Why not record at 24..... seems silly to me.

Yes, I don't see why it can't be implemented by way of the Digic DV II processor. Maybe they'll re-badge it as a "cinema mode" in the camera, but I doubt it.

They didn't include it because they didn't want to be saturated with calls wondering what it's for, from the 90% of this camcorder's target market who have no idea what 24 is and couldn't care less about it anyway.

"It's for shooting movies? I don't understand. I thought movie theaters didn't allow camcorders."

Mostly wishful thinking I suppose, but if they did rebadge it as a "cinema" mode, not only would it make a great playback deck for the higher end cameras, it would also be a nifty b-camera as well.

Hello, Andromeda...

can you upgrade my Canon HV10???

Not sure I agree with the comment that 24p is of no interest to 90% of the market. This product is still aimed at the early adopters, and I think that market is a bit more sophisticated at least to what film frame rate is. On the PALl side of things even on HD and BD there is still alot of discussion about whether or not in PAL land HD/BD dvd's will infact be 24 or 25. If there is no 24p mode which there probably is not, then it might make once again a reason to get a pal version so that the recording can be at 25 and then just deal with the need to slow down to 24.

Sharynl

I believe it will do neither 24F or 25F.

And I agree with the comments about 24P/F not being the wisest things to unleash on the target market for this kind of camera. Shooting 24fps does require a lot of discipline, something I cannot see Joe Average exercising when even those who are making a genuine effort get caught out.

I think that market is a bit more sophisticated at least to what film frame rate is.No. It ain't. Trust me, as a digital imaging technology consultant, I've been to plenty of trade shows, store openings, sale days, etc. and have conversed extensively with the soccer-moms and golf-dads that compose 90% of the camcorder buying market. These people have no idea what 24fps is about, nor should they be expected to know. There's already too much technology confusion for them to deal with as it is. The vast majority of the demographic to whom this camcorder is pitched, will put the thing on Green Box (easy recording mode) and leave it there for as long as they own it.

Saying ten percent would know what 24F is for, is being mighty generous. It's probably closer to five percent or less. You'd be surprised how many people there are who have never seen a Mini-DV cassette before. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's important to realize that not everybody who buys this stuff is as into it as you and I are.

I'd like to make a few points here. Chris, first of all let me tell you how much I tremendously respect your opinion and knowledge on these matter and how much I learn from you almost every day. But on his one, I believe you might be wrong.

I know you're a pro in trade shows, store openings, sale days, soccer-moms/golf-dads video needs that compose 90% of the camcorder buying market. But, frame-mode or cameras that shoot in a film-mode are no strangers to them nor something people ignore. The average person might not know what 24fps is about, but then if so, why does Canon bother to include its playback as a "added-value" feature"? More... people know way, way, way less about stuff like histogram displays, that the HV10 features, than a frame or progressive shooting mode.

The reality, this is all very sad and its all about marketing and money-making. No more, no less. It has been bad enough that Canon has been fiddling with interlaced CCDs they digitally processes with to get a "progressive look" on all they HDV cameras when, since years ago, they have been successfully using progressive CCDs on all their higher-end (and some lower-end) cams, with amazing results. But, OK, I've settled that w have to yet receive with open arms the 24"f" propriety format and live/ work with it.

But worse and now specifically talking about the HV10, the Digic-II Processor and Video IC's on the HV10 are the same Canon uses for all the HDV cameras that shoot 24F. In the HV10, the circuitry is all there but, just not enabled for recording... only for playback! This is really stupid. It is of course the way manufacturers force you to pay quadruple price for a high-end model by removing features from the basic models, and, Canon as everyone else, is in this not to make us happy but to make them money. But to me, this is really nonsensically silly.

In 1997, I fell in love (and loved it to death) when Canon came with the Original Optura and I bought it. It was the first camera with a Progressive Scan CCD and using a RGB Primary filter. Still today, as I look back at some of the DV footage I have from it, it looks great! I was really hoping that the HV10 would be the new "HD" Optura. But no.

