PDA

View Full Version : Something that suprised me 7d v. 5d



ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 09:58 AM
My 7d feels like it is built considerably better than my 5d. The weather sealing seems much tighter and in general the camera feels much more "professional," not that this claim is anything besides personal opinion.

The feel of the 7d is great in the hands and the new switch for video mode is fantastic. Also I had no idea how fast 8fps was. Completely usable 18megapixel raw footage for a staccato music video look. Really sweet.

ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 09:58 AM
I will try and post a substantial comparison some time today.

Richard J. Johnson
09-30-2009, 10:04 AM
I'm glad you got it!

ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 05:49 PM
Ran a lot of 5d v. 7d tests.

Color charts/focus chart - will post on vimeo later.

1. Aliasing is identical between cameras when both set to 1080p30.
2. When all settings and lenses are the same, the 7d seems to be a half stop brighter, this may be due to a smaller surface area for light to expose.
3. The 7d holds up in low light similarly to the 5d if your main subject is exposed. The weakness of the 7d is when the subject is underexposed. Underexposing does not hurt the 5d much but hurts the IQ of the 7d similarly to what I have seen happen with RED.
4. Color seems to hold up better with the 7d. Everyone that has looked at my tests has agreed, but I have not really pushed color correction yet.
5. The 5d definitely handles highlight fall off slightly better but I want a more substantial comparison.

I will post video later.

Other 7d discoveries:

HDMI is live and constantly 1080i according to my television.

Also - my powered hdmi splitter from monoprice does not work with my 5d but does work with my 7d. Meaning. Buy a powered splitter and the operator and director can have an hd signal.

Lastly - the autofocus markers leave when you press record meaning that you could easily pull a 720p raw signal off the hdmi through an MXO 2 or similar box. Will post explicit tests tomorrow.

Luis Caffesse
09-30-2009, 05:53 PM
Lastly - the autofocus markers leave when you press record meaning that you could easily pull a 720p raw signal off the hdmi through an MXO 2 or similar box. Will post explicit tests tomorrow.

Hmmm......
Well that's interesting.

Lucian
09-30-2009, 05:53 PM
Please keep us posted!

Kholi
09-30-2009, 05:54 PM
I didn't even notice that, but it sure does.

Hmmm. But will it be worth the hassle? Might be time to try a nanoFlash finally.

ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 05:59 PM
hoooked up to the mxo 2 mini as we speak....

Luis Caffesse
09-30-2009, 06:02 PM
Might be time to try a nanoFlash finally.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking.

:thumbsup:

ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 06:03 PM
it worked! Wow. It is interlaced, but I will play with it more. For now I simply deinterlaced the video. Will post shortly. Literally the most boring footage ever though.

ChipG
09-30-2009, 06:04 PM
Ryan,

Thanks for doing this! Very appreciated!

Stephen Mick
09-30-2009, 06:05 PM
I'll hook up my NanoFlash and let you guys know.


Soon.

mcgeedigital
09-30-2009, 06:10 PM
Aja Ki Pro anyone?

ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 06:12 PM
Mcgee - thats all I want. If it let's me crop into it will be my next purchase.

ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 06:14 PM
Just shot a moire/aliasing nightmare of a metal grate trash can.

Looked great. This rocks.

Perry Wilson
09-30-2009, 06:29 PM
Just shot a moire/aliasing nightmare of a metal grate trash can.

Looked great. This rocks.

So the trash can is the nightmare but the footage looked good?

ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 07:00 PM
Correct. This trash can is the epitome of what I stay away from while using the 5d and now 7d.

Looked great. Meaning - before h.264 compression.

JoeC
09-30-2009, 07:37 PM
I read somewhere that the aliasing was the result of the pixel Binning process and not the compression.

The process of pixel binning would still be in effect, even if you use hdmi output. So is it the h264 compression that gives the moire/aliasing problems then?

Can you shoot the same trash can with both the hdmi capture and the regular camera capture so we can compare? Thanks
-Joe

Luis Caffesse
09-30-2009, 09:37 PM
Can you shoot the same trash can with both the hdmi capture and the regular camera capture so we can compare? Thanks
-Joe

I'd love to see that - though Vimeo or any other compression might kill the goal of the comparison.
But i guess uploading raw clips would be kind of tough, given the size of the files you're probably recording.

