http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/FAUX%20PROGRESSIVE.jpg

Whaddya think guys? Interesting...

Makes me think they're using a "frame mode". Would be interesting to take a Canon 24f clip (normal, colour) and replace the interpolated field with different de-interlace algorithms to see which looks closest to the original. Can you suggest a good clip for me to downloadm, Barlow, and I'll try and post back results.

Graeme

I'll try to put up a few for you, Graeme. I'll post later on today.

is he trying to compare an h1 1080 frame to a jvc 720 frame?

If I'm not mistaken, he wants to "deinterlace" a 24F clip, render it out as a new clip, and then compare it to the original.

Yes Barlow. I want to put my nice deinterlacer from my FinalTouch plugins onto it.

Graeme

Graeme, how about a 60i clip converted to 24p for reference too. I'd like to see if there's difference perceptually. btw, anyone with a nice 50i clip to share, that would be helpful too, as it might make a difference for some of us who are considering the PAL modification to know if it makes for better 24p conversion.

I want to just look at de-interlacing and resolution, so 60i to 30p would be my preferable comparison to 24f and 24f with de-interlace.

Graeme

btw, Graeme, I'm not sure how you can deinterlace a progressive frame? It's already done so how are fields going to be separated and re-deinterlaced?

Whenever I've seen 24f, it looks like on field is real, the other created. I want to throw away the created field and see if I can make it "better" from the real field.

Graeme

A red filter will inhibit a lot of green... that is what I have used them for in the past. If these cameras are using the green to do pixel shifting, wouldnt this make sense? The interlaced areas are where the green would fill up? I am not an engineer or anything, just a seasoned shooter. I am gonna throw a red filter on the HVX to see what happens...



ash =o)

Looking at the really nice footage that Barlow sent, it looks to me like frame mode. It really looks to be doing some kind of blend - it doesn't look aliassed enough to be a de-interlace, but it's too aliassed to be a total field blend. It actually looks really good - not perfect, but really good.

Graeme

Hey could somebody shoot a scene with a red filter and then shoot the same locked down scene without the filter to compare the results and/or post two frame grabs? It would also be great if you could use the remote control to zoom in and out and match two frames at the exact same moment in motion. Then we can really figure out what is going on with the second field during motion.

Why would anybody shoot this way in the real world? Narrative, television, documentary, even videography, wedding?

I've been thinking the same thing, Robert. I think there's just a lot of geek interest in reverse engineering 24F. It's an esoteric puzzle that really amounts to very little.

Edit: My post was a little premature. Mike shot this way because he likes to push for a different look of Black and White in-camera. Using a red filter can enhance contrasts. He inadvertently stumbled onto something that messed with 24F however, and wanted people to see it, warts and all.

The geek interest thing was in reference not to the red filter/24F thing, but just this fascination with figuring out the 24F scheme.

Looking at the really nice footage that Barlow sent, it looks to me like frame mode. It really looks to be doing some kind of blend - it doesn't look aliassed enough to be a de-interlace, but it's too aliassed to be a total field blend. It actually looks really good - not perfect, but really good.

Graeme

Given the two measures (Adam and Shanon) of vertical resolution -- you need to look at both static and dynamic video. Most good deinterlacers today are Adaptive.Some are adaptive by a frame and some to a regionl.

It would be helpful -- at least to me -- if we used the names like bob and weave that others use.

Monday my HDV@Work Newsletter will have a complete description of common interlace technology. Sign up today at www.videosystems.com. It's FREE!

Anyone can explain to a non-native english what does it mean this Pappas stuff? The way to go will be the progressive chip rather than the interlaced one? Under the aliasing hassle? Not present into the progressive world? Is this really?

Anyone can explain to a non-native english what does it mean this Pappas stuff? The way to go will be the progressive chip rather than the interlaced one? Under the aliasing hassle? Not present into the progressive world? Is this really?

Leuname,

Michael was using a red filter to test and give an interesting look to Black and White footage, and he accidentally found something that can mess with 24F material. It's fairly obvious that starving the green frequencies hampers the camera's ability to resolve well. If you ever plan on doing black and white with a filter like this to really push contrasts, the camera may not be the ideal match for you.

Aliasing is a scary word, but I find it to be so incredibly minute if at all in 24F, it really irritates me to even mention it. Good grief, if people think that is such an issue then they shouldn't even consider the XL-H1. Those (like me) that happen to think 24F is amazingly good however it is arrived at, should be happy that Canon at least took the 24P look seriously, and engineered something outstanding from an interlaced CCD.

Bottom Line: If you know what you're doing, 24F can make an extremely good HD source for a film out. If you don't consider 50i to 24p conversion to be a valid film look than why even consider the H1? Stay with a "true progressive" camera and feel cozy.

I don't know about the lot of you, but I don't give a damn about the mechanism ultimately, just the results.

I don't know about the lot of you, but I don't give a damn about the mechanism ultimately, just the results.

When one understands how a system works, it can often lead to better insights regarding the system limitations, perhaps how to best deal with the limitations, perhaps how to avoid the limitation, or perhaps how to use the system in new ways previously undiscovered.

Best,
Christopher

Point well taken, Christopher, but damn all this confounded logic! Can't we have a little blissful ignorance!!! Michael took the red pill and I DON"T WANT IT!! *smile*

btw, is it just me, or is Steve really the architect at the end of the Matrix trilogy? JK!!!!!

It's fairly obvious that starving the green frequencies hampers the camera's ability to resolve well.This should be no surprise at all, considering that the green CCD receives half of all the incoming light in any three-chip camcorder.

This should be no surprise at all, considering that the green CCD receives half of all the incoming light in any three-chip camcorder.


Ah but at the same time the filter on the HD100 didn't have this same problem. Both cameras were tested with the same filter. I'm not saying the HD100 is better or not just that the amount of light from the green CCD doesn't really matter in this situation. I love the look of both cameras and because of Michael I think we finally know most of the ins and outs of both cameras to finally make a good choice as to which one is better for us.

My whole reason for getting into this topic is that a lot of people kept saying the H1 was just deinterlaced but I didn't agree with them. From the 24F footage I have seen I could not find any of the usual artifacts. Interlaced video kills me and I am very sensitive to the artifacts it can cause. I personally could give a damn how detailed or what resolution it is as long as it is clean.

I guess what my main concern is how can the SDI signal be 4:2:2 if it is interpolated from 540 pixels? Are we not now getting into the same area as the HVX200 in terms of color resolution?

... I think we finally know most of the ins and outs of both cameras to finally make a good choice as to which one is better for us.Oh boy. I would be seriously worried if someone bases a purchase decision on this. Shouldn't it instead be based on whether or not you like the image you're getting, and the ergonomics and form factor of the camera? In other words, why should this be a deal-breaker.

You know this exact same topic is going on over at DVX User, and I encourage anyone who likes to fixate over this sort of thing to please pick up on the discussion over there. One of their moderators, Barry S., makes an excellent point about this deal and anyone who is interested should read it. It's located at:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=489154&postcount=18

Chris I wasn't talking about this chroma thing as one of the ins and outs. In fact it isn't really a big deal to me. I would never look at something like that as a reason not to get a camera. Heck I started with an XL1 when it first came out even though it had smaller chips. People told me it didn't have enough resolution but I liked the look of the video.

To this day people still comment on the footage I shot with that camera. Yes it is soft but I personally think video is too sharp anyways.

I guess it wasn't very clear and I am sorry. I was trying to point out that while I love to know exactly what is going on to get the image in the end it comes down to the look and how the camera handles. What I was talking about in terms of Michael's tests of the cameras was the samples of real world video shot in different environments. Out of everybody he has given the best footage I have seen to date from both the H1 and HD100. He has proved to all of us that the camera doesn't matter as much as how you use it. That is what I am thanking him for.

When I said we can finally make a good choice I meant to not judge on the numbers but look at Michael's samples and figure out which camera we like best based on the mood and atmosphere of the images and on how well the camera handles.

For me it comes down to how the camera handles as much as what the image looks like. I love the way the JVC handles but I like the image a little bit better from the H1.

The main reason again why I continue to get involved in this pi$%&ng contest is to help prove that the H1 is in fact better than simple deinterlacing like some would suggest.

All I was trying to point out that regardless of what color is getting cut off this green issue is so far found on only the H1. I only said this in response to statements of how any camera would look like this with a red filter on the front. That is totally not true.

As far as I know nobody here was in no way ever bashing the H1. They were just pointing out an interesting find. I didn't realize it was now a crime to talk about the tech side of these cameras.

I would be seriously worried if someone bases a purchase decision on this. Shouldn't it instead be based on whether or not you like the image you're getting, ...

Consider a similar discussion on digital photography forums. One person states they prefer CMOS over CCD and everyone pounces on him, telling him to ignore the technology and base his decision on the images. He then explains that he uses his camera on ten-day hikes in the wilderness where battery consumption and dust due to lens changes are major factors in his decision process. Then there's a flurry of, "oops, my bad."

I can understand that most readers on this forum may skip this thread, but I don't understand the reluctance to discuss the details of technology inside the camera. Putting aside the fact that some people are just plain interested in knowing the details, perhaps there is someone on this forum who wants to purchase a camera for fast-action chroma key. Could a better understanding of the method used to create the images affect his purchasing decision? Can anyone state with certainty that discussions about the methods used to create the images can not possibly affect even one purchasing decision?

Forums are not only useful for the majority who have typical requirements, but are also useful for the individuals who have special requirements.

Best,
Christopher

I didn't realize it was now a crime to talk about the tech side of these cameras.Hi Thomas, it's not a crime as far as I'm concerned... believe me if I thought it was a crime, I'd just close it or make it go away. Obviously there's no need for that. Where I become annoyed, is when these technology discussions draw attention away from more important things, such as how to use the gear and what we're creating with it. We can't change the way the electronics work, so what's the difference. I guess my point is, with these new cars we're buying, instead of talking about the engines, why not talk about how to drive and where to go. Because that's something you can take away from here and really use.

I don't understand the reluctance to discuss the details of technology inside the camera.My reluctance stems primarily from the fact that a lot of this stuff is sheer speculation until the manufacturer actually confirms it. Even then, what can you do with that information anyway. While there's nothing wrong with the "how does it work" geek factor, I find it thoroughly unproductive and distracting.

While there's nothing wrong with the "how does it work" geek factor, I find it thoroughly unproductive and distracting.

Kind of like sitting on this forum all day instead of working.

Hi Thomas, it's not a crime as far as I'm concerned... believe me if I thought it was a crime, I'd just close it or make it go away. Obviously there's no need for that. Where I become annoyed, is when these technology discussions draw attention away from more important things, such as how to use the gear and what we're creating with it.


Nobody is trying to draw attention from anything. Only a handfull of us geeks really even care to read this stuff about the CCD's. If we cannot talk about the tech specs of the cameras on this forum where should we talk about it? I for one thought this was a place to discuss and share information about everything video related. Since these topics keep coming up and get very long they must be of interest to somebody. Most of us blabbing about this junk know how to judge between the tech junk and the art. Perhaps that is why we do care so much. We care about the image so much that we want to make sure we can maxamize our cameras to their full potential. Doing that means knowing the limitations of a specific camera and how to deal with it. What would happen if a few months from now somebody with a BW film background wanted to do a BW piece and they came across this issue? They would get freaked out and we would all be trying to figure out what was going on anyways.

... there's nothing wrong with the "how does it work" geek factor,

Is there nothing wrong with the implication that Steve is a geek?

I find it thoroughly unproductive and distracting.

Oh, the irony of trying to derail a technical discussion with distracting comments like this. Let's see if we can find a more productive and less distracting post in the archives. Ah yes, a post regarding the color of the XL H1.

I've heard people call it The Black Knight, Black Beauty, the Little Cine-Alta. Still looks like a chainsaw to me though.

Good to know when making a purchasing decision. Nothing unproductive there. :)

Best,
Christopher

Is there nothing wrong with the implication that Steve is a geek?

Oh, the irony of trying to derail a technical discussion with distracting comments like this. Let's see if we can find a more productive and less distracting post in the archives. Ah yes, a post regarding the color of the XL H1.

Good to know when making a purchasing decision. Nothing unproductive there. :)

Best,
Christopher

I'm fine with "geek!"

I find several things wrong with the "use your eyes" line of reasoning:

1) It's totally subjective in the worst possible way. Person A claims they see noise. Person B claims they don't. Such postings are nearly useless because we have no reason to trust either A or B. Moreover, we have no idea of the real conditions each were shooting in. Or, how they had their cameras setup. (How many of these posts conatin ALL the necessary information?) Worse, if B owns the camcorder, I know Cognitive Dissonance pushes him to "not see" problems in his new purchase. And, if person A owns something else, then we have a double set of motivations at work.

2) Because of the above problems, until the internet, folks read reviews by professional reviewers. These are people who have eyes that can be trusted. They are also people who know how to test cameras under equal conditions. And, they have always been people who had a very deep knowedge of technology. And, that's because knowing technology allows a pro reviewer to get past the tricks used by all manufacturers to get good "numbers." (Using pixel-shift with format sub-sampling CCDs to get good static resolution numbers is a prime example. Once objects move, as is most often the case with video, as Adams' tests show, real-world resolution drops.) Or, more relevant to this discussion, create instant WOW. Examples of these include, super brite TV pictures, bass boom, treble sizzle, no noise (only later does one realize there is no chrma detail), super warm color. There are hundreds of ways to trick buyers.

3) Until recently, no magazine would even trust these folks eyes. So the equipment was sent to an independent lab for testing. Here standardized tests were run of equipment, and information reported to the reviewer to write up. This process let a reader know with confidence how each piece of equipment performed -- and using comparative charts -- how it performed compared to other equipment. For example, recent TESTING of the h950 showed it's audio recording to be equal to a Nagra. With these tests, the internert rumor that one HAS to use double-system sound can be put to rest.

4) Unfortunately, IMHO too much of what gets posted -- except for the geek stuff -- is nothing but either rumors ("I heard ...) or subjective comments ("I saw ...) -- that starts rumors. Magazines pay good money to reviwers. They have to worry about "what if my reviewer is wrong?" So they chose very, very carefully.

5) But what's really appalling, is that certain companies -- are now promoting "use your eyes" as a way of avoiding describing their technology. They give a range of "reasons" to avoiding talking about their technology and giving numbers, but we know two things:

a) when these same companies had great technology, they were the first to reveal it. They published Handbooks and White Papers going into their "better" technology. They were not the least the least bit shy about company "secrets."

b) when companies have, by the press, been pushed to reveal their technology -- we find they did, in fact, have reasons to be concerned. And, this is not OT to the H1. Anyone with an understanding of the deinterlacing technology perhaps used by Canon -- can TEST my speculation and, even more important, they know extactly how/when 24F will not look as good as 24p.



Chris says he likes posts about "how to use the gear and what we're creating with it." Certainly nothing wrong with that, but if you check, these types of posts are in the minority. If these were the only posts published, these groups would be dead. Clearly, what he wants posted and what folks want to read about are at odds. The posts on technology have been read far more than such "positive" posts. Just look at the numbers. Almost 10,000 hits on posts releated to how the HVX200 worked.

And, there's a reason. Deep down most folks correctly don't trust the eyes of other folks who post. And, they are not sure that in a few minutes at a store they will make the right decision. Other's don't even live near a store. And, they sure don't trust Marketing from anyone.

All these folks are in need of objective information from folks who deeply understand the technology. That's why magazines like Road & Track have readers. And, why they do reviews. And, why they hire technology experts to do the reviews.

Readers understand that it is the technology geeks who are trying to keep things honest and objective. And, the reason geeks can do this is because we understand the technology. True, we can't change it -- in the CURRENT generation. But we can reveal it. And, we can reveal what DIFFERENCE that technology makes to the shooter. Sometimes that helps him or her avoid problems. Sometimes that helps someone avoid buying something. And, although geeks often do "speculate" we try to make our speculations TESTABLE by others. That's how science works.

If you read how the top shooters approach a project, they combine both science and art. A deeper understanding of one's tools is never is distracting to a true craftsman.

Another point, hopefully on topic: for an extra $500, H1 owners have the option of shooting 50i instead of 24f. If an understanding of 24f yields info that makes it clear that shooting 50i and converting to progressive in post is a better choice for filmout, some users might go that route.

Chris says he likes posts about "how to use the gear and what we're creating with it" but if you check, these types of posts are in the minority. If these were the only posts published, these groups would be dead.No, they wouldn't be dead. They would be a lot quieter. And that just might happen. As is clearly indicated by the complete lack of any banner ads on this board, I don't make a living off this site and I'm not depending on it for any financial gain (happily it covers its own costs thanks to the generous support of a select handful of equipment dealers). I could just as easily pull the plug on this thing if I thought it was veering too far off the course I originally intended for it. As for the pixel counters, these endless measurebatory threads can be found on any of a wide variety of cookie-cutter message boards that seem to thrive on hype, controversy and hyperbolic sensationalism. One can find that stuff anywhere; DV Info Net isn't needed for that. I would much rather have those posts that are in the minority. And the quality of our content would actually benefit from having *less* traffic, not more. Anyone who knows me knows also that this site has always been about the quality, not quantity of discussions we have here.

