View Full Version : The Future is HD24p

03-29-2004, 02:07 PM
I just brought a DVX100a, Great camera! It converts the video in-camera from 24p to 30p so you can get a film look. Or you get it to your NLE the frames are pulled out and reconverted back to 24p. (only Apple's Final Cut Pro). I wish Toaster had this feature. Also has 7 gama presets. What the DVX100A's CineGamma does is emulate the gamma of film for video in addition to a 24p frame rate. This gives the indie filmmaking community a solid camera without having to use programs like "Cinelook" or "Magic Bullet." I know if your not in to film features like this seem useless but it also shoots in 30p and 60i.

"When is 24p the right format for me?
When you wish to capture a sequence of images with a "cinematic" look. For example, independent film production, film school training, and additional video sequences to be inter cut with existing film archives. The AG-DVX100 can also be applied as a "B Roll" camera on set, complementing the primary HD video camera or 35mm film camera. It is also a very economical way to shoot multiple camera coverage in 24p."

"2. When is 30p the right format for me?
"When you require an NTSC formatted output with maximum vertical resolution, no interlace artifacts and easy conversion to still frames. For example videotaping of legal documents or police forensics / evidence recording. The 30p capture mode is also ideal for the production of streaming video or downloadable video or as a component of flash animations, due to its very high efficiency in compressing to a low bit rate, and compatibility with computer graphics software applications."

"3. When is 60i the right format for me?
"When you require high speed motion capture without film style motion judder. For example sports, local news coverage and general video documentary and industrial training tape production. With suitable post production software, the 60i mode can also be used as substitute for fast frame rate film capture for slow motion sequence applications in independent film production. "

At last a true "Broadcast quality" handycam.

Also, Sony has a new camera wich uses HDV format. Read This


Jim Capillo
03-29-2004, 03:35 PM
Errr..... thanks ! But I'm not really sure what the point of your post is, unless of course, you're a Panasonic rep..... ;) :p

Seriously, I've had the DVX-100 since it came out and for the most part, I like it a lot. It's not a panacea, but it produces very nice pictures in a small package and it has been reliable (if you don't count the tape finickyness ((is that a word ?????)) and resultant head clogs).

One thing I'd like to see on the unit is a removable/interchangable lens. AFAIC, this is a major shortcoming of the unit, especially for those used to professional gear. And a better built in mic.

Oh well, what do I want for under $4k, eh ????? :rolleyes:

BTW, just what is "Broadcast Quality" ?????? :D :p

Here we go again.......

03-29-2004, 04:48 PM
"Broadcast Quality" is in the eye of the viewer and the pocketbook of the producer.:D

03-29-2004, 07:40 PM
Jim: Can you say mini35? *drool*

03-29-2004, 07:41 PM
I have both the 0.7 wide angle and 1.6x tele by Century Optics, made for this camera. "Nothing but net", on all the video I have made with this camera so far. For an in front of your face camera, its tops. Don

03-30-2004, 10:25 AM
HD is awesome, but I don't understand the hype about 24 frame filmlook! I think it stinks, personally. Why would one want to cling to an old technology standard that makes your picture judder? They want to make it look like a "movie!" Well, why not improve the look of movies! If Hollywood used a higher frame rate, everyone would get used to it, and then everyone would think that 24 frames belonged right alongside B&W & silent!

03-30-2004, 02:14 PM
The bottom line is you can be creative with this camera, it gives you many options. If you want a Straight shooter industry standard then you should get a Sony DSR-PD170.

03-30-2004, 04:38 PM
The reason film uses 24 frames is it looks better on 35mm film and that is why PAL is based on 25 frames and has more lines of resolution then NTSC.

03-30-2004, 04:48 PM
Have you ever compared film at 24 fps to film at 30 fps to see which one looks better?

03-30-2004, 09:17 PM
24Progressive not 24Interlace thats why it is 24p!

"Television transmits a tremendous number of programs on film. More than 75% of prime time is originated on film. Most TV commercials are on film. TV with its higher frame rate of 30 frames per second (fps) requires that the 24 frame film image be converted to 30 fps with a 3:2 pull-down. DTV however takes the 3:2 pull-down out of the incoming video, converting it back to 24 fps when it enters the MPEG compliant encoder. Since 30 fps gives you better temporal resolution with live TV, we don't seem to realize that with film there isn't anything to be gained by converting 24 fps film to 30 fps. Film has always looks good on TV. Part of that is because each frame, of the 24 fps, was photographed in approximately 1/48 of a second and scanned in a progressive manner and converted to interlace for the NTSC system. Telecines do not have an image that starts off as an interlace. Think about that! The film frame is progressivly scanned. Today some of the newer TV cameras for surveillance applications are progressively scanned and the image output is in an interlaced mode. When a video tape of this type of image is displayed on an interlaced display in the "still" or "pause" mode, the image because of no interlace when captured looks twice as sharp even if the subjects were moving." http://www.tech-notes.tv/Jim/Articles/24_Frame.htmlRead!

Originally posted by kleima
! If Hollywood used a higher frame rate, everyone would get used to it, and then everyone would think that 24 frames belonged right alongside B&W & silent!

If you have an interlace image every other line is scaned where as progressive eventhough it is less frame per second there are more lines of resolution. So hollywood is Right for using 24Progressive . Open your eyes and you shall see! Be a leader not a follower!

03-30-2004, 10:54 PM
You have switched to a completely different subject! I was talking purely about FRAME RATE, not the merit of interlace vs. progressive scanning. Of course progressive scanning looks better than interlaced, especially on stills! But, why not use 30p or 60p. 24p will still have motion judder that will not be visible at 30p or 60p. If someone wanted to be a leader instead of a follower, they would embrace a new 30p or 60p format instead of stubbornly clinging to the tradition of annoying people's eyes with 24fps judder!
Try this sometime: watch some pristine HD footage, shot on the $100K HDW900 at 24p, on a CRT monitor. If that doesn't give you a headache, nothing will.

03-31-2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by David
If you have an interlace image every other line is scaned where as progressive eventhough it is less frame per second there are more lines of resolution. So hollywood is Right for using 24Progressive . I would like to point out that a FRAME of video is two FIELDS at effective 60 FPS rate, which at that speed, to the eye looks combined to a single full res image at 30 FPS. In other words, video is to the eye 30 FPS progressive but with the added benefit of motion smoothing.

03-31-2004, 01:44 PM
All I know is I'm looking forward to 60p. And there's certainly a difference between the 720/30p that the one chip JVC can shoot versus the HDTV broadcasts of 720/60p. I hate judder.

03-31-2004, 04:58 PM
I like judder, I like it the same way I like the motion blur that comes with it, the texture it has, shallow depth of field, zooms, you name it. Maybe those kinds of characteristics aren't exactly like reality but that's the point. If you want reality go out and play, if you want to see a story told in 2 dimensions then be prepared to digest it the way it is presented to you. After all it is not about making a portrait of reality, but to make a piece of art and sometimes less is more. Get over it.

03-31-2004, 09:33 PM
I'd like to thank everyone for their input!

Survey? What would you buy the sony DSR-PD170 or panasonic DVX-100A and why?

Or would you wait for his:


03-31-2004, 10:02 PM
Actually, most of what I do is exactly making a "portrait of reality", and that's what I'm paid to do, nothing wrong with that. It's artistic in it's own way.

For more artistic stuff, there's certainly nothing wrong with using other resolutions and frame rates and anything else for that matter, but that's not how I or a lot of us make our living.

It's like some of my friends that went to college for video production and learned tons of artsy stuff and little real production stuff. It can be fun, but it's not necessarily easy to make a living that way.

As for between the cameras you mentioned, I'm planning on getting the PD-170 with a new full zoom range focusable anamorphic 16:9 widescreen adapter from Century Optics (it'll be out in a month, the current ones out aren't as good).

03-31-2004, 10:58 PM

Is that why Hollywood continually strives for more and more realistic special effects?

04-01-2004, 07:52 AM
Your knowledge is flawed David......

24fps for film was chosen becuse it was the slowest you can run film (i.e. cheapest) while still getting reasonable (i.e. un-objectional judder) pictures.

The average feature release has about 1000 dollars in the film stock alone. (!) Film being film if you up the frame rate to 30fps it adds another $200 for each print.(!) Multiply that by the thousands of prints of each feature a studio makes (and then destroys... ,really) and add to that the cost of the stock for the actual raw footage at 30fps, and its no wonder that there are so few IMAX (30fps) features.

OK so IMAX is a bad example, but I think my point is clear.

George Lucas tried for years to get the frame rate up to 30 fps, but that is another story.

