Hmmm...
That actually makes sense and certainly would be a significant negative issue for the VG10.

Hi
Someone I read quoted that although the NEX still cameras have aperture control through the Alpha lens adapter, on the VG10 it was (on the prototype) disabled because the Alpha still camera lenses don't have stepless apertures, so all sorts of momentary exposure problems rear their head if you video with them during zooming (as the lens ramps), or changing light levels with a prime lens.

I think it was one of the people who handled the prototype in Switzerland, but I can't find the link :(

That makes perfect sense. It's all making sense now. Hopefully they will enable it prior to release.

IIRC from the discussions that were reported with Sony execs, these "issues" were part of why Sony DSLR-V's weren't showing up to the party (there are apparently two SLR's and two mirrorless bodies coming VERY soon). I suspect Sony wants a "smoother" end user experience rather than the "creative" approach that most DSLR users have taken up to this point.

Sony's "answer" apparently was the "E" mount, with an entirely new line of lenses optimized for video... I'm waiting to see what they do with the A550 replacements, which will still use the Alpha glass but have video. Sony is walking an interesting path, as there's a substantial community of Minolta/Konica users that were promised continuity and future enhancements with the Alpha mount... so do they allow Alpha mount with "issues" and a standard DSLR format, or do the put the $$$ into the "E" ticket, or BOTH?

I know if I can get a video capable Alpha body for those DoF shots, I'd just as soon keep my existing glass than buying new lenses, as the Alpha covers the "still" side primarily, and video as an "extra"...

The VG10 is a different animal as it comes at things the other way around, but it has its own appeal.


Mike -
I hear ya on the "sentimental" value of the FX7, I miss mine, was hoping it wouldn't be long before Sony hit with a similar tapeless camera - whoops. The VG10 is the first cam that's caught my eye in a "big" camera, definitely will be checking it out, but my CX550's cover me very nicely right now. And yes, the improvement between the CMOS in the SR11 and the "R" CMOS that showed up in the XR500 is substantial. It's the same sensor as in the 550, but the rest of the camera has been refined significantly along the way - the 550 OIS is impressive in smoothing out bumps, 3.5" LCD is finally about right for "older" eyes, I personally like they finally put a VF on the CX (flash memory) series, previously you had to have one of the HDD cams.

It's less likely that low budget film makers, unless they're shooting dramas would want to get involved in double system sound, it's a lot of extra work syncing everything up in post. Plus, unless you've got time code, you need to use a clapper board or other sync mark while shooting - lip syncing by eye is time consuming..


I record second system sound with some frequency, no time code, no clapper.
I align the 2nd system sound waveform with the camcorder waveform. Really not that difficult.
But it is usually a music program, The aggressive leading edge attack envelopes make it easy.
So I guess those are my "clappers".

If it was just voice, or soft and indistinct (background nature sounds for instance) you're right, it would be much harder (impossible?) without the clapper.

I hear ya on the "sentimental" value of the FX7, I miss mine, was hoping it wouldn't be long before Sony hit with a similar tapeless camera - whoops.

The tapeless version of the FX7 is already out; the HDR-AX2000. Not a bad camera - even if it doesn't match the hoped for depth of field of the NEX-VG10. It does have three chips though.

The tapeless version of the FX7 is already out; the HDR-AX2000. Not a bad camera - even if it doesn't match the hoped for depth of field of the NEX-VG10. It does have three chips though.Actually Michael there is not tapeless version of the FX7. It's a 3CMOS 1/4" chips. The AX2000 is the tapeless version of the FX1000 which is the upgrade of the FX1. Which all 3 of those are 1/3" chips while the fx7 is 1/4".

Would it also be because the low budget film maker is recording second system sound?
So all they need is something they can sync to? Just asking...

You could do that. There is a flash unit you could mount on the VG10. Set the flash off manually and typically there is POP your mic might pick up and you'll see the flash.

But, what I meant was that for docs wireless mics are used. For narrative, wireless mic on a boom is used.

The wireless receiver connects via a 1/8th plug.

"...

The VG10 is a different animal as it comes at things the other way around, but it has its own appeal.


