Jump to content


Photo

24F


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 17 September 2006 - 10:55 AM

I was looking at the specs on this camera and I notice it days "24F capable"?Is this virtually the same thing as 24P?
  • 0

#2 Zamir Merali

Zamir Merali
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Director

Posted 17 September 2006 - 11:55 AM

No, the difference is actually pretty huge. 24p, like on the xl2 camera is actually 24 frames per second taken progressivley by the ccd's. 24f is canons way of saying that the ccd's are actually taking 60 interlaced frames persecond and it is then using software to make it look like 24p. The two have different looks and 24f will lose some resolution. People say that the 24f on the xl-h1 is really good though.
  • 0

#3 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:39 PM

For whatever it's worth this is a frame grab from some 24f footage someone posted when the camera first came out.

Posted Image
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:16 PM

No, the difference is actually pretty huge. 24p, like on the xl2 camera is actually 24 frames per second taken progressivley by the ccd's. 24f is canons way of saying that the ccd's are actually taking 60 interlaced frames persecond and it is then using software to make it look like 24p. The two have different looks and 24f will lose some resolution. People say that the 24f on the xl-h1 is really good though.


It's better than that -- they change the clocking speed from 60 to 48 fields per second in order to make a cleaner conversion to 24 frames, and once they convert to 24 progressive frames, they leave it that way for recording rather than reconvert to 60 fields.

So it's a much better system that Sony's 24F CineFrame design which converts 60i to 24 frames and then converts it back to 60i again.

There is still a loss of vertical resolution though compared to a true 24P/1080 camera, but then you have to ask yourself what consumer HD cameras capture and record 24P/1080 with 1920 x 1080 CCD's... in other words, Canon's 24F HDV probably isn't as good as a pro HD camera that does true 24P/1080, but it is competitive with other HDV options.

You may also want to check out the JVC and Panasonic 24P/720 cameras though.
  • 0

#5 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:12 PM

I was looking at the specs on this camera and I notice it days "24F capable"?Is this virtually the same thing as 24P?

Yes
  • 0

#6 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 19 September 2006 - 11:31 AM

In my opinion 720p is better than 1080i. What Canon should have done was to offer a 720p camera capable of shooting 720p24 and 720p60 and call it a day. But since Canon offers no 720p camera there is no way to compare what the picture quality of the Canon could have been. Unfortunately 1080i sells cameras because people think they are getting higher resolution. Unfortunately picture quality does not sell cameras because if it did everyone would buy 720p. Now I am not saying that 1080F is bad. A lot of factors determine picture quality such as the quality of the camera and the lens etc. But I do not think that 1080F is better than 720p.
  • 0

#7 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 19 September 2006 - 03:14 PM

Guys,

Thomas has this thing for 720p and JVC. I think he/she is being paid to stir up the controversy to help sales of cameras that are strictly in the 720p format. He bounces around the more popular web forums standing on his soapbox trying to indoctrinate everyone with his 720p/jvc religion. When people come along and say "1080p60 is here today so what about that?", he then switches up and calls that Ultra Definition and says it doesn't qulify for HD. It's uterly ridiculous. He's a mole of some sort from somewhere.

He/She doesn't even own a camera or shoot or have any backstory or follow-through to who he/she is. Thomas James or Androbot2084 (as it goes by in other places) is just a screenname that popped up one day and began preaching...that's it.

He doesn't assist others in other questions, talk about sound or audio or even engage in any other meaningful discussion like lenses, post production workflows, recording formats, software, upcoming projects, personal experiences, or ANYTHNG else other then the 720p is better then 1080 & jvc is better then everyone else talk. Not to say that's illegal, but most 'discussion forum owners' consider that "trolling" and unwanted.

So just ignore him, or rather should I say... "it".

Edited by Mr. Shannon W. Rawls, 19 September 2006 - 03:17 PM.

