A clue to 24F for Steve Mullen?

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

Looking at the really nice footage that Barlow sent, it looks to me like frame mode. It really looks to be doing some kind of blend - it doesn't look aliassed enough to be a de-interlace, but it's too aliassed to be a total field blend. It actually looks really good - not perfect, but really good.

Graeme

Given the two measures (Adam and Shanon) of vertical resolution -- you need to look at both static and dynamic video. Most good deinterlacers today are Adaptive.Some are adaptive by a frame and some to a regionl.

It would be helpful -- at least to me -- if we used the names like bob and weave that others use.

Monday my HDV@Work Newsletter will have a complete description of common interlace technology. Sign up today at www.videosystems.com. It's FREE!

Anyone can explain to a non-native english what does it mean this Pappas stuff? The way to go will be the progressive chip rather than the interlaced one? Under the aliasing hassle? Not present into the progressive world? Is this really?

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Leuname Ereh

Anyone can explain to a non-native english what does it mean this Pappas stuff? The way to go will be the progressive chip rather than the interlaced one? Under the aliasing hassle? Not present into the progressive world? Is this really?

Leuname,

Michael was using a red filter to test and give an interesting look to Black and White footage, and he accidentally found something that can mess with 24F material. It's fairly obvious that starving the green frequencies hampers the camera's ability to resolve well. If you ever plan on doing black and white with a filter like this to really push contrasts, the camera may not be the ideal match for you.

Aliasing is a scary word, but I find it to be so incredibly minute if at all in 24F, it really irritates me to even mention it. Good grief, if people think that is such an issue then they shouldn't even consider the XL-H1. Those (like me) that happen to think 24F is amazingly good however it is arrived at, should be happy that Canon at least took the 24P look seriously, and engineered something outstanding from an interlaced CCD.

Bottom Line: If you know what you're doing, 24F can make an extremely good HD source for a film out. If you don't consider 50i to 24p conversion to be a valid film look than why even consider the H1? Stay with a "true progressive" camera and feel cozy.

I don't know about the lot of you, but I don't give a damn about the mechanism ultimately, just the results.

[Christopher Glaeser]

Originally Posted by Barlow Elton

I don't know about the lot of you, but I don't give a damn about the mechanism ultimately, just the results.

When one understands how a system works, it can often lead to better insights regarding the system limitations, perhaps how to best deal with the limitations, perhaps how to avoid the limitation, or perhaps how to use the system in new ways previously undiscovered.

Best,
Christopher

[Barlow Elton]

Point well taken, Christopher, but damn all this confounded logic! Can't we have a little blissful ignorance!!! Michael took the red pill and I DON"T WANT IT!! *smile*

btw, is it just me, or is Steve really the architect at the end of the Matrix trilogy? JK!!!!!

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Barlow Elton

It's fairly obvious that starving the green frequencies hampers the camera's ability to resolve well.

This should be no surprise at all, considering that the green CCD receives half of all the incoming light in any three-chip camcorder.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

This should be no surprise at all, considering that the green CCD receives half of all the incoming light in any three-chip camcorder.

Ah but at the same time the filter on the HD100 didn't have this same problem. Both cameras were tested with the same filter. I'm not saying the HD100 is better or not just that the amount of light from the green CCD doesn't really matter in this situation. I love the look of both cameras and because of Michael I think we finally know most of the ins and outs of both cameras to finally make a good choice as to which one is better for us.

My whole reason for getting into this topic is that a lot of people kept saying the H1 was just deinterlaced but I didn't agree with them. From the 24F footage I have seen I could not find any of the usual artifacts. Interlaced video kills me and I am very sensitive to the artifacts it can cause. I personally could give a damn how detailed or what resolution it is as long as it is clean.

I guess what my main concern is how can the SDI signal be 4:2:2 if it is interpolated from 540 pixels? Are we not now getting into the same area as the HVX200 in terms of color resolution?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

... I think we finally know most of the ins and outs of both cameras to finally make a good choice as to which one is better for us.

Oh boy. I would be seriously worried if someone bases a purchase decision on this. Shouldn't it instead be based on whether or not you like the image you're getting, and the ergonomics and form factor of the camera? In other words, why should this be a deal-breaker.

You know this exact same topic is going on over at DVX User, and I encourage anyone who likes to fixate over this sort of thing to please pick up on the discussion over there. One of their moderators, Barry S., makes an excellent point about this deal and anyone who is interested should read it. It's located at:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.p...4&postcount=18

[Thomas Smet]

Chris I wasn't talking about this chroma thing as one of the ins and outs. In fact it isn't really a big deal to me. I would never look at something like that as a reason not to get a camera. Heck I started with an XL1 when it first came out even though it had smaller chips. People told me it didn't have enough resolution but I liked the look of the video.

To this day people still comment on the footage I shot with that camera. Yes it is soft but I personally think video is too sharp anyways.

