Jump to content


Photo

24f turns out to be as good or better then 24p...


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#1 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 02:06 AM

Orignially I wondered why would Canon go backwards? From a proven and beautifull progressive scanning XL2 to an interlaced scanning XL-H1. Didn't seem to make sense why they would do that for the new (double the price) HD camera....

Well as more and more tests and footage is being released, I suppose it proves Canon is smarter then some people think because whatever the XL-H1 is doing inside is proving to be quite well. It does not scan progressively but it surely "RECORDS" 24p to the tape.

To some XL2 owners, when in DV mode, they feel the image is even nicer in DV 24f then the XL2' is for DV 24p. Some would think it was because of the new lens. Others say the DSP or the chips. Who knows, but whatever it is...it's working.

I'm just waiting for a film-out.

- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 January 2006 - 03:29 AM

Actually, I don't think the camera records "24F" as 24P/1080, but as 60i/1080 with a pulldown. All the literature I've seen says the camera alway records 1080i HDV no matter what the frame rate selected. It changes the CCD rate to 48i for 24F mode, processes 48i to look like 24P, then records it to 60i/1080 (I'm pretty sure.)
  • 0

#3 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 03:54 AM

Hey David,
Up late in L.A. like me I see. *smile*
But naw...there's absolutely no pulldown involved when shooting HD on the Canon XL-H1. It's 24 progressive frames recorded to tape in the 60 stream. I beleive the repeat frames are simply discarded. I have captured HDV footage in 24f mode using CineForm Connect HD 2.1 (a wonderful program and highly recommended) and the Canon CONSOLE program. Both programs even bring the clips in at 23.976 progressive footage (no pulldown removed).

Now in DV more, there is pulldown. Just like the XL2. And you can choose which type you want (2:3 or 2:3:3:2). But in HD, there's no choice, it's 2:3 discarding frames on tape.

Disclaimer = I am wrong many times, this could be one of them. *smile*
But one thing I do know....it's 24p on that tape when you ingest it to your computer.

- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#4 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 02 January 2006 - 08:54 AM

Hey David,
Up late in L.A. like me I see. *smile*
But naw...there's absolutely no pulldown involved when shooting HD on the Canon XL-H1. It's 24 progressive frames recorded to tape in the 60 stream. I beleive the repeat frames are simply discarded. I have captured HDV footage in 24f mode using CineForm Connect HD 2.1 (a wonderful program and highly recommended) and the Canon CONSOLE program. Both programs even bring the clips in at 23.976 progressive footage (no pulldown removed).

Now in DV more, there is pulldown. Just like the XL2. And you can choose which type you want (2:3 or 2:3:3:2). But in HD, there's no choice, it's 2:3 discarding frames on tape.

Disclaimer = I am wrong many times, this could be one of them. *smile*
But one thing I do know....it's 24p on that tape when you ingest it to your computer.

- ShannonRawls.com

It seems to me that this method would lead to a constant flow of time code breaks which NLEs do not like.
Also, if it just dumps frames as it goes, it will also be dumping audio. Are you sure about this? I have done zero reading on this camera.
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 January 2006 - 11:03 AM

Now in DV more, there is pulldown. Just like the XL2. And you can choose which type you want (2:3 or 2:3:3:2). But in HD, there's no choice, it's 2:3 discarding frames on tape.


Well, I guess I consider any method of recording 24 frames to 60 fields to be a "pulldown" whether or not it is eliminated when it is digitized into an editing system.

Either way, the point is that the camera does not shoot 24P/1080, but it does a fairly good fake 24P (probably with some loss of vertical resolution) from 48i capture, unlike Sony's less-successful 24F CineFrame trick.

Edited by David Mullen, 02 January 2006 - 11:05 AM.

  • 0

#6 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 12:41 PM

I wouldn't call it "fake". if that's the case...then ALL 24P DV cameras are "Fake" if you want to get technical about it.

Is Varicam "Fake HD" because it doesn't scan resolution to the specs of the ATSC's definition of what HD should be? 960x720 is hardly HD when it comes to the standard. However, because the Varicam 'ends up' at 1280x720 then we happily consider it HD, now don't we?

Well, same concept here. 24p is not defined as what the camera Scans at the chips. It is defined as what the camera can record and provide you on Tape. (same as Varicam). So essentially, it is "TRUE 24p". it's not the process, it's the result.

Sony CineFrame 24 is Suedo from beginning to end. Even the 24 frames that you get in the end on tape has interlaced judder frames in it. THis is not the case with Canon XL-H1. 24 solid progressive frames.

- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#7 Brian Wells

Brian Wells
  • Sustaining Members
  • 438 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 January 2006 - 02:56 PM

24p is not defined as what the camera Scans at the chips. It is defined as what the camera can record and provide you on Tape.


Shannon,

That's like saying the oringal XL1 has 30P when it doesn't. Frame Mode. Progressive Scan IS determined by what happens on the chip. Calling the XL-H1 24P (where P = Progressive Scan) is stretching it just a little bit.

I'm aware you own three HDV cameras, and I don't. That doesn't change the definition of Progressive Scan, though!
  • 0

#8 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 03:31 PM

Brian,

The term "Progressive Scan" IS determined by what happens on the chip. Yes...I know that. Thats why its called progressive scanning. nobody says the Canon will do proressive scan. I sure didnt.

I am talking about "24P". The term "24P IS NOT determined by what happens on the chip. if that was the case, then the Sony F900 would not be called 24PsF They wouldn't even bother with that term.(get it?) They would simply call it 24P and we would never have ever heard the term 24psf. It would have been a non-existent phrase. HOWEVER, that's not the case. Sony does a progressive scan and STILL DOES NOT CALL ITS CAMERA a 24p camera. The term is used to define what is happening for the recording, not the scanning. Hence, an F900 is 24PsF.

- Calling the XL-H1 24P (where P = 24 Progressively Scanned frames) is stretching it just a little bit. Yes, I agree. it would be a lie. But thats because you'll be using the term incorrectly.
- Calling the XL-H1 24P (where P = 24 Progressively Recorded frames) is an absolute truth and uses the term 24p correctly.
It all boils down to education and terminology. Knowing how things work and when to say what and how to say it. If 24P is determined by whats happening on the chip, then heck, technically there's no such thing as a TRUE 24P video camcorder. See what I mean?

- ShannonRawls.com

Edited by ShannonRawls, 02 January 2006 - 03:35 PM.

  • 0

#9 Brian Wells

Brian Wells
  • Sustaining Members
  • 438 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 January 2006 - 03:42 PM

- Calling the XL-H1 24P (where P = 24 Progressively Recorded frames) is an absolute truth and uses the term 24p correctly.

By your definition we should call the XL1, GL1, and GL2 30P cameras because they have Frame Mode, right?
  • 0

#10 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 03:53 PM

Yes Brian, you absolutely can. And as a matter of fact... MANY PEOPLE DO.

Now.... here's the bigger question.....do they suck when making it? Many people will say YES! Is the cadence of the 30 crappy & blurry frames as nice as the 30p on, let's say, a DVX100a with a Leica Lens and correct shutter speeds? NO.

Brian,

Allow me to make it easier to understand...
Ask yourself this...

Are PAL DV cameras 25p or not?

Simple question. *smile*

- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#11 Brian Wells

Brian Wells
  • Sustaining Members
  • 438 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 January 2006 - 03:59 PM

Yes Brian, you absolutely can. And as a matter of fact... MANY PEOPLE DO.

Okay. I understand exactly what you're saying. I simply don't agree with you. Cheers.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 January 2006 - 05:13 PM

I don't agree either. What matters is temporal sampling rate -- is motion truly sampled 24 times per second as whole frames (i.e. progressive-scan) or not? To me, that's what 24P capture means. The camera may record that motion capture as 60i or 24PsF (as with the Sony F900) or 60P (as with the Varicam) or whatever, but anything that doesn't sample reality 24 times per second as whole frames is "fake" 24P -- IN MY OPINION.

Otherwise, anything can be called 24P just by how it's processed in post. You can take a 50i capture, slow it down to 48i, convert it into progressive-scan frames, record it as 24P and call it "true" 24P. It's not.

Sampling reality 48, 50, or 60 times per second and processing that information to create 24 frames is not true 24P.
  • 0

#13 Brian Wells

Brian Wells
  • Sustaining Members
  • 438 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 January 2006 - 05:57 PM

If it were genuine 24P, you could use a 1/24th shutter speed. The XL-H1 can't.
  • 0

#14 Tomas Koolhaas

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 06:38 PM

Hi,
I hate to disagree with you Shannon but unfortunately I do! I have used the Xl1 and 2 many times and not only does frame mode reduce vertical resolution but it simply does not look the same or better than true progressive scan! Outside of any technical argument it is evident fom looking at both types of footage with the naked eye -frame mode versus 24p capture (regardless of how it is recorded to tape, pulldown etc) it is evident with the naked eye on any size monitor that frame mode doesn't look as good as, or the same as, progressive scan. It is true that it looks more like it than regular interlace footage but it is not the same or better. I would also agree that the way the image is captured to the camera's chip is more important to the way it looks than the way it is recorded on to tape. Many cameras capture using 24 whole frames scanned progressively and record to tape using pulldowns of various kinds, they all look more like true progressive scan than any frame mode I have ever seen/used. I haven't used or done any research into the cannon you metioned but can't believe that any frame mode would be better than true progressive scan, no matter how it is recorded to tape. Also, I don't know if you mentioned whether or not the 24f you mentioned decreases resolution at all?
Cheers.

Edited by Tomas Haas, 02 January 2006 - 06:39 PM.

  • 0

#15 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 06:59 PM

Sampling reality 48, 50, or 60 times per second and processing that information to create 24 frames is not true 24P.

Then David, you agree that there is no TRUE 24p video camera, correct? If you beleive that, then I'll beleive that with you. How's that?

Additionally David, nobody said anything about "Processing in Post" Hell, if thats the case then my little 1994 Hi8 handycam camera is really a TRUE 35mm Film camera since I can do a film-out with it if I want. *smile*
Goodness, why do you guys insist on putting words in my mouth? To have a point? Just to argue?
Listen........ I said "RECORDING" not post production or scanning is what defines 24P. And that's a FACT! undeniably!
_____________________________
And Brian....*shakin' my head*

If it were genuine 24P, you could use a 1/24th shutter speed. The XL-H1 can't.

News for Brian....
XL-H1 = 1/3, 1/6, 1/12, 1/24, 1/48, 1/60, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000, 1/4000, 1/8000, 1/15000, and Clear Scan shutter speeds.

Education is KEY!

I know you didn't know that and you're taking wild guesses in this conversation to stay afloat. Hopefully you'll leave here learning someting you didn't know before. But it's ok guys. No problem. I'm not here to make enemies or argue even though you're summations are incorrect. Because we all know this is subjective anyhow.....There is no right or wrong answer....only opinion. I would love to stay and educate some more but there has to be better things we can talk about, like the picture quality the camera produces. How about that?

Now, as professional DP's and Camera Operators (which your profiles say you are), Then tell me, what would you do:
1. Pick a HD camera that costs under $10k that scans progressive and creates an OK 24p picture
or
Pick a HD camera that costs under $10k that scans interlaced and creates the BEST 24p picture on the market?

We can talk science 'till the sun turns into a white dwarf, but the proof is in the pudding, ageed? And the the fact is this Canon XL-H1 camera produces probably "THE BEST LOOKING" 24 progressive frames per second High Definition film-like motion and movie-like temporal color image for under $55,000.00 as of January 1st, 2006 and probably will retain that crown until a better 2/3" chip camera is released.

Now, who challenges that statement?
Forget about the nerdy mathematics of how it does it, let's get down to the nitty gritty----? The Final Picture.

- ShannonRawls.com

Hi,
I hate to disagree with you Shannon but unfortunately I do! I have used the Xl1 and 2 many times and not only does frame mode reduce vertical resolution but it simply does not look the same or better than true progressive scan!


What on earth are you talking about? Are you guys even READING what I am saying, or are you so anxious to reply, you'll just say ANYTHING. Who said the XL1 frame mode looks the same or better then XL2?? Please scroll up with your mouse, and RE-READ what I said about XL1, GL1, GL2 frame mode.

My god.

Don't just argue with me to argue. Have something to stand on.

- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 January 2006 - 07:00 PM

Then David, you agree that there is no TRUE 24p video camera, correct? If you beleive that, then I'll beleive that with you. How's that?


What are you talking about? Cameras like the Sony F900, Varicam, DVX100, etc. when set to 24P mode actually DO sample motion 24 times per second (or 23.98) as whole frames -- they just don't RECORD the information that way. The Sony F900 splits the 24 frames into fields and stores it that way (24PsF, which is actually 48i storage but they don't want people to think it was captured at 48i.) The Varicam at 24P mode stores the information with extra frames added as 60P/720. The DVX100 adds pulldown to convert 24P to 60i/480 for storage.

