Mjpg 24p 1280x720

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

All I can say is 1080i has much more details and more wow factor than any 720P material I've ever looked at, don't care what numbers you come up with Steve. (-:

It ain't "numbers." It's an understanding of HOW things work. Plus, measurements to confirm or refute what you see. Plus, let's face facts -- there are indeed a very few people in any field who have "trained" eye/ears. These few have eyes/ears that are accepted as "golden" and so their opinions are accepted. These people are able to publish their opinions and get paid for them. Do you really believe you are in this elite group?

If you are convinced in your limited personal experience that you see more "wow" in CBS over ESPN then that's your "reality."

However, the fact people believe in all kinds of gods and herbs (etc.) without one shred of scientific proof only shows how faulty personal beliefs can be and why test and measurement based upon sound science is the only way to get past "opinion" to "facts."

Would you fly in a jumbo jet assembled by a group that based it's design upon their own untested "opinions"? There's a reason why when it comes to life and death we turn to engineers who aren't afraid to TEST their beliefs and use MEASUREMENTS. When your life depends on it, suddenly "numbers" becomes a requirement. Video is no different, except it's not life and death.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

All I can say is 1080i has much more details and more wow factor than any 720P material I've ever looked at, don't care what numbers you come up with Steve. (-:

Khoi, this is what amazes me. We are led to believe that we are not really seeing what we're seeing! We are told "As long as you want to talk about what you see and believe -- this exchange is a waste of time"! Funny, I always thought that 'seeing WAS believing'. So now you must 'train' yourself to convince yourself that the softer, less detailed picture is actually showing more detail. I have a very very good eye for detail, color and artifacts. I've been in HD as long as HD has been available. I have never been prone to 'marketing B.S.' and I know my eyes are discering enough to see beyond the B.S. But I also know that the computer world has also tried to sell us a bill of goods because they want everyone in their 'progessive' world. They've always wanted the consumer TV world to come to them. Their idea of 'convergence' was for TV manufacturers to come to design according to THEIR standards. I've said it before, I'd love to have 1920X1080p, but it isn't going to happen any time soon in the broadcast world. Steve ignores the fact that 1920X1080i requires far more bandwidth than 720p. It does so for a good reason, it carries MORE INFORMATION.

What amazes me more is the fact that people who have absolutely no idea about the relative numbers of different channels' resolution, will repeatedly say "how come ABC doesn't look as sharp as CBS or NBC?". I've heard it from people myself countless times! These people have no clue whatsoever that ABC is 720p and CBS & NBC are 1080i! But again, somehow they're eyes have deceived them!

Yet these people have not been 'sold a bill of goods' by the networks! They have no idea what the numbers or claims are, they simply see a sharper, more detailed picture!!! According to Steve, they too are wrong.

And Steve, please please, I'm well aware of the fact that pixel resolution is not necessarily related to horizontal or vertical resolution. Give me a break, I know a bit more than you think I do. I just had this discussion with a video friend several weeks ago who felt that a 1920X1080camcorder would yield a more detailed picture than a 1440X1080 cam. I showed him that my Z5 (1440X1080) yielded a decidedly sharper, more detailed picture than my XR500 (1920X1080). However, I would defy ANYONE who has watched a typical "HDNet" broadcast (1080i), using their standard HD vidoecameras, to show me an ABC show that has the same detail. You can't because it simply doesn't exist. HDNet has been considered the picture quality 'Gold Standard' for many years in HD broadcasting. This aint 720p gentlemen. Interesting too that HDNet (1080 equipment) was selected by NASA to provide all their launch video.

But as far as this general discussion, I will tell you again, your numbers are OUTDATED. First you claimed that only Samsung was producing 1920X1080 panels (you mentioned NOTHING about resolution). You were wrong. Then you said none of these displays were showing more than 400-500 lines of resolution and when I pointed out the fact that your info was outdated, you then said the Kuro was the only one that could deinterlace properly and yes, its resolution was decidedly higher. That's still not entirely accurate. The Kuro has better processing than other panels, but many other panels are fully capable of showing more detail than is contained in a 720p picture.

I suggest you read some more current reviews over the past 1-2 years and you will see that plasmas from Panasonic (according to Gary Merson e.g.) as well as others at the time of testing, are now also deinterlacing properly and providing far more than 720p resolution.

Sorry Steve, seeing IS believing and the TESTED numbers DO prove it.

[Khoi Pham]

Same here, I have been watching HD since the beginning, at that time you had to buy a HD receiver, I bought an Zenith HD receiver that can pick up HD over the air and Direct TV and yes I completetly agree with you that HDNET is the best quality HD channel outthere and it ain't 720P.
Steve funny how you compared CBS to ESPN, I always thought that ESPN HD sucks big time, even BEFORE I knew that they broadcast in 720P, and half of the time they don't even have real HD, 4X3 SD material with graphic on the side to fill out 16X9 screen.
And you seem to contradict yourself when you were trying to explain why people think that the 1080 mode on the GH1 has more detail than the 720mode, even with the cripple codec missing B frame and low bitrate, the 1080 mode still has more details than 720P, but has more artifacts when there are more movement, why is that? because there are more details in 1080 mode and with the low bitrate and no B frame, it could not handle the stream with more information therefore you are getting more artifacts in 1080P than in 720P.
Yes I know you are big time writer and all, going up againts you is suicide but, I know what I see and I ain't seeing what you are saying.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

Yes I know you are big time writer and all, going up againts you is suicide but, I know what I see and I ain't seeing what you are saying.

Nor are many others that believe their eyes without having any inkling as to the underlying numbers. 1920X1080 carries far more information and therefore requires far more bandwidth. That is a simple fact. But there are some that continue to live in the past using outdated HDTVs and processors as a reason why 720p is better.

Steve used the airline industry as a reason as to why you trust engineers. Seems to me some horrific engineering went into planes like the DC10 that cost many people their lives. Listen to engineers all the time? Nope. Especially when what you see so totally contradicts what their 'reality' is. 95% of programming is static or nearly static in nature, so even there a relatively poor deinterlacer will STILL show more rez than a 720p signal.

That's something the 720p guys don't like to talk much about...and when you do, they just ignore it.

[Xavier Plagaro]

Wow, very nice tech thread! ;-D

It shows what a messed world we live in, please we need some organization that come to earth and force everybody to use a couple of broadcast standards, like 1080p24 for fiction and 720p60 for reality. Wouldn't the world be an easier place for us??

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Xavier Plagaro

Wow, very nice tech thread! ;-D

It shows what a messed world we live in, please we need some organization that come to earth and force everybody to use a couple of broadcast standards, like 1080p24 for fiction and 720p60 for reality. Wouldn't the world be an easier place for us??

You've got it right! Progressive 1080 is very different than interlace 1080. Progressive 1080 -- either 1080p24 or 24fps carried within 60i -- can deliver to the screen a full 2 million pixels of video -- assuming the deinterlacer can sense the pulldown for the latter. (No deinterlacing is needed for pure 1080p24.) So for movies 1080p24 is much better than 720p60. For live/taped video which has no pulldown to be sensed -- most deinteracers can NOT obtain more resolution than 720p60 delivers.

1) 1080p24 is a legal ATSC standard, but it's not used -- except by DISH and DirecTV when you order 1080p24 movies.

2) 2-3 pulldown is added film to make 1080i60 or 720p60. When you watch on most flat-panels, 720p60 is shown as sent. (A Kuro is able to remove pull-down to get back 24p and then show it at 72Hz.)

3) With 1080i60, the hdtv deinterlacer needs to correctly sense the 2-3 pulldown. (An amazing percent fail to be able to this -- so they treat film as video.) If a deinterlacer senses pulldown -- it reconstructs the original 24p and then adds 2-3 pulldown to convert 24p to 60p. (A Kuro is able to remove pull-down to get back 24p and then show it at 72Hz.)

PS1: Although many hdtv's fail to sense pulldown, once sensed, the cadence tells the deinterlacer EXACTLY how to construct PERFECT 24p. Which means when you watch movies via 1080i60 -- you really do get 2 million pixels of video. Which is why HBO, etc use 1080i.

Conversly, when VIDEO (e.g., sports) is sent via 1080i60 -- there is NO way to PERFECTLY convert 60i to 60p. Which is why so many hdtvs don't try and thus present video with only 330- to 580-lines of resolution.

