24p Mini DV on the way!

[Federico Martini]

sorry, just wanted to add the

PAL XL1

Pixel Count
Total: 320,000 pixels (per CCD)
Effective 300,000 pixels (per CCD)

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

Yes the XL1S is "only" 250,000 effective pixels per CCD but don't forget the Pixel Shift process which increases resolution. Pixel Shift is nothing to scoff at -- it actually works, and has been used before in several pro-market Panasonic cameras. So it is a bit of a misconception to categorize the XL1S as being low in res. Hope this helps,

[Federico Martini]

Hi Chris,
So the pixel shift makes the less pixels in the xl1 more or less equivalent to the more pixels in this new panasonic?

[Adrian Douglas]

Dosen't the XL1 have bigger pixels than most other cameras, which is the reason for it's apparent "low" pixel count?

[Chris Hurd]

Adrian -- yes, the individual pixels are larger (and therefore gather more light) because there are fewer of them to fill the surface of each CCD.

crottini - not sure about that; I'll have to check the pana specs again.

[Adrian Douglas]

I think comparing pixel count on different brands is like comparing processor speeds on Macs and PC's. It's not a true measure of performance as different methods are used to achieve the numbers

[Bill Ravens]

still, it seems to me, and I'm not sure about this, that the fundamental resolution is a function of pixel density on the CCD. There are ways to artificially increase the pixel density, like pixel shift, but, the driving term is pixels/sq in. In the case of a 3 pixel detector, the situation gets much more complicated since each channel is recording a different wavelength of the same image.

[Don Donatello]

IMO camera's that use pixel shift tend to have more noticable "stair stepping".

[Mark Ross]

Just to get back to the original subject for a moment...

I would love some sort of confirmation from Panasonic about the nuts and bolts of how this thing really acquires images and writes them to tape.

Earlier Robert K S said that if it's using 60i to get to 24p, that's no good. I totally agree. steadichupap's report says that the Panasonic rep claimed true 60p which is then converted to your dialed-in setting of choice, i.e. 30i, 24p, or 30p. Um, no. I'm not believing that for a second.

I think this is mostly a great marketing job by Panasonic. Technically, they are introducing something new: 24 progressive images a second... but we all know you can already buy a PAL XL1S that does 25 progressive images a second. Yes, if you are shooting to blow up to film, 24p is technically less a problem than 25p, but I think it's already been adequately demonstrated 25p to film is accomplished with relative ease.

However, I think that from a theoretical standpoint, it is important to note that regardless of everything else, when motion is captured at 24 images (35mm frames, progressive scans, whatever) it will capture that motion in a way that is distinct from 23 images per second, or 25 images per second, or 30, or 15, etc. etc. My theory is that our eyes are capable of discerning far more that we realize... that if we watched two monitors of the exact same thing, only one was originated at 23fps and one was at 24fps, there would be something inside us that would not allow us to call them perfectly identical. I think we all agree that discerning between 30p and 24p is noticeable, and of course 60i is completely different. We've been subconsciously trained to register motion displayed at 24 images per second as a "film look." Capturing digital video "scans" at this rate is not a bad thing i trying to emulate that look.

Oh, and story/content really does make all of this stuff irrelevant, anyway. ;)

MR

[Federico Martini]

So, basically, how this camera works is still a mistery to all of us. Nothing firm at least. We'll have to wait until someone gets a hand on it or somebody from Panasonic gets in here.

[Howard Phillips]

Until recently, the only NLE systems that allows editing true 24fps have been the Avid FilmComposer, and MediaComposers with Film option. By that, I mean that the many extra fields generated during the 24fps-film->video transfer (usually called pulldown fields) are removed during the capture of the source tapes into the Avid drives - saves around 20% storage space, and allows editors to watch their footage play back at the same rate it will appear on the theatrerr screen. Pixar and Disney films are edited on FilmComposers becasue of this fact. Of course, to play back on the 'Client Monitors' (the NTSC or PAL monitors) the extra-fields are re-inserted - these standard-definition monitors can handle only 59.97 fields-per-second.

This is what happens with DVD's, the actual media on film-based DVDs is 24fps, again to save space on the discs, allowing improved compression. If you're lucky enough to own a 'progressive monitor' as a home television, and wired appropriately, then you are in fact watching "Monsters, Inc" at 24fps on that TV screen. If you run the signal through the 'S' connector, say, or if you have a standard TV, then the DVD players re-insert puldown fields, allowing standard "30fps" (59.97 fields, actually) NTSC video to play.

I've read that there are 3rd-party solutions that allow FCP to capture 24fps-originated tapes at true 24fps, and edit at that rate. The very high-end Discreet and Sony HD systems also do this for 24p HD...there may be others I'm not aware of.
I'm not sure how Panasonic is acheiving their 24fps capture, and maintaining compatability with standard NTSC output, but it's probably doing something very much like the scenarios described.
As far as watching DV-to-film, the best way to "settle this here debate" is to just go to the movies, and see DV-originated movies! There have been quite a few in the last few years, and it's probably safe to say that sometimes a DV-to-film transfer will look great, and for many people doesn't create a distraction, and sometimes the transfers are poor, or some people just can't get past the "soap-opera" quality of these types of productions. I went to Richard Linklater's "Tape" (great movie) and some of the people there, non-video or film-production types, commented on the 'strange look'. Most of that percentage weren't put off by it, though they did notice it enough to bring it up. Although there are many video-to-film examples, I think "Tape" is a good test-case since it's very much a dramatic, theatrical piece, and yet uses a format many people associate with the 7pm news, or with soap-operas. I think "Tape" really challenges viewers becasue of those qualities.

This is a time of merging, mangled and liberating aesthetics, where video and film, proefessional and amateur, definitions of petty & noble, novel and traditional are all getting thrown into a spin - what a great time to be involved in production - more colors for the canvas!

(added line breaks between paragraphs -- CH)

[Howard Phillips]

<<<-- Originally posted by hphillips : Until recently, the only NLE systems that allows editing true 24fps have been the Avid FilmComposer, and MediaComposers with Film option. By that, I mean that the many extra fields generated during the 24fps-film-video transfer (usually called pulldown fields) are removed during the capture of the source tapes into the Avid drives - saves around 20% storage space, and allows editors to watch their footage play back at the same rate it will appear on the theater screen. Pixar and Disney films are edited on FilmComposers becasue of this fact. Of course, to play back on the 'Client Monitors' (the NTSC or PAL monitors) the extra-fields are re-inserted - these standard-definition monitors can handle only 59.97 fields-per-second.
This is what happens with DVD's, the actual media on film-based DVDs is 24fps, again to save space on the discs, allowing improved compression. If you're lucky enough to own a 'progressive monitor' as a home television, and wired appropriately, then you are in fact watching 'Monsters, Inc' at 24fps on that TV screen. If you run the signal through the 'S' connector, say, or if you have a standard TV, then the DVD players re-insert puldown fields, allowing standard &quot;30fps&quot; (59.97 fields, actually) NTSC video to play.
I've read that there are 3rd-party solutions that allow FCP to capture 24fps-originated tapes at true 24fps, and edit at that rate. The very high-end Discreet and Sony HD systems also do this for 24p HD...there may be others I'm not aware of.
I'm not sure how Panasonic is acheiving their 24fps capture, and maintaining compatability with standard NTSC output, but it's probably doing something very much like the scenarios described.
As far as watching DV-to-film, the best way to 'settle this here debate' is to just go to the movies, and see DV-originated movies! There have been quite a few in the last few years, and it's probably safe to say that sometimes a DV-to-film transfer will look great, and for many people doesn't create a distraction, and sometimes the transfers are poor, or some people just can't get past the 'soap-opera' quality of these types of productions. I went to Richard Linklater's 'Tape' (great movie) and some of the people there, non-video or film-production types, commented on the 'strange look'. Most of that percentage weren't put off by it, though they did notice it enough to bring it up. Although there are many video-to-film examples, I think 'Tape' is a good test-case since it's very much a dramatic, theatrical piece, and yet uses a format many people associate with the 7pm news, or with soap-operas. I think &quot;Tape&quot; really challenges viewers becasue of those qualities.
This is a time of merging, mangled and liberating aesthetics, where video and film, proefessional and amateur, definitions of petty or noble, novel and traditional are all getting thrown into a spin - what a great time to be involved in production - more colors for the canvas! -->>>

[Don Donatello]

"Earlier Robert K S said that if it's using 60i to get to 24p, that's no good. I totally agree. steadichupap's report says that the Panasonic rep claimed true 60p which is then converted to your dialed-in setting of choice, i.e. 30i, 24p, or 30p. Um, no. I'm not believing that for a second. "

i was at NAB and at panasonic it was a little confusing because their techs were talking mostly about their HD 24p camera in front of HD monitors , with camera's on display including the mockup mini 24p ... so when they talked teckie talk IMO everyone thought they were talking about ALL 3 camera's on display BUT infact the tech talk was really for the 2 hd camera's NOT the mini 24p ...

i did find the HEAD of development for the mini 24p camera. this camera is different then the HD 24p camera's . the mini 24p when in 24p mode captures TRUE progressive frames 24fps BUT when it lays the image to tape in ADDS the 3:2 pull down ( with flags so it can later be pulled out) so to tape it lays down 60i, by laying down 60i you can view/edit on any system/Tv ..if it laid down 24p to tape you would NOT be able to view it on your TV ( without special equipment) ... if you shoot in the 30P mode then it captures images true progressive 30fps and lays down to tape at 60i ......... or you can choose to shoot in normal 60i ( normal video) ........ that is what he told me .... also they are working with FCP and others to be able to read the 3:2 flags and remove them so you can have the 24P images ( if you choose) or just edit normal 60i for those that don't need to work in 24p .... the 24P ( 3:2 60i) is a trade off as they want to price the camera at less then 3500 and have you be able to USE it today and NOT have to buy other monitors, decks to play it back. so for 3400 you have the choice to shoot NTSC 24P , 30P or 60i and are able to view it on any TV .... for a NTSC 24p mini dv camera costing 3400 other then going to film there is very little that you can do with true 24fps ( the 24p mini ) in a NTSC world.

the HD 24p they say captures at 60P and somehow from that it does ???? they lost me ....

[Chris Hurd]

It's possible that I may be able to persuade Jan Crittenden of Panasonic to chip in on this discussion... working on that now,

[Charles Papert]

Glad I wasn't the only one confused at the show. It was a little too crazy to get the Pana folks to focus on in-depth explanations of this type. From having demoed at industry trade shows in the past (and I'm sure Chris will corroborate this), it can be a challenge to remain patient, friendly and helpful all day!