Why do you need/want progressive?

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

I only meant that 25 full resolution frames is the same pixel number of information as 50 half-resolution frames per second.

Exactly - Piotr said the "same amount of information" Stephen, not the "same information", so Piotr was in fact fundamentally correct.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

I only meant that 25 full resolution frames is the same pixel number of information as 50 half-resolution frames per second.

Interlaced image capture and scanning causes resolution loss even under ideal conditions so why the output may have the same number of pixels, if you put a rez chart through this, depending on camera and DSP, you will lose some resolution, though on a perfectly still subject and camera, may not be visually apparent.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

Exactly - Piotr said the "same amount of information" Stephen, not the "same information", so Piotr was in fact fundamentally correct.

If you are talking pixels, yes. If you talking resolution, no. It depends on if its the information being photographed or just pixels passed.

[Stu Holmes]

Stephen - I think we're deeply into the area of semantics - you know what Piotr meant.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

Stephen - I think we're deeply into the area of semantics - you know what Piotr meant.

Stu, Stephen;
Sorry if my poor English is causing confusion:)

[Neal Wagner]

[QUOTE=Stephen van Vuuren]
(1) 24p - This actually refers to two different qualities. One, the image is captured and recorded as single image moment in time - like a still or motion picture camera. Second, 24 of of these single image moments are captured each second. 24p is actually more correctly called 24 fps progressive.

Stephen, thank you for the clarity and conciseness of your description of frame modes -- the best I've come accross so far.
So, how would you describe Canon's 24F in the XH cameras?

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

Stephen - I think we're deeply into the area of semantics - you know what Piotr meant.

Actually, I did not - perhaps I did not read it as you did and I didn't mean to offend but I was just attempting to clarify that while it's the same number of pixels it's not the same information or amount of information (if you talking resolution vs data rate).

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Stu, Stephen;
Sorry if my poor English is causing confusion:)

No problem, I think your English is excellent. My English is not good and I grew up speaking it :)

I'm only being picky here as there is much confusion over all things interlaced and progressive.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Neal Wagner

Stephen, thank you for the clarity and conciseness of your description of frame modes -- the best I've come accross so far. So, how would you describe Canon's 24F in the XH cameras?

24F provides deinterlacing in camera - almost like have a deinterlacer software plug-in in camera. I've not seen a great tech breakdown of exactly how it works (anyone?) but there is a loss of resolution but it's superior in quality and effort over doing it post.

In some ways it's a very advanced frame movie mode but giving you 24 fps instead 30fps and seems to a better job of saving resolution than frame movie mode did.

True progressive is still superior to 24F mode but due to some fancy engineering, you get shutter speeds under 1/60th with 24F which you would not get shooting 60i and deinterlacing in post. So 24F gets my vote, especially when you factor in not having to render and tweak in post.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

True for 1080p displays.

But that ignores that HDV inherently does not display correctly at 1080p because the format loses resolution down to 1440 horizontal.

As evidence of that, you have people right here in these forums using a variety of monitors viewing a variety of mixed programming, and yet no concensus.

Seems you didn't read carefully and/or go back and read Part 1. The list of failing HDTVs did not include only 1080p displays. And, Part 1, had no 1080p displays.

The point of the story -- which you missed -- was that one would expect/hope that 1080p displays would do better in 2006 than 2005 HDTVs did. They didn't -- they failed.

Bringing H rez. in proves nothing about V. rez. HDV is an anamorphic format and displays correctly on any ATSC TV. Unless, as pointed out in the story, the pulldown cadence is not picked up properly. If its not picked-up, you lose H. rez. So shooting 24p has its own issues.

The fact that folks don't notice the 50% means nothing. After all, the majority of HDTVs fail yet millions don't notice because they have nothing to compare it with.

I would never trust anyone's eyes when there is an objective test. And, two years running the sets failing are greater than 50%.

So maybe YOU got lucky. The statistically majority of folks watching interlace programming will not. Thus, the vertical resolution measures for interlace camera -- is for the majority of viewers cut in half. Now, compare that number to 720p cameras.

