On arena that hasn't been discussed is the huge "straight to video" market. Shoot it, edit it, dupe it. Your selling your product for cash. It's not a bad market to specialize in.

also Justin mentioned the Mini35 system that ZGC carries. It allows you to use cooke, Zeiss, etc. 35mm prime lenses with all the advantages of depth of field, etc.

I've seen some footage from this set-up. Yea I knew it was shot on an XL-1.......but the look of the final product was so outstanding I wouldn't have been able to tell if I hadn't read the explanation.

JMHO...

David

Yes, I agree about the P+S Technik adaptor. I wasn't a fan of the version I saw last year but I liked what I saw of it's current (third generation) incarnation. I think it could make some really pretty pictures.

The 35 mini adapter actually has a nice demo reel availible on CD that I watched. The clips provided enough to show a client and convince them to let me shoot a national spot on the Canon XL1S with the adpater instead of 16mm.

I hope the adapter won't let me down in actual use. :)

For me, the most important thing to wait for, in this camera, is a higher resolution of it's chips. This would be the main improvement over the XL1 for every field of users here, everyone could benefit from it. If it is better than the XL1 then it will be considerable. Then we have secondary details for different uses:

For video-to-film, 24p makes it a bit easier than 25p but it doesn't seem like a big deal, you just wouldn't have to stretch that extra frame of your audio when transfering to 35mm.

For international videography, being able to shoot and then edit the same video in both PAL and NTSC, just by deciding that in your computer and in the camera, sounds like a big progress, avoiding the transfer house.

For a humble slo-mo, if the camera can do 60p, at least it would be better than regular video.

Isn't this better resolution in the chips?

AG-DVX100
"Representing a revolutionary leap in digital video technology, the palm-size AG-DVX100 is equipped with three, newly-developed 1/3" 410,000-pixel progressive- scan CCDs"

XL1
"3 CCD 1/3" Pixel Shift (charge coupled device) 270,000 pixels (250,000 effective pixels)"

sorry, just wanted to add the

PAL XL1

Pixel Count
Total: 320,000 pixels (per CCD)
Effective 300,000 pixels (per CCD)

Howdy from Texas,

Yes the XL1S is "only" 250,000 effective pixels per CCD but don't forget the Pixel Shift process which increases resolution. Pixel Shift is nothing to scoff at -- it actually works, and has been used before in several pro-market Panasonic cameras. So it is a bit of a misconception to categorize the XL1S as being low in res. Hope this helps,

Hi Chris,
So the pixel shift makes the less pixels in the xl1 more or less equivalent to the more pixels in this new panasonic?

Dosen't the XL1 have bigger pixels than most other cameras, which is the reason for it's apparent "low" pixel count?

Adrian -- yes, the individual pixels are larger (and therefore gather more light) because there are fewer of them to fill the surface of each CCD.

crottini - not sure about that; I'll have to check the pana specs again.

I think comparing pixel count on different brands is like comparing processor speeds on Macs and PC's. It's not a true measure of performance as different methods are used to achieve the numbers

still, it seems to me, and I'm not sure about this, that the fundamental resolution is a function of pixel density on the CCD. There are ways to artificially increase the pixel density, like pixel shift, but, the driving term is pixels/sq in. In the case of a 3 pixel detector, the situation gets much more complicated since each channel is recording a different wavelength of the same image.

IMO camera's that use pixel shift tend to have more noticable "stair stepping".

Just to get back to the original subject for a moment...

I would love some sort of confirmation from Panasonic about the nuts and bolts of how this thing really acquires images and writes them to tape.

Earlier Robert K S said that if it's using 60i to get to 24p, that's no good. I totally agree. steadichupap's report says that the Panasonic rep claimed true 60p which is then converted to your dialed-in setting of choice, i.e. 30i, 24p, or 30p. Um, no. I'm not believing that for a second.

I think this is mostly a great marketing job by Panasonic. Technically, they are introducing something new: 24 progressive images a second... but we all know you can already buy a PAL XL1S that does 25 progressive images a second. Yes, if you are shooting to blow up to film, 24p is technically less a problem than 25p, but I think it's already been adequately demonstrated 25p to film is accomplished with relative ease.

