Jump to content


Photo

CCD Specs Revealed


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12267 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 March 2006 - 09:39 AM

Hi,

No, just the standard Fuji.

Phil
  • 0

#22 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20153 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 March 2006 - 11:13 AM

We already had that debate before. Most people define a 24P camera as one that has a progressive-scan CCD that captures reality 24 times a second, regardless of how that info is then stored from then on out. So the Canon is a fake 24P camera and to call it a 24P camera is misleading.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't fake it very well. It doesn't mean it's a bad camera or anything so stop seeing the word "fake" as a bad thing. I could try and think of some other word than fake ("simulated" maybe?) but to call it a 24P camera would simply be inaccurate because people are going to assume that it has a progressive scan CCD that captures 24 times a second, and they'd be wrong if they thought that.

Or call it a 24F camera. Just don't call it a 24P camera, please. I hate inaccuracies like that. It smacks of marketing, of "spin" (i.e. if I don't call my Canon a 24P camera, people will think there's something wrong with it, so I'd rather use an inaccurate term than risk that.)

I've said all of this before so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. You're not going to convince me that the camera is a true 24P camera when it's clearly not -- even Canon doesn't make that claim otherwise they wouldn't have used the term "24F". If they don't want to be inaccurate, then you shouldn't either.

IT FAKES 24P, OK? IT DOES IT REAL WELL TOO. BE HAPPY.
  • 0

#23 Rod Otaviano

Rod Otaviano
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 March 2006 - 11:43 AM

We already had that debate before. Most people define a 24P camera as one that has a progressive-scan CCD that captures reality 24 times a second, regardless of how that info is then stored from then on out. So the Canon is a fake 24P camera and to call it a 24P camera is misleading.


Exactly, actually yesterday I was watching this podcast on the iTunes ("Ripplecast", Canon XL-H1, episode 4) and the technical marketing manager for Canon, made the following statement:

"The industry saw progressive as the term down the tape when in the fact progressive really means the term off the chip, it's how the image comes off the chip ... "

"...when it's actually down the tape is 24 frame image ... "

"... this camera is not a progressive chip camera, it's an interlaced chip camera"
  • 0

#24 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20153 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 March 2006 - 12:03 PM

If simply being able to process a 48i, 50, or 60i capture to create 24 whole frames made it a defacto "24P" camera, then anything could be a 24P camera as long as the processing was done internally and not done in post.

Of course, currently only the Canon does this in camera (the Sony HDV camera can also simulate 24P but then adds pulldown to reconvert to 60i, and since it doesn't capture at 48i, it does it less well than the Canon), but my point is that whether the camera offers a 24P option is most commonly defined as whether it captures 24 times a second, progressive-scan.

Even Adam Wilt's article points out that there is some vertical resolution lost when the Canon is in 24F mode, so clearly it is not capturing 24P/1080.

All that said, the Canon fakes 24P well-enough that it seems that even with the hit in resolution, it's seems (without further testing) no worse than the "true" 24P Panasonic HVX200 since that one is using CCD's with much fewer pixels to begin with.

As far as whether a camera with much less than 1280 x 720 pixels per CCD can be considered "fake" HD or not, that's a good question. Again, when in doubt, it comes down to common usage -- i.e. if everyone says it's HD, then it's HD. Or to put it another way, if it seems to deliver more resolution than a standard def camera recording standard def, then it's HD by most people's definition. Instead of calling it "fake" HD, probably "low-end HD" would be more accurate.

In most cases, HD is defined by the recording, unlike 24P which is defined FOR A CAMERA by the capture technique. So the Andromeda Reel-whatever technique for the DVX100 perhaps could technically create 24P HD from a 24P SD camera, but it's 24P because of the way it can capture the image (even if recorded as 60i with a pulldown), but HD depending on if can be recorded as HD with acceptable resolution.

