Topic: at the risk of looking like a dipshit, what is "24p"?

[Josh P]

BTW that HV20 is a 900 dollar camera... it doesn't shot real 24p or HD for that matter... its a good camera for soccer moms... and the low light performance like all canons you will find its very disapointing .... you would be much better off spending another 500 dollars and getting a used dvx100a

panasonic dvx or hvx are the only cameras that are going to give you real 24p unless you spend over 6,000

Wow, that was a bit harsh, but more importantly COMPLETELY WRONG.

Next, it DEFINITELY shoots TRUE 24p. And yes, it does it for $900. It has a progressive sensor, and it stuffs the 24p footage into a 60i wrapper using 3:2 pulldown (just like a DVX does). If you remove the pulldown, you get true 24p, period. End of story. The one downside is it doesn't do 24pa (aka 3:2:2:3 pulldown) and it doesn't set flags, so you need to use a smart pulldown removal tool that accurately determines where to remove frames, etc. Cineform's Nero HD can do that no problem, and the result is true 24p footage (not some fake shit like frame mode).

Lastly, I guess you can put me in the soccer mom camp if you want, but the more and more features they slap into these cosumer-grade cams, the closer they come to the edge of the prosumer lineup available. Is the HV20 a prosumer level camera, probably not, but it's not that far behind, and for me, the form factor, size, the fact it shoots to tape, does 24p, does HDV, as an external mic jack, even has line attenuation on the mic in, all point to this being a pretty sweet little consumer camera.

From what I've read second-hand by people like Stu Maschwitz, the HV20 has a lot of little quirks about it that make it a bit more demanding than working with a camera with more intentional features like a DVX or HVX.  Things you will run into like the rolling shutter and using the camera's photo-button to check exposure make the $900 a bit of a struggle compared to more expensive cameras.

The HV20 shoots to 4:2:0 long GOP MPEG2 HDV at 1440x1080/24p.  I think what wilsonedits is getting at is that the camera is not "true HD" because it doesn't pump out and record 1920x1080 native off its image sensor.  Where this all morphs into a discrepancy is when talking "HD" vs "HDV" resolutions.

One person might argue that anything above above Standard-Definition NTSC resolution of 720x480 is considered HD (excluding PAL's extended vertical resolution of 720x576, of course.)  Then again, another might say that anything that isn't 1920x1080 isn't even "HD."  Then what about all of these cameras and TV's that do 720p?  1080i?  1080p?  It's easy to get confused.  Let's lay out a few resolutions of HD/HDV, disregarding their different frame-rate capabilities:

Sony CineAlta (MSRP $102000) - 1080 @ 1920x1080
Panasonic VariCam (MSRP $45000) - 720 @ 1280x720
Panasonic HVX200 (MSRP $5995) - 1080 @ 1280x1080, 720 @ 960x720
Sony Z1U (MSRP $5946) - 1080 @ 1440x1080
Canon HV20 (MSRP $1099) - 1080 @ 1440x1080

You might see, "oh, the HVX200 has better horizontal resolution than the VariCam, so at $6000 it's a total steal!"  Yet there's much more to producing a good image than strictly resolution.  Differing features, like the recording medium (including color fidelity due to color sampling for compressed storage), codec, frame-rate options, lens-mounts (or lack there of), workflow... the list goes on and on.  The decision on what camera to use often times doesn't rely solely on resolution, and might include:

1. How much you can afford.  Either to buy, or to rent.
2. What workflow options you have available (again, dependent on money or software competency)
3. What quality you need the deliver the final product at (a huge movie theater screen, or broadcast television)

So where do you draw the line between "HD" and "HDV"?  The marketing hype engine of capitalism leads people to believe that a resolution greater than standard-def is "HD," while the method you capture and store your footage from the camera might be what gets it labeled as as "HDV" or "HD."  I might argue that unless it's 1920x1080 at 1:1 full raster, it's not HD, and is rather "HDV."

Dude, +t.  I've learned so much from your posts.  Thank you so much for your input 

[BayTaynt3d]

I'd also add:

4. How big or small of a camera you want, and how open or discreet you want to be with it.

That's a big one for me...

[John Kary]

Dude, +t.  I've learned so much from your posts.  Thank you so much for your input 

I cover this kind of stuff all the time over on my blog.  You might consider visiting
http://www.titusfilms.com/blog/

[John Kary]

BTW, I've been thinking about buying an HV20 soon, the thing looks pretty sweet. Small. Tape. HDV. 24p. 1080i. Not bad for $900. What do you think? 

If you're thinking about using an HV20 for concert filming, be sure you're aware of the limitations of the CMOS censors.  If the shows you plan to film have a lot of flashing lights, or you don't have a very steady hand, you might think twice about the HV20 and it's CMOS censor.

[Josh P]

Dude, +t.  I've learned so much from your posts.  Thank you so much for your input 

I cover this kind of stuff all the time over on my blog.  You might consider visiting
http://www.titusfilms.com/blog/

I've been visiting for a couple weeks now   Great stuff, thank you!

BTW, I've been thinking about buying an HV20 soon, the thing looks pretty sweet. Small. Tape. HDV. 24p. 1080i. Not bad for $900. What do you think? 

If you're thinking about using an HV20 for concert filming, be sure you're aware of the limitations of the CMOS censors.  If the shows you plan to film have a lot of flashing lights, or you don't have a very steady hand, you might think twice about the HV20 and it's CMOS censor.

hmm, after reading that I'd be afraid to buy a cam with a CMOS censor because of 'wobble'.  Low light with bright flashes, vibration, and occasionally handheld are all things I have to consider.

