PDA

View Full Version : Sony V1 & FX7 - UPDATE: 24P in NTSC Model!



mikkowilson
09-10-2006, 10:18 AM
UPDATE 9/19: The NTSC (USA) Model has been annouced, it includes 24p and 30p. Details directly from Sony here: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/index.html (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/index.html)


Ok, I had a good chat with the folks over at Sony this morning.

http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/photos/Day3Gallery/images/IMG_3781.jpg
The Sony V1 with the DR60 onboard

As I reported by text message, the sensors between the cameras are identical.

Here's the specs on the EUROPEAN models.:
3 x 1/4" CMOS sensors, 1080 x 960 each.
They have a new iterpolation method to improve quality.
The cameras are 1 stop slower than the Z1
Both cameras shoot at 50i. (ONLY) the V1 also shoots at 25p.

There is NO word from Sony Europe about the US model. They simply could not say. So speculation may continue as to the progressive framerates of the NTSC V1.

The cameras seem prety user friendly, and the footage that was shown is nice and clean.

They are approximaly similar in size & weight to the PD170, except that the weight is furthur back.


I also checked out the DR60 hard drive recorder.
Holds 60GB an can talk (with full onscreen menus!) with the V1 and FX7 (but not older models) over firewire and can do syncro tape & drive recording. Or it cna run independantly. I don't know if it works on non-sony cameras.

Some of it's sellign points over other units are that it had built in shock protection - if you drop it, it will sense the fall and dock the heads and brace for impact.
It also is very ncie and small, and low power consumption - it'll run 9 hours (!) on a standard Sony battery! It is powered by Sony L series camera batteries or an external power supply, but it can't be powered by the camera. Unfortunatly is does not function as a battery charger.

- Mikko

Fugitive
09-10-2006, 10:53 AM
Thanks for all the info Mikko. We needed that. :)

Allright, so my interest level on this camera has fallen, considerably. The resolution, and well as latitude is lower than the z1/FX1. The FX1 is cheaper as well. About the only reason one would want this might be the 25p, but even that isnt such a big deal since the higher resolution of the FX1E would provide a nicer interpolated 25p conversion.

About the only two redeeming features at the moment seem to be the shock resistance (pretty cool!), and the lower weight.

The dark horse would be the CMOS chips. Lets see how they perform, regardles of the smaller sensor size, as well as lower resolution. Dont really expect muchm but lets see anyways.

mikkowilson
09-11-2006, 02:30 AM
Aah, one thing I fergot to mention..

The FX1 is beeing phased out (again, at least in Europe), availabilety will vary from country to country. Want an FX1? better be quick!

The Z1 however is slated to remain in the line for now.


The chips in the V1 and FX7 are the SAME resolution as the FX1 & Z1


- Mikko

Fugitive
09-11-2006, 03:06 AM
FX1 has the same resolution as the V1? That cant be right. The V1 is only 1080 x 960, while FX1 is 1080i.

mikkowilson
09-11-2006, 04:11 AM
The chips are the same resolution, only smaller a and CMOS in the new cams. The way the signal is proccessed is different.

- Mikko

Zim
09-11-2006, 06:27 AM
did they mention a price? I guess they won't say anything about US prices. Can you get some footage to post?

Zim
09-11-2006, 08:10 AM
I was told no news, no price yet, no idea if or when. No idea about frame rates etc. But I was told V1a.

mikkowilson
09-11-2006, 09:22 AM
There's a photo in the Day 3 gallery of one of the rep's cheat sheet which lists approximate European Prices.

There is NO information on American models.

- Mikko

Zim
09-11-2006, 09:52 AM
There's a photo in the Day 3 gallery of one of the rep's cheat sheet which lists approximate European Prices.

There is NO information on American models.

- Mikko

There saving it for another day. The Sony person told me the European prices mean nothing to the USA price.

Barry_Green
09-11-2006, 10:11 AM
FX1 has the same resolution as the V1? That cant be right. The V1 is only 1080 x 960, while FX1 is 1080i.
The V1 is 960x1080.
The FX1 is 960x1080.

Blowup
09-11-2006, 12:18 PM
Thanks for that report ... have you been able to determine how effective and/or clean the gain is on these new cameras? The gain on the Z1 is nice and clean but the gain on the HC1 is pretty noisy, and since the latter is a CMOS camera, I'm expecting that the gain on the V1 / FX7 may also be noisy ... which would be unfortunate since a clean gain is the only hope this camera has for event videographers ...

Barry_Green
09-11-2006, 12:24 PM
Hey Mikko...

... howzabout snagging some furtive footage of a V1 vs. a Z1? :evil:

mikkowilson
09-11-2006, 02:58 PM
You read my mind Barry, will try tommorrow.
Lets see if I can get two "first footage"s in one show.

- Mikko

Tibby
09-11-2006, 04:07 PM
I would love to see what 3-Chip CMOS Progressive looks like.

Zim
09-11-2006, 04:25 PM
I would love to see what 3-Chip CMOS Progressive looks like.

me too.

Fugitive
09-11-2006, 11:53 PM
Me three.

esp
09-12-2006, 03:13 AM
A few more informations for the V1 direct from IBC*

The resolution is 800 lines compared to 650 of the Z1.

zoom: 37.4-748 (35mm equivalent).

1080lines in 25p mode compared to 540 lines in CF24 of Z1.

211K LCD compared to 250K LCD of the Z1.

Additions over the Z1 are: camera profile, TC link, smooth slow recording, still picture.

8h recording time with NP-F970

List price Euro 4600.

*according to Sony.


From what I understood, the FX1 will stop selling but the Z1 will continue to be an alternative.

My prediction: Z2 by IBC 2007, maybe by NAB 2007.

Hideaki Anno
09-12-2006, 07:04 AM
Any chance to see the slowmode too?

kezza
09-12-2006, 06:42 PM
[QUOTE=mikkowilson]Ok, I had a good chat with the folks over at Sony this morning.

http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/photos/Day3Gallery/images/IMG_3781.jpg
The Sony V1 with the DR60 onboard

Looks the goods.
So u are saying its small.... do we have a picture of someone holding the thing so i can compare to y Fx1.
The reason is that size will be the deciding factor when gettin my next camera... sounds silly but snowboarding needs a small camera so i can ride as wel as film.
HEAPS bigger then the HDR-A1P? and is the FX7 gonna be cheaper then the V1
Mitch

Barry_Green
09-12-2006, 07:29 PM
So u are saying its small.... do we have a picture of someone holding the thing so i can compare to y Fx1.
It's about 30% smaller, and 40% lighter, than the FX1 according to Sony.

mikkowilson
09-13-2006, 06:11 AM
I don't (think I) have a comparrison picture of the V1/FX7 and the Z1/FX1. But the new ones are slightly notably smaller. - and that hard drive (which I was actually referign to) is tiny!

They are much bigger than the A1 - and I'd be hesitant to use the XLR block of the A1 snowboarding as the mount isn't super strong, plus the benefits of a handle for shooting on teh slops is a big plus. (I ski, and used to shoot skiing with a XM1/GL1)

Yes the FX7 will be cheaper than the V1 - there's a photo in one of the galleries of an approximate pricelist.

- Mikko

StMad
09-15-2006, 03:44 AM
New camera scoops, first rate steadicam support...what more could a forum ask? Hats off, Mikko.

On the subject of skiing, have you ever been downhill with the Merlin? :)

mikkowilson
09-15-2006, 04:36 AM
On the subject of skiing, have you ever been downhill with the Merlin? :)

Only got my Merlin this spring ... so no, not yet.


Thanks for the kind words :)


- Mikko ... is waiting for snow.

dvpixl
09-19-2006, 09:43 AM
and so the US version is now announced according this to this article?

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/sony_hvrv1u_09192006/

mikkowilson
09-19-2006, 09:46 AM
24P! (all together now) IT'S ABOUT FECKING TIME!


- Mikko ... looking for confirmation...

mikkowilson
09-19-2006, 09:48 AM
And yes, Confirmed directly from Sony: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/index.html

- Mikko

dvpixl
09-19-2006, 09:50 AM
oh wow, that's on the sony site? looking at it now, it's certainly a neat toy.


I wonder if the record speed(dunno how to call that- sony's record buttons are fast-) is as fast on 24p as the pd170 is....

mikko?

ZzBog
09-19-2006, 10:24 AM
Can anybody compare that V1u with HVX200?? Is this a serious competitor from Sony?

William_Robinette
09-19-2006, 10:36 AM
Can anybody compare that V1u with HVX200?? Is this a serious competitor from Sony?

No, they will be bought by completely different consumers I should think.

dvpixl
09-19-2006, 10:39 AM
yeah...good for high quality weddings and events.

but im curious about the 24p on this.

it sure costs buttload though.


Does anyone know if the record button hit speed on this thing is fast? I'm thinking it should be since it's direct to disk as well... and ..should be fast... anyone?

Zim
09-19-2006, 10:52 AM
it is a "suggested" price. The Z1U was higher but then dropped when it first came out.

They might price just alittle higher than the Canon A1.

Andreas
09-19-2006, 11:29 AM
Still not regreting buying my FX1E, this not saying those new models have nothing new to offer, on the contrary, I can't wait to see whats next. SONY got the mesage all right ! By the way whats the price ?

Andreas

Barry_Green
09-19-2006, 11:31 AM
4800 MSRP, and 1800 for the hard disk recorder.

filmmaker1977
09-19-2006, 12:10 PM
and so the US version is now announced according this to this article?

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/sony_hvrv1u_09192006
i liked that:

«Sony invented 24p six years ago when it developed the HDW-F900 HDCAM camcorder at the behest of George Lucas, who wanted to shoot Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III in a digital medium. But Panasonic and JVC have more fully exploited 24p capabilities across their professional camcorder lines. »

it's true.. and now?.. what will we have to the future?.. sony is coming to get their candy from the matsushi*a hands?

Zack Birlew
09-19-2006, 03:21 PM
You know, I like the idea of true 24p on a Sony HDV camera, but it makes buying a new camera all the more difficult, heck, we've got people who are still trying to decide between an HVX200 or a JVC HD100U-series camera!

I can't wait to see all the threads trying to decide between the HVX200, JVC HD100U-series, Canon A1, G1, Sony V1, FX7, Z1U, A1U, and RED.

Better strap on your guns, Barry, once all these new cameras come out, I think people are going to want yet another shootout!:thumbsup:

Illya Friedman
09-19-2006, 04:08 PM
i liked that:

«Sony invented 24p six years ago when it developed the HDW-F900 HDCAM camcorder at the behest of George Lucas, who wanted to shoot Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III in a digital medium. But Panasonic and JVC have more fully exploited 24p capabilities across their professional camcorder lines. »

it's true.. and now?.. what will we have to the future?.. sony is coming to get their candy from the matsushi*a hands?
I'm not possitive Digital Content Producer got it right. I seem to remember seeing an Academy Award over at Laser Pacific for 23.98p/2:3 pulldown.

I.

Ed Kishel
09-19-2006, 04:16 PM
footage from the V1U:

http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/sony/firstlookv1u.php

its getting warm in here :)

Barry_Green
09-19-2006, 04:24 PM
Better strap on your guns, Barry, once all these new cameras come out, I think people are going to want yet another shootout!:thumbsup:
Er, not likely. I've had enough pain in my life due to those stupid shootouts...

I think the only way it could be done is if all footage was judged absolutely anonymously -- people having no idea which it came from. And there should be an official representative from each company along, preferably a camera engineer and not a marketing guy.

And besides, it's nearly impossible to compare products anyway. How do you weigh one's tapeless system against another's interchangeable lens? How do you account for variable frame rates and 1080/720 mode up to 60p, when another one only does 720, and the other one only does interlace? It's impossible and it just leads to people getting ugly and making nearly-actionable statements.

With that said, there's actually almost a comparison that could be done fairly this time -- V1U vs. XHA1. Same basic design, same 20x zoom range, same HDV recording format, somewhat similar price range, it's about as apple-to-apple as you can get...

AuditoryVisuals
09-19-2006, 04:47 PM
Look at this (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/devices.html). Company A and Company B. You can just tell what cameras they are by the sensor resolution. ;)

Zack Birlew
09-19-2006, 04:52 PM
I hate those comparisons like that, the ones that are ridiculously false. I especially hate the HD vs. SD videos played on TV's in stores to show the difference between them, the SD is obviously way out of focus yet the HD is crystal clear, it's just so faked!

db20
09-19-2006, 07:30 PM
So is 1/3 ccd suppose to be the equivalent of 1/4 cmos sensors? What are the positives/ negatives of using cmos chip instead of ccd chip?

SergejIvanovits
09-19-2006, 07:35 PM
The only comparison test which could matter is the "show me the best you can do with your camcorder" test.

Those shootouts was just waisting the time. To try to make one camcorder act like it was an other one, to use so much time to adjust a Sony or Canon to act like a ... what ever camcorder, it is just not right. I mean one of the DP's job is to have control over the light both outside of the camera and inside of the camera.
Only a tourist with his palmcorder has to accept the given lightnings situation.

Fugitive
09-20-2006, 02:19 AM
Hmmm...I like that idea. "Show me the best you can do with your camcorder" test...

Then again, different people would define "best" differetnly. For some, a scene would be better off with more contrast, while othersw would have preferred a warmer tone, and so on, and so forth!

SergejIvanovits
09-20-2006, 04:34 AM
If you are in the news business than broadcasters know what the best is... if you are in the art, film, movie business than you can have many different look ( I'm not talking about CC ) but everyone can get an idea what the best your camcorder can do if you are making the "show me the best... " test.

Tzedekh
09-20-2006, 06:47 AM
No, they will be bought by completely different consumers I should think.I disagree. There will probably be significant overlap. Both have 24p, which appeals to indie filmmakers. If the image is as good as initial reports claim, I expect the V1u will also be popular with TV DPs as a "B" camera (as is the Z1, HD-100, and HVX200).

philnerd
09-20-2006, 07:42 AM
<snip>I mean one of the DP's job is to have control over the light both outside of the camera and inside of the camera.
Only a tourist with his palmcorder has to accept the given lightnings situation.

Yeah, like those silly wedding and event videographers. Bah, tourists all of them!

NewYorkLion
09-20-2006, 08:41 AM
Only a tourist with his palmcorder has to accept the given lightnings situation.

umm, yeah that's just a little bit of a mis-statement there. As a professional cam op, who shoots mostly docs and run and gun. I very often have to accept a given lighting situation.

That being said, I don't call my self a DP, nor would I agree with alot of the guys who say they are DPs, but that is an entirely different thread isnt it?

Fugitive
09-22-2006, 12:52 PM
The V1 is 960x1080.
The FX1 is 960x1080.

But the FX1 is interlaced, so that means it does a vertical pic twice. i.e, 960, and then another 960, giving a total of 1920x1080?

If thats the case (as i understand) then the fx1 theoretically still has higher resolution because it overall vertical resolution is higher as a summation of two seperate passes. The V1 on the other hand does a single "progressive" capture of 960 and then interpolates to 1440? Then whats the benefit over the FX1 since it could already get 960 by losing one field?

Aaargh, something isnt right with my logic there. Anyone is welcome to correct me.

Barry_Green
09-22-2006, 01:17 PM
960 is horizontal, and has nothing to do with vertical or interlacing.

1080 is vertical.

In interlaced, one 1440x540 field is pulled, then another 1440x540 field is pulled. The even lines are scanned, and then the odd lines. You never have one "frame" with both even and odd lines at the same time, you have two separate "fields", one that contains even, one that contains odd. The combined effect of them is to deliver an image with about 700 lines of vertical resolution.

In the progressive system the entire 960x1080 chip is scanned at once using an interpolation method to make it into 1920x1080. It will probably also have a vertical resolution of around 700 lines, all the HD cameras appear to be in the ballpark of 700 lines. The difference is, when the FX1 tries to simulate progressive scan it drops in resolution to around 540 lines, but the V1 shouldn't drop at all since it's inherently progressive.

Fugitive
09-23-2006, 01:06 AM
In interlaced, one 1440x540 field is pulled, then another 1440x540 field is pulled. The even lines are scanned, and then the odd lines.

So where does that leave the horizontal sensor resolution of the FX1 @ 960? shouldnt it be 1440 then?

MovieSwede
09-23-2006, 05:11 AM
Its 1440 due to Interpolation. A little different from pixelshift. But hey if it works that good, its okay with me.

Brings me wonder. If Sony managed to make a codec that supported 960*1080 4:4:4 and let us do the same interpolation in post. We had a very intresting camera.

Barry_Green
09-23-2006, 10:12 AM
The FX1 uses spatial offset ("pixel shift") on the horizontal axis. Just like the XHL1 does, just like the HVX does (except the HVX is both horizontal and vertical); just like most every camera does.

The V1U is different, it has 960x1080 as well but it uses a different method to get 960 up to 1920. The pixels are diagonal, for one thing, and Sony refers to it as an "interpolation" process.

Tzedekh
09-24-2006, 01:30 PM
It will probably also have a vertical resolution of around 700 lines, all the HD cameras appear to be in the ballpark of 700 lines. The difference is, when the FX1 tries to simulate progressive scan it drops in resolution to around 540 lines, but the V1 shouldn't drop at all since it's inherently progressive.According a post by esp, No. 17 (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=684591&postcount=17) in this thread, Sony claims 800 lines for the V1 vs. 650 for the Z1. Although no manufacturer is above hyping a product by citing results of tests optimized to yield inflated figures, I doubt Sony would intentionally do so at the Z1's expense. Is it possible that V1 is actually capable of a higher-resolution image than the Z1? If so, I can only imagine what a third-inch ClearVid chip will do.

Barry_Green
09-24-2006, 10:13 PM
We'll find out.

Fugitive
09-24-2006, 11:27 PM
Interesting times. All the better for the consumers.

esp
09-25-2006, 03:27 AM
According a post by esp, No. 17 (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=684591&postcount=17) in this thread, If so, I can only imagine what a third-inch ClearVid chip will do.

The numbers and differences I posted earlier were copied from a flipbook of a Sony engineer that was kind enough to let me read on the floor of the Sony booth at IBC.

There is no direct analogy between resolution and sensor size. For example there still cameras that sport 6MP sensors which are smaller than 1/4inch. The difference is in the low light capabilities (bigger sensor with same no of pixels means bigger pixels and thus better low light perfomance) and in the DOF.

The difference between the V1 and the Z1 is not the size of the sensor but the pixel shape. Z1 uses 960X1080 rectangular pixels while V1 uses 960X1080 square ones.
One other thing, is that Sony's V1 utilizes double pixels (960X1080) than Panasonic's HVX (960X540) in their effort to produce a progressive frame - albeit and a different interpolation - it is reasonable that they may produce a sharper image.

Tzedekh
09-25-2006, 05:52 AM
There is no direct analogy between resolution and sensor size. For example there still cameras that sport 6MP sensors which are smaller than 1/4inch. The difference is in the low light capabilities (bigger sensor with same no of pixels means bigger pixels and thus better low light perfomance) and in the DOF. Understood. In fact, "bigger sensor with same no of pixels means bigger pixels and thus better low light perfomance" holds only if the design and materials are the same. So, assuming the same basic design and materials but increased chip size, theoretically either the resolution can increase (more pixels at the same pixel size) or the light sensitivity can improve (larger pixels), or both can improve (somewhat larger pixels and more of them).

Fugitive
09-25-2006, 07:28 AM
Yes, that much is obvious. For us, one of the biggest reasons for wanting larger chip size (low-cost 2/3 chip is ideal!) is due to our ever-increasing apetite for shallower DOF. The V1's 1/4 chip size basically "increases" DOF even further, which is a step backward.

In any event, there is a likelihood that if the image is that much better than the Z1, the V1 might still be a killer true-progressive camera. The cheapest true-progressive of the lot.

Hugh DiMauro
10-10-2006, 01:22 PM
In the following link, Sony's Bob Ott describes the V1's 24p in a way that confuses me as compared to my understanding of the DVX 100b's 24p. Is there a difference? And if so, what are the pros and cons?

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=67635

And here is an excerpt from a VI review:

The biggest feature you pay for with the extra $1,300--the V1U will run $4,800 when it ships in December--is progressive-scan support. That's for 1080 24p recording, however, not 720p or 1080p; like the FX7, the V1U records HDV 1080i footage.

Now I'm confused as hell.

Barry_Green
10-10-2006, 03:14 PM
There's confusion regarding this. Part of the confusion is the way he chose his words. What he's saying is that it doesn't do 720p at all. Secondly, he's saying that while it scans progressively, it does not record progressive frames. It only records an interlaced 60i data stream. So the progressive footage gets split into fields and some fields get duplicated, in order to pad a 24-frame progressive sequence into becoming a 60-field interlaced sequence.

The DVX, XL2, and other 24p cameras can do the same thing; recording their 24p images within a 60i data stream.

So that part's not worrisome. Some other things Mr. Ott has said have been worrisome; he said that the "big difference" between CineFrame 24 and real 24p is primarily just the shutter speeds you can select(!) I'd like to chalk that up to him maybe not understanding the technology or something, but now on DVInfo.net Simon Wyndham has posted progressive & interlace footage showing that the Sony's progressive is noticeably softer/lower res than its interlaced footage. That's not a positive sign.

I still think they are doing genuine progressive, but frankly I wouldn't put it past 'em for them to be doing some manner of 24F processing either. I won't know for sure until I get my hands on it.

MovieSwede
10-11-2006, 07:39 AM
If the Sony does have true 24P, Ott have done one of the worsta PR mistake I could think of.

"When you edit in 24-frame, the concept is that you're going to transfer this to film. But what we're finding is, a high percentage of users aren't bothering to go to film -- they go right to video. So what's nice is you don't have to go through this process, the extra mechanics of taking it from 60i to 24p look, to true 24p, or whatever you want to call that 24-frame look. You don't have to go through all those processes. You can edit it in the 60i mode, using existing technology.
"

At least there is hope for the European model.

Hugh DiMauro
10-11-2006, 08:09 AM
Thanks, Barry. I'm still very much in lust with my DVX 100b and your book. The way I feel, if a genie pops out of a bottle and grants me one camera wish, it'll be the VariCam. Something about how "Matsushita" just rolls off my lips...

Mmmmmm. Mattttssssuuuuuushiiiiiiitaaaaaaa!

HEY! Look how DVX User automatically adds an asterisk to any word it deems inappropriate! It didn't like the "shit" in MatsuSHITa! COOL!

DavidBeier
10-11-2006, 01:45 PM
This is so bizarre. Everyone praises the CineAltas for their 24p but Sony seems to be having so many issues on the consumer level. Statements like the one Swede and Barry posted make it hard to tell whether its real 24p or not since the guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about. It reminds me of when I was doing some shooting with the Z1 for a documentary and, when I told the guy in charge that I was partial to Panasonic because of it's 24p, he said, "why do you want to pay more money for flicker?" Two years ago in school I had a professor, by far the stupidest one I have ever had, who said he didn't like 24p motion from the DVX because, "It looks like it's trying to be film. It's not the same motion as film but it's trying." I really should check back with these guys and see if they're Sony PR people now.


When you edit in 24-frame, the concept is that you're going to transfer this to film. But what we're finding is, a high percentage of users aren't bothering to go to film -- they go right to video. So what's nice is you don't have to go through this process, the extra mechanics of taking it from 60i to 24p look, to true 24p, or whatever you want to call that 24-frame look. You don't have to go through all those processes. You can edit it in the 60i mode, using existing technology.

Can someone send him the section in Barry's DVX book where it explains the difference between 24p and 24pA? I think this guy would really benafit.

I really don't get why this is so confusing. Why can't they either do the Pansonic/JVC route and say, "we're using progressive chips and true 24p motion," or be like Canon and say, "we're using interlaced chips for simulated 24p but the motioin is far better than before and now near identical to true 24p." It's not so hard.

Tzedekh
10-11-2006, 02:08 PM
Simon Wyndham has posted progressive & interlace footage showing that the Sony's progressive is noticeably softer/lower res than its interlaced footage. That's not a positive sign.

I still think they are doing genuine progressive, but frankly I wouldn't put it past 'em for them to be doing some manner of 24F processing either. I won't know for sure until I get my hands on it.If the frames start out progressive, then, as you said, an interlace signal is created by splitting the progressive frames into fields, with interlaced judder frames synthesized to bring the number up to 30. So there would be no need to combine interlaced fields to yield 24 fps and then either apply intelligent deinterlacing or simply throw out half the fields. All that would be necessary would be to discard the judder frames and then recombine the previously progressive frames. If progressive footage is consistently softer, then it sounds as if data are being discarded or something else odd is going on.

Barry_Green
10-11-2006, 03:05 PM
I really don't get why this is so confusing. Why can't they either do the Pansonic/JVC route and say, "we're using progressive chips and true 24p motion," or be like Canon and say, "we're using interlaced chips for simulated 24p but the motioin is far better than before and now near identical to true 24p." It's not so hard.

In a void where this is their only product, that would be not so hard, true. But Sony has other products and they probably have to try to toe an imaginary line. What about the thousands of FX1s and Z1s out there with CineFrame 24? If they acknowledge that 24p is "better", do they have furious existing customers?

What about XDCAM-HD? That's all interlaced-only stuff. Sure it claims "24p" but it's interlaced chips. If they say "progressive is better" do they jeopardize all their hoped-for XDCAM-HD sales?

They're behind an 8-ball, and I don't envy them their position. But I am still puzzled. There has never been a 24p camera that produces sharper footage in interlaced than in progressive! It's always the other way around. So what is Sony doing? Are they doing an XDCAM-HD type of thing where it's actually interlaced? Or is it something as simple as dropping the edge-enhancement whenever you go into progressive mode (sort of like what Panasonic does when you choose CineGamma). I should ask Simon to test that, if he still has the camera.

By all rights, the footage should not get any softer when going to progressive. It should instead get sharper.

DVXDaddyO
10-11-2006, 07:57 PM
... There has never been a 24p camera that produces sharper footage in interlaced than in progressive! It's always the other way around...
By all rights, the footage should not get any softer when going to progressive. It should instead get sharper.

This is great news.

Isn't it equally true that all else being equal, 1080 will always be sharper (higher resolution) than 720?

Barry_Green
10-11-2006, 08:15 PM
Well, that's a much broader question. How are all other things equal? If we're talking about shooting on the same camera through the same lens at the same frame rate, then 1080/30p will be higher res than 720/30p and 1080/24p will be higher res than 720/24p.

But where the debate comes in is when we go to 60. Because there isn't a 1080/60p yet, but there is a 720/60p. So you have to compare 1080/60i vs. 720/60p, and there's a whole lot more room for debate there. 720/60p just looks better than 1080/60i in any high-motion sequence. On static/drama type shots, 1080/60i can look just fine. But for sports 720/60p just looks better.

Once there's a 1080/60p (which is probably years in the future) then the debate between 720 and 1080 goes away; obviously 1080 would be better at that point. At the same progressive frame rate, more pixels = better. But when you have to go to interlacing to get the motion sampling higher (i.e., 1080/60i) the results aren't as good, and 720/60p holds an advantage there for many viewers.

Kyle Stebbins
10-11-2006, 09:15 PM
amazing. barry, your posts continue to be the most educational for me.

Jarek Zabczynski
10-11-2006, 11:55 PM
I hate those comparisons like that, the ones that are ridiculously false. I especially hate the HD vs. SD videos played on TV's in stores to show the difference between them, the SD is obviously way out of focus yet the HD is crystal clear, it's just so faked!

It's like when they showcase the quality of Monster Cable Component cable next to a standard cheapo composite cable to show how much better Monster Cable is. Gimmie 2 more of those cheapo composite cords and hook me in to the component and then lets try it again.

MarkG
10-13-2006, 03:58 AM
Isn't it equally true that all else being equal, 1080 will always be sharper (higher resolution) than 720?

If both were interlaced or both were progressive. yes... unfortunately the people who designed HD decided to go for a mix of interlaced and progressive modes. If you're doing a transfer from film then you only have 24fps progressive footage anyway so 1080i is almost always going to deliver more resolution, but from video it's more of a tossup: effectively it's 1280x720 at 60Hz vs 1920 (or 1440 anamorphic) x 540 at 60Hz.

The interlacing is particularly problematic now that so many TVs are progressive scan rather than CRTs, and can't handle interlaced footage natively.

MovieSwede
10-13-2006, 02:37 PM
They could in theory build a HVX200a with 1080P 60FPS.

It already handle that in camera, but it isnt compatible with DVCPROHD standard. But if they place that in the 60i stream where 2 seconds is 1 real second. Then you correct it in post. Sound is another issue.

And it aint fun with 2gb/min on the p2 card.

Bogdan
10-13-2006, 08:22 PM
But first HVX would need to be 1080p camera. For now, it's 720p and 1080 is interpolated by the image processor. 720p is its native mode.

We will have to wait a little for true 1080p 24, 25 and 30fps in this price range, let alone higher frame rates. Even $25k Sony F350 does not go above 30fps with full 1080p resolution.

Barry_Green
10-13-2006, 09:29 PM
But first HVX would need to be 1080p camera. For now, it's 720p and 1080 is interpolated by the image processor. 720p is its native mode.
You're wrong. 1080 looks better than 720. Its native mode is 1080, 720 is made by downrezzing its 1080 image.

Bogdan
10-13-2006, 09:58 PM
You're wrong. 1080 looks better than 720. Its native mode is 1080, 720 is made by downrezzing its 1080 image.

Well, the last time I visited Panasonic's website, they called 720p HVX's native mode :) I agree, 1080 looks slightly better than 720p (by saying 720p was native mode I didn't mean something different), but it's far from what we should expect from 1080p camera. HVX is a great cam, but imho it should be called what it really is and it's not 1080p camera. It's capable of recording 1080p, but does not capture that resolution.

dvpixl
10-14-2006, 12:58 AM
i wasn't sure reading the specs on the sony site but will their 24p mode have their famous GAIN capabilities as well?

MovieSwede
10-14-2006, 01:12 AM
Well, the last time I visited Panasonic's website, they called 720p HVX's native mode :) I agree, 1080 looks slightly better than 720p (by saying 720p was native mode I didn't mean something different), but it's far from what we should expect from 1080p camera. HVX is a great cam, but imho it should be called what it really is and it's not 1080p camera. It's capable of recording 1080p, but does not capture that resolution.

Well by that standard, HVX200 is as much a 1080P cam as DVX100 and XL2 is a 480P/576P cam. They all record to a interlace signal. But they can all extract a true progressive footage in post.

With the new Sony it is different, it cant extract a true progressive footage in post.

EDIT Sorry missread you, but the capture is 1080P because thats how it works interanally in the cam. Or else the XL1 wouldnt be a SD cam.

DavidBeier
10-14-2006, 11:42 PM
Well, the last time I visited Panasonic's website, they called 720p HVX's native mode :) I agree, 1080 looks slightly better than 720p (by saying 720p was native mode I didn't mean something different), but it's far from what we should expect from 1080p camera. HVX is a great cam, but imho it should be called what it really is and it's not 1080p camera. It's capable of recording 1080p, but does not capture that resolution.

What's true resolution? No camera is capible of capturing a full 1920x1080 lines that I know of. In progressive mode, the XLH1 and Z1 can't capture as much resolution as a strong 720p camera like the Varicam. Even in 1080i they aren't able to capture the full 1000 vertical lines that a 1080p big boy like the CineAlta or Genisis can. All of the cameras 1080 modes is not the best 1080p. I think we all know this. The HVX200 on the other hand displays more detail in 1080p mode (about 20% by most conervative estimates), has much less compression, and does all its processing in a 1920x1080 signal. Hence, a 1080p designation. I'm not saying I think the 1080p performance is great. I think of it more as a 720p camera myself but if you're going to quibble over the term with the HVX200 you might as well do so with all the other cams under 100k.

MovieSwede
10-15-2006, 01:17 AM
Just look at the facts.

HVX200 produce more detail in 1080P mode than in 720P mode. So by my calculations it produce a better image than "luma 960*720 chroma 480*720".

Of course thats will make it better than the varicam?. Is it better? No. Why? because image is more then techspecs.

DavidBeier
10-15-2006, 10:05 AM
^
I'd happily trade the HVX200's 1080p mode for the Varicam's 10 stops of lattitude any day.

Bogdan
10-15-2006, 05:24 PM
What's true resolution? No camera is capible of capturing a full 1920x1080 lines that I know of. In progressive mode, the XLH1 and Z1 can't capture as much resolution as a strong 720p camera like the Varicam.

My point wasn't 1920x1080 but rather marketing standards. I don't like advertising campaigns of some companies trying to convince the masses their products belong to certain group e.g. 1080p class while in fact they don't. FX1, Z1, V1, XL-H1, XH-A1, XH-G1, HVX200, GY-HD100 and 110 are all HD camcorders, but none of them has right to be called 1080p.

I never said XL-H1 was 1080p cam. Canon advertises it as 1080i-resolution camera. At least they are honest. They give us progressive-like F mode without telling us it's 1080p. They included native HDV2 resolution (1440x1080i) CCDs and the camera delivers what it promises.

OK, you may claim HVX is 1080p camera. Thinking this way, JVC GY-HD 100 could be also 1080p because it produces slightly sharper images than HVX200 and only things it needs to be advertised as that is higher sampling frequency and 1080p recording capability.

In my humble opinion, Canon and JVC are the only two companies of the bunch honest about their products. Canon advertises H1, A1 and G1 as 1080i resolution cams and includes native HDV2 resolution (1440x1080i) sensors. JVC advertises HD-GY100 cameras as 720p and includes native HDV1 resolution (1280x720p) sensors. I know, color space and codec is important, but no codec in this world can turn HVX200 into 1080p camera.

If HVX200 were able to sample signal from its 960x540 CCDs with high enough frequency, encode it and then record it to P2, it could even be 4k camcorder and I'm sure, that "4k" mode would look slightly better than 1080p :)

DavidBeier
10-15-2006, 07:56 PM
My point wasn't 1920x1080 but rather marketing standards. I don't like advertising campaigns of some companies trying to convince the masses their products belong to certain group e.g. 1080p class while in fact they don't.

Yet it is used by pros in that class for that reason. The 1440 shot on the 1080p CineAlta used the HVX200 for a variety of shots and noted that they matched up quite nicely with the proper settings. Several big films have also used it. The bottom line is that many pros are using it with other 1080p cams and I havn't been hearing any complaints.


OK, you may claim HVX is 1080p camera. Thinking this way, JVC GY-HD 100 could be also 1080p because it produces slightly sharper images than HVX200 and only things it needs to be advertised as that is higher sampling frequency and 1080p recording capability.

And no doubt JVC WOULD call it a 1080p camera if it actually outputted in 1080p mode. As it stands though, it doesn't.


In my humble opinion, Canon and JVC are the only two companies of the bunch honest about their products. Canon advertises H1, A1 and G1 as 1080i resolution cams and includes native HDV2 resolution (1440x1080i) sensors. JVC advertises HD-GY100 cameras as 720p and includes native HDV1 resolution (1280x720p) sensors. I know, color space and codec is important, but no codec in this world can turn HVX200 into 1080p camera.

Once again, people who probably know a lot more about cameras and probably make a lot more money than you do disagree. It seems many are more interested than the image than in resolution charts. In their case, having a clean 1080p image that looks good to them and is in the mild DVCProHD codec is more important than one with a bit more detail but in subpar HDV compression especially with many NLEs not supporting things like 24f. Once again, to most resolution charts don't mean a lot.

If HVX200 were able to sample signal from its 960x540 CCDs with high enough frequency, encode it and then record it to P2, it could even be 4k camcorder and I'm sure, that "4k" mode would look slightly better than 1080p :)[/quote]

Less compressed but I doubt you'd get more resolved detail. You do get a bit more detail in 1080p. First off, read the article on how pixel shifting works because it's quite a bit more than just sampling the 960x540 CCDs and can in fact add resolution to the image (theoretically up to 1440x810). Second, I think your logic is just plain off. If you went ahead and just sampled the Canon at 720 (if there were some 720i signal) then it wouldn't be all that higher rez than a decent 720p camera. The mighty XL1 did pixel shifting and didn't even have full 720x480 CCDs. I certainly don't fault Canon for saying it was an SD camera. The bottom line is that, despite how the resolution was achieved, it looked acceptible to many in full 720x480 resolution and that's what it produced.

Bogdan
10-16-2006, 07:05 PM
Maybe my understanding is too technical and by the numbers.

I know HVX's images are mixed with CineAlta and that people like them. I like them too and I never claimed HVX should stay away from projects shot primarily on much more expensive equipment.

If the industry accepts less technical standards, than what can I do about that except for not buying certain equipment and saying I disagree?

Some 4 or 6-cylinder cars perform almost like some 8-cylinder cars, but it does not make them 8-cylinder cars :)

I know very well how pixel shift works and I know its worst limitation in handling of images with dominant primary colors. I've seen it so many times in XL1 (which I owned and liked very much despite that). I've seen it in HVX footage also. Nothing can be done about that when there is simply not enough resolution in each sensor. When images contain mix of all primary colors, pixel shift helps significantly to increase the resolution, but 50% is only theoretical maximum. In reality, it's a dynamic process and results depend on balance of the primary colors and their levels. In worst case scenario, pixel shift gains 0% increase of resolution.

Pixel shift may take you 1 step further (OK, maybe 1.2 steps with milder compression), but not 2 steps. That 1 step took XL1 and XL1s with sub-DV resolution sensors up to DV standard and it takes HVX from 960x540 to 720p. Fact that 1080p mode looks better than 720p is primarily the result of higher sampling frequency in conjunction with more detailed approximation algorithm applied by the image processor. Practical advantages of horizontal and vertical pixel shift with 960x540 sensors above 720p level are minimal.

Edit: some last moment changes to minimize the risk of misunderstanding.

DavidBeier
10-17-2006, 10:17 PM
You're right that the results of shifting aren't always consistant but, at the end of the day, it can come up with something greater than 720p (theoretically) and hence it calls its better mode 1080p because it is recorded in the 1080p file format and does all calculations at that resolution. I repeat, plenty of pros consider it 1080p for those reasons and have no issues with how it's been marketed. The Canon doesn't measure up to the best 60i can do and the HVX200 doesn't measure up to the best 1080p can do. Once again, when talking about resolved detail, even in 108060i the canon barely manages any more resolution than a good 720p camera but it's still called 1080i. Hell, the Sony can't even manage that. The format is refering to the process and how it's stored. I'm sorry so many people seemed to be under the impression that this thing had 1920x1080 CCDs but if you really thought that then I don't think your expectations where realistic in the least. It outputs 1080p, hence it's capible of 1080p. It's a format issue not a number grinding one. All the HD cameras are listed by their output capabilities not their resolved detail numbers or CCDs. The few times the CCD specs are included are only as a bragging right when they are actually full rez. And once again, I'm sure if JVC decides to go ahead and use pixel shifting or just plain uprez in their next camera, even if it has the same sized chips, I don't think anyone will complain when they lable it 1080p.

Emanuel
10-19-2006, 07:49 AM
In my humble opinion, Canon and JVC are the only two companies of the bunch honest about their products.I fully agree. Actually, they were my first option after my former HVX interest and before the Silicon Imaging announcement and my RED ONE commitment.


(...) I know, color space and codec is important, but no codec in this world can turn HVX200 into 1080p camera.

If HVX200 were able to sample signal from its 960x540 CCDs with high enough frequency, encode it and then record it to P2, it could even be 4k camcorder and I'm sure, that "4k" mode would look slightly better than 1080p :)Very honest post, my congrats and :dankk2:

Clintizzle
10-19-2006, 10:09 PM
That Shock protection feature can either be a saving grace or a nightmare to a run-and-gun filmer. Sure it will dock its heads and brace for impact, thereby stopping recording and saving camera. but how is this helpful to any snowboard/skateboard/extreme sports filmer who is following behind someone at high speeds and the internal trigger is set off by either a jump or sudden drop movement? Boom camera turns off, recording stops.

Good sounding idea but if not implemented properly. could be hell

Bogdan
10-20-2006, 09:00 AM
I think it won't be that sensitive to dock the drum at this range of accelerations. Even skiing or snowboarding, forces that act on cameras people hold in hands are not that extreme, unless one really crashes or the cam is attached to the board.

I hope it's designed for hard impacts, when G forces are many times bigger due to sudden deceleration. It may also happen when the camera is hard framed to a bicycle or a truck, for example. Held in human hands, most likely shock protection will never engage. Anyway, who will dare to drop the camera on the floor to test it? :)

Fugitive
10-21-2006, 04:39 AM
Maybe the salesman? Well they should if they are honest anyway...

Bogdan
10-21-2006, 08:35 AM
It's not their job, but... sometimes some of them are so eager to sell Sony or Pana products it almost feels as if they worked for them, so maybe they should do that from time to time to convince customers...

One thing they rarely forget is "resolution drop" in Canon's F mode, despite the fact it's the sweetest "resolution drop" one can buy currently below $20k.

Elton
10-21-2006, 10:26 PM
One thing they rarely forget is "resolution drop" in Canon's F mode, despite the fact it's the sweetest "resolution drop" one can buy currently below $20k.

Sweetest resolution drop indeed. Here's a real world comparison of 1080i and 24F, and the perceivable res drop. And believe me, it's very tough to perceive a difference in actual motion material. Whatever 24F loses in static images, it makes up for in filmic motion and progressive rendering.

1080i:http://www.realm.cc/upload/Elton/Sisters1080i.jpg

24F: http://www.realm.cc/upload/Elton/Sisters24F.jpg

Damn, I love the DIGIC processing. :) More 24F: http://www.realm.cc/upload/Elton/SisPic1.jpg
http://www.realm.cc/upload/Elton/SisPic4.jpg

Virtual-one
10-22-2006, 07:22 AM
there is noise in the picture

Bogdan
10-22-2006, 08:22 AM
Beautiful images - thanks again Elton.

Dynamic range is impressive. At such a high contrasts, even DSLR cameras would be pushed to the limit.

Elton
10-22-2006, 08:30 AM
Thanks Bogdan :)

Noise in the images? Of course there's some--it's a friggin' 1/3" 1.67 MP sensor!

btw, yes, I did overexpose slightly on one of the girls faces as the sun was hitting her directly in late afternoon. The dynamic range of the camera is pretty dang good for how dense the sensor is.

Bogdan
10-22-2006, 08:41 AM
Plus the noise is perceived completely different way in motion than in static frames. In other words, it's less visible and more natural, like a film grain.
For clean, less organic look, there's always -3dB gain waiting to be dialed.

HVR-V1 is very nice move by Sony, but imo, 1/4" sensor size is a step in wrong direction. Such nice DOF effect as seen in Elton's examples will not be easy to achieve with V1 or FX7. Personally, I'd prefer Sony to include 1/3" sensors and larger lens even if the price jumped from $4.2k to $5.2k. Well, they have decided to go for more cost effective solution.

Elton
10-22-2006, 10:49 AM
You're exactly right about perceiving the noise differently in motion clips vs. static images.

I have a clip from that shoot posted over at DVInfo.net in the XL-H1 sample clips section. It's actually a tethered SDI shot captured to Sheer and transcoded to PhotoJPEG QT for cross-platform purposes. Slower pc's might not play it full motion, but faster macs/pc's should be able to handle it.

DavidBeier
10-22-2006, 09:26 PM
There's noise in all the cameras. Some great shots Elton.

rawfa
10-22-2006, 10:42 PM
Hey Elton, what is your name on dvinfo? I'm going to look for the clip. The grabs look amazing. Even the noise it has is not bad...it reminds me more of film grain than actual digital noise. I'm SO freaking excited about getting the A1!

Emanuel
10-22-2006, 10:45 PM
On the noise topic, as well about your pics Barlow, I agree with all these last posts.

EDIT -- Rafa, é Barlow Elton.

1 Abraço,
Emanuel

rawfa
10-22-2006, 10:45 PM
Never mind...BARLOW. ;-) I'm downloading the clip right now.

Elton
10-22-2006, 11:02 PM
I've still been testing the viability of lugging a G5 around. It's definitely workable for crewed shoots, but it's a PITA for one dude. ;-) Hopefully this CineForm/laptop express card thing happens. That will make a huge difference. It's quite reassuring to roll HDV tape while also recording nearly lossless SDI/analog output.

I did run some tape simultaneously so I'll post an m2t in a day or two. You'd be surprised how close in perceivable quality the HDV is. Skin tones and overall resolution are slightly improved with SDI, but it's the kind of thing that nobody but the most anal could ever care about. Also, there is definitely more latitude for cc with SDI 4:2:2, but in almost all cases the HDV is quite workable.

Greenscreen work, however, is where it makes a BIG difference. Not enough that you can't pull quality keys from HDV (if you know what you're doing) but it's super-easy to pull a really clean key from a nearly uncompressed 4:2:2 capture.

rawfa
10-23-2006, 12:13 AM
The footage looks great, Elton. Now stop teasing me because the A1 won't be available until mid november.

Bogdan
10-23-2006, 08:17 AM
Don't get too excited. You're not getting HD-SDI with A1, but HDV and uncompressed analog only ;-)

As far as keying is concerned, with HDV deartifacting applied and excellent luma resolution, I dare to say Canon rivals the competition, to say the least.

Elton
10-23-2006, 11:23 AM
As far as keying is concerned, with HDV deartifacting applied and excellent luma resolution, I dare to say Canon rivals the competition, to say the least.

Good point. With greenscreen, that very high luma sampling of HDV actually helps a great deal. It worked great on a friend's film, and that was recompressing HDV 24F to DVCPRO HD.

MovieSwede
10-24-2006, 02:18 AM
I was always on the impression high chroma helps with greenscreen...

Elton
10-24-2006, 07:55 AM
The Y (luma) signal is mostly green, so a high luma sampling using greenscreen is almost like pulling a luma key, rather than chroma.

Bogdan
10-24-2006, 10:05 AM
The Y (luma) signal is mostly green, so a high luma sampling using greenscreen is almost like pulling a luma key, rather than chroma.

Yes, that's true. G takes most of the weight in Y signal and with hi rez to start with, keying results can be very good with Canon's HDV. Sony V1 surely promises to deliver very nice results also.

John Trent
10-24-2006, 02:58 PM
Elton,

Thanks for the 1080i / 24f comparison. It's really quite impressive. I'd like to see some wide angle scenic comparisons. Trees really do seem to tell the story.

The CA or "fringe" I see, do you think is the price we pay for such resolution from 1/3" chip cameras with consumer lenses? In other words, an unavoidable trade-off. The problem doesn't seem compounded by using 24f. Have you noticed any different?

I have a question regarding the motion of 24f. I've heard that the f mode only field doubles + voodoo sometimes, leaving some of the frames or parts of the picture still interlaced. If true, this might explain why there is so little difference in the grabs. I also remember someone saying 24f has an interlaced feel. If this IS the case would a PAL model with just a straight 50i to 25f get rid of this effect? Could you please clear this up for me and others?

Thanks a lot.

Elton
10-24-2006, 04:11 PM
John,

There's no doubt that the stock lens has some CA/color fringing, particularly in different combinations of focal lengths and apertures. It's amazing how much people do fixate on the issue once it's been raised. I've played clips to many professionals numerous times and nobody ever talks about CA. It's when you pause and examine still frames that it becomes something even worth mentioning.

I think it's an unfortunate reality in the entire category. I've seen the same fringing issues in some V1 grabs and had to laugh a little. It's a curse because I believe the reality is it just won't matter to any audience.

There are some NLE plug-ins and even a Shake script that will massage away CA to some degree, but yes, I think this is just a reality of the category. Remember though, I posted a grab from Star Wars ROTS and it had obvious color fringing from a CineAlta and the best Fujinon HD lenses money can buy. To me, it's much ado about nothing. It's unfortunate that we can't have absolute perfection, but it is what it is.

About 24F: I don't think it actually field doubles. You saw the Z1U/XL-H1 comparison pics, right? The Z1U DEFINITELY field doubles in CineFrame modes, and it shows. I think Canon has more clever voodoo, and as Bogdan had mentioned (phase-clocked CCD's), I think they have a different way of scanning the CCD to render very progressive-looking results.

No interlaced feel at all, to my eyes.

It just works. :)

Bogdan
10-24-2006, 07:40 PM
John -

Actually the detail is quite impressive in Elton's examples. If you look at the fence in the background, you will notice a pattern of fine diagonal lines. XL-H1 resolved them very nicely, even though the focus was set on girls. Other cameras in this class would be in big trouble in this situation, not resolving enough resolution and suffering from aliasing.

For examples of some of the most stunning and beautiful images of nature made with XL-H1, look for posts submitted by disjecta, visit xlcinema.com forum or his website at http://www.pinelakefilms.com.

Elton
10-24-2006, 08:24 PM
I have a question regarding the motion of 24f. I've heard that the f mode only field doubles + voodoo sometimes, leaving some of the frames or parts of the picture still interlaced. If true, this might explain why there is so little difference in the grabs.

I've never seen deinterlace artifacts other than the slight res drop. It just doesn't happen, and that's why I think it's something else besides field doubling or even "smart deinterlacing". Even the best deinterlacing algorithms will have an interlaced hiccup here and there and show the temporal displacements. The F modes have never had this problem, and that's where I think the phase clocked theory has some credence. Bogdan could elaborate on this idea, I guess.

Maybe what you're referring to are pulldown frames?