Is it possible to make HDV 24P at DVinfo.net

Paul Brady · December 17th, 2004, 09:57 AM

Since sony did not do it with their new camera, are we sure it is possible?

Joshua Starnes · December 17th, 2004, 10:25 AM

Yes. The Sony shoots in 30i and there are several programs that will specifically turn 30i into 24p.

DVFilm has just put out a new version of DVFilmmaker that will do so for the FX1.

Nick Hiltgen · December 17th, 2004, 10:47 AM

I thought the sony shot 60i

Peter Moore · December 17th, 2004, 11:09 AM

Technically it's 60i. Everyone knows what is meant by 30i however.

And yes it's possible. The format calls for 1080/60i to be stored on the tape, but if the CCD is set to 24 Hz, repeat fields flags could be used just like they are in DVDs (which are also 60i) to insert artificial pulldown, which is easily removed by the NLE.

Kevin Dooley · December 17th, 2004, 12:15 PM

Will there ever be a day without interlaced video? I mean c'mon--is there any point anymore? If you want fluid motion...shoot 60p and let's just embrace the fact that new technology has gotten us over the phosphor gun speed bumb...

Chris Hurd · December 17th, 2004, 12:21 PM

There are many creative professionals who prefer the look of 60i and have not felt "held back" by the lack of progressive frame rates. Interlaced video is excellent for sports and a variety of other applications -- most programming on broadcast and cable these days is originated on 60i. I'm all for having the choice of shooting progressive, but that's all it is to me: an aesthetic choice. So in my opinion, no, there will never be a day without interlaced video anytime soon. To turn the question around, I would have to ask, is there any point to not shoot interlaced video, outside of the typical application of emulating a film look?

Barry Green · December 17th, 2004, 01:09 PM

LCD's, plasma TV's, projectors, computer screens, they're all progressive display devices. And progressive-shot footage looks a lot better on them than interlaced footage does. So, depending on your targeted display device, sure there are reasons to shoot progressive.

Another good example would be for web streaming video, shooting progressive gives you a cleaner/easier-to-compress source, etc.

Regarding "ever a day without interlaced"... I don't think so. In Europe, maybe... the EBU is apparently trying to decide right now whether they'll embrace 1080/50i OR 720/50P, but not both (unlike in the US, where the ATSC endorsed both 1080 interlaced and 720 progressive, it appears that the Europeans are going to go with one and not the other). Sony's pushing hard for 1080/50i, Panasonic is pushing just as hard for 720/50P. If Sony wins, we're pretty much guaranteed that interlace will be with us forever. If Panasonic wins, there may be a lot less importance attached to interlace, since the ATSC also supports 1080 at progressive frame rates, so both resolutions would be supported in the US.

But for the foreseeable future interlace will be with us for quite a while, and maybe forever.

Kevin Dooley · December 17th, 2004, 04:00 PM

But my point is that it seems like all new tech displays are natively progressive. What advantages does 60i give over 60p? It seems to me you'd still have all the smooth motion in 60p...right?

I guess in my way of thinking, interlaced video was invented to over come a technical deficency which has now been over come...so why cling to it, if you can get the same (if not better) picture from progressive, and it will be better adapted to any display that someone might have...

Barry Green · December 17th, 2004, 04:14 PM

Well, I guess it depends on what formats those displays support.

In the ATSC HDTV standard, 1280x720 is approved as progressive-only, at 24p, 30p and 60p.

But if you want the higher pixel count of 1920x1080, that is supported at 24p, 30p and 60i. If you want the fluid motion of 60 updates per second and also the higher pixel count, you have to go interlaced. There is an argument to be made that 1280x720x60p provides fundamentally the same # of pixels-per-second as 1920x1080x60i, so it may not be much of an issue, but the fact remains that if you want the highest pixel count per line at the highest refresh rate, that means going interlaced...

