Can tape/miniDV record 1080P footage?

[Snapper123]

I've read, from the best that I can understand Wikipedia, that neither Tape nor MiniDv can record native progressive footage onto it, from the camera.

But is this true?

 

[scapsinger]

Yes and no.

Yes, it is true that the tape doesn't natively support progressive recording. However, pulldown allows the image to be recorded in such a way so that they can later be played back or edited as progressive frames. This is coded in the data stream, or "tagged" so that your editor or playback device can display the video correctly.

It's basically a way of tricking the system into doing something that it cannot do. You and the display know what's going on, but that little video recorder or deck just plays back using the only process it understands.

 

[Snapper123]

So when you edit this pilldown footage and turn it into your final product, is there any quality loss?

Main reason I'm asking; I'm shooting a film that I plan on showing at higher end film festivals and I want to keep the option open for a small theater release as well (for indie theaters that specialize in it ). I'm also going to output the film to digital btw, not going for a filmout. I've found some amazing deals on ebay for *the really huge type* of tape and mini-dv cameras and I've been told by some people that those type of camera is in the end, what I would probably need because of extra features like gain controls and a few things not even an extremely high end consumer camcorder would have.

I just am cautious about tape and stuff though, I want to trust that it can be used for high end productions that will be stretched to the big screen, not just television shots like for the news or stuff...

 

[Snapper123]

Anyone have any details?

 

[Huy Vu]

Yes, it is true that the tape doesn't natively support progressive recording. However, pulldown allows the image to be recorded in such a way so that they can later be played back or edited as progressive frames. This is coded in the data stream, or "tagged" so that your editor or playback device can display the video correctly.

Not quite correct. Tape can support native progressive just fine. The Canon XH-A1 and the newer Sony tape cameras like the Z7U all support native 24p while recording to tape.

To the OP, don't worry about the quality. Films shot in standard def have been blown up to film and it looked fine. Sitting 10 ft away in a theater nobody can tell the difference.

 

[scapsinger]

There is no quality loss by capturing, if that's what you mean...DV footage is digital transfer, byte for byte.

Depending upon your output settings, you may have some lossiness, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what format you record in.

I'm not sure what to tell you about cameras...if your work is going to be shown on the big screens, you probably want to consider going to HD instead of SD. And yes, you will want to have a camera with full manual controls no matter what.

 

[scapsinger]

Not quite correct. Tape can support native progressive just fine. The Canon XH-A1 and the newer Sony tape cameras like the Z7U all support native 24p while recording to tape.

Aside from one or two variants of DVCPRO tape, there is no "native" support for progressive recording on ANY DV tape. That's why pulldown is used...to embed the progressively captured frames in the interlaced stream.

There's no doubt about it, the footage on the tape is always interlaced, but when it is played back, the pulldown method allows the progressive frames to be gleaned from the interlaced data.

The native progressive cameras (like the DVX and many others nowadays) do have native progressive sensors to capture the footage from the lens, but when that footage is laid down on the tape, it must be interlaced. That's the way the DV Blue Book specifications were written, there's no way to change that. Only pulldown lets you accomplish progressive footage upon playback.

 

[scapsinger]

To the OP, don't worry about the quality. Films shot in standard def have been blown up to film and it looked fine. Sitting 10 ft away in a theater nobody can tell the difference.

I would somewhat agree with the sentiment that most people can't tell the difference, but keep in mind that old adage of "garbage in, garbage out."

If you start with the highest quality, you have much more latitude during the entire production process. Only you can figure out the balance between your needs and your budget.

 

[Huy Vu]

I would somewhat agree with the sentiment that most people can't tell the difference, but keep in mind that old adage of "garbage in, garbage out."

If you start with the highest quality, you have much more latitude during the entire production process. Only you can figure out the balance between your needs and your budget.

I actually replied to the OP in another thread about this same question, and I qualified my response by saying that image quality is not as important as other features such as manual control. He can get a cheap SD camera like the DVX and be in better shape then with a consumer HD camera, which while is technically "better" is a worse choice for production.

There's no doubt about it, the footage on the tape is always interlaced, but when it is played back, the pulldown method allows the progressive frames to be gleaned from the interlaced data.

I don't mean using pulldown, I mean those footage are actually capture and output at 24 fps without having to strip out any excess frames. The A1 was the first to do this with its 24F footage (which I can testify is native 24p) and Sony followed suit with their sub sequence HDV cameras. They all record 24p natively on tape, no pulldown involved.

 

[scapsinger]

Huy Vu - I don't intend to be argumentative, but there are a few errors in what you are claiming.

First, as mentioned, ALL progressive footage that is captured to MiniDV tape uses pulldown. There is not a single exception for MiniDV tape because it is not supported by the spec. We are talking about a physical, mechanical operation. Of course, if anyone DID create a variant that recorded outside the standard spec, then it would be fine, except you would not be able to playback or capture those MiniDV tapes on a standard camera or deck.

