Yet another unresearched question about 24F at DVinfo.net

Bruce Meyers · January 6th, 2006, 03:07 AM

The XL H1 boasts 24F recording, how does this differ from 24p? What are the advantages/disandvantages?

Brian Duke · January 6th, 2006, 03:26 AM

Bruce, there are lenghty discussions on this in the XL H1 forum. As suggested earlier, the search forum can answer majority of your questions. hope this help. I did one search and 5 different pages came up. this seems more appropriate.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&highlight=24f

Albert Henson · January 6th, 2006, 12:57 PM

24f looks astonishingly similar to 24p. 24p will work best if you are planning on transferring your video to film. Unless you have the moola to do so, and film is your primary form of distribution-use a 24p camera. The results are worth is. If you are distributing on video in say dvd or a beta master to a broadcaster the 24f will give you outstanding film-like images. Literally the same as 24p.
Hope this helps

Barlow Elton · January 6th, 2006, 01:03 PM

here we go again...

the method of arriving at 24 progressive frames to DV tape is shrouded in DIGIC mystery (a very good 48i deinterlace), but what you have at the end of the day is 24fps material. If it looks great on an HD monitor and has the same cadence and actual frame rate, it probably will make a good film out too.

Shannon Rawls · January 6th, 2006, 01:40 PM

Bruce,

Read this: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=57643

written specifically for you! *smile*

- ShannonRawls.com

Greg Corke · January 7th, 2006, 10:32 AM

If canon's camera does record 24p why did they just not say so? I mean I think they will probably loose out a fair bit of business to the hd100 based on this fact alone. What I'm trying to say is if it is 24p then why did they not say that? Instead they made it sound like they did a bodge job of it and that was the best thing they could come up with. Does not seem like a very good bit of marketing on Canon's part, but hey, what do I know? (not a whole lot I hear you shout). Laters

GregC

Joseph H. Moore · January 7th, 2006, 10:53 AM

It "records" 24P, but it "captures" 48i. In between the CCD and HDV on tape is some clever digital futzing.

For the most part it looks pretty darn good, but the faster the motion, the more likely there is to be loss of resolution and artifacting.

Greg Corke · January 7th, 2006, 11:03 AM

so how different is it to the hd100 then?

Joseph H. Moore · January 7th, 2006, 11:17 AM

The HD100 and the Panny both have true progressive CCD's (the imager.)

Of course the Panny's resolution kinda sucks, and the HD100 has it's own set of "issues." At this price point, no one is perfect.

Jean-Philippe Archibald · January 7th, 2006, 11:25 AM

The CCDs of the HD 100 are progressives and those on the Canon are interlaced. from what I understand, there is some drawbacks either ways. JVC can't read all the data in one pass, so they use two processors, each scanning half of the ccds. This cause the split screen effect in some (very avoidable) situations. Canon use a sophisticate algorithm to get a progressive image from the interlaced ccds. This cause a little loss in resolution but give better low light results.

So canon can't call it 24p, since the "p" stand for progressive scan, which it is not.

But at the end, you get exactly twenty-four full frames per second, with both cameras, and, for me, if these frames look good (and they are), I don't care how they called it.

Pete Bauer · January 7th, 2006, 11:54 AM

Jean-Philippe, well said! Very nice and concise description. It would be my fondest, even if unrealistic, dream that such a straightforward explanation would bring to an end every redundant and acrimonious 24F-24p discussion. World Peace at last!

Joseph H. Moore · January 7th, 2006, 12:39 PM

- The test footage from the HD100 is pretty underwhelming, IMHO. Resolution, color, etc. The split-screen effect is just another nail in the coffin. (It was my first choice before it shipped.)

- At first blush the HVX200's footage looks good, and the promise of DVCPROHD seemed appealing ... but the detail just isn't there, and the color sub-sampling is somehow more apparent than in other cams. (This was my second choice, until I started seeing tests.)

- The H1 seems the sharpest, hands down, even with the interlaced capture. Out of the box, the response is too "video" for my taste, but I'm sure that can be tamed. (I wasn't too excited about this camera at first, but it's looking like a solid contender now.)

So, all three cameras play different tricks with their CCD, and it shows in different ways. A buyer must balance all of the features and compromises of each. The discussion of 24P vs 24F is not merely academic. It is important to not gloss over "how" the picture is achieved in order to make a good informed decision.

