I actually meant just that, 720p60.

You're right, 720/60p would be a treat. Personally I would much prefer progressive 720 to interlace 1080.

Alex,

Funny you should write this. I agree with you. I always thought that the craze for 24p was silly. 30p is just as filmic as 24p in my opinion. The progressive nature is what gives the filmic look.

The only reason one should want 24p is in the event of film transfer for theatrical projection.

Having said that, there is an industry reality. Panasonic ate everyone's lunch when they released a 24p DV camera. Why?...well because dv filmmakers with aspirations of becoming the next Speilberg felt it was important to be able to up convert to film should Sundance accept their film and ask for a print which will cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

I guarantee that the percentage of DVX100 owners who have actually transferred their program to film is very very small...virtually inexistent.

But instead of arguing with the consumer that 24p isn't as good as 30p or even 60p, the industry decided to capitalize in the hype and here comes the XL2 with 24p.

HDV 24p makes a lot more sense than DV 24p, simply because of the enhanced resolution which will look a lot better projected than DV resolution. (In the event you need to blow up to film)

So, when camera makers ask me what features I would like to see in a new generation HDV camera I say "If you can, put in 24p...I think it's silly, but you'll selll more cameras."

Frederic

You're absolutely right Frederic. A very low portion of the indie film makers who actually shot in 24p ever transferred it to film. But it gives them the illusion that they are "close" to it. For marketing purposes, 24p is a winner, but let's be honest, if you want to shoot in a film compatible format, 48p would be much better and smoother, it just does not exist as a format...

I am working a film transfer into our budget, esp. in the event we need to do self-distribution. So 1080i or 24p HDV is best for me.

heath

Heath

They are doing miracles with video to film transfers now. 1080i footage uprezzed and transferred to film (assuming well-shot) would look better than any of the features like November, Open Water, Pieces of April, Tadpole, etc.

In fact, I bet Indigent has a bunch of these Sony's on order already...

Re: Re: Exciting times for HDV!
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : If anything, I vote for 60p mode, NOT 24p. -->>>

AMEN! (but of course 50p as i'm in PAL land *G*

Has anyone heard of the Sony's abillity to do 60p in any mode?
I quite like the 60p mode of the HD10. Great for slow-mo or high action scenes.
I personally would take 720 60p over anything interlaced. No matter what the reslolution.

I am actaully quite suprised 720p wasnt adopted as a "consumer" format and 1080i/p as a pro format. I'd kill for a native 720p50 (or over cranked p75/p100 ;)) feature set put in the FX1 Body. :)

I see the major concern over HDV is the MPEG-2 compression. But I must say, just using common sense here, would Sony, or the other companies for that matter give us a video signal that was LESS quality than NTSC DV? Surely not.

I know everyone says the JVC camera has compression artifacts on certain scenes. However, I believe that in a large part, that can be due to it being a 1CCD chip.

Now, I have no scientific numbers to back me up, but hear me out. When I shot a scene on my 1CCD chip JVC DV cam, (it's about 3 years old.) I could see tons of compression artifacts in the grass outside. However, when I filmed the same scene with a DVX-100, there were no compression artifacts in the grass. Perhaps this could be due to the 3CCD and better DSP?

So, what I am saying is, maybe this Sony has a very clean MPEG-2 signal. At least not worse than DV. If Sony did that, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

That would be nice but I bet it would be a great deal more than $3700.

About $20,000 apparently. Doesn't change my point though ;>)

<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : That would be nice but I bet it would be a great deal more than $3700. -->>>

But that would only be due to the Cool-and-new or Much-desired factor only.

Daniel - "I see the major concern over HDV is the MPEG-2 compression. "

You shouldn't be.

"I know everyone says the JVC camera has compression artifacts on certain scenes."

I have not noticed any worth mentioning. Even in high motion scenes. No mosquito noise like DV. Chroma noise yes. More so on badly lit scenes. There are software filters to alleviate this.

Daymon -"But that would only be due to the Cool-and-new or Much-desired factor only."

Somewhat yes, but 720 60p would take more horse power than 1080 60i due to the increase in data. Or a lot more than what this Sony cam uses considering it records far less data than a true 1080i cam.

> HDV 24p makes a lot more sense than DV 24p, simply b
> ecause of the enhanced resolution which will look a lot
> better projected than DV resolution. (In the event you
> need to blow up to film)

Besides, for a bandwidth challenged medium like DV tape, 24p makes even more sense, a few frames less means more bandwidth can be allocated to each frame: result: better image. This is I think why DVDs encoded from 24p (film) look so much better than DVD's made from DV. Granted, I know it's not the *only* reason, but it might be an important factor.

Also: Adam Wilt has explained that 4:2:0 is really a good idea if interlacing is taken out of the equation, so 24p on HDV can have that advantage too! This is explained in http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_it...equestid=32355

And then, if the "pro" FX1 writes tapes at DVCAM speeds, Sony can cram a little more bandwidth in there. Imagine 24p onto 32 Mbps, smaller GOP, better color... :D