F330 F350 progressive and how its done.

Graeme Nattress · April 10th, 2006, 06:50 AM

Psf is how the progressive gets recroded, not how it is created though. To say it's Psf means that a progressive frame gets split into two fields for recording on a format that expects interlaced video. When played back, we only see frames as there is no temporal difference between the fields in the pair.

How the progressive is created is irrelevent to how it is stored. Anyone stuck a red filter on the lens yet to see what happens?

Graeme

Simon Wyndham · April 10th, 2006, 06:53 AM

Nope, not tried that, but will do if someone doesn't do it before me. What am I looking for?

Graeme Nattress · April 10th, 2006, 07:00 AM

When Pappas did this with his XL H1, he got very reduced vertical resolution, and we're assuming that the XL H1 uses a kind of Frame mode for it's progressive, which sounds similar to that described above. A normal, boring rez chart might tell us something too.

Graeme

Nate Weaver · April 10th, 2006, 10:26 AM

Crap. sorry Graham, I had the camera in my hands for days (some figuratively, some literally) and forgot your red filter request.

Suffice to say motion on the camera is done right by my eye. If there is an interlaced-scanning, DSP derived 24P thing going on, they did it very well.

Overall res was disappointing to me, though. Everything else seemed fine.

Graeme Nattress · April 10th, 2006, 12:05 PM

Thanks Nate! No worries - it will all come out soon enough. The 24p from the Canon looks great. The test footage I have here is excellent in that regard. It's not 100% sharp though, and the footage is naturalistic, so doesn't show up aliasing artifacts, but there are some on highlights.

Graeme

Greg Boston · April 10th, 2006, 02:29 PM

I got to have some 'stick time' during the Sunday outdoor shoot during our Texas HD Shootout. I am liking the F350 for a variety of reasons. Although Nate mentioned image resolution, I just love the workflow and opportunities that Blu-Ray offers. Inexpensive, removable media that offers the same advantages as a Firestore when the cam is in FAM mode. But, alas there is apparently nothing out there yet that understands how to read the MXF files coming off the disk.

No chance of accidently recording over a tape that's not cued properly or having time code breaks. Low res proxy files that are MPEG 4 just open up a world of opportunities for me personally.

Can't say enough about the professionalism and good natured attitude of all involved at the shootout this past weekend.

-gb-

Josh Dahlberg · July 24th, 2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

We certainly saw some difference while screening some footage tonight on a plasma display. I'll let Adam Wilt describe what we saw when he writes all this up. Hint: You might be surprised at the outcome.

-gb-

I hope you don't mind me dredging up this old post Greg, but I don't believe Adam ever did describe the difference you saw on the plasma display.

I'm about to make a decision between the F350 and H1 and I'd love to know what the 'surprise' is...

I know in terms of form factor, media, VF etc the two cams are miles apart, but how do the images compare on a big screen?

Thanks

Nate Weaver · July 24th, 2006, 09:10 PM

I'll chip in here since I too was also at the Austin tests, and just shot a sizable job with 350s.

Frankly, I never saw that much of a difference between the H1 and the 350 (codec-wise). I also wasn't sitting as close to the plasma and definitely wasn't picking as many nits. That said, I do not doubt Adam's observation. But I would say that the vast majority of people are not as sharp at spotting codec deficiencies like Adam.

I've been shooting with the JVC HD100 for almost a year now, and I had a concert to shoot last week. It's my opinion that the Sonys handled the concert lighting far, far better than any of the 1/3" cameras. The Sonys numbers might not be that impressive compared to the 1/3" cameras, but I found out first hand that in practice they're quite another story.

Steve Connor · July 25th, 2006, 01:11 AM

We'll see if Alister Chapman joins in on this one, he currently owns both the H1 and a 350.

Alister Chapman · July 25th, 2006, 10:34 AM

I have not yet done a side by side test between my F350 and H1 and it should be noted that I have only used my F350 with a SD lens.

In terms of basic picture quality I think they are both extremely close. The F350 does have much greater dynamic range than the H1 and highlights are handled better (once you have set the knee correctly). The F350 is also a tiny bit more sensitive. I have yet to see any artifacts with the F350 at 35Mb, while the odd (although very rare) artifact does show up with the canon at 25mb. The F350 gives a more natural looking image, the H1 is just a tad too electronic looking for my tastes. While the H1 is very adjustable the F350 is even more fine tuneable in more specific areas such as knee, low sat, matrix and many many others. The F350 audio is more flexible although in terms of quality I can't hear the difference between the Canons compressed audio and the Sony's uncompressed.

For me the F350 is king. Disk based file transfer is wonderful, playback and reviewing is a dream. I can go to any broadcast rental house and choose from a myriad of lenses (I have a 2/3 adapter) to suit the shoot. It looks the part and the viewfinder is soooo much better than the Canon low res colour one. The SDi output has embedded audio so I can digitise from the camera to almost any HD edit suite or HD deck without having to find an audio work-around.

