) and found that there just aren't any HDV camcorders with true 24p.

Then I found out that the H1 doesn't even record in fake progressive, but rather "flags" the footage for "progressive-looking playback". Sheesh. Now I'm afraid of that aforementioned "strobe" effect you find on 80's VHS camcorders.

As long as that 24f looks like the 24p of the XL2 only higher resolution, I'm a happy camper. Anyone? Anyone?

The XL H1 was there on display but not hooked up yet. I played with one of the other ones (don't remember which one) and switched it to "frame" mode. What I noticed was a fake strobing effect which looked remarkably like that cheesy 15fps 80's dance video effect

That would be the Sony FX1/Z1U you picked up. And let's not use the word "fake" for cryin' out loud. How about "Suedo" or "Wierd" or "Unpleasing".

I talked to two guys who joked the "F" in 24F stands for "fake", as in "fake 24p". The sales guy said it works just like the XL1s's frame mode.

The two guys you spoke with are on Payroll from the other manufacturers to hang out at B&H and defract customers from buying the XL-H1. Job well done fellas. *smile* And the Salesman had no idea what he was talking about (odd for B&H, but possible)

I left there scratching my head, wondering why Canon would do this?

Best thing I've heard in a while.
Danny, do you think by any stretch of your imagination, that Canon....of all companies....the imaging MASTERS........after successfully conquering the 24p technology in the XL2 camera in 2004........would release their brand spankin' new FLAGSHIP CAMERA in 2006.....with a $9,000.00 price tag.....
and muck it up?????? You're a smart dude, you know better then that. *smile*

The XL-H1 is every bit of an XL2. You should have bought the camera and laughed your way out the door at those 2 little devils on your shoulder. *smile*

- ShannonRawls.com

there just aren't any HDV camcorders with true 24p.Incorrect... the JVC GY-HD100 has 24p from progressive scan chips. Of course it is HDV1, at 1280 x 720, instead of HDV2, at 1920 x 1080, but it is still HDV.

If you compared 24F from the XL H1 to 24P from the XL2, I think you would be hard pressed to notice any difference (to make it a fair fight, you'd need to be in 16:9 SD mode, not HD mode, on the XL H1).

Incorrect... the JVC GY-HD100 has 24p from progressive scan chips.

Actually it 'ends up' with 24p in the end. It's 48p, 50p & 60p that is scans and only "60p" that records I beleive, not 24p. Even the .m2t files pulled off the tape are 59.94fps when shooting in 24p mode. It's just only 24 of the frames are encoded and we have to rely on great software like CineForm to decipher the stuff to 24p, in the end.

So theorhetically, if you go by all the naysayers hypothesis', then the JVC HD100 IS NOT a "TRUE" 24P camera either! This is what Douglas Spotted Eagle is meaning when he says Canon is telling the "truth" when using "f" instead of "p".

(now ofcourse I'm being silly here), but I'm saying that to illustrate a point and hope you see my relevance of terminology like 'true' and 'real' and the way haters can misconstrue things to those that don't know any better.

We know the HD100 is in fact a 24p High Definition Video Camera. But don't give it that title because the chips are progressive. Give it that title because thats what you get when you shoot with this camera and end up with the footage.
Going along those same lines, then we should also know that the XL-H1 (in every honest sense of the nomenclature) is in fact a 24p High Definition Video Camera as well and not get hung up on the "f" that Canon decided to use in stead of "p". (in DV mode, it can be 3-2 or 2-3-3-2, your choice) and all that jazz.

It's all about what comes down the firewire pipe and what you get from that MiniDV tape! That's how we look at it for the Sony F900, then rightfully so, we need to look at it for these sub $10k cameras as well.

- ShannonRawls.com

So is there a huge difference in resolution between HDV1 and HDV2.

And does that mean that even when in SD mode there is no true 24p mode on the H1?

I guess that, all in all, I may just not be ready for HDV yet... it seems that there are still so many "buts" (I'm talking all HD cams, not just the H1): It films 24p... BUT not real 24p (and it doesn't even really film in anything other than 60i). It has so much resolution... BUT you lose a lot of it in MiniDV compression (unless you spend even more money to be teathered to an external acquisition device). Great picture all-in-all... BUT horrible audio.

The biggest thing is just that "un-real" (kinda like "un-dead") 24p. If it's not called "fake", then what does the "F" in 24f stand for? I'm joking.

Until I get to experience the 24f myself, I'm definitely not biting my nails to own it.

Plus, I'm not convinced that the H1's HDV displayed on an SD display looks any better than the XL2's SD.

Shannon, you realize when you make these proclamations, you're directly contradicting Canon themselves, right?

Canon says that they will not call it 24p because it is not a progressive chip. It is scanned interlace. The 24F effect is created by the DIGIC II processor.

There is a difference. It may not make a difference to you, but that does not mean that the difference doesn't exist. You yourself used to try to tell us that the Sony CF24 was the same thing, it just needed to be "processed in post" -- and now that you've had some experience with something that looks and acts like the real deal, you now say that the Sony's CF24 is not the real deal, but instead it "looks like Rerun from What's Happenin' doing the Pop-Lock."

So let's stick with what reality is. Reality is that the Canon does not use a progressive scan chip. It uses an interlace chip. That's what Canon says. That's what the truth is. You may not feel that it makes a difference as far as your work goes, that's fine and dandy -- but you should at least specify what IS a difference, vs. what you weigh as a deciding factor.