That's the facts of interlace.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

So 24F gets my vote, especially when you factor in not having to render and tweak in post.

I think you meant to say 24p is better because it has full V rez.

"Rendering and teaking" has nothing to do with 24F verses 24p. Both in the timeline are 24fps.

[Christopher Johnson]

Originally Posted by John Hewat

I saw that the V1 had progressive and I thought "Awesome - I want it."

And then I thought, "But for what purpose?"

[snip]

So... someone please tell me why I need (or why I would want) a progressive camera. Or better yet, can you please tell me why YOU want progressive.

If I have some idea of its practical application then I will feel better equipped to make a decision.

Thanks,
-- John.

Here are my own non-technical comments to the original poster of this thread. I hope he finds it refreshing:

1) regardless of the technology behind the display you or your viewers have, if Interlace doesn't look and feel like "live-camera-you-are-there" Interlace, then the set-up is wrong.

2) Interlace is not a error. It is a specific "live-feel" format for creating a certain texture for the viewer. I ALWAYS prefer my sports and news in interlace. Interlace actually helps convey a sense of immediacy. Even docs like "Elsewhere" on the Voom HD channel, Equator, have a "looking through a window quality because of interlace.

Don't let anyone here tell you that Interlace is "bad". High Def resolution Interlace can be beautiful.

3) Progressive is awesome because it really begins to relate to the feeling of film. Features feel more like a narrative story you can lose yourself in and docs can feel like a part of the historical record rather than just a news piece. Progressive feels important and "long-term". On lower budget equipment Progressive can feel more appealing and luxurious.

I hope these opinion are helpful in your decision making.

-Christopher

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I think you meant to say 24p is better because it has full V rez.

"Rendering and teaking" has nothing to do with 24F verses 24p. Both in the timeline are 24fps.

I meant 24F is not full rez. If you want 24p from 60i, you have to deinterlace in post.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Christopher Johnson

Here are my own non-technical comments to the original poster of this thread. I hope he finds it refreshing:

1) regardless of the technology behind the display you or your viewers have, if Interlace doesn't look and feel like "live-camera-you-are-there" Interlace, then the set-up is wrong.

2) Interlace is not a error. It is a specific "live-feel" format for creating a certain texture for the viewer. I ALWAYS prefer my sports and news in interlace. Interlace actually helps convey a sense of immediacy. Even docs like "Elsewhere" on the Voom HD channel, Equator, have a "looking through a window quality because of interlace.

Don't let anyone here tell you that Interlace is "bad". High Def resolution Interlace can be beautiful.

I realize my post was long, but just to summarize. When you refer the "look" of interlace, it's 60 frames a second that creates it, not the interlacing. That's why 60p is touted as the best format for sports (not 60i). Interlacing is bad and creates artifacts as well as loses resolution.

Motion progressive images are ALWAYS more pleasing to the eye then the equivalent interlaced images, but make sure to compare the same frame rate. Compare 60i to 60p or 50i to 50p. 60i to 24p is not a very informative comparison for seeing the effects of interlacing since the frame rates are so different.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I realize my post was long, but just to summarize. When you refer the "look" of interlace, it's 60 frames a second that creates it, not the interlacing. That's why 60p is touted as the best format for sports (not 60i). Interlacing is bad and creates artifacts as well as loses resolution.

Motion progressive images are ALWAYS more pleasing to the eye then the equivalent interlaced images, but make sure to compare the same frame rate. Compare 60i to 60p or 50i to 50p. 60i to 24p is not a very informative comparison for seeing the effects of interlacing since the frame rates are so different.

You long post was perfect. You summarized the issues well. It's why I have always supported progressive -- not a brand name.

Now the V1 24p, 25p, and 50p are still carried by interlace, so it can be screwed-up by one's display. But, the internals suggest are 60p and this suggests that on a NON tape media -- Sony is close to 1080/60p.