But all these cameras actually sample in progressive scan at 24 fps. THEY (1) HAVE PROGRESSIVE SCAN CCD's and (2) THEY SAMPLE 24 TIMES PER SECOND. Unlike the Canon XL-H1, which samples 48 times per second as fields and then processes this to become 24P (which is why they don't call it a 24P camera.)

It doesn't really matter if the Sony F900 or Varicam doesn't actually store the 24P information as 24P on tape as long as 24P can be recontructed in some way. This is not possible with the Canon XL-H1 since it does not begin as a 24P capture. It just creates 24P from a 48i capture (using other tricks to keep the vertical resolution from dropping too much, like pixel shift.)

Edited by David Mullen, 02 January 2006 - 07:04 PM.

  • 0

#17 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 07:14 PM

David,

You're right...I'm wrong.

Can we talk about someting else.

Let's talk picture and imaging

Cool?

- ShannonRawls.com
  • 0

#18 Brian Wells

Brian Wells
  • Sustaining Members
  • 438 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 January 2006 - 07:34 PM

Shannon,

That is definitely news to me about the 1/24th shutter speed.

I'm looking forward to your eventual review of the 24P modes of the HVX200 compared to the XL-H1 24F.

Cheers.
  • 0

#19 Tomas Koolhaas

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 08:08 PM

- ShannonRawls.com
What on earth are you talking about? Are you guys even READING what I am saying, or are you so anxious to reply, you'll just say ANYTHING. Who said the XL1 frame mode looks the same or better then XL2?? Please scroll up with your mouse, and RE-READ what I said about XL1, GL1, GL2 frame mode.

My god.

Don't just argue with me to argue. Have something to stand on.

- ShannonRawls.com
[/quote]

Hi,
There's no need to get personal or upset here, I re-read your comment and the point you were making was that frame mode capture converted to 24p looks better than in camera 24p capture, and that if a camera captures 24frames progressively scanned to the chip and records to tape using a pulldown it is not "True" 24p, but if it captures 48 fields and converts it and records it as 24p it is true 24p, and that most people consider a GL1 to be 30p?? or have I miss read you comments.
I was disagreeing with you in a calm and respectful manner, mainly based on my uses of the cameras and modes in question, and as you say I wasn't useing "Nerdy maths" just how they look to the human eye.
I Really think people need to relax a little and not take these discussions as a personal attack, we can dissagree without any need for anger.
Cheers.

Edited by Tomas Haas, 02 January 2006 - 08:12 PM.

  • 0

#20 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 08:51 PM

Tomas, I am calm. This is the Internet. Anybody who actually gets mad or yells in front of their computer screen may need to log off and go watch some TV or something. *smile* I was using capital letters to enphasize how you were way off base with everythng I've said and seemingly still are. Even moreso now then before. It seems you are generalizing and exagerating my words to try and have a point. It's painfully obvious.

Ok Tomas, since we are discussing the XL-H1 in the XL-H1 forum here at this wonderful website. Let's not discuss the GL1, GL2, XL1 or any other uncompararable cameras. Let's talk only about cameras that are remotely comparable to the Canon XL-H1, the XL-H1 itself and its capability of recording 24p footage to minidv cassette, calmly, agreed?

Ok....

I know you said you have used an XL1 and XL2 and are commenting on Frame mode for the XL-H1. But do you own one? and have you ever seen/used the XL-H1. I don't think you do or have, but I may be wrong. Me personally, I happen to own an XL1s and a DVX100a. Also a Sony TRV17 a JVC DV500 a Sony Z1U and a Canon XL-H1. These are the cameras I know inside and out, up and down and all around. So when I speak on these cameras I'm not telling you what I heard or googled to read on the internet. Nor am I telling you what I've 'tried out' a few times. I'm telling you what I know.

Now, are there any questions, concerns or reservations you have in regards to the Canon XL-H1 HD camcorder, it's method of recording 24p footage or the picture quality of that footage or anytihng you wish to know about?

Talk to me.

- ShannonRawls.com

Edited by ShannonRawls, 02 January 2006 - 08:53 PM.

  • 0


Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineLab

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

CineTape

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal