Hmmmm, interesting point Joe. I am only familiar with Adobe Premiere. Do you know of any other editing program that might offer at least the selection between 60i and 30FPS for transition effects?

Nope. 'Tis unfortunate. If you REALLY must have the effect, though, you can figure out which frames need it, export the frames into stills and then adjust the opacity in Photoshop, saving a new frame for each adjustment and then re-integrating it into the movie. A pain, but it does work.

Sorry to butt in on what seems like such a long discussion, one that I personally find academic. To Joe and Brad, if you're so obsessed with slow frame rates that you think it is the only thing that stands between your video looking like film why not do what I did. GET A PAL CAMERA!!! Sorry I didn't mean that as an angry shout, just a humble advertisement and an obvious solution.

Instead of kneeling in the dark, waiting, hoping, and praying that this panasonic thing will live up to the hype and doesn't disappoint you, just get a PAL XL1. I live in Utah and its not that much more expensive to go the PAL route. The computer doesn't care, and you will have your holy grail to great quality video making, a lower frame rate.

Sure its 25 fps and not 24, but I highly doubt you'll be able to tell the difference in a side by side comparison.

In my humble opinion lighting is much more important than frame rate. A well lit video at 30 fps will look much better that a poorly lit video or film at 24 fps. You've probably never seen a poorly lit film because even the lowest budget film tends to be fairly well lit.

Joe can vouch for me I've already done a LOT of research into getting a PAL version of the XL1 camera. :)

I ended up not doing it because all of the info I got on it pointed toward a bad conversion to NTSC reagarding the actual aspect ratio (which is slightly different), color and contrast. At this point I will hold off on the Panasonic or the Canon XL1 version of a 24FPS camera, but I would indeed be very interested in what you could share with us on how you convert PAL to NTSC. You may very well have a better solution than I've heard of. Your shared techniques/conversion process/equipment would be appreciated.\

(And I do agree with you that I don't think anyone would notice the difference between 24 and 25FPS.)

By way of clarification, and I REALLY don't want to raise the ire of anyone here, but frame rate aside, I think progressive scan is certainly a great leap forward. As I said before, I'm not enamoured of the interlacing jaggies. IMHO, I think this is a curse from the past. So, frame rate issues aside, please, please, please a true progressive scan camera with native 16:9 format at 30 or 60 FPS would be my ideal design. Of course an adjustable frame rate would be interesting approach, say 25p, 30p, 60p.

I understand the issues with television reqmts for interlacing. This could be handled by making an interlaced option from the 30p, much the reverse of how 30p is currently made from 30i. HDTV will eventually eliminate the need for interlacing altogether, so, there's no need to hang on to this NTSC reqmt for interlacing.

I work exclusively in the digital world, broadcast issues are not one of my considerations. I apologize, in advance, if I stepped on anyone's toes from the broadcast world.

Gents:

This is something I would like to be educated on, please tell me if I have this right: as NTSC is 60i (that is, 30 frames per second, each frame consisting of two interlaced fields), then isn't PAL 50i (25 fps with two interlaced fields)?

If this is the case, PAL video is only marginally closer to our "target" of 24p. The "frame movie mode" on the XL1, which simulates a 30p look, is much closer and thus why it has a more filmlike motion characteristic. 24p video is actually a bit on the jerky side when viewed raw--I've been interested in it from a film blowup perspective, which is where it would appear I'm in the minority on this board. I have heard that footage shot in the frame movie mode on the XL1 is much harder mathematically to create a 24 fps film blowup from than 60i NTSC, or PAL.

Regarding frame rate vs proper lighting as the primary factor in emulating a film presentation. Before there was frame movie mode and software like Cinelook, the best way to process video to give it the "film" treatment was to send it through the proprietary Filmlook process which cost something like $800 for 10 minutes of footage. I worked on a few projects that were Filmlooked, and so I saw the online cut before and after processing. Filmlook incorporated gamma correction, grain addition and other attributes but primarily it converted standard video into 24 fps footage which was then given a 3:2 conversion back into video. The material was shot and filtered and lit as much like film as I could give it. Until the application of Filmlook, it looked like good video. Afterwards, it fooled more than a few people into thinking it had originated on film.

Thus I stand firm on championing frame rate as a major contributor to achieving a film look. But all of the other factors listed above must be in place, or one is simply polishing a turd.

On the other side of the coin, shooting 35mm handheld with available light under conditions that would look like home movies if shot on video, can actually look beautiful. I worked (as the camera operator, not the DP) on a film called "American History X" a few years back which has been heralded for its look. I can attest to the fact that much of it was shot in this way, worth checking out on DVD (powerful movie in any event). Of course it wasn't just the fact that it was shot at 24 fps that made it beautiful, it was also 35mm filmstock.

I had the fortunate experience to attend the Santa Fe Film festival in the Fall. There was a category for DV, as, admittedly DV is not admitted into the "film" category. The three DV movies I saw were 30 minute shorts in the Western genre. Of these three, one was quite poorly lit, using an XL1 and available sunlight and shadows from vegetation...a VERY tough task for DV. The second short was mediocre, a little better. The last was filmed in southern Nm, out of doors and indoors under ambient light. Fill reflectors were used carefully. This movie was, IMHO, excellent and rivals film. I wish I could remember the title for reference. Facial close-ups were astounding and had a great deal of impact. All three were projected with a digital projector, and thus were not transposed to film. I wish I could share this experience with everyone here with actual footage. It would certainly convince all but the most skeptical.

Thanx to everyone for providing very useful input.

ahhhh...a little research provided the answer...the three films were as follows:

"Three Westerns shot in New Mexico: "Cuatro," an eerie vision of horsemen on an apocalyptic mission, directed by Jason Balas, "Cristobal," exploring the aftermath of Pancho Villa's raid on Columbus, NM, directed by Keith Sherman, and "Gold, Ghouls and Gals," in which prospectors meet a vampire, directed by Malcolm Ward. "

Out of consideration to the principals, I won't identify which is which.

Gentlemen,

I'm in a hotel room in Orlando (the PMA show) stuck with WebTV for net access and it sucks. Lots to say but impossible to type on this keyboard. Will try to follow up ASAP, getting some examples of "film-like" (ugh) 60i video from colleagues here. I still think color & depth of field (i.e. lighting) and a camera that moves like it has some mass behind it is the key to the 35mm look, more so than framerate. My opinion I guess. Apologies for the absence,

The factors you mention will definitely add quality to a video production, but it will still look like it was sourced on video without that magical frame rate. If you prove me wrong I will send you an extra 1 hour battery for the XL1... the battery that comes with it. I don't need it and it works fine, but I should offer something! :)

Web TV is the best thing to ever happen to the internet! OK maybe not.

Chris, I would be very interested in seeing some of your examples, even though I still find it hard to believe, I'm always open to checking things out.

I've got an awful lot of server space and bandwidth. I'll gladly host some downloads for you of your examples if you need. :)

If you get TechTV they had an interesting take on all this. The future state of Holloywood will be to get away from film altogether and send the product by satellite to your neighborhood theatre (or theater).

I think that may take a while as Hollywood would have to invest *heavily* in new state-of-the-art hardware. Such high end cams are extremely expensive, though it drops the cost of production dramatically.

So I guess the real question is, is the new Panasonic offering harbinger of change from 30 fps to 24?

Nathan Gifford

TA-DAAAAAA!!

I would be interested in the 24p camera by panosonic, ill be at NAB 2002 and
be looking into buying one there if i am impressed with the image quality.

I agree that lighting is key for shooting good video or film.

I am doing some experiments using the XL1 with lighting and achived
very good quality video shooting frame mode and convertingto 24frames
rather than 30 in post. Im using frame mode and get a image almost
identical to film. its all in the lighting.

but its also the un video like mood you get to achive a serious feel to your
story....

check out this link:

www.shincthemovie.com

check out the trailer....
this is a good example of really good lighting and staging.....but
it still looks like video for some reason...like they didnt shoot in frame mode
using the XL1....(this was shot with an XL1)

I can show examples of my experiments if anyone is interested in seeing the
film quality i achieved with DV.

Hey _redone_ I'm not sure I can read whatever foreign language that site is in (Italian?) so I can't find anything to download.

But I am interested in the technique that you use to convert 30fps Frame Mode into 24fps material. How do you do it? I would like to play with this method.

umm im not sure what site your looking at
thus i dont think i posted a URL.

but yeah ill post some samples on my server....

basically i shoot my footage in frame mode 30p
and take i tinto after effects for color correction and
some cinelook.....

then i change the after effect settings to play at 24p frame rate.

then i render the scene...
when you output make sure the timeline is set back to 30fps
or is already set...

the reason for this is i found i get a real sharp motion with 30fps
output..so i tried 24p and it looks more...realistic maybe..

anyway ill have some samples at

www.agentorangeclothing.com/sample1.jpg
www.agentorangeclothing.com/sample2.jpg


this will show the difference between before and after..
before post and after post..

thanks..

The trailer is @
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/produccion/SHInc.%20trailer%20v1.0.avi

Extra movies of the making of:
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/postproduccion/f1shinc2.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof008.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof009.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof010.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof016.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof017.avi

easy to find Joe, even if you do not understand the language!

i agree we should wait and see on this one...but just a few things to remember. someone said up above there have been issues with panasonic cameras....the only things that negatives on the mx 3000 is the the low lighting lux (very bad) and like the gl 1, trv 900, it has a 1/4 chip. other than that, it's the first 3 ccd that has truely trivaled the canons color's and feel.

but with this new cam, it's 1/3, and has low lighting specs to match the sony's. also, the only feature to be a real plus for the pd- 150 is the xlr/phantom power, witch this one will have. i'm a former sound studio dude, so i know how to appreciate the true xlr, not going through an 1/8th of an inch adapter like on the xl1.

what i've wanted is a ultra compact 1/3 chip because i'm about to do ALOT of traveling, and carrying the xl 1 in my prota brace bag has gotten very old...not meant for solo adventures airport after airport, especially if your alone. i was waiting to see if the gl 1 was going to up grade, but this panasonic sounds like the solution, even without the 24p.

i can't wait...

ahh

joe-

didnt know you were looking for schinc site...thought you meant
something else..but the guy up top posted some links.

if anyone wants to check out alot of big films made with DV
go to

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/bullfront.html

I wish there was a way to get a hold of some of these
since some of them are independent.
but some of their sites have trailers and such..

about steve soderburg in chris' email...yes, content is king, but the image quality (i'm a major film buff, and just shot a feature on 16mm) is very important, at least for a lot of folks...the feel of it all can take us to another platue...imagine the Godfather films on mini dv. still a great story, but half of it was the beautiful film look they produced...i'm not saying the 24p will take care of all that, but it's a pretty decent step in that direction.

and for those who say the video look will always suck, i suggest you look at the dream sequences in Dancer In the Dark...true, he replaced the lense of the pd 100's with custom made lenses for each (and he used 100 cameras...check out the link:)

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-09-01/screens_set4.html

Here's some new info on the Panasonic 24p MiniDV camera...not too shabby looking!

Looking forward to seeing it at NAB tomorrow, I'm sure Chris and others of us will be posting a "first look" shortly.

Sorry kids, forgot the link...


http://www.panasonic.co.jp/bsd/sales_o/dvworld/html/ag-dvx100.html

http://www.panasonic.co.jp/bsd/sales_o/wallpaper/wall_dvx100.jpg

Very interesting. It's a -much- smaller design than I expected. The page's text reads a bit like a design wish list rather than a production spec. I wonder what it will sell for and when it will be available. I suppose those questions will be answered after the Vegas show.

Thanks very much for sharing this, Charles!

I read through as much of the posts I could stomach. Most of these points are brought up time and time again. Some very good discussion but I think one thing is missing in this thread.

24p isn't the only (and not the most effective) way to make some "look" like film. And in fact it's the last thing I would want the camera development world to focus on. The most glaring difference between the look of film and video is the way video and film treat depth of field.

Video looks like video because of the fairly small chips that receive the image. Because of that video has a much wider depth of field. Very thing is turns out crisp and sharp (in film world lingo "high contrast). 35mm film has a shallower depth of field. The great advantage of that is that it softens the background (or foreground) while keeping your desired subject in focus and separated from the "noise" of the background or foreground elements.

