Internally the HVX200 does process the signal at 1080/60p (or at any of its variable frame rates, but always as 1080p). If you were to get the forthcoming Hydra modification you could actually use it in 1080/60p mode.

There's no broadcast standard for 1080/60p, nor is there any SMPTE-codified recording format for 1080/60p, so the broadcast equipment manufacturers don't offer 1080/60p. But the internals are capable of it, if you wanted it, and Hydra will let you get at it.

Jason, there is no 'US spec' for HD. The digital transmission specs have been developed by a worldwide consortium called the Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC). Part of the reason for this is the elimination of two or three different broadcast methods around the world. Instead, it's one set of specs for different resolutions that allows for many different frame rates as well as progressive or interlaced broadcast. The main difference in the future say between US and Europe will be different frame rates, necessitated by different power line frequencies to maintain sync with lighting. At this time, US broadcasters have settled on 1080i60 or 720P60, but there is indeed other frame rates in the ATSC spec and they are free to use them if they choose to.

Here's a hint: Why do you think television set makers are starting to sell units capable of displaying 1080P60? There are already cameras out there that can shoot 1080P60. And many of them can shoot 1080P24.

My XDCAM HD shoots 1080i60, 1080P30, 1080P24, 1080P25, 1080P50 as well as NTSC or PAL DVCAM standards.

What Barry said about splitting a progressive scan into two fields is called PsF or, progressive segmented frame. Not only is there no quality loss, there is no time differential between each field so it's a simple matter of sticking the odd and even scan lines back together to form a complete frame for editing in the NLE.

-gb-

I think greg means the XDCAM shoots 1080i50, not 1080p50. Anyway, Greg, very nicely done on explaining this. I think that 1080p60 might be a reality in future broadcast because of more efficient compression codecs. For those of you who do not know, the interlace NTSC system was created to solve flickering because of the system's limited 30 frames per second. Why didn't they do progressive? There isn't enough bandwidth in the current NTSC analog system. Digital is different in that it doesn't require all the extra space that analog needs to broadcast; therefore, other information, like surround sound can be added. Also, because DTV has more bandwidth to work with, it is capable of HD. Of course, there is more to it, but that's the two cents worth.

Ooops, you're right. Strictly a typo. That's what I get for not grouping all the I's and P's together in the list.

Thanks for catching that!

-gb-

Actually, I hate to contradict you Greg, but the ATSC is firmly North-American centric (with only a small handful of other countries adopting the standards).

A considerably larger number of countries (35 vs 6?) are using the European originated DVB standards... which actually does include 1080p50 (though no-one's broadcasting that yet!).

how?
 

you are telling me it does.. so if i shoot a feature with the HVX will it be the same as the vsaricam as in i can do the blowup to 35mm and will it look without pixels?

I think you have resolution (pixels) confused with frame rate. However, if you film 24p with the HVX200 you will be able to output to a film print that is free of interlace artefacts and other video nasties... if that's what you're asking.

wrong question
 

I guess i made the wrong quwestion, what i was tryiung to say is.. the HVX shoots 720p 24p. if i blow that up to 35mm, will it look pixeled as if the resolution wont support it or do i shoot 1080i and then do a pulldown?

Watch "Iraq In Fragments". That was shot on a standard-def 720x480 DVX100 and blown up to 35mm, and nominated for an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". Nobody complained about pixels.

Or, watch "Murderball", that was also shot on a standard-def 720x480 DVX100 and blown up to 35mm, and also got nominated for an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". Nobody complained about pixels.

The HVX200 is going to look substantially sharper, cleaner, crisper, and "better" than either of those. Its 1080/24p will look better than its 720/24p, but either one is likely to prove adequate. If you watched Scorcese's "The Departed", there was a shot from an HVX200 that made it into the final film print. Nobody even noticed.

Will it match a VariCam? Of course not; one's a $45,000 camera and the other's a $5,000 camera. But can you do a film with it? Yes. Watch for "Childless" starring Joe Mantegna and Barbara Hershey, that was shot entirely on an HVX with no lens adapters, 720/24pN mode, a million dollar budget and should be hitting theaters soon. Or, if you want to see HVX200 footage blown to film in the theater right now, go sit through the previews in front of the Nancy Drew movie. There you'll see a preview for "Sarah Landon and the Paranormal Hour", a movie shot entirely on the HVX200 (using the Redrock M2 lens adapter) and being distributed on something like 2400 movie screens starting October 26th. The film itself won't be out until October, but the previews for the film are playing in front of the "Nancy Drew" movie so you should be able to see that now.
http://www.sarahlandon.com

Alex, I didn't choose my words correctly. I was thinking when I wrote that post that someone would question it. By worldwide, I didn't mean every country or continent on the face of the Earth. The gist I was trying to impart to the person I replied to, was that there is no HD spec that's specific to the US/North America, as there was with NTSC. For example, I have no idea what France is going to replace SECAM with. But PAL vs NTSC issues should evaporate in the not too distant future. February 17, 2009 is the date for US broadcasters to cease analog transmission...the end of NTSC!

Sorry, didn't mean to highjack the thread but I felt compelled to dis-spell some myths about HD broadcast standards.

-gb-

Well, in a sense, you're correct; but it's too bad the U.S. couldn't agree with most of the countries on the same standard. Sure it's no longer 625 vs 525 lines, but U.S. and Europe still differ on frame rates, at least regarding terrestial TV broadcasting and modulation. Of course ATSC can accomodate 25/50 frame rates, but no one wants the 8 VSB modulation. In fact, some satellite companies here have adopted the European DSB-S/S2 standard, and cable companies refuse to adopt the 16 VSB modulation under ATSC's cable standard and went with their own, QAM 256. But you are essentially right; there is no real HD spec. Each standard can work together in theory.

Oh, to be politically correct, you are disspelling some myths about digital broadcast standards. High definition is a subset of digital television. Broadcast TV stations might opt to not air high definition. The advantage would be that they can broadcast multiple standard definition channels or they can use the extra space for Broadcast Internet or other data services.