Forum Archive Home -> Camcorders (DV/HDV/AVCHD) -> 1080i - is that any good? & Urgent need for new camcorder
1080i - is that any good? & Urgent need for new camcorder | ||||||||
| Umen Pich posted 2009 Sep 27 13:32 | ||||||||
| Guys,
I am in urgent need of new camcorder (planned trip soon). After having Sony DCR-PC9 for 8 years, I am tired of de-interlacing and the corresponding blur. Yes, yes I know and I tried the techniques described at 100fps.com. It takes time however. I can see how better are my 1280x720 clips from the still camera, and how easier it is to deal with them. Recently I started looking what are the advances with the camcorders. I don't know who needs a 240Gb HDD to record 40 hours of video, I would be happy to have 2-3 hours per trip. So I am 100% convinced that my next camera will be flash memory based. (I am tired also of the tapes). Yes the resolutions nowadays are higher but to my surprise not many camcorders in my price range offer 1080p. Instead the nasty interlaced mode is still there. Moreover - otherwise nice Sony models (prized for their shake reduction for example) don't even offer 720p, only 1080i. Not only that it is interlaced but it is not declared on their advertisements, you should dig deeply into the reviews to find it. Or maybe I am just naive and I should simply accept any claim for FULL HD to be 1080i unless it is clearly written 1080p ? Anyway. That's the easy part. The questions which bother me are: 1. How do you guys deal with 1080i. Do you just encode in interlaced mode ? I've already ordered the new mediatank C-200, it must be capable of de-interlacing on the fly. 2. Direct question to recommend a camcorder. in order of importance: - flash mem based - price range 700-1200 USD - still pictures with at least 6-8 Mpix - good shake reduction - low noise / good performance at low light - to have threads for filters before the lens - touch screen - IR mode ... ... - Optical zoom of more than 10x I like VERY much the feature of Panasonics to pre-buffer 3 seconds so that you never miss an interesting scene. But is that implemented anywhere else besides Panasonics ? Also stuff like: - time lapse (you leave the camera to take one frame per second of this booming flower, rotating starry sky) - being able to shoot at higher frame-rates is very appealing but somehow it always comes with otherwise not good cameras (or too expensive on the other end) I absolutely don't care about any editing on camera, sepia, B/W modes and shit like that. I guess none of us in this forum cares :) Thank you very much for the answers ! My absolute deadline is to have the new camcorder in my hands on October 6th. Thank you ! | ||||||||
| redwudz posted 2009 Sep 27 21:41 | ||||||||
| I just got a JVC HD300 and I'm happy with it. Does 1920 x 1080/60P and outputs .mts files. Low light sensitivity is not so good, but about the same as other HD cameras. It has a 60GB HDD. Also a micro SD slot and a 20X optical zoom. It does have a threaded lens for filters. I decided against a SD card camera as the cards would end up being very expensive for 60GB worth. The camera was about $487US.(Abe's of Maine) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830145114&a ... -_-Product | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Sep 28 03:59 | ||||||||
| Correct deinterlacing doesn't blur anything. Sounds like you're not doing it properly. 100fps.com is 10 years out of date. Good deinterlacing is slow though - mcbob or tgmc in AVIsynth. Better to start with progressive if you can (but a good interlaced camcorder will give better results than a bad progressive one).
No offence, but your previous camcorder is going to look like a toy compared to a proper modern HD camcorder. Your feature list is ambitious - no consumer HD camcorders are really good in low light - the "best" ones are "slightly less bad" than the others, but laughable compared with professional machines. Beware of the cheap pistol grip solid state "HD" camcorders - they have the pixel count to be "HD" - but good luck finding any fine picture details in their output! You can nearly always find sample footage from any camcorder on the net - take a look at the "raw" results before you buy. Check your PC is powerful enough to edit the "raw" footage too. Hope this helps. Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| Umen Pich posted 2009 Sep 28 12:46 | ||||||||
| Thank you guys!
