The 24p acquisition will also depend on the sampling rate at which the frames are recorded. As we've seen with the Sony cam, 24fps captured at 60hz causes a strobed look.

I understand 3:2 mechanism Tom but it still looks like my Super8 film of the mid 60's. I have moved on 40 years. I understand the use of film look for dramatic effect but it doesn't do anything for me and is overused on projects that would be better served by 60i.

Ron Evans

When you rent or buy a movie on DVD remember they are 24p with 3:2 pulldown. When is the last time somebody complained about watching Star Wars on DVD saying it wasn't very smooth? The same is actually true for all your old VHS tape movies as well.

"When is the last time somebody complained about watching Star Wars on DVD saying it wasn't very smooth?"

Well I watched them in the theater at 24p and thought the lack of frame rate sucked. Movies are made with such massive amounts of high speed motion and FX these dasys, the 24p just can't show enough. A blurry mess is often how it looks, or if they use a high shutter ala Saving Private Ryan, it is stuttery. Modern, high action movies are crying for 60p.

Absolutely agree Ken. Staying with 24P is like having a modern car that had the ride of a model T Ford just because that was how everyone thought a car should ride.!!! Thomas, well directed movies take great care to allow for the deficiencies of 24p using carefully arranged angles for moving shots to give the impression of smooth movement. A straight movement across the screen will not be smooth neither will a pan. 3:2 pulldown or the three blade shutter is there to remove flicker does nothing for smoothness as this is governed by the number of different frames captured. For this there is no substitute for higher frame rate whether this is interlaced or progressive. Ideally the frame rate should be high enough to capture smooth motion for the fastest moving object being filmed and be above the flicker rate for ones eyes ( at least 60fps effective, 24P with 3 blade shutter flickers at 72 frames a second but there are only 24 unique images so to the observer it stutters but doesn't flicker). A lot of special effects are filmed with high speed cameras( not 24P ) and then inserted as slow motion as this is a nice way of creating a smooth image in a 24p film. How many slow motion crash scenes have you seen in movies? Making films is all about illusion. Smooth motion is perceived by ones eyes if frame rate and flicker rate are high enough to be perceived as smooth. It is different for different people. As an example when I go visit relations in the UK for the first few days the TV has a terrible flicker ( 50Hz) but after a week I can't see it, my eyes/brain have allowed for the flicker. But when I come back to Canada the TV somehow looks very stable!!!

Ron Evans

Unfortunately or fortunately, 24P will be here for a while. The vast majority of motion pictures are still shown, theatrically, with film-based projection equipment and the universal frame rate for these projectors is 24 f.p.s. Originating in 24P also makes your product more easlily converted to those countries using the PAL television system.

What use is it to originate in a frame rate that limits who can watch your show or adds unwanted artifacts in a conversion process?

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Oh, trust me Aaron, my remarks were definitely not directed toward you.-->>>

My comments were also directed only at what I perceived to be a misstatement of fact. I agree that the numbers themselves are only part of the story, and what is most important is how the image looks.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you Kenn that we are stuck with the projection equipment in service.
However to my eyes the artifacts associated with 24P are worse than any conversion I have seen between PAL and NTSC. To me the odd zaggies are a lot less disturbing than the stuttering of motion that is continuously present in 24P movies. For me the move to high definition whether at 720P(30) or 1080i is an improvement and eventually I hope we will get 1080P(60) and theatres will convert to video projection and this 24P issue will go away.

Ron Evans

I thought that in theaters, film is projected at 48fps, each frame shown twice to reduce flicker.

No, film is projected at 24fps. Each frame is shown 2 or 3 times (depending on how many blades are on the shutter) but only 24 frames go through the projector each second.

Say guys, aren't we considering the possibility that the component out may be pre-compression? If that's the case, this camera BLOWS AWAY the sony. Someone tell me here if they know anything about that.

The analog outs on the FX1 and Z1U are pre-compression as well. It will be higher bitrates, true progressive scanning and lenses that make this better... but considering at "under $10k" may well be twice the price of an FX1 - it better be.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41437

This camera sounds amazing. It's going to cause a revolution in indy film making, and maybe broadcasting.

/ starts saving to buy one

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand : This camera sounds amazing. It's going to cause a revolution in indy film making, and maybe broadcasting. -->>>

Dunno about that, but at least the next wave of Blair Witch Projects, Open waters et al have the chance to look a little better. :o)

I read these discussions of 24p vs higher frame rates with interest, as I do believe that there is a generational gap developing over those who have been conditioned since childhood to accept and prefer the look of 24 fps, and those who have been weaned on video games and consider 60 fps acceptable for storytelling (which the other crowd will likely consider a "soap opera" look)...tell me, are any of you high-frame rate fans over 35? Informal poll here!

<<<-- Originally posted by Ron Evans: well directed movies take great care to allow for the deficiencies of 24p using carefully arranged angles for moving shots to give the impression of smooth movement. Ron Evans -->>>

Ron, I could only wish that even a tiny percent of directors working the in the industry today understood the concept of strobing to that effect...as a camera operator, I've almost always had to be the one to tell THEM that I should not pan faster or slower as they requested as that would put the shot into the "dead zone"...! Honestly though, it's not that big a deal to work around the "deficiencies" of 24 fps--we spend a lot more energy dealing with other types of unwanted camera motion (bumps in the dolly track, unwanted vibration in camera mounts, that sort of thing).

I'm looking forward to checking this camera out at NAB, by the way...I'm very encouraged by the form factor; hope the images bear out.

Hey Charles,

I reckon Ive got 10 years on you, (dont tell my girlfriend!) and I honestly prefer a higher frame rate (progressive of course)

I have mentioned before that imho 24P is all about protecting jobs and union, to successfully pull off a 24P production you need lots of high quality gear and experienced personnel like yourself for example.

Also I dont think 24P in the small format gives you instant filmlook, otherwise the 500,000 ft of Super8 Ive telecined since 1987 would look just like the projected image?

Moreover, I also dont think Super8 looks like Academy - and not for the reason of grain or DOF but more to do with the Telephoto compression qualities over the shorter focal lengths in the small film format for the same field of view.

I would like to see even higher frame rates like 70 and greater - I want innovation not stagnation - I want to see 3D cinema like Hitch did with the Birds (see it at Universal, Florida) or Honey I Shrunk the Audience over the road at Disney

The last 'video' game I played was Zork on a DEC PDP10 in 1979, but that was text based so I guess that doesnt count :)

just my 2 zorkmids....

"you hear a songbird in the distance"...

I was playing Zork on the MIT Infranet in '79, John! My dad used to bring home a briefcase terminal (with suction cups for the telephone handset, and of course no screen, just paper roll) and my bro showed me how to hack in to the system to play Zork. Hours of fun.

(I'm 39 by the way...)

<<I have mentioned before that imho 24P is all about protecting jobs and union, to successfully pull off a 24P production you need lots of high quality gear and experienced personnel like yourself for example.>>

hmmm...I would use exactly the same lighting package and personnel regardless of base frame rate. I hadn't read your thoughts on this, could you point me to another thread where you elaborated or summarize them here?

Re: Super 8, I think it looks a lot more like film ('cause it is) than any digital format, both projected and telecined.

At our Instant Films festivals (www.instantfilms.tv), most of our participants shoot 24p (or perhaps Frame Mode on the XL1), but occasionally a film will show up at 60i. I have yet to prefer this look, in some ways being drawn OUT of the film because of the "raw" video look.

We've also had one or two that were made with Mini35's but were also unexceptionally lit or composed, and they basically look just as flat as if they had saved the time and bother. One was made at 60i with the Mini, and it looked positively weird...!

But again, I'm used to 24 fps, seen it all my life, it's what says "narrative" to me. No question that 60 fps belongs with motion simulator rides like you described, those are challenging enough on the system without adding strobing!

I love this sort of conversation/debate by the way--the psychological effects of different technical parameters. Very interesting stuff.

But then I just realize--again--that this is way off topic. Sorry folks. John, is there another thread we can pick this up in?

51 and counting...

Charles - open a thread and I will see you there

I too am interested the psychological qualities rather than the technical debates

Hi there all, new here - great forum!!

"Also I dont think 24P in the small format gives you instant filmlook"

For my tuppence worth, I think something that everyone overlooks (mainly because they're not so well informed, or rather, they're informed by marketing rather than experience, imho) is the fact that getting a "film look" has very little to do with the frame-rate (this'll actually get you a filmic motion, not a filmic look) and more to do with the latitude, gamma-curve and colour rendition of the medium.

Clever post manipulation and well informed lighting are far more key factors in creating a filmic look than buying a camera that does 24p, and I for one would like to see more emphasis placed on increased exposure latitude than increased resolution (not that that's not a factor, of course).

Perhaps when the "HD-Wars" have died down this will come to the for of consumers and, therefore, companies minds. One can only hope...

I'm sure you guys (Charles and John) already know this - you seem very well informed and are obviously highly experienced - but I think it's something that few videographers/indie filmmakers seem to know, and it's all about sharing the wealth, isn't it?!...

On another complete aside, those resident in the US commonly lack another piece of useful information - we see everyone wax on about 24p, when most cameras do have a 25p mode (at least here in PAL land) that is a perfectly reasonable substitute requiring only a slight change to the audio track for 24p presentation - I can never understand why everyone gets so het-up about 24p. I suppose with lower end non-switchable (i.e. 50/60hz) cameras it's more of a challenge if you want 60i/p and 24p, but that, thankfully, seems to be becoming a thing of the past...

The last few posts have been exactly the type of discussion I was hoping to have in the Define/Quantify Film Look (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40653) thread.

Interesting point been discussed here about the relevance of 24p to obtaining the film look, especially in light of the fact that quite a few people have posted in the above thread the notion that 24p is one of the key attributes of a film look. Of course, film is 24p, but the notion of whether a motion picture would be "better" at a higher frame rate is a very interesting question.

I would like to encourage you to continue your discussion in the Define/Quantify Film Look (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40653) thread.

Best Regards,
Pete

I'm very excited about this new JVC, but what I'm hearing about the new 2/3 1080p one coming out later this year for under 20k is really going to revolutionize things. Good Lord, I hope I can afford both:).

To the sound of Janis Joplin...

Oh Lord won't you buy me a new JVC, my friends all have Sonys...

Yes 2/3" will be huge especially with the new HDV resolution. JVC does seem to be quite agressive in this new format. The ENG style cam will likely use the 50Mbps Pro version of HDV, and my guess it was delayed only because JVC realized that it couldn't quite all be crammed into 19/25 Mbps and have it replace their Pro lineup. This forthcomming cam will be the VariCam killer, as my guess is it will come in at $ 8 t to - 10 grand with ramping options up to and past $20 grand with different lens. If they go 4:2:2 in the new Pro format it will most definitely be market defining. There are a lot of years of compession agorithm tech to be exploited in those 50Mbps. Just wait and see what JVC do with 24p and 19Mbps with the new HD100 then imagine 50Mpbs with 2/3" ccd's. OUCH!
By the way I do think the 24p mode on the new HD100 will be fabulous. One has to realize that 19Mbps at 720p has a data per pixel advantage over 25Mbps at 1080i. Then you factor in 24p which saves the compession of 6 progressive frames or 12 interlaced fields per second. The data per pixel of 720p24 is far greater than Sony's 1080i data per pixel rate. And the Sony's image looks pretty darn good in moderate motion.
This is the year of HD. Production film making may never be the same.

Steven White,

Good points about the lenses, true progressive frames, bit rates. Ya, they may say the Z-1 is uncompressed, but one of the gods of digtal cinematography Scott Billups (literally was one of the inverters of digital cinematography/ also a Dig Cin top shooter/ And a "first opinion" tech consultant for the likes of Sony/Panasonic/JVC ) told me that the signal out was not near that of professional HD, nowhere NEAR. He transcoded it with his high end AJA card and got out less than 2:1:1 color separation. Something like 1.6 : .08 : .08 actually. It's my guess that after using the 3rd party HD-SDI converter mentioned in the Video Systems article, the JVC's uncompressed out will be a much more realistic representation of "uncompressed".

Well, let's all hope anyway.

OK, so this is not my area of expertise (don't get this with film!!), so please be patient if I've got this all wrong!

But...

My understanding of colour seperation in video is that it is a compound ratio of (number of luminance pixels) : (number of chrominance pixels on odd scan lines) : (number of chrominance pixels on even scan lines)

So 4:2:2 is to say that for every four luminance pixels there are two chrominance pixels on both the odd and even scan lines.

Now, assuming that I've got this right (which I may well not have done, so PLEASE correct me if I'm talking b*****ks here - I'd love to know more about this side of the coin), surely there is no difference between 2:1:1 (or 1.6:0.8:0.8, for that matter) and 4:2:2??

My thinking here being that if you double all the numbers (which maintains exactly the same ratio), then you end up with 4:2:2 from 2:1:1 - which makes them the same thing, no?!

Dominic,

By the numbers, that's right. I'm not sure what those numbers would mean either.

Also, it's a little bit risky to refer to anybody as a "god" in this business...I've been in it long enough to know that there's very few people deserving of hyperbole like that.

If the uncompressed output is available in 24/25fps at 10bits 4:4:4 (pre pixel shift, if any) then that would be great. The equipment for do it yourself HD can be largely PC parts, and be "relatively" cheap. Over at dvinfo's Alternative imaging threads, we are working on such cameras (but more DIY cameras) but only one is ready for market so far, and none have three chip. They fool themselves a little over there, in that thinking Bayer is alright because film companies are using single chip HD cameras with Bayer filters (boy I'll get flamed for that one). What they don't realise is that those companies have extra resolution (say 6MP) a lot of expertised, money and time, and lighting, to accurately process Bayer and processing. Still they will probably leave a loot of the HDV cameras for dead (after processing) for a similar price. On the other hand, apparently it is hard to make a high resolution 3 chip prism system that is perfect and gets rid of colour fringing and takes wide aperture lens.


Questions:
Anyway my questions are: what are the specs of this uncompressed output (like what i wrote above) and how is it available (component, HDSDI, Firewire, Hard Disk, the best)? But with the Panasonic camera, what is the actual resolution picked up by the camera? I read over t the MS HD format description that the HD format that it uses supports 10bit, but does it do uncompressed, and what type, and how.

Another question is, what sort of shutter do these things use, rolling, or global. And how do they go on blooming, smearing, moiring etc?


Suggestion SLR Lens converter:
On the detachable bayonet lens, and 35mm SLR lens converter.

I want to point out that one of the things that gives the 35mm lens adaptors film like feeling, is that they reduce the contrast level and probably adjusting the gamma curve (probably making it more like the human eye). Some Density filters try to do the same thing (I forget the company that has them).

Another method, that can reduce DOF (being used) is to get a very large aperture lens (which is not so compatible with image sensors with arrays of microlens light collectors). At extra aperture the DOF is also smaller ;). The image should be brighter also, but a variable filter could be used so you can keep the lens open. So it might be possible to make a reducer lens adaptor to take the image from the SLR lens to the chip size.

With this system, you should be able to achieve much better resolution than a standard 35mm adaptor (no grain) but I don't know about DOF (but how much do you need anyway). You would have to be very careful picking the optics and the calculations (to reduce distortion and aberrations) though.

Another thing the normal adaptors do is soft-focus the image (to reduce hard lines) this could be done in software, but a soft-focus filter would probably be good.

I forgot to mention if you want to do an adaptor, go to the alternative imaging forums at dvinfo to discuss it, I am sure Chris does not want us to discuss it here.


For Laurence, once you apply these things to an uncompressed stream, like I said above, you can see why I am not very worried about using 1/2inch (or 1/3rd inch) chips over at those threads. If you can do everything right (the microlens/prism might be a restriction) the only thing that the bigger chips really has over smaller ones is the smaller Signal to Noise ratio (the adaptor handles everything else).

Wayne - surely the component output can't be "pre pixel shift" for two reasons:

1. Pixel shift is set by physically moving the CCDs, so to get rid of pixel shift one of the CCDs would have to be switched off.

2. since pixel shift increases the output resolution of a number of CCDs (ir the FX1/Z1 960px CCDs can output 1440px) "pre-prixel shift would result in a lower resolution" (about 854x720, lower even than the DVCproHD cams)

I think it likely this camera will have a native 1280x720 CCD like the HD1/HD10 and won't use pixel shift technology anyway.

Do you mean "pre-compression"?

"My thinking here being that if you double all the numbers (which maintains exactly the same ratio), then you end up with 4:2:2 from 2:1:1 - which makes them the same thing, no?!"

The ratio would be the same, but the number '4' indicates that the sampling frequency is 13.5MHz -- so a format that was defined as a '2' baseline would have half the resolution of one with a '4'. That's why when BetaSP is given a digital equivalent it is described as 3:1:1 ... that description acknowledges the maximum luma resolution per scan line is somewhat less than the 720 of digital formats, and the ratio of chroma bandwidth to luma bandwith is indicated in the chroma ratio.

Using this same logic, a format (as yet uninvented) that offered a higher sampling rate across a scan line might be described as 6:2:2 ... we can only hope!

GB

Sorry for the confusion Dylan. What I meant was the native shifted pixels, before they were converted to the higher resolution HD output format. In native, it would be 4:4:4 (though converted to higher res 4:4:4 is good for most people), in the 4:2:0 mode you automatically loose colour information for each pixel. You can also get better results doing the pixel shift stuff yourself sometimes (that's how the native output of the DVX100's camera head is being used to produce HD images on Juan's conversion project). The output might not be taking full advantage of the pixel shift. This makes it a more intensive post production process. All this extra details makes for much better resolution upscaling to feature print.