24F LAID TO REST: The honest answer about 24F

Shannon Rawls · January 6th, 2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

We can all say: well, the image quality of 24f is almost equal to that of 24p

Ok, so what are you saying, it's worse?
If yes (looking around), worse then whom?

- ShannonRawls.com

Mathieu Ghekiere · January 6th, 2006, 08:27 PM

That's just the thing, WE AIN't SAYING IT IS WORSE.
You make us look like we are saying that, the only thing that was said was that there was a (little) resolution loss and that it wasn't 24p as we know it (from progressive scan CCD's). Nobody said it's picture quality is bad or something.
I never said I have a problem with 24f, frankly, I don't care.
But I got the feeling from this thread it was forbidden for people just to say 24f isn't the same as 24p.(Otherwhise Canon would have called it 24p, correct?)
And if people said that, I got the feeling they almost (maybe I'm a bit exagerating) getting attacked for it.
If someone wants to ask himself what's the difference between 24f and 24p (and there IS a difference, not that I care, but you can't just say: because it lookse the same, it's the same and nobody should talk about the difference anymore) then by all means, let them ask and talk. It's their right, we should forbid them that, right?
Pleas read my initial post again, very careful.
I hope you'll understand what I mean.

Best regards, Shannon,
let us now please stop arguing about this - because I'm getting tired about it - and let people who want to talk about the difference between 24f and 24p say what they have to say instead of just knocking them down with: "be silent about the difference, because only the image quality counts."

Shannon Rawls · January 6th, 2006, 08:45 PM

I'm trying to, but I still don't understand.
I did read your post....and Josh's....over and over and over again.
Josh goes on to say the 24f is the same frame mode he has always seen. only a few cameras on earth have frame mode, so basically he is saying 24f is the same as the frame mode on an xl1s. Yet you're sitting here saying nobody is calling it worse. lol It sound like FUD to me. The same FUD I asked politely for people not to reply with. Seems to me, if you're not saying it's worse, then why say anything at all? So now, I'm simply asking you to answer an easy question:

If you're not saying it's worse...then again I ask you......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

We can all say: well, the image quality of 24f is almost equal to that of 24p

what are you saying?

as a matter of fact...I have two unanswered questions for you. here's the second one:

Since you beleive.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

the only thing that was said was that there was a (little) resolution loss

Then I'm asking... How do you know? Says who? What 'Progressive Scan' camera in the XL-H1's class yields a higher resolution for you to say that statement?

Please...I'm anxious for the answers.

- ShannonRawls.com

Alexander Nikishin · January 6th, 2006, 08:49 PM

The sad thing about 24f is that it drops that oh so beloved 800 lines of res to about 600. =(

Kristian Indrehus · January 6th, 2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Nikishin

The sad thing about 24f is that it drops that oh so beloved 800 lines of res to about 600. =(

The sad thing is you can´t afford to work with an ARRI. The good news is you can have 24f 600 lines+ and SDI 4:2:2 color space uncompressed for 9K.

Sorry, I could´nt help myself :)

Alexander Nikishin · January 6th, 2006, 09:14 PM

Actually the HVX does better than that so...? What's ur point Kristian. And money, I'm not worried about money. =)

Kristian Indrehus · January 6th, 2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Nikishin

Actually the HVX does better than that so...? What's ur point Kristian. And money, I'm not worried about money. =)

My point is that if you are not worried about money, you should go for the very best, like 35mm film. The cameras discussed are all great value compared to the real thing, but the subject as I understand is 24F vs 24P and not the possibly academic differences in these cameras resolution. I doubt and definitely hope that people will choose their camera not strictly based on small diffs. in resolution. How the progressive modes looks however, could be of great importance to people trying to emulate film. By the time the HVX is out there could be a new camera introduced that makes all the others look like toys. You have to make a choice based on what´s out there today.

Pete Bauer · January 7th, 2006, 08:29 AM

I'm glad this thread stayed quiet overnight. I hope today the participants can read it and realize how ridiculously off-track it was, and not want to "dig a deeper hole." So...

Shannon started this thread saying he wanted to talk about camera OUTPUT, not the INTERNAL WORKINGS of the camera. Nobody is asking you not to talk about it, but I AM asking you to not hijack the thread and to take your off-topic INTERNAL WORKINGS meta-discussion to a new thread. And as it happens Petr Marusek has started just the thread for you:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=57685

Please re-read Shannon's initial post in this thread, and then restrict your comments in this thread to that topic. AND everyone...cease all personal digs anywhere on DVinfo. Thanks!

Joseph H. Moore · January 7th, 2006, 10:50 AM

Ok, talking about camera output:

The 24F output of the Canon shows relatively minor, but noticable, artifacts resultant from the interlaced capture of those frames.

It's pointless to have a discussion about the "output" of a capture device independent of the capture method itself. You could make a camera that captures 320x240 at 5 frames per second "output" 1080i. It would look like crap, but you could do it.

