studio1972
Well-known member
I guess you could use it to search through a load of clips to find out which ones were filmed in a particular location. A lot of stills cameras are getting this feature as well these days.
Sony reveals 1st NXCAM camcorder: HXR-NX5U
- Thread starter VGurcu
- Start date
I guess you could use it to search through a load of clips to find out which ones were filmed in a particular location. A lot of stills cameras are getting this feature as well these days.
I think it depends on which camcorder. For the NX5 I also have my doubts but for the consumer its wonderful and I wish my SR11 had it when I went to Australia in 2008. I got the time wrong 3 times setting the clock in the SR11 and was 12 hours off in all cases so I have wonderful sunny shots at 2:15AM !!! The XR500 I now have has solved that sort of problem. IF you never travel more than 10 feet from home it probably isn't an issue !!!!
I will be getting one of the still Sony's the HX5V when it comes out in March as it not only has GPS but also a compass to tell you which way you were pointing !!!!
For news gathering or documentaries with the NX5 I think that GPS will provide really useful data.
Ron Evans
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Nature and wildlife.. imagine finding a nest of a rare bird. Then being able to return to that exact spot later. Of following the tracks of some animal while rolling then getting back home and being able to plot your path.
Fishing shows could make use of it as well. Anything where you aren't exactly sure of your landmarks. Getting a unique view of a prominent feature then wanting to go back and get some more... or maybe if something didn't come out and you want to resoot. You can put the camera in nearly exactly the same location.
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
When the high temp doesn't go above zero sometimes for over a week at a time, here in Minnesnowta, I really try really hard not to. :shocked:
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
Yeah, it was kinda silly switching over to HD OTA broadcasts, eh?
OTA HD is fine, satellite HD is terrible at 10 Mbit/s at best.
studio1972
Well-known member
No HD OTA broadcasting in the UK yet so I can't comment on that.
I think you need to read the rest of my sentence to see it in context. SD vs HD broadcast wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about 2 HD cameras which have different levels of resolution, both HD. All I'm saying is that with a 1/3 inch chip camera higher resolution means you have to make a compromise somewhere else, and often that compromise isn't a good one, e.g. rolling shutter, dynamic range, low light performance etc.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There are many huge massive reasons, but it all comes down to this: Interlaced chips do not make 720p. The Canon A1 uses interlaced chips. They're not progressive, and they can't be read out at 60p frame rates.
Each manufacturer made their choices based on their particular needs. Canon wanted the highest pixel counts, so they went 1440x1080 -- and that meant that they HAD to go with interlaced chips. You cannot do 1440x1080 progressive CCDs, they'd burn up. So, with the Canon, you get 24F instead of 24P, and you get no 720p at all.
JVC wanted 720/60p, and they wanted 1280x720. You can't do that, so their solution was to butt two separate chips together, and the result was the dreaded split-screen effect.
Panasonic wanted 720/60p, so they crammed as many pixels as they possibly could onto the chip (960x540) and used spatial offset to make up the rest of the resolution. Result is not as sharp as some of the others, but better contrast characteristics and no split-screen.
Sony wanted it all, so they went CMOS. But that gives 'em rolling shutter complications.
Keep in mind that these cameras are all designed by the very best camera engineers in the world. If there's a limitation in there, it's for a very, very good reason.
People should stop denigrating 24F as being not true 24p (what else "24F instead of 24P" means?) when they compare it to low-res pixel-shifted cams, because the resolution is essentially the same in progressive mode (was not you a participant of the Texas Shootout?) and the Canon is hugely better in 1080i mode.
There is nothing software cannot do.
The chips can be read at 60Hz interlaced, then deinterlaced into 720p60 in-camera and recorded to tape. Canon just decided against additional complexity of its encoder, but this could be done. Or deinterlace in post. Considering that the 200/170/150 resolve only 540 lines vertically, 720p from either of these cameras and 720p deinterlaced from the Canons would match in terms of vertical resolution, yet the Canon delivers more pixels horizontally.Barry_Green
Moderator
And people should stop trying to read into what someone else is saying, instead of actually reading what they said.
24F is not 24p, hence why it's called "24F". Had it been 24p, they would have called it that.
Is it as high-res as an HVX? Yes. Is it the same? No. Could it have been 200-300 lines higher res if it was actually 24p? Yes.
No. I arranged the shootout that happened before that, the one in California. The one where 11 directors of photography participated, and we all saw the resolution differences and everything else. And 8 of the 11 said that given the choices they saw, they'd buy the HVX...
Yes it is. If someone wants 1080i, the Canon is better at that.
True, but there are many things software cannot do well, and it certainly can't do it as well as dedicated hardware.There is nothing software cannot do.
Yes they could. And the resulting image would suck, as compared to native progressive.
It's fun to talk numbers, but when it gets down to the actual images, there's a different story. And the images are what count.
But this is a years-old debate that has been a) already proven by history, and b) doesn't need to be revisited here. This was all argued, proven, and settled before you even got interested in video in the first place. :thumbsup:
This was all argued, proven, and settled when DV-derived DVCPROHD was a new thing and Panasonic was pushing P2 for its "IT-based workflow". The main subject of this thread though, at least from Panasonic side, is the HMC150, not the 200 or the 170. The 150 uses 4:2:0 chroma encoding, not 4:2:2, which levels the field out, don't you think?
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
First of all, 24F is indeed progressive footage, regardless of how it was derived. When you view it, you see 24 full progressive images per second that are quite reasonably crisp, without any interlacing artifacts or messed up motion. It's not low-rez, with screwed up motion cadence, like Sony's horky Cineframe 24. 24F out of the Canons looks, tastes and smells like dang decent progressive footage, and how it was achieved does not change that fact one iota.
24F, out of the Canons, downsampled (properly) to 720 lines also looks great (and it still looks, tastes, and smells progressive even!). It wouldn't be difficult to do the downsampling in camera well either, but HDV specs would make it a little goofy to mix 1080i and 720p recording to tape capabilities in one cam. If you notice, there's absolutely no HDV cam out there that does that (and it's not because of a technical barrier in generating the different size images and encoding them - it's writing them interchangeably to tape that could get to be a bit whacked).
I'm confident that Canon could take the very same imaging chips from the A1 and build an AVCHD cam with 1080i, 1080p and 720p recording modes, that would be quite reasonably competitive with the HMC150. Resolution would certainly not be notably worse in any mode (and obviously way better for 1080i), but low-light performance from 5 year old chips understandably wouldn't be quite as good.
I don't know what Canon will put in their new cam, but it's a safe bet that the imaging chips won't be any worse than those in the older cams.
24F, out of the Canons, downsampled (properly) to 720 lines also looks great (and it still looks, tastes, and smells progressive even!). It wouldn't be difficult to do the downsampling in camera well either, but HDV specs would make it a little goofy to mix 1080i and 720p recording to tape capabilities in one cam. If you notice, there's absolutely no HDV cam out there that does that (and it's not because of a technical barrier in generating the different size images and encoding them - it's writing them interchangeably to tape that could get to be a bit whacked).
I'm confident that Canon could take the very same imaging chips from the A1 and build an AVCHD cam with 1080i, 1080p and 720p recording modes, that would be quite reasonably competitive with the HMC150. Resolution would certainly not be notably worse in any mode (and obviously way better for 1080i), but low-light performance from 5 year old chips understandably wouldn't be quite as good.
I don't know what Canon will put in their new cam, but it's a safe bet that the imaging chips won't be any worse than those in the older cams.
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
Okay, I'll concede that if Canon goes with CMOS imaging chips in the new cam, that is arguably worse (to some folks). Personally, I'll be thrilled if they do (since you can bet they'll be full raster - and somehow Canon seems to get notably better low-light performance out of their CMOS chips in progressive modes, consistently with their consumer cams).
studio1972
Well-known member
That's 720 24p/25p or 30p though, not 720 60p or 720 50p, interlaced chips couldn't do that.
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
I don't really know the methodology for how Canon manages to get such nice 24p/25p/30p images out of the CCDs in the A1/G1/H1. I do know that I can take the 1080i60 from an A1 and get pretty dang nice 720p60, using YADIF deinterlacing and Lanczos resizing in post (and it's not insanely rough on the CPU either).
studio1972
Well-known member
Making an educated guess, I would imagine they create a progressive image using only the odd (or even) lines and simply interpolate the blanks. This would reduce resolution compared to 1080i and possibly create some artefacts in certain circumstances.
The problem with 50/60 hz is that if you de-interlace the 1080i to make 720p you are alternating between one frame and another (odd/even lines) as your source frame and this might cause a flicker at edges.
Like I say, this is just an educated guess, but I think that would be the problem.
Yes it is a problem
It's actually alternating fields, and "smart" bobbers do account for that. The flicker does occur, but many filters apply post processing or a slight blur to get rid of "deinterlace flicker". This reduces detail.
Yadif mentioned above does process very fast, but leaves residual deinterlace jaggy artifacts which combine on alternating (now frames) to "buzz". Higher quality filters are much slower to process, but yield better results
Regardless, deinterlacing always reduces image quality.
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
Taking 1080i, deinterlacing with YADIF, and then downscaling to 1280x720 gets rid of a lot of crap. I've been fooling around with it here and there, and the results generally look pretty dang good (especially played back at full speed).
Yes it's definitely less noticeable, but it also depends on the type of shots used. It's far more noticeable on some types of content.
And resizing aliased jaggies isn't really a "good way" of getting rid of them
Better to not have them in the first place IMO.It's better to shoot progressive, if your intended output is progressive.
Have you actually verified it for one-line details?