Second, pulldown methods don't strip out any frames...the original image that is produced by a progressive chip or software within the camera is always recorded in full progressive frames WITHIN the interlaced fields onto the MiniDV tape. Pulldown preserves the frames in ALL implementations, so there is no concern with pulldown.

The Sony A1U (not the Canon A1) was the first HDV camera to produce progressive footage (at any frame rate). Keep in mind, this is HDV - this does not include the Varicam, DVX100 or any number of predecessors, nor does it include the higher end HD cameras that were producing progressive footage...only HDV (HD onto MiniDV) cameras.

Further, the Sony A1U used lower resolution CMOS chips capturing an interlaced image and then interpolated that image into a full frame HD image (and progressive, when selected). The Canon A1 went a little better with higher resolution chips, but the CCDs in the Canon A1 were still interlaced chips that used a frame method to create a progressive output.

None of this is to say anything about the actual quality of these cameras - it is superb, as most will attest. However, the technical issues shouldn't be misrepresented regardless of what is done in order to achieve progressive footage on the final product.

All of this information comes from the user manuals for these respective cameras, so I promise I'm not trying to make it up. I'm too lazy (the beach is literally 40 yards away, so no stress for me)

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

Huy Vu - I don't intend to be argumentative, but there are a few errors in what you are claiming.

First, as mentioned, ALL progressive footage that is captured to MiniDV tape uses pulldown. There is not a single exception for MiniDV tape because it is not supported by the spec. We are talking about a physical, mechanical operation. Of course, if anyone DID create a variant that recorded outside the standard spec, then it would be fine, except you would not be able to playback or capture those MiniDV tapes on a standard camera or deck.

Sorry, but there are HDV cameras out there that do record native progressive, with no pull down. The Canon HV40 is one of them.

Native 24p Mode:

This is a feature previously found only on Canon's professional camcorders. Native 24p Mode allows 24 frames per second, instead of the standard 60i, to be captured and recorded. It is a must for serious filmmaking work, as 24 frames per second is the frame rate of film.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...TabAct&fcategoryid=177&modelid=17996&pageno=6

 

[Huy Vu]

Second, pulldown methods don't strip out any frames...the original image that is produced by a progressive chip or software within the camera is always recorded in full progressive frames WITHIN the interlaced fields onto the MiniDV tape. Pulldown preserves the frames in ALL implementations, so there is no concern with pulldown.

I think you're a bit confused in what you're claiming here. I know what pulldown is and what it does. You're padding out the 24 progressive frames with 36 additional interlaced frames, and these other 36 frames are then stripped out in post to give you back the 24 progressive frame. What I'm saying is that there ARE cameras recording to tape 24 fps NATIVELY. That is, without any of those additional frames. I don't need to take them into an NLE to remove them to get me proper progressive footage.

The Sony A1U (not the Canon A1) was the first HDV camera to produce progressive footage (at any frame rate).

Not true. The A1U uses a "Cineframe" process that completely screws up the cadence for 24p. It's the equivalent of taking 60i and doing a really bad post conversion to 24p. It's not true progressive footage and has been debunked in an article comparing the FX1 and DVX in the Articles section (since the FX1 uses the same process). Of course this is neither here nor there (see below)

Further, the Sony A1U used lower resolution CMOS chips capturing an interlaced image and then interpolated that image into a full frame HD image (and progressive, when selected). The Canon A1 went a little better with higher resolution chips, but the CCDs in the Canon A1 were still interlaced chips that used a frame method to create a progressive output.

The A1 outputs true progressive 24p, even though it's interlaced chip (see the reams of threads discussing this back in 2006). In any case that's not what we're talking about. We don't care whether the chip is interlaced or progressive, what we're talking about is how those footages are RECORDED to tape. Sony A1U still records to a 60i stream, the A1 DOES NOT. A1 24F footage are completely pulldown free, no padding frame at all, period.

All of this information comes from the user manuals for these respective cameras, so I promise I'm not trying to make it up

Don't read the product manual. The manufacturers will straight out lie to you.

 

[scapsinger]

Huy Vu - pulldown does not work that way. There are no frames being "padded in." See here for an idea of what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3_pulldown

Point being, the original image information is maintained, it is simply spread into the interlaced fields of the successive frames once captured from the imager.

 

[Huy Vu]

Huy Vu - pulldown does not work that way. There are no frames being "padded in." See here for an idea of what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3_pulldown

Point being, the original image information is maintained, it is simply spread into the interlaced fields of the successive frames once captured from the imager.

That's basically what I said, you're taking the original 24 frames and turning it into 60 interlaced frames, hence "padding." Regardless, my original point is that it is possible to record native 24p to tape without this process.

 

[scapsinger]

I don't really like to continue pointing at Wikipedia to "prove" a point (since their info is not always entirely accurate due to the nature of that system). However, what I'm trying to say is stated plainly at the very first line of the section titled "Progressive recording" on the listing for DV tape. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DV#Progressive_recording

Or to save you from clicking on the link, it states "none of tape-based DV variants except for DVCPRO Progressive supports native progressive recording."

If you have any documentation that corroborates what you are claiming (non-interlaced data recorded onto the digital media tape) I would love to see it.

 

[Huy Vu]

If you have any documentation that corroborates what you are claiming (non-interlaced data recorded onto the digital media tape) I would love to see it.

I'll do you one better, I'll show it to you. Download the file below. This is a raw M2T file straight of a Canon XH-A1 camera, a take from a film I did last year, 1080p 24F. Captured using HDVsplit from tape, without any processing whatsoever. I've deliberately selected a clip with a fair amount of motion in it to demonstrate. Footage with pulldown will exhibit "teething" during motion when viewed on an external player since the interlaced frame has yet to be removed. As you can clearly see, when there is motion in this clip it blurs just as progressive footage should. Feel free to drop this into Premiere or any other software to confirm that the frame rate is in fact 23.976 and not 29.97 as it would be if there is pulldown embedded.

www.hiddendreammedia.com/Videos/JTM_-0054.m2t

 

[scapsinger]

Huy Vu - I don't think you understand at all. Of course the actual captured file on your computer ("raw" as you put it) will be fully progressive so long as it was recorded that way. Every single progressive capture camera (regardless of "native" capture or not) works exactly the same way. Once it's on your computer it is what it is. My whole point is that while it is on the TAPE media, the progressive frames are in interlaced format using the pulldown. All the time, every time.

The DVX, created in 2002(?) does the same thing. The XL2 does it. The Z1U does it. Any camera that has a progressive capability (as opposed to something like "frame" mode or "movie" mode) will do this same thing, and capture as a file with identical progressive tags as yours. A "raw" file captured from the DVX tape recorded in progressive modes yields a file on my hard drive that is progressive. The difference is the media. Hard drives have no specific requirements for frame rates on playback of video media. MiniDV tapes, however, have very strict requirements. That has been my point the whole while....tape tape tape. If I was unclear about that, I do apologize.

Don't know what you're talking about with teething...any display that is progressive will play back your progressive footage correctly. If you are recording progressive frames and seeing some sort of interlace distortion, it is very likely because you are viewing an interlaced display.

Just to reiterate...yes, I'm certain that if I dropped your FILE into Premiere it would show 23.976, which is exactly what has happened since the very first DVX came out. I do nothing special, just plug in the firewire and hit "batch capture." Premiere captures the file, sees the tags, and displays "23.976." This changes nothing about the fact that while on the tape, it is rolling along at 29.97.

 

[Huy Vu]

I think you're a bit confused about this so I'll clarify. The thing with pulldown is that the pulldown frames are included WITH the files even as they are captured. The reason you see 23.976 in with a DVX in Premiere is because Premiere AUTOMATICALLY remove the pulldown. In fact the file exists on your hard drive as a 29.97 INTERLACED file. Try taking raw DVX footage shot in 24p with pulldown and watch it on VLC, Media Player Classics or the like. You'll notice immediately that there is teething in the footage every time there is motion. That's the problem with pulldown, if you do not interpret it properly and remove those frames, you're going to see interlacing in progressive footage. It's completely dependent on you choosing the correct cadence.

The footage I uploaded is 23.976 NATURALLY, no pulldown included at all When you play it on your desktop it's progressive, in any media player you can name. In fact, if you're looking for documentation, here's a quote from our very own Barry Green

"24F doesn't have pulldown at all. But the HV20 doesn't have 24F, it has 24p recorded within 60i.

24F from the XHA1/XLH1 is recorded as a native 24p data stream, no pulldown at all. "

Here's a simple test: Take your DVX, record something in 24p with a lot of motion, capture the raw footage. Then play it back NOT in your NLE, but in any media player. You'll see interlacing. Now take my footage and do the same, you won't.

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

If you want to keep pointing to Wikipedia pages, then here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV#HDV_1080p

Native Progressive 1080 discussed right on wikipedia.

The first 1080-line HDV camcorder to offer recording in native progressive format was the
Canon XL H1, introduced in 2006. It was followed by the XH-G1 and XH-A1. When shooting in
progressive mode, also known as Frame mode, these camcorders generate progressive video from
interlaced CCD sensors. Because of row-pair summation, vertical resolution of
progressive video is 10%-25% lower than resolution of interlaced video.

In 2008 Sony released its own models capable of native progressive recording: the HVR-S270,
the HVR-Z7 and the HVR-Z5. Sony claims superiority over Canon models by saying that native
progressive recording has been called 24F/25F/30F in some camcorders, which actually use
interlaced CCD imagers. Sony stresses that its own models process the signal entirely in
progressive mode all the way from capture to encoding to recording to output.

In 2009 Canon released the HV40. Its 60 Hz variant became the first consumer HDV camcorder
to feature 24-frame/s native progressive recording. Like the aforementioned Sony models, the
HV40 uses true progressive-scan sensor.

You linked to a wikipedia article discussing DV, not HDV, which is really the discussion of this thread (at this point). You're accurate in saying no MINIDV or DV camera can record 24p natively. However HDV is a different story.