What bothers me about 24F

[Chris Korrow]

Is this going to be the first & last run of cams with 24F?
In other words are these cams, even though they just came out, kinda obsolete because there imaging will never be used again
Does the 24F & 24P edit together with no problem?
Will the rest of the industry abandon "F" mode support?
Don't get me wrong I'm a Canon guy. Just want my investments to stand up to the changes in tech. as long as possible.

[Chris Hurd]

It is not the first run with 24F. The first run with 24F was the XL H1, introduced back in September 2005. I'm not sure what you mean by "their imaging will never be used again." Can you state that in a different way?

24F *is* 24P. 24F is captured into a computer with an NLE application such as Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro etc. as 24P. So yes, you can edit it together with 24P from a non-Canon camcorder with no problem (although if you mix video together from two different kinds of camcorders, your biggest issue will be matching their color and tone, sharpness, etc.).

I don't think you need to worry about the rest of the industry "abandoning" 24F support. All of the major NLE applications are fully compatible with Frame mode (Avid being the most significant exception). Canon is one of the top four camcorder manufacturers in the world, with a significant market share in this industry, so I think it's safe to assume that Frame mode will continue to be supported.

The only real drawback to Frame mode is the lack of a dedicated VTR to use in an edit suite for capture purposes. Canon offers an HDV camcorder, the HV10, that supports Frame mode playback and can be used as a capture deck, but I doubt we'll ever see a traditional VTR that will be compatible with Frame mode. Fortunately there are a variety of tapeless recording solutions available (such as the FireStore FS-C) which are slowly but surely dispensing with the need for a dedicated capture deck anyway. Hope this helps,

[Bill Pryor]

It appears to me that 24F(P) is here to stay. All the high end cameras do it, XDCAM HD does it, DV does it (XL2, DVX100b). The new Sony V1 does it. And speaking of that camera...I think this is correct--it also uses interlace chips like the HXA1/G1/XLH1, but Sony says P instead of F. Is that right? The method of extracting P from I is different from the way Canon does it, but the chips are also I?

[Antoine Fabi]

I own a HVX 200 (24p) and from what i'v seen so far from the H1, the motion looks exactly the same.

I think the difference is only the "container". So to me the H1 has true 24p.

[Chris Korrow]

Thanks Chris,
This clears some things up.
By first run I meant including the H1.
I also know about the VTR issue & that is one of my concerns.
I've been a loyal Canon fan for years, Still cameras & an XL1s,
but I just sent a project off to National Geo & they hardly ever take SD anymore - so it's upgrade time & decisions.

"Canon is one of the top four camcorder manufacturers in the world, with a significant market share in this industry, so I think it's safe to assume that Frame mode will continue to be supported."

My concern was based on if they (Canon) abandon it.

The A1 is still on my list, and would have been at the top of it, but I'll be collaborating with someone on my next project & since we're both upgrading (He's Sony & I'm Canon) we've been trying to figure out which way to go.

Thanks for the posts, they help a lot.

Have a great holiday,
Peace,
Chris

[Jacob Mothersbaugh]

I would most definately go with canon. I wouldn't be able to stand the 1/4" chips on the new sonys. I would take an fx1 over the fx7 and same with the z1 and v1. Canon still trumps all.

[Bob Grant]

Originally Posted by Jacob Mothersbaugh

I would most definately go with canon. I wouldn't be able to stand the 1/4" chips on the new sonys. I would take an fx1 over the fx7 and same with the z1 and v1. Canon still trumps all.

I think you'll find plenty of input on this forum that shows it's almost impossible to pick footage from the A1 or the V1. One's using true progressive scanned CMOS and the other interlaced CCDs with very good DSP de-interlacing.

One writes discrete frame to tape that no VCR can handle, the other writes frames split into fields that any HDV VCR will handle (even the Canon cameras) but poses some issue with correct handling in almost all NLEs.

In the end the decider might be as trivial as you've already got a good supply of batteries and a charger for the Canon or Sony, or which dealer network has the best service. Both those factors steer me to the Sony but boy it's a tough call.

[Chris Hurd]

Very well said, Bob. There really is not a whole lot of difference in sensor size between 1/4" and 1/3" chips. They're both small compared to 1/2" and I think too many people try to make an issue of the sensor size down at this level. Other factors are more important and carry a greater impact than the tiny bit of difference between the 1/4" and 1/3" sizes.

[Chris Korrow]

Yeah it is a tough call, especially, for me that has had nothing but great experiences with Canons. But if their next run of cameras are 24P, that would be a real hassle to have to have 2 VTRs.

Chris I will be using a HD, but a lot of what I shoot especially in the next 2 projects I'll be doing, will be out in the "bush" for extended periods, so I don't want to have to rely on a HD/extra batteries.

[Matthew Nayman]

Chris,

I agree that folks make too much out of sensor size, especially between 1/4 and 1/3. The DOF is not all that different (at these ridiculous DOF's anyway) but I am curious to see how the 1/4" affects low-light performance. I know Sony's A1U single CMOS killed low light, so I wonder how three smaller CMOS will hold up to Canon's three bigger CCD's.

[Toenis Liivamaegi]

Sony`s 1/4 sensors produce quite noticeable noise when compared to 1/3 Canon`s in low-light. You can download many test shots from Sony biased Wolfgang`s HDV blog http://www.fxsupport.de/15.html

Cheers,
T

[Bill Pryor]

Matthew, the difference in depth of field between 1/4" and 1/3" chips seems to me to be as big as the difference in depth of field between 1/3' and 1/2" and between 1/2" and 2/3". The smaller the chips, the greater the depth of field. With 1/3" chips it is possible to soften the background a bit for head and shoulder interview type shots (which I do a lot), but not with 1/4" chips. You can, of course, do so with a really tight ECU.

The other two factors about smaller chips include needing more light, and needing a wider lens for the same viewing area. These three things make me not want do drop any smaller than 1/3", even though with the newer chips the clarity and sharpness of the image is probably very close to the larger chips.

[Michael Y Wong]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

Matthew, the difference in depth of field between 1/4" and 1/3" chips seems to me to be as big as the difference in depth of field between 1/3' and 1/2" and between 1/2" and 2/3".

My thoughts exactly, call me crazy but from viewing all the clips of the V1U & FX7 online, I can see a DOF diff compared to 1/3" cameras.

The resolution of the ClearVid 3-Cmos cameras is definately impressive however.

[David Ziegelheim]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

It is not the first run with 24F. The first run with 24F was the XL H1, introduced back in September 2005. I'm not sure what you mean by "their imaging will never be used again." Can you state that in a different way?

24F *is* 24P. 24F is captured into a computer with an NLE application such as Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro etc. as 24P. So yes, you can edit it together with 24P from a non-Canon camcorder with no problem (although if you mix video together from two different kinds of camcorders, your biggest issue will be matching their color and tone, sharpness, etc.).

I don't think you need to worry about the rest of the industry "abandoning" 24F support. All of the major NLE applications are fully compatible with Frame mode (Avid being the most significant exception). Canon is one of the top four camcorder manufacturers in the world, with a significant market share in this industry, so I think it's safe to assume that Frame mode will continue to be supported.

The only real drawback to Frame mode is the lack of a dedicated VTR to use in an edit suite for capture purposes. Canon offers an HDV camcorder, the HV10, that supports Frame mode playback and can be used as a capture deck, but I doubt we'll ever see a traditional VTR that will be compatible with Frame mode. Fortunately there are a variety of tapeless recording solutions available (such as the FireStore FS-C) which are slowly but surely dispensing with the need for a dedicated capture deck anyway. Hope this helps,

I thought 1080p HDV files were all the same, using some sort of MPEG flag (I'm not familar with the specifics) to indicate the frames are progressive. How does Frame mode differ from the HDV storage on a camera like the V1?

Second questions, I thought that 24F on the H1 and A1/G1 where basically progressive frames captured from interlaced sensors at reduced (but nearly undetectable reduction) vertical resolution. While Canon hasn't published their algorithm, how his my understanding incorrect?

David

[Raymond Toussaint]

@ "How does Frame mode differ from the HDV storage on a camera like the V1?"

In short: Frame mode writes one whole progressive frame, the V1 writes the progressive frame (say 25P) in an interlaced stream with two identical fields, like the panasonic dvx. So it repeats the whole frame.

(I think I describe it ok -in short- )

@ "Second questions, I thought that 24F on the H1 and A1/G1 where basically progressive frames captured from interlaced sensors at reduced (but nearly undetectable reduction) vertical resolution. While Canon hasn't published their algorithm, how his my understanding incorrect?"

The V1 has progressive sensors. The A1/G1 interlaced, it scans the sensor twice at doubled scanrate and creates a frame out of it in the Digital processor. Its V-res is somewhat reduced but remains enormous. The timing is similar as 24P 25P.