All you need to know is that you can get true progressive frames from it. Although not silly 24p.

As Alister pointed out on the first page this *isn't* the prototype that was shown at NAB. So expect the EX beater to be announced later. Personally I've had enough of the darling camera phase and I won't be chasing tech any more. I you want me to use a particular camera then hire it and I'll come along and use it for you. Otherwise put up with what I own already.

I don't dispute that, Ron, I'm just passing on what the standards bodies have decreed. And the nomenclature that is increasingly being used by manufacturers and broadcasters.

The other side of the coin is that 1080i/25 and 1080p/25 have the same amount of uncompressed data per second - the approved nomenclature makes that more obvious. I am now finding it easier to always talk in frame rates.
The three most common forms are 1080psf/25, 1080psf/24, and 1080psf/30. You can easily and losslessly revert true 25p, 24p, and 30p from them respectively. The first is compatible with the 1080i/25 system, the other two with the 1080i/30 system. And it's for compatibility reasons they are used instead of 1080p/25 etc.

Thanks. Actually all I meant was how do you type the terminology - i.e. 1080psf/30 it seems.

Yes I understand. It just happens to be a poor representation of reality and in my career not the first time the standards bodies have missed the point. This camera is a typical instance of the problem. One thinks one is getting 60i but its actually 30P. The issue is one of focusing on time code rather than the temporal motion. IF the time code had been based on exposure rate we would not have this problem !!!!

Ron Evans

There may be 30 frames per sec in both cases, but how those frames are constructed is different.

I think that the problem comes with how motion ends up being represented - I may be crazy, but I swear I can see almost a stop motion effect with 30p stuff I've shot - it appears I'm not alone in this, so I feel a bit more vindicated. 60i looks "smoother" and more natural to my eye.

Strangely, when I render out to 24p from 60i, it still looks smooth, when it "should" look worse, I may have to experiment with some of the 30p stuff I've shot and see how it renders out... Now this is really beginning to gnaw at me...

With a sensor that huge if it doesn't at least outperform the EX camera in low light I have no use for them. Even If this camera doesn't at least it encourages other companies to release something that will.

Amen brother. Too many options! I'm falling back into digging for stories and content. Like Yogi Berra said to a future Hall of Fame 2nd baseman: "Keep it simple stupid." I'm tired of chasing tech too. I mean it seems to me the purpose of these cameras are to sell lenses!

The point is a true 60i camera exposes at a rate of 60 frames a second so the temporal motion is 60 frames a second. Since the 60i camera only records fields every 1/60 second, and two fields make a frame the standard says its 30 frames a second !!!! 60i is smoother, its taking twice as many shots of the scene as 30P. If the exposure is the same then the 30P video will judder in comparison to the 60i camera, a bit less than 24P, but still a judder.
This camera completely identifies the weakness in the standard. 30P in 60i and 60i are called the same but they are very different.

Ron Evans

I agree with the second sentence, but surely that's not a problem with the camera, but with the old style terminology? What the camera is actually giving out is a perfectly valid 1080psf/30, and if it's referred to as such, rather than as something like "30p in 60i", the confusion should go away.

To try and move on, if we can all agree it's 1080psf/30, I'd like to return to the question I put in post 76 - why ONLY 30psf, why not 1080i/30 AS WELL? It's a consumer camera, and traditionally 1080i/25(30) has been Sonys primary mode in these?

As I said before, "It's only a theory, but MAYBE, just maybe, it could be because they can read out the entire chip prior to downconversion at 25Hz, but not at 50Hz? Doing that, rather than the arrangement used in most current DSLRs would be a huge step forward since it should take away many of the aliasing problems and give far better sensitiivity. Just a thought."

Thanks so very much for that response. As much as I would LOVE to wait for this camera. It is rather hard to know what this camera can do without seeing it first. As Robert mentioned... HDV is a thing of yesterday and to be honest with HDV shooting at 1440x1080, that makes it a bit inferior to shooting 1920x1080, even if the VG10 is only 60i. And the FX1000 now shoots 24p. Geez, I dont know... I am so tempted to just go with 2 Canon 7Ds and roll with em and see how they do. The audio sucks on them, I know. But Video looks simply amazing. So with that, I would have to either a Tascam or Zoom recorder, making it more $$$.

David, I may have missed something in the discussion along the way but I have been using my Z7 (1/3" chips) with a f1.4 "pro" Fujinon lens which is a faster lens than the stock lens and should give a shallower depth of field. And I have a DSLR which has the same size image sensor as the NEX-VG10 (APS). My DSLR camera came with an 18 - 200 f3.5 - 5.6 lens which is very similar in spec to the stock VG10 lens. And I am sure that that I can achieve a great deal more bokeh with the DSLR and the standard lens than the Z7 can ever hope to achieve with the even better f1.4 lens. The APS sensor is HUGE compared to a 1/3" chip. I thought I saw something that said it is 15x larger. That is a lot of difference And from what I understand, 35mm movie film is approximately the same size as an APS sensor and so is the RED ONE camera.

For those that have pre ordered this camera. What Memory cards are you using or recommend?

I already have sandisks 16GB class 6 cards from my T2i that I will be using and also a couple of Transcend Class 6 16GB cards as well. Hope this helps.

Greg, I would say the 1/3" chip camera at f1.4 would be roughly equivalent to the new Sony camera at f8 for equal DOF.

If we call it 16x, that is how much bigger it is in area terms - it will be something like 4x as big in terms of diameter. For dof purposes, there is an equivalence change of 2 stops for every doubling of chip dimensions, so in this case the difference will be slightly under 4 stops.

Hence, if you are using f1.4 on a 1/3" camera, the dof will be equivalent to slightly wider than f5.6 in this case and that's why I said dof on this camera with the stock f3.5-6.3 lens will be comparable to a 1/3" camera, presuming the latter to have a faster lens, typically f1.8, say.

OK, if you're using this new camera such that you can use f3.5 it will be shallower for dof than any 1/3" camera (unless you get a f1.0 lens!), and maybe f1.8 is more typical for most 1/3" cameras - that gives an equivalence of around f6.3.

Obviously if you can get a fast lens for this camera it will give vastly shallower dof, but an f1.8, 18-200mm lens for this is going to be very heavy, very big, and very expensive!

Most important is that in all the comparisons above, the same angle of view is assumed. Hence, in the case of the bigger chip, the comparisons assume a focal length four times bigger than in the case of the smaller chip.

It seems like now I am leaning more towards the Sony AX-2000. I mean, it records in 1920x1080 with option for 24p. I love the film look. and the only it lacks from the VG10 is the interchangeable lenses. Compared to the HDV format that the FX1000 carries, it would be foolish NOT to spend 300 bucks more on the AX2000. With certain specs being the same between the VG10 and AX2000, what exactly is the "wow" factor with the new VG10 then? Because at this point there seems to be more of a "ugh" factor from most Pro Users on this Forum.

I know this theory, but from my experience that doesn't actually work like that. Even if you open an iris 2stops you would still not get the same dof from the same distance for same composition. Try and see.
I will try and explain: lets take an SLR for example:
a 50mm lens will have a certain perspective to it. Now you put this lens on a 1.5 APSc sensor -
the lens is effectively 80mm, but from a perspective point of view it is still 50mm with center crop.
The apparent distance relations in the frame will maintain the 50mm lens perspective.
If you take a 2/3 lens it is very easy to blur the background half the way through the zoom range,
it is virtually impossible to do so with a 1/3 camera. Certain image characteristics just cant be matched
only by changing the iris. All those lenses have different angles of view or what's it called,
so as 6x13 on 2/3 will probably be 2x13 on 1/3 lens. I am not good in math so don't judge me for that.
Cheers

Ah - Boris, you've made me realise that everything I wrote before is assuming that in all cases compared we are talking about the same angle of view. I'll go back and add that qualification.

What that means is that if we start with a 20mm focal length on a 2/3" camera, to get the same angle of view on 1/3" chips the focal length must be 10mm. If the aperture is f4 in each case, there will be greater dof for the 1/3" camera. If we wish to have the same dof, the aperture on the 1/3" camera must be two stops more open - f2.

Agreed. Since perspective depends solely on subject distance, it doesn't matter what lens or camera you use -- perspective will always stay the same until you or the subject actually move.

Actually, it does. But I think your position only seems to be in conflict with David's because you are thinking of a different method of scaling for sensor size. Here are the three different methods to compare sensor sizes:

• Keep focal length and perspective the same, then vary angle of view with sensor size.
• Keep focal length and field of view the same, then vary perspective with sensor size.
• Keep angle of view and perspective the same, then vary focal length with sensor size.

The first method is interesting to explore in a discussion, but in practical reality, no one ever does this. (For example, no one says, "I'm using 1/3", therefore I must always shoot extreme closeups whether I want to or not. I upgrade to 35mm then I'll finally be able to zoom out enough to shoot my first headshot." In reality, we choose the appropriate focal length for the camera depending on whether it's an ECU, headshot, or wide-angle.)

The second method is only possible some of the time, but it downplays the vital role of perspective in composition. (For example, if you have 14mm lens on 1/3" and 35mm and have full control over distance, then it's possible to get the same field of view -- but only with exteremely exaggerated perspective, which always makes the shots unequal and often ruins the aesthetic too).

The third method is the one that David was actually using. It's really really the only sensible way to compare different sensor sizes. Of course, since DOF and so many other things are inexorably linked to specific characteristics of the lens itself, it removes the possibility to keep all those factors constant between comparisons of different sensor sizes. This problem can be somewhat negated by taking care to compare lenses of generally similar design (ideally finding lenses with MTF plots where the overall shape is generally similar after spatial frequency is scaled for the linear size difference). Still, I generally consider it less important than the factors more vital and fundamental to composition: angle of view and perspective.

I think what you mean to say is that the "35mm equivalent focal length" is 80mm, right? As I think you know, the lens effective focal length is always 50mm, no matter what the sensor it's used on. A 50mm lens on a 1.5X APS-C has an angle of view equivalent to an 80mm lens on FF35.

Right -- one must change both the focal length and the iris, not just iris alone, like this example:

• 1/3": 4.8x2.7mm sensor, 4.8-48mm f/1.4-2.8
• 2/3": 9.6x5.4mm sensor, 9.6-96mm f/2.8-5.6

The 1/3" at 48mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet has the exact same angle of view, perspective, and depth of field as the 2/3" at 96mm f/5.6 at 10 feet. (Since 2/3" lenses are often much faster than f/5.6, they can have much thinner DOF.)

In other words, when you keep perspective and angle of view the constant, then DOF will be the same if you scale f-number with sensor size.

You seem to be looking for the "best" camera.
The bad news is, there is no "best " camera ;-)
Every camera on the market fits some customer's profile of what best suits their needs.
So, the issue is to figure out exactly what your requirements are for the kind of work you'll be doing, even getting down to the basics like what size camera is optimal for you (travelling a lot- small is good, studio work- the sky's the limit).
Anyway, you need to sort out your specific requirements and work backwards towards the camera that fills all the blanks. If you're not 100% sure what you want- like for framerate- go for the camera that gives you the choices.
Regarding the VG10, nobody quite knows what to make of it because nobody has actually seen one yet.
BTW, the AX2000 looks like a very feature rich cam that should cover the bases for most any sort of project. It's got 1/3" chips, but they can do a very competant job. The low light specs look good. How can you miss, if you don't mind the 5 lb weight?

One thing that's cool about this is that the absolute aperture size is the same in both cases. A 48mm at f/2.8 has an aperture with a diameter of 17.1mm (48mm/2.8.) A 96mm lens set for f/5.6 has the same 17.1mm aperture diameter.

So, if you stand the same distance from your subject, frame the image the same, and keep the absolute aperture diameter the same, you will get the same DOF, regardless of sensor size.

Of course, with small sensors, to match what a full frame 35mm sensor can do, you quickly find that your lens spec has a ridiculous aperture. For instance, you can get a 50mm f/1.2 lens for a FF body. To match that performance with a sensor of 1/6 the size would require an 8mm f/0.2 lens. You won't find that in a Cracker Jack box!

Thanks again Robert, we are just in the market for a camera that shoots full HD. Alot of cameras offer it but not in "real" Full HD. Thats the turn off with the Sony FX2000. I cannot find myself spending more money on a camera that only shoots 1440x1080. The more I read posts on this particular thread I am realizing that the VG10 may not be for us. But I must say that this thread has been EXTREMELY helpful and appreciate all the replies. I am curious where Sony is going from here though. Here is crossing our fingers for a Pro model of the VG10.

Sony Handycam NEX-VG10 New videos show the features
 

The FX1000 is HDV 1440x1080i which is anamorphic( non square pixels= 1920x1080 square pixels) and full HD on playback, the AX2000 is 1920x1080 AVCHD at max data rate and anamorphic 1440x1080 at lower data rates and all full HD. Depends what you mean by full HD.

Ron Evans

I don't think the average human eye can detect any difference between
1440 anamorphic and 1920 square at normal viewing distance. It's pretty
much a non-issue. As Ron says, it's all Full HD as long as it's 1080 tall.

I guess what I tried to say was that in real world conditions it is VERY hard to compensate for smaller
sensors by adjusting all the other factors. I am not saying that smaller sensors are less capable, they are
just more suitable for certain stuff. You don't often see pro photographers shooting with compacts for a reason. Most common way to compensate for greater dof is by going futher away and zooming in more
for the same shot size, but what happens in this case is that the whole frame gets compressed and as such
has a different feel to it, but yes, the background is blurred.
Cheers.
P.S Sorry, this post probably does not suit the topic too much.

I must say that the more I look at the potential of this camera, the more I like it. I scoffed at first glance.
I haven't made the DSLR jump yet, but for a light weight, dual use camera for stills and video, this might do the trick. I certianly would have to budget a little extra for a Beachtek for Juicedlink audio preamp. But I could use this for personal and professional use.

I know what you're saying, but there are many occasions when that is not possible - an interview in a small office, for example. And as you say, it may give a more blurred background, but completely change the perspective - the foreground may be the same size of shot but you'll see far less angle of view of the background.

Kristian:

As Chris and others have pointed out (while I was trying to type this up), the difference between "1440" HDV and "1920" AVCHD is basically only pixel shape. Picture definition pretty much looks the same to viewers. There are or can be other advantages to 24 Mbps AVCHD but the pixel shape is not the one to be concerned about.

Also, most of the current versions of NLEs such as PPro do not seem to have any trouble using both 1440 HDV and 1920 AVCHD on the same timeline. There are other considerations in choosing between an FX1000, AX2000 and whatever the shipping version of the VG10 turns out to be.

I agree with Robert about the "best camera" questions. The question has to be more specific than "best camera." The question is really best for whom to do what within a budget of how much?

In a previous post, I suggested some reasons why, for shooting longer duration events, you would probably prefer the AX2000 over both the FX1000 or VG10. Here's some additional things that would factor into my deciding between these cameras.

Will your new "full HD" cam be the only camera you will be using or, instead, will you be using it with others for, say, multi-cam shoots of weddings? This matters to me because I already have other HDV or AVCHD cameras for "b-roll" (such as CX550s). I find it pretty easy to mix and match their footage with an NX5/AX2000. I think it would be more work with a VG10 to get color matching. Perhaps more importantly, as Ron pointed out above in describing some concert footage he had seen, it may be problematic combining 30p footage from the VG10 with the 30i footage from your other cameras. Some of us find the motion differences annoying or jarring. For other folks, the difference might not even register. My problem is that I don't know which of my customers will turn out to be folks who would be oblivious and which customers would be annoyed.

Now, if the VG10 were my only only HD camera (or the first of several), this kind matching/ workflow issue would not come up. (I might still find 30p annoying with high motion footage, but I would not be looking at the contrasting motion depictions.)

How much and what kind of handheld shooting will you be doing? The AX2000 is definitely heftier than the VG10 but the extra size is not enough to make any real difference to me. On the one hand, for traveling or doing things like riding a mountain bike, the VG 10 would not be small enough for me. (My personal preference for these things is the much smaller CX550.) On the other hand, for paid gigs, I do not do enough long-duration handheld shooting for the smaller size of the VG 10 to matter much to me. I do find that an NX5/AX2000 is much easier for me than an FX1000 with a bunch of stuff hanging on it. For instance, I do some handheld shooting at wedding receptions. That is mostly getting guest interviews to make what we call a "video reception line". The shooting is short clips rather than continuous handheld shooting for long periods of time. I also like using a shotgun mike when doing this because the interviewee can hold the mike close and this greatly reduces the amount of noise I get from the room.

Before I got my NX5, I was using an FX1000 (and several other cameras before that) which I equipped with with an XLR adapter and a mike bracket plus I also had an MRC tapeless recording unit (with its battery) sitting in the shoe mount. This array was heavy, was awkwardly balanced, and the XLR connections or controls stuck into my hand when using the hand-hold strap. The NX5/AX2000 don't need the extra stuff and it has the quick release holder for the shotgun mike which makes the mike easy to hand a mike to the guest and then remount.

The VG10 seems like it would be about halfway in between -- lighter but still cumbersome. Part of the cumbersomeness will be in working with external mikes. While the VG10 has a very interesting on-board mike set-up, I'm sure that set-up would have trouble screening out the room chatter and noise typical of the wedding receptions I shoot. So, with a VG 10, I would still need to add a mike bracket and an XLR adapter. If were also hauling lenses along with me, it might not be as convenient as it first seemed. Now, if Sony does eventually make a "pro" version of the VG10, it will probably have a shoe mounted bracket/XLR adapter like the one that came with the HVR-A1U, which would clean it up somewhat. But, if past Sony pricing holds to pattern, the pro-set-up with the XLR box/mike holder and lenses, would likely be in a price range close to that of the AX2000. So, for me, I don't see the smaller size of the VG10 as mattering very much to me.

Speaking of that, how much would you want to work with interchangeable lenses? Some of us DVinfo participants really want and like this capability. For others (myself included), this capability would mostly get in the way and go largely unused.

Finally, a few posts back you asked about SDHC cards. I'm using 16gb Transcend SDHC cards (class 6, I think) with my NX5. (I've also got an FMU unit back when there was a hugh rebate on them, but the AX2000 is not set up to use them,) When I got the 16gb SDHC cards, it was cheaper to buy a certain number of 16gb cards than half that many 32 gb cards. Using these lesser capacity cards is not a big deal with NX5/AX2000 because of the ability to relay record. (That is, you fill up the A card and the camera immediately switches to record on the B card, which allows you to swap out the A card so that, when the B card fills up, the camera automatically switches back to the new (empty) card in the A slot.) On the other hand, the VG10 has only one card slot. That means you would need higher capacity SDHC cards for recording events whose segments run more than 85 minutes. Some people would not bat an eye at this. Some folks are paranoid about using larger capacity cards --- its the "having all the eggs in one basket" problem. Its a personal choice.

The low light/night shots using the standard 18-200mm lens look pretty durn good.
I had questions as to how the VG10 would do in low light w/ the standard lens. I was afraid you would need to switch over to an f 1.4 prime to get decent performance, but apparently not.

How soon do you think they will have an adapter so we can use nikon or canon, etc. lenses?

I've heard there is not another model coming after this, ie the upgrade with xlr, etc. That this is the model for this size. Maybe that bigger beast(with the price tag) will be the big brother to the VG10. I've heard canon nor JVC will be releasing anything like this within the next 18 months probably. I wouldn't expect canon too with the 5D and 7D out there anyway.