Frankly, pointing how outdated I am, doesn't help too much. We all know that deinterlacing causes degradation of quality, which manifests either as blur or remaining lines. Just an example of what people say in one other forum: Mystery Keeper In video processing there is no universal solution. In one video I used both TempGaussMC_beta1 and nMCBob on different frames. Comatose Try the ones generally regarded as being best and see which one you like best. Blue_MiSfit But it's really impossible to say which one is the "highest quality". It's very source dependent! | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 28 13:14 | ||||||||
| If you want to post video online you want progressive video. Although, 1080i usually doesn't look too bad if you throw out one field (discard field deinterlace) and resize down to 960x540 or less. | ||||||||
| creamyhorror posted 2009 Sep 28 14:02 | ||||||||
Since interlaced video is deinterlaced during playback on progressive screens, you'd see those same artifacts while watching. Using a proper deinterlacer (like tempgaussmc or mcbob as mentioned by 2Bdecided, though those are ridiculously slow) during encoding, OTOH, will give you a stream that has minimal blur and virtually no combing/lines (although you may decide to throw away half the temporal resolution). It'll look better than direct playback of interlaced video for years to come - until playback deinterlacing becomes ridiculously advanced, anyway. For archiving, of course, you should keep the original interlaced clips. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 28 14:55 | ||||||||
From what I understand the HD300 is AVCHD and can use UXP mode for 24Mb/s 1920x1080i. AVCHD "Full HD" means 1920x1080i at 60 fields per sec, not 60p. Correct me if I'm wrong. When HDTV sets say "Full HD" they usually mean it has a 1920x1080p display panel but if 1920x1080 progressive input is accepted at all, it is usually limited to 23.976 fps (film rate) over HDMI. | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 28 17:15 | ||||||||
| The Sanyo Xacti FH1 shoots 1920x1080p60. It's a low end camcorder though and doesn't have optical image stabilization. I don't think it even has digital image stabilization. Sample video:
http://88.191.20.67/video/akiba/SANYO_HD2000_1920x1080_60fps.zip | ||||||||
| redwudz posted 2009 Sep 28 18:24 | ||||||||
That info was from NewEgg. :( The manual says 1080/60i, MPEG-4 AVCH/H.264, Dolby Digital (2ch). I use the XP 17Mb/s mode. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 28 22:15 | ||||||||
I wish there was a consumer level 1920x1080p 60 fps capable camcorder. It would chew up flash RAM or HDD fast though (double data rate 48Mb/s for equivalent quality). JVC has the $3500 GY-HM100U that will do 1280x720p at 59.94 fps with 35Mb/s MPeg2. | ||||||||
| Umen Pich posted 2009 Sep 29 01:11 | ||||||||
| From the manual of Canon HF S10:
Recordings made with the PF24, PF30 frame rate are converted and recorded on the memory as 60i ??? Than what happens if I copy the contents of that memory ? It will remain 60i ? What's the catch here ? I am confused. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 29 02:07 | ||||||||
The AVCHD standard is based on 1080i 29.97 fps same as all North American interlace television. 24p (23.976 actually) is recorded with extra pad fields to extend the frame rate to 29.97 frames per second or 59.94 fields per second. The process is called telecine. To convert the recorded interlaced video back to 23.976p, one must remove the pad fields by a process called inverse telecine (IVTC). Note that shooting 24p requires camera stabilization and other special camera handling techniques. It is not recommended for hand held camcorders usless you can develop a very steady hand. By contrast, shooting 1080i mode records motion at 59.94 fields per second. This gives much smoother motion. Current HDTV sets create a frame from each field for a 59.94p viewing experience. Higher end HDTV sets extend frame rate to 120 fps ( 119.88 ) or 240 fps (239.76) by repeating or interpolating intermediate frames. While 1080i presents some issues for internet distribution or extreme compression, a proper computer software player (e.g. PowerDVD) will deinterlace 1080i to 1080p for computer screen display without unexceptable motion blur. Alternately, 1080i/29.97 can be converted to 1280x720p/59.94 with very little loss and full motion fidelity. Problem is most computer peeps cheap out on bitrate and convert instead to 1280x720p/29.97 which is noticably more jerky for motion. | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Sep 29 04:27 | ||||||||
You get "blur" if you blend fields, and "remaining lines" if you use a poor motion adaptive deinterlacer. These techniques are 10-20 years out of date.
Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| Umen Pich posted 2009 Sep 29 10:46 | ||||||||
| edDV,
thanks for that explanation, but I still cannot get the idea - how 30fps progressive is being recorded on media as 60i and what do I get eventually in that case ? | ||||||||
| poisondeathray posted 2009 Sep 29 10:53 | ||||||||
Canon uses a 30i wrapper Here I use the term 30i instead of 60i, but it means the same thing, 30 frames per second or 60 fields per second The 24p or 30p content is wrapped in a 30i container. So to many programs, it will "look" interlaced because of the signalling, even though the content is progressive. You need special extraction techniques or IVTC for 24p to get back the progressive content e.g. through avisynth, but some editors provide this functionality for 30p in 30i, but none perform the 24p in 30i extraction properly | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 29 14:45 | ||||||||
First 29.97i, 30i, 59.94i and 60i all mean the same thing for North American digital video. Confusing huh? 29.97i = traditional and correct frame rate notation. The frame rate is a legacy relec of analog NTSC. Two fields recorded 1/59.94th second apart are combined to make an interlace frame. Since odd and even lines were recorded at different points in time, a frame grab will show line separation during motion. This isn't a problem for interlace TV sets which display fields sequentally. Digital TV sets deinterlace 29.97i to 59.94p displaying a progressive sequence. Quality of deinterlace varies. Computer displays are progressive. They can show the raw frames with line separation or a deinterlaced 59.94p sequence created by a software player or display card hardware. 59.94i = indicates field rate. 30i = rounded up lazy frame rate notation. 60i = rounded up lazy field rate notation. I explained 23.976p (aka 24p) telecine above. 29.97p (aka 30p) means both fields in the interlace frame were recorded at the same instant in time instead of 1/59.94 sec apart. This means a frame grab will show both fields in alignment even during motion. Disadvantage is motion is sampled at half the rate. 30p has advantage for direct computer display or web streaming at a 30p rate. It won't look as good for HDTV display and may show artifacts on "120 Hz." or "240 Hz" premium HDTV sets since they will assume the video is 29.97i. | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 29 15:09 | ||||||||
| Essentially, when a frame is encoded interlaced, the two fields are separated and each is compressed separately inside the file. When it's decompressed the two fields are decoded, woven together into a single frame again, and handed to the editor.
An 720x480 interlaced frame with a red 1 in one field and are green 2 in the other: 
Separated into two 720x240 fields: 
There is no reason a progressive frame can't be encoded as if it is interlaced. It's just slightly less efficient. And with YV12 video the colors are little less sharp along the vertical axis. | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Sep 29 16:02 | ||||||||
This is what I was planning on buying, I'm gonna download that clip later, but I'm a bit afraid that this is one of those low-end pistol grips ;) I had checked a comparison on youtube and the progressive scan obviously had its advantages especially on motion but it didnt have the best detail of the lot, there was a Canon with better detail but it was interlaced... It's a bit choosing the lesser evil. Or waiting untill Canon comes out with e progressive cam. | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 29 16:05 | ||||||||
The older Xacti's were pistol grip but this model is the traditional compact camcorder form factor.  | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 29 18:19 | ||||||||
| The tradeoffs for the Sanyo Xacti VPC-FH1 are bit-rate and "non-standard" h.264 (not AVCHD).
The advantage is 60fps progressive 1920x1080 motion smoothness but bit rates are very low. Sanyo Xacti VPC-FH1 1920x1080p/59.94fps 24 Mb/s 1920x1080p/29.97fps 12 Mb/s 1920x1080i/29.97fps 16 Mb/s Compare this to AVCHD-UXP 1920x1080i/29.97fps 24 Mb/s HDV (MPeg2) 1440x1080i/29.97fps 25 Mb/s 1440x1080p/29.97fps 25 Mb/s 1440x1080p/23.97fps 20 Mb/s (equivalent after pad fields removed) So as you can see, HDV 1080i has ~33% more bit rate per pixel vs. AVCHD-UXP which has 50% more bit rate per pixel vs. the FH1 (1080i). The 1080i AVCHD UXP mode has 100% more bit rate per pixel vs. the FH1 in 60p mode. IMO 1920x1080 60p AVC needs at least 35-48 Mb/s to hold quality. It seems to me that the Xacti VPC-FH1 would be ideal at 1280x720p 60fps at 24 Mb/s but for some reason it lacks this mode. http://sanyo.com/xacti/english/products/vpc_fh1/videos.html | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 29 18:59 | ||||||||
| The sample I linked to was the only 1920x1080p60 sample I was able to find. It's not great for testing bitrate issues since it's mostly still shots. There are lots of Youtube samples but there's no way of telling which problems might be from the camcorder and which are from Youtube. The FH1 does appear to blow out bright highlights. Can't tell about low light performance and noise. The high speed modes look like fun. Hopefully this portends better things to come... | ||||||||
| inspirevideo posted 2009 Sep 30 15:29 | ||||||||
| The whole 'FULL HD' being plastered on almost every consumer HD camcorder is really irritating to me as it contradicts the standards on TV's - HD Ready : 720p/1080i, FULL HD : 1080p. FULL HD camcorder : 1080i - rubbish! I have spoken to panasonic representatives about this before and they just looked at me like I was a nit picking trouble maker!
That aside I have been using a Canon HV20 personally for a few years with the results going on DVD and online and I have never has a problem with interlacing lines, I always deinterlace using adobe media encoder when I export my edits and it really has worked well for me. When I export HD it is always at 1280x720, not 1080p but the results are great. I have also used the Sony HVR-Z1 which again is HDV working at 1080i, no probs. I recently bought a panasonic DMC-GH1 which is a DSLR (technically not really but looks and works like one) it shoots great stills and has a 720p at 50fps mode, I absolutely love this camera and the fact you can shoot progressive hd video and change the lens - nice fast primes for low light... Anyway hope that helps | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Oct 01 13:08 | ||||||||
Manufacturers would say "Full HD" means 1920x1080, nothing more. Since LCD and Plasma TV sets are also progressive they make a deal out of 1080p but the only native 1080p source is a Blu-Ray player operating at 24p. All other inputs other than a computer desktop are processed (IVTC, deinterlaced and/or resized). The pros know that bit rate is more important for picture quality than resolution. From a camcorder designers point of view, even 1920x1080i is a stretch that seldom improves picture quality unless the optics, codec and bit rate are up to the task. Consumers quickly suffer buyers remorse when they discover the cost of level 4+ flash media needed to support 24Mb/s AVCHD UXP mode. 1920x1080p 60fps would need 35-48Mb/s to get equivalent compression quality and that write rate is marginal for consumer level flash ram. Pro flash cards (e.g. P2) use parallel flash ram architecture to get higher sustained bit rate. Let's face it 60fps progressive has a strong benefit for hand held, high action consumer video. On the other hand 1920x1080 is overkill given consumer optics, low light penalty from smaller pixels and prohibitive flash ram cost. An ideal progressive consumer camcorder resolution would be between 1280x720p and 1366x768p. A higher end possibility might be 1440x1080p but that would require 70% more bit rate for equivalent compression rate. 1280x720p at 60 fps would be ideal for low light and/or high action recording at about 24 Mb/s AVC. An economy mode would allow 1280x720p 30fps at 12 Mb/s. As flash ram cost comes down and consumer camcorder optics improve, a 1920x1080p 60fps model operating at Blu-Ray max 36-54Mb/s may be appropriate in the future.
I've also been using a Sony HVR-Z1U for years and a Canon HV20 for home/travel. I agree they are a good current optimization but if I had the budget, I'd get one of the XDCAM-EX cams. I'm considering a Canon 5d Mk2 for stills and "B roll" video. | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Oct 10 13:54 | ||||||||
BTW guys, I bought this exact camcorder, and it's looking pretty good to me, I'm happy with it! I uploaded a little 60p sample clip that I shot today, let's see what you all think. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4L3QK27E Be advised tho if you want full motion playback, you'll need a dual core 3.0ghz minimum! | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Oct 10 18:14 | ||||||||
| That's pretty impressive for a such an inexpensive camcorder. How does it do in low light conditions? | ||||||||
| SCDVD posted 2009 Oct 10 23:32 | ||||||||
It has gotten some decent reviews regarding image quality and low light performance. But it has a major limitation; it doesn't support an external mic. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Oct 11 00:15 | ||||||||
| The bit rate is too low for quality 1920x1080p at 60 fps. They should offer a 1280x720p 60fps mode but they don't. | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Oct 11 03:20 | ||||||||
Not as well, but I understand it's the same for most if not all HiDef camcorders.
You still think so after seeing the clip? I can't say I see any sort of artefacting and it all looks pretty sharp to me, even in highly detailled shots as the subject I filmed. BTW, read your comparison and I have some thoughts on that: - You cannot ever compare a MPEG-2 bitrate with a H.264 bitrate. H.264 is a inter-frame compressor (and advanced one at that) whilst MPEG-2 isnt, I'm sure you know this so I'm not really sure why you would compare them. - H.264 being a interframe compressor, this means that doubling the framerate does not automatically mean you need to double the bitrate. Because for a given videoclip, the amount of motion is a constant, wether there are 25 or 250 frames per second. You could say, the higher the framerate, the more effective a inter-frame compressor works. | ||||||||
| Gavino posted 2009 Oct 11 05:25 | ||||||||
Eh? MPEG-2 does do inter-frame compression. That's why you have GOPs, etc. Perhaps you are thinking of MJPEG? | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Oct 11 05:50 | ||||||||
| D'oh xD I always thought MPEG-2 didnt do interframe, obviously it does , but still you cant compare diferent compressors' bitrates to one another. | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Oct 11 07:17 | ||||||||
| MPEG-2 typically uses GOPs of around 15 frames (partly because of DVD limitations). The two 1080p60 h.264 samples I've seen from the Xacti use 30 frame GOPs with an IBPBPBPBP... pattern.
I agree that when you double the frame rate you don't have to fully double the bitrate. But you do need more bitrate. If you zoom into the Xacti images you'll see there are no small, low contrast, details. This is probably a combination of noise filtering and over-compression. It does keep higher contrast details and sharp edges. A 4x nearest neighbor enlargement of a frame near the end of the sample: 
The sky is blown out in the bright areas -- the camcorder is clipping at IRE 100. 
Overall I think the FH1 does a good job for its price and intended market. Too bad it doesn't have a 720p60 mode and some image stabilization. | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Oct 11 08:03 | ||||||||
| Interesting analyzation jagabo, skies being blown out is common in many video aswell as still photography (on automatic settings), I didn't use manual white balance or anything.
It does actually have an option for image stabilization, wich was turned on infact ;) I do plan to buy a tripod for the camera, wobbly 1920x1080 @ 60p is just wrong. | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Oct 12 03:16 | ||||||||
Thanks for uploading that - it's impressive. There's nothing pixel-sharp in it, but that's true of the HV20 series too. I think what jagabo observed about lack of subtle high-frequency information is a typical "artefact" of MPEG-4 at lower bitrates - it'll almost never produce the blocking of MPEG-2, but you need to run it something approaching MPEG-2 bitrates to keep the full detail. Goodness knows what hardware you'd need to edit this and watch a cross fade in the NLE smoothly! (Yes, I know, you'd use an intermediate codec - a few years before we can do away with these). Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| SCDVD posted 2009 Oct 12 10:33 | ||||||||
| Jagabo, The blown out sky behind the building in the clip you showed is pretty typical of any camcorder of any price. The face of the building was properly exposed at the expense of the sky. That's a good thing. A lot of camcorders in auto mode adjust the exposure for the brightest part of the image. As a result, any back lite subject is underexposed. | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Oct 12 10:48 | ||||||||
Yes, I am aware of this. But there is room above IRE 100 (Y=235) the camcorder might have used. The question is, where those areas the max that the CCD could read and that was set at IRE 100, or could the CCD read above IRE 100 (up to Y=255) but they clamped the signal at IRE 100?
Agreed. On the other hand, what if the bright area had not been sky and was more important than the darker parts of the picture? Obviously, you can switch to manual exposure for situations like that, or the camera may have presets for those situations, or you can use the semi-automatic f-stop up/down settings.
Yes. | ||||||||
| SCDVD posted 2009 Oct 12 11:03 | ||||||||
I wonder if it clamps at IRE 100 in PAL mode as well. Since a spec compliant NTSC DVD does not go above IRE 100, some camcorders respect this spec. The problem with this is that with other means of displaying the video such as a computer monitor there is unused video dynamic range. (I haven't seen this camera so I don't know if it can shoot either PAL or NTSC compatible video. Some consumer camcorders such as the Kodak Zi6 do. If this camera can't, my question would only apply to the PAL version of it.) | ||||||||
| SCDVD posted 2009 Oct 12 12:03 | ||||||||
How did you get this clip? I downloaded it and see that it is a .mkv file, not a .mov file from the camera. If you reencoded it, it isn't an accurate appraisal of what comes from the camera. | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Oct 12 13:59 | ||||||||
[quote="SCDVD"]
Anyway, 16=black and 235-white irrespective of video standard ("NTSC" or "PAL") - but most consumer camcorders go up to 255-ish. I'm not complaining at one respecting the standard(!) - but as you said in your next post, another explanation is that it might have been transcoded, and clipped at that stage. Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Oct 12 15:02 | ||||||||
Yes MPeg2 is all about intraframe and interframe compression. You may have been thinking DV format. DV is intraframe compressed only. You can compare bit rates. h.264 can compress more than MPeg2. MPeg2 hardware compression chips are more mature and in general perform better than these early generation h.264 hardware encoders. While in theory h.264 can equal MPeg2 quality with twice the compression, that is not yet true for hardware compression chips. Using HDV as the base, current h.264 comparisons are HDV 1440x1080i/29.97 - 25Mb/s h.264 1440x1080i/29.97 - 17Mb/s (~50% more compressed) h.264 1920x1080i/29.97 - 24Mb/s (~50% more compressed since 1920 has 50% more pixels than 1440) h.264 1920x1080p/59.94 - 24Mb/s (~166% more compressed on a bit rate per pixel basis) It is probably true that the same clip may not need twice the bit rate to go from 29.97 to 59.94 sampling for equivalent quality, but the FH1 is pushing compression too far IMO at 24Mb/s. Most reviewers comparing HDV 25 Mb/s 1440x1080i vs AVCHD 17Mb/s at 1440x1080i still have favored HDV for overall picture quality. They find AVCHD has more noise, smear and motion artifacts but the differences are closing with each new chip generation. The problem with buying an h.264 camcorder today is the codec is not upgradable. You are stuck at current technology while new generation h.264 codecs will continue to improve. One must decide when quaity is good enough to jump in. This leaves out the arguments for further losses during editing and the current high cost of flash ram vs. DV tape. | ||||||||
| poisondeathray posted 2009 Oct 12 15:48 | ||||||||
| I think the current crop of AVCHD camcorders have surpassed HDV in terms of average quality. The recent reviews and comparisons of the HV40 vs. other AVCHD camcorders at camcorderinfo certainly suggests this for 1080i mode. But of course there are many other factors that may go into the purchase decision
I agree with edDV that the limitation is the hardware encoding and the implementation of AVCHD. It's possible with software to easily surpass 50% better compression using h.264 vs. MPEG2, but that doesn't translate into real world benefits because the hardware is limited and doesn't fully realize h.264's full potential | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Oct 12 16:39 | ||||||||
How did I get the clip? I filmed it :wink: The camcorder records to mp4 container wich I simply remuxed to mkv, no re-encoding whatsoever. The camcorder can film in 60p frames, 60i fields, and 30p frames /s, now even though I live in Europe, thats not pal at all, but it isnt NTSC eiither, it's HiDef, and at the fastest framerate I know of a consumer camera can record, so I simply figured, the more the better :) The television standards as we know them are 1930's technology and as far as I'm concerned, the sooner they become history, the better! | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Oct 12 22:11 | ||||||||
Do you have links to those "recent reviews"? I've been busy and this is tax week. | ||||||||
| poisondeathray posted 2009 Oct 13 00:30 | ||||||||
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HV40-Camcorder-Review-37194.htm | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Oct 13 02:02 | ||||||||
You mean this part?
We are talking formats not specific camcorder designs. The consumer is being led to AVCHD format and for the majority that don't seriously edit, AVCHD may be acceptable. For those that do, there are compromises. The main point we have been discussing here is whether the the Xacti HF1 proprietary h.264 is a viable 60p solution (AVCHD does not support 60p currently). My point is it would do better as a proprietary h.264 1280x720p 60fps sports/action solution. There is a hole in the market there and 24Mb/s bit rate combined with consumer optics would be more appropriate for 1280x720p. | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Oct 13 03:27 | ||||||||
http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=29809 Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Oct 13 03:34 | ||||||||
There's an argument that 24p is kind of OK, because you can just speed it up to 25p. But 60i / 60p converted to 50i or 50p? No! Frame rate conversion is evil! btw, I speak from experience. I have (and always have had) a European camcorder, but like most people I have a digital still camera and mobile phone that will record video clips 15, 30, or 60fps. The digital still camera can do quite nice quality at 30 and 60fps - but it's painful to include it in a 50i project. Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Oct 13 04:21 | ||||||||
I hate sped up material because it messes the audio up, different pitch etc... But my point is, exactly that, yes, CRT TV's need very specific specs, but flatscreens dont, and so why would I mess with the original specs anymore. Especially if you player is a computer or a HardDisk media player. I am offcourse talking about material for home use, not something you'd need to distribute for TV viewing... | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Oct 13 06:41 | ||||||||
Apart from the fact that imported American models are usually cheaper. But aside from all the above, the warranties are poor and the 60fps is likely to flicker badly under some 50Hz lighting. It depends how keen you are to save money. Or, in this case, buy something that's not available in a 50Hz version yet. Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Oct 13 07:13 | ||||||||
| What mean to say is, I'm keeping the original specs without converting, since I can playback 60fps on a flatscreen using a pc connected through DVI. This way I don't have to be bothered with specs like 25/30/50/60 fps, I'll be able to play it all perfectly without converting anything.
Obvously the last thing you'd want to do is convert 60 to 50 or 30 to 25 fps. That would be worst than having to deal with interlaced material for output on a progressive display, like a HDTV, or a website on a computer screen. My profession is webdesigner and one of the reasons I really wanted progressive is to be able to use video like it was an image on websites. I'm not bothered with framerate for use on websites nor for playback on a computer to a HTDV (be it one that can refresh up to 100hz) | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Oct 13 07:50 | ||||||||
| Your HDTV may have a 100 Hz refresh but it probably doesn't accept 100 Hz input. 60 Hz input on a 100 Hz display will still be jerky because some frames will be displayed once, some twice. 60 Hz input on a 50 Hz display will also be jerky because one out of every six frames won't be displayed.
I think you'll also find that most flash players will have problems with large frame 60 Hz material, even on 60 Hz displays and with sufficient bandwidth. | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Oct 13 07:56 | ||||||||
| Most TVs will switch modes, and run the panel at (a multiple of) the source's rate.
Not all though. Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Oct 13 12:59 | ||||||||
"NTSC" market HDTV sets lack support for analog composite PAL and often block support for 25i(50i) over HDMI specifically to make these models undesirable for trans-shipment into Europe where similar "PAL" models sell for much more due to the VAT and other taxes. Many of these "NTSC" HDTV sets still have an "analog hole" where 25i(50i) or 50p are accepted over analog component. This varies by manufacturer and model. "NTSC" HDTV sets made for the Asian markets are less likely to have PAL frame rates blocked. | ||||||||
| Abas-Avara posted 2009 Oct 13 15:36 | ||||||||
| I have also a 8 year old camcorder, Sony TRV 420e
I bought it for 2500 gulden (wich are now 1300 euros/1900 dollar) 
That's lots of cables! (analog passtrough) it uses Digital8 but with today camcorders it's nothing? | ||||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Oct 13 16:22 | ||||||||
Then I must be missing something. I have a Samsung 23" monitor (wich had built in tuner so is also a TV) connected through DVI. If a computer monitor will play 60p smoothly, why wouldnt a LCD TV with DVI input? It's the same technology only bigger isnt it? And as said before, many European TV's will display 50hz aswell as 60z, so I don't see a problem. Everything I play on the computer screen, be it 25 fps 30 fps or 60 fps plays smoothly. So someone really needs to explain to me why it wouldnt on a HDTV wich has a max framerate of lets say 100hz. Does the videocard do motion interpolation? If so, no probs whatever the output screen is. | ||||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Oct 13 17:06 | ||||||||
Yes, if the TV and player automatically change the refresh rate depending on the material, 50 Hz material will play smoothly on a 50 Hz display, and 60 Hz material will display smoothly on a 60 Hz display.
If your graphics card and display are set to 60 Hz refresh 24 and 25 fps video will not play smoothly. Try the video in this post: http://forum.videohelp.com/topic369790.html#1981421
At 100 Hz it will either duplicate frames from 25 fps or 50 fps material, or attempt to motion interpolate in-between frames (one in-between frame with 50 fps material, 3 in-between frames for 25 fps material). 60 Hz feeds probably don't get that interpolation treatment. Although I admit, I don't know for sure. If it switches to 120 Hz refresh then you'll get smooth playback via the same mechanism as 50 Hz material at 100 Hz. | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Oct 14 05:49 | ||||||||
Some HTPC users have software like ReClock and PowerStrip to solve this problem, but most mere mortals don't know it exists, and so never see the same motion quality on a PC as they enjoy on their TV. Cheers, David. | ||||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 Oct 14 11:38 | ||||||||
| Why are you deinterlacing, anyway? That's not something you should be doing. | ||||||||
| 2Bdecided posted 2009 Oct 15 08:31 | ||||||||
The OP isn't deinterlacing - it's a progressive camcorder! Cheers, David. |
Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.