Re: P vs PsF standard by Leo Ticheli on Apr 9, 2003 at 2:14:16 pm
This is simply the way the frames are stored on the tape. Sony breaks the progressive frame into two parts and records them to tape, then puts them back together.
Re: P vs PsF standard by chrispy on Apr 9, 2003 at 3:30:10 pm
Thanks Mike...in this case, is there a visual differences between the HDCAM in PsF and Varicam in true progressive format, apart from the CineGamma feature exclusive to Varicam ?
How does the Varicam record on tape in true progressive format ? Doesn't tape require an odd/even field recording, which is what the PsF does ? Sorry if I sound confusing...becoz I am, but that's what this forum is for.
Also, if I shoot with Varicam and transferred to 1080/24p but I capture in a HD system like CinewaveHD in PsF, will the image quality be compromised ?
Re: P vs PsF standard by Mike McNeese on Apr 9, 2003 at 5:52:48 pm
Yep, the Varicam lays down 60 true fully progressive frames on tape per second. From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong), progressive video on tape is pretty new - in fact, Final Cut Pro doesn't really understand 60p, so you can't reliably edit it on a Mac.
From what I've see, I cannot tell the difference in these progressive formats. I've heard of some people finding [interlace] artifacts in 1080psf, but I have not first-hand. There is no doubt, though that the 1080psf offers more resolution - balance this with CineGamma (which I've just dabbled into), and I'd say the two cameras are very comparable. It really depends on what you want to use the footage for.
As far as 'uprezzing' 720p to 1080psf - I had some 720p footage frame-rate converted. The new format was 1080psf on D5. Then it was cut in FCP (which can handle 1080psf). Looked pretty good to me! I also went from 720p to 1080i to edit in FCP which also looked great.
Re: P vs PsF standard by David Mullen on Apr 9, 2003 at 5:00:48 pm
PsF merely describes a method of storage -- the progressive-scan captured frame is split into two fields for storage on the tape. This is why the HDW-F900 viewfinder is actually displaying the 24P image as 48i, as well as most on-set HD monitors (less flickery than true 24P display.)
But there is no difference in image quality between P and PsF. Anyway, you can't really choose one or the other on the HDW-F900.
Re: P vs PsF standard by Gary Taylor on Apr 10, 2003 at 4:31:13 pm
David,
Can you explain 480/29.97psf to me then? From what you are describing for HD it seems like it would allow a standard SDI capture solution to be used for editing in conventional applications like Final Cut. Are the fields created identical?
Thanks
Gary
Re: P vs PsF standard by David Mullen on Apr 10, 2003 at 6:11:05 pm
If you're talking about any of the standard def 30P capable cameras (NTSC versions of the Pana DVX100, Sony MSW900, Pana SDX900), they all record a 30P (29.97P) capture as 60i (59.94i) by splitting the progressive scan frame into two identical fields (except that they hold the alternate lines.) Technically, that's "PsF" (progressive segmented frame) except that that is a Sony term.
Like I said, there is NO image loss in splitting a progressive-scan capture into two identical fields for recording and then recombining them into one frame later. It starts out as a progressive scan frame and it ends up as a progressive scan frame -- it's just stored as two fields in-between.
But PsF does allow you the option of editing the material as either interlaced scan or progressive scan footage. Even with the Panasonic Varicam (720/60P), once you bump it down to standard definition, it's stored as fields, not whole frames, and once you bump it up to 1080 tape formats, it's stored as fields also.
Re: P vs PsF standard by Gary Taylor on Apr 10, 2003 at 6:35:37 pm
Thanks for your response Dave.
So can any standard SDI solution can be used to capture from these cameras? And does that mean is there no advantage to using Magic Bullet to reassembe the progressive frames or is the built in deinterlacer in After Effects or Final Cut fine?
Thanks again,
Gary
Re: P vs PsF standard by Joaquin (Kino) Gil on Apr 10, 2003 at 8:13:10 pm
[Gary Taylor]"no advantage to using Magic Bullet to reassembe the progressive frames "
None. Magic bullet is for INTERLACED frames, or rather, for DE-interlacing them, and it does a beautiful job.
Progressive frames ARE progressive. Two different worlds. The only apparent similarity is that the frames are STORED in two parts. But these "parts" ARE NOT fields, It has more to do with speeds of tape transports and deep-field bitcopy than on bandwidth proper, as in the case of real video fields.
Re: P vs PsF standard by David Mullen on Apr 10, 2003 at 10:15:06 pm
Magic Bullet is really to de-interlace interlaced-scan footage so you can work with whole frames in post or create a pseudo-progressive scan look. But the final product would still end up being stored as two fields on tape in standard def (NTSC or PAL) for playback on a TV set, unless you looked at the footage on a computer screen or from a DVD, since DVD's can store progressive-scan material and then break them into fields, add pulldown, etc. as necessary for playback on an interlaced-scan TV set.
I guess for material shot in 30P that was recorded to 60i, in post you'd have the option of editing it as 60i or 30P depending on your software and how you input the material, etc. but don't ask me for the details -- I'm just a shooter, not an editor. But if you went back out to tape for playback as NTSC, it would have to be stored as 60i again. I guess if you sent it out to DVD, you could leave it 30P. But others here understand this stuff better than me!