But I fully admit that there's a gray area here in regards to how much uprezzing of a CCD capture can you get away with and still be considered HD. But again, when in doubt when it comes to language, the commonly-understood definitions tend to apply.
  • 0

#25 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 02 March 2006 - 12:42 PM

the Sony HDV camera can also simulate 24P but then adds pulldown to reconvert to 60i, and since it doesn't capture at 48i, it does it less well than the Canon

it simulates 25p and records to 50i though, which works quite well.

/matt
  • 0

#26 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Mr. Shannon W. Rawls
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Producer
  • Lemiert Park(Hollywood), CA.

Posted 02 March 2006 - 04:12 PM

Thoms Haas, relax brutha. it's not that serious. it's just the internet, and this is just your spare time. have fun with it, don't argue & yell and get wound up like your getting paid a salary.

David,

Thanks for your reply. I guess I'm just curious as to how you give one camera a "pass" on terminology and other cameras you don't. Seems bias. Common usage? So that's the definitive resource now? What happened to technical specs and definitive white papers? Why are we defining the camera by the chips for "this" guy, but not for "that" guy. Why all of a sudden has the rules changed?

Let's forget the Sony Z1 because it neither captures nor records a progressive 24fps, ever.
But for instance, you mention the Canon XL-H1 is only doing 'in-camera' what can actually be done 'in-post'....right? And as a result, we must call it what it is, right?

Well........what is the HVX doing then?
The chips in this camera misses the mark both ways. They are not HD vertically or horizontally. Not even at the lowest ATSC/EBU standard of High Definition of 1280x720. I could see if it met the requirement going at least in one direction, but it lacks both ways. Yet & Still, it "RECORDS" it as such. Something you have drilled into my head in our previous discussion that 'shouldn't matter'. As a matter of fact, I remember you telling me if we defined cameras by what they can record then ANY OLE' CAMERA could be called 24p since we could do it in post from ANY frame rate, therefore thats just not how its definied.

Well........what is the HVX doing then? Is it not doing 'in-camera' what can be done in post as well? However for some reason, you give it the "HD" stamp of approval.

Why is there doubt? Why is there a grey area? Seems black & white to me. Why apply 'common talk' now? 960x540 sounds more like ED then HD to me. The term "Enhanced Definition" is 'common'. Why has that been ommited? Why isn't this camera called an ED camera, great for those who own ED televisions? lol
But because people call it HD (only because of 11 months of false advertising and late-2005 brainwashing) and because Panasonic called it HD, it's ok to be called HD, even though it is not?

If you hate inaccuracies and don't want to be misleading, then it seems THIS should be at the top of your list, no? To be truly fair and brand agonistic, then the rules should apply to everybody that plays in the sandbox, dont you think? This is what we all grew up learning as kids. So why now when it comes to these handycams are the rules modified?

And what about 4:2:2 colorspace? It is impossible to capture 4:2:2 from those chips, but it records it as such because of the codec.....so......is it still 4:2:2? It is 'commonly' understood that colorspace is definied by the chips. Did we change those rules as well?

I'm not trying to be controversial here, I'm just trying to eradicate all confusion, fear, uncertainrty, doubt, spins and more importantly --- contradictions.

Help me out Dave

- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#27 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12267 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 March 2006 - 05:37 PM

Hi,

Why on earth are you being such a dedicated anal retentive about this?

XLH1 does not shoot 24p. It records mediocre processed 24p.

The Sony thing also does not shoot 24p, but it can record a rather more mediocre processed 25p if you get the Euro version.

HVX-200 has rather less resolution on its sensors than we'd like.

HD100 has no uncompressed output.

None of these cameras is perfect. Everyone knows and accepts this. These facts are not in dispute. So why are you so interested in repeatedly boring the pants off us with these preposterously longwinded examinations of the semantics?

Please, stop.

Phil
  • 0

#28 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Mr. Shannon W. Rawls
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Producer
  • Lemiert Park(Hollywood), CA.

Posted 02 March 2006 - 09:15 PM

David,

Now...I started this conversation with YOU. Ofcourse this is an open discussion forum so others are allowed to join in, naturally. But this is exactly how the mudslinging started last time. I was nice, I was professional, and then WHAM BAM...here comes the sarcastic poop talking from those that never seen or touched the camera and just felt the need to butt-in (ofcourse they say they used it or tried it out or whatever in these web-forums, but we all know how internet DP's tend to skew their real-world experience)

Now, since you are the guru of this site, you told me last time it's not WHAT I say but HOW I say it. Well.......how did I say it this time? Please go back and re-read my initial question on page-1 in this thread and tell me how/what I did so wrong. If you see no 'wrong' with my simple inquiry to you, which I doubt you will, then do you honestly expect me to just sit back and accept these cyber rat-packs without fighting back? After all, I am a VICTIM don't you think? *smile* If I begin to ridicule and smack these guys around makling them look stupid to the world, I will be labeled boisterous and provacative. Then people will start saying I came here and started trash talking and all that. Convienently, everybody will forget how cool calm and collective I was in the beginning. All they will do is go get their buddies to come on here and help them combat me and then I will be labeled the troublemaker.

Do you see what I mean? I pray you do. because all I did was ask YOU a simple question about the Panasonic HVX200 camera in the Panasonic HVX-200 forum (and got attacked) and then you politely answered it in a very professional way.(thank you) I replied to your answer with more inquisitions, and here I am being attacked again by member #29 up there. LOLOL now if I reply directly to them (like i did last month) and begin to cyber-slam these guys turning this thread into a 10-page war on terror....will it be justified? Or will i again be the so-called 'troublemaker' around here? LOL for simply defending my internet personality. (shakin' my head)

The irony of all this David: We're not even talking about the XL-H1. The discussion at hand is the HVX200.

Even more Irony: I never once said the xl-h1 shoots 24p in this discussion. Why is that even being talked about? I was asking about a totally different manufacturer & camera. yet these guys are attempting to provoke me.

Today as I scrolled through the replies, I thought you too were getting on the the XL-H1/24p debacle because you made a single post about that without answering my initial question. I didn't understand why you 'went there' with that when I never asked or wanted to talk about the Canon. We already covered that last month and got an understanding. But then 2-posts later you came back with the answer to my question.

How we got on the XL-H1/24p topic is beyond me. I haven't discussed that cameras frame rate since we ended our convo in January, so I guess some people still had some things balled up like a knot inside them & they needed to get it out, and this was their opportunity. LOL I was asking about HVX200 and HD. Why on earth anybody brought the XL-H1 up is a mystery. I never asked any questions about that camera, I never said it shoots 24p, I never eluding to anything other then utilizing it as an illustration to reference my real question: the HVX200 and its sensors and HD.

I guess some people are on a crusade against Canon or something, I don't know. Maybe they don't like ole' Shanny Shan for whatever reason. The human nature is a mystery. Whatever it is, I hope they get it out their system so we can stay on topic. lol

Anyhow David, I still await your reply when you get some spare time and make it back to the forums.

- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#29 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20153 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 March 2006 - 09:52 PM

I already answered your question about why the Canon is considered to be fake 24P but the HVX200 is considered to be an HD camera.
  • 0

#30 Tomas Koolhaas

Tomas Koolhaas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • los angeles

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:31 AM

David,

I was wondering....

If some people define the Canon XL-H1 by the CCD and not what it's actually recording, thereby some people giving it the name "fake 24p"
then.....isn't it fair.....
that we define all cameras by the CCD, thus labeling the HVX200 as a "fake HD" camera??? I mean, 960x540 is hardly HD, and thats the CCD we're talking about, right?

just wondering what your expert thoughts are on that.

- ShannonRawls.com

P.S.: Actually, it may possibly be considered "fake 4:2:2" as well??



