DVCPRO HD in palmcorders

Yeah, don't expect one from Sony. I was a dyed in the wool Sony fan for years, but since they have snubbed their nose at 24P and failed to put it on the PD-170 or the Z1U, I am done with them. I deal with fictional narrative projects at lower budgets and Sony is just not making products that meet my needs.
 
doesn't so much matter if Sony makes it. I would love to have a palm size camera that shoots 24p.
no bells and whistles. Something to use for vacations, family events- home movie stuff. 24p looks so much nicer to look at than video. I would prefer it over high def.
They could market it as "home movies with a movie look!"
 
..the issue is that 24p has to be controlled. if its in the hands of a consumer tard.. its going to make their video the most jittery and jumpy thing theyve ever seen.. and they would hate it and curse the day they bought it.. it takes alot more than 24p to make somthing look like a movie. it takes a skillfull eye and controlled movement and lighting and framiong and composition and so on. telling consumers it will look like a movie and giving them 24p is like telling them they wil paint like rembrandt and giving them a paintbrush. thats just not how it works. really only professionals want it or know how to use it... so its likely going to stay in only professional cameras that come with everything else that pros desire for a while. why would a pro want a little palm cam with 24p but no real method for acurate manual focus or iris control or zoom or lattidtude or blah blah blah.. it would be a waste... and ulitmatelty just look crappy and they would hate it compared to their pro cameras. im mean IMHO its just not a good idea from any angle.
 
Good to hear a voice of reason, just talk to anyone who seriously shoots film about how many limitations 24fps imposes. Then try to imagine Joe Average shooting under that regime, it's just not going to happen. Sony like everyone are in business to make a buck and the way to do that is to keep the largest number of your customers happy and 24p is not the way to do that. They do make cameras that shoot 24p so it's not like they don't know the format exists, they know there's a market for it but it's a market that has and needs deep pockets. If you're seriously going to shoot something for the big screen then for starters your going to need optics way, way better than anything that'll ever go onto a prosummer camera. Having spent a fortune on the glass why put a dinky set of CCDs behind it and then compress the life out of it just so you can use an el cheapo recording format.
 
I've said this in other places, but I'll say it here too:

I think with the migration to CMOS, we are likely going to see fully variable frame-rate cameras on the horizon, with built in, several GB RAM buffers (that record to tape/memory in non-real time). I doubt these will reach consumer interest for 24p purposes, but rather result in a marketing campaign for "extreme slow-motion" shooting modes, with frame rates well above 60 fps (up to 5000 or 10000 fps perhaps?). It seems like a much easier feature to market than "super-stuttery" and "film like" 24p.

I expect that the majority of consumers do not appreciate 24p even exists, and assume all motion pictures, video etc. are the same frame rate. Slow motion is something a lot of consumers would appreciate for their children's sporting events - especially if the camera had a built in "speed it up" mode to recover the full frame rate.

-Spiff
 
You know it's funny that everyone says that consumers wouldn't like 24p, when just 30 years ago, most families were still shooting super 8, at 18fps. Now I do agree that when shot wrong, 24p does not look good, but I think that a super 8 style camera that shoots 24p would be a big hit among families that want something different.
Spiff, I don't understand how a CMOS chip could record 5000 fps. I know that the fastest I have seen a CMOS camera capture frames is at 8fps, but I'm not sure if that is because of the buffer or the chip that is causing that, or maybey it is because of the mirror. Care to elaborate?
 
It's somewhat snobbish to think regular folks can't shoot 24p. why not?
Did the professionals scoff at the masses when super 8 hit the home market?

I have used the DVX in auto mode under horrible lighting conditions and it still looks good- in fact it smooths out the hard edges and hot spots.
I have also let friends and family use it- they love the look and appreciate the film like quality. No one has ever complained about a "stutter" look. Almost every client I have ever shoot with the DVX has asked if there's a smaller version.
Consumers can not appreciate something until you offer it to them. Sure they might not paint like Rembrandt- but who cares? Give them the brush.
 
..i wasnt trying to be snobbish.. just realistic. most home video cameras are tossed around quicker than you ever would with a film camera.. 24p has limitations as to what it can do while maintianing a smooth image apearance. its waaay more limited than 60i. mr joe average takes out a 24p "handycam and tries to get all the sports action of his kids soccer game using the longest optical end of the lense and an additional 50x digital zoom, and dont tell me that hes not going to curse at the company that said it would make his home movies for film like. im not saying average people are stupid, im saying they want convienience.. and having to work around the limitations of 24p is NOT convienient.. and since they are not rembrandt .. or professionals that understand the limitation or care to have to learn abot them.. they will more tham likely see it as a hinderance.. and get crappy imagery from it. IMHO they would benifit much more from a film gamma curve than the 24p framtrate.

i mean also consider how much slower auto focus has to be at 24p. now put that together with a long lense that consumers want and ther digital zoom and thorw a hefty amount of streak and flare from aiming at the sun with a POS lense and see if you get anything in focus thats moving faster than 5 mph.

i realize that 24p could be appreciated by everyone.. as it is in the movies . but some things are just better left to proffesionals. i wouldnt give a lay person a mig welder and tell them to weld up a doorway dolly and learn to appreciate the welder.. its asking for trouble.. so is giving consumers 24p in a little consumer camera. your free to disagree. but that dosnet make me a snob. there are plenty "video professionals" who cant even makes sense of how to handle a 24p camera. and do not understand why they get stroby footage sometimes. and cant handle a slow autofocus/focus assist. (and also dont understand or struggle with the nature of 24p pulldown and such for their NLEs..) putting all that on a consumer is one thing: inconveinience and difficult to use. it would by far and large only be unused and misunderstood.. and simply not cared about.

the moral of the story is that people who know how to handle a 24p camera and can appreciate its motion are going to want a pro camera. 24p without a film gamma curve is still just 24p video. theres enough people that are ionto filmmaking and videography and own the DVx or xl2 and have both the 24p and a filmic gamma curve and still cant manage to make anything that looks like film. its not a matter of giving them a brush.. its more like giveing thenm a chainsaw.. if you dont know what your doing you could riun your day by misusing the tool. if you know what your doing you can make a work of art. if 24p coudnt hurt anything in the wrong hands.. id say it was a great idea.
 
iamloser said:
..i wasnt trying to be snobbish.. just realistic. most home video cameras are tossed around quicker than you ever would with a film camera.. 24p has limitations as to what it can do while maintianing a smooth image apearance. its waaay more limited than 60i. mr joe average takes out a 24p "handycam and tries to get all the sports action of his kids soccer game using the longest optical end of the lense and an additional 50x digital zoom, and dont tell me that hes not going to curse at the company that said it would make his home movies for film like. im not saying average people are stupid, im saying they want convienience.. and having to work around the limitations of 24p is NOT convienient.. and since they are not rembrandt .. or professionals that understand the limitation or care to have to learn abot them.. they will more tham likely see it as a hinderance.. and get crappy imagery from it. IMHO they would benifit much more from a film gamma curve than the 24p framtrate.

i mean also consider how much slower auto focus has to be at 24p. now put that together with a long lense that consumers want and ther digital zoom and thorw a hefty amount of streak and flare from aiming at the sun with a POS lense and see if you get anything in focus thats moving faster than 5 mph.

i realize that 24p could be appreciated by everyone.. as it is in the movies . but some things are just better left to proffesionals. i wouldnt give a lay person a mig welder and tell them to weld up a doorway dolly and learn to appreciate the welder.. its asking for trouble.. so is giving consumers 24p in a little consumer camera. your free to disagree. but that dosnet make me a snob. there are plenty "video professionals" who cant even makes sense of how to handle a 24p camera. and do not understand why they get stroby footage sometimes. and cant handle a slow autofocus/focus assist. (and also dont understand or struggle with the nature of 24p pulldown and such for their NLEs..) putting all that on a consumer is one thing: inconveinience and difficult to use. it would by far and large only be unused and misunderstood.. and simply not cared about.

the moral of the story is that people who know how to handle a 24p camera and can appreciate its motion are going to want a pro camera. 24p without a film gamma curve is still just 24p video. theres enough people that are ionto filmmaking and videography and own the DVx or xl2 and have both the 24p and a filmic gamma curve and still cant manage to make anything that looks like film. its not a matter of giving them a brush.. its more like giveing thenm a chainsaw.. if you dont know what your doing you could riun your day by misusing the tool. if you know what your doing you can make a work of art. if 24p coudnt hurt anything in the wrong hands.. id say it was a great idea.
Click to expand...
I agree with some of what you said, but your analogies are hilarious.

24p isn't rocket science, and doesn't have the inherent danger of welding and chainsaws. The worst outcome would be some frustration and probably a return to the store or ebay.

Maybe the DVX should have a warning sticker emblazoned on it. "Beware - 24p may cause..."! Iamloser sees a consumer handling 24p, his eyes widen, " back away consumer, back away ssssloowly, you know not the danger you may face" :)

Inside the mad scientist lair - " I will give them 24p, and then, and then, I will ruuule zee worrld "!!! He cackles loudly as thunder claps sound...Barooom, Barooom, "It will be CHAOS I say, CHAOS " !!
 
What I would like to see is a camera with the form factor of the Sony PDX-10 that also includes 24P and cine gamma at around $2K. I love the small DVCAM cameras. Their small size and relatively high quality images make for a great back-up camera that you can carry around almost all the time. Like the small DVCAM cameras I do not think that a 24P version would be bought by "average Joe" types, who are looking for a camera for under $1K. It would however, apppeal to pros looking for a back-up cam and for the "enthusiast" type amature, who would (could?) learn to use 24P to their advantage.
 
Come on, 24P is one of the most overrated features of any new video cam. Most of those who simply mumble 24P as if it were a sacred thing have NO clue what it is for and where its limits are. Ask any of these guys and you will find out in two sentences that he has no idea about visual perception, how perf film (or the native way of moving pictures recording and projection) works, what a two or a three blade shutter are and so forth.
However these are the basics to understand that 24P only (and I mean ONLY) makes sense if the video you take that way will be output to FILM. In all other circumstances interlaced is by far better due to its higher spatial resolution. And in case you really want Progressive, have your video data rendered to progressive which, btw, gives some nice motion blur that ressembles the motion blur of chemical film that makes it so distinctive.
If somebody wants or needs a scientific lecture of why all that is so, I shall gladly respond to such request.

Please remember, we're talking 24 P and 30P here. 60P is a whole different world.

If you don't believe my words, just pan your cam at 24P or 30P and look how jerky that turns out. Do the same at 24i or 30i and look how smooth the movement will be reproduced. Sheer physics, no miracles, whatever marketing tries to tell you.
 
PKraft said:
In all other circumstances interlaced is by far better due to its higher spatial resolution. And in case you really want Progressive, have your video data rendered to progressive which, btw, gives some nice motion blur that ressembles the motion blur of chemical film that makes it so distinctive.

If somebody wants or needs a scientific lecture of why all that is so, I shall gladly respond to such request.
Click to expand...
I would love to hear your explanation of how interlaced offers higher spatial resolution v. progressive and what about "chemical film" creates motion blur that "makes it so distinctive".

Always thought shutter speed affected motion blur because the shutter is what stops motion, not an emulsion. Please explain your logic because it's not making sense to me.
 
D_and_G said:
I agree with some of what you said, but your analogies are hilarious.

24p isn't rocket science, and doesn't have the inherent danger of welding and chainsaws. The worst outcome would be some frustration and probably a return to the store or ebay.
Click to expand...

if you think my analogies are hilarious, you should see my head. anyway , yeah.. its not going to cause physical danger like a chainsaw. but like you said it would likely frustrate the consumer and be returned or go unused. the part that i was inplying would get hurt or messed up from the tool(24p) being dangerous was their footage. not them. they would likely be pretty T'd off that their kids super soccer champ kick scoring the winning goal for state finals is out of focus and choppy. when they were lead to beilive it will "look just like a movie".. or "look more movie like". lol :)
 
PKraft said:
However these are the basics to understand that 24P only (and I mean ONLY) makes sense if the video you take that way will be output to FILM. In all other circumstances interlaced is by far better due to its higher spatial resolution. And in case you really want Progressive, have your video data rendered to progressive which, btw, gives some nice motion blur that ressembles the motion blur of chemical film that makes it so distinctive.
If somebody wants or needs a scientific lecture of why all that is so, I shall gladly respond to such request.

Please remember, we're talking 24 P and 30P here. 60P is a whole different world.

If you don't believe my words, just pan your cam at 24P or 30P and look how jerky that turns out. Do the same at 24i or 30i and look how smooth the movement will be reproduced. Sheer physics, no miracles, whatever marketing tries to tell you.
Click to expand...

Strobing when panning has been a consideration with the 24fps frame rate since it was introduced. Consult your ASC manual for pan speed/shutter speed data.

To say that 24P video is only ("I mean only") makes sense when the video is to be output to films and that interlaced video is better in "all other circumstances" is ludicrous. I'll give you point that the "film look" is more complicated than just 24 frames per second, but the use of interlaced video "rendered out to progressive", in every case I have seen, looks like sh*t and that includes the expensive "Film Look" process in common usage. The interlaced artifact retained in this process is not, IMO, a pleasant look. The "higher spatial resolution" of 30i and 60i is one of the reasons that interlaced video has the "look" that it has and is usually associated with reality based television production. No one will argue that interlaced video is sharper. That is the point, that sharpness is what makes interlaced video unsuitable for fictional narrative production. Notice that the most common usage of 24P video production of episodic
television, where the Sony Cine-Alta and the Panasonic Varicam are replacing 35mm cameras and where there is no intent to output to film.

I agree that 24P in consumer only camera would lead to a lot of disappointed users, but I stick by my post and state that a palmcorder, like the Sony PDX-10, with 24P and cine gamma settings would be a cool thing to have.

I wouldn't mind reading your lecture as to why interlaced is always better. I have a scientific article as to why, aerodynamically, the bumble bee can't fly.
 
PKraft said:
Come on, 24P is one of the most overrated features of any new video cam. ... However these are the basics to understand that 24P only (and I mean ONLY) makes sense if the video you take that way will be output to FILM.
Click to expand...
I think it's safe to say that you will find a whole lot of people who disagree with you on this.

24p makes video look like film. It is the "missing ingredient". To argue that 24p is only useful for film is... well... absurd. Every major television show(drama/sitcom/MOW) that doesn't shoot on film, shoots 24p video (and none of them will ever be transferred to film!) Network dramas and sitcoms are all shot on 24p (or film), and increasingly more and more of them are shot on 24p.

Every national television commercial is shot on either film, or 24p video. You will never see a Coke, Pepsi, McDonald's, Nike, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, or any other national commercial shot on 60i video! And no, none of them are going to be transferred to film either.

It's all about the look, and has nothing to do with whether it'll ever be transferred to film.
 
I guess what the meaning of PKraft's post is that people who's sitting in front of the tv they prefer smooth movement, nice colors a story and actors who can act. I guess just to show them some too fast paning in 24p to profe that we are using a "filmmaker camcorder" won't make those people happy. Those people producing commercials for Coca Cola , Pepsi or whatever brand, they can handel the 24fps, other fps depending on the situation, colorcorrection and last but not least those actors can act. Nobody is saying that film isn't better than interlaced video but just to use the 24p option in a camcorder doesn't give you the filmlook. At least you can't sell it to me as a film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top