24 playback at DVinfo.net

Jake London · August 5th, 2006, 08:27 AM

Why not record at 24..... seems silly to me.

Tony Tibbetts · August 5th, 2006, 07:50 PM

Yes, I don't see why it can't be implemented by way of the Digic DV II processor. Maybe they'll re-badge it as a "cinema mode" in the camera, but I doubt it.

Chris Hurd · August 5th, 2006, 08:38 PM

They didn't include it because they didn't want to be saturated with calls wondering what it's for, from the 90% of this camcorder's target market who have no idea what 24 is and couldn't care less about it anyway.

"It's for shooting movies? I don't understand. I thought movie theaters didn't allow camcorders."

Tony Tibbetts · August 5th, 2006, 11:55 PM

Mostly wishful thinking I suppose, but if they did rebadge it as a "cinema" mode, not only would it make a great playback deck for the higher end cameras, it would also be a nifty b-camera as well.

Mark Kubat · August 9th, 2006, 05:03 PM

Hello, Andromeda...

can you upgrade my Canon HV10???

Sharyn Ferrick · August 10th, 2006, 12:15 AM

Not sure I agree with the comment that 24p is of no interest to 90% of the market. This product is still aimed at the early adopters, and I think that market is a bit more sophisticated at least to what film frame rate is. On the PALl side of things even on HD and BD there is still alot of discussion about whether or not in PAL land HD/BD dvd's will infact be 24 or 25. If there is no 24p mode which there probably is not, then it might make once again a reason to get a pal version so that the recording can be at 25 and then just deal with the need to slow down to 24.

Sharynl

Bob Grant · August 10th, 2006, 05:16 AM

I believe it will do neither 24F or 25F.

And I agree with the comments about 24P/F not being the wisest things to unleash on the target market for this kind of camera. Shooting 24fps does require a lot of discipline, something I cannot see Joe Average exercising when even those who are making a genuine effort get caught out.

Chris Hurd · August 10th, 2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharyn Ferrick

I think that market is a bit more sophisticated at least to what film frame rate is.

No. It ain't. Trust me, as a digital imaging technology consultant, I've been to plenty of trade shows, store openings, sale days, etc. and have conversed extensively with the soccer-moms and golf-dads that compose 90% of the camcorder buying market. These people have no idea what 24fps is about, nor should they be expected to know. There's already too much technology confusion for them to deal with as it is. The vast majority of the demographic to whom this camcorder is pitched, will put the thing on Green Box (easy recording mode) and leave it there for as long as they own it.

Saying ten percent would know what 24F is for, is being mighty generous. It's probably closer to five percent or less. You'd be surprised how many people there are who have never seen a Mini-DV cassette before. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's important to realize that not everybody who buys this stuff is as into it as you and I are.

Peter Macletis · August 11th, 2006, 01:29 AM

I'd like to make a few points here. Chris, first of all let me tell you how much I tremendously respect your opinion and knowledge on these matter and how much I learn from you almost every day. But on his one, I believe you might be wrong.

I know you're a pro in trade shows, store openings, sale days, soccer-moms/golf-dads video needs that compose 90% of the camcorder buying market. But, frame-mode or cameras that shoot in a film-mode are no strangers to them nor something people ignore. The average person might not know what 24fps is about, but then if so, why does Canon bother to include its playback as a "added-value" feature"? More... people know way, way, way less about stuff like histogram displays, that the HV10 features, than a frame or progressive shooting mode.

The reality, this is all very sad and its all about marketing and money-making. No more, no less. It has been bad enough that Canon has been fiddling with interlaced CCDs they digitally processes with to get a "progressive look" on all they HDV cameras when, since years ago, they have been successfully using progressive CCDs on all their higher-end (and some lower-end) cams, with amazing results. But, OK, I've settled that w have to yet receive with open arms the 24"f" propriety format and live/ work with it.

