See Vegas 7 at IBC

Comments

winrockpost wrote on 7/10/2006, 5:59 PM
may want to wait till it comes out to start moaning about it, one blurb is all that was "released" .
I am counting on it to have some very good new features or it will become a great amature software program and i will be using edius full time. Not moaning cause aint seen it yet .
Shannon Rawls wrote on 7/10/2006, 6:08 PM
It's 1/2" certainly,

How do you define "true" 24p? Because just like the Canon XL-H1, the Sony F350 does not have progressive scan. Read here:

http://www.xlcinema.com/cinematic/showthread.php?t=631
bruceo wrote on 7/11/2006, 12:01 PM
One of my competitors visited me yesterday and said he just paid 7K for a custom dual dual core edit system from Guy graphics and cineform w/ premiere bogs down very bad with only 1 filter. He says Edius performs best for realtime playback, but he said there are a ton of basic functions that Edius does poorly that he wants to go back to his trusted premiere, but he says the HDV experience sucks very bad with both native m2t and cineform in premiere. He also said multicam sucks in premiere because if you hit undo it undoes all edits up until the last save and is not redoable. WTF is up with that??
busterkeaton wrote on 7/11/2006, 12:07 PM
By the way, on another forum, someone who has enough access to know, said the IBC was not suppossed to say anything about Vegas 7, and that their announcement was accidental.

So everyone is still under Non Disclosure Agreements. I have no doubt that the generic info that was released is not all that going to happen with Vegas 7.
JJKizak wrote on 7/11/2006, 2:13 PM
Actually the first confirmation I had seen was on the "Radiation" thread,
I think for the new pluggin.
JJK
Coursedesign wrote on 7/11/2006, 8:22 PM
Shannon,

Sony's response to the question about interlaced CCDs on the F350 was that "since the odd and even fields are recorded simultaneously, the result is a true progressive frame, stored as 24PsF."

Seems the only way to see if there is any image difference between this and a progressive CCD camera is to shoot a moving or rotating object and see the output from this. I thought somebody tested this on the Canon XL-H1 and found a slight discrepancy from true 24P?

I don't care how they do it, as long as the result appears progressive, as that does have some real advantages to me.

I wonder how much of the general manufacturer reluctance to implement 24P stems from the "24P, LLC" patent, and how much stems from the much reduced light sensitivity of a progressive CCD?
Coursedesign wrote on 7/13/2006, 10:25 PM
Has anyone seen a practical motion picture test verifying if the Sony PDW-F350 is true progressive?
Spot|DSE wrote on 7/13/2006, 10:29 PM
Yes
farss wrote on 7/13/2006, 11:34 PM
I wonder how much of the general manufacturer reluctance to implement 24P stems from the "24P, LLC" patent, and how much stems from the much reduced light sensitivity of a progressive CCD?
=========================================================
A large part of the 'reluctance' is purely technical. Scanning the entire CCD in one pass can mean very high clock frequencies, heat and power consumption, all things to avoid in a camera. More pixels makes it even more of an issue.

JVC solve the problem in the HD100 by scan the block as two halves using two ADCs. That isn't without it's issues. Other cameras split the block into even more segments, I think the RED team were talking about 6 or 8 segments.

Technically one could also scan alternate lines, so long as the two scans have no temporal separation the result is the same.

Then you come to the issue of how to record the result, as two fields or one frame. Both have their up and down sides but in the end the resulting image sequences can be converted into the same format losslessly. 24PsF is more common and easier to handle in post as it's a more widely used system, this is a downside to the XL-H1, no VCR will play their 24p tapes!

No matter how it's done or how it's recorded so long as the two fields were taken at the same time the result is genuine progressive scan. Record it as one frame and it's still the same. Record it as one frame and display it as one frame and you can have issues, most display systems have to display the same frame twice to avoid flicker.

Bob.
TorS wrote on 7/14/2006, 3:51 AM
Skimming through this thread I can't see that Birdcat's question got answered. He asked what he could expect to be charged for the upgrade from 6.
I just upgraded Acid (in April) and paid 129 $ for it. If you have the suite (Vegas and DVD Architect) maybe it'll be a little more. If you have only Vegas, the same or a little less.

In any case you'll get a chanse to upgrade for a lower price if you act within a certain date (usually a couple of months away). Don't rush, wait for the promotional email to get the best upgrade price.
Tor
busterkeaton wrote on 7/14/2006, 4:14 AM
When the new software is introduced, there is usually a discounted upgrade price for about a month or so.

I believe in the past for Vegas this has been $149 and for Vegas+DVD $199. This is $50 bucks off the normal (and current) upgrade price.
Shannon Rawls wrote on 7/14/2006, 11:02 AM
Coursedesign,
You should have told the rep that gave you that reply "That's not an answer, that's a process. "and in many peoples eyes (not mine) they don't qualify that process as 'true' 24p.

Just because the odd and even scan lines are exposed at the same time don't make it 'progressive scanning'. that's a bunch of corporate nonsense that they were trained to say. Heck, that's what the XL-H1 does, just it does it at 48Hz. The fields are still stiched together to make a full frame in the DSP. And who's gonna disect a $25k PDW-F350 to 'check' anyhow just to prove a silly point?

Why do I call it silly? Because, me on the other hand, I don't define 'true' 24p or 30p as what is happening at the sensor. If that were the case, then there are allot of cameras that need re-defining. Instead, I define it by what the camera records natively in its natural recording medium. Therefore, the Sony XDCAM HD is in fact true 24p, and so is the Canon XL-H1. I've researched it, studied it, examined it and finally argued it extensively over at Cinematography.net. My answer remains the same. *smile*

To me, the XDCAM HD cameras "ARE" 24p cameras in my opinion.

P.S.
there's no discrepency in the XL-H1's motion cadence in 24F mode. We've put it on a wheel and tested that too. It's 24p all the way.