Mike -
I hear ya on the "sentimental" value of the FX7, I miss mine, was hoping it wouldn't be long before Sony hit with a similar tapeless camera - whoops. The VG10 is the first cam that's caught my eye in a "big" camera, definitely will be checking it out, but my CX550's cover me very nicely right now. And yes, the improvement between the CMOS in the SR11 and the "R" CMOS that showed up in the XR500 is substantial. It's the same sensor as in the 550, but the rest of the camera has been refined significantly along the way - the 550 OIS is impressive in smoothing out bumps, 3.5" LCD is finally about right for "older" eyes, I personally like they finally put a VF on the CX (flash memory) series, previously you had to have one of the HDD cams.

The sentimental value of my FX7 is due to the fact that it belonged to my best friend, whom I had talked in to getting this camcorder. We were both to get an FX7 at the same time, but I couldn't afford it yet. When he got the cam, we were both so impressed with the PQ over what we had. He has since passed away, leaving the cam to me which I cherish to this day.
As for the AX2000 (FX1000) not being its replacement due to the chip size, for all intents and purposes they are the replacement, at least to me. I am still impressed with the PQ of the FX7 and probably would be even more impressed with that of the FX1000/AX2000.

As for the difference between the SR11 and XR/CX550, I will have to check one out if I can find one around here. BB is the only place besides Sears that sell these things up here that I know of, and BB only has the XR, so no chance on look through the VF (only the LcD). Now if only they could produce something like the VG10, but with a 20X zoom (standard). I guess there's always next year.

Mike , the XR has the viewfinder. It was the first CX series that didn't have the viewfinder. I can confirm that the XR500 is visibly better than the SR11 frankly challenges my NX5U. All are better than my FX1( which is why I got the NX5U)

Ron Evans

Thanks Ron. Sounds like the XR would be the one for me. However, I am disappointed that it does not have a better zoom (ditto the SR11). Even though I have read this entire thread, I can't remember many of the details. So, please have patience with me as I ask: How is the VG10 different from the XR 550/500 other than the ability to switch lenses? And, since I mainly shoot outdoors (nature, scenery, trains, Blue Angels), would the shallow DOF be a problem for me?

Thanks.
Mike

Mike if you do not want to have a shallow depth of field or change lenses then there seems to be no point in getting the VG10, that's most of the reason. If you shoot fast motion then that is also a negative since the VG10 appears to shoot 30p in a 60i stream. Unless others have a different point of view the VG10 is not for you.

Sony XR cameras have hard drives the CX flash memory. So the XR550 has a hard drive the CX550 has flash memory otherwise they are the same camera( the CX is a little smaller since it has flash memory not a hard drive to house).

Ron Evans

Actually Michael there is not tapeless version of the FX7. It's a 3CMOS 1/4" chips. The AX2000 is the tapeless version of the FX1000 which is the upgrade of the FX1. Which all 3 of those are 1/3" chips while the fx7 is 1/4".

Ahh, I didn't realize the FX7 only had 1.4" chips.

Also, the FX1 has CCDs, not CMOS.



Either way, I think I'd rather have a AX2000 than an NEX-VG120. But the NEX-VG10 vs the FX7, that's a lot harder to decide; probably risk the NEX-VG10.

Hi Mike -

Can't blame you for keeping the FX7 one bit, it's a good camera, and yours has added sentimental value!

Think of the VG10 like an SLR - it complements the CX550... or other traditional video camera.

The CX550 has a huge DoF, virtually unlimited recording time, and of course the 550's have an unusually wide "wide end" of the lens range (it's like putting a .7x WA adapter on your SR11, or XR500). I was worried about the long end, but frankly even when using the digital zoom, the "R" sensor stays pretty darn clean through a good part of the zoom range. The optical zoom is no great shakes, but I've always put the digital zoom on "in case" and tried to stay "below the line" that shows up in the sony zoom indicator. In the 550's they only put a single digital zoom setting (150x), where earlier there was a "digital doubler" option (20x), which I preferred, as signal degradation wasn't bad, and it left you with a more controllable optical/digital "mix".

The VG10 gives you the ability to get really shallow DoF, and mount other lenses for special purposes, but still in a relatively small handheld package. Optical zoom will be lens dependent. IIRC the IS moved into the lens, which may or may not be good, I'm spoiled by the OIS of the CX500/520/550, which added even more stability to the XR500 OIS. I don't know yet whether I'll go VG10, or whether I'll pick up one of the new Alpha bodies with video - I know I want the ability to do the shallow DoF "glamour" shots, one way or another.


They are two very different tools in design and execution, where the AX2000/FX1000 are more traditional "video cameras". Personally I prefer a smaller camera, thus why the FX7 sits in such a unique spot.


As Ron already clarified, traditionally in Sony model nomenclature, SR and XR designated HDD cameras, while CX series had no onboard memory, no viewfinder, no I/O options for headphone/mic, and recorded to MS Duo.

The CX550, released simultaneously with the XR550 departed from this tradition, adding 64G onboard flash in addition to the MS Duo/SDHC slot, mic and headphone jacks, and a viewfinder, all still in a small light package - basically an XR without a HDD, and IMO a close to perfect package. I always liked the CX's for size and weight, but the lack of features could be frustrating, the CX550V hits the correct mix IMO. I know what you mean about it being hard to find the higher end cameras if you're more "rural" - our "local" "small footprint" BB barely stocks anything, and rarely has any "high end" to be found... I can say I don't think you'd be disappointed in upgrading your SR11 to anything with the "R" CMOS, I didn't expect it to be as much improved as it was.

Thanks Dave. You have helped me clear some of the haze that was fogging my thought process (either that or my trifocals are dirty). I will have to take a closer look, maybe when I travel down to Chicago in a week or so.

I appreciate all the comments and help from you all, especially Ron and Dave. I always enjoy reading your posts.

Mike

I don't know if the argument about the VG10 being an inerlaced camcorder or it being a progressive camcorder that interlaces the video is still ongoing or not, but, here's what I found on Sony's website.

The NEX-VG10 has the same sensor format that Sony builds into the full-sized α DSLRs. Video is captured at 1920x1080 30p (29.97i) and recorded in AVCHD 60i (59.94i) format. With 19.5 times the surface area of conventional camcorders, the large Exmor™ APS HD CMOS sensor makes capturing cinematic video with a shallow depth of field a breeze.

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666239819#additionalImage1"

Just like the still cameras in the E series it will record the whole frame. Likely the electronics cannot manage this at 60P ( yet) so 30P is it. For playback compatibility on TV's it needs to be 60i.

For 30P in AVCHD 60i each odd and even field does belong to the same frame so "adding" them together will create a 30P stream. A true 60i stream is constructed from fields that do not belong to common exposure frames. The fields are actually taken 1/60 sec apart. ie a 60i camera is a 60P camera that only records or transmits a field for each of its exposure frames. Sometimes the fields are scanned as fields and other times ( like the new Panasonic TM700) they are full progressive frames.

So with this in mind the VG10 will have the temporal motion of 30P even if watched at 60i. This will fit nicely for shallow depth of field film type shooting but will have judder when panning or shooting motion that moves across the screen. Just like 24P.

I think Sony have been quite smart. This camera will give a sort of film look on whatever its played back on.

Ron Evans

I wonder, what will the video quality be like in comparison to a 2/3" HD cam? With that large sensor and interchangeable lenses, it might even make better video. It will most certainly have better depth of field control. And all this for $2,000? It may be marketed as a consumer cam, but I intend to use it professionally. I can't wait to get my hands on one.

If you go on a certain forum site that deals mainly with 24P products, they're tearing this camera a new one. How dare Sony only offer interlaced? Blah, blah...
I don't care. Most everything I shoot goes directly to broadcast, so I'm comfortable with 60i, or 30P, or whatever it shoots in.

If you go on a certain forum site that deals mainly with 24P products, they're tearing this camera a new one. How dare Sony only offer interlaced? Blah, blah...
I don't care. Most everything I shoot goes directly to broadcast, so I'm comfortable with 60i, or 30P, or whatever it shoots in.

Folks who shoot 24p seem to be quite passionate about it, and seem to have a high profile presence on these forums. However, my best guess is that the actual fraction of delivered commercial video programs that are 24p is quite small. To read these forums, one would almost get the idea that 60i is actually dead, 30p still breathing, but not deeply.
I suspect that in the day to day world of commercial video production, 60i is probably still #1, 30p a significant #2, (60p an up and coming), and 24p a distant third.
Sony certainly must have a good feel for these numbers, know it's target marketplace rather well, and have some pretty solid ideas of where the camera sales are going to be.
30p in 60i wrapper: Gets the 30p crowd, works natively with all 60i postproduction pipelines, goes to Blu Ray Disk 1920 60i without a hitch- I thought it was pretty clever of Sony. It straddles all of the markets except 24p.

30p in 60i wrapper: Gets the 30p crowd, works natively with all 60i postproduction pipelines, goes to Blu Ray Disk 1920 60i without a hitch- I thought it was pretty clever of Sony. It straddles all of the markets except 24p.


And the version for the PAL world, at 50i/25p gets sooo close.

True fact!!

Folks who shoot 24p seem to be quite passionate about it, and seem to have a high profile presence on these forums. However, my best guess is that the actual fraction of delivered commercial video programs that are 24p is quite small. To read these forums, one would almost get the idea that 60i is actually dead, 30p still breathing, but not deeply.
I suspect that in the day to day world of commercial video production, 60i is probably still #1, 30p a significant #2, (60p an up and coming), and 24p a distant third.
Sony certainly must have a good feel for these numbers, know it's target marketplace rather well, and have some pretty solid ideas of where the camera sales are going to be.
30p in 60i wrapper: Gets the 30p crowd, works natively with all 60i postproduction pipelines, goes to Blu Ray Disk 1920 60i without a hitch- I thought it was pretty clever of Sony. It straddles all of the markets except 24p.

This may be the best explanation I've heard yet. I'll get plenty of use out of 1080/60i.

I take it that with the proper software, one could retain the original 30P from the 60i, if one chooses to. Any good de-interlacing software anyone would recommend for such a task?

The typical "deinterlacing" software that we use for true 60i to 30p conversion would not be recommended, as it would alter the fields in its attempt to "blend" them into single frames.
I have no first hand experience with this yet, but some posters have indicated that simply importing the clips to a 30p timeline is all that's needed. Apparently, the NLE should interpret the footage correctly.
That will be sweet, if it's really that simple.

There's been a lot of speculation as to the level of function of the Sony A lenses with the VG10, particularly regarding f-stop control by the camera.
I just discovered a footnote on the main Sony Style VG10 webpage that confirms the bad news:

"3. Attaching Sony A-mount lens requires LA-EA1 adaptor (sold separately). Manual focus and full open aperture shooting only."

I guess there's always hope that Sony might cook up something like an f 1.4, 50mm prime E type video lens if this line of cams is successful. I'm concerned that the VG10 will not provide the CX550 class of low light performance with only f 3.5 max aperture.
An f 1.4 lens would be around 4 stops faster- an entire world of difference for available light photography.

.............I thought it was pretty clever of Sony. It straddles all of the markets except 24p.

Absolutely agree with you on this. And in the PAL world, this means they basically aim to take all the markets, even part of the NTSC's 24p market as well.

This may be the best explanation I've heard yet. I'll get plenty of use out of 1080/60i.

Given the relatively small size of the camera from the pictures I've seen and given it's capabilities, anyone think that if Sony develops a Pro version of this camcorder with several firmware upgrades and XLRs, that it would make a worthy successor to the HVR-A1? Maybe I'm being too hopeful that Sony releases a Pro version of this camcorder, but, as an avid A1 user, I've been waiting for the true successor of the A1 for some time.

Seems like there have been very clear signals that Sony does have a ramped up version of the VG10 in the works, supposedly to be announced by the end of the year.
It could be the same body with some XLRs added to the handle, plus a few extra buttons, or could be a bigger body- essentially a whole new cam based around the same APS chip. Rumors are that it will be priced in the $4,000 range, so you would think they're going to have to give more than just a couple of XLR plugs.
We'll have to wait & watch.

I just hope Canon comes up with something in the $1,200-$2,000 range. I can live without XLRs. The lack of 24p is a little harder to overlook.

The typical "deinterlacing" software that we use for true 60i to 30p conversion would not be recommended, as it would alter the fields in its attempt to "blend" them into single frames.
I have no first hand experience with this yet, but some posters have indicated that simply importing the clips to a 30p timeline is all that's needed. Apparently, the NLE should interpret the footage correctly.
That will be sweet, if it's really that simple.

There is no conversion. There is no deinterlacing. There is no blending. There is no "interpretation."

1) 60i is 30 FRAMES per second.

2) 30p is 30 FRAMES per second.

There is NO frame rate difference between the two, hence no timeline difference, You can use a 30p timeline or a 60i timeline. Both are 30fps.

The only difference is that with CCD/CMOS captured 60i the odd lines and even lines are captured 1/50th or 1,60th second apart while with 30p ALL lines are captured at the same time.

This very simple difference has five implications:

1) With 60i, the odd and even lines make up 2 FIELDS that, on CRTs, are displayed one after the other thereby providing a FIELD TEMPORAL RESOLUTION of 1/60th second in contrast to 30p that has a FIELD TEMPORAL RESOLUTION of 1/30th second. This is why motion looks more smooth with 60i.

2) With flat-panel displays 60i must be deinterlaced. Simply put, each FIELD is converted in SIZE to a FRAME. Thus 60i is converted to 60p. Therefore, the FIELD TEMPORAL RESOLUTION remains 1/60th second.

3) Because SCALING must be done by FIELD (interlaced video) or FRAME (progressive video) your NLE needs to know what kind of video is in the timeline. BUT, as long as you set your timeline to INTERLACED all will be well because scaling the odd lines separately from the even lines does NO harm to progressive video. So all this talk about editing as progressive is a waste of time. Simply edit based upon the recorded format -- which is why Sony calls it 50i/60i.

4) In fact, if you want to burn a BD, you want to keep the timeline as 60i because it will happily output video that can go to a BD. BD does not support p25 or p30.

5) If you want to go to the web, DO NOT DEINTERLACE! When you compress, be sure the output is H.264/AVC as this codec has no tag "i" vs "p" tag. (Apple allows assumes H.264/AVC IS progressive.)

Folks are overthinking this.

The lack of 24p is a little harder to overlook.

UNLESS watch film in a theater you have not ever seen 24p.

UNLESS you transfer to film and watch in a theater you have not ever seen 24p.

UNLESS you transfer to film and watch in a theater you have not ever seen 24p.

All this 24p talk -- unless you transfer 24p to FILM -- is nonsense!

What every person demands -- they will never get when viewing on any home video device -- except the Kuro.

What you see on ANY video device is 2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER present in 60i video.

2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER present in 60i video does NOT look like 24fps projected film.

24fps is smooth -- with low temporal resolution.

2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER is NOT smooth but has low temporal resolution.

What is smooth AND has low temporal resolution? What looks like real projected film?

25p and 30p.

When folks claim they can see the difference between 24p and 30p they are actually saying they can see the difference between "smooth" (30p) and "non-smooth" (2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER). Somehow they have lost the fact that real film projected is smooth.

So from now on lets get real. Please say "The lack of 2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER is a little harder to overlook."

PS: you don't even see 24p on your computer because LCDs run at 60p. You see 2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER.

Well said Steve. Both posts.

Ron Evans

3) Because SCALING must be done by FIELD (interlaced video) or FRAME (progressive video) your NLE needs to know what kind of video is in the timeline. BUT, as long as you set your timeline to INTERLACED all will be well because scaling the odd lines separately from the even lines does NO harm to progressive video. So all this talk about editing as progressive is a waste of time. Simply edit based upon the recorded format -- which is why Sony calls it 50i/60i.

Steve- I agree with what you have said.
The issue I was attempting to address in my post was the issue of using the VG10 30p in 60i footage on a 30p timeline.
For example, to mix VG10 footage with true (non pseudo interlaced) 30p footage on a 30p timeline. Some have suggested that you can simply import the raw VG10 clps to the 30p timeline and the NLE will interpret it properly.
I don't know if that is correct or not, and I don't know if all of the footage would be processed identically when rendering out to final formats.

UNLESS watch film in a theater you have not ever seen 24p.

UNLESS you transfer to film and watch in a theater you have not ever seen 24p.

UNLESS you transfer to film and watch in a theater you have not ever seen 24p.

All this 24p talk -- unless you transfer 24p to FILM -- is nonsense!

What every person demands -- they will never get when viewing on any home video device -- except the Kuro.

What you see on ANY video device is 2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER present in 60i video.

2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER present in 60i video does NOT look like 24fps projected film.

24fps is smooth -- with low temporal resolution.

2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER is NOT smooth but has low temporal resolution.

What is smooth AND has low temporal resolution? What looks like real projected film?

25p and 30p.

When folks claim they can see the difference between 24p and 30p they are actually saying they can see the difference between "smooth" (30p) and "non-smooth" (2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER). Somehow they have lost the fact that real film projected is smooth.

So from now on lets get real. Please say "The lack of 2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER is a little harder to overlook."

PS: you don't even see 24p on your computer because LCDs run at 60p. You see 2:3 PULLDOWN JUDDER.

Keep in mind 24p in theaters is actually 48fps with the each frame shown twice. Regardless each frame is shown for a true 1/24 of a second.

The judder problem with 2:3 pulldown is each frame is _not_ shown for a true 1/24 of a second. Frame periods can only be either 1/30 (2 60i or 60p fields) or 1/20 (3 60i or 60p fields) of a second and is easily perceptible as _variable_ judder for fast moving objects. 24p still has judder but it is even and invariable for fast moving objects.

Today it is possible to purchase home displays that can show a progressive frame rate of 120 Hz. These displays (disable the oversampling/judder removing "smooth scan"/interframe interpolating technology) can reproduce a filmic 24p experience in a home setting. The 120Hz display shows the same progressive 24p frame 5 times (vs the theaters 2).

Temporally this is equivalent. Both show a single frame for a true 1/24 of a second. Perception of judder is equivalent. I think it can be argued that one is seeing true 24p with a 120Hz display as much as they see true 24p from a 48Hz projector in a theater.

Its not wrong to want 24p, just because another doesn't have a need. In fact I think 30p is great looking and 60p even smoother, but for technical reasons associated with your final production needs, 24p may be the right way to go.

24p is wanted by film makers who want to have the same amount of frames in a second of film, as are found on one second of 35mm or 16mm film in modern cine film production.

Most 24p formats give you 24 single frames of film. In some of the formats, particurly in HDV, 24 p is laid into a 60i format, of 60 half frames per second. That does not mean that the information is not there their to extract those 24 frames into true 24 single shot frames. It is there, but has just been laid into the 60i stream to create the 24p frames, while conforming with the HDV requirements. Many will use a convertor like Cineform to remove pull down, and at that point you will begin working with only the 24 frames per second. It will save space and time.

Now why do so many film makers want to use 24p? While they say that, I don't think it is because they feel it shows better on video screens. While they say they can tell the difference, the main reason is that film outs (the dream of most cinema film makers) are 24p. Obviously if you shout in HDV 60i, some frames have to be thrown out to get 24p, and it may even be that interpolation will have to occur. Kind of a crappy thing to do, if you can just get it all by shooting 24p in the first place. And from my experience with 30p to 24p conversion with the Canon 5D material, even more problems occur.

As to the judder thing, I am finding that it doesn't show up if you are panning properly, and shooting at a proper shutter speed. And I do have to disagree that you don't seen judder in 35mm celluloid films. I believe I have seen it on many occasions. Control of camera movement is the key to preventing issues there.

Today it is possible to purchase home displays that can .... can reproduce a filmic 24p experience in a home setting.

Indeed! I have one such display (a Panasonic) sitting downstairs. 24P from my Pentax K-x and Pana HMC40 both look great on it.

Today it is possible to purchase home displays that can show a progressive frame rate of 120 Hz. These displays (disable the oversampling/judder removing "smooth scan"/interframe interpolating technology) can reproduce a filmic 24p experience in a home setting. The 120Hz display shows the same progressive 24p frame 5 times (vs the theaters 2).

Temporally this is equivalent. Both show a single frame for a true 1/24 of a second. Perception of judder is equivalent. I think it can be argued that one is seeing true 24p with a 120Hz display as much as they see true 24p from a 48Hz projector in a theater.
Plus, certain models of LG plasmas do 24p as 72 Hz, just like Kuro (of course, it could be argued that just about nothing else about LG plasmas is like a Kuro!). And if you want 24p as 48 Hz, Panasonic's G-series plasmas will do it. Many people -- probably most of whom have seen film projected in a movie theater -- report objectionable flicker. Even though it's the same frequency as in a movie theater, there's a difference in the experience.

There is a difference between the flicker rate and the frame rate. Film projectors can have 2, 3 or even 5 blades ( mine at home have 3 and 5 blades) this reduces the flickering of image on the screen only. The exposure rate at which the film was taken is 24 fps in most cases and it is possible to ensure that there is no judder. Lots of books have been written on this subject and any film school or even film clubs will focus on this to get the best picture possible within the constraints of what was an economic decision. Nothing to do with art or technology but was the best compromise for motion and optical sound performance with minimum film stock used and distributed.

Yes modern 72hz, 120hz and 240hz displays technically have the capability to show true 24p with flicker rate at display refresh rate but the playback chain has to be complete at this level for it all to work properly. ie compatible Bluray player/display and HDMI interface etc. The vast majority of viewers do not see 24p on their systems. They see a modified form depending on their systems and almost impossible on normal CRT's.

Shooting 24p video to me only has value if the intent is to go to film for projection. 30P would be a better choice for the film look if the intent is never to go to film. Personally, I don't like either and was so glad when I moved from film to video.

Ron Evans

Ron -- glad you pointed out the need for the entire chain to support 24p.

And I'm glad to learn of the LG -- did they buy the Kuro line?

The maximum presentation rate for film to look like film is 96Hz. And with video, the minimum is 72Hz.

There are only a few HDTVs that meet these specs! The vast majority of those wanting 24p do not own these monitors. Likely 1% of their audience has the few HDTVs.

Thus, NONE will ever see 24fps. EVER!

They are asking for 24p because frankly they are uneducated about video tek. Having no understanding themselves they lemming like repeat what they heard.

What they think is the film look IS 2-3 pulldown not 24p.

What will most look like theater 24fps is 30fps.

They demand 24 for was valid when video was going to transferred to FILM. It has no validity now that indie productions are watched on flat-panels and computers.

PS: you can always put 30p in a 60i timeline.

Ok, well I happen to like the 2:3 Pulldown Judder look.

And I'm glad to learn of the LG -- did they buy the Kuro line?
No, I think LG was doing 72 Hz on their plasmas before Pioneer stopped producing Kuros. And I think Panasonic acquired the Kuro tech, at least the image-processing part of it (not the panels -- in fact, I believe Panasonic was set to produce panels for the Kuro line, that is, until Pioneer pulled the plug).

In my mind most of the film look comes from the techniques used to mask the slow frame rate. Shallow depth of field so that the background is out of focus and the judder in the background is thus minimized by out of focus motion blur. Letting the action take place in front of the camera rather than camera moves like panning. Tracking shots rather than panning with shallow depth of field. Choosing contrast and saturation to emphasis the subject . Use slow motion effects( shoot at really high frame rates) when the action really is too fast for 24P. etc etc All of these techniques can be used with higher frame rates.

The slower frame rate of film was economics driven. Minimize the cost of distributing to all those theatres.

60i was economics driven too. Minimize the bandwidth required to transmit a usable video image. And just like film/projectors combination, 60i was designed as a system of cameras and CRT displays. Flat panel displays were not part of the system hence the issue of scaling and deinterlacing that causes so much problem. From the display point of view they refresh at 60Hz or more so a 60p video signal would be the most compatible. I am looking forward to that day!!!

Ron Evans

That's what find amazing about the 24p video folks. They completely fail to understand that filmmakers make every effort to MINIMIZE the nasty side effects --foreground and background strobing from low temporal resolution -- that comes from the ECONOMICS of the cost of film.

No one wanted 24fps. It was the most economic way of getting sound on film. It was never an esthetic choice. It had nothing to do with "suspension of belief" for narrative film.

In fact, compared to the original 15fps to 18fps -- 24fps was a step toward higher quality because it offered greater temporal resolution.

There is no reason to believe had film been cheaper, that 30fps or even higher wouldn't have been used.

Now it has become a fetish. (Google the word.)

The fetish is so strong that even when people learn that what they SEE with 24fps on video is actually not 24fps but 2-3 pulldown -- they then insist they like 2-3 pulldown. This despite the fact that those who actually shoot film want monitors that show film without 2:3 judder.

Obviously, the fetishists are no longer SEEing anything. They are BELIEVING. They are past evidence. They are have a faith. A faith not in aactual LOOK, but in a number. Might as well be avoiding 666.

Moreover, like all faith, the key is to admit no new information. No doubt. No option to actually LOOK at 30fps at see IF it looks better. No option to actually LOOK at 30fps and compare it to projected film.

Faith cannot get updated by new technology. Things can NOT be better. Things must remain the same.

We've seen this reaction before. When sound was added to film. Folks were convinced that subtitles created a story in the mind (like books) and were people to hear actors speaking it would destroy the imaginative power of film. (I imagine film itself was feared for the same reason by writers.) And, printing a Bible was claimed to destroy religion because it bypassed priests.

So the question is do folks want the look of projected film or do they want a camera specification?

PS 1: one of the primary reasons why filmmakers want a shallow DOF (VG10) is because it reduces background strobing from low temporal resolution!

PS 2: The point of a slow shutter-speed (VG10) is to help cover the strobing from low temporal resolution.

> Obviously, the fetishists are no longer SEEing anything. They are BELIEVING. They are past evidence.

With this statement, this thread has officially jumped the shark. Google it.

Not much changing in this argument since last year when I asked:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/film-look-methods-techniques/150604-24p-its-way-out.html

Steve Mullen

Excellent myth-busting posts. And long overdue.

The tiresome drone of 24p fetishists is very boring, and often delusional IMO. Like the emperor's new clothes you have to be a believer to see it.

But is there anything there? I'm not convinced. Of course i may be wrong.

Has anything new about the vg10 came out lately?

Hey, I have been using 30p for a while now and I really like the look. If I am getting this right the VG10 is shooting 30p within a 60i stream. How well do you think it will cut with a Sony V1 with a nano flash?

Steve Mullen,
Thank you for your excellent posts. This 24p fetish can be really irritating. I can take this new VG10, 60i or 30P and all, and turn it into a money-making tool for my business. I can also go out and shoot my own personal film projects with it. It's ability to give me a narrow depth of field and to use a large array of lenses gives me a new option in my productions. I already have 24P in my present camera. I'll trade that for better DoF control any day.

I compare this fetish to other interests in my life - motorcycles and rifles. There are some bikers who only ride Harleys. To them, all other makes suck. Never mind their bikes are 1940s - 50s tech. Never mind modern sportbikes can run rings around them, and beat them in every single performance category. They simply refuse to look at any other bike if it doesn't say "Harley" on it. And on their clothes. And boots., And bandannas, etc... It's that same close-minded attitude that irks me about 24P fanboys, and I even ride a Harley! (One of many bikes I've owned.) I'm not saying you shouldn't own a Harley if you like them, just don't bad-mouth all other bikes because they're not.

it also goes to those who are enamored to "black rifles," aka AR-15s. If you don't have the latest and greatest AR-15 ( M4gery) clone, with all the latest scopes, tactical lights, etc. you're not "with it." Never mind if the rifle has inherent weaknesses that more modern rifles have addressed. I've owned one before, found it was too much trouble to upkeep, and moved on to other rifles.

I have no personal investment in Sony. I don't own stock, etc. But I hate to see this product being unfairly criticised because it doesn't conform to some 24P fanboys' idea of video nirvana.
Let's try the cameras out before we make any judgements. Have an open mind. And never forget, content is king; always has been, always will be. If your film sucks, 24P won't save it.

The way you devotees of 60i and 30p can defeat the evils of 24p is show your amazing work to the industry, and press it to adopt these better frame rates. While you may be absolutely right about its value, wringing of hand and talk is cheap.

The concern raised by some that this camera should have 24p, is a valid concern, given an emphasis on that frame rate by many if power in segments of the industry. What if you show up at a job and the client says, "Of course, you will be shooting in 24p, right ?" So having it available is a valid concern. I have it available on my Canon 5d, and my Canon T2i, and I am happy it is there. On the T2i I also have 60p, and I am happy it is there too !

Point is with this camera, Sony continues to leave it off of its low end cameras, while Canon has included it. So I will opt for a camera that does have it available.

I've found it interesting how passionate folks are about what they do and how diverse our members' styles are.

There are those of us (myself included) who think this camera won't be suitable for what we do because it doesn't have a true 60i. From the other side, there are folks who think it won't be suitable because it won't give them 24p. There are those of us on the 60i side who could care less about 24p and vice versa , and there are folks on either side who feel that their views reflect the only proper way to do things. Some think it's low light performance won't be good enough. Others think it will be fine for what they do as long as they can find suitable lenses. Some of us will be pleased to have changeable lenses while others of us feel extra lenses will get in the way of what we do. Some enjoy the the prospect of learning new techniques with a different kind of camera while others (with sizable investments in other cameras) are disappointed that it will not integrate well (or not well enough) with our existing equipment investments.

The VG10 gets hit from several sides at once. Mostly for not being designed to be all things for all videographers.

Can that really be done? I think not. It seems to me instead that this camera might be finding a new niche and will develop its own following, some of whom will be equally as passionate and we find ourselves reading a whole new array of posts where folks exasperatedly accuse each other of being fanboys or fetishists of weird, antique or niche technologies.

I agree wholeheartedly with the part of Glen's comment: "Let's try the cameras out before we make any judgments."

I think that comment also answers Ron Little's question for now.