The Pro's Choice: EX1 & 3

> No Sony camcorder, that I know of, can play Canon 24F footage,
> except maybe the very newest one. A Z1U, FX1, etc., definitely can't.

These are ancient and out of production.

> No Sony deck, other than the new HVR-M15AU,
> can play back Canon 24F footage.

Barry, have YOU cared to read the link? All the compatible equipment is listed there, with appropriate references.

> Canon invented their own format when they added 24F.
> Nobody supported it, for years no deck could play it.

I don't know for sure who invented it, but it has been part of HDV 1080i for quite a while. Maybe Canon proposed it, maybe it built the equipment and THEN added it to the spec, whatever the case it is part of the spec now. Canon implemented it first in 2006, Sony implemented it in 2008. Please, read the wiki, it is all in there.

> Sony recently adopted straight 24p recording,
> apparently compatibly with Canon's 24F implementation.
> So the very most recent cameras and decks that support
> Sony 24P (instead of 24p-over-60i) can apparently also play Canon 24F mode.

It is not Canon vs Sony, it is 1080-line native progressive HDV, which is a spec. It is a different story that only Canon and Sony currently make the equipment, still it is a spec, not Canon's own, proprietary, in-house format that they don't want to share.
 
No, I didn't go through the link, I was just trying to bridge the gap between you and Huy by pointing out how things developed.

When HDV was introduced, there was no specification for 1080p recording. It was 1080i-only. Sony was the only manufacturer.

When Canon introduced the XLH1, they went outside the format specification. They added their own 24F mode, which was not part of the HDV spec. There was much consternation and frustration among Canon users, in that no camera and no deck would play anything shot in 24F on a Canon camcorder, for years. Canon doesn't make decks, and Sony showed no interest in supporting a Canon-only variant outside of the HDV spec; Sony even introduced new decks that didn't support 24F.

Now, the HDV spec has been extended with a new category of "optional" support, for 1080 @ 24p/25p/30p. That is a very recent development, and very likely coincides with Sony's own introduction of 24p. The spec was not always thus, and certainly wasn't that way back in 2003 when HDV was announced, nor in 2004 when 1080 HDV first was introduced.
 
I have since gone through the link, and it manages to leave out the history.

Here's a reference from http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/sony_hvr_series_0101/index3.html

So what is HDV native progressive recording anyway, and why is it needed? The original HDV specification announced by Canon, Sharp, Sony, and JVC in September 2003 did not include 720/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/25p, 1080/24p, or 4-channel MPEG-2 Audio Layer II and PCM audio — these have since been appended in a revised spec that better answers professional needs.
Click to expand...

I don't know the date the spec was updated, I'm still googling around for that. You'll notice on the hdv-info.org site that the specifications call it "version 1.0 (revised)"
 
> When HDV was introduced, there was no specification for 1080p recording.
> It was 1080i-only. Sony was the only manufacturer.

Umm... actually, it was 720p only, and the name of the technology originator was JVC ;-) Then Sony took it and ran away with it, screwing it up along the way, and throwing high definition back into stone ages of interlaced video.

> Now, the HDV spec has been extended with a new category
> of "optional" support, for 1080 @ 24p/25p/30p. That is
> a very recent development, and very likely coincides
> with Sony's own introduction of 24p.

I became interested in video technology only two years ago, so I don't know how recent is "recent", but I believe that two years ago progressive modes were already in the spec. I agree that Sony never does anything that does not benefit it. It pushed interlaced because it already had the technology, now it sees that progressive is in demand so it starts pushing it. It is sheer fun to read Sony's whitepapers and executive summaries, as if they invented progressive scan. Sony even created a special logo for progressive recording. Canon was creating idiotic names like Vixia instead of branding its progressive modes ("F" is not branding to me, "Frame mode" is used standard def only). I wonder can Canon use Sony's logo now?

> The spec was not always thus, and certainly wasn't
> that way back in 2003 when HDV was announced,
> nor in 2004 when 1080 HDV first was introduced.

