24 playback

[Chris Hurd]

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.

[Luis de la Cerda]

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.

[Sharyn Ferrick]

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

[Peter Macletis]

Originally Posted by Sharyn Ferrick

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

Precisely. 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!!!

[Tommy Ruddell]

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.
;)

[Sharyn Ferrick]

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/...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

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Sharyn Ferrick

<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

[Sharyn Ferrick]

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

[Peter Macletis]

Originally Posted by Sharyn Ferrick

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

Sharyn 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?... ;)

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Sharyn Ferrick

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

[Christo Aaron]

Originally Posted by Sharyn Ferrick

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!

[Sharyn Ferrick]

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

[Evan C. King]

Originally Posted by Philip Williams

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?