Why it is that in this day in technology Canon is 1) not using progressive scan CCDs or CMOSs and 2) not turning on inside the HV10 the capacity to record 24F, when the circuitry is all there, is... all but really sad.

I still have hopes when the camera is released and the first reviews are out that we will all be surprised by reading that there is actually a "cinema" or "frame" mode recording capability in it. I would buy it without hesitation...

But, without a "progressive" or "pseudo-progressive" recording capability, by buying an HV10 today (resolution side), I am getting less than when I bought my original Optura 8 years, which had it all (10x Zoom, optical Stabilizer, picture mode... bal, bla, bla) AND it shot film-looking footage.

This said, I actually do believe a lot of people know the visual difference between video that looks interlaced or progressive. And Chris, true, there's already too much technology confusion, too many buttons on most cameras that are worthless and too much stuff on them that 99% of users will never use... a histogram display on the HV10 being one of them and totally a waste of built-in technology (for the average user, they have no clue what it is, while for the Pro... well... no Pro will EVER use the HV10 to take quality stills!!!).

For sure, many people will put the thing on Green Box (easy recording mode) and leave it there for as long as they own it. But, having on setting between standard and Frame modes, would not make people's life more complicated nor cost Canon another penny to have it available, while for many like myself would spell the difference between buying this product, or not even making it a contender.

So, If someone from Canon is reading this... guys... the circuitry is all there... just go upgrade the Camera's software and turn on the option to record 24F by the time you start shipping them. You'd sell double the amount of these cameras and have a product positively unlike any other on the market!

Chris
While I agree about your comments re the broad camcorder market, and its lack of sophistication, I wonder if it applies in the same degree to the market for this specific camcorder. I think that what the manufacturers are missing in the equation, and I think this applies to AVCHD, BD/HD and HD is that in the early stages it is essential to get the early adopters who are sophisticated to buy the products, and to make sure that the feature sets match THEIR requirements. then after the market development has moved further down the curve to indroduce models aimed at he less sophisticated. I think that the Manufacturers keep looking at HD as just an natural extension of the SD market, and look at more or less taking feature sets from lower end SD camcorders and simply applying them over to HD camcorders. I think this seriously misses who the buyers TODAY are for these products.

If you look back 10 years ago to for instance the Vx1000 that really could be argued started the dv revolution, SONY was very clever and delivered a product that exceeded expectations. I would argue that IF they had instead introduced what today would be considered a consumer focused camcorder, that the market development would have been far less successful.

What I think marketers keep missing is that there are really three sections of the HD revolution. One is definitely on the display side, where large displays have become a status symbol, and the adoption has been quite good, mainly with people viewing HD broadcast and in the main, up converted DVD's

I think that the buyer for HD camcorders today is quite different. One is that unless they are going to attach the camcorder to the display, they have little way to exchange or show the content. Certainly with the hard drive ony versions this is a real issue. AVCHD with red dvd support is really not a solution. basially because you can write a red dvd with HD content, but you need a BD OR HD or a pretty well speced pc to be able to play it back. So Again it is not just having the display, and then the camcorder, but also the player. As an example of where I think Sony missed this issue, is that they seem to think that PS3 is going to be the solution. Yet the overlap of the PS3 buyer and the HD camcorder purchaser is not necessarilly all that great, and certainly is not a given. Their attempt to resolve some of these basic issues with DVdirect for instance, still falls short in that DVDirect fails to have any HD out so that there is no playback capability.

So being sort of long winded, I think that eventually the market will move to the model you are talking about, when the decision of what camcorder to buy can be viewed relatively independant of a decision to buy a display and a player and probably a burner to get the content off the tape/dvd/hardrive.