So, for those who bought all but a few very expensive hdtv's -- when you watch 1080i60 VIDEO what you are seeing on your 2 million pixel screens is at best almost 1 million pixels of video and at worst only slightly more than 1/2 million pixels of video. When you watch 720p, you ALWAYS see 1 million pixels of video.

TO SEE THE TEST RESULTS DATA on 2008 HDTVs:

http://www.hdguru.com/will-you-see-a...exclusive/287/

THERE IS NO "NEWER" PUBLISHED DATA -- CONTRARY TO ERRONEOUS CLAIMS

Let's assume you didn't buy a really cheap FullHD LCD so you get about 580-lines of resolution -- less than the 720-lines from 720p. So, you get less vertical resolution, but more horizontal resolution -- 1920 verses 1280. So you see about the same amount of TOTAL detail.

However, the person watching 720p will see motion 2X more accurately than from 1080i60. Which is why ESPN, etc. use 720p60. For MOST hdtvs -- all viewers will see 2X greater motion resolution and about the same spatial resolution from 720p60. (Which is why the GH1 is of interest to me.)

PS: if you order a 1080p24 movie, unless the dish box can output 1080p24 AND your hdtv can input 1080p24 -- the box will add 2-3 pulldown to make 1080i60 or 720p60. This is the same thing that happens with a BD player.

=============

BACK TO THE GH1: if the AVCHD codec worked well for 1080p24 AND you didn't want high motion accuracy -- you would shoot 1080p24. And, as I've said repeatedly, because it is progressive video with 2-3 pulldown, of course you will see more DETAIL than if you shot 720p. (Assuming a deinterlacer correctly senses pulldown.)

However, since the 720p60 codec works better, you can shoot 720p60 and simply drop into a 720p24 Timeline -- and you'll have a 24fps movie. (Although the 1/60th shutter-speed is a bit too fast.)

HOWEVER, if you really want a film look -- 720p30 is the best choice. You can select a 1/30th shutter when shooting Motion JPEG. 30fps with 1/30th provides the low motion accuracy filmmakers love.

And, if you've learned anything from this long thread you now know that 30p does NOT need 2-3 pulldown removed before editing.

Because it's not interlaced, it doesn't need to be deinterlaced in your hdtv. You get a full 1 million pixels of information which is fine because filmmakers tend to like to "soft" video.

And, when viewed. each frame is shown twice which is the same as when film is projected. You'll get the motion judder filmmakers love. (Of course, you'll need to control motion just as filmmakers do oterwise you'll get way too much judder.)

[Ken Ross]

As I've stated several times, getting an HDTV that correctly deinterlaces is NOT limited to 'the most expensive sets'.

As Gary said in his last test, "This year's sets fared much better with 96% of the 125 HDTVs passing". This is why I say it's time to stop living in the past. Your chances of buying a new HDTV that deinterlaces properly are excellent...essentially 96%! :)

Add to that the fact that about 95% of broadcast material is static or nearly static in nature, and you have the ingredients for a great 1920X1080 picture that will significantly surpass the detail available in 720p.

Moving on to the actual thread subject, I received my GH1 a couple of days ago, and it is one superb camera!!! From a still camera standpoint, the success rate of properly exposed & focused pictures is higher than any camera I've had in the past. The white balance on this camera is truly excellent and surpassed what I've seen from both Nikon and Canon. The tonal quality of the picture is just great as is the detail.

The movie mode is truly wonderful. The 720p, on my 60" Pioneer, is really very very nice with buttery smooth motion. It's not a match for my Sony Z5, but hey, this is still primarily a DSLR. As for the 1080p mode, unfortunately I'm not a big fan of 24p video and the stuttering that comes along with 24p is distracting to me. But the detail that's available in this mode (1920X1080) is truly amazing. Here you're combining some really great dynamic range, superb color and fantastic detail, to create a really eye-popping image...but damn that 24p!!! Anything with significant motion in the frame, falls prey to the stuttering. There is also some blurring of fine detail as you pan across the frame. The encoders, codec and bitrate may just not be up to the task of holding all this fine detail together with movement. But suffice is to say that if you intend to use this camera as you would a typical camcorder, you might be disappointed with the 1080p mode.

This is why I've avoided the 24p mode in any videocamera I've ever owned. Now if they released a similar model with 1920X1080 @60i...now that would be a show stopper in my opinion. But the 720p video is as good or better than any DSLR I've yet seen. On a sidenote, Panasonic has already released a firmware upgrade, but I can't honestly say I've seen much of a difference with it.

Right now the biggest problem with this camera is simply getting one!

[Khoi Pham]

Hi Ken, when you said 720P mode in the GH 1 is no match to your Z5, do you meant in details compare to Z5 in 1080i? Can you tell a big difference if I cut between the two camera on a 1080i timeline? how is the F4 stock lens compared to the Z5 in low light? Can you still get good shalow dof at F4?
Thanks.

[Luke Tingle]

Ken, did you buy from a US retailer?

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

Hi Ken, when you said 720P mode in the GH 1 is no match to your Z5, do you meant in details compare to Z5 in 1080i? Can you tell a big difference if I cut between the two camera on a 1080i timeline? how is the F4 stock lens compared to the Z5 in low light? Can you still get good shalow dof at F4?
Thanks.

Khoi, in terms of detail at 720p, the Z5 does better at 1080i. There is definitely more detail and an overall 'tighter' picture. I would expect that since the Z5 produces such a nice picture and I wouldn't expect a DSLR to surpass it...certainly not at 720p.

However, in terms of color and dynamic range, the GH1 certainly holds its own and surpasses the Z5 when used at 1080p. Forgetting the motion issue, the color and dynamic range are simply better on the GH1 than the Z5. Of course it's not easy to 'forget' about the motion issue, it's there.

So you'd have to shoot at 720p if you want to mix these two cams. I think it could be done, but it will take some work in post to achieve it.

The low light of the GH1 is better than I expected. In video mode it's not quite as good as the Z5, but it's not far off. I don't think that's where you'd run into trouble.

Luke, I bought the camera from a dealer in Canada (Henry's). They had just gotten 6 or 7 units in when I saw it posted on another forum. I immediately called and ordered from the last two that were available. They were sold out in 3 hours. My order with Panasonic was sitting there until yesterday and was further delayed to at least mid to late July. Panasonic has done a horrific job with the ordering process. My order went from Panasonic direct to "Shopatron"...good luck.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

As Gary said in his last test, "This year's sets fared much better with 96% of the 125 HDTVs passing".

Add to that the fact that about 95% of broadcast material is static or nearly static in nature, ...

Now I see why you are so insistent that video is essentially STATIC -- even though you clearly point-out you hate 24p because of MOTION judder. Gary's test of STATIC video (test #1) did show an improvement in the percentage of deinterlacer Passing THIS test.

However, that's his old test and not the important NEW one. He now MEASURES vertical resolution when there is MOTION in one part of the picture -- test #2. (A tracking shot, pan, or zoom -- all impart motion even if the subject is static.)

This is where the MEASURED resolution showed the vast majority of the sets have a vertical resolution under 600-lines -- less than from 720p.

To try to support your OPINION you have completely miss-represented to the readers of this thread, what Gary published. Anyone who wants to SEE this miss-representation:

Will You See All The HDTV Resolution You Expected? 125 2008 Model Test Results- HD GURU Exclusive HDGURU.Com

========

So, for those who shoot all scenes with NO motion whatsoever in every shot -- then it is true that 96% of the 2008 deinterlaces will use Weave deinterlacing and feed 1080-lines to the display.

For everyone else -- what you see depends on which hdtv you own. For example, if you buy a 150-inch Panasonic you'll see a whole screen with almost 1080-lines of resolution. Same with the Kuro and the top of the line Samsung.

If you don't own these -- then 1080i60 will be MEASUREED at under 600-lines.

* The worst case will be a cheap hdtv that upon the presence of motion switches the entire frame from Weave to Bob.

* The best case will be an hdtv that upon the presence of motion switches the only the object(s) that are in motion frame from Weave to Bob. Now the "static" areas will MEASURE almost 1080-lines while the "motion" areas will MEASURE under 600-lines.

So the question is -- "are you feeling lucky?" If you shoot 1080i60 there will be a very few folks who get the UP TO full vertical resolution. Most will see UP TO 1080-lines in static areas but only UP TO half that in areas with motion. With 720p they will see always see 720-lines.

++++++

Why the UP TO? Because all interlace recoding is done after sending the 1080-lines through a low-pass filter which cuts recorded vertical resolution to about 800-lines. Progressive recording does not require this filtering and so 720-lines are recorded.

Gary's tests used an signal generator that delivered 1080-lines of interlace video. This is not what recorded media can have! So, for example, when Gary's TESTs show vertical resolution is cut by 50% -- you need to multiply this 50% times the 800-lines in recorded 1080i. Now the real difference between 1080i and 720p emerges. And, remember this is true of even 720p30 video! The only advantage of 60p over 30p is 2X greater motion accuracy.

+++++++

Remember, my comments about 1080i are NOT valid for 1080p24 -- IF, and it is a IF, an hdtv can correctly sense 2-3 and/or 2-2 pulldown. 720p24 and 720p30 are always displayed correcly because the de-intelacer simply passes the signal through.

Bottom-line what your audience will see when you shoot any 1080-line format is subject to huge variations downstream. For example, your camera can't compress 1080i efficiently -- which we see with the GH1. (Even though the sensor is shooting 24p -- the compression system is inputting interlaced frames.)

And when broadcast, 1080i60 is often greatly compressed to allow carrying a second or third SD channel. (NBC allows this, CBS trys to prevent this.) This need not be done with 720p60 since it naturally (because it is more efficiently compressed) leaves 4Mbps free for multicasting.

And, we shouldn't forget the conversion of P to I is simple -- but the conversion of I to P is very very hard. When would this occur? Anytime 1080i video is sent to a station using 720p. And, anytime a conversion between 50Hz and 60Hz video is done.

Once you understand video technology -- you see why, for example, NASA shoots it's own HD in 720p60.

[Ken Ross]

Once again Steve tries to tell us 'don't believe your eyes, believe ME'. Steve, have a little respect for the vast majority of people with 1080p that DO see the benefits of the higher resolution of 1920X1080i broadcasts. They all don't have the most expensive HDTVs as you imply, yet they STILL see the benefits of 1920X1080.

Speaking of misrepresentation Steve, you clearly imply that if you don't have a 150" Panasonic or the expensive Pioneers, you won't get resolution greater than 720p is capable of. This is CLEARLY false and very misleading. Your own link to Gary's testing shows models from LG (not too expensive Steve), 42" Panasonics, 50" Panasonics, 65" Panasonics and the Pioneers, are ALL capable of vertical resolution greater than 720p with motion. Also, as a sidenote, Panasonic has always been the most prolific manufacturer of plasma HDTVs and Gary's tests show they pass his motion testing. So there are many many Panasonics out there that owners are enjoying and these were not the most expensive HDTVs on the market. And folks, keep in mind we've been discussing VERTICAL resolution. In Steve's world horizontal resolution doesn't exist. Why? Because it doesn't fit his 720p world and 720p argument.

Horizontal resolution is SIGNIFICANTLY greater with a 1920X1080 signal than it is with a 720p signal. But Steve omits this on a consistent basis. When he points out my statement of 'static, or nearly static', he ignores the fact that this still implies that even vertical resolution will be higher than 720p with some movement...hence the 'nearly static' comment I made. The fact remains that 95% of broadcast material IS static or nearly static and therefore WILL display vertical resolution in excess of 720p even if the deinterlacing isn't perfect. The horizontal resolution will be greater regardless. This is one of the reasons why owners of 1080p HDTVs so often prefer the 1920X1080i broadcasts. It's not their imagination that they are seeing a sharper, more detailed picture.

But again, you don't need to read articles, charts or Steve's words or mine. Your EYES will tell you the truth and the vast majority of comments I've read from owners of 1080p HDTVs attest to the fact that they DO see a sharper, more detailed HD picture with 1920X1080i broadcasts. I believe MY eyes, not someone's campaign for 720p.

And the other simple fact is that if you have a properly designed HDTV, you WILL see significantly greater horizontal AND vertical resolution with 1920X1080i. Unlike Steve, I believe in getting the display equipment that will enable me to enjoy this better picture. I don't believe in subscribing to the 'lowest common denominator'. We have a better standard and a properly designed HDTV will show that better standard.

Using Steve's logic, we should all stick to AM radio since AM radios are cheaper. You can get better sound quality, but it will cost you more. As with most anything else, you can get a better HDTV picture, but that too will cost you more. But even the relatively cheaper Panasonics will yield more resolution than 720p is capable of.

Oh, and once you understand bandwidth, you'll better understand why NASA went to 720p. But Steve omits the fact they went with HDNet's 1920X1080i equipment to capture all the fine details of critical launches just in case something were to go wrong.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Speaking of misrepresentation Steve, you clearly imply that if you don't have a 150" Panasonic or the expensive Pioneers, you won't get resolution greater than 720p is capable of. This is CLEARLY false and very misleading. Your own link to Gary's testing shows models from LG (not too expensive Steve), 42" Panasonics, 50" Panasonics, 65" Panasonics and the Pioneers, are ALL capable of vertical resolution greater than 720p with motion.

What you fail to mention is that ALL these are PLASMA -- which is a nearly dead technology. Of the three companies you mention (LG, Panasonic, and Pioneer) -- Pioneer has already stopped ALL production of plasma hdtvs.

Of the 2 LG's -- the 60-inch fails the 2-3 pulldown test, leaving a 50-inch. This looks like a very good hdtv, but you need to consider this "On Thursday, a report in Digitimes claimed that LG would pull out of the plasma business this year, and sell it to Changhong, a Chinese company." LG has denied this report.

The best choice, not mentioned, is a Vizeo PLASMA -- however it doesn't do well on the bandwidth test. But, a refubished it is really cheap at under $800. However, note:

"February 11, 2009 — Vizio has just announced it will get out of the plasma business altogether, due in large part to the overwhelming popularity of LCDs and the vanishing price gap between the two technologies."

Of the 4 Panasonic's tested -- 3 fail the 2-3 pulldown test. The only 1 to pass measures only 850-lines -- not really much more than 720 when you consider the limit of 1080i recorded media is about 800-lines.

Bottom-line, there is only 1 company certain to produce plasma into the future -- and with a 75% failure to sense 2-3 (Panasonic has almost always not listed this as a feature on ANY of it's plasmas -- and even the 150-inch fails this test!) this is not a brand for watching movies.

Without plasmas to buy -- there are only LCDs and DLP. While the DLP is far better -- the LCDs, other than the top of the line 120Hz Samsung, all show only about 1 field of vertical resolution.

Think of the controversy this way -- all but one LCD displays only 1 field of 1080i each 1/60th second. That's 1 Mpixels of VIDEO information. In the same 1/60th second, 720p60 delivers 1 Mpixels of VIDEO information. Exactly the same amount of VIDEO information! That's why I don't need to count H. rez.

Moreover, if you look at my first post I never claimed 720p was better. You took it that way in your rant after my post.

I said, "The "hit" in resolution depends on your point of view. 720p60 has half the spatial resolution of 1080p24 but over twice the temporal resolution. So if you ask if there is a QUALITY hit -- the answer is NO. You simply trade one type of "resolution" for another."

So, since you want to rant -- this thread is yours.

[Ken Ross]

No Steve, there is no desire on my part to 'rant', but rather to present the facts accurately. You clearly implied in several posts that 720p was the 'preferred' standard and looked better.

I refuted that by correctly mentioning that most owners of 1080p displays (ANY...no specific brand, no specific technology), report a better, sharper, more resolute picture while watching 1080i broadcasts. You can spin this anyway you like, but it seems that the vast marjority of people are preferring 1080i, many of whom have no idea of the underlying numbers. So their reaction is clearly not the result of 'advertising' (which by the way you hear nothing of anymore). I get the distinct impression you haven't spent much time watching a quality 1080p display, otherwise I don't think you'd feel the way you do.

By the way, Panasonic owners are also in this mix for reporting a better picture while watching 1080i broadcasts...it's certainly not just Pioneer owners!

So let's just agree to disagree on this and move on. We've both hijacked this thread long enough.

[Ian G. Thompson]

Well, in terms of detail, this test conducted by Jack Daniel Stanley shows that the GH-1 has lots of detail in 720p...even more than the HPX170 @ 1080p. I thought this was a very good test.

GH1 - Frame Rate Conversion Tests - 720 60p & 30p to 24p vs. HPX 170 1080 24p - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking