Jy-hd10e???

[Frederic Lumiere]

Maybe your'e right?! I'm confused now... Well all I can say is that a 25 fps 720p would be HOT!

The JVC head honcho at the Road Show was asked "What about the European version of this camera?" and he said "It will not be HD resolution."

[Brian Mitchell Warshawsky]

Glenn Wrote: For clarification, the XL1 doesn’t have 25p, and the reason for shooting with a PAL XL1 is to take advantage of PAL’s extra resolution for a film transfer. All the top transfer houses don’t even recommend using the “frame movie mode” on the Canons.
_____________________

Glenn, someone should tell Anthony Dod Mantle. In the July issue of American Cinematographer, the following statement was made:

"MPC believed the best results occurred with footage shot in the 4x3 aspect ratio but matted for 16x9 by the PAL XL1 (625 lines of resolution, 900,000 effective pixels over three 1/3" CCDs) in Frame Movie Mode, its pseudo-progressive-scan method, which is performed electronically within the camera. "My post house was quite adamant that it would help in their work to maintain as much quality as possible from the original material," the cinematographer says."

If this was not 25P, what else could it have been?

I thought it was the built-in "Widescreen" that post houses stress must be avoided.

If JVC does in fact release the European version in HD, doesn't this HAVE to be 25P? Can it in any way be 30P? Or would it be 50i?

Brian

[David Kelvin]

From the PAL XL1s PDF brochure from Canon UK, last page:

"Pixel Count (per CCD) Total 320,000 Effective 300,000
Scan Method 625 lines, 50 fields/25 frames"

http://canon.brochurelibrary.com/product.php?productid=6988

[Heath McKnight]

<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich : Maybe your'e right?! I'm confused now... Well all I can say is that a 25 fps 720p would be HOT!

The JVC head honcho at the Road Show was asked "What about the European version of this camera?" and he said "It will not be HD resolution." -->>>

Speculation is actually fun, but we're all chompin' at the bit for confirmation!

heath

[Ken Hodson]

Everything progressive shot in PAL land will be 25fps. Preferable for transfer to films 24fps.

[Glenn Gipson]

Sorry to get off topic with this..but I thought this might need some clarification in regards to the XL1 and Frame Movie Mode which Brian bought up.

>>From the PAL XL1s PDF brochure from Canon UK, last page:

"Pixel Count (per CCD) Total 320,000 Effective 300,000
Scan Method 625 lines, 50 fields/25 frames"

http://canon.brochurelibrary.com/product.php?productid=6988<<

Yeah, I was about to say, 900,000 pixels didn't sound right to me. And if 28 days was shot in Frame Movie Mode, it isn't true progressive or the best method for film transfer. Adan Wilt writes (adamwilt.com):

"These cameras get their "proscan" images not by truly perfoming progressive readout on the chips, but rather by offsetting the green CCD's read timing by one scanline during readout -- vertical pixel-shift, if you will. In essence, an even field from R & B CCDs is blended with an odd field from the G CCD, giving you a frame that has the scanlines for both fields captured at the same instant in time. This gives a definite improvement over mere field-doubled "frames", but it's not as sharp vertically as true proscan. Each "scanline" is actually composed of two scanlines from each chip, so there is some softening vertically; also, the effective chroma resolution is halved vertically. My Technical Difficulties article "Frames and Fields" goes into a lot more detail on the topic. "

Digital Film Group (digitalfilmgroup.net), a DV to 35mm transfer house has a Q&A section, and they write:

"Some of the shutter settings and modes on my camera produce a cool effect - can I use any of them?

Some of the effects like electronic shutters, "frame modes" or "movie modes" play havoc with video material when you are transferring it to film. We tell people that just because it looks interesting on a monitor doesn't mean it's going to look good on film.

This is because the mediums are vastly different and the process of getting your video to film is highly involved. Video is an interlaced medium and film is by nature, progressive. Usually the reason that an effect looks more filmic on a TV screen it that it is attempting to emulating the progressive nature of film, but only when viewed on the interlaced video screen. What it is doing to achieve that look however may cause irreparable damage to your footage and seriously hamper its ability to be transferred smoothly to film.

For instance, the Canon XL-1 and PD-150 cameras often have functions called "movie mode" or "progressive mode". What this effectively does is turn your footage from 60 interlaced fields (in NTSC) into 30 progressive frames. We call this type of progressive mode a 'pseudo' progressive mode however because unlike a true progressive imaging system which captures all the image at once, these less sophisticated progressive modes capture only one field at a time.

