HVX200 progressive vs. interlaced question

[Dalen Johnson]

Originally Posted by Scott Anderson

And Star Wars EpII was shot on CineAlta in 1080p with 4:2:2 color sampling.

This post is in hopes to get clarification on the whole interlace/progressive issue.

The Panasonic HVX200 is 1080i with 24p capabilities.
Now it has been stated that this is true progressive. (Even with the "i" after 1080)
Then why does Panasonic not call it 1080p, after all the same camera is said to do 720p not 720i at 24p.

And as you said, they Lucas use a 1080p not a 1080i 24p.

Thanks in advance to the person who sheds some light on this.

Kind Regards

Dalen

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Dalen Johnson

The Panasonic HVX200 is 1080i with 24p capabilities.
Now it has been stated that this is true progressive. (Even with the "i" after 1080) Then why does Panasonic not call it 1080p, after all the same camera is said to do 720p not 720i at 24p.

Because if they called it 1080p, that would infer that it can handle *all* frame rates at the 1080 size progressively, and it does not have that capability.

Why did you ask this question in a thread which is discussing SDI ingest vs. P2 file transfer? I am splitting it out of that discussion and placing it as a new topic under the title "HVX200 progressive vs. interlaced question."

[Jaime Valles]

It's just like the DVX100's version of 24p. That is a 480i camera, with 24p embedded in the 60i stream, if I'm not mistaken. That's what the 1080i/24p on the HVX means. It's still the true, real-deal progressive-scan 24p, just like on the DVX.

720p, on the other hand, is a completely different animal, that I don't know too much about, but someone else can explain much better than I.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Jaime Valles

It's just like the DVX100's version of 24p. That is a 480i camera, with 24p embedded in the 60i stream, if I'm not mistaken. That's what the 1080i/24p on the HVX means. It's still the true, real-deal progressive-scan 24p, just like on the DVX.

720p, on the other hand, is a completely different animal, that I don't know too much about, but someone else can explain much better than I.

What Jamie says is right, it has to be recorded in a 1080i stream, but is captured progressively, hence the confusing 1080i/24p.

720 HD is always progressive. So 720p24 is 24p captured and RECORDED progressively. In order to achieve the "reality look" of 60i video, 720p goes one better and uses 720p60 - 60 whole frames per second not just fields.

Interlacing is inferior to progressive, but is used because it can achieve smoother motion for a given bandwidth. As 720p is lower res than 1080i, it can carry whole frames in order to achieve smooth motion and still fit in the same bandwidth as 1080i.

For a "filmlook" you don't want smooth motion, you want 24p (or 25p/30p sometimes). So the HVX can record 24/25/30 "filmic" progressive frames of data in the 1080i stream by sacrificing the smooth motion.

[Scott Anderson]

Dalen, I wouldn't get too hung up on the 1080/p vs 1080/i issue. Even the CineAlta records to HDCAM at 1080PsF, which stands for 1080/Progressive segmented Frame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...egmented_Frame

http://www.digitalmediatraining.com/...fcphd/006.html

Recording progressive frames into an interlaced video standard is nothing new. Even though the frames are split into fields in often strange ways, any modern NLE that you would use with the HVX-200 can automatically reconstruct the original progressive frames with no quality loss whatsoever.

Even though SW EpII was captured at the CCD's progressively, it was written to tape interlaced. I'm not so sure about the newer HDCamSR 4:4:4 that EpIII was shot on, but either way it wouldn't matter.

Not only is it a trivial matter to reconstruct those frames in editing, it is becoming increasingly trivial to then master the program out in any format you desire, including back to 480i for SD broadcast or DVD. It's just something to be aware of, so that you know how to set up your projects correctly, with the proper presets for the format that was originally shot.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Dalen Johnson

Then why does Panasonic not call it 1080p

They DO call it 1080p.

They clearly label it as 1080/24P and 1080/30P. It is *also* 60i, but it is not exclusively 60i.

Look at any brochure or the panasonic website, and you'll see "1080/24p" and "1080/30p" clearly listed.

For example: this page (http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...odel=AG-HVX200) says:

"1080/60i, 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 720/60p, 720/24p, 720/30p, 480/60i, 480/24p, 480/30p"

[Chris Hurd]

Ack, that was right under my nose the whole time! Thanks, Barry!

[Walter Graff]

They don't call it 1080p cause it records in i. The p part is for the 24p. For the money and the P2 which most folks are not interested in, they should have just made a better head and told folks to go buy a deck to record. I'd look at the Canon HD camera over this camera. Most folks I've been talking to seem to be more excited about the Canon version since they announced it. Not that the Canon is competition. It is not. Someone said it best the other day. The Canon is a low end professional entry and the Panasonic a high end prosumer camera. I agree. Made for two different crowds. But since folks keep saying that you now need the firestore to really appreciate the Panasonic, your up to 9k anyway and might as well go with a camera that records all your info to tape just as well without having to break the bank on cards and offers more options for independent filmmakers in terms of camera adjustments, remote control, recording time, and lens quality.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Walter Graff

They don't call it 1080p cause it records in i. The p part is for the 24p.

That's incorrect - see Barry's post above. It's a 1080p cam in 24fps and 30fps settings and this has been known for many months.

offers more options for independent filmmakers in terms of camera adjustments, remote control, recording time, and lens quality

As an indie filmmaker, I don't agree. It's clear from many posts of yours here and elsewhere that you don't like the HVX - that's fine, but let's not confuse opinions with facts.

I don't see any real difference between the HD100, H1 and HVX in terms of camera adjustments. What specific adjustments that indie filmmakers need does it have that the HD100 and HVX lack?

Remote control? I fail to see that as a make or break indie filmmaker issue.

Recording time? Indie filmmakers typicially need less than event videographers - I rarely shoot more than 1 tape, even on day crammed full of setups. And rarely a single take over 3 minutes. With the firestore out there, I don't see this as a major issue except for people need mega hours of storage.

Lens Quality? That's an unknown until H1 and HVX ship and the HD100 WA lens ships and someone has them in a lab for controlled testing.

[Brian Petersen]

Originally Posted by Walter Graff

But since folks keep saying that you now need the firestore to really appreciate the Panasonic, your up to 9k anyway and might as well go with a camera that records all your info to tape just as well without having to break the bank on cards

8K for HVX-200 with Firestore storing 100mbs DVCproHD
9K for XL-H1 storing 25mbs HDV (sometimes I hear 14mbs)

I don't know about everyone else, but after reading up on the H1, which I had been waiting for, I think the HVX-200 is the camera I'm going for. Sure the SDI output on the Canon is great, but you need a deck to record to. I don't have the money for that firstly, and even if I did that would make location recording for indies a bit cumbersome.

The "negative" about the HVX are those high priced P2 cards, but the Firestore heals that problem nicely. Then all the sudden you have ample recording time, some variable frame rates, and a 100mbs DVCproHD codec. That sounds better to me than a 9K HDV camera.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Brian Petersen

HDV (sometimes I hear 14mbs)

I don't know where you got that from -- certainly not here, as it's completely incorrect. There are two flavors, HDV1 at 19mbps and HDV2 at 25mbps. The XL H1 is HDV2. Besides it's a mistake to place emphasis on the data rate. Instead let the image itself be your guide. Remember H.264 at 8mbps looks terrific projected on the big screen.

Otherwise a very good post, and well said.

[Barry Green]

Chris is correct, 14mbps is not part of HDV. Perhaps they're getting it confused with JVC's Digital-VHS system; I believe the "long play" mode on D-VHS is 14mbps...

[Brian Petersen]

Sorry. Meant 19mbps. Not 14. Gotta proofread more.

I didn't even really know about the 19mbps thing until I was talking with someone trying to sell me on the JVC HD100. Whenever I mentioned HDV and said 25mbps he would always correct me and say 19. I was confused because I always hear 25 associated with HDV. But does JVC use the HDV1 at 19mbps because they are always shooting in 720 and not in 1080? I don't really understand the difference between HDV1 and HDV2.

And I agree with you that it all comes down to the image. With the new H1 footage posted and being discussed, I'm dying to see some DVX200 footage. I just keep praying for the day when I can see some side by side comparison of the JVC, Panny, and Canon of some HD 24p/F footage.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

That's incorrect - see Barry's post above. It's a 1080p cam in 24fps and 30fps settings and this has been known for many months.

Yep, Barry summed it up nicely. This is all a repeat of what the DVX100 went through in its infancy, people couldn't (our just wouldn't) wrap their brains around the camera actually offering true 24p just because it's encoded into an interlaced transport.

AFAIK, the *ONLY* reason the HVX200 will encode its true 1080p video into a 1080i stream is because of the DVCProHD codec. DVCProHD does not natively support 1080p, only 720p or 1080i. So instead of expanding the established codec to support 1080p variants, Panasonic simply chose to use the tried and true method of encoding 24p (or 30p or 25p) into a 60i/50i stream, which we all know works beautifully on the DVX100. Thus giving the HVX200 true 1080p capabilities and maintaining full compatibility with all the established DVCProHD systems in existence. :)

Now I'm still curiously awaiting the final specs to see what the internal CCD/CMOS chip(s) will actually offer in terms of resolution. I'm worried we'll be getting a 1280x720 CCD that won't offer 1080 modes that are any improvement over the 720 line modes. But I'm also guessing there's a chance that we'll see a 1440x1050 chip in there, especially if Panasonic goes with a CMOS sensor. Obviously the latter would be best as it would essentially provide for full DVCProHD res for 1080 modes and would give the camera lots of extra pixel detail to work with when shooting in 720 modes.

....Then again, I have been scarce around here lately. Panasonic didn't already officially announce these specs, did they? I hope I didn't miss it.

[Chris Hurd]

CCD specs are still not known for certain.

Weren't you aware of your DV Info Net addiction? You can't get through the day without visiting here once, twice or a few times.