However, I think that from a theoretical standpoint, it is important to note that regardless of everything else, when motion is captured at 24 images (35mm frames, progressive scans, whatever) it will capture that motion in a way that is distinct from 23 images per second, or 25 images per second, or 30, or 15, etc. etc. My theory is that our eyes are capable of discerning far more that we realize... that if we watched two monitors of the exact same thing, only one was originated at 23fps and one was at 24fps, there would be something inside us that would not allow us to call them perfectly identical. I think we all agree that discerning between 30p and 24p is noticeable, and of course 60i is completely different. We've been subconsciously trained to register motion displayed at 24 images per second as a "film look." Capturing digital video "scans" at this rate is not a bad thing i trying to emulate that look.

Oh, and story/content really does make all of this stuff irrelevant, anyway. ;)

MR

So, basically, how this camera works is still a mistery to all of us. Nothing firm at least. We'll have to wait until someone gets a hand on it or somebody from Panasonic gets in here.

Until recently, the only NLE systems that allows editing true 24fps have been the Avid FilmComposer, and MediaComposers with Film option. By that, I mean that the many extra fields generated during the 24fps-film->video transfer (usually called pulldown fields) are removed during the capture of the source tapes into the Avid drives - saves around 20% storage space, and allows editors to watch their footage play back at the same rate it will appear on the theatrerr screen. Pixar and Disney films are edited on FilmComposers becasue of this fact. Of course, to play back on the 'Client Monitors' (the NTSC or PAL monitors) the extra-fields are re-inserted - these standard-definition monitors can handle only 59.97 fields-per-second.

This is what happens with DVD's, the actual media on film-based DVDs is 24fps, again to save space on the discs, allowing improved compression. If you're lucky enough to own a 'progressive monitor' as a home television, and wired appropriately, then you are in fact watching "Monsters, Inc" at 24fps on that TV screen. If you run the signal through the 'S' connector, say, or if you have a standard TV, then the DVD players re-insert puldown fields, allowing standard "30fps" (59.97 fields, actually) NTSC video to play.

I've read that there are 3rd-party solutions that allow FCP to capture 24fps-originated tapes at true 24fps, and edit at that rate. The very high-end Discreet and Sony HD systems also do this for 24p HD...there may be others I'm not aware of.
I'm not sure how Panasonic is acheiving their 24fps capture, and maintaining compatability with standard NTSC output, but it's probably doing something very much like the scenarios described.
As far as watching DV-to-film, the best way to "settle this here debate" is to just go to the movies, and see DV-originated movies! There have been quite a few in the last few years, and it's probably safe to say that sometimes a DV-to-film transfer will look great, and for many people doesn't create a distraction, and sometimes the transfers are poor, or some people just can't get past the "soap-opera" quality of these types of productions. I went to Richard Linklater's "Tape" (great movie) and some of the people there, non-video or film-production types, commented on the 'strange look'. Most of that percentage weren't put off by it, though they did notice it enough to bring it up. Although there are many video-to-film examples, I think "Tape" is a good test-case since it's very much a dramatic, theatrical piece, and yet uses a format many people associate with the 7pm news, or with soap-operas. I think "Tape" really challenges viewers becasue of those qualities.

This is a time of merging, mangled and liberating aesthetics, where video and film, proefessional and amateur, definitions of petty & noble, novel and traditional are all getting thrown into a spin - what a great time to be involved in production - more colors for the canvas!

(added line breaks between paragraphs -- CH)