I am not knocking the Canon, it really is an excellent HD camcorder that produces stunning pictures. I have recently been torn as to which of my surplus HDV camcorders to sell, a Z1 or the H1. In the end the Canon lost mainly because I can't afford to keep a £5k camcorder gathering dust, the Z1 for me is more versatile as a second camera to the F350.

You should also consider that V-Lock batteries and chargers are expensive, the F350 is considerably bigger and heavier than the H1 so it will need a bigger tripod, at the end of the day it really depends on what you need as the actual picture quality is damn close.

Portability, cheap tapes, All round lens with stabiliser and auto focus, lower cost.... XL-H1

Wide range of manual focus lenses, efficient workflow, broadcast approved, looks Professional, Good Viewfinder, Proper HD-SDi, compatibility with most standard broadcast add-ons.... F350

Josh Dahlberg · July 25th, 2006, 04:52 PM

Nate, Alister... Thanks so much guys. Extremely useful posts for anyone deciding if the step up to XDcam is worth the extra dough.

Brett Sherman · August 10th, 2006, 11:31 AM

It seems like with the limitations the F350 has, it most likely is generating a progressive image from an interlaced chip. On a true progressive chip I don't think there would be any reason the vertical resolution should drop in half when you turn the shutter on. Also the variable frame rate drops the resolution too, I don't think that would happen on a progressive chip either.

That being said, the proof is in the pudding. If the image looks good that's all that matters. I just wish Sony would completely drop interlaced. Nobody likes to shoot in it and the new generation of displays (LCDs) don't handle it well.

With the F350 you kind of have to decide resolution versus frame rate or shutter. You shouldn't have to make that decision.

Greg Boston · August 10th, 2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman

It seems like with the limitations the F350 has, it most likely is generating a progressive image from an interlaced chip. On a true progressive chip I don't think there would be any reason the vertical resolution should drop in half when you turn the shutter on. Also the variable frame rate drops the resolution too, I don't think that would happen on a progressive chip either.

The resolution on variable frame rate only drops when overcranking. Undercranking retains the full resolution. If you think about it, this is a price point decision by Sony. To maintain a full raster image at the higher frame rates requires faster(pronounced - more expensive) circuitry and that is reserved for the higher end cameras.. However, being that it drops from 35mbs to 17.5mbs and is still VBR, you get dynamic bit allocation..higher for more motion..lower for less motion.

That technique creates the 'proof in the pudding' you were referring to. I'll have to verify your claims of lower resolution with the shutter on. It's certainly not indicated in the manual and there isn't really a reason to take a resolution hit for using shutter. Overcrank yes...shutter no.

-gb-

Greg Boston · August 10th, 2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Dahlberg

I hope you don't mind me dredging up this old post Greg, but I don't believe Adam ever did describe the difference you saw on the plasma display.

Now that all the articles have been published, I'll go on record as hearing Adam say the XLH1 had the cleanest image of them all. This was while we watched HDV tape playback on the plasma screen. He was referring to being noise free and we weren't in still frame at that point, just watching normal speed playback.

-gb-

Brett Sherman · August 10th, 2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

I'll have to verify your claims of lower resolution with the shutter on. It's certainly not indicated in the manual and there isn't really a reason to take a resolution hit for using shutter. Overcrank yes...shutter no.
-gb-

I thought that was one of the conclusions in the Austin, TX shootout. I don't have an F350 so I can't tell if it's true. I'd like to know if it is not the case.

April 10th, 2006, 06:50 AM	#16
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Psf is how the progressive gets recroded, not how it is created though. To say it's Psf means that a progressive frame gets split into two fields for recording on a format that expects interlaced video. When played back, we only see frames as there is no temporal difference between the fields in the pair. How the progressive is created is irrelevent to how it is stored. Anyone stuck a red filter on the lens yet to see what happens? Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

April 10th, 2006, 07:00 AM	#18
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	When Pappas did this with his XL H1, he got very reduced vertical resolution, and we're assuming that the XL H1 uses a kind of Frame mode for it's progressive, which sounds similar to that described above. A normal, boring rez chart might tell us something too. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

April 10th, 2006, 10:26 AM	#19
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	Crap. sorry Graham, I had the camera in my hands for days (some figuratively, some literally) and forgot your red filter request. Suffice to say motion on the camera is done right by my eye. If there is an interlaced-scanning, DSP derived 24P thing going on, they did it very well. Overall res was disappointing to me, though. Everything else seemed fine. __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

April 10th, 2006, 12:05 PM	#20
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Thanks Nate! No worries - it will all come out soon enough. The 24p from the Canon looks great. The test footage I have here is excellent in that regard. It's not 100% sharp though, and the footage is naturalistic, so doesn't show up aliasing artifacts, but there are some on highlights. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

