Differences between the Canon progressive modes
- Thread starter Emanuel
- Start date
rawfa
Veteran
It is strange that the XL2 has a true progressive mode when they just bought the rights for true progressive. This makes you think about what have they been using so far (great job, btw). Anyway, imo, if you can't tell the difference from true progressive from fake progressive and if you don't lose resolution, then it's all the same.
Elton
Veteran
HDV 24F is virtual 1080 24p. (HATE the term "virtual" but it's truthful) Calling it "pseudo" or "faux" progressive negates it, IMHO.
This is only a theory, but if in this mode the image is interlaced scanned at 48i and then perfectly stitched back together to be a 24p result and you can't find any interlace artifacts, then how is it not considered progressive?
It walks and quacks like a duck, so I think it's fair to consider it of the duck species. ;-)
This is only a theory, but if in this mode the image is interlaced scanned at 48i and then perfectly stitched back together to be a 24p result and you can't find any interlace artifacts, then how is it not considered progressive?
It walks and quacks like a duck, so I think it's fair to consider it of the duck species. ;-)
Last edited:
MovieSwede
Well-known member
You cant perfectly make 24P out of 48i. Sure you could do stuff do get real good results (like deinteracing in post) But I dont think you will retain the full 1080 resolution.
Elton
Veteran
Interesting that you should say that. I've done a lot of deinterlace stuff with Magic Bullet, Nattress, etc. and I never got perfect looking progressive results. There were always a few odd repeat frames and hiccups. 24F has never EVER shown anything that looked like an interlace artifact the way software deinterlace can.
IMHO, you do get a lot closer, perceivably, to full 1080 24p resolution than the other $sub-10K cameras with Canon HDV 24F.
IMHO, you do get a lot closer, perceivably, to full 1080 24p resolution than the other $sub-10K cameras with Canon HDV 24F.
Elton
Veteran
Emanuel said:
All I'm saying is that 24F in my experience looks and feels like good 1080 24p. It's very close to CineAlta. I believe it's well worth not having to deal with 50i and converting to 25p with all the render time that would involve for good results--and even then you might have hiccup frames here and there with the software "smart deinterlace" process.
It's high res and it looks filmic. What else is there to say? End of story.
Last edited:
Gordon Prince
Well-known member
The frame movie mode available within the XL1 (SD) is the same than the progressive mode of its HD version? (XLH1 and now A1/G1 as well)
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
This even seems those brand FAQ :laugh: (just before your edit, Barlow) -- you know I'm a HD prosumer Canon believer.
I'd like to hear our Barry. Why has he been saying what he has pronounced about the subject?
For instance here:
However, he isn't the only one [ex. in American Cinematographer (July 2003 -- 28 Days Later article) there]:
«(...) shot in the 4x3 aspect ratio but matted for 16x9 by the PAL XL1 (625 lines of resolution, 900,000 effective pixels over three 1/3" CCDs) in Frame Movie Mode, its pseudo-progressive-scan method, which is performed electronically within the camera»
But it's also known the Barry's comparison between the F mode and the CF one. So, if @50Hz wouldn't it be the same thing?
Then, I might purchase a Z1 when was launched...and why such HVX waiting? (How it really happened... Much ado about nothing?)
[personally speaking considering:
1) my non-HVX option;
2) and just now (almost two years later) in order to a F mode shooting ?!! -- if Barry is leaving his impression as the same stuff*??!...]
* I can figure his commitment with his favorite brand and we must discount his understandable biased POV but it's always relevant to know what he has to say.
I'd like to hear our Barry. Why has he been saying what he has pronounced about the subject?
For instance here:
It was two years ago regarding the Canon SD offer. Actually he compares the Canon's XL1 progressive mode to the future CF then as fake progressive.Barry_Green said:
However, he isn't the only one [ex. in American Cinematographer (July 2003 -- 28 Days Later article) there]:
«(...) shot in the 4x3 aspect ratio but matted for 16x9 by the PAL XL1 (625 lines of resolution, 900,000 effective pixels over three 1/3" CCDs) in Frame Movie Mode, its pseudo-progressive-scan method, which is performed electronically within the camera»
But it's also known the Barry's comparison between the F mode and the CF one. So, if @50Hz wouldn't it be the same thing?
Then, I might purchase a Z1 when was launched...and why such HVX waiting? (How it really happened... Much ado about nothing?)
[personally speaking considering:
1) my non-HVX option;
2) and just now (almost two years later) in order to a F mode shooting ?!! -- if Barry is leaving his impression as the same stuff*??!...]
* I can figure his commitment with his favorite brand and we must discount his understandable biased POV but it's always relevant to know what he has to say.
Last edited:
MovieSwede
Well-known member
Elton said:
Well thats because most people who have deinterlaced have gon from 60i to 24P.
48i to 24P should be tested against deinterlacing 50i to 25P.
The the CF25 mode is just 1080i with one line removed. If Canon used a more smart deinterlacer they would get better results.
Canon has one more benifit (as the Z1) it does the deinteraling before compression where most other deinterlacers work with already compressed material.
Of course this is just my theory, but it seems logical that they use smart deinterlacing if they capture from 48i.
Elton
Veteran
Gordon Prince said:
The new frame modes are in such a different realm than the old XL1 that it's just not fair to compare. There may be some fundamental similarities in how it's achieved, but the H1's frame modes just look great in HD whereas the old XL1's mode was quite mushy compared to interlace. (in SD)
Gordon Prince
Well-known member
If we can say this on XL1/XLH1 comparision subject, will it be the same between the XL2 and its successor, the XLH1?Elton said:
#If we already know being the XL2 "p" mode better than "the frame movie mode" of the XL1#
Can we closer both XL1 and XLH1 rather XL2 or not?
Elton
Veteran
I don't entirely understand the question. I understand the need to feel that what you're getting with a Canon is really really "progressive", but again, if you're familiar with the cadence of 24p and you take a good look at 24F stuff, nobody can honestly say they truly look different.
The way I see it is this: 24F is a different path to the same basic result.
It just works and it looks good in a 1080p frame size if shot the right way.
The way I see it is this: 24F is a different path to the same basic result.
It just works and it looks good in a 1080p frame size if shot the right way.
Gordon Prince
Well-known member
Putting in another words: And already wasn't the XL1? Then, why XL2 is mentioned by Barry as true 24p and not the XL1 mode? If the XLH1 is more similar to XL1 than XL2 (if it is!... here is the question), this will be a backward step (if compared to XL2) or not?Elton said:
Elton
Veteran
The XL2 has progressive chips, which is why it can claim "true 24p". Frame mode on the XL1 was a weird deinterlace and futzing of fields, (it was originally meant for pulling stills from video) and for NTSC users it wasn't even close to the film/24p look because it was always 30 fps.
The XL-H1 24F frame mode is doing something very 24p-like from interlace 1440x1080 1/3" HD CCD's.
I believe it's fairly obvious that the chips are clocked at the correct rate of 48 hz and somehow it's stitched together in real time as a progressive frame at 24 frames per second--and BEST OF ALL--it's recorded to tape as actual 24p that can easily be captured and exported to other codecs to work in a true 24p timeline.
Is that a step backward? Not to my way of thinking because for me, it all boils down to the core image...and I think the H1's HD image is solid to the core.
I mean, to get an image that could pass for CineAlta at less than $4K?
Pinch me.
The XL-H1 24F frame mode is doing something very 24p-like from interlace 1440x1080 1/3" HD CCD's.
I believe it's fairly obvious that the chips are clocked at the correct rate of 48 hz and somehow it's stitched together in real time as a progressive frame at 24 frames per second--and BEST OF ALL--it's recorded to tape as actual 24p that can easily be captured and exported to other codecs to work in a true 24p timeline.
Is that a step backward? Not to my way of thinking because for me, it all boils down to the core image...and I think the H1's HD image is solid to the core.
I mean, to get an image that could pass for CineAlta at less than $4K?
Pinch me.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
You're the Canon guru Barlow. BTW, speaking about it and following this thread, Barry PM me with his point. Regarding the same vertical resolution between F and CF modes @50Hz and a superior horizontal res as Canon's advantage -- 'cause its higher CCD res, I also add.
Last edited: