can someone please explain this...I found this in a review of the HV20....

"First of all, realize that the camera has to - by HDV standards,
must write the video as 1080i60. There's no option.
Therefore, the camera writes 24p to tape by doing telecine
with a pppii cadence inroute to the tape. In order to get 24p
into your editor, you have to capture the footage, reverse
telecine and... here's the fun...

every start/stop of the hv20 does NOT start at the same
cadence during the recording. that means, if you record, hit
pause, then record again, its arbitrary where the cadence will
be. So you can't just use something like Cinema Tools to
reverse telecine the whole thing - you have to do it clip by
clip."

If you want to edit 24p in a 23.976 timeline, you have to remove the pulldown using After Effects or Cinema Tools. But you have to do it to each individual clip. It's a time consuming process, but necessary until the major NLE's can remove the pulldown. You can still edit your 24p footage in a 29.97 timeline without any problems.

Here's a try ...

Let me start by saying that the reviewer's statement is most relevant if you are into editing your videos on a computer. When you're doing this, you get the raw data as its stored in HDV so you have to deal with its idiosyncracies. If you're content with watching the video straight from the camcorder you won't run into it. But if you're like me and like to edit his videos then you need to be aware of it to "pull the sculpture from the stone."

The shot is in true progressive but its stored interlaced. The camera is labeled 1080i 60fps so when you hookup your component video cable to a display it expects a 1080i signal. To be compatible with that standard it stores the PF24 (progressive frames) inside the interlace stream. If you lookup other DV (not just HDV) cameras that are progressive, they use this technique as well. It's not new. In the comment he points out the cadence pppii (p=progressive frame, i=interlaced). There are two types of cadence commonly used. The one on the HV20 is optimized to make it easier to display (if I'm correct). The other which is advanced progressive makes it easier for software editing.

Now, on the HV20 not starting at a consistent progressive/interlace frame -- its something it has in common with other Canon HDV. This can make it tricky for getting the whole clip to look nicely progressive because it may begin with at the interlace part (imagine ipppiippp vs piipppiippp).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV

What does this mean in practical terms? I've read somewhere that you should press record early and allow a few seconds to press pause. That way if you're dealing with the raw clip you can just search for the first progressive frame and start your pull-down there. Sony Vegas was very good at doing this seamlessly for DV. We're hoping that an update will make this ease available in HDV also. When will it come, we don't know. In the meantime, you have to use more primitive (manual) means if you need to convert to a true progressive file (for reference and special effects -- "300" style slowmo).

For me it hasn't bothered me much. But then I don't do this for a living.

here's the deal...i will not be shooting 24 at all. and i will not be producing hd-dvd's...i am downscaling the final project to SD since the majority of people arent hd ready yet.

i film weddings, so do i need anything other than Premiere Pro to do my editing with this new camera...that is all I have needed until now...just my camera, my Premiere Pro and me.

For the time being I am mixing HV20 and XL1 footage until I sell the XL1 for a FX7

Thanks
~ Jason

i film weddings, so do i need anything other than Premiere Pro to do my editing with this new camera...that is all I have needed until now...just my camera, my Premiere Pro and me.You don't need anything other than your camera and Premiere Pro.

here's the deal...i will not be shooting 24 at all. and i will not be producing hd-dvd's...i am downscaling the final project to SD since the majority of people arent hd ready yet.Why not shoot 24P?* It would looks great!

Understand that when you shoot in 24P on this camera, you can edit the footage in any "normal" 60i timeline (in other words, how you've always been editing in Premiere Pro.) You can export it as SD, burn it to an SD DVD and it will retain the 24P psuedo-filmic "look."

There's no need to do anything "complicated" like removing the pulldown to maintain the 24P look. As Kevin said above "You can still edit your 24p footage in a 29.97 timeline without any problems."

All that stuff about removing pulldown,etc is for people who want 100% true progressive frames in their finished project. If you don't want that, you don't have to do it -- you can still shoot in 24P, edit like "normal" in Premiere Pro and keep the 24P "look".

*(If you're mixing the HV20 footage with another camera without 24P capability in a multi-camera shoot, I understand why you wouldn't want to shoot in 24P. I'm just saying it can be a gorgeous look and there's nothing stopping you from using 24P with your current setup.)

to be totally honest, i hate 24P. it gives me eye fatigue, and since I am wanting to do beautiful slow motion, shooting in 24p would defeat that purpose.

~ Jason

Amen! Glad to finally hear someone say this.

I was really trying to "like" the 24p footage, but it just frustrated my eyes too. I just don't care for the look at all.

So, yes, the HV20 shoots 24P fine as it was designed to. "TRUE" 24 progressive frames is one feature that the HV20 does that many other consumer cameras before it failed to be able to do!

Some people just happen not to like it, which is fine. It's a choice - if you don't like it, don't use it. Shoot 60i.

I find the title of this post misleading.

thank God someone finally said it. I fine it very hard to watch. Its a turn off.

The title of this post should be: "I hate 24P".

The HV20 does shoot true 24p. No question about it.

to be totally honest, i hate 24P. it gives me eye fatigue, and since I am wanting to do beautiful slow motion, shooting in 24p would defeat that purpose.

~ Jason
No worries -- to each his own, but then why were you wondering if the HV20 can shoot true 24P (if you were never going it use it?) I'm with Robert a few posts back: I find the title of this thread misleading.

Jason, why not go with the HV10? The HV10 is just about the same camera -- but without the 24P capability.

Well "eye" for one love 24p. Will never shoot 60i again... (actually haven't in years - coming off a DVX100). My preference plus over and over I hear, "you videos look so much like film" so others seem to like it too.

There was a discussion similar to this on another since defunct forum about the whole 60i vs 24p thing. Some people truly can't handle the look of 24p, while others (like myself) find it very pleasing to look at.
I'm beginning to wonder if the reason behind this may be more scientific with the way our brains are wired versus a mere aesthetic preference.

May I just ask, although I am hesitant to contribute to yet another 24 vs 60 debate, for those who "can't stand" the look of 24p, do you have this problem when watching movies (i.e. 35mm originated), either on TV or in the theater? Or is it just with video? And has this always been the case, since you were a kid? I'm honestly curious.

I love 24P and now shoot it over 95% of the time.

Best way to solve the problem, get a PAL HV20 and then convert the final master footage to 24P afterwards using something like Cineform. There's quite a few camera operators in the US shooting in PAL. If you shoot 25P on the PAL HV20, you can edit at 25P or you can edit at 50i. The 25P footage will still appear the same on either.

I was out in the sun today, playing a little with 25p, and Tv. When the shutter time got too short, then I got the stroboscobic experience that some people complains about with 25p. It looks very bad, and like recorded with a cheap camera.

I think for shutter times faster than 1/50s, it is worth considering switching to 50i instead, then you get frames in between.. Of course stills taken from the video will only be 540 pixels high. But that is the price you pay.

One thing I found strange is, that next shutter speed down from 1/50s for me is 1/120s. This value makes no sense on the PAL version. 1/100s, 1/200s, 1/400s, .... would be better, as it would match if you double speed the movie.

Just for info. I tried to record in a dark room, 1/250s, and firing the flash. The white stripe that comes across the picture is a little higher than 1/5th of the screen, so I guess the slowest the shutter will do (sync speed) is 1/60s.

I guess, that rolling shutter will not happen with shutters slower than 1/60s, but of course there will be blur instead.

May I just ask, although I am hesitant to contribute to yet another 24 vs 60 debate, for those who "can't stand" the look of 24p, do you have this problem when watching movies (i.e. 35mm originated), either on TV or in the theater? Or is it just with video? And has this always been the case, since you were a kid? I'm honestly curious.

I was wondering the same thing!

There's definitely a visual difference between 35mm and video-based 24 frames per second. Without pulldown the HV20 24p material is very blurry and quite hard to watch on a traditional interlaced screen, especially hand held footage. On a computer screen you don't notice this nearly as much. With pulldown, it can look amazing on both a computer and TV.

The reverse is true for 60i material too. The "video" look that it produces is much more present when viewing on a TV, and not so much on a computer screen, at least in my own experience.

Good points - I agree - 60i on a computer screen looks less video like than on a TV.

There's definitely a visual difference between 35mm and video-based 24 frames per second. Without pulldown the HV20 24p material is very blurry and quite hard to watch on a traditional interlaced screen, especially hand held footage. On a computer screen you don't notice this nearly as much. With pulldown, it can look amazing on both a computer and TV.

The reverse is true for 60i material too. The "video" look that it produces is much more present when viewing on a TV, and not so much on a computer screen, at least in my own experience.

Computer monitors are progressive, TVs are Interlaced...

You're viewing interlaced footage on a progressive screen... it looks more progressive than interlaced... :)

Computer monitors are progressive, TVs are Interlaced...
You're viewing interlaced footage on a progressive screen... it looks more progressive than interlaced... :)
Of course, that's why I like it! I wish all screens were progressive, and with any luck, we'll get there in a few years.

It also depends on the mood you're trying to convey. I'm shooting some sketch comedy with some friends over the summer, and I keep flipping back and forth between 60i and 24p depending on what exactly we're doing. Shooting a fake commercial with guys yelling? 60i is probably better. Mockumentary about a weightlifter? 24p probably a better feel.

The most mentally disorienting thing I've seen was during a good portion of the last season of MTV's Undressed, they shot video but tried to use various filters and tricks to make it look like film. It bugged the heck out of me.

I thought that the main reason for removing the pulldowns is so these clips recorded in 24p can be watched as 24p and not for editing in 23.976 timeline.