There is no real world difference between 24P native or "real" 24P and 24P progressive pulled out of a 60i stream. The Vari shoots everything at 60p. Someone at Canon told me a while back that the license is specific PER CAMERA, meaning you can buy a blanket license or pay a per unit. There is some formula. The XL2 is a REAL progressive camera that uses the exact same pulldown process as the DVX and even the higher end cameras that embed 24P in a 60i stream.

I understand that the HD-SDI also has a VERY expensive license but it is associated with audio and video. I was told it increases the price per unit by about $6000. That is why you have no audio over SDI on the XLH.

Maybe Canon is purchasing it for a GLH1 camera, or the XLH2 but dont be confused about the XL2 which is a real progressive 24P camera.



ash =o)

From the summary that Glen posted...

I guess Canon decided not to play ball and this is why they removed the film grain from the XL2. Probably had a confidential settlement based on the number of units sold to that point. I remember when they removed it the reason was, 'because the software is no longer available'.

Hmmm...very interesting indeed.

-gb-

And yet they always manage to allow things like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/5443036

ROFLMAO!

Any patent clerk that stamped his approval on that submission should be fired.

Didn't Canon also acquire the AVCHD license? Which has 720p 24fps specs? Maybe a solid state GL3/GLH1. Hmmm... that could be very cool.

That would be the way to go. I'm sick and tired of how sony keeps teasing us.

Forget a new camera! I just want P2 prices to drop!

I didn't know Canon used P2 cards.

;)

why not true 24p then all the time???
 

Gosh, really? So even more stuptifying as to why Sony put that silly nilly CF24 mode that *bites* instead of "true" DVX type 24P???

I would be surprised to see Sony paying royalties to anyone! They seem to use pretty much their own stuff. Ever see a Sony DLP set?

Dithering (adding noise) has been a standard anti-aliasing technique since the earliest digital audio days.

I always thought that to qualify for a patent, an idea had to unique enough NOT to be obvious to a knowledgeable person in the field. The patent system was supposed to encourage development. Since the lawers got involved, it seems to have the opposite effect - oh! that's been always.

A friend of mine who holds the original patent for digitizing video (1973) suggested to me to enclose any unique circuit in black epoxy and put a part number on it!

Rant's over!

After reading the whole thread and trying to see things from both points of view, I finally gave up and fell over the following website trying to glean some more information on the hopefully pending camcorder.

http://www.studentfilmmakers.com/new...cle_1172.shtml

Which would be completely uninteresting, were it not purportedly written by Robert Faber himself. Its a peculiar mix of 'patent speak' and blatent self promotion I happened to find very amusing. I particually like the whole written-in-the-third-person-quoting-himself bit and he didn't even use the word 'multiplicity' once.