I guess it wasn't very clear and I am sorry. I was trying to point out that while I love to know exactly what is going on to get the image in the end it comes down to the look and how the camera handles. What I was talking about in terms of Michael's tests of the cameras was the samples of real world video shot in different environments. Out of everybody he has given the best footage I have seen to date from both the H1 and HD100. He has proved to all of us that the camera doesn't matter as much as how you use it. That is what I am thanking him for.

When I said we can finally make a good choice I meant to not judge on the numbers but look at Michael's samples and figure out which camera we like best based on the mood and atmosphere of the images and on how well the camera handles.

For me it comes down to how the camera handles as much as what the image looks like. I love the way the JVC handles but I like the image a little bit better from the H1.

The main reason again why I continue to get involved in this pi$%&ng contest is to help prove that the H1 is in fact better than simple deinterlacing like some would suggest.

All I was trying to point out that regardless of what color is getting cut off this green issue is so far found on only the H1. I only said this in response to statements of how any camera would look like this with a red filter on the front. That is totally not true.

As far as I know nobody here was in no way ever bashing the H1. They were just pointing out an interesting find. I didn't realize it was now a crime to talk about the tech side of these cameras.

[Christopher Glaeser]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I would be seriously worried if someone bases a purchase decision on this. Shouldn't it instead be based on whether or not you like the image you're getting, ...

Consider a similar discussion on digital photography forums. One person states they prefer CMOS over CCD and everyone pounces on him, telling him to ignore the technology and base his decision on the images. He then explains that he uses his camera on ten-day hikes in the wilderness where battery consumption and dust due to lens changes are major factors in his decision process. Then there's a flurry of, "oops, my bad."

I can understand that most readers on this forum may skip this thread, but I don't understand the reluctance to discuss the details of technology inside the camera. Putting aside the fact that some people are just plain interested in knowing the details, perhaps there is someone on this forum who wants to purchase a camera for fast-action chroma key. Could a better understanding of the method used to create the images affect his purchasing decision? Can anyone state with certainty that discussions about the methods used to create the images can not possibly affect even one purchasing decision?

Forums are not only useful for the majority who have typical requirements, but are also useful for the individuals who have special requirements.

Best,
Christopher

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

I didn't realize it was now a crime to talk about the tech side of these cameras.

Hi Thomas, it's not a crime as far as I'm concerned... believe me if I thought it was a crime, I'd just close it or make it go away. Obviously there's no need for that. Where I become annoyed, is when these technology discussions draw attention away from more important things, such as how to use the gear and what we're creating with it. We can't change the way the electronics work, so what's the difference. I guess my point is, with these new cars we're buying, instead of talking about the engines, why not talk about how to drive and where to go. Because that's something you can take away from here and really use.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Christopher Glaeser

I don't understand the reluctance to discuss the details of technology inside the camera.

My reluctance stems primarily from the fact that a lot of this stuff is sheer speculation until the manufacturer actually confirms it. Even then, what can you do with that information anyway. While there's nothing wrong with the "how does it work" geek factor, I find it thoroughly unproductive and distracting.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

While there's nothing wrong with the "how does it work" geek factor, I find it thoroughly unproductive and distracting.

Kind of like sitting on this forum all day instead of working.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Hi Thomas, it's not a crime as far as I'm concerned... believe me if I thought it was a crime, I'd just close it or make it go away. Obviously there's no need for that. Where I become annoyed, is when these technology discussions draw attention away from more important things, such as how to use the gear and what we're creating with it.

Nobody is trying to draw attention from anything. Only a handfull of us geeks really even care to read this stuff about the CCD's. If we cannot talk about the tech specs of the cameras on this forum where should we talk about it? I for one thought this was a place to discuss and share information about everything video related. Since these topics keep coming up and get very long they must be of interest to somebody. Most of us blabbing about this junk know how to judge between the tech junk and the art. Perhaps that is why we do care so much. We care about the image so much that we want to make sure we can maxamize our cameras to their full potential. Doing that means knowing the limitations of a specific camera and how to deal with it. What would happen if a few months from now somebody with a BW film background wanted to do a BW piece and they came across this issue? They would get freaked out and we would all be trying to figure out what was going on anyways.

[Christopher Glaeser]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

... there's nothing wrong with the "how does it work" geek factor,

Is there nothing wrong with the implication that Steve is a geek?

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I find it thoroughly unproductive and distracting.

Oh, the irony of trying to derail a technical discussion with distracting comments like this. Let's see if we can find a more productive and less distracting post in the archives. Ah yes, a post regarding the color of the XL H1.

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I've heard people call it The Black Knight, Black Beauty, the Little Cine-Alta. Still looks like a chainsaw to me though.

Good to know when making a purchasing decision. Nothing unproductive there. :)

Best,
Christopher