Barlow Elton · January 8th, 2006, 02:45 AM

Good post, Joseph. I mostly agree with you. I think Canon, in general,
is fairly conservative in their approach to camcorders...and most
definitely with the H1. It's certainly meant to appeal to a much
broader market than the HVX, which seems in all practicality, to be aimed at the DIY indies.
I think the H1 is a lot like the F900 in that it really needs to be dialed-in for a more pleasing look.
Panasonic nabbed it's crowd because the DVX (which I still own and like) is probably more filmic right out of the box. Their cine-like gammas are sweet, no question.

The H1 sold me because I felt it was the best balance between
professional VIDEO features, resolution, and having the option of a decent HD 24p/film look. Is 24F a perfect solution? No, but what is? All of these cameras have signifigant tradeoffs. For me, it's more than
adequate. Heck, I consider a really good deinterlace from 50i to 24p to be a valid pathway to 24p/film look. Strangely enough, of everything I've seen, I think the HD100 has the most dead-on filmic quality, in terms of motion rendition. This will be a sleeper for the indie crowd.

To me, the benefits and options of the H1 are quite compelling. The out-of -the-box look might be a tad videoish, but there's a lot of leeway for manipulating the image, and it holds up quite well in post.

Like you, I thought the HVX was going to be the true revolutionary camera. In a way it still is, but I think it's a product that has over-promised and under-delivered.

In the end, I went with my gut feeling. I think the H1 has the most legs of all the cameras in its class.

Joseph H. Moore · January 8th, 2006, 10:01 AM

Given what is possible today with 1/3" technology, I wish the HVX had went with a true native 720 CCD and forgot about 1080 completely.

If it's 720P was detailed, I'd be all over it. Instead, they seem to have went with a really underpowered solution that is visibly interpolated no matter which resolution you pick.

From the XL H1's manual, it doesn't seem like it will take much work to set either a flat or "film-like" curve. Personally, I'm going to insist that my stuff is shot flat. You can always get creative after the fact, you can never bring back information that wasn't recorded in the first place.

Barlow Elton · January 8th, 2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph H. Moore

You can always get creative after the fact, you can never bring back information that wasn't recorded in the first place.

That's my bottom line. I wanted the most HD my money could buy, and the HVX was disappointing in it's rez, and the HD100 doesn't have a "live" i.e. normal video motion look...except for 480p, which is actually really good, but not HD.

The H1's not perfect, but it's very flexible.

January 6th, 2006, 03:07 AM	#1
Bruce Meyers Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Maldives Posts: 97	Yet another unresearched question about 24F The XL H1 boasts 24F recording, how does this differ from 24p? What are the advantages/disandvantages?

January 6th, 2006, 01:03 PM	#4
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	here we go again... the method of arriving at 24 progressive frames to DV tape is shrouded in DIGIC mystery (a very good 48i deinterlace), but what you have at the end of the day is 24fps material. If it looks great on an HD monitor and has the same cadence and actual frame rate, it probably will make a good film out too. Last edited by Barlow Elton; January 6th, 2006 at 02:42 PM.

January 6th, 2006, 01:40 PM	#5
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	Bruce, Read this: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=57643 written specifically for you! smile - ShannonRawls.com __________________ Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition.

January 7th, 2006, 10:32 AM	#6
Greg Corke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 245	don't get it If canon's camera does record 24p why did they just not say so? I mean I think they will probably loose out a fair bit of business to the hd100 based on this fact alone. What I'm trying to say is if it is 24p then why did they not say that? Instead they made it sound like they did a bodge job of it and that was the best thing they could come up with. Does not seem like a very good bit of marketing on Canon's part, but hey, what do I know? (not a whole lot I hear you shout). Laters GregC

January 7th, 2006, 11:03 AM	#8
Greg Corke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 245	aaaah so how different is it to the hd100 then?

January 6th, 2006, 03:26 AM	#2
Brian Duke Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hollywood, California Posts: 899	Bruce, there are lenghty discussions on this in the XL H1 forum. As suggested earlier, the search forum can answer majority of your questions. hope this help. I did one search and 5 different pages came up. this seems more appropriate. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&highlight=24f

January 6th, 2006, 12:57 PM	#3
Albert Henson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 65	24f looks astonishingly similar to 24p. 24p will work best if you are planning on transferring your video to film. Unless you have the moola to do so, and film is your primary form of distribution-use a 24p camera. The results are worth is. If you are distributing on video in say dvd or a beta master to a broadcaster the 24f will give you outstanding film-like images. Literally the same as 24p. Hope this helps

January 7th, 2006, 10:53 AM	#7
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	It "records" 24P, but it "captures" 48i. In between the CCD and HDV on tape is some clever digital futzing. For the most part it looks pretty darn good, but the faster the motion, the more likely there is to be loss of resolution and artifacting.

January 7th, 2006, 11:17 AM	#9
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	The HD100 and the Panny both have true progressive CCD's (the imager.) Of course the Panny's resolution kinda sucks, and the HD100 has it's own set of "issues." At this price point, no one is perfect.

January 7th, 2006, 11:25 AM	#10
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	The CCDs of the HD 100 are progressives and those on the Canon are interlaced. from what I understand, there is some drawbacks either ways. JVC can't read all the data in one pass, so they use two processors, each scanning half of the ccds. This cause the split screen effect in some (very avoidable) situations. Canon use a sophisticate algorithm to get a progressive image from the interlaced ccds. This cause a little loss in resolution but give better low light results. So canon can't call it 24p, since the "p" stand for progressive scan, which it is not. But at the end, you get exactly twenty-four full frames per second, with both cameras, and, for me, if these frames look good (and they are), I don't care how they called it. __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

January 7th, 2006, 11:54 AM	#11
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Jean-Philippe, well said! Very nice and concise description. It would be my fondest, even if unrealistic, dream that such a straightforward explanation would bring to an end every redundant and acrimonious 24F-24p discussion. World Peace at last! __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

January 7th, 2006, 12:39 PM	#12
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	- The test footage from the HD100 is pretty underwhelming, IMHO. Resolution, color, etc. The split-screen effect is just another nail in the coffin. (It was my first choice before it shipped.) - At first blush the HVX200's footage looks good, and the promise of DVCPROHD seemed appealing ... but the detail just isn't there, and the color sub-sampling is somehow more apparent than in other cams. (This was my second choice, until I started seeing tests.) - The H1 seems the sharpest, hands down, even with the interlaced capture. Out of the box, the response is too "video" for my taste, but I'm sure that can be tamed. (I wasn't too excited about this camera at first, but it's looking like a solid contender now.) So, all three cameras play different tricks with their CCD, and it shows in different ways. A buyer must balance all of the features and compromises of each. The discussion of 24P vs 24F is not merely academic. It is important to not gloss over "how" the picture is achieved in order to make a good informed decision.

January 8th, 2006, 02:45 AM	#13
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	Good post, Joseph. I mostly agree with you. I think Canon, in general, is fairly conservative in their approach to camcorders...and most definitely with the H1. It's certainly meant to appeal to a much broader market than the HVX, which seems in all practicality, to be aimed at the DIY indies. I think the H1 is a lot like the F900 in that it really needs to be dialed-in for a more pleasing look. Panasonic nabbed it's crowd because the DVX (which I still own and like) is probably more filmic right out of the box. Their cine-like gammas are sweet, no question. The H1 sold me because I felt it was the best balance between professional VIDEO features, resolution, and having the option of a decent HD 24p/film look. Is 24F a perfect solution? No, but what is? All of these cameras have signifigant tradeoffs. For me, it's more than adequate. Heck, I consider a really good deinterlace from 50i to 24p to be a valid pathway to 24p/film look. Strangely enough, of everything I've seen, I think the HD100 has the most dead-on filmic quality, in terms of motion rendition. This will be a sleeper for the indie crowd. To me, the benefits and options of the H1 are quite compelling. The out-of -the-box look might be a tad videoish, but there's a lot of leeway for manipulating the image, and it holds up quite well in post. Like you, I thought the HVX was going to be the true revolutionary camera. In a way it still is, but I think it's a product that has over-promised and under-delivered. In the end, I went with my gut feeling. I think the H1 has the most legs of all the cameras in its class.

January 8th, 2006, 10:01 AM	#14
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Given what is possible today with 1/3" technology, I wish the HVX had went with a true native 720 CCD and forgot about 1080 completely. If it's 720P was detailed, I'd be all over it. Instead, they seem to have went with a really underpowered solution that is visibly interpolated no matter which resolution you pick. From the XL H1's manual, it doesn't seem like it will take much work to set either a flat or "film-like" curve. Personally, I'm going to insist that my stuff is shot flat. You can always get creative after the fact, you can never bring back information that wasn't recorded in the first place.