A few years back and you had a lot of progressive scan options in the consumer/prosumer segment but these days its slim pickings.

Maybe a DVX100A for you?

Joe, in either 24P or 30P (and frame mode is 30P because the two fields are created at the same time--no interfield motion blur) you still get two fields from the cam to make a frame. The frame is 720x480 regardless of true progressive or frame mode. When you bring the video to the timeline and set project properties, there is no deinterlacing necessary because the two fields are already deinterlaced in the camera. So, there is no degradation of the image like that which occurs when deinterlacing 60i.

Guy Bruner said:

-------no deinterlacing necesssary-----
----------------------------------------

Guy, did you use the right word, when you said "no deinterlacing"? Are you forgetting that the camcorder records and outputs the signal as interlaced?

Steve McDonald

Yes, but I think Guy is saying that you would not want to de-interlace footage in post that was recorded with frame mode in-camera.

What Guy said was that the camera has already deinterlaced it, when actually it has been interlaced by the camera before recording and output.

Steve McDonald

Exactly, Tommy. The two fields recorded in frame mode are recorded at the same time. There is no temporal difference to compensate for, and no interfield motion blur. When you bring the video into an editing package and tell the software that the video is progressive, it combines the fields without any alteration or need for running a deinterlace.

Guy, I guess I didn't make my point before. The camcorder doesn't record the two fields at the same time in NTSC or PAL DV. They are recorded as separate interlaced fields and output in the same way. So any NLE system that needs to have a deinterlaced signal, will have to deinterlace them after it comes from the camcorder. It can't be done in the camcorder.

Steve McDonald

I thought frame mode was taking one field and doubling it to two fields, thus loising half your resolution before it got to the pc/nle.

Unlike progressive, which uses the entire vertical resolution (480) and divides it into two fields . Thus making it easy to recombine back into progressive without resolution loss, a true 720x480 frame vs two 720x240 slightly different fields.

So while both are stored as interlaced on tape, the true progressive chip acts more like a film to video transfer in laymans terms. Thats one of the reasons the DVX100 material uprezs so well.

Thats also why I bought the mx500 over the dv953, at least I get more in frame mode and a true 16x9 that uses more of the chip instead of cropping like the dv953.

And if thats what is really happening in the GS400, well, then, I'm not interested. Not that the camera is bad, just not worth trading in my MX500, even if it has better low light and better whiz bang features. If the GS400 had/has true progressive, it could be the number 1 Guerilla cam on the market. Making it an excellent second camera for the DVX. Oh well, sigh.....

With Canon shooting itself in the foot with the XL2 (IMHO), I'll probably be looking at the DVX100a very soon. Haven't decided whether or not to get PAL or NTSC. I have no desire to do live types of broadcast, so compatibility with NTSC interlaced is of no concern.
(Just to save people posting reasons why not to get PAL).

Please see this thread about progressive vs. frame mode.

The GS400 has frame mode, not progressive scan CCDs; and this frame mode is different than Canon's frame mode. Pana claims resolution is increased, especially in the vertical. Also, frame mode first appeared in Panasonics, and not in Canons. With progessive scan, it may have been with the JVC GR-DVL9000 or perhaps one of Canon's 1-chip cams prior to the original Optura. Not sure.

OK - it's a slight setback without 30p but will this camera still outperform the PDX10 ?

Good question. The GS400 obviously lacks the PDX10's XLR inputs and DVCAM capability but then the GS400 touts its cine-like gamma and frame mode not found on the PDX10. Both have high quality 16:9 but I think the deal breaker for some will be price. There is over a $600 difference between an imported Japanese GS400 compared to a PDX10 from B&H. I'm not sure what the street price of the N.A. GS400 will be but if it follows the DV953 then it will be below $1300 in a few months from reputable online sellers.

Really, that is the bottom line isn't it !Throw in a couple of hundred more and one could get a gs400 and optura 500. Although the pdx10 is beautiful and the replacement for my pd100a , the dvcam and xlr inputs are minimal improvements . In fact , I've come to think the dvcam part is a downside since you have to spend more money on tape and it's the exact same image quality. I guess the next step is to wait for real world reviews. thanks

<<<-- Originally posted by Kurth Bousman : In fact , I've come to think the dvcam part is a downside since you have to spend more money on tape -->>>

To to clarify, you can still shoot in DV SP on the PDX-10 which is what I do most of the time. I thought I read somewhere that the PD-100a could only shoot in DVCAM mode. Is that true?

Another slight advantage to the PDX-10, although certainly no deal breaker, is the hi-res black and white viewfinder. And of course.... it's black :-)

So is the Japanese GS400.. :)

Click here