Since a single field only represents half the number of lines available, the camera fills in missing pixel information by copying lines - literally 'filling in the holes'. The remaining image is then copied and the next capture is performed.

What this means to your footage is that you no longer have 60 discrete pieces of motion information to convert to 24 frames anymore, but rather 30 - and softer images at that.

We therefore strongly recommend against the use of frame modes, movie modes, progressive modes or shutters of any kind in shooting for eventual transfer to film. Unless you are shooting with a 24 frames/sec. HD video camera - any other progressive frame rate that is not 24 or 25 frames/sec. will pose serious problems in transferring it to film.

Think of it this way, you are transferring to film - it is our job to give it film motion. Our process of converting it to 24 fps will give it film motion since it is now 24 fps! We have also spent a lot of time finding the balance that gives each frame the motion and blur that film has inherently.

If it's a video shutter effect you are looking for, almost all of these effects that you can create in the camera are available in post with software and hardware that provide more precision, control and variety than any in-camera effects. By not tampering with the interlaced nature of the images you will allow us (and others) to provide you with a smoother motion conversion to 24 progressive frames of film.

There is only one exception to this rule which pertains only to PAL cameras. Since PAL is running at a different frame rate (25 fps or 50 fields/second) - much closer to that of 24fps film, 'movie mode' is not as much of a problem. However, the poor quality of the de-interlacing effect of 'movie mode' will still soften your image whether you are shooting PAL or NTSC. For this reason, we do not recommend shutters, movie modes or pseudo-progressive frame modes of any kind for either PAL or NTSC."

Sorry to get off topic.

[Chris Hurd]

The most accurate description of Canon's Frame Movie mode I've ever heard is that it produces the same results as progressive scan, but through a different route. Although the PAL-system XL1S / GL2 are not "true" progressive scan camcorders, they do have a 25p mode (Frame Movie mode). For all intents and purposes, it is 25p.

I'll have to contact Ken Freed at JVC and ask him to come in and post the official word on the HD10 model -e.

[Heath McKnight]

Ken Freed would definitely have the answers.

heath

[Ken Hodson]

I am sure "28 days" was shot 50i then converted to 25p using Fields Kit or MagicBullet or a studio's proprietary system.
Ken

[Heath McKnight]

This is getting off topic; I found this info on 28 DAYS LATER... through a search of topics. Give it a shot!

heath

[Brian Mitchell Warshawsky]

Ken Wrote:
I am sure "28 days" was shot 50i then converted to 25p using Fields Kit or MagicBullet or a studio's proprietary system.
_____________

Ken, can you provide your source?

If 28 Days Later had instead been shot 50i, it seems to me they would have converted it to 24FPS, and not 25FPS.

The article I was referring to may be found through http://www.theasc.com/magazine/index.htm.

The Moving Picture Company in (London) (http://www.moving-picture.com/)utilizes a proprietary transfer method which may simply differ from that specified by Digital Film Group as cited by Glenn.

This really is not off topic for the simple reason that if 25P cleanly makes the jump to film with only a 4% speed difference, and JVC delivers a 25P HD cam, this camera would (pending the next new thing) become THE defacto choice for independent filmmakers.

Yeah, so there is (currently) no interchangeable professional lenses, and no full manual control. So what. When was the last time you saw a film and said “wow, their camera had great manual controls”.

Bottom line: If HD 25P is available, this is a MAJOR development.

Brian

[Barry Green]

"28 Days Later" was shot on PAL cameras in frame mode.

720/25P is part of the proposed HDV standard, as is 1080/50i, either of which should provide for a decent film conversion. Whether the new JVC model will support those modes remains to be seen, but someday some HDV camera will.

[Heath McKnight]

Off the topic, as in, 28 DAYS LATER talk of the Pal XL-1 cameras used belongs in the TOTEM (where I found it in late June) or the XL-1 page.

Yes, 25P HD10 would be "sick." :-)

Now, to shoot a major film on a 25P (or 24P) HDV camera, it would need to be fully manual and, most importantly, the capabilities to put a 35 mm lens.

heath

[Ken Hodson]

Brian-
It just seems logical to me. If you shot 60i then yes go straight to 24fps, but in PAL 50i to 25p then a 4% rate change would be cleaner from my perspective. It is also my understanding that MagicBullet produces better progressive footage then the Canon's Movie frame mode, but this may be incorrect.
PS- sorry for being off-topic.
Ken

[Jay Nemeth]

28 Days later was shot in Frame Mode, not 50i.