Hi,
Shannon, Firstly I was not angry, I dont really care if you want to convince yourself that the XLH1 is 24p or not, and you are tripping saying you didn'ty bring the XLH1 back into this post, you clearly did in the quote above. More significantly you are once again being rude about people you dont know:

Now...I started this conversation with YOU. Ofcourse this is an open discussion forum so others are allowed to join in, naturally. But this is exactly how the mudslinging started last time. I was nice, I was professional, and then WHAM BAM...here comes the sarcastic poop talking from those that never seen or touched the camera and just felt the need to butt-in (ofcourse they say they used it or tried it out or whatever in these web-forums, but we all know how internet DP's tend to skew their real-world experience).

I guess you are reffering to me here, You are being extremely ignorant here, you own a couple of DV/HDV
cameras so you think you know it all, and no-one else's opinion could even touch yours right?
And what is an internet DP? are you insinuating you know more than me about shooting good-looking and succesful projects because you own a couple of DV/HDV cameras?? I own a super-16 camera dude, I dont give a poop about HDV! you are a joker! Since you seem to look down on everyone here as having no experience why dont you enlighten us on the career of a true DP like yourself. How many features have you shot? How many Shorts? etc.. How many of them weren't on DV/HDV? do you have a demo reel? If you do I would not mind comparing yours to mine at all (we could see if your DV/HDV cameras have got you better footage than shooting on HD,35 and super 16 on all types of productions). You are setting yourself up for a big fall when you assume everyone but yourself is ignorant, inexperienced or lying about their experience, I looked you up on IMDB and you have a grand total of zero DP credits, so why do you think you can look down your nose at anyone on this forum. Thats like me buying movie magic budgeting and scheduling and telling you I am a better producer than you because I OWN my own producing programs. You need to seriously chill out and not insult me or anyone else on this forum anymore, you haven't earned the right. Also, next time you diss someone do some research first, check out my company website or IMDB and then tell me I'm an "internet DP".
I won't be responding to you anymore so dont bother adressing me again.
Peace.

Edited by Tomas Haas, 03 March 2006 - 05:35 AM.

  • 0

#31 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Mr. Shannon W. Rawls
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Producer
  • Lemiert Park(Hollywood), CA.

Posted 03 March 2006 - 10:25 AM

Thomas,
I didn't mean to offend you bro. let's be friends. No I didn't do research on you. No time for that, I just like to come here and talk tech talk during my spare time, as I'm sure you and all the rest of us do. I never really go looking people up on the IMDB. That site is not very accurate anyhow, as I am sure it only has 1/2 of the work you've done. I know it only has a fraction of mine. My own websites aren't even updated.

Additionally, you are correct, I am not a Director of Photography. I am absolutely confident that you can run circles around me when it comes to lighting a scene.

Alls i'm saying is....thomas....bro.....you came at me wrong. be honest....didn't you? C'mon man, tell the truth. *smile*

Go back and check the record and tell me if you couldn't have talked to me better then you did? I would have prefered you to simply answer the question at hand. But you didn't. You (and others) went off on me about some old stuff.
I asked a simple question about the HVX200 and wanted to know opinions on the sensors an who considered that "High Definition" and whatnot, and you go slamming me about 24p and the XL-H1....da hell? Where did that discussion come in the picture? if "ANYBODY" else would have asked the EXACT same question, not changing a word, then it would have been all good. It would have been answered immediately. but because I asked it....a get jumped.
My normal response is to sling mud back at you (i'm good at it too), but the last time that happened to me here, I got sent to the principals office and took the blame. I wasn't going to let that happen a 2nd time.

So let's be cool *daps*. no need in hating people over the world wide web whom we never met. Thats almost as dumb as fighting with iraq when you're supposed to be looking for bin laden. You feel me?

And since you're in L.A. (probably like right down the street for all I know), then I will in fact look at your reel and check you out. Unless ofourse you're not interested in working with me. it'd be funny if we make a couple of $mil$ together and tell stories on how we met. lol

David,
Thanks for your answer. I think I understand your position clearly now.


