Here are the release notes:

2.0 What’s New
Notable Fixes/Changes in Version 7.0e

Added support for editing files recorded with Sony AVCHD camcorders.
Added snapping to speaker locations for Film style panning.
Added support for multichannel audio in WMA/WMV files. When you add a 5.1 Windows Media file to a stereo project, the stereo downmix stream is loaded by default; when adding to a 5.1 surround project, audio will be added to separate tracks for the center, front, rear, and LFE channels.
Export to PSP® (PlayStation® Portable) now supports writing to the \VIDEO folder and includes a PSP full-screen template (supported in PSP® firmware 3.30 or higher).
Improved encoding quality in the MainConcept AVC/AAC renderer when using a constant bit rate.
Fixed a visual issue with rotated 2D images being scaled down very small.
Fixed a crash that could occur when using Ctrl+NumPad keys with the Surround Panner if no track had focus.
Fixed an issue with normalizing events that had a very small, silent looped portion.
The My Documents folder is now the default capture location for SDI and HDV captures.
Fixed an issue with rendered XDCAM IMX files to ensure they play back from an XDCAM deck.
Fixed an issue that could cause the wrong frame to be displayed on an external monitor when playing back outside of the active loop region.
Fixed a potential buffer overrun with some ASIO drivers.
Fixed an issue opening some Ogg Vorbis audio files.
Fixed a crash that could occur while trying to recapture offline XDCAM media files during project load.
Fixed a crash that could occur while replacing media with media with fewer audio channels.
Fixed a DV video capture issue that could cause captured NTSC clips to be misidentified as PAL.
Fixed a DV video capture issue that could prevent starting timecode from being detected.
Fixed an issue identifying the Plextor-755 drive for CD audio extraction.

Already tried Vegas 7e - doesn't work on 24p issue.

As to the rest of the discussion, I'm no expert but here's my take:

1. The advantage of having flags in the video stream is that software knows exactly which frames are redundant and can remove them. Besides affecting appearance of the rendered video which I'll mention below, this provides a couple of benefits - first, you have the ability to edit based on non-redundant frames meaning "true-er" edit points. Second, it means 20% less data (24 frames v. 30 frames) to render and fit on a DVD or other storage/playback media. So your projects render 20% faster and you can fit 20% more video on a DVD for instance. Personally those are the biggest advantages to me.

2. Again I'm no expert, but I think Cineform is removing pulldown based on something other flags. Maybe it's counting frames/comparing data between frames to decide which are redundant. While I assume the major NLE's can incorporate this method (I'm not sure how time/ processor intensive it is), having flags seems to make the job much easier. I shot exclusively 24p on my DVX100 for 4 years and will shoot exclusively 24p on my HV20 and it is nice to not have to think about the whole pulldown removal issue.

3. All that being said, when the DVX100 came out there was no support for 2:3 pulldown removal as the camera did it. So we edited in 60i and no one was really the wiser. Likewise, I've done a few tests so far with my HV20 shooting 24p, editing as 60i in Vegas 7 and outputting to DVD or WM9 files and it's hard to see the difference between the "true" 24p look of my DVX100 DVD's and the 60i edit/output to DVD from the 24p HV20 files. I did notice some slight ghosting on quick movement on the WM9 files but like I said, the SD DVD's I did look fine and no one other than you or I would notice it.

So... until there are flags or the NLE's find someway to do pulldown without them, I'll edit 24p as 60i files and not lose sleep over it. But I do see a big advantage to having 20% faster renders and 20% more room on my DVD's for longer projects. And for pro-applications, the ability to edit true 24p is probably required.

Peter:

Thanks, not having been involved withe 24p before, your post is welcome.

One thing I have in some 24p footage is not so much ghosting, as a pulsing. For instance, I was doing a very slow left to right pan in from a near full frame close up of a grave stone in the forground, to medim ground of several stones. As the at a point during the pan, the grave stone appears to "pulse" like a beating heart.... I'm wondering if that is what caused that. Is that a 24p result. Other thing it could be is OIS, because I don't remember whether I had turned it of, or the famoust rolling shutter issue. I am wondering if anyone else has seen this. I have seen it in other footage with this camera too, only in pans....

Chris - I'm sure you'll get several different opinions on this one: here's mine - that is most likely the "dreaded autofocus pulse". (Of course if you're not using autofocus it's the "dreaded-something-else-pulse".) Having not used autofocus in years (my DVX did not have autofocus in 24p mode) I cringed the minute I did a slow zoom on my HV20 and watched to my horror as the image pulsed as the AF hunted to keep up with an otherwise slow zoom ('course it didn't really have to keep up since the zoom was so slow but the AF mech in the camera didn't know this so it constantly checked by microscopically zooming and out - hence the pulsing image.)

Now I know you said "slow pan" not zoom but think it could be equally applicable. Of course some will cry that's "24p! Can't pan faster than [forget what the figure is they always cite]... or else you get strobing". But what they don't tell you is if you go faster or slower than that magic strobing inducing speed you're fine. So I have seen it very few times in shooting 24p for the last four years, though admittedly I don't do a lot of slow pans - I'm a fast pan kind of guy in which case the blur takes care of any strobing issues.

Cineform
 

So DOES Cineform correctly do the 3-2pulldown/ reverse telecine to give you correct 24p from the HV20, even though the HV20 does NOT provide the pulldown flags? If so, then using cineform solves the problem? I sent a response to canon to have the flags added in a firmware, as I think they should provide whatever is normal for 24p in a camera that has 24p. Personally I have cineform, and in my limited time with the HV20, I have been relatively pleased with the 24p results using cineform. Its not perfect, but the resultant DVD's are very clean:)

Martin, if you could put some periods and punctuations, it would make your posts much easier to read.

Cineform seems to be a good product. From what I know, it doesn't use flags for pulldown removal (couldn't in the case of the HV20 since the flags don't seem to exist). So it's using some other method to correctly and automatically remove pulldown. If worse comes to worse and Canon doesn't start including the flags, I would hope the other NLE's will adopt the same or similar method of doing flagless automatic pulldown removal (assuming Cineform's method is not patented.)

The primary negatives with Cineform are 1) price - another $250 on top of my editing software/camera costs and 2) hard drive space - Cineform files are a different format and take up 3X as much space as HDV files do. (There may also be CPU processing issues with creating/editing larger files - anyone know if Cineform-compressed files are a drag on one's system?) Still these are not huge obstacles ($250 in the world of video editing 'taint that much and I have over 1TB total of hard drive space currently and 500GB drives are going for $129). So if Canon doesn't rise to our collective call to update the camera, I'll probably give the Cineform route a try eventually.

Peter:

Cineform has been around a long time. Its initial claim to fame was the fact that you could use it on lower end systems than are required for editing "native" HDV. Premiere actually used it as the intermediate because of the early issues with systems. It has advanced, but I it is still easier on processor load because it has all information for each frame on board, and is not relying on GOP>

Thanks Chris - good to know. :-)

Hi Chris. Just wondering, do you use cineform? I do. Is there any reason not to? Thanks - PK

Using cineform codec for pulldown removal and to render AVI with Vegas
 

I use cinform with my HV20 24p footage. It does the pulldown removal flawlessly. The only problem I'm having is AVIs rendered using Vegas 7e and cineform's codec at 1440X1080p 24FPS will not play on other machines besides the one that creates it. I did see a new Neo player on Cineform's site, that I assume downloads and registers their latest codec on any PC, that should probably fix it it. I can not play the AVIs created with cinform's codec to play on the Nero or DIVX player. The other issue I'm having is with aspect ratio, seems after rendering the aspect ratio changes back to 4:3, this can be fixed on the player but I should be able to render it correctly.

I'm contributing my effort to talk about this in my monthly column on VideoAlpha magaizen about the flag. It is the only pro video magazine in Japan, so it should be pretty influential.

If you install one of Cineform's demo products, then uninstall it, it gives you the option of leaving behind the free decoder dll ... thereby enabling cineform .avi playback on the machine. See www.cineform.com for more info...

I do not. I am editing "native" HDV. If I was getting into heavy HD production, I would certainly want to, but at this moment, no.

Excellent Kaku. Thank you. Ideally I think we want to get the issue in front of the Canon camcorder engineering group in Japan since I assume they're the ones who would implement a fix.

I'm beginning phase two of the assault: I contacted my guy at the Irvine, Calif. Canon service center today by email about the issue. Don't know if he's a camcorder guy or not but he cut through a bunch of red tape for us on the still camera lens issue last year. So I'll let you guys know his response.

I think Canon should do free exchange for PAL versions to anybody who ask for it. They just did not deliver the advertised and in manual documented feature in NTSC version IMO. This whole issue is hard for me to understand and really is on the same level as the latest JVC's new cam disappointment. There is no reasons to own this cam today... :(

Sent mine in.

Don't agree with this. While I want the ability to edit 24p simply, there is a lot more to this package than you give credit for. Even without the edit capablity, the 24p is enveloped in a 60i wrapper. We are just looking to clean up potential issues with this request. What would most of us do with PAL....

... Canon says HV series are Consumer.. XL are pro... no pull down correction
 

I got my reply.

Personally, I urge that new HV20 owners continue to write in - one day Sony or another brand will offer variable frame rates in sub-$1300 camera's, so, it's only a matter of time. Maybe 1 year, maybe 5, but it'll occur.

It was certainly a copied-pasted reply for the most part.

I am sorry, I do not own this cam and I am not as deep familiar with this "package" as the owners are. This cam is on my number one purchase list but....

It is unacceptable to produce a product that you can't use straight out of the box! If canon packs a video media player that does removes the pulldown whit a replacement for Vegas in the package then I own apology to canon.

Otherwise I call this deceptive advertising and I am sure as in other cases this can be a nice legal battle.

I understand the pressure of the companies to come to market quick with new products but lack of tools to utilize these products, especially the strongest selling point 24p, and the main reasons why folks here purchase this product should not be tolerated.

I am convinced what many reading this forum would not purchase the product but instead waited out for a real solution or new cam the same way I do it now.

I hope the moderator would post a sticky with warning: Special 3rd party tools needed to view and edit 24p of HV20.

The most efficient pressure for canon to fix the mess is to just not purchase the cam.

Please do not take this personally as it is not intended but because you have purchased the cam and are happy with it; it doesn't meant that others would be too.

What would most of us do with PAL? Enjoy trouble free 25p out of the box.

Hi Peter

I believe the price for Cineform Aspect HD is $500. :-(
http://www.cineform.com/index.asp?Pa...PROD&ProdID=85

I was hoping (with my new uber computer) that I wouldn't have to purchase Cineform HD. With this Canon 24P pulldown "issue" though........ ???? ........ perhaps I'll have too. :-(

Thanks to the OP for starting this thread
JohnG

Canon shouldn't be calling it "24p Cinema Mode" if they refuse to flag the footage as 24p.

They say "Only Canon's XL series models would have the
ability to adjust this setting"

It's NOT a setting. It's just the standard way to flag a "24p in 60i" stream so the NLE can display TRUE 24p. Nobody is asking for 24p Advanced or anything along those lines...

It's a pain without pulldown flags. You need a lot of space and extra processing time to work around it. I'm looking for free workarounds in the interim but they're not perfect ... struggling with audio sync issues right now.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=92893


Peter,

So what's the next phase on this endeavor? Just keep at it?

John,

Why don't you give them a call and let them tell you how to utilize the features described in the manual and see what they have to say to you.

I am not the expert but I think you can edit 25p (PAL) with cheap Vegas and view the clips straight from the cam progressively. If all you care is HD (quite frankly who would care for PAL/NTSC SD with this cam) ask them for a replacement for PAL version.

If they get you trouble open a case with bbb.org as the first step. If enough people complain they will get it fix sooner.

I don't see why one should spent another $500 on NLE or use some hacks and cracks!

Mike,

Return the cam...


Also, I would suggest that you contact the authors of cam web reviews to clarify the issues with NTSC cams. These reviews drive canon sales...this give you more visibility then just emailing canon.

As a Mac User, free or simple work a rounds are proving difficult - it's my area of least experience. I have G Film by Nattress, but it's done nothing good for me when used as a deinterlacer/cadence changer - I simply don't know how to setup the cadence properly I assume, or choose the fields to 'blend', etc.

I'd use Neo/Cineform, if it actually existed for the Mac OS. The Beta hasn't worked for me - just a white screen! Steve Szudzik said his Windows version also didn't work.

Anyhow, got a reply from the e-mail I sent as well.

I think their Connect HD (now NEO?) is what we need for Vegas users. It was $250 last time I checked. Premiere users need Aspect I think? (Could have it wrong...) Either way, not to knock Cineform as they are deserving of praise, Canon could resolve this pretty easily by including the flags.

Well I think we don't take "No" for an answer on this. With all due respect to the Canon tech support folks, right now we're getting canned responses from people who are mostly likely trained to respond to simple questions from folks who have no idea what 24p is. The idea is to move the issue up the foodchain inside Canon to get to the engineers/high level techs who understand the issue and most importantly, can implement change. It's not like we're asking them to include 24p recording in their camera - they've already done the hard part. All we're asking is to have the flags included. Of course I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing they omitted them thinking there'd be a lack of demand. But regardless of the reason, our job now is to make our position known.

So... I think calling is next. Here are some suggestions:

A. If we call their regular Customer Service number, the only goal is to get to the issue passed on to a higher up. The person you speak to is not going to be able to "resolve" the issue. But that's OK since 1) if enough of us call, they'll have to start paying attention and 2) they will email you a customer service survey after the call where you can highlight the issue again. Even better however is if we can get the phone number or email address of someone higher up in the organization who can deal with the issue. So ask your customer service rep for that info.

The toll free customer service number in the US is 1-800-828-4040. For those outside the US check the back of your owner's manual.

B. Call Canon headquarters directly. Their US headquarters is on Long Island (Lake Success, NY) The number is 516-328-500 (use those cell phone long distance minutes you've been saving up!) Here are the other contact numbers: http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedat.../ciwofloc.html
They're going to tell you to call Customer Service. Tell them you've already tried that and now want to move the issue up within the organization. Persistence (and politeness) will pay off heavily here.

C. Call the Canon Service Centers (again, use those cell phone minutes) Irvine California - 949-753-4200; There's also a Research/Development facility in Irvine. That number is 949-932-3100.
I haven't been able to locate any other service center phone numbers on-line so ask the Customer Service reps for your local facility and call them too!

It's gonna take a little bit of effort but as long as we don't take "no" for answer, I believe we can do it.

Edit: here's a number to try for the Chicago Canon Service Center: 630-250-6200

Japan: (you're NTSC too right?) http://www.canon.com/about/group/list.html (This link actually has a lot of contact information - even with directions and maps if you want to present your case in person!)

I think this is starting to get a little out of hand.

There is nothing wrong with the HV20. It does exactly what is is designed to do which is to shoot video that looks like 24p material with 3:2 pulldown. No matter how anybody wants to look at it it is still clocking at 24 fps and recording that to tape. This is why the camera is a 24p camera. It does in fact shoot real 24p frames. I is the recording that causes a problem for some people.

I agree it would have been nice to have some kind of pull down flags but alas we do not have it and that is not a defect but just the way it is.

As much as people do not like it it works exactly as Canon intended for it to work. I like to think of it as more of an enhanced effect in a consumer camera kind of like Black and white or sepia.

Some other consumer HDV cameras such as the SONY ones also give us a fake cinema mode which uses cherry picked fields to create a jerky 24p. This is then placed in the same style of 3:2 pulldown 60i stream as the Canon. At least the HV20 gives us true clocked 24 fps frames.

This is a consumer camera. You can either use it to shoot 60i video or video that has a film like motion look to it which just so happens to look exactly like true 24p material. If you want to edit the true 24p frames then you need to find a solution to work with the material in a way that it wasn't really designed to be worked with. It isn't much different then somebody buying a special tool such as DV Film Maker to turn 60i HDV into 24p material. In the case of the HV20 at least we finally have a camera that gets us to the point of proper clocked framerates. Now all we have to do is use a simple tool to remove the pulldown which is much much easier then trying to convert 60i to 24p.

When 24p DV first came out many people had the same problem. In fact at that time a lot of people just edited the material as the 60i DV stream since many people didn't have a tool to work with the 24p. Eventually more NLE's supported removing the pulldown but even today many years after 24p DV first came out there are still some major NLE's that do not remove the 24p pulldown in DV material.

It was Canon's choice not to add pulldown flags and that of course is their choice to make. It is in no way fair to say the camera isn't 24p because that is exactly what it is doing.

I should also point out that those of us who have been using component, SDI or HDMI to capture uncompressed material have been dealing with this for years. Even the Canon XLH1 when capturing live from the SDI ports ends up sending out the 24p as 60i with 3:2 pulldown. That means we have to use a 3rd party solution to remove the pulldown or capture via a Cineform product which works with Blackmagic and AJA cards. So for me at least the lack of flags in the HDV tape stream is of little concern.

Folks, please don't post the contents of private email to this site.

Email is the copyright of the sender, not the receiver. It's not kosher to post email in public.

I'm about to go through this thread and remove anything that directly quotes an email.

If you want to convey a message that you received via email, a summation will do nicely.

Thanks in advance,

But if they can provide flags with the A1 model, why not do the same for this camera?

Seriously, you guys are getting so upset about what? I can't speak for all of you, but it sounds like some of you need to try a Mac with Final Cut Studio. It is soooooo easy to convert the captured 1080/60i HDV footage to true 24p with Cinema tools. Only takes a minute or two per clip. And the results are what you would expect.. 24 truly progressive frames. It's not Canon's problem. They are selling this thing for 1 grand! I am truly grateful to Canon for offering this amazing quality at such a low price.

That can add up quickly though, and the fact that it could be something as simple as a firmware upgrade to add those flags is something worth asking about.

Yeah....But no one here really knows how much it would take to add flags to the HV20. This whole Canon Bashing thread is based on the assumption that it is easy as pie to add this feature. I still have to say that for around $1000, Canon has done no injustice, and it is unfair to Canon to expect to have all of the features of a $4000 camera for $1000. No camera will ever be perfect. There will always be something. I say be happy because you have an awesome camera.

Oh I'm happy with the camera, but I could be made happier! :P

I'm sure we all could in some way!!!! ;)

You know..those of you on both sides of the coin have valid points. But in regards to advertising this product with 24p AND the demonstration video on their site that clearly lacks the visible pulldown wouldn't you say there seems to be some ..and I say "just some".. misleading going on here. Me as a potential consumer (I have one by the way) would be enticed by not only the claim of 24P...but also with the noted results that I viewed on their own Web site. That sold me. When I receive the camera and try it out for myself...my goal is to acheive the same results as their sample video. When I realize the footage I shoot does not do this...I have a right to get a refund for it not doing what I expected....right???

Before you answer me...or throw stones (be kind)...just look at what the PAL users are going through (at least some of them). There are those who sent their machines back in because of what they thought to be defective cams. They have that right to do that. My problem with this whole thing is the advertisment with the example video. One is lead to believe that "Out-of-the-Box" their footage can look just like Canon's online 24p demo. I personally don't think people are bashing Canon. It might have been an oversight on Canon's part to not add flags or they might have done it purposely (who knows). People should have the right to complain. If complaining changes things then more power to the people...if not....then so be it.

Don't get me wrong...I'm happy with my HV20...you can't snatch it out of my hands..but situations like what people here are trying to accomplish is the reason customer service exists in the first place. Contact them and let them know your dissatisfaction whether it be for missing flags, wobbly video, no black casing, funky form, no kitchen sink, inability to make you "director of the year"...yada...yada...yada...

I think part of the reason we're all passionate about a solution to this situation is because the camera is so good at what it does. If the picture was iffy, or the handling not so great, it might be a moot point that only a few would pursue. I do agree with you completely on the marketing of the 24p material from Canon. Only filmmaker types are going to use and understand why 24p is so great, and Canon I feel knows this.

This is my first foray into Canon land. As some of you may recall, I posted about my experience early on as a Sony user coming in. I did not know we had issues with true 24p until I tried to render a true 24p 1080i field. Til then, I had been viewing everything I shot in 24p inside the 1080i stream. Yes it works, and no, I am not dissatisfied in general.

However, I would like Canon to consider the "fix", if it is merely an upgrade to the firmware. The camera has the capability to be updated in that manner, so I am hopeful they will consider it.

We will eventually find work arounds, maybe someone working with HDVSplit will comeup with a fix, but point is it would be good customer relations if Canon stepped up, if it is easily doable. And, $ 250 for NEO by Cineform isn't a killer either, if that is the way we go. If it is not a possibility, Canon, just let us know--- someone out there in Canon land. Maybe in its current configuration, it can't add the flags, no matter what we do in firmware.

Ian, I understand and greatly respect your point of view. But, in my humble opinion, I do not believe that canon was suggesting that you could get that video right out of the box. They obviously edited it, which requires software that is not in the box. I'm not trying to be mean, I just feel that someone on this thread should stick up for canon.

Certainly wasn't my intention to bash Canon. Sorry if it came across that way. Let me be really, really clear: the HV20 is a great camera. Period. I appreciate Canon's engineering/production efforts. And I don't think it's out of line to let Canon know that there's room for a tweak since many of us find the 24p feature to be an important one. Like I said, I see no reason to ask for what may only amount to a firmware update. It's not like we're asking them to include 24p - it's already there. But it doesn't do us much good if we can't see it via software.

Canon is a huge company and an industry leader. I suspect they'll welcome our input. Imagine how many HV20's this forum alone has sold for them. If Chris only knew... :-)