(In the interest of full disclosure I am on the fence about which camera to buy, and the Canon is in the running with all of them. They all have nasty trade-offs at this price point.)

John Benton · January 7th, 2006, 11:01 PM

Well Said Joseph,

I too am on the fence between the HVX and the Canon.
Canon seems clearly the better cam in many ways,

But I will be using 24P/F a lot
and the res. is kinda similar in both. Please correct me if I am wrong

Bob Grant · January 8th, 2006, 12:27 AM

I'll admit I'm an engineer NOT a cinematographer so this discussion, well isn't really a discussion. The XLH1 records 24p video, as does the HVX200 and the Z1 and the HD100. That's no great engineering feat in itself. As noted previously you can in post do the same with any camera, there's many smart de-interlacers ranging from free to 100Ks hardware systems.
What's the crux of the matter is what happens to the image in the process. How you get there as rightly noted is quite academic. What everyone would like is the full 1440 x 1080 res at 24fps, I don't think anyone would give a tinkers if the CCDs were clocked at 124.345Hz so long as they got that res with 24fps.
The obvious conclusion from what I've seen from all the players, Canon, JVC, Sony and Panasonic is quite simple, it cannot be done. You simply cannot achieve that sort of result without having 1/3" CCDs blow up. So we're left with compromises and like all compromises various people will prefer different approaches, some may prefer the path Canon have taken, I'm one of them for sure, others may prefer what Panasonic have done and good luck to them.
What does stick out though is that trying to pull a full res HD image off 1/3" CCDs is an engineering impossibility, well lets all get over it. If that's what you really want, lay down the big bucks and buy / hire a camera with 1" CCDs and big glass.
For my money even for SD work 1/3" CCDs suck, 1/2" is getting close and 2/3" is about the limit, the difference in image quality is very substantial. I'm not saying you cannot get stunning footage from 1/3" CCDs it's just that the 2/3" cameras ALWAYS give stunning images! And yes they cost, big time.
So lets set that as a point of reference for HD, just how big a CCD do you need to start getting HD at 24fps, answer is probably 1" and very, very big dollars. So working down to what we can afford you have to accept that serious compromises are being made. This doesn't need the amount of religious fervor that's going on although a bit of upfront honesty from all the players would be nice, something like "We hear what you want and we've poured a million in R&D into it and it cannot be done but here's the next best thing, we hope you'll like it".
The point where I'd totally agree with Shannon is that at the end of the day how it was done matters naught, how it looks on the screen is what counts.

Barlow Elton · January 8th, 2006, 12:44 AM

Thank you for that moment of clarity, Bob.

The truth is rather disappointing, isn't it?

Barry Gribble · January 8th, 2006, 09:38 AM

Shannon,

Late to the party here, but my condolences on the passing of Lou Rawls. I got to see him play live here for a BET shoot (BET on Jazz?) because I knew some of the crew. He was a great performer and a nice guy.

Joseph H. Moore · January 8th, 2006, 10:09 AM

John,
Looking at the samples and test charts, it does not appear that the HVX can match the XL H1's true resolving power at any setting.

The HVX appears to be doing a lot of massaging with a lower-res CCD capture. Overall detail is kind of soft, and the sub-sampling of color-transitions seems exagerated over other 4:2:2 captures.

This was a real dissappointment to me because I really looked forward to the HVX's silky 24P and variable frame rates.

Of course, the look of the H1's 24F motion isn't dead on film-like either, and out of the box the curve is kind of garish, so no camera is perfect yet.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the H1 because ultimately i prefer a removable lens, and I think that after proper grading it's going to yield the best image for either film or video work. But who knows, maybe some new HVX tests will sway me?

John Benton · January 8th, 2006, 11:17 AM

Yup,
Thanks Joseph...I hear you

January 6th, 2006, 08:27 PM	#17
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	That's just the thing, WE AIN't SAYING IT IS WORSE. You make us look like we are saying that, the only thing that was said was that there was a (little) resolution loss and that it wasn't 24p as we know it (from progressive scan CCD's). Nobody said it's picture quality is bad or something. I never said I have a problem with 24f, frankly, I don't care. But I got the feeling from this thread it was forbidden for people just to say 24f isn't the same as 24p.(Otherwhise Canon would have called it 24p, correct?) And if people said that, I got the feeling they almost (maybe I'm a bit exagerating) getting attacked for it. If someone wants to ask himself what's the difference between 24f and 24p (and there IS a difference, not that I care, but you can't just say: because it lookse the same, it's the same and nobody should talk about the difference anymore) then by all means, let them ask and talk. It's their right, we should forbid them that, right? Pleas read my initial post again, very careful. I hope you'll understand what I mean. Best regards, Shannon, let us now please stop arguing about this - because I'm getting tired about it - and let people who want to talk about the difference between 24f and 24p say what they have to say instead of just knocking them down with: "be silent about the difference, because only the image quality counts." __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

January 7th, 2006, 08:29 AM	#23
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	I'm glad this thread stayed quiet overnight. I hope today the participants can read it and realize how ridiculously off-track it was, and not want to "dig a deeper hole." So... Shannon started this thread saying he wanted to talk about camera OUTPUT, not the INTERNAL WORKINGS of the camera. Nobody is asking you not to talk about it, but I AM asking you to not hijack the thread and to take your off-topic INTERNAL WORKINGS meta-discussion to a new thread. And as it happens Petr Marusek has started just the thread for you: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=57685 Please re-read Shannon's initial post in this thread, and then restrict your comments in this thread to that topic. AND everyone...cease all personal digs anywhere on DVinfo. Thanks! __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

January 8th, 2006, 09:38 AM	#28
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	Shannon, Late to the party here, but my condolences on the passing of Lou Rawls. I got to see him play live here for a BET shoot (BET on Jazz?) because I knew some of the crew. He was a great performer and a nice guy. __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

January 6th, 2006, 08:49 PM	#19
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	The sad thing about 24f is that it drops that oh so beloved 800 lines of res to about 600. =(

January 6th, 2006, 09:14 PM	#21
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	Actually the HVX does better than that so...? What's ur point Kristian. And money, I'm not worried about money. =)

January 7th, 2006, 10:50 AM	#24
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Ok, talking about camera output: The 24F output of the Canon shows relatively minor, but noticable, artifacts resultant from the interlaced capture of those frames. It's pointless to have a discussion about the "output" of a capture device independent of the capture method itself. You could make a camera that captures 320x240 at 5 frames per second "output" 1080i. It would look like crap, but you could do it. (In the interest of full disclosure I am on the fence about which camera to buy, and the Canon is in the running with all of them. They all have nasty trade-offs at this price point.)

January 7th, 2006, 11:01 PM	#25
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	Well Said Joseph, I too am on the fence between the HVX and the Canon. Canon seems clearly the better cam in many ways, But I will be using 24P/F a lot and the res. is kinda similar in both. Please correct me if I am wrong

January 8th, 2006, 12:27 AM	#26
Bob Grant Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,570	I'll admit I'm an engineer NOT a cinematographer so this discussion, well isn't really a discussion. The XLH1 records 24p video, as does the HVX200 and the Z1 and the HD100. That's no great engineering feat in itself. As noted previously you can in post do the same with any camera, there's many smart de-interlacers ranging from free to 100Ks hardware systems. What's the crux of the matter is what happens to the image in the process. How you get there as rightly noted is quite academic. What everyone would like is the full 1440 x 1080 res at 24fps, I don't think anyone would give a tinkers if the CCDs were clocked at 124.345Hz so long as they got that res with 24fps. The obvious conclusion from what I've seen from all the players, Canon, JVC, Sony and Panasonic is quite simple, it cannot be done. You simply cannot achieve that sort of result without having 1/3" CCDs blow up. So we're left with compromises and like all compromises various people will prefer different approaches, some may prefer the path Canon have taken, I'm one of them for sure, others may prefer what Panasonic have done and good luck to them. What does stick out though is that trying to pull a full res HD image off 1/3" CCDs is an engineering impossibility, well lets all get over it. If that's what you really want, lay down the big bucks and buy / hire a camera with 1" CCDs and big glass. For my money even for SD work 1/3" CCDs suck, 1/2" is getting close and 2/3" is about the limit, the difference in image quality is very substantial. I'm not saying you cannot get stunning footage from 1/3" CCDs it's just that the 2/3" cameras ALWAYS give stunning images! And yes they cost, big time. So lets set that as a point of reference for HD, just how big a CCD do you need to start getting HD at 24fps, answer is probably 1" and very, very big dollars. So working down to what we can afford you have to accept that serious compromises are being made. This doesn't need the amount of religious fervor that's going on although a bit of upfront honesty from all the players would be nice, something like "We hear what you want and we've poured a million in R&D into it and it cannot be done but here's the next best thing, we hope you'll like it". The point where I'd totally agree with Shannon is that at the end of the day how it was done matters naught, how it looks on the screen is what counts.

January 8th, 2006, 12:44 AM	#27
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	Thank you for that moment of clarity, Bob. The truth is rather disappointing, isn't it?

January 8th, 2006, 10:09 AM	#29
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	John, Looking at the samples and test charts, it does not appear that the HVX can match the XL H1's true resolving power at any setting. The HVX appears to be doing a lot of massaging with a lower-res CCD capture. Overall detail is kind of soft, and the sub-sampling of color-transitions seems exagerated over other 4:2:2 captures. This was a real dissappointment to me because I really looked forward to the HVX's silky 24P and variable frame rates. Of course, the look of the H1's 24F motion isn't dead on film-like either, and out of the box the curve is kind of garish, so no camera is perfect yet. Right now, I'm leaning towards the H1 because ultimately i prefer a removable lens, and I think that after proper grading it's going to yield the best image for either film or video work. But who knows, maybe some new HVX tests will sway me?

January 8th, 2006, 11:17 AM	#30
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	Yup, Thanks Joseph...I hear you