The next step of reality is that there is a noticeable resolution loss that happens when going to 24F mode. This can easily be seen in Pete's comparison charts on his Scratchpad site. Pete shot the exact same chart at the exact same framing using the exact same settings, changing only the mode from 60i to 24F. The drop in resolution is very easy to see. I've extracted a patch from the identical segments of the chart to show the difference:
http://www.icexpo.com/HD100/XLH1-60i-24F-extraction.bmp

Is it night and day? No. Is it obviously lower in res? Yes. How much lower? Depends on your particular interpretation; I'd say that in this circumstance, using this framing, the 60i is resolving cleanly to around 750, whereas the 24F crosses lines right around 600. A difference of about 20% lower res. Not too far off from what "frame mode" used to do.

In true progressive scan, that's not what happens. True progressive scan causes an INCREASE in resolution, not a dropoff, because it doesn't have to do interline filtering to reduce interlace flicker. I'm talking about scanning the CCDs progressively, not the recording format. The recording format is the least of our concerns; the Sony CineAlta records as interlaced but it scans as progressive, and that's what counts.

Is there a difference between 24F and 24P? Yes. Absolutely. Obviously. Unquestionably.

Does that make 24F "bad"? No, not by a long shot. 24F is probably the best HDV recording mode going. It provides genuine 24-fps motion rendition, unlike CF24. Its lower detail helps the MPEG encoder handle it easier. And the fact that it records 24 discrete frames, rather than a stream of 60i, gives it 20% more bandwidth to apply to the frames, as well as letting it use a more efficient progressive encoding rather than the less-efficient interlace encoding. 24F should be more resistant to mosquito noise and more resistant to macroblocking than 60i. 24F, and HDV's 24P, are likely to prove the most robust, most resilient ways to record HDV material.

But it is about 20% lower resolution than 60i. It's a good simulation of 24p progressive scan, but it is not the same.

So is there a huge difference in resolution between HDV1 and HDV2.
Depends on how you define resolution, and what you're recording.

There's a huge difference in the # of recorded pixels between the two formats. But as far as resolvable definition from the camera heads, there's much less difference.

If you're talking about recording computer-generated imagery, yes HDV2 could retain much more of that detail. But if you're talking about a complete camera system and lens and chips and the final image that gets recorded to tape, there's not much difference in recorded/resolvable detail between an HDV1 JVC HD100 and an HDV2 Sony Z1. However, for temporal resolution HDV2 does hold a substantial edge.

And does that mean that even when in SD mode there is no true 24p mode on the H1?
Well, yes and no. Yes, in that there is never actual progressive scanning going on. But no, in that by the time you get to SD, the loss of fine detail from 24F scanning is going to be moot because when it gets scanned at SD resolution it's likely going to have just as much detail as a true SD progressive-scan chip would deliver. I haven't tested this, but I'd guess that as far as resolved detail goes, SD 24F from an XLH1 and 24P from an XL2 are probably going to be indistinguishable.

The biggest thing is just that "un-real" (kinda like "un-dead") 24p. If it's not called "fake", then what does the "F" in 24f stand for? I'm joking.
"Frame". The DigicII processing appears to be an enhanced Frame Mode.

Plus, since it's interlace and not progressive, you don't lose a stop of sensetivity.

Actually, you do lose some sensitivity in 24F. It's quite obvious when you switch the dial. This is the mystery to me...is it actually doing a true PsF, ala F900? Whatever it's doing, it's phenomenal. I can't believe how filmic 24F is.

...not that I showed anything overwhelmingly cinematic. I just know that if that's the WORST that it can do, imagine it in production scenarios.

The mind boggles

Incorrect... the JVC GY-HD100 has 24p from progressive scan chips. Of course it is HDV1, at 1280 x 720, instead of HDV2, at 1920 x 1080, but it is still HDV. True, but HDV 2 is 1440x1080 with a par of 1.33, not square 1920x1080....big difference.


Also on the 24p vice 24f I think it is worth distinguishing cameras that use progressive chips from interlaced. The F900 notwithstanding I am sure owners of VariCam will agree...just a different animal than a hardware deinterlace to a full frame at 24fps. Now I do agree that some manufacturers are going to be better than others at taking interlaced to progressive and can't wait to see some native .m2t of the Canon scheme but fact is it isn't a true progressive acquisition like Varicam... and while the resolution looks great on a static chart my guess is the resolution differences(not cadence) show up in movement.....that's when the conversion gets tough. Don't get me wrong I really really like this camera and think it is a big step up from the Z1 I have and next time I have to stick a tele on the Z1 I bet I will own this cam instead...

Barry Green, Don't lie to make a point.
I have an affinity for you, but if you're gonna start making up stuff, then Imma start questioning your word and other things I admire you for.

Do a search on all my posts, Scan my name and read all 19 pages of posts I have made here you will never find where I said that the SOny Z1U CF24 is 24P like I am saying now. I always seen that interlace jutter frame that Adam Wilt reported on, so if I said that then I was insane!

I did however always say CF24 can BECOME 24p...even NICE 24p at that. I've done it many times before and I can do it for you if you need me to. As a matter of fact...CineForm has made it even EASIER to do so...so please tell the truth...

So like you said, let's stick with reality, Mmm K?

Canon does not use progressive chips. And? your point is? Have you not listened to a word I said about "24p"? Well if you have then, well....OK.....