July 24th, 2006, 09:10 PM	#23
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	I'll chip in here since I too was also at the Austin tests, and just shot a sizable job with 350s. Frankly, I never saw that much of a difference between the H1 and the 350 (codec-wise). I also wasn't sitting as close to the plasma and definitely wasn't picking as many nits. That said, I do not doubt Adam's observation. But I would say that the vast majority of people are not as sharp at spotting codec deficiencies like Adam. I've been shooting with the JVC HD100 for almost a year now, and I had a concert to shoot last week. It's my opinion that the Sonys handled the concert lighting far, far better than any of the 1/3" cameras. The Sonys numbers might not be that impressive compared to the 1/3" cameras, but I found out first hand that in practice they're quite another story. __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

April 10th, 2006, 06:53 AM	#17
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Nope, not tried that, but will do if someone doesn't do it before me. What am I looking for?

April 10th, 2006, 02:29 PM	#21
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	I got to have some 'stick time' during the Sunday outdoor shoot during our Texas HD Shootout. I am liking the F350 for a variety of reasons. Although Nate mentioned image resolution, I just love the workflow and opportunities that Blu-Ray offers. Inexpensive, removable media that offers the same advantages as a Firestore when the cam is in FAM mode. But, alas there is apparently nothing out there yet that understands how to read the MXF files coming off the disk. No chance of accidently recording over a tape that's not cued properly or having time code breaks. Low res proxy files that are MPEG 4 just open up a world of opportunities for me personally. Can't say enough about the professionalism and good natured attitude of all involved at the shootout this past weekend. -gb-

July 25th, 2006, 01:11 AM	#24
Steve Connor Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK Posts: 383	We'll see if Alister Chapman joins in on this one, he currently owns both the H1 and a 350.

July 25th, 2006, 10:34 AM	#25
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	I have not yet done a side by side test between my F350 and H1 and it should be noted that I have only used my F350 with a SD lens. In terms of basic picture quality I think they are both extremely close. The F350 does have much greater dynamic range than the H1 and highlights are handled better (once you have set the knee correctly). The F350 is also a tiny bit more sensitive. I have yet to see any artifacts with the F350 at 35Mb, while the odd (although very rare) artifact does show up with the canon at 25mb. The F350 gives a more natural looking image, the H1 is just a tad too electronic looking for my tastes. While the H1 is very adjustable the F350 is even more fine tuneable in more specific areas such as knee, low sat, matrix and many many others. The F350 audio is more flexible although in terms of quality I can't hear the difference between the Canons compressed audio and the Sony's uncompressed. For me the F350 is king. Disk based file transfer is wonderful, playback and reviewing is a dream. I can go to any broadcast rental house and choose from a myriad of lenses (I have a 2/3 adapter) to suit the shoot. It looks the part and the viewfinder is soooo much better than the Canon low res colour one. The SDi output has embedded audio so I can digitise from the camera to almost any HD edit suite or HD deck without having to find an audio work-around. I am not knocking the Canon, it really is an excellent HD camcorder that produces stunning pictures. I have recently been torn as to which of my surplus HDV camcorders to sell, a Z1 or the H1. In the end the Canon lost mainly because I can't afford to keep a £5k camcorder gathering dust, the Z1 for me is more versatile as a second camera to the F350. You should also consider that V-Lock batteries and chargers are expensive, the F350 is considerably bigger and heavier than the H1 so it will need a bigger tripod, at the end of the day it really depends on what you need as the actual picture quality is damn close. Portability, cheap tapes, All round lens with stabiliser and auto focus, lower cost.... XL-H1 Wide range of manual focus lenses, efficient workflow, broadcast approved, looks Professional, Good Viewfinder, Proper HD-SDi, compatibility with most standard broadcast add-ons.... F350 __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

July 25th, 2006, 04:52 PM	#26
Josh Dahlberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 513	Nate, Alister... Thanks so much guys. Extremely useful posts for anyone deciding if the step up to XDcam is worth the extra dough.

August 10th, 2006, 11:31 AM	#27
Brett Sherman Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mount Rainier, MD Posts: 428	Progressive or Interlaced It seems like with the limitations the F350 has, it most likely is generating a progressive image from an interlaced chip. On a true progressive chip I don't think there would be any reason the vertical resolution should drop in half when you turn the shutter on. Also the variable frame rate drops the resolution too, I don't think that would happen on a progressive chip either. That being said, the proof is in the pudding. If the image looks good that's all that matters. I just wish Sony would completely drop interlaced. Nobody likes to shoot in it and the new generation of displays (LCDs) don't handle it well. With the F350 you kind of have to decide resolution versus frame rate or shutter. You shouldn't have to make that decision.