choosind the right camera

> So is the XH A1 a "native progressive" camera?
> Sure, to the extent that that phrase means a damn
> thing. Can the CCD block be clocked to 48 Hz? Yup.
> So it's a "native progressive" camera, and we can
> all move on with our lives.

Thankyou so much. Comparing XHA1 and Z5 , the two main diffrences seems to be a lilttle wider lens in the Z5 and native progressive mode, the price diffrence is 1500 dollars, so is probablt noy worthit. I really like to have the option of progressive mode, so being sais the Canon has actually a real progressive mode. Can you tell the diffrence when watching the footage when compared to footage from a labelled native progressive camera like the Z5?

I have been consulting with a technitian from a professional video store.

He gave a technical explanation that I can´t really put in wprds npw. But the conclusion is that , you only get real progressive when the data is not stored on tape, let´s say P2 or the sony recorder. So, the progresive is the same in A1 and Z5, or Fx 1000 if is going to tape

maltess, Here are a few pages to look over about 1080i and 1080P:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080i

In the 1080i page it says: "In certain contexts, as in camcorders, what the camera manufacturers define as "1080i" actually has a lower horizontal resolution, with only 1440 horizontal pixels, 1080 vertical pixels. This is often something to watch out for with tape camcorders, because the highest recordable resolution on any HDV tape is 1440x1080."

It's the difference between 1440x1080 and the 1920x 1080 that has me puzzled. So how do you get full resolution to get to 1920x 1080 progressive from a camera the records on a tape?

Be very careful about relying on non-technical sources for technical information. Especially when those sources throw around phrases like "real progressive."

Digital video ? regardless of format details ? is a stream of bits that can be interpreted by a computer as a sequence of raster images. If a particular stream of bits is called "HD," that means that it must, sooner or later, be turned into a sequence of raster images that fits one of the jillion-or-so ATSC HD specifications. But "HD" has nothing to do with how the bits are actually stored on whatever recording medium is used.

Hell, if you wanted to, you could describe an HD recording format that uses exactly one bit per frame of video. Either the frame is solid black, or it's solid white. It's up to the playback system ? the VTR, the computer software that decodes the data, whatever ? to take that one bit for each frame, multiply it out into a 1920x1080 raster and turn it into digital video. Is that HD? Sure it is! It's pretty useless, but it's definitely an HD video format, because what comes out is video that conforms to one of the ATSC specifications.

Lots of people tend to get bogged down in the technical details of the various HD formats, losing site of the (pardon the pun) big picture. Oh, this format is only so-many megabits, oh this format is only so-many pixels, oh this format is only such-n-such chroma subsampling. These are all important details, but to zero in on one while ignoring the others is kinda silly.

For example, let's consider HDCAM. Not HDCAM SR, the new hotness, but the venerable HDCAM format that's about twelve years old now. In order to record sufficient data for a high-definition video signal to be reproduced by the VTR, Sony made a number of clever compromises. One of those compromises was to record only 1440 horizontal samples per scan line to tape, then to interpolate to get the full 1920-pixel-wide raster on playback. Another compromise was to record only eight bits per channel per recorded sample, rather than the normal 10 bits per channel. These two compromises, along with a few other clever tricks, let them manufacture recording and playback equipment that created really high-quality footage at a reasonable cost, and so HDCAM went on to become the unquestioned dominant HD format until the advent of HDCAM SR in 2003.

So 1440x1080 sampling, and 8 bits per pixel was, for six years, the absolute gold standard in high definition video, good enough not just for television but for early digital cinema as well.

And guess what? Those are precisely the same specs that an $800 HDV camera uses: 1440x1080 sampling at 8 bits.

So what makes a Sony F900 a better camera than a Canon HV20? Well, a lot of things. A bigger (and better) sensor, much better glass in front of the sensor, different and superior compression in the recorder, better chroma subsampling ? there are tons of things that all add up to make an F900 a better camera than an HV20. Which is why an F900 costs more than a hundred times what an HV20 costs.

But when you get to comparing more, well, comparable cameras, things get more complicated. Like comparing the HVX200 to the EX1, for example. If you look at the specs, one camera is simply not obviously superior to the other. There's no single set of features you could point to that says "this camera is better." Instead, you have to look at things like workflow (critically important and too-often overlooked) and the overall quality of the footage itself. Forget for a minute how the stuff's stored on the recording medium; just look at the end result, and judge based on that.

Too many people want to get all nerdy about it. At the end of the day, only two things matter: Does this camera fit into my workflow in a pleasant, efficient, flexible and cost-effective manner? And do the pictures look like I want them to? That's all that matters, right there.

Jeff, I know what you mean when you say; "be very careful about relying on non-technical sources for technical information". I'm a WWII historian and places like wikipedia can give you wrong information on a subject because anybody can post anything.

So lets take the Canon XHA1. We used it last night and will see the edit this sunday. It shoots interlace, so how in my workflow do I get it to progressive? What are the factors involved?

[NOTE] I don't mean to take a lot of your time with this technical stuff...

See, there's the root of your problem. It's false to say that the XH A1 "shoots interlace." It shot exactly what your camera operator had it set to. If it was set to 60i, then you won't be "getting it to progressive," because it isn't. If it was set to what Canon calls "24F" mode (which is 24p with 3:2 pulldown inserted) then Final Cut will remove the pulldown for you automatically when you capture using the HDV 1080p24 Firewire Basic preset.

But here's the thing: You don't technically need to remove the pulldown from footage that's got pulldown in it. You can just edit 60i-with-pulldown material as you would any other material, as long as you take care not to cut on the jitter frames. And even that's not technically necessary, though I personally hate seeing half-frame edits myself.

Quote

I'm a WWII historian and places like wikipedia can give you wrong information on a subject because anybody can post anything

Sorry...then why even post what you posted if you KNOW it is in all probability incorrect? You can't do that...that doesn't help anybody. You will confuse people that don't understand. You have to take your own advice before you can give to others.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

We were wondering what the "F" meant in "24F". We could not find a reference anywhere telling us. Okay, that clears a lot of thing up. Thanks,

"24F" is just Canon's marketing name for their technique of reclocking the sensor in the camera to 48 Hz and laying down a 60i HDV bit stream with 3:2 pulldown in it.

And Joey, just for the record, I didn't mean to imply that the information Russ got from Wikipedia was wrong, per se. I haven't even looked at it; I don't know. But it was certainly misleading, at least to Russ.

The "the video store guy said you can't record 24p to tape" thing, however, was just flat-out wrong. Either originally, or in the retelling. There are lots of ways to record 24p to tape ? 48 Hz PsF is the most common, but Canon's "24F" qualifies as well.

So, if I am now basicly choosing between XHA1 and Z5 and the progressive mede is important for me, which one is going to look bettr or more "real" , canon 24F? or Sony Native progressive, Any big diffrence? z5 cost 1500 dolars more than A1

Rent one of each and test them. It's the only way to be sure.

(And please stop throwing around the phrase "native progressive." It's misleading, and it confuses people.)

I read that information that was on Wikipedia in other places. I just link to it because it was easier to read.

Well that's all cool. I'll be working with the Canon XHA1 a lot more in the coming weeks and months. I'll be able to run some test using the different modes and really pin it down to what works best for our projects.

maltess, Crank: High Voltage was shot using the Canon XHA1 and the Canon HF10. So it really comes down to your workflow.

Quote

I'll be able to run some test using the different modes and really pin it down to what works best for our projects.

That's absolutely the right way to proceed. Look at it this way: You absolutely have to do camera tests anyway, in order to rate the camera so you know what ISO to plug in to your light meters. That's the perfect time to do basic workflow and format tests as well. Two birds, one stone.

Jeff Harrell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rent one of each and test them. It's the only way
> to be sure.
>
> (And please stop throwing around the phrase
> "native progressive." It's misleading, and it
> confuses people.)


Yes, i guess thats the only way

I am just using the term in question marks to differentiate from canon 24f, and explain myself better, we all know by now the term is wrong

Get a FLIP HD or...OR! Those new iPod Nanos that shoots video!

Too many camera choices. All boils down to what are you shooting, how much are you shooting, what are the shooting conditions, how long are you shooting, what is your budget?


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Would you say, Shane, that a case can be made for buying different cameras for different jobs instead of buying one expensive camera that can do it all?

1) Which camera for the web?
2) A camera to do 24p for blow-up to 35mm film?
3) A camera for industrial work for DVD?
4) A camera for TV shows?

Please indicate your recommendations and the specs too. This by the way in line with the topic of the thread.

If you want a comprehensive analysis of every camera on the market, you should take a class, pay a consultant, anything. This is not a camera forum, let alone a "review every single camera available" forum.


www.derekmok.com

You can find camera reviews online by doing a goggle search. Here's one: Texas Shootout!

There is a qualitative difference between "which camera would you use to shoot X" and "which camera should I use to shoot X."

Do you know why the show "ER" switched to Red for their last few episodes after shooting on film for a decade and a half? You might think it was some carefully planned decision based on the capabilities of the camera or the workflow ? no. It's 'cause the same production company had shot a pilot on Red and that pilot had gotten picked up for series, and the producers ran the numbers and said, "Eh, screw it, we'll just shoot the rest of 'ER' on Red too." The decision had absolutely nothing to do with the camera itself; it was purely a business decision.

My point here is that "what would you use to shoot X" is an answerable question ? as long as the "X" is very clearly specified ? but the reason for somebody's answer will boil down to personal preference and a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the camera itself. "Oh, I'd shoot on so-n-so." Why? "Because all my lenses are PL, so if we shoot so-n-so we won't have to rent Panavision glass." Or even "Because I shot this other thing on it and it went okay." That's not at all the kind of answer you're looking for here, but that's the only correct answer.

As for the other question, the only honest answer to "what should I use to shoot X" is "You're a professional, shoot whatever the hell you want." The implication being that a professional DP knows the difference between a PV and a PL mount, knows the difference between an ISO 200 camera and an ISO 320 camera, knows the difference between HMI balance and tungsten balance, knows the difference between a 2/3" sensor and a Super 35 sensor, and knows who to ask about the difference between a tape-based post workflow, a neg-finish post workflow, a DI-finish post workflow and a raw digital post workflow, and thus is more than capable of making up his own damn mind.

No, Shane had narrowed it down to the flip hd and the ipod nanos.
That means there is a way to choose different models to do specific jobs.

I asked Shane for his recommendations of the four he would choose.

Four arbitrary choices, not every camera on the market.

It is my belief that if you ask a piece of equipment to do more than one task that there will be a degree of compromise introduced in the workings of it. This I'm applying only to cameras now. I'm not applying this to romantic affairs or anything like that.LOL

If I remember right, Shane shot a video segment for his podcast on his iPhone. Looked fine to me.

I vote iPhone.

Does the iPhone shoot progressive frames? Is it 30p?

This would be your choice for a web camera? I would like to be able to shoot variable frames for the web, if that were possible. What do you recommend for the four cameras I asked Shane about?

Anybody can answer this question by the way. This thread is about "choosing the right camera."

I kind of just got through telling you, in the most delicate way I could, that that's a pointless question.

And I apologize for my obviously sarcastic "I vote iPhone" response above. (At least I thought it was obviously sarcastic.)

Well, you were not joking when you said Shane's podcast was alright? I haven't seen it, but I could use a small camera (even if it's consumer oriented) to shoot my web content ...

such as interviews with people for the web, like when previewing a movie to get feedback ...?

And then which is your camera for TV bound productions? Since HD is required I believe, what's your best choice for a camera to shoot for TV, e.g., a cable show, or a reality show that you would have no intention of blowing up to film?

Please excuse me for quoting myself, and for boldfacing the key point.

Quote

As for the other question, the only honest answer to "what should I use to shoot X" is "You're a professional, shoot whatever the hell you want." The implication being that a professional DP knows the difference between a PV and a PL mount, knows the difference between an ISO 200 camera and an ISO 320 camera, knows the difference between HMI balance and tungsten balance, knows the difference between a 2/3" sensor and a Super 35 sensor, and knows who to ask about the difference between a tape-based post workflow, a neg-finish post workflow, a DI-finish post workflow and a raw digital post workflow, and thus is more than capable of making up his own damn mind.

Oh, ok, Jeff. Be that way

Camera geeks: off topic!

Kevin Monahan
Social Support Lead, DV Products
Adobe
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe After Effects and Premiere Pro Community Blog
Follow Me on Twitter!

Quote

Does the iPhone shoot progressive frames? Is it 30p?

Really? GOOGLE it.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Thanks, Joey. I took your advice and googled it. Here is the result; the first music video shot on the iPhone:





Which camera would you use to shoot progressive for the web?

I was being sarcastic with my recommendations. Guess I left out the

There is no end-all-be-all camera. There are cameras for certain situations. I am not a camera guy, I don't know JACK about the internal electronics and crud that makes a camera a good camera. I am an editor that deals with the footage after. I will not make camera recommendations. Adam Wilt is the man for that: [adamwilt.com]

Yes, I shot a podcast with my iPhone. It was there, it was easy, it worked.

Asking a bunch of editors for CAMERA recommendations is silly. There are camera forums for this stuff.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]