Peter Moore · December 23rd, 2004, 08:07 AM

"There are many creative professionals who prefer the look of 60i and have not felt "held back" by the lack of progressive frame rates"

No one is saying they're held back. However, I don't think we should have to settle for things that are objectively not as good. 60i has no advantage over 60p except bandwidth. That's not an issue for a lot of us here. 60p objectively looks better (just look at sports on fox before they switched to HD). I don't know *who* would prefer 60i over 60p. Prefer 60p over 24p if you want (I don't). But seriously, interlacing provides nothing that is not exceeded by 60p.

Eric Bilodeau · December 23rd, 2004, 09:25 AM

I agree. Interlaced video should be a thing of the past now, and it is a pain to upscale or downscale witch is not a problem in progressive. Still, HDV 24p in 1080 is rather unlikely because of the bandwidth for the moment. A good progressive CCD capturing a real 24p and recording a pulldown 24p version of it on a 60i signal would be better though (like the DVX or the KL2), let's see what the future has in store...

Graham Hickling · December 23rd, 2004, 01:25 PM

"There are many creative professionals who prefer the look of 60i "

Perfer it over 30p, sure. But .... prefer it over the look of 60p? I'd be honestly surprised if "many" people prefer 60i over that.

Peter Moore · December 23rd, 2004, 05:12 PM

" is there any point to not shoot interlaced video, outside of the typical application of emulating a film look?"

Are you serious? Interlaced video flickers and has less resolution than progressive. A while back computer monitors used to be interlaced. People very quickly wisened up to the fact that they gave eyestrain and low resolution (not literally, but perceived) pictures.

Bob Zimmerman · January 16th, 2005, 08:14 PM

So what camera shoots 60p? Under $5,000

Ignacio Rodriguez · January 16th, 2005, 10:23 PM

> So what camera shoots 60p? Under $5,000

The JVC HD1 seems to have a 16:9 480/60p mode. It's not really HD, but if it's the temporal resolution what you are after and you don't care about the low sensitivity, lack of manual control and chroma noise, you can get away with it with this cam.

A better idea perhaps would be using software to extract reasonable 480/60p from HDV 1080i. Instead of what everybody seems to be after --losing temporal resolution and keeping as much spatial resolution as possible for the holy grail "film look"-- you could try keeping the temporal and dropping the spatial. I wonder if there is any software that can do that, custom software might be needed.

December 17th, 2004, 09:57 AM	#1
Paul Brady Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 43	Is it possible to make HDV 24P Since sony did not do it with their new camera, are we sure it is possible?

December 17th, 2004, 12:15 PM	#5
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	Will there ever be a day without interlaced video? I mean c'mon--is there any point anymore? If you want fluid motion...shoot 60p and let's just embrace the fact that new technology has gotten us over the phosphor gun speed bumb... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

December 17th, 2004, 12:21 PM	#6
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	There are many creative professionals who prefer the look of 60i and have not felt "held back" by the lack of progressive frame rates. Interlaced video is excellent for sports and a variety of other applications -- most programming on broadcast and cable these days is originated on 60i. I'm all for having the choice of shooting progressive, but that's all it is to me: an aesthetic choice. So in my opinion, no, there will never be a day without interlaced video anytime soon. To turn the question around, I would have to ask, is there any point to not shoot interlaced video, outside of the typical application of emulating a film look? __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 17th, 2004, 04:00 PM	#8
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	But my point is that it seems like all new tech displays are natively progressive. What advantages does 60i give over 60p? It seems to me you'd still have all the smooth motion in 60p...right? I guess in my way of thinking, interlaced video was invented to over come a technical deficency which has now been over come...so why cling to it, if you can get the same (if not better) picture from progressive, and it will be better adapted to any display that someone might have... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

December 23rd, 2004, 09:25 AM	#11
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	I agree. Interlaced video should be a thing of the past now, and it is a pain to upscale or downscale witch is not a problem in progressive. Still, HDV 24p in 1080 is rather unlikely because of the bandwidth for the moment. A good progressive CCD capturing a real 24p and recording a pulldown 24p version of it on a 60i signal would be better though (like the DVX or the KL2), let's see what the future has in store... __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

December 17th, 2004, 10:25 AM	#2
Joshua Starnes Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 356	Yes. The Sony shoots in 30i and there are several programs that will specifically turn 30i into 24p. DVFilm has just put out a new version of DVFilmmaker that will do so for the FX1.