But worse and now specifically talking about the HV10, the Digic-II Processor and Video IC's on the HV10 are the same Canon uses for all the HDV cameras that shoot 24F. In the HV10, the circuitry is all there but, just not enabled for recording... only for playback! This is really stupid. It is of course the way manufacturers force you to pay quadruple price for a high-end model by removing features from the basic models, and, Canon as everyone else, is in this not to make us happy but to make them money. But to me, this is really nonsensically silly.

In 1997, I fell in love (and loved it to death) when Canon came with the Original Optura and I bought it. It was the first camera with a Progressive Scan CCD and using a RGB Primary filter. Still today, as I look back at some of the DV footage I have from it, it looks great! I was really hoping that the HV10 would be the new "HD" Optura. But no.

Why it is that in this day in technology Canon is 1) not using progressive scan CCDs or CMOSs and 2) not turning on inside the HV10 the capacity to record 24F, when the circuitry is all there, is... all but really sad.

I still have hopes when the camera is released and the first reviews are out that we will all be surprised by reading that there is actually a "cinema" or "frame" mode recording capability in it. I would buy it without hesitation...

But, without a "progressive" or "pseudo-progressive" recording capability, by buying an HV10 today (resolution side), I am getting less than when I bought my original Optura 8 years, which had it all (10x Zoom, optical Stabilizer, picture mode... bal, bla, bla) AND it shot film-looking footage.

This said, I actually do believe a lot of people know the visual difference between video that looks interlaced or progressive. And Chris, true, there's already too much technology confusion, too many buttons on most cameras that are worthless and too much stuff on them that 99% of users will never use... a histogram display on the HV10 being one of them and totally a waste of built-in technology (for the average user, they have no clue what it is, while for the Pro... well... no Pro will EVER use the HV10 to take quality stills!!!).

For sure, many people will put the thing on Green Box (easy recording mode) and leave it there for as long as they own it. But, having on setting between standard and Frame modes, would not make people's life more complicated nor cost Canon another penny to have it available, while for many like myself would spell the difference between buying this product, or not even making it a contender.

So, If someone from Canon is reading this... guys... the circuitry is all there... just go upgrade the Camera's software and turn on the option to record 24F by the time you start shipping them. You'd sell double the amount of these cameras and have a product positively unlike any other on the market!

Sharyn Ferrick · August 11th, 2006, 02:00 AM

Chris
While I agree about your comments re the broad camcorder market, and its lack of sophistication, I wonder if it applies in the same degree to the market for this specific camcorder. I think that what the manufacturers are missing in the equation, and I think this applies to AVCHD, BD/HD and HD is that in the early stages it is essential to get the early adopters who are sophisticated to buy the products, and to make sure that the feature sets match THEIR requirements. then after the market development has moved further down the curve to indroduce models aimed at he less sophisticated. I think that the Manufacturers keep looking at HD as just an natural extension of the SD market, and look at more or less taking feature sets from lower end SD camcorders and simply applying them over to HD camcorders. I think this seriously misses who the buyers TODAY are for these products.

If you look back 10 years ago to for instance the Vx1000 that really could be argued started the dv revolution, SONY was very clever and delivered a product that exceeded expectations. I would argue that IF they had instead introduced what today would be considered a consumer focused camcorder, that the market development would have been far less successful.

What I think marketers keep missing is that there are really three sections of the HD revolution. One is definitely on the display side, where large displays have become a status symbol, and the adoption has been quite good, mainly with people viewing HD broadcast and in the main, up converted DVD's

I think that the buyer for HD camcorders today is quite different. One is that unless they are going to attach the camcorder to the display, they have little way to exchange or show the content. Certainly with the hard drive ony versions this is a real issue. AVCHD with red dvd support is really not a solution. basially because you can write a red dvd with HD content, but you need a BD OR HD or a pretty well speced pc to be able to play it back. So Again it is not just having the display, and then the camcorder, but also the player. As an example of where I think Sony missed this issue, is that they seem to think that PS3 is going to be the solution. Yet the overlap of the PS3 buyer and the HD camcorder purchaser is not necessarilly all that great, and certainly is not a given. Their attempt to resolve some of these basic issues with DVdirect for instance, still falls short in that DVDirect fails to have any HD out so that there is no playback capability.

