Contacting Canon re: adding 24p pulldown flags

Ian G. Thompson · May 9th, 2007, 03:19 PM

You know..those of you on both sides of the coin have valid points. But in regards to advertising this product with 24p AND the demonstration video on their site that clearly lacks the visible pulldown wouldn't you say there seems to be some ..and I say "just some".. misleading going on here. Me as a potential consumer (I have one by the way) would be enticed by not only the claim of 24P...but also with the noted results that I viewed on their own Web site. That sold me. When I receive the camera and try it out for myself...my goal is to acheive the same results as their sample video. When I realize the footage I shoot does not do this...I have a right to get a refund for it not doing what I expected....right???

Before you answer me...or throw stones (be kind)...just look at what the PAL users are going through (at least some of them). There are those who sent their machines back in because of what they thought to be defective cams. They have that right to do that. My problem with this whole thing is the advertisment with the example video. One is lead to believe that "Out-of-the-Box" their footage can look just like Canon's online 24p demo. I personally don't think people are bashing Canon. It might have been an oversight on Canon's part to not add flags or they might have done it purposely (who knows). People should have the right to complain. If complaining changes things then more power to the people...if not....then so be it.

Don't get me wrong...I'm happy with my HV20...you can't snatch it out of my hands..but situations like what people here are trying to accomplish is the reason customer service exists in the first place. Contact them and let them know your dissatisfaction whether it be for missing flags, wobbly video, no black casing, funky form, no kitchen sink, inability to make you "director of the year"...yada...yada...yada...

Ian Albinson · May 9th, 2007, 03:37 PM

I think part of the reason we're all passionate about a solution to this situation is because the camera is so good at what it does. If the picture was iffy, or the handling not so great, it might be a moot point that only a few would pursue. I do agree with you completely on the marketing of the 24p material from Canon. Only filmmaker types are going to use and understand why 24p is so great, and Canon I feel knows this.

Chris Barcellos · May 9th, 2007, 03:42 PM

This is my first foray into Canon land. As some of you may recall, I posted about my experience early on as a Sony user coming in. I did not know we had issues with true 24p until I tried to render a true 24p 1080i field. Til then, I had been viewing everything I shot in 24p inside the 1080i stream. Yes it works, and no, I am not dissatisfied in general.

However, I would like Canon to consider the "fix", if it is merely an upgrade to the firmware. The camera has the capability to be updated in that manner, so I am hopeful they will consider it.

We will eventually find work arounds, maybe someone working with HDVSplit will comeup with a fix, but point is it would be good customer relations if Canon stepped up, if it is easily doable. And, $ 250 for NEO by Cineform isn't a killer either, if that is the way we go. If it is not a possibility, Canon, just let us know--- someone out there in Canon land. Maybe in its current configuration, it can't add the flags, no matter what we do in firmware.

Stefan Szabo · May 9th, 2007, 03:45 PM

Ian, I understand and greatly respect your point of view. But, in my humble opinion, I do not believe that canon was suggesting that you could get that video right out of the box. They obviously edited it, which requires software that is not in the box. I'm not trying to be mean, I just feel that someone on this thread should stick up for canon.

Peter J Alessandria · May 9th, 2007, 04:13 PM

Certainly wasn't my intention to bash Canon. Sorry if it came across that way. Let me be really, really clear: the HV20 is a great camera. Period. I appreciate Canon's engineering/production efforts. And I don't think it's out of line to let Canon know that there's room for a tweak since many of us find the 24p feature to be an important one. Like I said, I see no reason to ask for what may only amount to a firmware update. It's not like we're asking them to include 24p - it's already there. But it doesn't do us much good if we can't see it via software.

Canon is a huge company and an industry leader. I suspect they'll welcome our input. Imagine how many HV20's this forum alone has sold for them. If Chris only knew... :-)

Robert Ducon · May 9th, 2007, 04:26 PM

Canon should pay Hurd commission. Agreed - love my HV20, no other sub $4000 CDN camera I'd prefer to own.

Ian G. Thompson · May 9th, 2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan Szabo

Ian, I understand and greatly respect your point of view. But, in my humble opinion, I do not believe that canon was suggesting that you could get that video right out of the box. They obviously edited it, which requires software that is not in the box. I'm not trying to be mean, I just feel that someone on this thread should stick up for canon.

Thanks for your feedback Stefan. You could be right in what you are saying...I don't kow. I guess it all depends on how you look at it (glass half empty or glass half full). I tend to be optomistic (not saying that you are not). This efort might or might not go anywhere...but...one thing i would like to ask Canon..is how they were able to remove pulldown in their demonstration video. Maybe we could all adopt that method...though..Cineform is a great option.

Ian G. Thompson · May 9th, 2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J Alessandria

......... Imagine how many HV20's this forum alone has sold for them. If Chris only knew... :-)

Agreed....and to add to this...being the big hit that it is...imagine how much more they could sell for such a seemingly small fix...

Chris Barcellos · May 9th, 2007, 04:56 PM

Hmmm. Wonder why there were 4k hits on this thread at this point.... someone seems interested.....

Thomas Smet · May 9th, 2007, 07:10 PM

Well of course everybody would like for this to happen. I'm not sure if it will or if we really have a stance. I mean I can come up with a whole list of things I think could have been done on this camera as well as every other camera on the market. There is no such thing as a perfect camera and everybody just needs to deal with that fact and work with what they got.

The camera is a 24p camera so Canon has every right to say it is 24p. Having to use special tools to remove the pulldown is no different then Canon not saying you have to use HDV capable software to edit video from the HV20 or how you may need a dual cpu system to edit HDV at a decent speed level. I mean somebody could be using an older Pentium 4 computer and buy the camera and they would not have very much luck editing the footage very well.

Canon gives us the starting point for 24p material and it is up to us to decide how we want to use it.

As for "just adding flags" it is much much harder then that. flags are a part of a mpeg2 encoder. Some encoder chips (chances are the one in the HV20) don't know how to encode a mpeg2 stream with pulldown flags. The mpeg2 encoder in a camera is a chip and not a software encoder. Naturally a simple interlaced mpeg2 encoder is much cheaper to use in a consumer camera. In order for the HV20 to add mpeg2 flags a whole new mpeg2 encoder chip which can deal with 24p and repeat field flags would have to be changed in the camera. This is not going to be a firmware upgrade if the encoder doesn't even know what flags are. I mean there is the very small chance that the encoder has everything built in and Canon only turned off the flags but I highly doubt it. This is a subject nobody on this forum would ever know so there is little point talking about exactly what features are on the encoder chip itself.

Thomas Smet · May 9th, 2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian G. Thompson

Agreed....and to add to this...being the big hit that it is...imagine how much more they could sell for such a seemingly small fix...

This is not a fix but a after market feature request. The camera is not broken and it works exactly like it was designed to work.

John Machtinger · May 9th, 2007, 07:14 PM

Hi Everyone,

Respectfully, this fix we want is no tweak or feature request. It's necessary to get proper use of a prime feature of this camera! People are buying the HV20 in significant part because of the 24p mode, especially because it takes such good video in lower light.

Canon will be most motivated to fix this flaw if people are being told in advance of buying the HV20 that they should think twice. Because they will not be able to use the 24p mode and have it look right without jumping through some expensive or time-consuming hoops.

We shouldn't worry about being hot on this camera. Of course it takes great pictures. But it is - we must admit - currently crippled in this area. It takes nothing away from our purchases to tell others about this serious flaw.

When websites start telling people to reconsider buying the HV20 until Canon issues a firmware update enabling full and proper use of the 24p mode, Canon will have the best incentive to do so.

Mike Dulay · May 9th, 2007, 07:16 PM

Thomas,

That's a good point. While researching pulldown I read something similar in the way MPEG decoder chips are done for DVD players which result in combing/interlace/chroma artifacts. Still, if it is possible, and we can't be sure it's not we would like to see flags inserted into the stream somehow.

Chris Barcellos · May 9th, 2007, 07:23 PM

How bout a free capture utility that does it, Canon ??

Peter J Alessandria · May 9th, 2007, 07:25 PM

For me personally if Canon issues a statement saying flags are dependent on the encoder chip and can't be added without updating that chip, I can live with that. I wouldn't demand a refund or recall of the HV20. I'll move on and use one of the software solutions to do pulldown removal. (Though I'd hope they would include that updated chip in future models.)

But... we won't know for sure until they know some of us are concerned. So I for one will make the necessary calls.

May 9th, 2007, 03:42 PM	#78
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	This is my first foray into Canon land. As some of you may recall, I posted about my experience early on as a Sony user coming in. I did not know we had issues with true 24p until I tried to render a true 24p 1080i field. Til then, I had been viewing everything I shot in 24p inside the 1080i stream. Yes it works, and no, I am not dissatisfied in general. However, I would like Canon to consider the "fix", if it is merely an upgrade to the firmware. The camera has the capability to be updated in that manner, so I am hopeful they will consider it. We will eventually find work arounds, maybe someone working with HDVSplit will comeup with a fix, but point is it would be good customer relations if Canon stepped up, if it is easily doable. And, $ 250 for NEO by Cineform isn't a killer either, if that is the way we go. If it is not a possibility, Canon, just let us know--- someone out there in Canon land. Maybe in its current configuration, it can't add the flags, no matter what we do in firmware. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

May 9th, 2007, 04:26 PM	#81
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	Canon should pay Hurd commission. Agreed - love my HV20, no other sub $4000 CDN camera I'd prefer to own. __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

May 9th, 2007, 04:56 PM	#84
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Hmmm. Wonder why there were 4k hits on this thread at this point.... someone seems interested..... __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

May 9th, 2007, 07:16 PM	#88
Mike Dulay Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Somerville, NJ Posts: 304	Thomas, That's a good point. While researching pulldown I read something similar in the way MPEG decoder chips are done for DVD players which result in combing/interlace/chroma artifacts. Still, if it is possible, and we can't be sure it's not we would like to see flags inserted into the stream somehow. __________________ DIY, 35mm, HV20: http://www.primitivebuteffective.net

May 9th, 2007, 07:23 PM	#89
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	How bout a free capture utility that does it, Canon ?? __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

May 9th, 2007, 03:19 PM	#76
Ian G. Thompson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Rockledge, Florida Posts: 351	You know..those of you on both sides of the coin have valid points. But in regards to advertising this product with 24p AND the demonstration video on their site that clearly lacks the visible pulldown wouldn't you say there seems to be some ..and I say "just some".. misleading going on here. Me as a potential consumer (I have one by the way) would be enticed by not only the claim of 24P...but also with the noted results that I viewed on their own Web site. That sold me. When I receive the camera and try it out for myself...my goal is to acheive the same results as their sample video. When I realize the footage I shoot does not do this...I have a right to get a refund for it not doing what I expected....right??? Before you answer me...or throw stones (be kind)...just look at what the PAL users are going through (at least some of them). There are those who sent their machines back in because of what they thought to be defective cams. They have that right to do that. My problem with this whole thing is the advertisment with the example video. One is lead to believe that "Out-of-the-Box" their footage can look just like Canon's online 24p demo. I personally don't think people are bashing Canon. It might have been an oversight on Canon's part to not add flags or they might have done it purposely (who knows). People should have the right to complain. If complaining changes things then more power to the people...if not....then so be it. Don't get me wrong...I'm happy with my HV20...you can't snatch it out of my hands..but situations like what people here are trying to accomplish is the reason customer service exists in the first place. Contact them and let them know your dissatisfaction whether it be for missing flags, wobbly video, no black casing, funky form, no kitchen sink, inability to make you "director of the year"...yada...yada...yada...

May 9th, 2007, 03:37 PM	#77
Ian Albinson Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Springfield, US Posts: 63	I think part of the reason we're all passionate about a solution to this situation is because the camera is so good at what it does. If the picture was iffy, or the handling not so great, it might be a moot point that only a few would pursue. I do agree with you completely on the marketing of the 24p material from Canon. Only filmmaker types are going to use and understand why 24p is so great, and Canon I feel knows this.

May 9th, 2007, 03:45 PM	#79
Stefan Szabo New Boot Join Date: May 2007 Location: Harrison, AR Posts: 17	Ian, I understand and greatly respect your point of view. But, in my humble opinion, I do not believe that canon was suggesting that you could get that video right out of the box. They obviously edited it, which requires software that is not in the box. I'm not trying to be mean, I just feel that someone on this thread should stick up for canon.

May 9th, 2007, 04:13 PM	#80
Peter J Alessandria Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 293	Certainly wasn't my intention to bash Canon. Sorry if it came across that way. Let me be really, really clear: the HV20 is a great camera. Period. I appreciate Canon's engineering/production efforts. And I don't think it's out of line to let Canon know that there's room for a tweak since many of us find the 24p feature to be an important one. Like I said, I see no reason to ask for what may only amount to a firmware update. It's not like we're asking them to include 24p - it's already there. But it doesn't do us much good if we can't see it via software. Canon is a huge company and an industry leader. I suspect they'll welcome our input. Imagine how many HV20's this forum alone has sold for them. If Chris only knew... :-)

May 9th, 2007, 07:10 PM	#85
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Well of course everybody would like for this to happen. I'm not sure if it will or if we really have a stance. I mean I can come up with a whole list of things I think could have been done on this camera as well as every other camera on the market. There is no such thing as a perfect camera and everybody just needs to deal with that fact and work with what they got. The camera is a 24p camera so Canon has every right to say it is 24p. Having to use special tools to remove the pulldown is no different then Canon not saying you have to use HDV capable software to edit video from the HV20 or how you may need a dual cpu system to edit HDV at a decent speed level. I mean somebody could be using an older Pentium 4 computer and buy the camera and they would not have very much luck editing the footage very well. Canon gives us the starting point for 24p material and it is up to us to decide how we want to use it. As for "just adding flags" it is much much harder then that. flags are a part of a mpeg2 encoder. Some encoder chips (chances are the one in the HV20) don't know how to encode a mpeg2 stream with pulldown flags. The mpeg2 encoder in a camera is a chip and not a software encoder. Naturally a simple interlaced mpeg2 encoder is much cheaper to use in a consumer camera. In order for the HV20 to add mpeg2 flags a whole new mpeg2 encoder chip which can deal with 24p and repeat field flags would have to be changed in the camera. This is not going to be a firmware upgrade if the encoder doesn't even know what flags are. I mean there is the very small chance that the encoder has everything built in and Canon only turned off the flags but I highly doubt it. This is a subject nobody on this forum would ever know so there is little point talking about exactly what features are on the encoder chip itself.

May 9th, 2007, 07:14 PM	#87
John Machtinger New Boot Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 7	Hi Everyone, Respectfully, this fix we want is no tweak or feature request. It's necessary to get proper use of a prime feature of this camera! People are buying the HV20 in significant part because of the 24p mode, especially because it takes such good video in lower light. Canon will be most motivated to fix this flaw if people are being told in advance of buying the HV20 that they should think twice. Because they will not be able to use the 24p mode and have it look right without jumping through some expensive or time-consuming hoops. We shouldn't worry about being hot on this camera. Of course it takes great pictures. But it is - we must admit - currently crippled in this area. It takes nothing away from our purchases to tell others about this serious flaw. When websites start telling people to reconsider buying the HV20 until Canon issues a firmware update enabling full and proper use of the 24p mode, Canon will have the best incentive to do so.

May 9th, 2007, 07:25 PM	#90
Peter J Alessandria Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 293	For me personally if Canon issues a statement saying flags are dependent on the encoder chip and can't be added without updating that chip, I can live with that. I wouldn't demand a refund or recall of the HV20. I'll move on and use one of the software solutions to do pulldown removal. (Though I'd hope they would include that updated chip in future models.) But... we won't know for sure until they know some of us are concerned. So I for one will make the necessary calls.