Screw it ... Since you want to hamper the scanning technology, then XL-H1, the HD100, the DVX100, XL2, the SDX900, the F900, the Varicam....Are all "UN-REAL" 24p and NOBODY is "TRUE" 24P then. Because for each and every one of them, I can point out a reason why it's not.

how's that sound? I mean, because that's the only FAIR answer if everybody is going to be subjective to what "they" consider Twenty Four Pee (24p).
IF IT AIN'T ONE THING IT'S ANOTHER. now it's all about the scanning of the chips. LOLOLOL. Before it was the cadence, then it was the way it's laid to tape, then it was how it comes down firewire, now it's the Chips. Originally, Static Resolution Tests were all we needed BUT NOW that cameras are excelling in that area it's all about moving object tests to make a determination! Lord have mercy. It's a Lose-Lose situation with this stuff. Nothing is ever good enough for people anymore. Eveything sucks! I continually praise this website every chance I get because I love it, and what do I get? Emails from anonymous a**holes telling me how DVINFO isn't good enough and that I should hang out at DVXUSER instead. It's AMAZING!
Even though the Sony CineAlta F900 does PsF, it gets a Pass, regardless that it was YOU who said "The F900 CineAlta cannot record true progressive-scan, it can only record interlaced, so it breaks progressive frames into interlaced data for the purposes of recording it (which they then call PsF, for Progressive: segmented frame)."

*shakin my head*

I seem to be the only one who is being fair about how to consider the term 24p. Everybody else (espeically those that follow certain companies like a cult) will find some loop-hole to claim that another company ain't real or true. One way or another.

You claim that 24f is different then 24p, well ok then tell me this. If I shoot a resolution chart of a Canon XL2 in 24p (2-3-3-2) and I shoot a the same chart in the same settings in the same position with the same lighting on the same day using the same exact lens with a Canon XL-H1 in 24f (2-3-3-2) then you're telling me that the the XL2 should resolve a better resolution then the XL-H1? And that's both in DV mode. Is that what you're telling me? Because it's nothing more then a phone call for me to run that test.

You think I didn't look at Pete Bauer's report where you grabbed those cute little images from? I was so fanatic about wondering if the 24f got better or worse over 60i when me and Nick ran those tests that I studied Petes images probably harder then anybody on this website. I came to realize that the whole damn 24f BMP file was shifty at best! there's JPG artifcacts in the GREY areas on that thing even though its a BMP. Not to mention, the camera moved and was on various shutter speeds & F-Stops for testing. How can you go by that? Pete did us a favor by showcasing the first XL-H1 on DVINFO.net and gave us something to start with, but you seem to be taking it as Gospel.

And as far as resolution numbers go, Pete openly says he is not a test engineer and that his setup was a bit makeshift Barry. And where did he get that chart from anyhow? Was that a print out?
Why on Earth are you coming up with these low resolution numbers for the XL-H1 by using Pete's living room makeshift paper printout record player turn-table chart test rather then one Nick shot at Bennett Studios next to his F900 using the same chart you own??? My god! That gives me indication that YOU DON'T WANT the Canon to do good. What's up with that? LOL That's not like you Barry. and even then, I didn't like the internet image "I" put up and had put a disclaimer next to it, but openly told everybody about what I SAW, not whats on my website.

Moreover, if you go by Pete's test, then the Standard Def wide-angle 3x lens is JUST AS GOOD OR BETTER then the 20x HD lens it came with! Something YOU TEACH US that cannot be possible! So is it good or isn't it? Is the test valid or is it not?

That's why I always said I don't like these Internet tests and charts and all that. never have and never will. IN PERSON is the best method. I can't base a theory by what Internet BMP & JPG photos are telling us. If that's the case, then the HVX200 is a piece of crap based on the filmout they had at Laser Pacific last week! And let's not even talk about the footage from Pappas at the Expo!

Anyhow, (throwing hands up), I give up. The XL-H1 is a fake, the HD100 is fake, DV is fake HDV, HDV is fake HD, HD is fake FILM, FILM is fake Eyeballs, Americans landing on the Moon is Fake, and Earth is just an Ant-Farm for some aliens Kid whose just watching us fumble around down here.

the CineAlta is fake too.
(smile)

How's that?

- ShannonRawls.com

I can't wait to see some HVX 1080p. Of course what we shot at the expo isn't fair, but resolution-wise, it looked like an upsample. A lot like the Z1U 960x1080. It's my belief (and it's just dandy if I'm wrong...I want the best product) is that the HVX200 will not look as finely detailed and have that image *pop* in 1080p, because there's a reasonable chance that the sensor is undersampled, to some degree, in comparison to the H1. The H1 may also have a sharper lens and better signal processing, but we'll see soon enough.

Jan has stated that it's a 1080p sensor, but has avoided mentioning the actual dimensions. It might be a 1920x1080 CCD, or very likely not. It might be that it pixel shifts in both axes, which is fine, but it might be straining to get a nice 1920x1080 image, whereas the H1 seems to have plenty of resolution umph. All I know is I really like what the H1 can do, and it seems like Nick and Co. feel the same way.

It's funny to argue over the minutiae of the meaning of true *progessive* scan. Seems to be quite the marketing coup if you can claim to be a true P. Jesus, it's so silly. Images speak for themselves. I'll admit to a soft-spot for Canon, but good grief, the affordable tools that are available for budding ore even veteran storytellers/filmmakers are absolutely stunning.

I wish the HVX or H1 was available when I shot my 35mm thesis project in film school nearly a decade ago. I had just bought the XL1, and was in the midst of the old "frame mode" euphoria, but knew it wouldn't measure up to film. I would have saved a lot of money and still had a great experience.

Isn't it enough that a/b switching between a Sony F900 $100,000 + rig against the XLH1 on the same monitor says how good the XLH1 is?

If the XLH1 could only resolve 600 lines than how is it that it held up against the f900 850+ lines and sometimes they couldn't tell which one was which?

pappas

Hmm, this seems to be a long thread going no where, however, being called out on the f900 I have to step in.

No the f900 does not RECORD 24P to tape, it does break it down to PsF for recording and monitoring as well, however that doesn't mean that the chip doesn't read a 24P image. Just so we're clear. Also Technically it's not an interlaced frame, it's sort of LIKE an interlaced frame, but not.