So being sort of long winded, I think that eventually the market will move to the model you are talking about, when the decision of what camcorder to buy can be viewed relatively independant of a decision to buy a display and a player and probably a burner to get the content off the tape/dvd/hardrive.

So I think a move where the early products are over featured, so that the sophisticated over adaptor snaps them up, serves as the opinion leader, and is enthusiastic in their recomendatioins to the less sophisticasted "Friends" is essential, THEN as the market develops and the need is to freature engineer/cost reduce for greater penentation those features that are not essential can be eliminated. The role of the early adoptor, the "expert" advisor in the beginning stages of market development is still essential

Anyway just some thoughts

Sharyn

Peter Macletis · August 11th, 2006, 02:13 AM

Sharyn, exactly my opinion. People buying this product are NOT the average user. These are people willing to pay a bit more and looking for the latest technologies and features, with... ease-of-use no doubt. People in the market for the HV10 and specifically the HV10 know very well the high-end siblings it comes from, will know fairly well the competition's products (Sony HDV cams, etc) and know perfectly well the difference between interlaced and progressive video. To me that is a feature above any other and I am no more than an average user that thought then that the $2500 the Optura cost 8 years ago to shoot progressive was well worth the money and that thinks spending almost a $1300 today on a product that doesn't shoot progressive, makes positively no sense what-so-ever. Everyone takes people for granted on the hype of resolution, and only resolution. Well, resolution is one among many image parameters' attributes I'd like to see improvements on... like better color rendition, the use of better lenses, better low-light capabilities... improved AF, etc... I'd shoot quality SD progressive video over interlaced HD... anytime and I know personally a plethora of people that think the same... all "average" users... well... it only takes a bunch of us for Canon to realize the money the are actually loosing in not including features we had at had almost a decade ago, that today can be instantly emplemented by a couple lines of code on the user's menu to enable them on the hardware. This is what irritates me... its not that we are buying a new product with missing features... its that they are actually there just NOT turned-on... please... give me a break!

Sharyn Ferrick · August 11th, 2006, 05:14 AM

One thing that could happen is what I understand it being done on canon's new HrDV units, were users are able to send them in to Canon, and they are enabling the 50/25 functions. SO I certainly would not give up, Canon tends to be more responseive and listen, so maybe a compromise so that the users Chris is talking about don't have to be confused would be if the more sophisticated user would have the option to send it into Canon and get this mode enabled

How about it Chris, is this an alternative that Canon might entertain?

Sharyn

Nick Hiltgen · August 11th, 2006, 05:20 AM

It's probably true that all that's needed is a little switch to turn the 24F on and off or whatever, but the thing is I think this camera may equally be a response for a 24F deck for the XL and XH series, that canon decided to just happen to put a lens and mic on. 24F recording may not have even been a consideration. There probably will be canon cameras that have the 24F (or even, gasp, 24P in the next year) and perhaps that's when everyone should look into purchasing that camera. For the time being it's still half the price of a sony m10u deck AND playsback 24 and 30 plus I can take it on vacation so it's fine with me. Of course I don't shoot vacation videos in 24p either.

I mean I don't know do other comparably priced cameras have 24F(p)? does the hc-3 or 1 or whatever have this function?

Peter Macletis · August 11th, 2006, 09:16 AM

No, the circuitry is all there. All of it. Indeed, an option to send it into Canon and get 24Frecording mode enabled would be bliss. I'd be in for the Camera without second thoughts :)

Chris Hurd · August 11th, 2006, 10:00 AM

For Peter and Sharyn -- assign a value to that.

