CineFrame 24 De-mystefied

[Barry_Green]

Through some inspiration from a fellow detective over on DVInfo.net, we've finally gotten to the bottom of why CineFrame 24 looks so jumpy/odd.

Turns out that I had a clip of FX1 footage in DV mode, shot at Cineframe 24, and also DVX footage of the same subject, shot at 24P. And, fortunately enough, the footage included a street scene of some cars driving by.

With Vegas you can remove 2:3 pulldown from any DV .avi file, provided you specify the right timecode offset. Vegas' pulldown technique worked perfectly on the Cineframe 24 footage, so I was then able to examine the frames individually as compared to the DVX footage.

On the DVX footage, a passing car moved 30 pixels each frame, which is as you would expect: a constant-speed object, sampled at constant and equal intervals in time, should show a constant amount of change between frames.

On the CF24 footage, the car moved about 27 pixels on even frames, and 39 pixels on odd frames. Completely different motion rendition!

On something that doesn't move very much, CF24 might give a reasonably acceptable simulation of film motion, but on anything that moves with any speed at all, it exhibits an unnatural jerkiness, which we now can understand why: it's moving at completely uneven intervals, although those intervals do appear to follow a strict even/odd pattern.

[TotalX]

I guess I am a little miffed why Sony ( with as much money and technology at their disposal) would overlook a thing like this on their HDV camera?

Or, maybe they thought the consumer wouldn't know the difference?

[dakotapod]

Thanks Barry.

What are your thoughts on *why* Sony did this?

[Shaw]

Why did Sony provide 15p on previous cameras? ::)

Sony just seems to be really out of touch

[dakotapod]

I have about one billionth the technology know-how of Mr. Green but My first thought was this flicker is deliberate and the thinking was being "jerky" is supposed to be "film-like." ... *:-/

[Barry_Green]

Sony made it clear at the introduction of the camera "the consumer now has a clear choice. *The can have HD, OR they can have 24P." *That's their mindset.

This CF24 technology is probably the same thing they did in that little handycam where they introduced a 24-frame-like simulation.

They included it, I'm certain, because marketing told them they had to have 24P, but they refuse (so far) to make progressive 24P on a consumer-level camera (they do for $35,000+ cameras). *As to why they refuse, I'm not certain. *Maybe it's because they're locked in a death struggle with Panasonic over the future of European HDTV -- as I understand it, Europe still has yet to make a final decision about the fate of what HDTV standard they will embrace, and they're deciding between 1080/50i (as pushed by Sony) and 720/50P (as pushed by Panasonic). *And I guess at IBC some newspaper printed a headline proclaiming that the EBU had chosen 720/50P, which gave Sony some heart attacks (think about it -- the FX1E would be rather pointless in a country where no HD set would be able to display the signal!) *But I guess that story was either leaked prematurely, or just plain incorrect, as the EBU's official stance is that they're still deciding (last time I looked). Apparently Europe has chosen to support only one resolution, not both. Sony would be in a world of hurt with their CineAlta, FX1, HDCAM and all their other 1080 gear if Europe embraced 720...

So it might look compromising in Sony's position to endorse full-motion progressive-scan in their new products, acknowledging that that is what the people want, when that's the scanning system of the "enemy" (50P).

Either way, the American FX1 customer, and I believe in fact the world customer, didn't get what they were hoping for (or at least what this community is hoping for, were I to be so bold as to speak for this community) so for now we can continue to use the excellent tools that Panasonic and Canon have provided, and look towards the future when Panasonic will almost certainly give us what we want, and if they don't, JVC or Canon likely will.

That's just random speculation, of course, but it seems to make sense to me...

[SimonMW]

From info I have , 720p will be sidelined as soon as the 1080 Varicam is released.

Europe will not go for the 720p standard. It isn't enough of a leap over current widescreen PAL transmissions.

[xray]

Mike Croll task group EBU said that their -unanimously- favour was going to 720P. But one day later the EBU said at the IBC Amsterdam the word: 'it is a work in progress'. (sic) So the task group spoke out for progressive first. Still the battle is going on , but generally Europe promotes progressive. The British favour is 1080P, the northern European wants 720p, the Dutch progressive...

[Aejaz]

Don't really have an idea about EBU, but as I see at the consumer level HDTV is still totally un-heard of in most stores of Sweden...at least....and at least till the filing of this report ;).

By the way Christmas is the peak shopping season here, as in the rest of the world, when most companies make sure that they lay all their cards and new products on the table to attract customers to choose from. In all REA (Sale) campaigns here these days, most of the picture tube TVs have taken the back seat, with the plasma and LCD tvs occupying 90% of the display space in these stores...

But I did not see any...literally ANY HD TV anywhere so far. Pl...someone from Stockholm area or around correct me if I am mistaken....But I would at least like to see how an HD TV actually looks like....Is it really much difft from the Plasma or LCD TVs?

[Barry_Green]

I'm from across the pond so I don't know anything of what's happening on the ground over there. *But as I understand it, there's no activity on HD in Europe because there's no agreement on a broadcast standard yet. *I guess the BBC had some sort of limited test HD channel that didn't succeed too well.

So the EBU is preparing to make a final recommendation/standard that most/all European broadcasters will likely follow. *And the only thing I've gathered from them is that there's a strong leaning towards 720p, but that they don't intend to support both resolutions (1080 and 720).

Now, some people say "what's the point of 720, we already have 576 widescreen and that's close enough". *And it may be. *1280x720 is only about twice as many pixels as 720x576, although that discounts the progressive effect; 720p pushes 4.44 times as many pixels per second through the TV as PAL does. *So it really is high-def.

If the EBU approves 720 as the broadcast standard for Europe, I've got to wonder where that leaves Sony's FX1 and all their other 1080 gear -- obviously with a still very-strong US and Japanese market (and international filmmaking market), but Europe is a significant market as well. *I don't think Sony makes any 720p product, do they? *Panasonic makes both, I think. *So Panasonic can go either way, although they're pushing hard for 720p. *But FX1E owners will be left kind of orphaned if the HDTV standard becomes 720p, I'd guess.

[Shaw]

Interesting. Does anyone know what's going on in the US with regard to HD standards?

[Barry_Green]

HD standards are set, and some stations are already broadcasting. *The US adopted the ATSC recommendations, which provide for 18 forms of digital broadcasting, six of which are HDTV, some are SDTV, and some are EDTV.

The HDTV modes that are approved and airing are 1080 at 24p, 30p and 60i, and 720 at 24p, 30p or 60p.

The EDTV modes are all progressive-scan, 480 lines, at either 640 or 704 pixels across, either 16:9 or 4:3, at 24p, 30p, or 60p.

The SDTV modes are all 480 interlaced lines, either 704 or 640 pixels across, either 16:9 or 4:3.

[Shaw]

Ah, ok. Thanks for the great info and fast response Barry!

[combatJJ]

Barry,

Do you know the exact date that all tv is supposed to be HDTV? I've heard lots of different dates. Thanks

[Barry_Green]

Yes. Never.

There is no mandate towards HDTV.

There is a government-mandated transition towards DIGITAL television, but that doesn't mean HDTV. Digital television means the signal is broadcast digitally, not analog-ly. Broadcasters can broadcast standard-def video digitally and be in complete compliance with the FCC.

There is no mandate towards HDTV. This country may never convert to HDTV, it all remains to be seen. HDTV is a form of digital broadcasting, but of the 18 ATSC digital broadcast standards, 12 of them are *not* HDTV.

Now, about digital broadcasting: they'd originally targeted the end of 2006, but that date keeps getting shifted, and the last I heard there was a loophole that said that 85% of the country had to be able to receive digital broadcasts.

I don't know when it'll happen, or if it'll happen. I still think that Joe and Jane Sixpack out there have no idea that the government's planning on making all their televisions quit working one day, and that they'll have to throw out every TV set they own (or buy expensive receiver boxes). I think they'll be kind of upset when they find out. And I think that'll weigh on congressmen's minds when they go to cast the vote. So, we'll see whether we ever discontinue analog broadcasting, and if the country does adopt HDTV. Right now broadcasters can broadcast HDTV signals, but something like only 7% of the households in america can display an HDTV signal, and an even smaller subset of them could actually *receive* that HDTV signal (because a lot of HDTV sets were sold without tuners in 'em).

[Jan_Crittenden]

From info I have , 720p will be sidelined as soon as the 1080 Varicam is released.

Europe will not go for the 720p standard. *It isn't enough of a leap over current widescreen PAL transmissions.


Simon, this is totally untrue. The AJ-HDX400 will be introduced and the the Varicam will be selling right along side of it. 1080i or 720P, customers choice.

FWIW,

Jan

[Johan_Lundberg]

Actually the tech-freak can watch HD in Europe already:

http://www.hd-1.tv

;)

[Anhar_Miah]

yea, good 'ol euro1080 (is that still running?) i remeber posting about this months ago!