  • 0

#8 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

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

Posted 19 September 2006 - 03:30 PM

But he's very polite. *smile*
  • 0

#9 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 October 2006 - 09:10 AM

Oh my gosh, he's invaded internet forums too? Perhaps that's not surprising. I know the name Androbot very well. He regularly enters the Yahoo photography chat room 'The Darkroom' under that name and preaches on and on about High Definition, basically repeating the same things over and over again. He's like a parrot. He has proven many times that he knows very little about photography and videography and often gets his facts wrong. By the way, the regulars of the yahoo photography chat room are sick of him and most place him on ignore when he enters the room.
  • 0

#10 Drew Bienemann

Drew Bienemann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 April 2007 - 05:24 PM

well, im sure he feels very welcome now.
  • 0

#11 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 07 April 2007 - 05:48 PM

It's pretty unfair picking on Thomas James like that, he is right, you know.
  • 0

#12 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 08 April 2007 - 08:01 AM

If the Canon camera uses adaptive deinterlacing to achieve 24F then the camera can weave 2 fields together and come up with an image that has 800 lines of resolution which is slightly better than 720p. However once fast motion is introduced weaving of the fields is impossible without creating horrible cog artifacts so the camera must discard every other field and resort to line doubling in order to generate 24F. However with line doubling the resolution is reduced to 540 lines which is worse quality than 720p.
  • 0

#13 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 08 April 2007 - 08:29 AM

Outside of all the technical mumble jumble in many responses (stuff that mostly means little to the answer) 24F is nearly if not indistinguishable to the human eye. Or at least mine with the projects I have shot with it or to a room of a few hundred others who could not tell the difference at a showign I went to once.
  • 0

#14 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 09 July 2007 - 02:04 PM

Outside of all the technical mumble jumble in many responses (stuff that mostly means little to the answer) 24F is nearly if not indistinguishable to the human eye.

And that's really where it counts isn't it?A friend of mine just bought one because she is partial to Canon,she already owned an SD XL 1.She said virtually the same thing,comparing it to Sony,JVC and Panasonic lines of similar machines.
  • 0

#15 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 09 July 2007 - 02:29 PM

But why buy an obsolete interlaced camcorder when you can get real progressive scanning?
  • 0

#16 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11939 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 July 2007 - 04:56 PM

Hi,

I wrote an article about this for Showreel; my conclusion was that the deinterlaced Canon image is probably still fractionally sharper than the native progressive JVC, but that probably has a lot more to do wth the lens than the chips. The Canon lens is very much better. That said, you can more easily put a decent lens on the JVC, and I found other aspects of the picture nicer.

Personally I would buy the JVC, but the Canon is very much sharper out of the box.

Phil
  • 0

#17 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:08 PM

According to research by the United States Department of Defense the apparent resolution of 720p outresolves 1080i. This was concluded after research with test subjects who were subjectively asked to pick out which was the sharpest image without knowing the format resolutions of the material they were looking at. Most of the time the test subjects declared that the 720p image looked sharper. Based on this research the Department of Defense picked the 720p format as the most reliable image to rely on to make key combat decisions. Also the Department of Defense declared the resolution mumber of the 1080i format does not accurately describe its true resolving capability and has proposed that the 1080i format be renamed 540i.

Deinterlacing the 1080i format really does not work. Bob Deinterlacing halves the resolution to 540p and weave deinterlacing introduces horrible cog artifacts caused by temporal displacements. Bob deinterlacing also causes damage to the picture making it unstable because it causes the picture to bob up and down.

Proponents of interlace scanning point to the over 50 year legacy of interlace broadcasting. However this is a very shamefull legacy. Originally broadcasting was all progressive and interlace scanning was chosen to improve resolution beyound the original 300 line system. Unfortunately all interlace did was to further damage picture quality and it faild to resolve its claimed 525 or 625 lines of resolution.
  • 0

#18 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11939 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 July 2007 - 10:24 PM

This is really absolutely ridiculous; there isn't a serious bob deinterlacer in use today that doesn't vertically resample to mitigate the instability produced by the technique.

This guy is a source of dangerous misinformation.

Phil
  • 0

#19 will griffith

will griffith
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2007 - 10:24 AM

That said, you can more easily put a decent lens on the JVC, and I found other aspects of the picture nicer.

The JVC with their 16mm PL mount looks mighty sharp. Have not done any side by side comparision though.
  • 0

#20 will griffith

will griffith
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2007 - 10:32 AM

This guy is a source of dangerous misinformation.

Take a look at his profile comments about JVC vs RED. Fan of RED or not it is funny how far this guys goes to sell his product.
Soon we may hear "JVC handgrip plastic is 7% more durable than ARRIFLEX D20", or "720p will soon take over DSLR market as format of choice".
:( Wish I had as much energy as Mr. James.
  • 0


Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

The Slider

CineTape

Abel Cine

Visual Products

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Opal