I'm looking forward to this camera. I like the smaller size for travel and getting that versatile DOF using different lenses but still having a more conventional camera body to it. I played with my Nikon's 720p video and while I like the picture coming from it, using it as a video camera and not being 1080 is a real drag. I want to be able to use my already invested in Nikon glass to attach to this Sony VG10.

I own the EX-1 and love it. But I like having lots of options on the table to complete a project depending on the needs of that project. Plus, as mentioned before, going to shoot some promo type footage or needing to travel where big camera isn't needed, this VG10 looks great; and I can save on my back carrying this thing around.

There is an evening shot in this Swiss video at about 3:13 on the time line which has a title saying it was shot with the stock lens.

I'm not sure how late this was taken. The sky looks kind of light which may be over-exposure as a result of the shooting settings or maybe it wasn't all that dark yet. And some places in Switzerland have street lighting that can put stage lighting to shame.

These querelous comments aside, the images do look very good as I mentioned the first time this link was posted. For anybody coming late to this thread, check out this video and the "Beautiful Bali" video that was linked a few pages back.

The very same thoughts ran thru my mind as well- but they were shot with the f 3.4 stock lens, and they did look pretty credible, so I'm thinking that it's a definite possible maybe. Encouraging anyway.
The Bali low light shots look very nice, but they were all shot with fast lenses.
I was actually considering the notion that having a single prime 50mm f 1.4 Sony A lens w/ adapter could be a fairly cost effective ace in the hole for high quality low light shooting. With an effective 75mm angle of view, it could be pretty versitile, yet still be a fairly small extra item to carry.

Bob -- depending on how dark your shooting conditions are, you may well want to pack along that "A" lens as well as the zoom that is supposed to come stock with the VG10.

What prompts this is that I got to thinking about some shooting I did five years ago when I got my first HDV cam, a Sony HDR HC1 which Sony rated down to 7 lux. My mountain resort town has an annual Christmas-time weekend festival which we call "the Stroll." Its called "the Stroll" because that is what people get to do when we block off the main street in the evening. It is all bright and "Christmassy" and we sometimes even get the Currier & Ives snow fall, too.

I took my little HDR-HC1 downtown and got excellent night-time views under lighting rather like what you see in the Swiss video. But, later, when shooting wedding receptions indoors and with lights turned way down for "the mood" that wedding planners and DJ's seemed wont to create, the limitations of the 7 lux floor became obvious.

So, it seems to me that for the low light situation with the kind of nighttime street scene seen in the Swiss video or in my HC1 shooting, that VG10 stock zoom lens will be fine. With something darker, VG10 owners probably will want one of the other lenses (such as the "A" lens you mentioned) and will need to pay attention to focusing as was done in the dimmer parts of the temple scene at the end of the Beautiful Bali video.

This is meant as an observation and not criticism of the camera. After all, being able to switch lenses is a primary reason for getting a camera like the VG10, isn't it?

Absolutely.
With an f 1.4 Sony A lens, the VG10 could quite possibly beat the image quality of the EX in low light.

"After all, being able to switch lenses is a primary reason for getting a camera like the VG10, isn't it?"

That's exactly the point of a CAMCORDER that can interchangeable with STILL cameras. Of course, you'll have to manually focus and manually zoom, but that is typical of shooting film.

The second "point" is the minimal DOF which is why the Bali "video" looks more like film than did my shooting at 24p with Sony's prototype V1 several years ago. This is the advantage of a large sensor.

Minimum DOF plus 25p or 30p will make a convincing film look.

For those who DEMAND 24p can get it several ways -- but a 25p unit and conform to 24p in FCP.

However, film fans needs to realize that unless they go to real film -- 24p will be either seen with 2-3 pulldown on 60Hz displays OR at 120/240 Hz. The former is how film has always been seen on TV. The latter looks like "video."

120hz by itself does not cause the video look; it's only when motion interpolation is used that the filmic motion becomes mutilated. This anti-filmmaker criminal has many aliases: anti-judder, motionflow, real120, clear motion, trumotion, smooth 120, auto motion plus, fine motion enhanced, clearscan, MEMC, IFC, etc. When motion interpolation is disabled, 24p is displayed with motion that is much more similar to an actual film projection (and a lot better than 60hz). Of course, a lot of the rabble proably prefer to have it cranked up (along with all the other settings).

In my experience watching a lot of 50Hz PAL on progressive (line-doubled) TVs with 100Hz refresh -- NO INTERPLOATION -- film look like video. That's why refresh rate itself is a variable. Anything more than 72Hz becomes a problem.

The faster the refresh rate the briefer the black-period between presentations. Ultimately, the eye sees a "near continuation" image. As the image moves from 48 flashes per second to none -- a move that makes it look less like theater film.

Only the Kuro offered 72Hz and one Pana plasma offers 96Hz. So, you have a choice of a video look or pulldown judder.

Thus, 25p viewed at 50Hz or 30p viewed at 60Hz really come closer to the theater experience than 24p.

"Also, if it's true, the shoe is finally on the other foot--us guys who like the motion rendering of 60i will be whining about being stuck with 30p motion--hands wringing..."why, oh why couldn't they give us TRUE 60i". I can hear it already :)"

"Getting back to the "deinterlacing" issue.

Yes - this is what is properly called psf - "progressive, segmented frame". Exactly how films have always been shown on TV."

"The point is a true 60i camera exposes at a rate of 60 frames a second so the temporal motion is 60 frames a second. Since the 60i camera only records fields every 1/60 second, and two fields make a frame the standard says its 30 frames a second !!!! 60i is smoother, its taking twice as many shots of the scene as 30P."


Let's look at some of these comments:

1) PsF is NOT how film is moved to video. Film to video is done by adding 2-3 pulldown that converts 24p to 60i. PsF is essentially doing nothing to the video! :)

Each progressive frame has by definition no interlace artifacts because all lines are captured at once. Now the frame is compressed. (The same thing is done with interlace -- both fields are compressed together.) Viewing on the camcorder's LCD and VF is progressive.

So where is the "interlace?" Only in the header of the compressed video. It says "60i" so your NLE knows what the video "is." Of course, it is a lie because the video isn't 60i. Why lie? Because every NLE will accept 60i (or 50i)!

You can edit PsF 60i no differently than 60i. There is NO conversion! NO deinterlacing! (Field-based FX will still work fine -- even though not needed.) And, exports to BD or DVD will work fine. (You can't make 25p or 30p BDs.) No hassle for the consumer. Except, you should never deinterlace going to the Internet unless it is a Weave deinterlace.

-------

PsF can NOT be used with 24p -- although Sony does/did 24p into/over 48i -- which is where the term PsF came from. There really is no need to use the term PsF. I still like 1080i60/24p because it shows the 1080i60 which we all know. But, PsF is kind of nice because it should get folks away from think about deinterlacing.

-------

Yes -- those wanting the 60i look may be unhappy IF they see strobing. But, will they? It depends on the shutter-speed we can select. A point midway between 1/30th and 1/60th is ideal.

Sony can also "negative judder correction" as they do with CineAlta cameras.

Looking at the bicycle VG10 footage there are definitely objects (the white hat) which appears as two slightly displaced images. This is not found with pure progressive. It was not motion blur which is VERY clear on the feet. It's possible is Sony is doing a bit of frame blending which would help with strobing. Which could explain why Sony will not say 25p/30p.

-------

The statement "taking twice as many shots" is kind of correct -- the statement "60i camera exposes at a rate of 60 frames a second" is not correct because while ALL CCD/CMOS lines may be exposed every 1/60th second (a FRAME) only one FIELD is actually recorded each 1/60th second. So 60i is 60 FIELDS per second. The number of images/second is 2X that of 30p which is why it is so much smoother.

=====

For lots more. read: http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv...em/index1.html