HV20: 24P or normal for home movies

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by smitha96, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. smitha96 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    #1
    Friends,
    I have an HV20 and use it for home movies and the occasional youth soccer game. I've always:

    1. Shot everything in normal HD mode
    2. Imported to iMovie '08 in full 1920x1200

    Is there anything I should be doing different? Is 24p better for home movies?

    Thanks for any comments or suggestions,
    Alex
     
  2. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    24p gives it a more film-like look (though you often need to do a fair amount of color correction w/ video to truly make it look film-like), lower framerate. It's purely a look thing. If you think it looks better, use it.
     
  3. smitha96 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    #3
    I heard that if I record in 24p that I get full 1080p. Is that accurate?
     
  4. killmoms macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    I'm not familiar with the HV20 in particular, so I can't vouch for that claim one way or the other.

    I can tell you that the optics of the lens in it are almost certainly not capable of actually resolving 1080 lines, no matter the frame rate.
     
  5. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5
    IMO 24p would be worse for home movies because all the action and camera movement would look choppy. Just as an example, broadcast HD sports are shot in either 1080i60 or 720p60 (the fastest HD frame rates available) so the action looks as smooth as possible.


    Lethal
     
  6. smitha96 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    #6
    Thanks everyone. Sounds like I should be sticking with the 1080x60i!

    Thanks again,
    Alex
     
  7. cr2sh macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #7
    The optics are not capable? I'm not sure I understand... how is a piece of glass not capable of seeing 1080 lines? There's a sensor that can read 1080.. but the lens somehow limits it... can you explain please?

    As for th 1080p comment... my understanding is that the camcorder records the 24 frames in a complicated pattern that repeats frames to fill the 60i tape. When you capture the video later on your mac, you have to do a "reverse telecine" to remove the extra duplicate frames and return to the 24p footage.

    For me, it was a pain to take the 60i footage and move it back to 24p, there was no reason to do it. I mean, why should I shoot in 24p.. if it's going to take me hours to edit and process it.. when I can't really see a difference any way? The technical details and mumbo-jumbo got in the way of me wanting to film stuff and make videos.

    For more on this subject, check out this article:

    http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/#24pRecording
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    The lens, essentially, has too many imperfections to resolve all the detail the sensor and codec can accept. Ask any photographer or cameraman and they'll all agree that the lens is the most important part of the camera.

    Here is an exaggerated example. Look out a window. Now look out the window thru an empty, clear plastic coke bottle. Both the window and the bottle are transparent, but the window is of much higher quality which allows you to see more detail than looking thru the coke bottle.


    Lethal
     
  9. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #9
    What is your definition of a "home movie"? I'd recommend shooting in HDV(60i) at the soccer games because 24p will likely have too much motion blur.
     
  10. cr2sh macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #10
    What you're saying makes perfect sense... but why is it that if I go buy a $200 8mp point and shoot camera.. it produces still images that have 2400 lines of resolution. More than twice the lines of this $1000 hv30 camera?

    Maybe those p&s cameras have lens imperfections also... but seriously, are we to believe that Canon makes glass so full of imperfections that HALF of the cameras totally resolution is wasted?
     
  11. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    The $200 P&S isn't producing as nice an image as you think it is either. Hop into the Digital Photography forum and as which will produce a better image: a $200, 8MP P&S, or DSLR w/fewer MPs but a nice piece of glass on the front. Comparing still cameras to video cameras is apples to oranges anyway. You can put higher quality glass in a P&S because the lens is smaller and doesn't need to be as mechanically precise as a lens in a consumer video camera. If the choice is lower quality glass or a camera that can't properly zoom while you are recording I think the obvious choice is to make sure the zoom works.

    Because making a high quality lens is prohibitively expensive for a $1000 consumer camera? Canon makes pro quality glass that costs over $30,000. What do you expect in a $1k camera?


    Lethal
     
  12. cr2sh macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #12
    While there is an accountable difference in lens quality, there is not a direct 1:1 relationship between image quality and lens quality. A $200 P&S has a drastically smaller sensor than a dslr, the difference isn't entirely in the lens.. the sensor size plays a large role.

    What does the fact that they make more expensive glass have to do with their consumer glass? Does the fact that BMW makes an awesome M7 mean that their 1 series must suck? I don't even follow your point here... but I would expect a $50 or $60 piece of glass in the HV20. As good as canon is, I would think that that they could produce a quality piece of glass for that price.

    I will agree that the glass in a consumer video camera is not top of the line, it's not even close... but the idea that it's so riddled with imperfections that the sensor behind it can't see through it, seems overstated to me. The camera is very capable, fun camera that produces sharp video.. I shot my wedding in high definition with a pair of HV20's and I still can't believe how good it look on my parent's high def television. I dunno.. you're the pro here, but what you're saying seems WAY exaggerated for someone who is just shooting their kid's soccer game.
     
  13. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    Yes, there are other pieces to in the "image quality chain" but since the lens is step one then it's arguable the most important aspect. You could have the best sensor, the best analog-to-digital processing, and the best codec in the world, but if the lens isn't good enough then everything behind it is just wasted potential.

    And, again, making a video or film lens is more expensive than making a still camera lens so a manufacture like Canon could put better glass in their still cameras than their video cameras because the still cameras don't need the higher quality housings/mechanics.

    No video camera sensor is getting the full resolving power of the lens anyway(EDIT: I should have said no sensor resolves at it's full native rez anyway so a 1920x1080 sensor will not resolve a 1920x1080 image, for example.). There are optical filtering systems that are used help reduce artifacting and to separate the light into red, green, and blue (in the case of single CMOS sensor cameras such as the HV20) and these reduce the quality of the signal that hits the imager. For example, even though the Red One has a 4k imager it's measured resolution is about 3.2k due to the pre-processing filtering. Still cameras don't have to worry as much about motion artifacting so they don't need to use the same kinds of resolution depleting, pre-proccesing filters that video cameras do.


    The same thing that it means for any company that has tiered products. The low-end, cheaper product will not perform as well as the high-end, expensive product.

    No, it means that the series 1 doesn't perform as well as the M7. Whether or not you describe the series 1 as sucking or not depends on your specific needs and expectations.

    The point is Canon, Sony, JVC, Panasonic, etc., aren't going to put a balls-to-the-wall, killer piece of glass on a consumer camera. Even the Sony EX1, which in many opinions has the best glass on it of any current sub-$10k camera, gets dinged in reviews because you can't replace the built in lens w/a higher quality one.

    The only thing overstated is the hyperbole in your arguments.

    What separates low-end glass from high-end glass? It's ability to accurately reproduce what's being shot, right? And what would effect that ability? Imperfections in the glass, right? So one would assume that a $30,000 lens designed to work w/a 1920x1080 HD camera would produce a better image than the lens on a $1000 1920x1080 HD camera, right? So in what meaningful way would the $30k lens be better than the $1k camera if they both resolved exactly the same amount of detail?

    When did I say the HV20 wasn't a good camera? The HV20 (and now the HV30) is probably the best consumer HD camera out there. It's so good that it became a huge hit w/the 35mm adapter crowd who typically used cameras costing 3-4 times as much as the HV20/30.


    Lethal
     

Share This Page