I want to upgrade to an HD camera so I'm very interested in this.

I have a Sony PC1000, http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-DCR-PC1000-Camcorder-Review.htm, which uses CMOS censors.  I don't notice the 'wobble' effect very much if at all.  I'll post a screen of some handheld footage during a light sequence tonight.

All I have here at work is a screen of the PC1000 on a tripod...

[wbrisette]

For the record, we shot this short on the Panasonic HVX200 with the Red Rock adapter and primes. Hands down our film was the most cinematic of the bunch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlBOff2dzQE

Wayne
(We ended up taking 2nd place in the contest this was for)

[wilsonedits]

BTW, I've been thinking about buying an HV20 soon, the thing looks pretty sweet. Small. Tape. HDV. 24p. 1080i. Not bad for $900. What do you think? 

If you're thinking about using an HV20 for concert filming, be sure you're aware of the limitations of the CMOS censors.  If the shows you plan to film have a lot of flashing lights, or you don't have a very steady hand, you might think twice about the HV20 and it's CMOS censor.

exactly... I used to have a sony a1u that had a cmos sensor in it....   one particular festival I was shooting onstage with a river in the background...  the river showed up on tape as one big blue streak... the cmos sensor couldn't handle the changing ripples in the water...   also lots of hdv cams are almost impossible to capture the hdv footage... lots of errors and dropped frames...

---

also I don't see what alot of people obsession is with these new hdv cams... esp since there isn't an economical way to output hd yet...  blue ray blanks are around 15 dollars and for those of us that use apple there still isn't an option to burn blueray or hd dvd for that matter....  most people would be much better off with the gs(***) line from panasonic or another 3 chip camera....

[John Kary]

For the record, we shot this short on the Panasonic HVX200 with the Red Rock adapter and primes. Hands down our film was the most cinematic of the bunch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlBOff2dzQE

Wayne
(We ended up taking 2nd place in the contest this was for)

Looks pretty good, Wayne.  The shot at 3:40 looking down the hallway was awesome!

[wbrisette]

Looks pretty good, Wayne.  The shot at 3:40 looking down the hallway was awesome!

I can take zero credit for shots and video. I just do sound on pictures. But, of the films I've worked on, I like the look & feel the guys from Bleutuna get from their camera and primes. It has a nice film-like quality about it.

Wayne

[wilsonedits]

yet another example of why CMOS cameras and concerts don't mix !

imagine paying 35,000 for a camera and getting this types of artifacts! yikes!

http://web.mac.com/fini1/iWeb/Site%20135/4k%20Red%20Camera.html

[bensyverson]

I might argue that unless it's 1920x1080 at 1:1 full raster, it's not HD, and is rather "HDV."

Heh -- then you'd have to include all professional Sony HDCAM-based cameras (like the F900) and Panasonic DVCPRO-HD cameras (like the Varicam). Both of those codecs store a smaller raster to tape, and then expand to 1920x1080 on playback. (Of course, some of those cameras offer full 1920x1080 out via HD-SDI.)

Really, pixel dimensions are not an indicator of image quality, just as sample rate is not an indicator of sound quality. You can record at 96k, but if your mic and preamp suck, you won't have good audio...

A good measure of resolution is lines per picture height (or sometimes line pairs per picture height -- don't mix them up!). That number will take into account the whole system -- from lens to sensor to codec. If you compare the cameras on the market, you'll find that some 720p models outperform 1080 models. For example, the 720p JVC HD100 easily outperforms the "1080p" HVX200.

Of course, the larger the pixels, the more light-sensitive they are. Even the lowly HV20 technically beats the HVX200 in resolution, but the HVX is much more sensitive, so it will give you better images in low light.

Basically, it's a compromise between large pixels (high sensitivity), high resolution (measured in lines or line pairs), and low price -- pick any two.    I like the HV20 a lot, because it's very low price, fairly high resolution, and I can live with its sensitivity (I rate it at 125 ISO at 0db gain). If you need better sensitivity with comparable resolution, you'll have to triple or quadruple the price of the HV20.

[slayer548]

Personally, I'm very satisfied with my HV20 for recording concerts.  It is small enough that it is not too hard to operate in the middle of a crowd of people, it is easy to lift up to stage level for close up shots, and I've really not had too much of a problem in low light situations.  It is a bit of a pain to get exposure setting right without introducing a lot of gain.  But at $900, I can afford to have multiple cameras.  Plus I feel much more comfortable with a $900 camera while surrounded by a bunch of drunk people with full beers than I would with a $6000 camera.

also I don't see what alot of people obsession is with these new hdv cams... esp since there isn't an economical way to output hd yet...  blue ray blanks are around 15 dollars and for those of us that use apple there still isn't an option to burn blueray or hd dvd for that matter....  most people would be much better off with the gs(***) line from panasonic or another 3 chip camera....

I completely disagree with that.  While there is not currently an economical way to distribute HDV material on optical discs, Internet distribution is very feasible.  I get very good looking DVDs when I downconvert my HDV material to SD.  And lets face it, technology is hurtling forward.  While consumer BluRay/HD DVD options are limited currently, the tide is quickly turning.  For now, I can distribute optical discs in SD and high def material online, and I am secure in the knowledge that once optical HD is affordable and widely available I will be able to redistribute all my older material in the newer format.

Vimeo.com is the site I currently use to distribute high definition videos.  To see some samples, check out http://vimeo.com/IndianapolisMusic.

Is there a difference between a $900 and a $6000 camera?  You bet there is.  But at the end of the day, the operator is what counts.  You can polish a turd all you want, but it will never become a piece of chocolate.