So Chris, how does 24f actually look?

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Charles Wood

The key issue is that the image capture is at one moment in time and at 24Hz

I'd say the key issue is how the final product looks, not how it does it. If it delivers full 1080p resolution, and the motion is sampled once every 24hz, and it looks like a high-def version of the DVX's 24p, then I don't think it matters how they do it or what they call it.

CineFrame24 is hated because it is neither full-resolution, nor 24hz motion. If 24F is full-res and 24hz motion, it will be embraced regardless of what they name it or how they accomplish it.

[Heath McKnight]

Thanks, Charles! BTW, saw your HD100 footage at an HDV show with Ken Freed. Nice stuff.

heath

[Obin Olson]

Under this light then they ARE indeed getting a WHOLE frame from each ccd at 1/24th of a sec? then the readout is interlaced? I don't care a rip about the "readout" if the CCD is getting a WHOLE frame every 1/24 of a sec....is this the deal with 24f??

Originally Posted by Charles Wood

A little confusion seems to be being introduced to this question of 24P. Lets set aside the naming of names point initially: The key issue is that if the data on the CCD is clocked at the same moment AT 24 FPS but then read out off the block as two interlaced fields, we really don't care about how it is read do we? The key issue is that the image capture is at one moment in time and at 24Hz

The important issue then becomes do they then recombine the two fileds to form a FRAME at 24 Hz BEFORE any image processing. They would be crazy not to, but maybe there are processing limitations on this (like no actual full frame store anywhere). What happens to get the data into the HDV transport stream seems irrelavant then, provided the field sequence is marked, and recoverable.

Then back to the naming of names: 24P implies the data can be read off the block progressively. 24F implies the data can be CAPTURED at 24Hz but is read as FIELDS. So there is a difference, and maybe it would affect noise patterns or something, but it probably is simply a technical difference, not one that affects the actual image we finally get to use.

Or is this too logical?




Someone say yes Charles...this is what we do....

[Charles Papert]

Doesn't happen often, but when it does; we've got two Charles in the same thread. Heath, thanks for the nod for the JVC footage. How were they showing it? on a monitor loop or as part of a presentation? just curious.

Charles Wood, welcome to DVInfo.net...and, mind if we call you Bruce?!