XL H1 and 24F

[Randy Donato]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Incorrect... the JVC GY-HD100 has 24p from progressive scan chips. Of course it is HDV1, at 1280 x 720, instead of HDV2, at 1920 x 1080, but it is still HDV.

True, but HDV 2 is 1440x1080 with a par of 1.33, not square 1920x1080....big difference.


Also on the 24p vice 24f I think it is worth distinguishing cameras that use progressive chips from interlaced. The F900 notwithstanding I am sure owners of VariCam will agree...just a different animal than a hardware deinterlace to a full frame at 24fps. Now I do agree that some manufacturers are going to be better than others at taking interlaced to progressive and can't wait to see some native .m2t of the Canon scheme but fact is it isn't a true progressive acquisition like Varicam... and while the resolution looks great on a static chart my guess is the resolution differences(not cadence) show up in movement.....that's when the conversion gets tough. Don't get me wrong I really really like this camera and think it is a big step up from the Z1 I have and next time I have to stick a tele on the Z1 I bet I will own this cam instead...

[Shannon Rawls]

Barry Green, Don't lie to make a point.
I have an affinity for you, but if you're gonna start making up stuff, then Imma start questioning your word and other things I admire you for.

Do a search on all my posts, Scan my name and read all 19 pages of posts I have made here you will never find where I said that the SOny Z1U CF24 is 24P like I am saying now. I always seen that interlace jutter frame that Adam Wilt reported on, so if I said that then I was insane!

I did however always say CF24 can BECOME 24p...even NICE 24p at that. I've done it many times before and I can do it for you if you need me to. As a matter of fact...CineForm has made it even EASIER to do so...so please tell the truth...

So like you said, let's stick with reality, Mmm K?

Canon does not use progressive chips. And? your point is? Have you not listened to a word I said about "24p"? Well if you have then, well....OK.....

Screw it ... Since you want to hamper the scanning technology, then XL-H1, the HD100, the DVX100, XL2, the SDX900, the F900, the Varicam....Are all "UN-REAL" 24p and NOBODY is "TRUE" 24P then. Because for each and every one of them, I can point out a reason why it's not.

how's that sound? I mean, because that's the only FAIR answer if everybody is going to be subjective to what "they" consider Twenty Four Pee (24p).
IF IT AIN'T ONE THING IT'S ANOTHER. now it's all about the scanning of the chips. LOLOLOL. Before it was the cadence, then it was the way it's laid to tape, then it was how it comes down firewire, now it's the Chips. Originally, Static Resolution Tests were all we needed BUT NOW that cameras are excelling in that area it's all about moving object tests to make a determination! Lord have mercy. It's a Lose-Lose situation with this stuff. Nothing is ever good enough for people anymore. Eveything sucks! I continually praise this website every chance I get because I love it, and what do I get? Emails from anonymous a**holes telling me how DVINFO isn't good enough and that I should hang out at DVXUSER instead. It's AMAZING!
Even though the Sony CineAlta F900 does PsF, it gets a Pass, regardless that it was YOU who said "The F900 CineAlta cannot record true progressive-scan, it can only record interlaced, so it breaks progressive frames into interlaced data for the purposes of recording it (which they then call PsF, for Progressive: segmented frame)."

*shakin my head*

I seem to be the only one who is being fair about how to consider the term 24p. Everybody else (espeically those that follow certain companies like a cult) will find some loop-hole to claim that another company ain't real or true. One way or another.

You claim that 24f is different then 24p, well ok then tell me this. If I shoot a resolution chart of a Canon XL2 in 24p (2-3-3-2) and I shoot a the same chart in the same settings in the same position with the same lighting on the same day using the same exact lens with a Canon XL-H1 in 24f (2-3-3-2) then you're telling me that the the XL2 should resolve a better resolution then the XL-H1? And that's both in DV mode. Is that what you're telling me? Because it's nothing more then a phone call for me to run that test.

You think I didn't look at Pete Bauer's report where you grabbed those cute little images from? I was so fanatic about wondering if the 24f got better or worse over 60i when me and Nick ran those tests that I studied Petes images probably harder then anybody on this website. I came to realize that the whole damn 24f BMP file was shifty at best! there's JPG artifcacts in the GREY areas on that thing even though its a BMP. Not to mention, the camera moved and was on various shutter speeds & F-Stops for testing. How can you go by that? Pete did us a favor by showcasing the first XL-H1 on DVINFO.net and gave us something to start with, but you seem to be taking it as Gospel.

And as far as resolution numbers go, Pete openly says he is not a test engineer and that his setup was a bit makeshift Barry. And where did he get that chart from anyhow? Was that a print out?
Why on Earth are you coming up with these low resolution numbers for the XL-H1 by using Pete's living room makeshift paper printout record player turn-table chart test rather then one Nick shot at Bennett Studios next to his F900 using the same chart you own??? My god! That gives me indication that YOU DON'T WANT the Canon to do good. What's up with that? LOL That's not like you Barry. and even then, I didn't like the internet image "I" put up and had put a disclaimer next to it, but openly told everybody about what I SAW, not whats on my website.

Moreover, if you go by Pete's test, then the Standard Def wide-angle 3x lens is JUST AS GOOD OR BETTER then the 20x HD lens it came with! Something YOU TEACH US that cannot be possible! So is it good or isn't it? Is the test valid or is it not?

That's why I always said I don't like these Internet tests and charts and all that. never have and never will. IN PERSON is the best method. I can't base a theory by what Internet BMP & JPG photos are telling us. If that's the case, then the HVX200 is a piece of crap based on the filmout they had at Laser Pacific last week! And let's not even talk about the footage from Pappas at the Expo!

Anyhow, (throwing hands up), I give up. The XL-H1 is a fake, the HD100 is fake, DV is fake HDV, HDV is fake HD, HD is fake FILM, FILM is fake Eyeballs, Americans landing on the Moon is Fake, and Earth is just an Ant-Farm for some aliens Kid whose just watching us fumble around down here.

the CineAlta is fake too.
(smile)

How's that?

- ShannonRawls.com

[Barlow Elton]

I can't wait to see some HVX 1080p. Of course what we shot at the expo isn't fair, but resolution-wise, it looked like an upsample. A lot like the Z1U 960x1080. It's my belief (and it's just dandy if I'm wrong...I want the best product) is that the HVX200 will not look as finely detailed and have that image *pop* in 1080p, because there's a reasonable chance that the sensor is undersampled, to some degree, in comparison to the H1. The H1 may also have a sharper lens and better signal processing, but we'll see soon enough.

Jan has stated that it's a 1080p sensor, but has avoided mentioning the actual dimensions. It might be a 1920x1080 CCD, or very likely not. It might be that it pixel shifts in both axes, which is fine, but it might be straining to get a nice 1920x1080 image, whereas the H1 seems to have plenty of resolution umph. All I know is I really like what the H1 can do, and it seems like Nick and Co. feel the same way.

It's funny to argue over the minutiae of the meaning of true *progessive* scan. Seems to be quite the marketing coup if you can claim to be a true P. Jesus, it's so silly. Images speak for themselves. I'll admit to a soft-spot for Canon, but good grief, the affordable tools that are available for budding ore even veteran storytellers/filmmakers are absolutely stunning.

I wish the HVX or H1 was available when I shot my 35mm thesis project in film school nearly a decade ago. I had just bought the XL1, and was in the midst of the old "frame mode" euphoria, but knew it wouldn't measure up to film. I would have saved a lot of money and still had a great experience.

[Michael Pappas]

Isn't it enough that a/b switching between a Sony F900 $100,000 + rig against the XLH1 on the same monitor says how good the XLH1 is?

If the XLH1 could only resolve 600 lines than how is it that it held up against the f900 850+ lines and sometimes they couldn't tell which one was which?

pappas

[Nick Hiltgen]

Hmm, this seems to be a long thread going no where, however, being called out on the f900 I have to step in.

No the f900 does not RECORD 24P to tape, it does break it down to PsF for recording and monitoring as well, however that doesn't mean that the chip doesn't read a 24P image. Just so we're clear. Also Technically it's not an interlaced frame, it's sort of LIKE an interlaced frame, but not.

I don't want to start the resolution debate again, but I think what it does come down to the canon produces a really good clean image,better in 60i but also very good in 24F(p, whatever).

Barlow, I've heard rumors that the panasonice 1080 is uprezzed from a 720 chip, so that might but it's silly to talk about a camera that's not officially released yet.

I think shannon makes a good point about what we're all going to consider P (you have to look hard it was hidden in with a bunch of blasphomy about the f900 *smile*) Nothing's P everything's P we're all obsessed with film but hide it behind our love for electronics... Whatever.

I think what it comes down to is this, One of the directors I was talking to about this camera asked me, "Nick can we shoot with thsi camera and not lose the audience based on the technical aspects" Yes, and for me that's what it comes down to. Now if you're trying to cut between oh I don't know a 90000 camera and this one, you're going to get a little more into the technical side of things, but, I mean, who else is trying to do that?

So I guess what it comes down to is that the footage is on the web, the resolution specs are a little fuzzy (he he you like that? res specs... fuzzy... get it, ok nevermind) Anyone making a decision on this camera and what is "REAL" 24 P can do that and that's the great thing about this website.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Oh and one mroe thing, let's talk about this "flagging thing" if this is true then when you shoot in 24F in theory you can go back and get the frames that you missed with some sort of re reading of the tape software. People used to say the varicam used flagged frames. I know the varicam doesn't and I don't believe this one does either. When you shoot 24P (F) you're getting only those 24 frames and via 2:3 pulldown you get a 60i stream. That's all. If someone can prove this incorrect I will believe it but I'm pretty sure this is how the canon works.

[Daniel Stone]

Okay, that's what I thought about the drop in resolution... makes sense.

By the way, calm down, Shannon. For the sake of your own blood pressure you should probably remove yourself from this discussion. Sheesh - you'd think we're talking schmack about your mother or something! Your posts have become quite painful to read. Nobody is saying the H1 isn't a fantastically amazing camera.

Okay, can someone BESIDES SHANNON (who is freakishly defensive about the H1 because he owns it) just tell me your take on the 24f in terms of its look? Not counting resolution - because I think we all know there is a difference - do you think it gives an accurate 24p look?

Is it a waste of time to film something in 24f HD that is merely going to be displayed on an SD monitor? I know that the H1 probably handles color and tones a little better, but is it worth it to switch from the XL2 to the H1 assuming that I'll only film HD to be converted to SD?

Thanks everyone for giving this HD-idiot (me) so much great info.

[Shannon Rawls]

All this FAKE & REAL stuff got me wondering what's FAKE/REAL "High Definition"

I know a resolution of 1280x720 & 1920x1080 is defined, written & documented as the true meaning of "HIGH DEFINITION". So now I'm wondering.

Since everybody is hell bent on defining the term "24p" by what's happening at the sensors and all that nonsense, then by the same token we need to be hell bent on defining the term "HD" by what's happening at the sensors as well (NOT by what you end up with)....

....I wonder what cameras are REAL/TRUE HIGH DEFINITION.

And Daniel....this is the Internet brutha. if anything is FAKE....it's this conversation. It's just 1's & 0's displaying on your monitor, not me yelling @ you over the airwavs. *smile* You cool with me. Espeiocally cause your from DC. I find people from DC to have a sense of reality more then most the nation. But, I'm typing on a computer keyboard in some shorts, a tshirt & flipflops sipping a Snapple. How more calm can I get. LOL
And to answer your question, No. it's not worth upgrading to HDV if all you ever plan to do is display on SD only. Your XL2 is fine. SDX-900 is the best, IMO.

I'll report back on the Real/Fake "HD" thing in a bit.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

....I wonder what cameras are REAL/TRUE HIGH DEFINITION. I'm going to do some research and I'll report back.

- ShannonRawls.com

Well, my XL2 is high definition...when compared to my circa 1985 Panasonic full size VHS camcorder. It's all relative anyway and what we call HD today may be just SD tomorrow. FWIW, there are already other threads trying to answer and define the same truth you are seeking.

-gb-

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

Barry Green, Don't lie to make a point.

I don't lie to make a point, or for any other reason. Please don't accuse me of doing so.

but if you're gonna start making up stuff, then Imma start questioning your word and other things I admire you for.

If I was making stuff up, I wouldn't blame you for doing so.

Obviously there's a large disconnect here between what you're defining as to what 24p is, and what it actually is. That's where the problem is. For example:

Do a search on all my posts, Scan my name and read all 19 pages of posts I have made here you will never find where I said that the SOny Z1U CF24 is 24P like I am saying now. I always seen that interlace jutter frame that Adam Wilt reported on, so if I said that then I was insane!

See, that's the thing. You think that somehow the presence of the interlace frame is what makes CF24 be not 24p. And that's not it at all. That's almost completely irrelevant.

There's four things that distinguish CF24 from true progressive scan: the fact that it samples motion at uneven intervals is by far the worst, but the second is that it's lower res, and the third is that it changes resolution from frame to frame. Those three things combine to make it a very poor imitation of 24p. The fourth is that of course it's being sampled from an interlaced chip, which prevents it from being 24p in the first place. The "p", in case you're not aware, stands for progressive scan. Which inherently implies that it must be scanned off the chip progressively in order for it to be progressive scan. That is the #1 difference between 24F and 24P, and why Canon chose to call their method 24F.

I did however always say CF24 can BECOME 24p...even NICE 24p at that.

That's what I was referring to. That's exactly what I was referring to. And the thing is, no it can't. It never can. Because the motion rendition is wrong. What you can do is use CineForm or whatever to remove the interlace frames and present it as 24 distinct frames per second, but that doesn't change that they're inherently created wrong -- they sample motion wrong. They allocate motion over the course of a pair of frames at uneven intervals, assigning about 1/3 of the motion to one frame and 2/3 to the other. That's not what a 24fps progressive-scan system would do (and it's not what 24f does either).

CF24 motion will never look like 24p motion, regardless of whether you post-process it through cineform or whatever.

What I was referring to, what I was saying that you said, is that last paragraph. So hopefully that puts to bed the whole "lying" thing, okay?

Canon does not use progressive chips. And? your point is?

My point is that you said you can't for the life of you figure out why they call it 24F instead of 24p. The reason why, from Canon's own lips, is that it is not progressive. It's interlaced. That's why. It's different. And because it is different, it leads to different results.

Have you not listened to a word I said about "24p"?

I did. But your definition is not accurate. It's not how it's recorded that matters, it's how it was scanned. "P" stands for Progressive Scan. Not "progressive recording".

Since you want to hamper the scanning technology,

? It's not me that "hampered" the scanning technology. I'm merely pointing out that there is a difference.

The HD100, DVX100, XL2, SDX900, HVX200 and F900 all use progressive-scan chips. The FX1, Z1, and XLH1 all use interlace scan chips. Different technology.

NOBODY is "TRUE" 24P then. Because for each and every one of them, I can point out a reason why it's not.

No you can't. Because the definition is: does it scan the image progressively, and does it do so at a 24hz frame rate. Regardless of how it gets recorded, the question is how it scans. The VariCam, CineAlta, XL2, DVX, HVX, SDX, SPX, and HD100 all do true, genuine, definite 24p. Of that group only the HVX records a unique and distinct 24fps, but that doesn't negate any of the others. They're all legitimate 24p acquisition systems.

I mean, because that's the only FAIR answer if everybody is going to be subjective to what "they" consider Twenty Four Pee (24p).

No, the only fair answer is that there's one absolute definition. Being subjective about it is what causes the problem. There is an objective definition, and that's the one we should be using.

IF IT AIN'T ONE THING IT'S ANOTHER. now it's all about the scanning of the chips. LOLOLOL. Before it was the cadence, then it was the way it's laid to tape, then it was how it comes down firewire, now it's the Chips.

I have no idea what you're talking about. It was always about how the chips are scanned (hence the name "progressive scan"). The cadence is an integral part of that. If it scans at a cadence of consistent 30hz intervals, it would by definition not be 24p, it would be 30p. If it scans at a 60hz cadence it would by definition be 60p. So cadence is an integral part that cannot be separated out. The Sony scans at 60hz, so its cadence is not, nor can it ever be, a true 24hz. Surely that makes sense?

What does how it's laid down on tape (or disc or card or whatever) have to do with it? And what does how it comes down the firewire have to do with anything? The JVC outputs a 60p stream, the DVX outputs a 60i stream, the CineAlta puts out a 48hz stream, but within them all is a true, pure, genuine original 24fps progressive scan image that can be easily and losslessly reconstructed in the editing program. They all shoot 24p because they all scan the image progressively at 24hz intervals off of their chips. That's the definition, the one and only definition, the only definition anybody should be using.

How they record is different. How they scan is what counts.

Even though the Sony CineAlta F900 does PsF, it gets a Pass, regardless that it was YOU who said "The F900 CineAlta cannot record true progressive-scan, it can only record interlaced, so it breaks progressive frames into interlaced data for the purposes of recording it (which they then call PsF, for Progressive: segmented frame)."

Yes, that's accurate. How is that a problem? It scans progressive, then splits it into fields for recording because HDCAM doesn't have a progressive encoding codec option. So it gets split into fields for recording, and then it is reconstituted (losslessly) in the editing program as pure progressive. Therefore, because it scans progressive and can deliver progressive, how is that a problem? They call it PsF to explain the recording technology. That doesn't change the fact that it is a progressive scan.

If I shoot a resolution chart of a Canon XL2 in 24p (2-3-3-2) and I shoot a the same chart in the same settings in the same position with the same lighting on the same day using the same exact lens with a Canon XL-H1 in 24f (2-3-3-2) then you're telling me that the the XL2 should resolve a better resolution then the XL-H1?

Are you asking if a standard-def frame will show more detail than a high-def frame? That's a silly question. Of course the XLH1 would be higher res.

If you're asking if you compared them standard-def to standard-def, then if you look at the memo above this one, I already answered that. The answer is that the 24F scan on the XLH1 will retain more detail than the standard-def 24p frame could hold anyway, so during the downrez to standard-def it will probably produce an image indistinguishable from the XL2's native progressive-scan image.

[Barry Green]

Part II

I came to realize that the whole damn 24f BMP file was shifty at best! there's JPG artifcacts in the GREY areas on that thing even though its a BMP. Not to mention, the camera moved and was on various shutter speeds & F-Stops for testing. How can you go by that?

Not having an XLH1 to conduct my own tests with, I'm going by Pete's. It seems competently performed, and his results parallel to a large degree what David Newman reported as well (David said 650 lines, Pete's chart shows 600, that's close enough to fit within a reasonable margin of error due to framing or alignment, etc.)

And where did he get that chart from anyhow? Was that a print out?

I don't know where he got the chart from. But if it was a printout, if you're implying that the numbers are artificially skewed from the printout, then that should have affected the interlace chart more than the 24F one.

Why on Earth are you coming up with these low resolution numbers for the XL-H1 by using Pete's living room makeshift paper printout record player turn-table chart test rather then one Nick shot at Bennett Studios next to his F900 using the same chart you own??? My god! That gives me indication that YOU DON'T WANT the Canon to do good. What's up with that?

Shannon, stop attributing motives to someone's post. I look at things for what they are, not what I want them to be. I have no axe to grind against the Canon, I went on record as saying that the images from it looked absolutely fabulous (excepting some highlight clipping). I am interested in seeing what something actually DOES. Not what I wish it did, nor in trying to justify my purchase to someone else or whatever. I put it to the test and see how it actually performs, whenever possible. That makes some people upset. Sorry. Can't help that. I'm not trying to make people happy, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what IS, vs. what ISN'T, or what's CLAIMED. What IS is not subject to interpretation, it's what is.

I'm not "coming up with low numbers" -- in these tests, I don't care what the numbers are. It's not the actual numbers that matters. It's the difference between the numbers. I would never trust any test other than my own for absolute numbers, simply because there's too many variables that can apply (i.e., is the chart framed correctly -- is the camera square to the chart -- what f-stop are you using -- etc etc). Those things can all have bearing. I'm not saying I'm the only guy who can do such a test, but I am saying that I'm not going to take responsibility for such a test unless I can verify to my own satisfaction that the test was conducted absolutely properly. If I do it, I stand behind what I show. And if someone can point out an error, I'll gladly rectify it and reperform the test.

What Pete's test shows is the DIFFERENCE. I wouldn't care if his chart showed 1200 lines for 60i and 950 lines for 24F -- I'd still be concerned with the DIFFERENCE. And there is a difference. That's what this whole thread is about. It's not about comparing the XLH1 against any other camera, or any other manufacturer, or anyone being "paid off" or any other red herring. It's about HOW DOES 24F WORK AND DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE IMAGE.

As to why I didn't look at Nick's chart -- I didn't see any such post. I saw you post a few low-res JPGs from that evening, with Nick in the shot and the name on the back of his shirt etc. Are you saying there's a full native chart posted now? Or that one was always there and I just didn't see it? If so, I haven't seen it.

Moreover, if you go by Pete's test, then the Standard Def wide-angle 3x lens is JUST AS GOOD OR BETTER then the 20x HD lens it came with! Something YOU TEACH US that cannot be possible! So is it good or isn't it? Is the test valid or is it not?

That is a fascinating question, and I will most readily admit to being puzzled by that. It should not be possible, especially with the bad rap for softness that the 3x lens often gets.

As an absolute test, I don't know. But that's not what I'm looking at. I'm looking at the difference between 24F and 60i. That's all. And in that particular test, I think there is little room for error, if any, in the simple test of pointing the camera at a chart, recording the image, flipping from 60i to 24f and recording the next image. I mean, it's possible that his focus wasn't absolutely spot-on, sure -- but that would affect both charts equally. It's possible that his framing could be off. But that would affect both charts equally. I was looking at the DIFFERENCE between them, not in the absolute numbers that they're showing. It's entirely possible that if he framed a little tighter and focused a little more accurately that he may have gotten 800 lines out of the 60i shot. And in that case I would bet $100 cash money that his 24F shot would have shown about 640 lines (give or take a little). Which would coincide with David Newman's observation of 650.

If I thought Pete fouled up the test I wouldn't refer to it. But since he got consistent results, and then David Newman reported somewhat comparable results, I felt that Pete's test is most likely credible. And again, the only thing I'm looking for in it is the difference. Not the actual numbers. Just the difference between 24F and 60i.

That's why I always said I don't like these Internet tests and charts and all that. never have and never will. IN PERSON is the best method.

I'm thinking of doing such a test, maybe end of next week some time (have a few phone calls to make to set it up, and the end-of-year holidays is making that more difficult). Maybe sometime in the first few days of January... not sure yet. Maybe you could drop by and see how I do it, and point out any errors in methodology that you find. Bring your XLH1. Watch what we do. Point out any errors. Tweak the settings to get the best possible results. Whatever you want. Just so long as anyone and everyone associated with it calls it a "fair" comparison.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

Oh and one mroe thing, let's talk about this "flagging thing" if this is true then when you shoot in 24F in theory you can go back and get the frames that you missed with some sort of re reading of the tape software. People used to say the varicam used flagged frames. I know the varicam doesn't and I don't believe this one does either. When you shoot 24P (F) you're getting only those 24 frames and via 2:3 pulldown you get a 60i stream. That's all. If someone can prove this incorrect I will believe it but I'm pretty sure this is how the canon works.

Not sure what you mean here. As far as I know, the Canon records only the 24F frames to tape. That's a good thing. It means it gets to allocate more bandwidth to the actual frames. The firewire output is 24 frames. On playback it will automatically convert it to 2-3 60i for monitoring, but the actual recording is (I believe) 24 frame.

As for the VariCam flagging frames -- the VariCam scans 24 frames, but the requirements of the tape drive mean that it must always record 60 frames. So the 24 frames get recorded on tape as 60p, with flags associated with the original (non-duplicate) frames. Then the frame rate converter goes in and strips out the duplicate (non-flagged) frames, leaving the straight original 24 frames.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Daniel Stone

Nobody is saying the H1 isn't a fantastically amazing camera.

And for the record, I'm saying that it IS a fantastically amazing camera.

Not counting resolution - because I think we all know there is a difference - do you think it gives an accurate 24p look?

It looks and feels like 24p. The motion is right.

Is it a waste of time to film something in 24f HD that is merely going to be displayed on an SD monitor? I know that the H1 probably handles color and tones a little better, but is it worth it to switch from the XL2 to the H1 assuming that I'll only film HD to be converted to SD?

The XLH1 is, by all accounts, a better XL2 than the XL2 is. But if you've already got an XL2, and you're only going to be making standard-def content, then I can't see any reason why you should consider spending another $9,000 for the XLH1. The XLH1 has certain specific features, such as high-def recording and HD-SDI and timecode in/out. If you're going to use those features, it's definitely a great choice. If you're not going to be using those features, why upgrade?

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

I would bet $100 cash money.

I don't have a hundred bucks. Wife wont let me spend no more money until after Christmas. *sad face*
Most wives don't "get it" when it comes to men and their cars/electronics.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Greg Boston]

Ok guys...we need to step back and cool off a little. Barry, I can't believe how much you were able to type in just 11 minutes. Your typing speed is amazing! That's a compliment btw.

Let's drop this and get back to more contructive discussion..(smile)

-gb-