Showscan (film, people, film...) runs at a whopping 60fps! to get rid of judder....

As for PAL choosing 25fps because of film is just so totally wrong.

Electricity in europe is at 50Hz, PAL operates at 50 fields (25 frames) per second.

Here in the USA electricity is 60Hz and surprise! NTSC gives us 60 fields per second (30 Frames)

The only reason PAL has 625 lines of resolution as opposed to NTSC's 525 is purely bandwidth considerations.

Great Britan's government developed PAL and at the time owned and transmitted all TV signals. Without 600 stations competing for the same bandwidth they could open their spectrum for the larger signal. Also consider that PAL offers many less channels then NTSC (maybe thats a dur?)

US television (being only regulated by the government) has to jump through alot more hoops to get on the air. When color broadcasts came about NTSC was chosen (from the two competing systems at the time) because of its backward compatability. And simplicity of execution as compared to trashing what was already there...

So there is some powerful knowledge for you !

PS in the current DTV standard approved by the FCC there is NO provision for 24fps anything... progressive, or interlaced.

04-01-2004, 10:07 AM
Some people just love analog, no matter what, like I said 24PHD (or maybe 30PHD) is the future. It is more compatible with hollywood standards which is where 75% of TV programing is derived. I know for the weekend photographer it is not affordable to go out and purchase a 100,000 SONY HDW F900 24p HDCAM Camera, and I don't claim to know everything but this much is true;

interlace scanning creates some well-known artifacts, especially with moving pictures. In a television image (not from film), it is impossible to combine two fields to make one frame or picture for moving objects, as each field comes from a different moment in time. But with progressive scanning, the image has all of the pixels captured at one time. There is no difference between that of film or the image acquired by the progressive CCD.

I was simply talking about the difference between 24Progressive Vs. 30 interlace . It is very subjective depending on what you are going to doing with your video, you could go anywhere from making an indy film to just doing Wedding Video and Corporate Videography.

Thank you for the history lesson though! You are very knowledgeable!

I'd also like to thank everyone for their input you guys have been very helpful and Progressive !

04-01-2004, 01:52 PM

Au contraire! Hollywood is not striving for more realistic special effects or they'd be filming them live instead of CGI. They're striving for better looking special effects that accomplish what wasn't possible before, but not more realistic. Bullet time is not something your brain perceives as real.
Anyhow, effects are there to enhance the way the story comes across as much as judder, depth of field or color correction for that matter. It's not there to make it real, but pleasing.

04-02-2004, 03:29 PM
I just want a camera (and the NLE) to be able to work with material that was actually shot at a frame rate and not at a shutter rate that still just gets dropped back to a video standard of 25fps or 29.97fps. I want true frame rates without being attatched to a video standard when it gets "printed" to tape.

Many of the DoP's I work with are famous for undercranking their shots and when you run this back at normal rates it looks very intereresting. Take a fight sequence and instead of shooting at 24 or say up it to 48(to catch all of that action with no blur), they will undercrank it to 22 or 18 and then let it run at 24 in the suit. Looks great!

This is why I have been using the new features in vt3 with the ramping and speed changes in a VTEdit time line and dubbing it back over to a DDR to make better looking video for those situations. Sure its all working in NTSC land, but at least now you can slow material down, speed it up (over time no less :) ) and record it again inside the box. This works for me for now. But I would just like to see people get off this P for 24P and make it any frame rate P.

04-03-2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by djlithium
...This is why I have been using the new features in vt3 with the ramping and speed changes in a VTEdit time line and dubbing it back over to a DDR... Just curious, why do you need to re-record it instead of just leaving it Speed Ramped on the Timeline? for DDR playback maybe? if so, doesn't Pizazz's Edit Panel for DDR's allow access to the Speed Ramps?

04-04-2004, 05:17 AM
I have to make them adjustable very fast on set when I am working on shows with motion control cameras and composite the material using mixes (50% alpha with overlay) and keys with several layers.

So VT-Edit gets the job done there.

04-04-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by bradl
for DDR playback maybe? if so, doesn't Pizazz's Edit Panel for DDR's allow access to the Speed Ramps?

Pizazz's Edit Panel for DDR's

Where do I find more info on that?

04-04-2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Original1
Pizazz's Edit Panel for DDR's

Where do I find more info on that? Edit Properties Dialog in a DDR (http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15074)