DV Info Net
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon XL H Series HDV Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-h-series-hdv-camcorders/)
-   -   24F mode on tape (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-h-series-hdv-camcorders/52053-24f-mode-tape.html)

Obin Olson October 1st, 2005 08:34 PM
no problem, can you show me a link, I never knew you had a thread going for CineForm...

Obin Olson October 1st, 2005 08:37 PM
I can say this: I've had my HD100 for a month now...the Canon is putting many more real pixels to tape no matter how it's doing it.[/QUOTE]

well more "pixels" in each field then the HD100, each frame is still to be decided... this is in no way an apples and apples comparison. One is interlaced video the other progressive scan "pictures"

I am sure we will have the answer soon enough. And I sure hope its not the latest version of "framemode" arrggg

Nate Weaver October 1st, 2005 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obin Olson
well more "pixels" in each field then the HD100, each frame is still to be decided... this is in no way an apples and apples comparison. One is interlaced video the other progressive scan "pictures"

I am sure we will have the answer soon enough. And I sure hope its not the latest version of "framemode" arrggg
What do you mean? The end result of a Canon 24P file is 24P. What fields could you possibly mean? If the Canon handles images internally as interlaced (which I think is what it does, as do others), there's no evidence of it in the files it outputs, nor in the HD-SDI output I just watched for a half-hour at ResFest.

I myself am comparing end results, HD100 24P to Canon 24P. I've got both right here on my computer. One has WAY more info in it. This coming from a guy who just invested in the HD100.

Obin Olson October 1st, 2005 09:04 PM
The question at hand is this, does the Canon have "way more" pixels? or does the Canon DSP "create" more pixels? that is the million dollar question for 24fps images, not counting interlaced video.

Soroush Shahrokni October 1st, 2005 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obin Olson
That looks like "video" I guess the Canon is going to be just a new option for the video look. After working with the HD dvx it is so hard for me to find anything else at ANY resolution that looks "good" to my eye(cept a film scan)! ;)
Obin, I have seen your footage and I must agree with you. Your footage IMHO is the most filmlike, the most clean and the most stunning footage of all available cameras at the moment...congratulations!

Nate, let your eye be the judge, not the specs and the pixel count. I liked your 24p downtown footage more than the Canon 24F footage that I have seen...comparing both raw footage!

Even if Canons 24F is really displayed as 24P and has more pixels, it still looks VIDEO to me. Dont know what it is but it just wasnt what I had hoped for it to be...I guess once interlaced always interlaced no matter what CF or 24F you apply to it!

Nate Weaver October 1st, 2005 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obin Olson
The question at hand is this, does the Canon have "way more" pixels? or does the Canon DSP "create" more pixels? that is the million dollar question for 24fps images, not counting interlaced video.
Canon says their CCD is 1440x1080. Everything I'm seeing (files on my computer, the 24" Sony Broadcast HD CRT at ResFest) so far supports this.

One thing that IS absolutely for certain: 24F has none of the motion rendition problems of CF24. I myself can't tell the difference in motion between my HD100 files and the Canon's


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network