(of course there are tricks around this, but these are all tricks and don't always work in every circumstance and are still just tricks)

So the best thing that camera makers can do is to work on developing larger chip blocks (like in digital still cameras) that can spit out the frame rate and put on a tape or HD medium. I'd rather see a high frame rate like 60p. It's mesmerizing looking at HD on a large screen.

If you want to see the difference take a look at this site and this adapter:

www.mini35.com

Check out the examples.

I just bought one of these (they are very expensive more than the xl1 rig itself) and the image just blows any video camera out of the water. It's amazing.

Some people don't notice the difference, I do. I like the things I want in focus to be in focus and the less important things softer and out of focus. I want to be able to play with the depth of field in 3 dimensions and create a beautiful image. Not just capture crisp high contrast relativity.

This is what makes many great photographs so artistic - the painterly softness of the different subjects in the frame.

Okay, now you can flame away.

Justin:

This whole debate has come into my sights again very recently as I am prepping a feature which was originally slated for Super 16 and has now moved to some sort of digital for eventual output to 35mm.

I've met with some of the houses that do the film-out and screened their demos of formats ranging from DV to HD. Certainly one of the factors that I am taking note of is the depth-of-field characteristic, and how it affects the footage. There is no question that it is a powerful tool in the 35mm world that is largely absent in DV and only partially available in the 2/3" formats. Often the decision is made on digital to use a telephoto focal length in an attempt to achieve shallow focus; to me that is a significant decision and should not be made lightly. Often telephoto has a way of distancing us from the action at hand, making us feel outside the dynamic. If that is a desirable aesthetic, then it's all good--but sometimes it may not be, and there's no way to throw the background out on a 1/3" chip at a medium to wide angle. The Mini 35 is an interesting solution and I look forward to seeing its second generation at NAB.



Now, that said, I am going to throw my two cents on this incredibly subjective issue. I feel that frame rate has a much more significant effect on the viewer in cueing a narrative "film-esque" response than depth of field. I would submit "Citizen Kane" as an example of extreme depth in an unquestionably cinematic piece of work. Gregg Tolland labored with split diopters and minimum apertures to achieve an extensive depth of field that is available to every XL1 owner just by turning on the camera. Would those same shots feel as cinematic if they were shot on DV (with a standard lens) vs 35? I'm voting no on that one. Would a 24 fps motion characteristic close the gap? For me, yes. As another related argument, 16mm and HD have roughly similarly depth of field characteristics, and I feel there is still a world of difference between them.

I see the arguments on this issue falling essentially into two camps: old school and new school. I have not yet heard anyone who shoots and works with film consider 24p to be less desirable than 60i, and I have seen a majority of those who work in the digital and computer worlds decry it as unnecessary and a step backwards.

The real question is what will the public respond to, and can they tell the difference. Years of watching movies shot on film vs the evening news and reality programming shot on video have conditioned the viewers into responding differently to the mediums--and my conviction is that it is largely the frame rate that separates the two (even if the video footage is nicely lit and composed). If that dynamic changes in the future, and I have a strong hunch that future generations will embrace a higher frame rate without prejudice, I can generously imagine 24 fps media eventually being considered hopelessly old-fashioned and jerky.

Justin, I admit I have not seen 60i HD projected yet, only 24p HD transferred to 35mm. I'm actually not exceptionally fond of some of the motion artifacts that 24p delivers, it doesn't quite resemble footage that originated on 35mm negative in that regard, and its hard to say why. I do however have issues with the clarity of HD when it comes to storytelling; it's a serious challenge on a makeup level and extra pains must be taken to make actors look as good as we are used to seeing them (video has never been as flattering to skintones as film, and HD brings new meaning to the phrase "warts and all"!) For nature films and travelogues, the kind of the things that Imax has succeeded at, I can see great use for projected 60i HD--the sense of immediacy can only inform that sort of product. For transporting the audience away from reality, for now I'm convinced it requires a lesser frame rate.

Sorry, my two cents seems to have grown into at least a buck fifty...!

Sorry, was about to edit one little bit of that and hit the post button too early...

When I suggested that a 24 frame rate would "close the gap" between footage from Citizen Kane shot on 35mm vs DV, I meant to say it would begin to close the gap, not succeed in doing it all the way. DV ain't 35mm, no way no how!

Charles,

I guess I should have said, "IMHO" at the start of the post.