Nitsuj
09-30-2009, 09:42 PM
Hmmm now this thread is interesting.

ryansheffer
09-30-2009, 11:56 PM
Tomorrow I will have more time for side by side like that.

Martti Ekstrand
10-01-2009, 01:07 AM
HDMI is live and constantly 1080i according to my television.

Also - my powered hdmi splitter from monoprice does not work with my 5d but does work with my 7d. Meaning. Buy a powered splitter and the operator and director can have an hd signal.

Lastly - the autofocus markers leave when you press record meaning that you could easily pull a 720p raw signal off the hdmi through an MXO 2 or similar box. Will post explicit tests tomorrow.

If this works it's a massive unique selling point. Does it always output 1080i or does it change when switching to recording at 720?

Emanuel
10-01-2009, 01:23 AM
Nobody can deny it. This camera is a pencil.

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 02:05 AM
I will check what happens when you switch the camera to 720p60

USLatin
10-01-2009, 03:32 AM
Holy shi*! That is so cool! So it is a better-than-DVCpro-HD 720p or direct to h.264 1080p camera!?!?

I can RENT a nanoFlash! And what a MOBILE setup that would still be!!! :)

Now RAW would be INSANE! But this isn't RAW though. If we could record actual RAW, then we would need to figure out the sensor's native ISO and expose for that to get the thickest 7D negative. Cause RAW means that you record the chip's full dynamic range with a given bit depth on your recording media, right? Then we would set exposure in post to our own personal taste, and push it as far as we thought was still nice before it broke apart or before the image looked dull from losing too much dynamic range, correct?

I mean, isn't HDMI compressed already? I am obviously not complaining here!! :D

What is the limit of the "HDMI pipe"? And can it only be filled with info gushing through it, or HDMI still work with the faucet only partially open? Is that something we can only figure out by testing how much bit-rate is worth setting the nanoFlash to?

And since it can't be actual RAW, then the ISO and all other settings would be burned into the HDMI signal already, right?

Of course, either way this is a heck of a lot of camera for $1,700!
Bbetter than HVX 720p on a S35 sensor and crazy low light is V-E-R-Y nice!!!

Am I understanding the implications of this correctly?

trez
10-01-2009, 03:53 AM
Not sure what you mean by 'RAW'. There's no way to send RAW from 7d sensor via HDMI because HDMI is rgb/yuv and 7d resolution by far exceeds 1920x1080. Even if it was possible you would need special software to process it (debayering and rgb/yuv conversion). So it's definitely not raw.

The fact that there's no aliasing is very interesting, though. It's been said many times that Canon uses simple pixel binning because dual Digic4 chips are not fast enough to apply more sophisticated downsampling method. This is where all aliasing is introduced - at downsampling and not at the compression stage. The sensor-resolution signal, before being output via HDMI, has to downsampled, too.
Now, if 7d's HDMI output exhibit no aliasing, then apparently chips are capable of higher-quality downsampling filtering. This, in turn, would mean that Canon limits the 7d video recording quality on purpose, by running suboptimal downsampling filter... Am I missing something?

USLatin
10-01-2009, 04:20 AM
Oh, hey.. I completely re-wrote my post. Please take a look and tell me if I am getting this right.

What you are saying about setting the limit on purpose sounds very interesting. But could it be to lower the file size and become more slow-media friendly?


There's no way to send RAW from 7d sensor via HDMI because HDMI is rgb/yuv and 7d resolution by far exceeds 1920x1080.

Well, Red does the resolution. Not 18MP (yet) but somewhere around 12MP with Red One. ;)
I am not sure what HDMI being rbg/yuv means though.

trez
10-01-2009, 05:23 AM
Well, Red does the resolution. Not 18MP (yet) but somewhere around 12MP with Red One. ;)

I was referring to HDMI - you don't send red raw over hdmi...


I am not sure what HDMI being rbg/yuv means though.

HDMI allows the video signal to be encoded in either sRGB (4:4:4) or one of three different YCbCr (people often call it YUV, even though is analog) color spaces (at 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 chroma subsampling).


I mean, isn't HDMI compressed already?

No - it's uncompressed

Michael Olsen
10-01-2009, 05:25 AM
Oh, hey.. I completely re-wrote my post. Please take a look and tell me if I am getting this right.

What you are saying about setting the limit on purpose sounds very interesting. But could it be to lower the file size and become more slow-media friendly?



Well, Red does the resolution. Not 18MP (yet) but somewhere around 12MP with Red One. ;)
I am not sure what HDMI being rbg/yuv means though.

The beauty of RED is not RAW. The beauty of RED is REDRAW, using the REDCODE form of lossy compression. The data you get out of the camera is compressed - rather heavily compressed, actually. However, it is compressed very very (like, ridiculously) intelligently. This is the reason RED outputs in MB/s instead of GB/s but produces an image that is on par in terms of quality and latitude with "true" RAW recording, even though the bitrate is much lower.

This is, in many opinions, the real source of their revolution. Rather than recording absolutely huge filesizes with massive bandwidth, one can record something of equal quality with far fewer resources.

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 07:14 AM
Dang. Spoke too soon. Aliasing is there. My trash can was as much of a definitive test as I thought.

Still great that we can capture this way, but sadly I spoke too soon. Sorry.

Michael Olsen
10-01-2009, 07:16 AM
Dang. Spoke too soon. Aliasing is there. My trash can was as much of a definitive test as I thought.

Still great that we can capture this way, but sadly I spoke too soon. Sorry.

Thanks for taking the time to test it! Is the aliasing still there to the same extent, or lessened?

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 07:20 AM
I'm not sure. The fact that the signal is always 1080i may be part of the problem. Properly deinterlacing would help. I'm not that experienced with the best ways to deinterlace.

Also - 720p60 appears to also output 1080i.

Ian-T
10-01-2009, 07:32 AM
So...let me get this straight. Do you mean we are able to capture 1080i video "before" compression over HDMI? Just like my (former) HV20?

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 07:42 AM
That's my understanding, yes, but I definitely need to test more.

http://www.ryansheffer.com/Site/7d.html

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 07:45 AM
Any thoughts on the definitive test of pre or post compression. I can record to the card at the same time.

Ian-T
10-01-2009, 07:51 AM
Well, for one, if that is possible then I would put up a side by side video of what came out the card compared to HDMI. I understand they will be compressed in the end but I would like to see the difference between the two even when compressed for Vimeo.

trez
10-01-2009, 07:52 AM
Don't think it's post-compression. HDMI is uncompressed. To support it, 7d would have to first encode and then decode h264 before outputting. Bet it's before compression

Ian-T
10-01-2009, 07:53 AM
I'm sure you are correct trez. I was going to ask why hasn't anyone else found this out (and even denied it...I believe). But it makes sense that it does work since the HDMI out is live.

Paprochy
10-01-2009, 08:23 AM
Hey guys,

You know what else this will be very useful for? If this works out the way it seems to be working out, using a nanoflash over HDMI with the 7D would mean no 12 minute recording limit. Would it not?

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 08:27 AM
Absolutely. I will now be shooting a concert using this method next week.

HHL
10-01-2009, 10:45 AM
This could be HUGE!!!! Keep testing dang it!!! :) Thanks so much guys!

Kholi
10-01-2009, 10:53 AM
Ryan...

You had to be recording at the same time to get rid of thebox. can you show us a still from the 1080 24 then? So we can see how much of a difference it made on the waste basket?

taubkin
10-01-2009, 11:46 AM
Yeah... Also, let's see some frames of the uncompressed recording? See how banding and noise are handling?

This can be pretty huge, no doubt.

Eddy Robinson
10-01-2009, 12:48 PM
Dang. Spoke too soon. Aliasing is there. My trash can was as much of a definitive test as I thought. Still great that we can capture this way, but sadly I spoke too soon. Sorry.

It looks a hell of a lot better than I expected after reading this :happy:

squig
10-01-2009, 01:12 PM
Any thoughts on the definitive test of pre or post compression. I can record to the card at the same time.

just under-expose, you'll get some nasty compression artifacts and if you don't my MKII is going on ebay.

Ian-T
10-01-2009, 01:13 PM
Lol.... That'll do it.

squig
10-01-2009, 01:14 PM
Is the HDMI out displaying all 1920 pixels wide and without all the onscreen display crap?


www.ryansheffer.com/Site/7d.html

Camera set to record at 1080p24.
Took the signal out via HDMI and into a Matrox MXO 2 mini.
When you press record on the camera, the focus box disappears.
Deinterlaced the 1080i signal captured (probably poorly)
Dropped into a 720p23.98 timeline.
Cropped out the top and bottom bars and the red record light.

nevermind just found the other thread, a bit of a crop would be cool for anamorphic shooting.

squig
10-01-2009, 01:15 PM
Lol.... That'll do it.

I was gonna wait for magic lantern, just got a juicedlink.

USLatin
10-01-2009, 02:45 PM
Dang. Spoke too soon. Aliasing is there. My trash can was as much of a definitive test as I thought.

Still great that we can capture this way, but sadly I spoke too soon. Sorry.

@#^@&! Well... thank you though for checking this out!

But it is just me or that image looks WAY better than the rest of the stuff we've been seeing?

You say there is still aliasing in there, is that the horizontal lines on the right side of the trash can you guys are talking about? I know enough to realize there could be a heck of a lot more going on throughout the rest of the mesh. I mean, yes the lines are annoying, but you shouldn't be worried if that is all you are going to get. The shot may piss you guys off, but it is very usable and the rest of the mesh looks VERY organic.


The beauty of RED is not RAW. The beauty of RED is REDRAW, using the REDCODE form of lossy compression. The data you get out of the camera is compressed - rather heavily compressed, actually. However, it is compressed very very (like, ridiculously) intelligently. This is the reason RED outputs in MB/s instead of GB/s but produces an image that is on par in terms of quality and latitude with "true" RAW recording, even though the bitrate is much lower.

This is, in many opinions, the real source of their revolution. Rather than recording absolutely huge filesizes with massive bandwidth, one can record something of equal quality with far fewer resources.

Yes. I totally get this about Red. That is actually why I still call it RAW, and so many people do, even though it is Red Code. It would equate to a sort of lossless compression, even though it obviously isn't lossless, but it is as you say ridicolously intelligently compressed.


HDMI allows the video signal to be encoded in either sRGB (4:4:4) or one of three different YCbCr (people often call it YUV, even though is analog) color spaces (at 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 chroma subsampling).

No - it's uncompressed

So there would be some serious potential for CCing if this were either form of 4:4:4!

Unfortunately 720p wouldn't project as nice as 1080 does for those of you seeking to get it on a big screen, but for HDTV... it won't be as sharp, but it will be able to be handled professionally, you can really work it and you don't have to fear not getting it perfect on set cause the fix-it-in-post becomes valid again. Sure, not RAW/Red Code, but I am thinking about micro budget stuff, and all the other benefits, such a size, interchangeable lenses, S35 sensor, so on so forth. This is a very nice step in between an EX1/HPX + Adapter and Red. Unless you feel you need 1080 detail... just trying to think aloud here and hoping you guys point out whatever I am missing or confusing.


Hey guys,

You know what else this will be very useful for? If this works out the way it seems to be working out, using a nanoflash over HDMI with the 7D would mean no 12 minute recording limit. Would it not?

Very cool point. But wouldn't you get the box popping up for a second when the 12min take was up on your CF? And if that can be taken off, is there some sort of button that you could press to keep it awake without affecting the operating or image?

trez
10-01-2009, 02:55 PM
So there would be some serious potential for CCing if this were either form of 4:4:4!

If it were 4:4:4... I would be really surprised. Most real-world implementations use 4:2:2 YCbCr. Still not bad for keying considering the fact it's uncompressed. If only Canon was using entire 1080 raster - think they don't do it on purpose .... Maybe MagicLantern can come up with something.

Ian-T
10-01-2009, 03:45 PM
Unfortunately 720p wouldn't project as nice as 1080 does for those of you seeking to get it on a big screen, but for HDTV... it won't be as sharp, but it will be able to be handled professionally, you can really work it and you don't have to fear not getting it perfect on set cause the fix-it-in-post becomes valid again.
So why not capture it as 1080p instead? Even with the 20% crop it should still be much bigger than a 720p image right?

ALso, I thought 720p was supposed to be the bare minimum for the big screen?

powervideo
10-02-2009, 07:00 PM
I'll hook up my NanoFlash and let you guys know.


Soon.

How did you get on with that nanoflash? Very curious in the outcome.

Cheers,
Peter

Stephen Mick
10-02-2009, 07:01 PM
With heavy prodding from Caffesse, I'll be running out tomorrow to get a mini-HDMI to mini-HDMI cable. I'll report back tomorrow evening (if I can find the cable).


--SM

USLatin
10-02-2009, 07:25 PM
What exactly would you get if you recorded the HDMI signal as 1080? Would it be "upconverted" by the recorder? It couldn't be 720p image with black outline, could it?


So why not capture it as 1080p instead? Even with the 20% crop it should still be much bigger than a 720p image right?

ALso, I thought 720p was supposed to be the bare minimum for the big screen?

I am sure many would be very happy. You can project whatever you want. We scanned a short shot on a DVX for the Miami International Film Festival and saw it on the Lincon Road theater. Didn't look great, even if it was projected smaller than the full screen. But we had a blast and the content was far superior than most other films. I didn't see anyone get congratulated nearly as much as we did.

I am just pointing out that 1080 is almost 2k, and 720p is 44.4% the resolution of 1080p. What you want to do with it is entirely up to you. Will it help you have a shot at any theatrical distribution? Do you care?

I am just trying to look at the bright side, and that is that you should be able to deliver a very decent 1080p for HDTVs with a very reliable workflow if you are capturing something like ProRes. That is a glass "44.4% full", but with some very decent Scotch, and for only $1,700.

mcgeedigital
10-02-2009, 08:03 PM
With heavy prodding from Caffesse, I'll be running out tomorrow to get a mini-HDMI to mini-HDMI cable. I'll report back tomorrow evening (if I can find the cable).


--SM

Git 'er done! :happy:

Ian-T
10-03-2009, 07:49 AM
What exactly would you get if you recorded the HDMI signal as 1080? Would it be "upconverted" by the recorder? It couldn't be 720p image with black outline, could it? Well, I'm not sure how much of the image would be cropped but my thought is to just keep the 1080i image as much as possible so as to have the highest resolution to work with in post production. From there you could go either way (sized down to 720p or sized up to 1080p). Unles I'm wrong about this I would think if you are shooting for a 1080p image this would keep as much of the detail and sharpness in the image as possible.

dcloud
10-03-2009, 09:49 AM
question... if its 1080i, is it 24p wrapped in 60i?

Barry_Green
10-03-2009, 11:46 AM
The 7D's 24p is not wrapped in 60i on recording. But the HDMI output is.

ryansheffer
10-03-2009, 12:12 PM
Barry's statement has been my experience. Sorry I have not gotten to more testing. Too much work.

FrankD
10-03-2009, 01:55 PM
Let's see if I've got this straight... So what you all are saying is that the HDMI out is 1080 24p but needing pulldown removal?

Barry_Green
10-03-2009, 02:02 PM
Yes. It's 24p embedded in 60i.

USLatin
10-03-2009, 04:08 PM
Then that is fan-freaggin'-tastic! So after de-interlasing, pull-down, what have you, we should get some sort of uncompressed 24fps 4:2:2 1920 x 1080 that would only need a little bit of cropping to avoid the little for the record light and whatever else is in there?! That is great! Hope I am not messing this up. Cause a 1920 2.33:1 or a 2.4:1 will be clean for sure! Right?

FrankD
10-03-2009, 04:48 PM
No de-interlacing needed since it's embedded 24p, just have to remove the pulldown. A pain for sure, but nothing like all the artifact horrors of de-interlacing.

USLatin
10-03-2009, 04:50 PM
Gotcha, so like the HVX?

So is it 120% confirmed to be 1080p (with the record button in the image)?

Sorry :) I just don't want to get that wrong and have my hopes shattered later when I realize I wasn't understanding this right. Barry, did you get your 7D yet?

Barry_Green
10-03-2009, 05:51 PM
No, haven't gotten it yet, not too thrilled with TigerDirect. If it wasn't for my blatant greed for the darn Bing cashback, I'd cancel the order and just go pick it up somewhere else.

They say it really, really should ship out on Monday.

ydgmdlu
10-03-2009, 08:04 PM
Then that is fan-freaggin'-tastic! So after de-interlasing, pull-down, what have you, we should get some sort of uncompressed 24fps 4:2:2 1920 x 1080 that would only need a little bit of cropping to avoid the little for the record light and whatever else is in there?! That is great! Hope I am not messing this up. Cause a 1920 2.33:1 or a 2.4:1 will be clean for sure! Right?
My understanding is that it's not a full 1920x1080 image. It's 1080i, but the resolution of the signal sent through HDMI is 1440x1080. That's because the live view display (i.e. on the camera's LCD) is 4:3 aspect ratio.

Within that frame is pillar-boxing, a translucent mask at the top and bottom, and finally a 1280x720 (approximately) image. That's what we're trying to extract.

USLatin
10-03-2009, 08:10 PM
Awww...
:badputer:

ydgmdlu
10-03-2009, 08:14 PM
Well, at least it's still HD. Better than nothing. :)

ydgmdlu
10-03-2009, 08:24 PM
BTW, please take a look at this thread from cinema5D for confirmation of what I've said: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=4967&start=20

Elton
10-03-2009, 08:32 PM
My friend just got one, and I have to say that the compression in 24p mode is really quite decent, comparable to XDCAM EX 35mbs VBR, possibly better. I think uprezzing a 720-ish crop from the letterbox/Pillarbox image, even if you do get 4:2:2 (720p 4:2:2, mind you) might just accentuate the aliasing/moire already present. It's not nearly as bad in 1080 24p mode than 60p, so I don't know that it's worth the trouble to get the HDMI output recorded.

I will be testing the output with the nanoFlash soon.

Hoping to use it for my MonsterFest entry I'm working on.

Btw, Zeiss 18mm still looked decently wide. Very useable.

USLatin
10-03-2009, 08:44 PM
I will be testing the output with the nanoFlash soon.

And uploading? I would love to see a full screen grab with all the clutter still there. Please! :D

Also, removing clutter from the live view might be something easy enough for Magic Lantern! I think someone mentioned this before on this thread but only now I get what they meant.

If all of that was gone then a 1440 x 618 (2.33:1) would be nice resolution bump from ~44% of 1080p to ~56%. Still nowhere close to 2k, but that should be an easily noticeable difference on a 1080 finish for HDTV.

HVX's were only about 1440 x 960, right? So does that mean that for a 2.33:1 aspect the " "actual" " resolution out of the HDMI would be very close?

Elton
10-03-2009, 08:49 PM
I'm not sure, but your numbers seem reasonably accurate. I'll find out as soon as I can hunt down a mini-to-mini HDMI cable.

powervideo
10-03-2009, 08:49 PM
I would be interested if you could do a quick test with the Nano in 25P for us PAL users Elton. For commercials that end up in SD the 720 crop would be a big deal.

Peter

ydgmdlu
10-03-2009, 08:51 PM
If all of that was gone then a 1440 x 618 (2.33:1) would be nice resolution bump from ~44% of 1080p to ~56%. Still nowhere close to 2k, but that should be an easily noticeable difference on a 1080 finish for HDTV.
Tramm would have to find some way of defeating the pillar-boxing in order to get the video to fill the full 1440 px width.


HVX's were only about 1440 x 960, right? So does that mean that for a 2.33:1 aspect the " "actual" " resolution out of the HDMI would be very close?
I remember reading from Adam Wilt that the sensor resolution of the HVX200, at least the original version, was only 960x540.

Elton
10-03-2009, 09:03 PM
I would be interested if you could do a quick test with the Nano in 25P for us PAL users Elton. For commercials that end up in SD the 720 crop would be a big deal.

Peter

I'll give it a go. I tried the 720 50p mode this evening, (internal recording) and I can't see where I would want to use it. The aliasing is just a bit too much--I would never use it for sharp wide shots, that's for sure.

ydgmdlu
10-03-2009, 09:06 PM
I'll give it a go. I tried the 720 50p mode this evening, (internal recording) and I can't see where I would want to use it. The aliasing is just a bit too much--I would never use it for sharp wide shots, that's for sure.
I think that he's talking about the 720p crop from the HDMI 1080i signal. So aliasing would be much less of a problem there.

powervideo
10-03-2009, 10:53 PM
I'll give it a go. I tried the 720 50p mode this evening, (internal recording) and I can't see where I would want to use it. The aliasing is just a bit too much--I would never use it for sharp wide shots, that's for sure.

Hmmm...that's a bummer for us PAL users.

ydgmdlu
10-03-2009, 10:59 PM
Hmmm...that's a bummer for us PAL users.
You could still use the 1080p25 mode, though. Only the two 720p modes have been shown to have more serious aliasing problems.