What would it be worth to you, to have the option to record in 24F? I know, I know, everybody really expects to have such an upgrade for free, but there's no way that'll happen. Suppose for a minute if it was offered for a price, what would you deem to be a reasonable amount to pay?

August 5th, 2006, 08:27 AM	#1
Jake London New Boot Join Date: May 2006 Location: NYC NY Posts: 8	24 playback Why not record at 24..... seems silly to me.

August 5th, 2006, 08:38 PM	#3
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	They didn't include it because they didn't want to be saturated with calls wondering what it's for, from the 90% of this camcorder's target market who have no idea what 24 is and couldn't care less about it anyway. "It's for shooting movies? I don't understand. I thought movie theaters didn't allow camcorders." __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 9th, 2006, 05:03 PM	#5
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	maybe a retro fit? Hello, Andromeda... can you upgrade my Canon HV10???

August 11th, 2006, 01:29 AM	#9
Peter Macletis Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: NY Posts: 54	I'd like to make a few points here. Chris, first of all let me tell you how much I tremendously respect your opinion and knowledge on these matter and how much I learn from you almost every day. But on his one, I believe you might be wrong. I know you're a pro in trade shows, store openings, sale days, soccer-moms/golf-dads video needs that compose 90% of the camcorder buying market. But, frame-mode or cameras that shoot in a film-mode are no strangers to them nor something people ignore. The average person might not know what 24fps is about, but then if so, why does Canon bother to include its playback as a "added-value" feature"? More... people know way, way, way less about stuff like histogram displays, that the HV10 features, than a frame or progressive shooting mode. The reality, this is all very sad and its all about marketing and money-making. No more, no less. It has been bad enough that Canon has been fiddling with interlaced CCDs they digitally processes with to get a "progressive look" on all they HDV cameras when, since years ago, they have been successfully using progressive CCDs on all their higher-end (and some lower-end) cams, with amazing results. But, OK, I've settled that w have to yet receive with open arms the 24"f" propriety format and live/ work with it. But worse and now specifically talking about the HV10, the Digic-II Processor and Video IC's on the HV10 are the same Canon uses for all the HDV cameras that shoot 24F. In the HV10, the circuitry is all there but, just not enabled for recording... only for playback! This is really stupid. It is of course the way manufacturers force you to pay quadruple price for a high-end model by removing features from the basic models, and, Canon as everyone else, is in this not to make us happy but to make them money. But to me, this is really nonsensically silly. In 1997, I fell in love (and loved it to death) when Canon came with the Original Optura and I bought it. It was the first camera with a Progressive Scan CCD and using a RGB Primary filter. Still today, as I look back at some of the DV footage I have from it, it looks great! I was really hoping that the HV10 would be the new "HD" Optura. But no. Why it is that in this day in technology Canon is 1) not using progressive scan CCDs or CMOSs and 2) not turning on inside the HV10 the capacity to record 24F, when the circuitry is all there, is... all but really sad. I still have hopes when the camera is released and the first reviews are out that we will all be surprised by reading that there is actually a "cinema" or "frame" mode recording capability in it. I would buy it without hesitation... But, without a "progressive" or "pseudo-progressive" recording capability, by buying an HV10 today (resolution side), I am getting less than when I bought my original Optura 8 years, which had it all (10x Zoom, optical Stabilizer, picture mode... bal, bla, bla) AND it shot film-looking footage. This said, I actually do believe a lot of people know the visual difference between video that looks interlaced or progressive. And Chris, true, there's already too much technology confusion, too many buttons on most cameras that are worthless and too much stuff on them that 99% of users will never use... a histogram display on the HV10 being one of them and totally a waste of built-in technology (for the average user, they have no clue what it is, while for the Pro... well... no Pro will EVER use the HV10 to take quality stills!!!). For sure, many people will put the thing on Green Box (easy recording mode) and leave it there for as long as they own it. But, having on setting between standard and Frame modes, would not make people's life more complicated nor cost Canon another penny to have it available, while for many like myself would spell the difference between buying this product, or not even making it a contender. So, If someone from Canon is reading this... guys... the circuitry is all there... just go upgrade the Camera's software and turn on the option to record 24F by the time you start shipping them. You'd sell double the amount of these cameras and have a product positively unlike any other on the market! Last edited by Peter Macletis; August 11th, 2006 at 02:10 AM.

August 11th, 2006, 05:20 AM	#13
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	It's probably true that all that's needed is a little switch to turn the 24F on and off or whatever, but the thing is I think this camera may equally be a response for a 24F deck for the XL and XH series, that canon decided to just happen to put a lens and mic on. 24F recording may not have even been a consideration. There probably will be canon cameras that have the 24F (or even, gasp, 24P in the next year) and perhaps that's when everyone should look into purchasing that camera. For the time being it's still half the price of a sony m10u deck AND playsback 24 and 30 plus I can take it on vacation so it's fine with me. Of course I don't shoot vacation videos in 24p either. I mean I don't know do other comparably priced cameras have 24F(p)? does the hc-3 or 1 or whatever have this function? __________________ I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome... Last edited by Nick Hiltgen; August 11th, 2006 at 10:36 AM.

August 5th, 2006, 07:50 PM	#2
Tony Tibbetts Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 385	Yes, I don't see why it can't be implemented by way of the Digic DV II processor. Maybe they'll re-badge it as a "cinema mode" in the camera, but I doubt it.

August 5th, 2006, 11:55 PM	#4
Tony Tibbetts Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 385	Mostly wishful thinking I suppose, but if they did rebadge it as a "cinema" mode, not only would it make a great playback deck for the higher end cameras, it would also be a nifty b-camera as well.

August 10th, 2006, 12:15 AM	#6
Sharyn Ferrick Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sitka Alaska Posts: 128	Not sure I agree with the comment that 24p is of no interest to 90% of the market. This product is still aimed at the early adopters, and I think that market is a bit more sophisticated at least to what film frame rate is. On the PALl side of things even on HD and BD there is still alot of discussion about whether or not in PAL land HD/BD dvd's will infact be 24 or 25. If there is no 24p mode which there probably is not, then it might make once again a reason to get a pal version so that the recording can be at 25 and then just deal with the need to slow down to 24. Sharynl

August 10th, 2006, 05:16 AM	#7
Bob Grant Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,570	I believe it will do neither 24F or 25F. And I agree with the comments about 24P/F not being the wisest things to unleash on the target market for this kind of camera. Shooting 24fps does require a lot of discipline, something I cannot see Joe Average exercising when even those who are making a genuine effort get caught out.

August 11th, 2006, 02:00 AM	#10
Sharyn Ferrick Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sitka Alaska Posts: 128	Chris While I agree about your comments re the broad camcorder market, and its lack of sophistication, I wonder if it applies in the same degree to the market for this specific camcorder. I think that what the manufacturers are missing in the equation, and I think this applies to AVCHD, BD/HD and HD is that in the early stages it is essential to get the early adopters who are sophisticated to buy the products, and to make sure that the feature sets match THEIR requirements. then after the market development has moved further down the curve to indroduce models aimed at he less sophisticated. I think that the Manufacturers keep looking at HD as just an natural extension of the SD market, and look at more or less taking feature sets from lower end SD camcorders and simply applying them over to HD camcorders. I think this seriously misses who the buyers TODAY are for these products. If you look back 10 years ago to for instance the Vx1000 that really could be argued started the dv revolution, SONY was very clever and delivered a product that exceeded expectations. I would argue that IF they had instead introduced what today would be considered a consumer focused camcorder, that the market development would have been far less successful. What I think marketers keep missing is that there are really three sections of the HD revolution. One is definitely on the display side, where large displays have become a status symbol, and the adoption has been quite good, mainly with people viewing HD broadcast and in the main, up converted DVD's I think that the buyer for HD camcorders today is quite different. One is that unless they are going to attach the camcorder to the display, they have little way to exchange or show the content. Certainly with the hard drive ony versions this is a real issue. AVCHD with red dvd support is really not a solution. basially because you can write a red dvd with HD content, but you need a BD OR HD or a pretty well speced pc to be able to play it back. So Again it is not just having the display, and then the camcorder, but also the player. As an example of where I think Sony missed this issue, is that they seem to think that PS3 is going to be the solution. Yet the overlap of the PS3 buyer and the HD camcorder purchaser is not necessarilly all that great, and certainly is not a given. Their attempt to resolve some of these basic issues with DVdirect for instance, still falls short in that DVDirect fails to have any HD out so that there is no playback capability. So being sort of long winded, I think that eventually the market will move to the model you are talking about, when the decision of what camcorder to buy can be viewed relatively independant of a decision to buy a display and a player and probably a burner to get the content off the tape/dvd/hardrive. So I think a move where the early products are over featured, so that the sophisticated over adaptor snaps them up, serves as the opinion leader, and is enthusiastic in their recomendatioins to the less sophisticasted "Friends" is essential, THEN as the market develops and the need is to freature engineer/cost reduce for greater penentation those features that are not essential can be eliminated. The role of the early adoptor, the "expert" advisor in the beginning stages of market development is still essential Anyway just some thoughts Sharyn

August 11th, 2006, 02:13 AM	#11
Peter Macletis Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: NY Posts: 54	Sharyn, exactly my opinion. People buying this product are NOT the average user. These are people willing to pay a bit more and looking for the latest technologies and features, with... ease-of-use no doubt. People in the market for the HV10 and specifically the HV10 know very well the high-end siblings it comes from, will know fairly well the competition's products (Sony HDV cams, etc) and know perfectly well the difference between interlaced and progressive video. To me that is a feature above any other and I am no more than an average user that thought then that the $2500 the Optura cost 8 years ago to shoot progressive was well worth the money and that thinks spending almost a $1300 today on a product that doesn't shoot progressive, makes positively no sense what-so-ever. Everyone takes people for granted on the hype of resolution, and only resolution. Well, resolution is one among many image parameters' attributes I'd like to see improvements on... like better color rendition, the use of better lenses, better low-light capabilities... improved AF, etc... I'd shoot quality SD progressive video over interlaced HD... anytime and I know personally a plethora of people that think the same... all "average" users... well... it only takes a bunch of us for Canon to realize the money the are actually loosing in not including features we had at had almost a decade ago, that today can be instantly emplemented by a couple lines of code on the user's menu to enable them on the hardware. This is what irritates me... its not that we are buying a new product with missing features... its that they are actually there just NOT turned-on... please... give me a break!

August 11th, 2006, 05:14 AM	#12
Sharyn Ferrick Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sitka Alaska Posts: 128	One thing that could happen is what I understand it being done on canon's new HrDV units, were users are able to send them in to Canon, and they are enabling the 50/25 functions. SO I certainly would not give up, Canon tends to be more responseive and listen, so maybe a compromise so that the users Chris is talking about don't have to be confused would be if the more sophisticated user would have the option to send it into Canon and get this mode enabled How about it Chris, is this an alternative that Canon might entertain? Sharyn

August 11th, 2006, 09:16 AM	#14
Peter Macletis Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: NY Posts: 54	No, the circuitry is all there. All of it. Indeed, an option to send it into Canon and get 24Frecording mode enabled would be bliss. I'd be in for the Camera without second thoughts :)

August 11th, 2006, 10:00 AM	#15
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	For Peter and Sharyn -- assign a value to that. What would it be worth to you, to have the option to record in 24F? I know, I know, everybody really expects to have such an upgrade for free, but there's no way that'll happen. Suppose for a minute if it was offered for a price, what would you deem to be a reasonable amount to pay? __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!