<<<-- Originally posted by hphillips : Until recently, the only NLE systems that allows editing true 24fps have been the Avid FilmComposer, and MediaComposers with Film option. By that, I mean that the many extra fields generated during the 24fps-film-video transfer (usually called pulldown fields) are removed during the capture of the source tapes into the Avid drives - saves around 20% storage space, and allows editors to watch their footage play back at the same rate it will appear on the theater screen. Pixar and Disney films are edited on FilmComposers becasue of this fact. Of course, to play back on the 'Client Monitors' (the NTSC or PAL monitors) the extra-fields are re-inserted - these standard-definition monitors can handle only 59.97 fields-per-second.
This is what happens with DVD's, the actual media on film-based DVDs is 24fps, again to save space on the discs, allowing improved compression. If you're lucky enough to own a 'progressive monitor' as a home television, and wired appropriately, then you are in fact watching 'Monsters, Inc' at 24fps on that TV screen. If you run the signal through the 'S' connector, say, or if you have a standard TV, then the DVD players re-insert puldown fields, allowing standard &quot;30fps&quot; (59.97 fields, actually) NTSC video to play.
I've read that there are 3rd-party solutions that allow FCP to capture 24fps-originated tapes at true 24fps, and edit at that rate. The very high-end Discreet and Sony HD systems also do this for 24p HD...there may be others I'm not aware of.
I'm not sure how Panasonic is acheiving their 24fps capture, and maintaining compatability with standard NTSC output, but it's probably doing something very much like the scenarios described.
As far as watching DV-to-film, the best way to 'settle this here debate' is to just go to the movies, and see DV-originated movies! There have been quite a few in the last few years, and it's probably safe to say that sometimes a DV-to-film transfer will look great, and for many people doesn't create a distraction, and sometimes the transfers are poor, or some people just can't get past the 'soap-opera' quality of these types of productions. I went to Richard Linklater's 'Tape' (great movie) and some of the people there, non-video or film-production types, commented on the 'strange look'. Most of that percentage weren't put off by it, though they did notice it enough to bring it up. Although there are many video-to-film examples, I think 'Tape' is a good test-case since it's very much a dramatic, theatrical piece, and yet uses a format many people associate with the 7pm news, or with soap-operas. I think &quot;Tape&quot; really challenges viewers becasue of those qualities.
This is a time of merging, mangled and liberating aesthetics, where video and film, proefessional and amateur, definitions of petty or noble, novel and traditional are all getting thrown into a spin - what a great time to be involved in production - more colors for the canvas! -->>>

"Earlier Robert K S said that if it's using 60i to get to 24p, that's no good. I totally agree. steadichupap's report says that the Panasonic rep claimed true 60p which is then converted to your dialed-in setting of choice, i.e. 30i, 24p, or 30p. Um, no. I'm not believing that for a second. "

i was at NAB and at panasonic it was a little confusing because their techs were talking mostly about their HD 24p camera in front of HD monitors , with camera's on display including the mockup mini 24p ... so when they talked teckie talk IMO everyone thought they were talking about ALL 3 camera's on display BUT infact the tech talk was really for the 2 hd camera's NOT the mini 24p ...

i did find the HEAD of development for the mini 24p camera. this camera is different then the HD 24p camera's . the mini 24p when in 24p mode captures TRUE progressive frames 24fps BUT when it lays the image to tape in ADDS the 3:2 pull down ( with flags so it can later be pulled out) so to tape it lays down 60i, by laying down 60i you can view/edit on any system/Tv ..if it laid down 24p to tape you would NOT be able to view it on your TV ( without special equipment) ... if you shoot in the 30P mode then it captures images true progressive 30fps and lays down to tape at 60i ......... or you can choose to shoot in normal 60i ( normal video) ........ that is what he told me .... also they are working with FCP and others to be able to read the 3:2 flags and remove them so you can have the 24P images ( if you choose) or just edit normal 60i for those that don't need to work in 24p .... the 24P ( 3:2 60i) is a trade off as they want to price the camera at less then 3500 and have you be able to USE it today and NOT have to buy other monitors, decks to play it back. so for 3400 you have the choice to shoot NTSC 24P , 30P or 60i and are able to view it on any TV .... for a NTSC 24p mini dv camera costing 3400 other then going to film there is very little that you can do with true 24fps ( the 24p mini ) in a NTSC world.

the HD 24p they say captures at 60P and somehow from that it does ???? they lost me ....

It's possible that I may be able to persuade Jan Crittenden of Panasonic to chip in on this discussion... working on that now,

Glad I wasn't the only one confused at the show. It was a little too crazy to get the Pana folks to focus on in-depth explanations of this type. From having demoed at industry trade shows in the past (and I'm sure Chris will corroborate this), it can be a challenge to remain patient, friendly and helpful all day!

Jan Crittenden would be great to have here. I remember very valuable discussions at the DVcentral.org list, also with Ross "updated alias" Jones , in the beginning days of DV.

I would like to know if the resolution is better than the XL1 and if there are different NTSC and PAL models or you can also choose that in one same model.

"other then going to film there is very little that you can do with true 24fps ( the 24p mini ) in a NTSC world."

I think the important thing to remember is the significance of the way the motion will look when captured at 24 individual pictures per second. Yes, you will have to get it back to 30i for NTSC viewing but the fact that it was captured at the 24p is what's important and will change the look into something distinct from 60 fields of interlaced video, and technically (and probably perceptibly) different from even 30p video, i.e. the XL-1.