So I think a move where the early products are over featured, so that the sophisticated over adaptor snaps them up, serves as the opinion leader, and is enthusiastic in their recomendatioins to the less sophisticasted "Friends" is essential, THEN as the market develops and the need is to freature engineer/cost reduce for greater penentation those features that are not essential can be eliminated. The role of the early adoptor, the "expert" advisor in the beginning stages of market development is still essential

Anyway just some thoughts

Sharyn

Sharyn, exactly my opinion. People buying this product are NOT the average user. These are people willing to pay a bit more and looking for the latest technologies and features, with... ease-of-use no doubt. People in the market for the HV10 and specifically the HV10 know very well the high-end siblings it comes from, will know fairly well the competition's products (Sony HDV cams, etc) and know perfectly well the difference between interlaced and progressive video. To me that is a feature above any other and I am no more than an average user that thought then that the $2500 the Optura cost 8 years ago to shoot progressive was well worth the money and that thinks spending almost a $1300 today on a product that doesn't shoot progressive, makes positively no sense what-so-ever. Everyone takes people for granted on the hype of resolution, and only resolution. Well, resolution is one among many image parameters' attributes I'd like to see improvements on... like better color rendition, the use of better lenses, better low-light capabilities... improved AF, etc... I'd shoot quality SD progressive video over interlaced HD... anytime and I know personally a plethora of people that think the same... all "average" users... well... it only takes a bunch of us for Canon to realize the money the are actually loosing in not including features we had at had almost a decade ago, that today can be instantly emplemented by a couple lines of code on the user's menu to enable them on the hardware. This is what irritates me... its not that we are buying a new product with missing features... its that they are actually there just NOT turned-on... please... give me a break!

One thing that could happen is what I understand it being done on canon's new HrDV units, were users are able to send them in to Canon, and they are enabling the 50/25 functions. SO I certainly would not give up, Canon tends to be more responseive and listen, so maybe a compromise so that the users Chris is talking about don't have to be confused would be if the more sophisticated user would have the option to send it into Canon and get this mode enabled


How about it Chris, is this an alternative that Canon might entertain?


Sharyn

It's probably true that all that's needed is a little switch to turn the 24F on and off or whatever, but the thing is I think this camera may equally be a response for a 24F deck for the XL and XH series, that canon decided to just happen to put a lens and mic on. 24F recording may not have even been a consideration. There probably will be canon cameras that have the 24F (or even, gasp, 24P in the next year) and perhaps that's when everyone should look into purchasing that camera. For the time being it's still half the price of a sony m10u deck AND playsback 24 and 30 plus I can take it on vacation so it's fine with me. Of course I don't shoot vacation videos in 24p either.

I mean I don't know do other comparably priced cameras have 24F(p)? does the hc-3 or 1 or whatever have this function?

No, the circuitry is all there. All of it. Indeed, an option to send it into Canon and get 24Frecording mode enabled would be bliss. I'd be in for the Camera without second thoughts :)

For Peter and Sharyn -- assign a value to that.

What would it be worth to you, to have the option to record in 24F? I know, I know, everybody really expects to have such an upgrade for free, but there's no way that'll happen. Suppose for a minute if it was offered for a price, what would you deem to be a reasonable amount to pay?

Chris, I'd pay $400 for it (which is an added 1/3 of the camera's selling price), in other words the camera being priced at around $1500-$1600 to do 24F.

Sounds reasonable to me, Peter, thanks for the feedback. I wonder if we should run a poll. No guarantee that it will accomplish anything though.

Sounds reasonable to me, Peter, thanks for the feedback. I wonder if we should run a poll. No guarantee that it will accomplish anything though.Let's do it Chris! I think running a poll would be a great idea. We have nothing to loose either way except gaining some knowledge in analyzing current market awareness of frame/ progressive technology and also possibly help raise the interest of both buyers and manufacturers in making it a standard feature of mainstream video cameras.

Thanks!