December 17th, 2004, 10:47 AM	#3
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	I thought the sony shot 60i

December 17th, 2004, 11:09 AM	#4
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Technically it's 60i. Everyone knows what is meant by 30i however. And yes it's possible. The format calls for 1080/60i to be stored on the tape, but if the CCD is set to 24 Hz, repeat fields flags could be used just like they are in DVDs (which are also 60i) to insert artificial pulldown, which is easily removed by the NLE.

December 17th, 2004, 01:09 PM	#7
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	LCD's, plasma TV's, projectors, computer screens, they're all progressive display devices. And progressive-shot footage looks a lot better on them than interlaced footage does. So, depending on your targeted display device, sure there are reasons to shoot progressive. Another good example would be for web streaming video, shooting progressive gives you a cleaner/easier-to-compress source, etc. Regarding "ever a day without interlaced"... I don't think so. In Europe, maybe... the EBU is apparently trying to decide right now whether they'll embrace 1080/50i OR 720/50P, but not both (unlike in the US, where the ATSC endorsed both 1080 interlaced and 720 progressive, it appears that the Europeans are going to go with one and not the other). Sony's pushing hard for 1080/50i, Panasonic is pushing just as hard for 720/50P. If Sony wins, we're pretty much guaranteed that interlace will be with us forever. If Panasonic wins, there may be a lot less importance attached to interlace, since the ATSC also supports 1080 at progressive frame rates, so both resolutions would be supported in the US. But for the foreseeable future interlace will be with us for quite a while, and maybe forever.

December 17th, 2004, 04:14 PM	#9
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Well, I guess it depends on what formats those displays support. In the ATSC HDTV standard, 1280x720 is approved as progressive-only, at 24p, 30p and 60p. But if you want the higher pixel count of 1920x1080, that is supported at 24p, 30p and 60i. If you want the fluid motion of 60 updates per second and also the higher pixel count, you have to go interlaced. There is an argument to be made that 1280x720x60p provides fundamentally the same # of pixels-per-second as 1920x1080x60i, so it may not be much of an issue, but the fact remains that if you want the highest pixel count per line at the highest refresh rate, that means going interlaced...

December 23rd, 2004, 08:07 AM	#10
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	"There are many creative professionals who prefer the look of 60i and have not felt "held back" by the lack of progressive frame rates" No one is saying they're held back. However, I don't think we should have to settle for things that are objectively not as good. 60i has no advantage over 60p except bandwidth. That's not an issue for a lot of us here. 60p objectively looks better (just look at sports on fox before they switched to HD). I don't know who would prefer 60i over 60p. Prefer 60p over 24p if you want (I don't). But seriously, interlacing provides nothing that is not exceeded by 60p.

December 23rd, 2004, 01:25 PM	#12
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	"There are many creative professionals who prefer the look of 60i " Perfer it over 30p, sure. But .... prefer it over the look of 60p? I'd be honestly surprised if "many" people prefer 60i over that.

December 23rd, 2004, 05:12 PM	#13
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	" is there any point to not shoot interlaced video, outside of the typical application of emulating a film look?" Are you serious? Interlaced video flickers and has less resolution than progressive. A while back computer monitors used to be interlaced. People very quickly wisened up to the fact that they gave eyestrain and low resolution (not literally, but perceived) pictures.

January 16th, 2005, 08:14 PM	#14
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	So what camera shoots 60p? Under $5,000

January 16th, 2005, 10:23 PM	#15
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> So what camera shoots 60p? Under $5,000 The JVC HD1 seems to have a 16:9 480/60p mode. It's not really HD, but if it's the temporal resolution what you are after and you don't care about the low sensitivity, lack of manual control and chroma noise, you can get away with it with this cam. A better idea perhaps would be using software to extract reasonable 480/60p from HDV 1080i. Instead of what everybody seems to be after --losing temporal resolution and keeping as much spatial resolution as possible for the holy grail "film look"-- you could try keeping the temporal and dropping the spatial. I wonder if there is any software that can do that, custom software might be needed. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.