One thing that nobody has brought up is that if the Pana records to tape with a 3:2 pulldown then issues will arise when editing. One of the clear cut advantages of progessive scan is that each frame is indeed a complete frame. If you have ever tried to work with 24f on NTSC in a non linear editor you will will find that every 3rd frame or so is actually repeated and often 2 frames will be interlaced. This causes issues that I wouldn't even want to deal with. While 24p on the pana is exciting this would be a serious issue. Especially for editing where adding CG elements and blue screens are involved. Anyone else thinking about this issue?

3:2 Pulldown essentially takes 4 frames (at 24fps) and converts these to 5 frames (at 30fps)...by making two split frames consisting of a field each from the previous and next frames in the order.

for example four frames from a 24p clip:

[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]

become the following when converted to 30fps interlaced NTSC:

Field 1: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]
Field 2: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 4 ]

When doing visual effects work it is necessary to remove the 3:2 pulldown to get back to the original 24fps material to ensure succesful matte pulls and keys, etc. Failure to remove the pulldown can show some artifacting as it goes through the editing stage. When all editing/effects work is completed, then you typically reinsert the 3:2 pulldown to create an NTSC master.

I primarily work in discreet combustion, which makes 3:2 removal very easy, i'm not sure however if After Effects (or premiere for that matter) do this.

I am aware that the pulldown can be removed. However Just the plain fact that this may have to be done seems like an inconvenience. At least currently with the frame mode on my XL1 all of the video on my PC is native full frame and no pulldown has to be done. I was hoping the 24p on the pana would just native have 24 full frames when captured.

I

The problem here I think is the DV standard and editing
applications. They don't support 24 fps yet (at least not in
native DV -> if that is possible at all). One other thing that
I thought of yesterday is why there isn't any information
in the DV stream about:

- shutter speed used for the current frame
- aperture
- gain level

etc... Would be handy to have such information available
at all times during editing and such... oh well

Interesting post Rob. I've been playing with a powerful audio processing software(noise reduction, compression, equalization) called Izotope Ozone. This software takes an FFT snapshot of a soundtrack and saves it for future comparison to a current soundrack. It would be a terrific thing if I could make a record of my exposures, which ones worked and which ones didn't....save them to a file or buffer, and do some sort of histogram comparison with current settings. The info is on the DV tape...it should be accessible, yes?

It would be so much easier if this was accesible on the tape itself, as for a while i've been writing down the key bits of information on an insert slate and marking every shot. Now that's fine if you have the time to do this for EVERY shot...but for most of the projects i work on we have to move very very quickly and this can be a tough thing to do especially since the dv crew tends to be stripped way down. It does however save a lot of confusion in the editing stage...you have a few frames of all the information pertinent to that particular shot.

So, if not encoded in some way, a "digital slate" in the camera that automatically records a few frames with this information on it would be useful. I think the new Arri 35mm cameras have a feature that does this.

Bill... I doubt this information is on the tape. I've never heard
anything about this. Does anyone know the specs? If it is on
the tape it should be possible to get to it, that might require
to write your own software though. Since I am a software
architect in my work, I might be able to write such a thing. Again,
the questions is: is the information there, and if so, how can
we access it.

Again, I highly doubt that information is on the tape..... But
then again, the original recording date is also on the tape
and no-one is using that

Part of the DV standard reserves a place in the data stream for time, date, & exposure info. The way to see this on an XL1s is only thru the "DATA" button on the remote control. I can acess this data even on my Sony DSR-20 playback deck. Beleive me, it's there, along with the time and date.

Bill... you wouldn't happen to have any exact specification on
this, now would you?

Rob...

sorry, I don't . Let me research it and I'll get back to you.

Hi, I'm new so forgive me in advance for any errors.
IMHO, it's definetly THE STORY!

"Post Effects" is a cutting edge studio here in Chicago that shoots and edits HD. I've seen footage shot with HD (24p) lined up right next to Film. If you don't notice the lack of grain, you really don't know the difference. The reason they have comparisons like this is because there are so many directors and clients that think "The Film Look" is the only way to go.
It's the same with editing suites. While I have a Final Cut Pro edit system at home, nobody will pay $300 an hour unless they hear the word AVID. Of course I could do the same edits at home faster and possibly more creatively than with an older AVID system (look at the JP 3 trailer done by 'Trailer Park') and nobody would know the difference.

Granted that film production values (as with HD values) will survive a dub to VHS or DVD, at the end of the day a great story shot on Pixelvision will be better received than a poor story shot on film.

- Chip

Interesting info. For those interested in further info, Post Effects' web site is at:

http://www.posteffects.com/