I totally agree with you. Most of these things are subjective. I guess it's my visual preference to have a shallow depth of field (or more appropriately, more control over it). Simply an artistic taste and I didn't really mean to turn this into yet another debate.

I would add that Citizen Kane's shooting style is - exactly that - a shooting style. Obviously, Orson Wells and Gregg Toland created a visual makeup and style that permeated throughout the film. Something we can all aspire to. It's film story telling at it's best.

Probably the most important thing to keep in mind is to create a visual statement with your film that fits the subject of your film. Lighting, cinematography, editing etc. are all joined to create mood, tone and energy on screen.

I personally don't care what format anyone uses. Just make it work for your project. It's the end product that counts.

Oh, and on a more uninteresting note, the split diopter technique is used to some degree still and it rarely works as well as in Citizen Kane. Perhaps because Citizen Kane was B/W. One film comes to mind, "The Last Castle" with Robert Redford. I suspect they used a diopter to give James Gandolfini and Redford "equal" weight on screen. I think it just stuck out like a sore thumb. Gandolfini (in the background) in focus and Redford (in the foreground) in focus and everything in between out of focus with a subtle line cutting in-between.

In the end I'd like to hear more about everyone's take on what did and didn't work in their favorite films. More of an aesthetic discussion rather than the never ending debate over technology. But I guess I have to go to the TOTEM Poll to get that...

Cheers.

Oh, and great work on Scrubs. I like the show. :)

Justin:

Yeah, that split diopter is a bear. It's always a struggle to get the line of demarcation (love bandying that phrase around at cocktail parties) to disappear into some generic background. The slant focus lenses are a bit easier but limited, and I have had some luck with the swing and tilt lenses but they tend to be so unwieldy unless you have the time to fiddle...

Thanks for digging "Scrubs", it's a lot of fun to work on. Check out John Ritter's guest role on this week's episode, he was a total hoot.

I still not quite sure what the mechanism for packaging 24 fps data into the DV format spec is. How does one edit the 24 fps footage shot with the new Panasonic camera?

Additionally, if the 24P footage is the same resolution as the 30P footage shot with the camera, why would anyone want to shoot 24P, other than for a planned blow-up to film? Why drop data, when saving it incurs no expense?

And that looks like a really chintzy lens assembly on the Panasonic, too. I think the XL1s is still the machine to beat.

Here's to hoping that the Canon XL2 is a prosumer version of Sony's HDW-F900 Cinealta, and that Canopus's next edit board is a prosumer 24P hidef editing suite that fits into a standard Wintel box. Such products would *really* be the democritizing revolutions forecasted by Coppola and others back in the '70s.

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert K S : ...Additionally, if the 24P footage is the same resolution as the 30P footage shot with the camera, why would anyone want to shoot 24P, other than for a planned blow-up to film? Why drop data, when saving it incurs no expense? -->>>

Well, there ya go. I have been wondering the same.

"I still not quite sure what the mechanism for packaging 24 fps data into the DV format spec is. How does one edit the 24 fps footage shot with the new Panasonic camera? "

you edit like you would any other video ... you only need special software if you want to remove the 3:2 so it end up at 24fps for a transfer to film

"Additionally, if the 24P footage is the same resolution as the 30P footage shot with the camera, why would anyone want to shoot 24P, other than for a planned blow-up to film?"

you answered your own question ! 24p is for transfer to film AND at that point it can be converted to any other medium - ntsc , pal , HD , dvd etc ...

"Why drop data, when saving it incurs no expense? "

the savings? is the direct transfer to film

"And that looks like a really chintzy lens assembly on the Panasonic, too. I think the XL1s is still the machine to beat. "

so you judge a book by the cover ? i saw the photo and it didn't look chintzy to me ... the GL1 , Xl1 , vx2K, pd150, jvc streamer, panasonic dvc100 are all different - what you like on the XL 1 might NOT be right for me ( i choose the gl - i found the XL draws too much attention to it when shooting in street) .. i buy a camera to suit my needs/project - $$ is 2ndary ... IMO all these under $5K camera's are throw -away - you buy it -shoot your project..and after 1 1/2 -2 years you got your $$ worth , SO on to the NEXT camera ...
there is a camera for ALL budgets ! my budget might call for a pd150 , yours a dsr 500 , others arricam ....

