![]() |
#181 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 513
|
Quote:
It would be interesting to know what pays off better in terms of sales, the Canon way or the marketing strategy of that other manufacturer - you know, racking up the hyperbole about a work in progress endless months out. On the other hand, the Canon way can also be a little unsettling. I'm half considering buying an H1 and picking up one of the new puppies later on as a b-camera, but you never know when they're going to spring an H1s on us, and it could be sooner rather than later. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#182 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#183 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#184 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 513
|
Quote:
Sorry, I don't mean to sound facetious, but I'm just trying to work out what you're saying because it seems incredible to me, not filmic at all? Perhaps I'm just being defensive because I can't see what you see... I've looked at a lot of H1 footage and it looks wonderful to me, and handled correctly, as filmic as any other 1/3" cam on the market. Admittedly, I've only been in the game five years, but I'm a keen observer. If I can't see it, I wonder if any of my clients, or the viewing public can. Quote:
So is progressive resolution of 540x540 (HVX) more resolution than frame obtained progressive of 800x540 (Canon)? I'm just quoting Adam's test numbers and trying to figure out your argument. Because surely you have to factor in the base numbers if you're saying there's a drop in resolution. No matter how they achieve it, the Canon's 24f mode is sharper than Panny's 24p. The DVX and XL2 are "true" progressive, but their res is way way lower (obviously). I don't think you can use a resolution argument to discredit frame mode. It would have to be soley on the basis of cadence. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#185 | |||
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#186 | ||||
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#187 | ||
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#188 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 513
|
Quote:
You stated that it's very clear to your eye that the H1 is not filmic. That in itself is not a techincal appraisal, but a subjective one, albeit with trained eyes. So - and perhaps it was a folly - I put forward a real world situation, a completed digital film showing in a theatre, because when all is said and done, nobody cares if frame mode IS the same as progressive (by definition it's not) but whether it achieves the same results. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#189 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
Wayne, progressive scan is progressive scan no matter how it is acheived. If it is running at 24fps with full frames it will have EXACTLY THE SAME cadence as film. There is no disputing this at all. Any notion that there is somehow a difference between an HVX200 running at 24fps, a DVX100 at 24fps and a Canon at 24fps is quite unrealistic IMHO. In fact I bet if I made a sequence using my usual techniques for filmlook using any of the new HD cameras you would not be able to tell me which was F mode and which was a true P mode. I have slow motion footage from a PDW-F330. In slow motion the resolution halves to 540 lines. Yet I still find it hard to tell. People have also told me how they thought it was shot using overcranked film in some cases. There is simply no substitute for actually using a camera, or seeing a well shot programme made with them rather than debating figures. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#190 | |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#191 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#192 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 1,034
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#193 |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Good. Well if it is even better than the old frame mode (which I thought was rather good at the time) then there is no excuse not to use it.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#194 | |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
And I'm right. High Definition is defined by the ATSC as any television format with a higher resolution than SDTV. That's a fact. Now I agree with you that the common practice these days, what the market actually accepts today, starts at 720. Like you, I too would be loathe to consider a camera HD if it couldn't create pictures with true 720p resolution. But if somebody is going to suggest to me that Frame mode isn't progressive from a strictly technical standpoint, I would have to counter that from this very same strictly technical standpoint, HD starts at 721x577. From there, things can go downhill fast. If that sounds ridiculous, it's meant to be. Strictly technical definitions sometimes are not the best ways to get points across, nor are they the final arbiters of conflicting points of view, nor are they substitutes for real-world experience. The same audience, myself included, that considers 720 as the place where HD starts is the same audience that can't tell the difference between Frame mode and progressive, and wouldn't care if you showed them. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#195 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 613
|
I'm sorry, I can't see any reason for people to complain. Quite frankly, exactly where else can you get a 1440x1080 resolution 1080i HD camera with a 24p-esque option for less than $8,999 MSRP, or now, $3,999 MSRP?
True, 720p has its advantages but as was stated a long time ago, regardless of whether it is 720p or 1080i, if handled the same, the image will look identical, the only real difference comes with 1080p, but we don't have that yet in this price range. Unfortunately, there is a lacking of progressive cameras compared to the plethora of interlaced cameras and those that we do have are 720p and not the ideal 1080p. But who knows what's around the corner these days? Granted, manufacturers are using various compression schemes at this point in time for the majority of <$10,000 video cameras, but the image quality is still much better than we could hope for with MiniDV. There's also options for uncompressed HD output if you really want it, look at the HD-SDI option, from what I understand that's an amazing achievment for someone to put that on a camera below $25,000. It also opens many doors for the filmmaker in post. Looking at the XLH1, I dislike the low resolution LCD viewfinder and default image. I'm a simple guy, I'd prefer it if the camera had a good default image like the DVX or HVX, but that doesn't mean I couldn't get a similar or better image by tweaking the XLH1 to my liking. With the A1 and G1, I've got a better selection of 24fps cameras, regardless of how they get that frame rate, and I have the same options to tweak the image as I would with the XLH1. What is more impressive is that these new cameras are good enough for a film-out right off the bat (even though they might look like something you'd see on the "Regal 20" commercials at some movie theatres :) ). Also, they're cheap, you can get really professional looking 24fps HD for far, far, less than you'd pay for a Panasonic Varicam or Sony F900. If none of those options are good enough, then either wait for something better or spend extra for a higher up camera that is good enough.
__________________
"Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| ||||||
|
|