I agree, sure we would like to see it free, but considering there really are so few alternatives, using it as a b cam $400 would work, and it MIGHT make it worth CANON'S while

SHARYN

I agree, sure we would like to see it free, but considering there really are so few alternatives, using it as a b cam $400 would work, and it MIGHT make it worth CANON'S while

SHARYNPrecisely! Personally, I'll be the first person to jump on the XH A1 as soon as they are out (to replace my nuch beloved but dissapointing Panny HVX200) and I cannot imagine a better low-cost b cam in the $1500 range as a 24F shooting HV10. Canon will/would absolutely grab a whole new market share well worth their time.

I totally agree with Chris-
Having worked in retail electronics and dealt with SO MANY of the target customers for this camcorder I can say WITHOUT A DOUBT that introducing 24p would just be a nightmare for the people who sell the camera (who generally don't understand 24p themselves) and tech support. The target buyer for this camera (NOT the aspiring indie filmmakers looking for a cheap camera but the vast majority of people who will purchase this camcorder- i.e. soccer moms) have NO CLUE what 24p is, how to use it, or WHY they would want to. They'll just set the 24p mode and then, if they even figure out how to import the footage into their computer, they'll be running into editting and export issues with their consumer grade editing software that wont recognise their 24fps footage.

These are the same people who came to me insisting they had seen in a store, or had a friend who actually owned an 8mm tape to VHS adapter so they could play their 8mm camcorder tapes in their VCRs. After wasting far to many hours trying to explain to these people that there is no such adapter and you simply cant play an 8mm tape in a standard VCR no matter the adapter, I can tell you that putting a 24fps camera in the hands of a soccer mom or dad is a DANGEROUS THING and is just ASKING for trouble. It would be the EXACT SAME type of deal as trying to plug an 8mm video tape into their VCR.

Ah yes. The good ol' 8mm to VHS cassette adapter. And its spawn, the USB to FireWire adapter. Now I know that you have been in the retail trenches for real Tommy. Thanks for getting the consumer mindset across to our audience here much better than I could.

I totally agree with Chris-
Having worked in retail electronics and dealt with SO MANY of the target customers for this camcorder I can say WITHOUT A DOUBT that introducing 24p would just be a nightmare for the people who sell the camera (who generally don't understand 24p themselves) and tech support. The target buyer for this camera (NOT the aspiring indie filmmakers looking for a cheap camera but the vast majority of people who will purchase this camcorder- i.e. soccer moms) have NO CLUE what 24p is, how to use it, or WHY they would want to. They'll just set the 24p mode and then, if they even figure out how to import the footage into their computer, they'll be running into editting and export issues with their consumer grade editing software that wont recognise their 24fps footage.

These are the same people who came to me insisting they had seen in a store, or had a friend who actually owned an 8mm tape to VHS adapter so they could play their 8mm camcorder tapes in their VCRs. After wasting far to many hours trying to explain to these people that there is no such adapter and you simply cant play an 8mm tape in a standard VCR no matter the adapter, I can tell you that putting a 24fps camera in the hands of a soccer mom or dad is a DANGEROUS THING and is just ASKING for trouble. It would be the EXACT SAME type of deal as trying to plug an 8mm video tape into their VCR.

That 8mm example made me laugh out loud. I totally agree with you and man, what a great analogy. To add to that, if soccer moms could shoot 24fps then 24fps would just not be the same. It could lose it's special charactoristic that is associated with professional cinematography. It just wouldnt be cool anymore. I hate those soccer moms.

Most consumers don't even realize there is a difference between film and video. I get tired of explaining it everyday when someone calls me up, wondering what the difference between the reality and cinematic package is. I don't even know why I bother with the two frame rates.

Only video geeks would care about the 24ps feature and most of those guys would probably spring for something more pro.

Ah yes. The good ol' 8mm to VHS cassette adapter. And its spawn, the USB to FireWire adapter. Now I know that you have been in the retail trenches for real Tommy. Thanks for getting the consumer mindset across to our audience here much better than I could.


HAHAHAHA! Anytime Chris! If I can prevent anyone else in retail electronics from suffering my retail fate I will gladly do so. You see I was "the guy with all the answers" at the store- and because of that I was busy finding people the non-existant adapters they needed instead of making any decent sales. I learned quickly how to talk tech to a customer in a language they could understand- but even at that there are some people you just cant tell anything to. So at one point I put my money where my mouth was. I offered to pay one guy $2000 for a working VHS to 8MM adapter because he knew "for a fact" I had no clue what I was talking about. He came in straight from Walmart with the VHS to VHS-C adapter that the guy at Walmart proudly told him was exactly what he needed. I told him if he took it home and could successfully make an 8mm cassette play in his VCR I would gladly pay him the $2000 i promised. Strangely I never heard from that guy again. Misinformation was a constant thorn in my side.

I have a hard time going into any electronics store to this day because there is ALWAYS some "professional" spreading the same lies that made my job hell!

;)

I can only imagine the torment of some poor retail clerk trying to explain how to effectively use 24p to a complete newbie who barely understands how to capture footage and uses the free editting program that came with their DVD burner...

NIX to the 24p consumer-grade cams! NIX I SAY! Intro level for 24p should stay at the prosumer cams for now. At least until they standardize things so a complete newbie can do it without problems.

Some how I think the last few posters have missed what we are recommending, we are saying, CANON offer a program where the 'ENLIGHTENED' can send in the camcorder to Canon and get this feature enabled, and pay for it.

In this day of software controlled devices, I think somepeople miss that there could be hidden menu items etc so if Canon wanted to they could hide the feature, remember the old colorbar trick in the vx1000???

I still say that TODAY the person who is going to buy this camcorder is not your version of the brain dead consumer, as the market matures more, possibly, but we are still in the early adopter stage.

If you want to see something that IS going to drive retailers crazy with returns, just wait till the new Sony AVCHD dvd camcorders get out them and peole try to play the AVCHD mini dvd in their home dvd player...I can alread hear the screams "what do you mean it will not play in my dvd player?????? I need to buy a WHAT. Having a hidden menu function or a power on sequence or having people send them in to get it enabled will be minor. Canon is already offer a similar service on the other HD line with the ability to enable 50 based frame rates.


Sharyn

Some how I think the last few posters have missed what we are recommending, we are saying, CANON offer a program where the 'ENLIGHTENED' can send in the camcorder to Canon and get this feature enabled, and pay for it.
I agree they could offer something like this- but I doubt they would want to for several reasons- first of which is the simple fact that implementing such an upgrade and then hiding it carries a cost in and of its own. The question is would the few people who sent in or hacked their own cameras cover the cost?

I do agree that if it were a simple "add this simple bit of software for the prosumer enthusiasts" it would be GREAT and it would be a potential selling point for those in the know- but then that would take customers away from the current prosumer market wouldnt it? Right now 24p is sought after by enthusuasts/prosumers- and if it were available on a $1000 camcorder that would take away from their XH sales wouldnt it? Overall a bad business move if you ask me. Keep 24fps in the hands of competent professionals and enthusiasts and you keep the market segmentation strong and easy to design for.
I really have mixed feelings on the subject.
As a filmmaker I think it would ROCK for wanna-be professionals to get their feet wet without drying up their pocketbook-
As a businessman I think it is a BAD MOVE at this point and it would take away from the manufacturer and the professional that is targeted in the prosumer market.


I still say that TODAY the person who is going to buy this camcorder is not your version of the brain dead consumer, as the market matures more, possibly, but we are still in the early adopter stage.
Brain dead? No. But definately NOT tech savvy either.
Again- having years of low, mid and high-end electronics experience under my belt I can tell you the market this is targeted at are NOT indie filmmakers- they're the upper-middle class families who can afford a bit more in a camera and like to have nice things- but barely & rarely crack their operation manual. They want point and shoot with a couple moderately simple "advanced" features to brag about- like HD. Look at the design of the camera and you can plainly see that this is who the camera is designed to appeal to. Designed for convenience- not potential entry level professional use-
And the tech savvy consumers (- the "pro-sumers" if you will) are who Canon wants to target with the XH series. YOU DONT WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THAT! ;)

If you want to see something that IS going to drive retailers crazy with returns, just wait till the new Sony AVCHD dvd camcorders get out them and peole try to play the AVCHD mini dvd in their home dvd player...I can already hear the screams... me too Sharyn... meeeeee tooooo.

Has anyone considered yet that Canon's 24F mode is designed to work with the interlaced signals coming from 3 sensors? Wasn't it established that placing a red filter in front of the XLH1 in 24F mode resulted in reduced resolution? If the software for 24F performs its magic by blending info from all three CCDs, then that same software probably wouldn't be able to work with a single sensor. So just "turning on" that feature in the camera probably would result in a massively degraded image. At least, that's what I'm currently hypothesizing...

We also know that these high pixel count sensors tend to overheat if scanned progressively at 24 or 30 frames per second, which is why JVC went to the split design on their HD100. Now the Canon's sensor is substantially larger at 1920x1080 so its entirely conceivable that the same issue is present. So an honest 24/30P is probably not possible at this time, but they could perhaps take an interlaced scan at 48hz and do some field doubling to achieve a 24F mode. But again, this would be a new piece of software rather than the original 24F version.

Of course I could be WAY off on everything...

www.philipwilliams.com

Well in the past, you got Frame mode from the Pixel Shift process. In other words, Frame mode was a by-product of Pixel Shift. That was seven years ago. I don't know if it still works that way though. Maybe it does. If so, then this would imply that you can't get Frame mode from a single-sensor camera (since of course there is no such thing as Pixel Shift without multiple image sensors). Playback capability, that's no problem... but for acquisition, maybe Frame mode is limited to three-chip cameras. Interesting theory there.

A 24f upgrade would probably be the best option for Canon. I too would be curious to see a poll.

...but for acquisition, maybe Frame mode is limited to three-chip cameras. Interesting theory there.

Doesn't the Optura XI have a frame mode? That's a 1 chip camera.

These are the same people who came to me insisting they had seen in a store, or had a friend who actually owned an 8mm tape to VHS adapter so they could play their 8mm camcorder tapes in their VCRs. After wasting far to many hours trying to explain to these people that there is no such adapter and you simply cant play an 8mm tape in a standard VCR no matter the adapter

LOL...I used to work at Radioshack when I was 18 and this old man got furious at me for telling him the same exact thing.

<snip>Doesn't the Optura XI have a frame mode? <snip>

----------

Nope.

See http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/articles/compare.php
and http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/articles/lineage2.php

The original 1997 Optura, and the Optura Pi which followed in 2000, each had a progressive scan CCD. The 1997 Optura offered "Digital Motor Drive" which essentially was the same thing as progressive scan recording. On the Optura Pi it was simply called P Scan. Every Optura model after that had an interlaced CCD and none of them had Frame movie mode.

ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Just kidding, I'm in a playful mood today :)

100-200 bux maybe? (and that's quite something considering this is a low end product)

By the way, sony already has the cineframe thingie on their consumer models so the retailer is already in too deep to be saved from. But if there is a lesson to be learned from sony, canon could come up with a semipro version of the camera (a la A1) because some professionals do find it interesting to have the small form factor available to them and/or the flexibility of using it as a crash cam.

REMEMBER the DSR -PD1
Minor re engineering and enabling features to create a more high end product has been done before. Also remember Canon is also pitching this as a deck alternative and supporting 24p in that mode

Sharyn

REMEMBER the DSR -PD1
Minor re engineering and enabling features to create a more high end product has been done before. Also remember Canon is also pitching this as a deck alternative and supporting 24p in that mode

SharynPrecisely. Ignorant soccer-moms that will never shoot 24f with this camera will "for sure" take advantage of the existing 24f playback capabilities already in the camera, they know exactly the difference between a 1440x1080 CCD or a 1920x1080 CMOS, get totally hyped about having an RGB primary filter, turned-on that it has a built-in Digic DV-II chip, not to mention advanced features like the use of Level and Grid Markers, Histogram Display and more... I mean, huh, huh... right...! Who are we kidding??? So, if on top of this the camera also records 24f THEN, the poor soccer-mom will get all "confused"??? Please...

Come on Canon... how about a trade? :) Dump once and for all useless stuff like 200x digital zoom crap, and enable 24f recording (sorry soccer-moms... no more enlarged pixels on your TV screen the size of shoe boxes)! If the HV10 supported 24f recording, the only thing that would happen is, while you sell the same amount of HV10s to soccer-moms, you'll sell a bunch more to other guys that really appreciate a really useful and awesome feature as well. And no fears of "prosumers" deciding on buying the HV10 instead of the XLH1, HXG1 or XHA1. The HV10 has NO USER CONTROL AND IS A POINT-AND-SHOOT CAMERA. No one will ever expect to be able to pro shoot weddings, independent projects or an indie movie on a HD10. The features of the HV10 do not in anyway jeopardize the sales of Canon 3-CCD HDV cams!!!

ROFL

Playback of 24f is one thing- recording in 24f is quite another.

I think Philip may have hit something! At the XLH1 event at Paramount I remember hearing some of the guys talking and speculating with a Canon Rep (who "couldnt say anything about it") about how the 24f mode works- and when one guy said he'd heard it had to do with the 3-CCD using something similar to "Pixel Shift" on the previous camcorders the rep said "as I said before, I cant say anything- but you're not far off" or something to that effect.
So... who knows- this whole conversation may be pointless. If the 24f only functions in a 3CCD setup, then trying it on a single chip cam just isnt going to work. The only "safe" way I could see of doing anything in cam would be developing a 3:2 Pulldown effect in the camera that would "simulate the look and feel of 24 frame per second film" but be safe for even soccer moms to use.

And actually I think we're giving soccer moms a bad rep here- We all know its usually THE DADS who get into the "tricky stuff" and then get themselves in trouble. I know MY dad was like that.
;)

I think you highlighted a major point of your confusion, this is a CMOS camera not ccd. The issues re progressive scan in ccd are well know and problematic, this is a cmos camera, where one of the main advantages of cmos is just the abililty to have variable rate progressive. Remember these are from the same company that makes digital cameras. Here is a link with a bit more re cmos technology

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1157576,00.asp

This is exactly why people have been excited to see Canon move into this area with a cmos implimentation. I still stand by what we have been saying, it is easy to impliment, it is more a marketing decision for Canon than a technical one. The frames would be recorded at 23.98, and just like in other implimentations, they would be flagged for repetition for standard rate playback.

THE MOVE FROM CCD TO CMOS MAKES A MAJOR DIFFERENCE\\
If Canon decides not to offer 24p in the US then what do people think about using the European version that supports 25p and just slowing down the footage in the NLE?
Sharyn

<snip>I still stand by what we have been saying, it is easy to impliment, it is more a marketing decision for Canon than a technical one. The frames would be recorded at 23.98, and just like in other implimentations, they would be flagged for repetition for standard rate playback.<snip>

Not withstanding the fact that this is an entry level consumer cam that regrettably would not benefit much commercially from 24F recording, there are technical problems as well and I don't think it would be "easy to impliment".

At this point in time, I don't think that camera companies can create an affordable CMOS or CCD sensor with that high a pixel count and scan it at 24+ frames per second progressively without overheating. JVC admitted that they couldn't get a progressive scan off their 1280x720 CCD in the HD100 without the split sensor arrangement. I believe they said that once you scan over 1000 pixels across in progressive the heat build up is too great. This seems to be extremely accurate: the HVX is progressive scan but its CCDs measure at most 940 pixels, thereby avoiding the 1000 pixel threshold. The XLH1 has 1440 pixels across and guess what? They run it in interlaced only, even though I'm sure Canon would have loved to do a real progressive scan. Its a technological limit right now.

From where the technology currently stands, I'm pretty sure that if the HV10 did a 24fps progressive scan on its massive 1920x1080 sensor, it would very quickly perform an internal melt down and you've have about 30 seconds of very nice footage on tape.

www.philipwilliams.com

I think people are still confusing the limitations on ccd, and the power requirements due to the way the signal is sent that does raise heat issues, and speed issue, but CMOS is totally different, lower power requirements.

http://www.siliconimaging.com/SI-1920HD%20Specs.htm

Sharyn

I think people are still confusing the limitations on ccd, and the power requirements due to the way the signal is sent that does raise heat issues, and speed issue, but CMOS is totally different, lower power requirements.

http://www.siliconimaging.com/SI-1920HD%20Specs.htm

SharynSharyn you stand correct. CMOS technology, just as used on all of Canon's digital SLR cameras is a whole different ball game. Implementing progressive frame recording on the HV10's sensor is a given... or anyone doubts that the next-gen XLH1 will be CMOS x3 & progressive?... ;)

I think people are still confusing the limitations on ccd, and the power requirements due to the way the signal is sent that does raise heat issues, and speed issue, but CMOS is totally different, lower power requirements.

http://www.siliconimaging.com/SI-1920HD%20Specs.htm

Sharyn

Well Sharyn, if the 1/3" CMOS can scan progressive at full rez at 24-30fps then I'm 100% on board with you. Progressive scan was the reason I bought my original Canon Elura. I actually had a TRV900 available to me at my job at the time, but never borrowed it because I hate interlaced video that much.

However, is there any way to validate that these cheap 1/3" CMOS sensors are really designed to do full resolution progressive scan at 24 and 30 fps? I know there are CMOS based cameras that capture all sorts of resolutions and frame rates, but they're generally larger sensors packed into substantially higher priced cameras. I just have to wonder about low cost mass produced sensors for consumer cams. I know we're going to get there, no doubt about it, but are we there yet? I've noticed that video on CMOS digital cameras has gotten very nice and with higher resolution and frame rates, but as far as I know none of them are producing images close to 2000 pixels across at 24fps. Are they? Maybe I'm just behind on the camera technology.

Is there a CMOS engineer in the house? I mean, I know there are people saying that these cam's CMOS sensors can do progressive scan, but is this assumption based on comparing to 12-100K cameras? Is it based on comparing to digital cameras that - as far as I know - actually do not provide 24-30fps full rez video off their sensors? I just want to compare apples to apples, so I'm still very sceptical about these cheap 1/3" sensors.

www.philipwilliams.com

I agree, sure we would like to see it free, but considering there really are so few alternatives, using it as a b cam $400 would work, and it MIGHT make it worth CANON'S while

SHARYN
I ordered mine from B&H yesterday, to take on vacation in September. Mel thought it might be shipped the week of the 28th (of August). Let me know the results of the poll, please. I say yea!

I guess unless Canon would actually comment directly we can only speculate, Perhas Chris H might be able to get them to talk a bit

If you look at for instance Micron's cmos product line, it certainly does seem that this should be possible, but as you say it is speculation

http://www.micron.com/applications/consumer/

Sharyn

At this point in time, I don't think that camera companies can create an affordable CMOS or CCD sensor with that high a pixel count and scan it at 24+ frames per second progressively without overheating.

This isn't directed only at you philip, it's in general.

Would be progressive 24p theoretically be easier heat and processing wise on the camera than 30p or 60i, because is would need to sample less frequently?