"Here's to hoping that the Canon XL2 is a prosumer version of Sony's HDW-F900 Cinealta, "

dream ON ...


"Such products would *really* be the democritizing revolutions forecasted by Coppola and others back in the '70s."

DV is that revolution ... today anybody can make a MOVIE ! finance it themselves and edit it at home ... you don't need the 900 cinealta to join the revolution !!!!!!!!!

"DV is that revolution ... today anybody can make a MOVIE ! finance it themselves and edit it at home ... you don't need the 900 cinealta to join the revolution!"

DV is great, but we've yet to see a DV-to-film transfer enjoy the same kind of release as 35 mm and 24P productions (excepting, perhaps, the upcoming Full Frontal). Besides, if you want to do a DV-to-film transfer, PAL XL1s have been available for years. Who needs 24P when 25P can be transferred to 24P film with no perceptable difference?

Small chips lack the dynamic range (latitude) and range of depth-of-field that film formats and HD video posess. Folks in Hollywood love to see great films made regardless of format, but it's difficult to get a good film taken seriously by distributors unless it's shot on a high-res medium. (The only DV film I've seen receive any kind of worthwhile release was last year's Center of the World.)

There's really no technical reason why 24P HD chips can't be mass-produced and stuck into modified XL1s, except that no video manufacturer would want to undercut the profits of their lines of professional gear.

With HD NLE for the PC, bandwidth, storage, and compression still pose stifling technical hurdles, but with the clock speeds of motherboards keeping pace with processor speeds, this limitation will cease to exist in a year or two.

At every video show I've gone to, I've called on the Canon and Canopus reps to get in gear and start the big revolution. Prosumer HD. Let's see it.

You're correct when you say that DV films don't enjoy a wide print release into theaters.

I think the great thing about DV and accessible editing gear is that it allows filmmakers of all shapes and sizes exercise their creative muscles. You don't need to rent or buy expensive gear.

With that said, this is like the desktop publishing revolution we experienced with the Macintosh. Soon everyone felt they could design a brochure, books, business materials anything that goes to print. You then saw a lot of badly designed print materials.

Out of any revolution like this you then begin to see many people grow and learn through their experience and dedication.

I'd rather hone my skills with video before I jump into burning money by the foot with 35mm.

Plus, there are a lot of other uses for DV (consumer/prosumer) cameras besides a narrative film. Documentary filmmaking is one of them, artistic, real life, events, or even weddings. More people make a living in these fields then ever before. And in turn more broadcasters are broadcasting this level of filmmaking.

"DV is great, but we've yet to see a DV-to-film transfer enjoy the same kind of release as 35 mm and 24P productions "


the dv films that have had theatrical release IMO would have done NO better in release if they had been shoot on FILM ! so far most have been "art type movie's" or small nitch movie" ...

a studio spends 10-30 million on advertising for a MOVIE that they think they can make $$. a small FILM that a studio doesn't think they can market to a large audience just is NOT going to get the advertising $$ so it will play on 20 screens and something they think they can market to masses will get 2000 screen release ... THIS is a BUSINESS it's NOT art nor is it democracy ..ALSO a studio might put up a 30 -60 million budget for a movie and You better believe they are going to market that MOVIE to get their $$ back!!! if you put up 30-60 million you are NOT going to have it shot on DV !!! you didn't see steven S ask for big $$ for full frontal and it has a 20million star (julia roberts ) that got SAG minimum !

a dv movie by a nobody with nobody actors/actresses made for 10K is going to get a small release !!


"Who needs 24P when 25P can be transferred to 24P film with no perceptable difference? "

the USA needs 24P ... just read these threads over the past year persons have been BEGGING for a 24p mini dv ....

"There's really no technical reason why 24P HD chips can't be mass-produced and stuck into modified XL1s, except that no video manufacturer would want to undercut the profits of their lines of professional gear"


there is much more to it .. CCD's are difficult to make - look at the canon GL and the HOT pixel problem using cheap ccd's!!!
HD chips are VERY expensive .. then you need electronics ..
and EVEN more then that you need a MARKET .. 24p is only used by hollywood and that is a very small market compared to the masses of the world that buy camcorders . the MASSES of the WORLD are PAL & NTSC - that's 25fps and 29.97fps -ALL those TV's in the world will NOT play back 24P ..just like ALL the worlds 35mm projectors run at 24 or 25 and IMO that is why we are STUCK with those 2 speeds !!!! in the end you must convert to what the masses have in their hands and currently that is VHS and a 19" TV ..true DVD is coming on strong ...
HD TV in the US is so slow !!! just not catching on ??

"but it's difficult to get a good film taken seriously by distributors unless it's shot on a high-res medium. (The only DV film I've seen receive any kind of worthwhile release was last year's Center of the World.) "

this is a BIG lie ... most distributors are followers. they are looking for a SAFE product that they know can make $$ ... anytime a distributors tells you there is NO market for a dv/video movie READ between the lines - he's really saying HE can "NOT" make any $$ from your movie! ...

NOTICE if a distributor thinks they can make $$$$$$$$$ from your/a movie. it doesn't matter what it was shot on - they will get it to what ever format they need for it to make them $$$$$ ...it doesn't matter if it is GOOD/BAD - most important "is it marketable" again this is a BUSINESS !! bottom line is $$$

People always grouse over when is the industry going to introduce a DVD camcorder. I do not see why.

In order to use DVD you really need a VBR (Variable Bit Rate). The compressionist makes use of this when he is creating the DVD. Higher bit rates are used for faster action and lower rates for less actions.

To my way of thinking that is going to be a little hard to set while shooting. Maybe advanced software will be able to select this automatically one day.

From what limited information I have seen on the new Panasonic offering is the best thing it *MAY* have added is a stock wide lens. If there is something I wish the XL-1 had is the ability to shoot wide screen.

As far as telecining to 35mm goes, big deal. 35mm is going to die. Economics will fuel this faster than anything else...as soon as the technology gets here...and it is not that far away.

When DV makes it to the moviehouse (the next victim), Hollywood will not have to ship movies all they will do send them by satellite. Tremendous cost savings and maximizes profits.

The other thing about the new Panasonic offering is that it seems to support both NTSC and 24P. It will be interesting to see the technology of how they do that.

Nathan Gifford

"The other thing about the new Panasonic offering is that it seems to support both NTSC and 24P. It will be interesting to see the technology of how they do that."

That's what I was asking. It may be something as simple as a hardware 3:2 pulldown.

Go to the panasonic website and drool over the HD cameras. ONLY $60K!!! Think I'll write a check. Chump change for a movie studio. But, it's coming.

was at NAB yesterday checking out the Sony and Panasonic models
of the Hi-Def 24p cameras...Wow, very nice...was able to work with them hands on and they are amazing especially the image quality.
also saw the prototype for the 24p mini DV, they said retail itll be around 3499.00, not bad for what it is..will be available around the end of September, what a wonderful b-day present that would be! better notify my
girlfreind. hehe

My birthday is in september too ;-)

I've been wanting a XL1S since last year - have the money - but no real need for the camcorder right now. Now it looks like I'll be getting the DVX100 instead.

Can't wait for the complete specs. It could be a wet dream for anybody who does VFX with MiniDV - like me.

Just hope that lens has a true manual lens. It looks like it could have - it has manual iris control on the lens barrel - complete with LENS MARKINGS!!! Panasonic should go the whole way and have true manual focus and zoom. I want to rack that focus like crazy!

A true manual lens that´s nice and wide at 32.5mm, 24p, dual XLR's with controls on the camera body, 3.5 inch LCD, fake 16:9 (native is out of the question), 2 ND filters, no auto shut-off, 16:9 lines in 4:3 like the XL1S - and I'm SOOOOO there!!!!

This camera could be the greatest indie camcorder EVER!

Nielzen

Just returned from NAB, saw the Panasonic 24p Mini-DV...well, saw the non-functioning mockup, anyway. Definitely a disappointment not to see what kind of pictures it could make.

As far as the questions posted here--yes, it does incorporate 3:2 pulldown circuitry. The explanation I was given was that it shoots and records native 60p, then flags frames to be dropped/repeated if set at 24p to trigger the 3:2 processing. Thus it can be viewed and fed into an editing system etc. in a normal fashion.

The lens does incorporate true manual zoom and focus, no electronic linkage like on the stock XL1 lens. The iris control is just aft of the lens and uses a rotary dial with f-stops appearing in the eyepiece, similar to the XL1 (that's actually conjecture, the viewfinder was non-functional). I suggested to the product manager that it should have gearing cut into the lens rings to support follow focus, external zoom controllers etc. but he was indifferent ("let them buy the high end cameras if they want that!"), as if that would be actually hard to do...not! The chips are 4:3, the front element is 72mm which will require new anamorphic adaptors, wide angle adaptors etc...

Basically, it feels like a bit of a crap shoot. Outside of the feature set listed on that press release, there wasn't too much more to learn about the camera by handling the mockup. We'll have to wait a few more months to see what kind of picture it delivers.

Thanks for the report steadihiccup! :) It's amazing the amount of hype they've been able to build up with just a wooden mock-up. Well, all eyes are on them now and if the picture quality doesn't succeed then everybody is going to be REALLY disappointed and I hope the press lets 'em have it. It had better live up!

It's simply astonishing how some OEM's consistently just miss the mark. Panasonic and JVC come instantly to mind. With a few tweaks, some of their CONsumer stuff would classify as PROsumer. Oh well, like the sales rep said....if they want pro, let them eat pro prices.

From the litterature (no misspelling) Panasonic seems to suggest that it would incorporate wide angle into the lens. I guess I was reading too much into that.

It is nice to know that it is using 72mm lens. Maybe now that there are two cams using this size we will be able to get an amorphic lens for the XK-1!

Nathan Gifford

"As far as the questions posted here--yes, it does incorporate 3:2 pulldown circuitry. The explanation I was given was that it shoots and records native 60p, then flags frames to be dropped/repeated if set at 24p to trigger the 3:2 processing."

You're kidding. If this is correct, this is the bass-ackwards way of going about it, because then it's never really truly shooting 24P (or 23.98P or whatever the exact number the CineAlta shoots at is). 60 fields/s -> 24 frames/s is NOT a 3:2 pulldown process; it's 24 frames/s -> 60 fields/s that requires 3:2 pulldown. So if the explanation you're giving is correct, the Panasonic actually performs an inverse 3:2 conversion, which is just plain ridiculous, because then not every frame in the 24P version would be a still frame.

The only right way to do this is to record 24P and do a hardware-implemented 3:2 pulldown resulting in fake 60 fields/s for NLE.

<<<-- The only right way to do this is to record 24P and do a hardware-implemented 3:2 pulldown resulting in fake 60 fields/s for NLE. -->>>

That had better be the way it works or else I will stay far far away!

OK, I'll try again, but bear in mind that this was coming from one of the guys at Panasonic who also erroneously told me that the Mini DV camera had native 16:9 chips, which it doesn't.

What he said, or what I thought he said, was that the camera head captures at 60p: 60 progressive frames of information per second. The user selects either 60i, 30p or 24p as the desired frame rate. The camera derives the desired frame rate from the 60p. If it is 60i, then that signal is sent to the recorder. If 30p or 24p, the appropriate pulldown is performed so as to achieve 60i for recording onto tape, but the keyframes are flagged so that the NLE can reconstruct the original framerate. This is the part that Panasonic and Apple are working on together for the next version of Final Cut Pro, as I understand it.

The only part of this that doesn't make sense is that the final output to 60i would, in my thinking, permanently trash the progressive aspect of the signal. But here my knowledge level of this process falls down. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to deliver the gospel, hopefully someone else can pick up the slack.

The chips are 4:3, but does their resolution get better in comparison to the XL1's? Is it good for slow-mo?

Howdy from Texas,

It will not be a good camera for slow motion videography (the frame rate is not *that* variable.)

I did not speak to the Panasonic product manager myself, but everything I have heard confirms the explanation that Charles presents above.

My main concern is finding some solid, accurate info that can be used to construct some "Watchdog-style" pages for the website.

And yes it was only a couple of wooden mock-ups at NAB, but remember that Canon USA generated just as much excitement with similar non-functional wooden XL1 mock-ups at DV Expo in 1997.

Well, I think the illuminating details should effectively kill the hype. Any camera that derives 24P by way of 60i is a piece of junk.

Still waiting for my prosumer 24P HD--