I don't want to start the resolution debate again, but I think what it does come down to the canon produces a really good clean image,better in 60i but also very good in 24F(p, whatever).

Barlow, I've heard rumors that the panasonice 1080 is uprezzed from a 720 chip, so that might but it's silly to talk about a camera that's not officially released yet.

I think shannon makes a good point about what we're all going to consider P (you have to look hard it was hidden in with a bunch of blasphomy about the f900 *smile*) Nothing's P everything's P we're all obsessed with film but hide it behind our love for electronics... Whatever.

I think what it comes down to is this, One of the directors I was talking to about this camera asked me, "Nick can we shoot with thsi camera and not lose the audience based on the technical aspects" Yes, and for me that's what it comes down to. Now if you're trying to cut between oh I don't know a 90000 camera and this one, you're going to get a little more into the technical side of things, but, I mean, who else is trying to do that?

So I guess what it comes down to is that the footage is on the web, the resolution specs are a little fuzzy (he he you like that? res specs... fuzzy... get it, ok nevermind) Anyone making a decision on this camera and what is "REAL" 24 P can do that and that's the great thing about this website.

Oh and one mroe thing, let's talk about this "flagging thing" if this is true then when you shoot in 24F in theory you can go back and get the frames that you missed with some sort of re reading of the tape software. People used to say the varicam used flagged frames. I know the varicam doesn't and I don't believe this one does either. When you shoot 24P (F) you're getting only those 24 frames and via 2:3 pulldown you get a 60i stream. That's all. If someone can prove this incorrect I will believe it but I'm pretty sure this is how the canon works.

Okay, that's what I thought about the drop in resolution... makes sense.

By the way, calm down, Shannon. For the sake of your own blood pressure you should probably remove yourself from this discussion. Sheesh - you'd think we're talking schmack about your mother or something! Your posts have become quite painful to read. Nobody is saying the H1 isn't a fantastically amazing camera.

Okay, can someone BESIDES SHANNON (who is freakishly defensive about the H1 because he owns it) just tell me your take on the 24f in terms of its look? Not counting resolution - because I think we all know there is a difference - do you think it gives an accurate 24p look?

Is it a waste of time to film something in 24f HD that is merely going to be displayed on an SD monitor? I know that the H1 probably handles color and tones a little better, but is it worth it to switch from the XL2 to the H1 assuming that I'll only film HD to be converted to SD?

Thanks everyone for giving this HD-idiot (me) so much great info.

All this FAKE & REAL stuff got me wondering what's FAKE/REAL "High Definition"

I know a resolution of 1280x720 & 1920x1080 is defined, written & documented as the true meaning of "HIGH DEFINITION". So now I'm wondering.

Since everybody is hell bent on defining the term "24p" by what's happening at the sensors and all that nonsense, then by the same token we need to be hell bent on defining the term "HD" by what's happening at the sensors as well (NOT by what you end up with)....

....I wonder what cameras are REAL/TRUE HIGH DEFINITION.

And Daniel....this is the Internet brutha. if anything is FAKE....it's this conversation. It's just 1's & 0's displaying on your monitor, not me yelling @ you over the airwavs. *smile* You cool with me. Espeiocally cause your from DC. I find people from DC to have a sense of reality more then most the nation. But, I'm typing on a computer keyboard in some shorts, a tshirt & flipflops sipping a Snapple. How more calm can I get. LOL
And to answer your question, No. it's not worth upgrading to HDV if all you ever plan to do is display on SD only. Your XL2 is fine. SDX-900 is the best, IMO.

I'll report back on the Real/Fake "HD" thing in a bit.

- ShannonRawls.com

....I wonder what cameras are REAL/TRUE HIGH DEFINITION. I'm going to do some research and I'll report back.

- ShannonRawls.com

Well, my XL2 is high definition...when compared to my circa 1985 Panasonic full size VHS camcorder. It's all relative anyway and what we call HD today may be just SD tomorrow. FWIW, there are already other threads trying to answer and define the same truth you are seeking.

-gb-

Barry Green, Don't lie to make a point.
I don't lie to make a point, or for any other reason. Please don't accuse me of doing so.

but if you're gonna start making up stuff, then Imma start questioning your word and other things I admire you for.
If I was making stuff up, I wouldn't blame you for doing so.

Obviously there's a large disconnect here between what you're defining as to what 24p is, and what it actually is. That's where the problem is. For example:
Do a search on all my posts, Scan my name and read all 19 pages of posts I have made here you will never find where I said that the SOny Z1U CF24 is 24P like I am saying now. I always seen that interlace jutter frame that Adam Wilt reported on, so if I said that then I was insane!

See, that's the thing. You think that somehow the presence of the interlace frame is what makes CF24 be not 24p. And that's not it at all. That's almost completely irrelevant.

There's four things that distinguish CF24 from true progressive scan: the fact that it samples motion at uneven intervals is by far the worst, but the second is that it's lower res, and the third is that it changes resolution from frame to frame. Those three things combine to make it a very poor imitation of 24p. The fourth is that of course it's being sampled from an interlaced chip, which prevents it from being 24p in the first place. The "p", in case you're not aware, stands for progressive scan. Which inherently implies that it must be scanned off the chip progressively in order for it to be progressive scan. That is the #1 difference between 24F and 24P, and why Canon chose to call their method 24F.

I did however always say CF24 can BECOME 24p...even NICE 24p at that.
That's what I was referring to. That's exactly what I was referring to. And the thing is, no it can't. It never can. Because the motion rendition is wrong. What you can do is use CineForm or whatever to remove the interlace frames and present it as 24 distinct frames per second, but that doesn't change that they're inherently created wrong -- they sample motion wrong. They allocate motion over the course of a pair of frames at uneven intervals, assigning about 1/3 of the motion to one frame and 2/3 to the other. That's not what a 24fps progressive-scan system would do (and it's not what 24f does either).

CF24 motion will never look like 24p motion, regardless of whether you post-process it through cineform or whatever.

What I was referring to, what I was saying that you said, is that last paragraph. So hopefully that puts to bed the whole "lying" thing, okay?

Canon does not use progressive chips. And? your point is?
My point is that you said you can't for the life of you figure out why they call it 24F instead of 24p. The reason why, from Canon's own lips, is that it is not progressive. It's interlaced. That's why. It's different. And because it is different, it leads to different results.

Have you not listened to a word I said about "24p"?
I did. But your definition is not accurate. It's not how it's recorded that matters, it's how it was scanned. "P" stands for Progressive Scan. Not "progressive recording".

Since you want to hamper the scanning technology,
? It's not me that "hampered" the scanning technology. I'm merely pointing out that there is a difference.

The HD100, DVX100, XL2, SDX900, HVX200 and F900 all use progressive-scan chips. The FX1, Z1, and XLH1 all use interlace scan chips. Different technology.

NOBODY is "TRUE" 24P then. Because for each and every one of them, I can point out a reason why it's not.
No you can't. Because the definition is: does it scan the image progressively, and does it do so at a 24hz frame rate. Regardless of how it gets recorded, the question is how it scans. The VariCam, CineAlta, XL2, DVX, HVX, SDX, SPX, and HD100 all do true, genuine, definite 24p. Of that group only the HVX records a unique and distinct 24fps, but that doesn't negate any of the others. They're all legitimate 24p acquisition systems.

I mean, because that's the only FAIR answer if everybody is going to be subjective to what "they" consider Twenty Four Pee (24p).
No, the only fair answer is that there's one absolute definition. Being subjective about it is what causes the problem. There is an objective definition, and that's the one we should be using.

IF IT AIN'T ONE THING IT'S ANOTHER. now it's all about the scanning of the chips. LOLOLOL. Before it was the cadence, then it was the way it's laid to tape, then it was how it comes down firewire, now it's the Chips.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It was always about how the chips are scanned (hence the name "progressive scan"). The cadence is an integral part of that. If it scans at a cadence of consistent 30hz intervals, it would by definition not be 24p, it would be 30p. If it scans at a 60hz cadence it would by definition be 60p. So cadence is an integral part that cannot be separated out. The Sony scans at 60hz, so its cadence is not, nor can it ever be, a true 24hz. Surely that makes sense?

What does how it's laid down on tape (or disc or card or whatever) have to do with it? And what does how it comes down the firewire have to do with anything? The JVC outputs a 60p stream, the DVX outputs a 60i stream, the CineAlta puts out a 48hz stream, but within them all is a true, pure, genuine original 24fps progressive scan image that can be easily and losslessly reconstructed in the editing program. They all shoot 24p because they all scan the image progressively at 24hz intervals off of their chips. That's the definition, the one and only definition, the only definition anybody should be using.

How they record is different. How they scan is what counts.

Even though the Sony CineAlta F900 does PsF, it gets a Pass, regardless that it was YOU who said "The F900 CineAlta cannot record true progressive-scan, it can only record interlaced, so it breaks progressive frames into interlaced data for the purposes of recording it (which they then call PsF, for Progressive: segmented frame)."
Yes, that's accurate. How is that a problem? It scans progressive, then splits it into fields for recording because HDCAM doesn't have a progressive encoding codec option. So it gets split into fields for recording, and then it is reconstituted (losslessly) in the editing program as pure progressive. Therefore, because it scans progressive and can deliver progressive, how is that a problem? They call it PsF to explain the recording technology. That doesn't change the fact that it is a progressive scan.

If I shoot a resolution chart of a Canon XL2 in 24p (2-3-3-2) and I shoot a the same chart in the same settings in the same position with the same lighting on the same day using the same exact lens with a Canon XL-H1 in 24f (2-3-3-2) then you're telling me that the the XL2 should resolve a better resolution then the XL-H1?
Are you asking if a standard-def frame will show more detail than a high-def frame? That's a silly question. Of course the XLH1 would be higher res.

If you're asking if you compared them standard-def to standard-def, then if you look at the memo above this one, I already answered that. The answer is that the 24F scan on the XLH1 will retain more detail than the standard-def 24p frame could hold anyway, so during the downrez to standard-def it will probably produce an image indistinguishable from the XL2's native progressive-scan image.

Part II
I came to realize that the whole damn 24f BMP file was shifty at best! there's JPG artifcacts in the GREY areas on that thing even though its a BMP. Not to mention, the camera moved and was on various shutter speeds & F-Stops for testing. How can you go by that?
Not having an XLH1 to conduct my own tests with, I'm going by Pete's. It seems competently performed, and his results parallel to a large degree what David Newman reported as well (David said 650 lines, Pete's chart shows 600, that's close enough to fit within a reasonable margin of error due to framing or alignment, etc.)

And where did he get that chart from anyhow? Was that a print out?
I don't know where he got the chart from. But if it was a printout, if you're implying that the numbers are artificially skewed from the printout, then that should have affected the interlace chart more than the 24F one.

Why on Earth are you coming up with these low resolution numbers for the XL-H1 by using Pete's living room makeshift paper printout record player turn-table chart test rather then one Nick shot at Bennett Studios next to his F900 using the same chart you own??? My god! That gives me indication that YOU DON'T WANT the Canon to do good. What's up with that?
Shannon, stop attributing motives to someone's post. I look at things for what they are, not what I want them to be. I have no axe to grind against the Canon, I went on record as saying that the images from it looked absolutely fabulous (excepting some highlight clipping). I am interested in seeing what something actually DOES. Not what I wish it did, nor in trying to justify my purchase to someone else or whatever. I put it to the test and see how it actually performs, whenever possible. That makes some people upset. Sorry. Can't help that. I'm not trying to make people happy, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what IS, vs. what ISN'T, or what's CLAIMED. What IS is not subject to interpretation, it's what is.

I'm not "coming up with low numbers" -- in these tests, I don't care what the numbers are. It's not the actual numbers that matters. It's the difference between the numbers. I would never trust any test other than my own for absolute numbers, simply because there's too many variables that can apply (i.e., is the chart framed correctly -- is the camera square to the chart -- what f-stop are you using -- etc etc). Those things can all have bearing. I'm not saying I'm the only guy who can do such a test, but I am saying that I'm not going to take responsibility for such a test unless I can verify to my own satisfaction that the test was conducted absolutely properly. If I do it, I stand behind what I show. And if someone can point out an error, I'll gladly rectify it and reperform the test.

What Pete's test shows is the DIFFERENCE. I wouldn't care if his chart showed 1200 lines for 60i and 950 lines for 24F -- I'd still be concerned with the DIFFERENCE. And there is a difference. That's what this whole thread is about. It's not about comparing the XLH1 against any other camera, or any other manufacturer, or anyone being "paid off" or any other red herring. It's about HOW DOES 24F WORK AND DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE IMAGE.

As to why I didn't look at Nick's chart -- I didn't see any such post. I saw you post a few low-res JPGs from that evening, with Nick in the shot and the name on the back of his shirt etc. Are you saying there's a full native chart posted now? Or that one was always there and I just didn't see it? If so, I haven't seen it.

Moreover, if you go by Pete's test, then the Standard Def wide-angle 3x lens is JUST AS GOOD OR BETTER then the 20x HD lens it came with! Something YOU TEACH US that cannot be possible! So is it good or isn't it? Is the test valid or is it not?
That is a fascinating question, and I will most readily admit to being puzzled by that. It should not be possible, especially with the bad rap for softness that the 3x lens often gets.

As an absolute test, I don't know. But that's not what I'm looking at. I'm looking at the difference between 24F and 60i. That's all. And in that particular test, I think there is little room for error, if any, in the simple test of pointing the camera at a chart, recording the image, flipping from 60i to 24f and recording the next image. I mean, it's possible that his focus wasn't absolutely spot-on, sure -- but that would affect both charts equally. It's possible that his framing could be off. But that would affect both charts equally. I was looking at the DIFFERENCE between them, not in the absolute numbers that they're showing. It's entirely possible that if he framed a little tighter and focused a little more accurately that he may have gotten 800 lines out of the 60i shot. And in that case I would bet $100 cash money that his 24F shot would have shown about 640 lines (give or take a little). Which would coincide with David Newman's observation of 650.

If I thought Pete fouled up the test I wouldn't refer to it. But since he got consistent results, and then David Newman reported somewhat comparable results, I felt that Pete's test is most likely credible. And again, the only thing I'm looking for in it is the difference. Not the actual numbers. Just the difference between 24F and 60i.

That's why I always said I don't like these Internet tests and charts and all that. never have and never will. IN PERSON is the best method.
I'm thinking of doing such a test, maybe end of next week some time (have a few phone calls to make to set it up, and the end-of-year holidays is making that more difficult). Maybe sometime in the first few days of January... not sure yet. Maybe you could drop by and see how I do it, and point out any errors in methodology that you find. Bring your XLH1. Watch what we do. Point out any errors. Tweak the settings to get the best possible results. Whatever you want. Just so long as anyone and everyone associated with it calls it a "fair" comparison.

Oh and one mroe thing, let's talk about this "flagging thing" if this is true then when you shoot in 24F in theory you can go back and get the frames that you missed with some sort of re reading of the tape software. People used to say the varicam used flagged frames. I know the varicam doesn't and I don't believe this one does either. When you shoot 24P (F) you're getting only those 24 frames and via 2:3 pulldown you get a 60i stream. That's all. If someone can prove this incorrect I will believe it but I'm pretty sure this is how the canon works.
Not sure what you mean here. As far as I know, the Canon records only the 24F frames to tape. That's a good thing. It means it gets to allocate more bandwidth to the actual frames. The firewire output is 24 frames. On playback it will automatically convert it to 2-3 60i for monitoring, but the actual recording is (I believe) 24 frame.

As for the VariCam flagging frames -- the VariCam scans 24 frames, but the requirements of the tape drive mean that it must always record 60 frames. So the 24 frames get recorded on tape as 60p, with flags associated with the original (non-duplicate) frames. Then the frame rate converter goes in and strips out the duplicate (non-flagged) frames, leaving the straight original 24 frames.

Nobody is saying the H1 isn't a fantastically amazing camera.
And for the record, I'm saying that it IS a fantastically amazing camera.

Not counting resolution - because I think we all know there is a difference - do you think it gives an accurate 24p look?
It looks and feels like 24p. The motion is right.

Is it a waste of time to film something in 24f HD that is merely going to be displayed on an SD monitor? I know that the H1 probably handles color and tones a little better, but is it worth it to switch from the XL2 to the H1 assuming that I'll only film HD to be converted to SD?

The XLH1 is, by all accounts, a better XL2 than the XL2 is. But if you've already got an XL2, and you're only going to be making standard-def content, then I can't see any reason why you should consider spending another $9,000 for the XLH1. The XLH1 has certain specific features, such as high-def recording and HD-SDI and timecode in/out. If you're going to use those features, it's definitely a great choice. If you're not going to be using those features, why upgrade?

I would bet $100 cash money.

I don't have a hundred bucks. Wife wont let me spend no more money until after Christmas. *sad face*
Most wives don't "get it" when it comes to men and their cars/electronics.

- ShannonRawls.com

Ok guys...we need to step back and cool off a little. Barry, I can't believe how much you were able to type in just 11 minutes. Your typing speed is amazing! That's a compliment btw.

Let's drop this and get back to more contructive discussion..(smile)

-gb-

Barry, I think we're in agreement here, someone earlier on the post had mentioned that the canon's 24F was flagged frames, and I wanted to put an end to that rumor. I agree with you (and was trying to say the same thing) on the analysis of 24F recording and Vericam recording in regards to how it's laid to tape. Reading back over it I can see that I wrote a little stream of consiousness and left out some critical words, but let me say that I agree with you in regards to laying tape.

And I agree the motion (which was my main concern with the test with shannon) IS right. I think it is an excellent picture, and I'm glad this hasn't turned into a platform debate (because we all know the Fisher Price pixelvision puts ALL cameras to shame) I think the thing that we're all having a hard time is the resolution chart stuff, and like you said, you want it done right you do it yourself, My chart was done as a reference to the F900, and probably shouldn't be considered as end all be all for the cameras resolution, personally I think it resolved better then 650 but hey that's me and I've been wrong before.

The chart that Shannon is talking about is all the way to the right, they are frame grabs of the HDV tape so it's compressed but to be honest it still looks good, I think they've been up for a while, though maybe not the whole time. Take a look at it tell me what you think, again my goal was to pit a (better) more expensive camera against a cheaper camera. Between the two I was happy with the comparison, but individual results may very.

Here is the link to the res chart!

http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1&f900/

...because we all know the Fisher Price pixelvision puts ALL cameras to shame...

But look out for the new Mattel Vidster! :-) Man, I've been all over trying to find one of these for my son. Nowhere to be found or sold out. Cool lil' device, though.

I'll stick with the H1 I'm receiving next week...

Kevin

Here is the link to the res chart!

http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1&f900/
Excellent! Thanks for the link.

Okay, first of all, let's clarify that reading a res chart is a very subjective process. The method I use is to count the individual lines in the wedge, and trace to the point where that many lines are no longer discretely discernable. It may "pick up" again after that point, but for consistency I use the point at which the camera first fails to cleanly resolve the individual lines.

Looking at this chart, and using the horizontal lines to measure vertical resolution (which is the only thing that 24F should be affecting), there are five lines coming in. Judging resolved resolution by the point where I can no longer distinguish 5 distinct lines, it appears to happen at about this point:
http://www.icexpo.com/HD100/H1-rez-extraction-2.JPG

I'd call that about 620. Which again coincides with my reading of Pete's chart and the report from David.

I think it could have been a little better, as the framing on the shot of this chart is not exact; it lists a little bit to starboard, and it could have been zoomed in just a tad bit more too. So I think 650 is within reason.

Keep in mind that each individual will read the chart to their own subjective interpretation. But you asked where I'm getting my numbers from, and this is the methodology I use.

Possibly stupid question here.
What does it matter how the CCDs are clocked? Clock them at 24Hz, 48Hz or even 96Hz so what?
Surely what matters is how they acquire the image that's being recorded. As I understand it the F900 clocks the CCDs at 48Hz, simply because of practical constraints but those two fields are acquired by the CCDs at the same point in time. I assume other cameras could do the same, after all the HD100 uses an odd scanning arrangment by scanning the CCDs in two halves.
I guess I'm assuming that each CCD element is connected to a sample and hold circuit. The charge on the CCD is reset, after time set by shutter speed the sample and hold circuits record the amount of charge lost and then those values are read. If I'm right (please tell me if I'm not), how the values from the sample and hold circuits are read matters not one bit.

If I'm wrong then I can think of a few other issues related to how things are scanned that no one seems to worry about.

[QUOTE=Barry Green]Excellent! Thanks for the link.


Anytime time Barry! I'm glad your here and invovled in this discussion!

pappas

Barry,
interesting thing on those charts is how only the centre set of lines are affected. I've noticed that on the 60i charts from the camera as well, in fact I think I've noticed that on every chart I've looked at regardless of the camera. The outer line pairs are resolved way beyond what the inner ones are, are they not spaced equally or just what is going on.

Why is the chart the be all end all for this test.

As I said before:


Isn't it enough that a/b switching between a Sony F900

against the XLH1 on the "" same monitor ""says how good the XLH1 is?

If the XLH1 could only resolve 610 to 650 lines than how is it that it stacked

up against the f900's 850+ lines and sometimes they couldn't tell which one

was which?



A question I must ask is will the HVX200 be able to a/b to a F900 and have

the same results as the XLH1 had?


That last question is for you Barry since you have more time under the belt

with the HVX200.



I like both cameras, and this makes it hard to pick one. Smash them together and make the XL200 or the HVX-H1. Now your talking!



pappas

Here's a funky idea:

Anyone interested in a Skype conference call to debate this stuff further and post an mp3 of it?
I know it's goofy, but might be fun.

Why is the chart the be all end all for this test.
It isn't. But it is illustrative in determining whether 24F makes a difference or not. Clearly it does. It is, simply put, lower res than 60i.

That's what the question was at the beginning. And now we know the answer.

Isn't it enough that a/b switching between a Sony F900

against the XLH1 on the "" same monitor ""says how good the XLH1 is?
For some, sure. But then again, res charts are only one test; color sampling and dynamic range and highlight handling and compression quantizing and all sorts of other image quality factors are not measured by a res chart!

The question under discussion was not "is the XLH1 as good as an F900". The question was: "what's the deal with 24F?" That was what this thread was exploring.

If the XLH1 could only resolve 610 to 650 lines than how is it that it stacked up against the f900's 850+ lines and sometimes they couldn't tell which one was which?
That's a question that can only be answered by those who saw it themselves. Again, reading a res chart is quite subjective. Using my criteria would the F900 have resolved 850+ lines? Only shooting the same chart in the same place at the same time with the same shooter will answer that.

A question I must ask is will the HVX200 be able to a/b to a F900 and have the same results as the XLH1 had?
Won't know until I conduct that test, something I plan to do in late Dec. or probably early Jan. with all 5 cameras (HD100, Z1, XLH1, HVX, and F900).

I like both cameras, and this makes it hard to pick one. Smash them together and make the XL200 or the HVX-H1. Now your talking!
I've been asking Panasonic to do basically exactly that -- give us a shoulder-mount pro model sort of like the DSR250 was to the PD150. They are, quite understandably, a little more concerned with getting their existing product launched than talking about what may come next!

Thanks Barry! If you know when that test will be of all cameras, let me know and if it's cool I will fly out to Vegas to be a part of that! Unless it's going to be in LA then that's right here.............

pappas


It isn't. But it is illustrative in determining whether 24F makes a difference or not. Clearly it does. It is, simply put, lower res than 60i.

That's what the question was at the beginning. And now we know the answer.


For some, sure. But then again, res charts are only one test; color sampling and dynamic range and highlight handling and compression quantizing and all sorts of other image quality factors are not measured by a res chart!

The question under discussion was not "is the XLH1 as good as an F900". The question was: "what's the deal with 24F?" That was what this thread was exploring.


That's a question that can only be answered by those who saw it themselves. Again, reading a res chart is quite subjective. Using my criteria would the F900 have resolved 850+ lines? Only shooting the same chart in the same place at the same time with the same shooter will answer that.


Won't know until I conduct that test, something I plan to do in late Dec. or probably early Jan. with all 5 cameras (HD100, Z1, XLH1, HVX, and F900).


I've been asking Panasonic to do basically exactly that -- give us a shoulder-mount pro model sort of like the DSR250 was to the PD150. They are, quite understandably, a little more concerned with getting their existing product launched than talking about what may come next!

Thanks Barry! If you know when that test will be of all cameras, let me know and if it's cool I will fly out to Vegas to be a part of that! Unless it's going to be in LA then that's right here.............

pappas

I'm thinking of doing it in L.A. There just isn't any equipment base out here. I can get an F900 here, but I don't think there's even an XLH1 in town, and I don't know anyone with a Z1 -- I can lay my hands on a few FX1s but I'd rather have a Z1. And I don't know anyone here with an HD100, since I sent mine back. Besides, I like to have multiple sets of eyes, so going to L.A. would put me within range of guys like you, Nick, Evin Grant, Charles Papert, Nate Weaver, etc. Just seems to make more sense. Unless everyone was coming here for CES anyway, at which point maybe I'd just delay and do it then...

Well Barry. My gear is your gear if you need it. And I hate to see them sit here doing noting. They look like furniture. So consider yourself with 2 basically unused cameras already. a Z1U and a XL-H1. You gotta come up with the others (unless I grab a HVX200 as well when its released)

Hopefully Nick will be back in town, and you can use his XL-H1 & F900 as well. I'll sit back and watch you expert DP's disect these animals.
Actually, I can shoot the "Behind The Scene Footage" with another camera! Then we can stream that on the web. How's that?

A test like that deserves it's own website & domain name!

- ShannonRawls.com

Well now, that takes care of two of the four, and I'll have an HVX, and if I can get Nate to come along that'll take care of the HD100. So yes, this should come together nicely! Thanks Shannon!

The Rose Parade would be a NICE "practical" place to shoot once the studio tests are done as well.

- ShannonRawls.com

DRAT! I will be shooting this movie until the 15th, But if it's later on I'd love to be involved, hmm does anyone have access to a varicam(or the pixelvision...)? And you're right that we should set up a site, or at the very least a special section on dv info/ hdv info.

I think we can get into semantics of 24p or 24f or cf24 etc etc. However, the question remains is that are you getting what you want? I mean how many of us are going to be blowing up to 35mm?? 3% at the most maybe more - okay 5%. So who really cares, most of our work goes on DVD, for for DVD, HDV is good enough. My fx1 does CF25 here inthe UK, although it cuts resolution etc, is not 25p, but i'll tell you what - it's damn good. So canon doesn't do 24p, but i'm happy to hear it does a damn good job of 24f.

A test like that deserves it's own website & domain name!I have a much better idea. Let's make it part of DV Info Net. After all, everybody is already here. Taking this test somewhere else would be a *bad* idea in my opinion. I would have a *very* hard time pointing to some other site. Unless there is some compelling reason *not* to do it here, in which case, let me know so I can fix it. Otherwise I'm more than happy to host the video, the files, whatever. DV Info Net's server space and bandwidth is at your disposal. This site is here for you to use, so why not make the most of it.

I can't believe this argument is still going on. I can't believe new threads on this subject keep appearing. If you can put it onto an NLE timeline at 24fps, and export it at 24fps, how is it fake 24fps?

We might as well say that if something isn't captured on film it isn't a movie.

It's obviously been proven that this camera isn't using some old school frame mode.

Chris, my experiment worked!

i said that in aspiration of you offering a section for it. *smile*

- ShannonRawls.com

p.s.
I'm @ The Grove in the movie theater getting ready to watch King Kong @8pm. lol i'm on dvinfo.net using my i500 cellphone and the BLAZER web browser. my wife is getting pissed.
i'm addicted to dvinfo. *smile*