2004 is ancient history ;-) Third-gen Sony camcorders have native progressive sensors, record native progressive to tape, and can even do tapeless onto CF or HDD.
 
Cranky said:
Umm... actually, it was 720p only, and the name of the technology originator was JVC ;-) Then Sony took it and ran away with it
Click to expand...
No... JVC introduced consumer HD recording, but it wasn't called HDV. HDV, as a "format", occurred in July of 2003, or, officially, October of 2003, and it was a merged effort between JVC and Sony. JVC's format does indeed pre-date HDV, but it was grandfathered into HDV when HDV became a multi-manufacturer specification.

It is sheer fun to read Sony's whitepapers and executive summaries, as if they invented progressive scan. Sony even created a special logo for progressive recording.
Click to expand...
Agreed, they do have a peculiar twist on things. However, when it comes to video 24p, you do have to give it to Sony; they invented the first 24p video camera back in 2001 for George Lucas to shoot Star Wars Episode II. And, in fact, there's a trial-run scene in Star Wars Episode 1 that used the video 24p mode. Sony even won a technical achievement Emmy for its 24p system.

Canon was creating idiotic names like Vixia instead of branding its progressive modes ("F" is not branding to me, "Frame mode" is used standard def only). I wonder can Canon use Sony's logo now?
Click to expand...
Okay, you want some more history fun? Canon didn't invent "frame mode", Panasonic did! The first camera with "frame mode" was the AG-EZ1. The XL1 is the camera that popularized frame mode, but it actually used Panasonic chips. Yes, the "beloved" XL1 and its frame mode were Panasonic chips, and yes, those chips used "pixel shift"! Hah.

2004 is ancient history ;-) Third-gen Sony camcorders have native progressive sensors, record native progressive to tape, and can even do tapeless onto CF or HDD.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that doesn't change that Huy was completely right, up until Sony changed the rules.
 
Barry_Green said:
I have since gone through the link, and it manages to leave out the history. Here's a reference from http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/sony_hvr_series_0101/index3.html
Click to expand...
He does not mention Canon "F" modes, which means he does not know that after being written to tape these are the same formats. Also, he writes: "there are two ways to skin the cat in terms of acquiring progressive-scan HDV: interlace (PsF) and native progressive. Sony calls the first method “24p/30p Progressive Scan Mode” — segmenting a 24fps progressive scan over 60i with 2:3 pulldown." In reality, 25-fps and 30-fps are PsF, while 24-fps is 2-3 pulldown. I've never heard that fields in 2-3 pulldown stream are called "segments", this is the term used for PsF, which 24p-over-60i is not. And of course, 30PsF has nothing to do with 2-3 pulldown. So, he is sloppy with terms and does not have full info on the subject, therefore I cannot trust him. Names like Adam Wilt or Steve Mullen are more trustworthy to me.

Barry_Green said:
I don't know the date the spec was updated, I'm still googling around for that. You'll notice on the hdv-info.org site that the specifications call it "version 1.0 (revised)"
Click to expand...
Last time I googled for that I found nothing. I will try again. If I did find anything, I would sure have included it in the wiki entry ;-)
 
The Canon "f" modes are the same as Sony's "native progressive". Canon did it first, Sony copied it. But Canon did it on their own, and stepped outside the HDV format to do it, and when they did it they made their equipment incompatible with every other piece of HDV equipment on the market.

Sony, owner of the HDV logo, updated the spec when they decided to offer native progressive as well. And they grandfathered Canon in, just as JVC had been grandfathered in earlier.

Of course, the history is hidden, so the modern interpretation is "sony invented HDV, sony invented consumer HD recording, sony invented native progressive" but none of those statements are true.

If I were to bet, I'd bet that the HDV specification was "revised" the day that the V7U was introduced, since it was (IIRC) the first "native progressive" HDV camera from Sony.
 
Barry_Green said:
No... JVC introduced consumer HD recording, but it wasn't called HDV. HDV, as a "format", occurred in July of 2003, or, officially, October of 2003, and it was a merged effort between JVC and Sony. JVC's format does indeed pre-date HDV, but it was grandfathered into HDV when HDV became a multi-manufacturer specification.
Click to expand...
You caught me on the term usage ;-) I meant what you wrote above.

Barry_Green said:
Agreed, they do have a peculiar twist on things. However, when it comes to video 24p, you do have to give it to Sony; they invented the first 24p video camera back in 2001
Click to expand...
Allegedly, there is a dude who "invented" 24p. Basically, he suggested a "virtual telecine" for a videocam. No formulas, no long nights spent doing math, no mockups. He patented this pretty obvious and broad idea, and AFAIK all videocam manufacturers pay him for using his "patent". What a joke, the patenting system that is. AFAIK, Philips experimented with this idea before the dude patented his "invention", but Philips did nothing about it.

Barry_Green said:
Yes, but that doesn't change that Huy was completely right, up until Sony changed the rules.
Click to expand...
He would have been right a year ago, but not today :-) Can never trust old knowledge, everything is a'changing, being a software engineer I know it better than some. On the other hand, in software, changing an existing API (application programming interface) is a big no-no. They should have called it HDV 2.0 instead of simply "HDV revised".
 
Well, if we're talking about what they "should" have done, they should have made one format that was cross-compatible, and not three different and incompatible formats that all shared the same tape and the same name! :thumbsup:

But, that's pretty much all behind us now, as file-based memory recording removes tape incompatibilities from the process.
 
My opinion is that HDV is a dead format. But it won't die until AVCHD gets a bit better. Then it's less than 1080 recording format will wither away. Right now pros use it only when they have to give a tape to a client at the end of a shoot. They're not going to do that with an SxS card. However the MxR with a SDHC card is a new wrinkle.
Having said all that. I love my little Canon HV-30...superb pictures on HDV... that I backup my EX1 with.
And it's not lost on me than another tape based format just will not die... BetaCamSP.
 
Barry_Green said:
But, that's pretty much all behind us now, as file-based memory recording removes tape incompatibilities from the process.
Click to expand...

Right , now we have MXF incompatibilities, and OMF incompatibilities, and AVC incompatibilities, and codec incompatibilities, and card incompatibilities.

Not saying tape was better... I hate tape. But things are nearly as screwy now as they were in '04.
 
PerroneFord said:
Right , now we have MXF incompatibilities, and OMF incompatibilities, and AVC incompatibilities, and codec incompatibilities, and card incompatibilities.

Not saying tape was better... I hate tape. But things are nearly as screwy now as they were in '04.
Click to expand...
Yep -- but at least we can lay the blame clearly at the software manufacturers' feet this time. Before, it was hardware, they could throw their hands up and say "what can I do?" But now, they're just being obstinate, belligerent, market-segmenting weiners. Now, you know for sure that you're a political tool in the game they're trying to play, and you can easily vote with your feet and move to a platform that doesn't play those games.
 
That's what I'm saying. The best progressive scan you're going to get with HDV is 720. That ain't gonna cut it in a 1080p world. HDV has nowhere to go...it's at the end of it's technology.
 
FrankC said:
That's what I'm saying. The best progressive scan you're going to get with HDV is 720. That ain't gonna cut it in a 1080p world. HDV has nowhere to go...it's at the end of it's technology.
Click to expand...
Um, I don't get you. HDV 1080p cannot do 50p/60p, but so cannot AVCHD. HDV 720p can do 50p/60p just like AVCHD. HDV 1080p is native 24p/25p/30p just like AVCCAM. In terms of frame size and scan rates, current HDV spec and AVCHD spec are pretty much the same.

I think it is dying because it is tape-based, not because video quality is noticeably worse (if at all) than AVCHD.
 
Yeah... That's what makes it fun here.
As I understand it, there is no such thing as HDV 1080p (progressive scan)... only 720p. However there is 1080i (interlaced scan) you might be thinking of. Totally different. Most feel the interlaced mode gives too much of a "video" look.
Cranky is right on one point. Some HDV does look better than AVCHD. But as I said, that is only for the moment. Technology will improve AVCHD to surpass HDV. The tape-based HDV is at its technological limit and probably can't be improved much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top