Clearly, what he wants posted and what folks want to read about are at odds.Folks are free to go elsewhere to read whatever they wish... and more importantly, folks can excersize their freedom of speech and start their own message board / blog / site / whatever, and run it however they see fit. Meanwhile, I'll continue to liberally shape the type of content that I prefer to see here. On those occassions where we're "at odds," believe me it never lasts very long. With regard to those occassional decisions I've made as to how I shape it, the phenomenal growth rate this site has experienced in recent years obviously supports my claim that I know what I'm doing. I'm not interested in attracting a large audience here... I'm interested in attracting only a certain type of person seeking a different kind of internet experience. Those who choose to participate here exclusively know exactly what I'm talking about.

The posts on technology have been read far more than such "positive" posts. Just look at the numbers. Almost 10,000 hits on posts releated to how the HVX200 worked.Incorrect. If you're referring to the two HVX threads I closed, one by you with 4700 views and one by Jaser Stockert with 5100 views, then you're sadly mistaken. And now I'll show you the numbers which prove it.

If you look at the HVX forum and sort its order by the popularity of threads (their total "hits" as represented by the Views column), you'll clearly see that our most popular threads have nothing at all to do with counting pixels. The single most popular HVX thread has more than 15,000 views (thanks again to Kaku Ito!) and there are at least a dozen others that received more hits than Jaser Stockert's pixel count thread. See for yourself:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=80&daysprune=-1&order=desc&sort=views

Point being, that just because Steve Mullen says something, does not necessarily make it so. The board statistics don't lie, and they clearly show that the posts on technology have NOT been read "far more than such positive posts." In fact, they show quite the opposite.

From what are these posts distracting? Actual real-world owner experiences, not to mention practical information that a reader can take away and put to use in their own particular setting. That is what is truly helpful to this particular community, as opposed to counting pixels.

That's too bad, I just started using this board and was really liking it. What a drag this thread is.

Chris, up until you stated your dislike for the kind of technical discussion this thread is about, I would have been *certain* that this was exactly the kind discussion this board was for. Maybe you should write up some guidelines or criteria that would make it clear what you want on this 'digital video information network' you've created. I'd be fine abiding by those guidelines and using the board for whatever remaining sections interest me.

Or maybe there are guidelines already somewhere. I haven't look for them. I'll do that now.

Boy, I can't think of any more productive discussions than the one you're having here, so since I haven't weighed in around here in awhile, I thought that I might as well stick my big foot in now...

It's hard to imagine the harm that discussions of a geek nature, such as those given birth by Steve's testing, could cause to a forum like dvinfo. In steve's mind he's providing information that wouldn't be out there (and certainly in the case of the HVX resolution...it is really quite amazing that Panasonic simply fessed up once he published his numbers). Now to many of us, we didn't need steve's numbers to prove that the HVX has lower resolution than some other cameras...I mean..I know rezzed up footage when I see it, and most of what I saw looked exactly like something that had come from a lower resolution source. Yet I'm also sure that if I viewed it on my HD set at home...it would look fabulous.

You see I'm smart enough to see for myself, like chris says, and I don't really need the numbers. But I do find the numbers fascinating. I find Steve's mysterious "model" fascinating, partially because I don't understand much of it, but partially because steve has spent the time to understand it himself, and to try to explain it to us. I think there should be room for that, even if he IS on a fools errand. It's only a couple of threads. I realize they are Chris's threads, he pay's for them, but they really seem minor in the scheme of damage that they could cause.

Thank god that we have chris to save us from the 32 page threads over at dvxuser...filled with comments like "yeah.....exactly", and "whatcha talkin bout?Dog...don't be dissin Barry (the other barry) like that!!!!!!!". The problem with forums like that is that they DO waste my time...because it takes so long to get to (or even find) the info...which is what it's all about. (And unfortunately this thread has long since headed into the same territory, and that's a shame.) DvInfo has always been about the "info" to me, and I guess that's why I don't see a problem with steve's posts.

I love all you guys.

Barry

Another point, hopefully on topic: for an extra $500, H1 owners have the option of shooting 50i instead of 24f. If an understanding of 24f yields info that makes it clear that shooting 50i and converting to progressive in post is a better choice for filmout, some users might go that route.

You are right! You maybe remember that I posted the words great deinterlacer for "mobil device." I did that because there are several techniques that are used by TV stations. Ternnex makes a very expensive box.

Now a computer, given enough speed and time, can compute like one of these. So, you are right, shooting 50i or 60i and then using advanced software could yield better results than 24F. Now I'm not sure I would want do that for all my source files, but you remind us that there are options.

I think there should be room for that, even if he IS on a fools errand. It's only a couple of threads.I'm comfortable with that assessment. What I take exception to, however, is the altogether incorrect presumption that this sort of thing is what our readers find to be most popular over everything else. I've easily disproved that (using numbers, above), but can't help wondering if such inaccurate statements are intentionally misleading. That's where the damage comes from, and also in the hype attached to such over the top levels of false self-importance. Any heavy-handed "anti-marketing" proclamation is itself ultimately nothing more than marketing of its own, only more distasteful. That's tabloid journalism. Sure, it sells, but I want no part of it, or the audience who buys into it.

Thank god that we have chris to save us from the 32 page threads over at dvxuserEasy does it, Barry! You'll upset the treaty. Those 32 page threads happen because DVX User defaults to ten replies per page, whereas ours are fifteen. If it weren't for Canadian customs, I would have sent Jarred a bottle of Stoli the day DVX User's total post count surpassed ours (shortly before he moved to L.A.), because it put DV Info Net back where I wanted it, in the relatively discreet "oh yeah, that other board" category. This way we're less of a target. And I couldn't easily say "it's all about quality, not quantity" if we had the highest total post count.

unfortunately this thread has long since headed into the same territory, and that's a shameNot to worry; like a tired, drawn out and overplayed 1080i vs 720p thread, I'll put it out of its misery if the demand is popular enough.

Or maybe there are guidelines already somewhere.Common sense usually prevails, that is until someone steps in with an agenda. Nevertheless we're probably due for some clarifications. It's a group effort which takes a little time, but we'll make it happen. Thanks,

I'm comfortable with that assessment. What I take exception to, however, is the altogether incorrect presumption that this sort of thing is what our readers find to be most popular over everything else.

While I'm happy to hear you are now "comfortable" with geek topics -- I'm surprised by you saying "the altogether incorrect presumption that this sort of thing is what our readers find to be most popular over everything else."

"Altogether incorrect presumption?" You had a way to access a different set of numbers -- while I didn't think it was worth going back farther than the first post we have been talking about. I started on page 1 and went back to my "CCD" post on page 4. Of all the posts to this point, which are the most current, mine had 4,700 hits and the "hvx200 pixel count revealed" thread had 5,100 hits. Add those two geek threads and you get nearly 10,000 hits. Even by themselves, each has the most hits of any thread in the most current 4 pages.

Simply put, we came to different conclusions because we each used a different way of counting. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if my count offended you.

Disclaimer: This post isn't about 24f, it's about the discussion about whether this thread is useful or appropriate. There is no technical content in this post, so feel free to skip it.

I am truly baffled that anyone has a problem with a technical discussion of how 24f works. After all, progressive vs. interlace is a key issue for these camcorders being pressed into service for filmmaking.

A leading camera (H1) is out and has interlaced CCDs but has a "tastes just like progressive" mode. The manufacturer won't say how they do it. The camera has some interesting features (HD-SHI out, timecode sync) that are unique to it. There are people still deciding which camera to buy. I would think knowing exactly what 24f is might be salient to their $9000 purchase decision. Some might be spending many times that amount producing a feature and deciding between shooting 50i or 24f. What people choose to use as a purchase criteria is up to them.

I think clamping down on mis-information, highly partisan information, needlessly repetitive information and off-topic or innappropriate information is exactly what the moderator should be doing. But deprecating a perfectly valid and quite useful discussion doesn't make sense to me. There are hundreds of threads on this board that aren't of interest to me, but I don't go posting into them pointing out what a 'distraction' they are because I presume they are valuable to those who are posting and reading them.

The actual subject of this thread -- how 24f works -- is very interesting to me, I'm looking forward to more technical info on that subject.

I don't need to have the last word in this discussion, but perhaps closing this thread and allowing other technically-oriented 24f threads to organically arise would make sense? I assume that if more info surfaces, starting such a thread would be considered fair game.

I don't need to have the last word in this discussion, but perhaps closing this thread and allowing other technically-oriented 24f threads to organically arise would make sense?Yes indeed, it makes perfect sense. Unless (or hopefully, until) Canon officially confirms or denies how Frame mode works on the H1, this is all sheer speculation anyway. Just like everybody else, I'm hoping Canon will come forward and choose to reveal exactly what Frame mode is, because then we'll have graduated from speculation to bona fide information.

Meanwhile, if anyone else has a 24F clue for Steve Mullen, please do me a huge favor and send it to him directly. Like a couple of other recent threads of this nature, I'm closing this one because once again a new member whose input I value has suggested that it's a good idea to do so. And I think he's right. Thanks,