.
- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#32 Tomas Koolhaas

Tomas Koolhaas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • los angeles

Posted 07 March 2006 - 04:07 AM

Thomas,
I didn't mean to offend you bro. let's be friends. No I didn't do research on you. No time for that, I just like to come here and talk tech talk during my spare time, as I'm sure you and all the rest of us do. I never really go looking people up on the IMDB. That site is not very accurate anyhow, as I am sure it only has 1/2 of the work you've done. I know it only has a fraction of mine. My own websites aren't even updated.

Additionally, you are correct, I am not a Director of Photography. I am absolutely confident that you can run circles around me when it comes to lighting a scene.

Alls i'm saying is....thomas....bro.....you came at me wrong. be honest....didn't you? C'mon man, tell the truth. *smile*

Go back and check the record and tell me if you couldn't have talked to me better then you did? I would have prefered you to simply answer the question at hand. But you didn't. You (and others) went off on me about some old stuff.
I asked a simple question about the HVX200 and wanted to know opinions on the sensors an who considered that "High Definition" and whatnot, and you go slamming me about 24p and the XL-H1....da hell? Where did that discussion come in the picture? if "ANYBODY" else would have asked the EXACT same question, not changing a word, then it would have been all good. It would have been answered immediately. but because I asked it....a get jumped.
My normal response is to sling mud back at you (i'm good at it too), but the last time that happened to me here, I got sent to the principals office and took the blame. I wasn't going to let that happen a 2nd time.

So let's be cool *daps*. no need in hating people over the world wide web whom we never met. Thats almost as dumb as fighting with iraq when you're supposed to be looking for bin laden. You feel me?

And since you're in L.A. (probably like right down the street for all I know), then I will in fact look at your reel and check you out. Unless ofourse you're not interested in working with me. it'd be funny if we make a couple of $mil$ together and tell stories on how we met. lol

David,
Thanks for your answer. I think I understand your position clearly now.
.
- ShannonRawls.com



Shannon,
I am sorry if you found my tone offensive in my first post, the big difference for me is that I didn't insult you personally or make claims about your level of experience or anything like that, so I guess that's why your response seemed way over the top to me. Having said that it IS senseless to argue with people that you dont know over the net so I agree we should squash the beef.
Cheers.
  • 0

#33 Tenolian Bell

Tenolian Bell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 907 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 09 March 2006 - 08:18 PM

An interesting article about the HVX workflow.

http://www.studiodai...jects/6155.html

"In all, we got the HVX to look fantastic. Far better than any of our work with the other HDV cameras in its class.


However, the cost in hardware support, software support and technical support had to go much, much further to achieve such a look, when the VariCAM or HDCAM (though more costly to own) require less dedication. In other words, if you drew a scale and put the VariCAM on one end and the DVX100 on the other, where does the HVX200 go? Some will argue to the DVX, but most will argue (as so I've seen) the VariCAM. The fact of the matter is, the HVX is an HD solution for DVX100 users, not a replacement for digital cinema grade acquisition.


In the accompanying video the author says the HVX optimum recording is at 720P and is not so great at 1080.
  • 0

#34 Tomas Koolhaas

Tomas Koolhaas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • los angeles

Posted 10 March 2006 - 01:28 AM

An interesting article about the HVX workflow.

http://www.studiodai...jects/6155.html
In the accompanying video the author says the HVX optimum recording is at 720P and is not so great at 1080.


Hi,
Thats what I had figured when I first heard about HDV, HDV/HVX (not technically an HDV camera) is a better resolution version of the DVX/XL type series rather than a cheaper version of the varicam/F900, as some people seem to have expected.
The extra resolution will help ultra low budget film makers who would have been projecting mini-DV at festivals, but will not replace "True" HD cameras for higher budget cinema destined projects.
Cheers.

Edited by Tomas Haas, 10 March 2006 - 01:28 AM.

  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

CineLab

Technodolly

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies