4:4:4 12-bit Uncompressed DVX100

[Frank Roberts]

The idea of being able to manipulate with total autonomy in RAW format is almost surreal! As long as the image is clear, without artifacts, and having a latitude of 10 f-stops, I sincerely think that even the way we light a set will change significantly. Can you flash foward into the future where cameras will be able to capture latitude similiar to the human eye? It's kind of sad because I think it will mark the end of a lot of established cinematography techniques in favor for post. But even now, emulsions from film are treated and altered. Maybe a lot of DPs want a film stock that just displays a pristine image that they can bleach-bypass for example and play with rather than a stock that has inherent qualities that make it unique. So as far as software for a more filmic look is concerned, I do not think it is a necessity when going RAW. Look at the digital SLR the SIGMA S10. It captures RAW format with a Foveon chip and there are no "in-camera" adjustments such as sharpness or contrast.
Best- Frank

[Juan P. Pertierra]

Mark:

So far the only controls that affect the raw output are all the necessary optical controls(focus, zoom, exposure, shutter, etc) and the White Balance adjustments.

I understand why the WB affects it now, since it alters slightly what the 'white' level out of each CCD is to match the white in the image.

Here is an example of the colors I am getting out of the camera, now that I am doing a WB adjustment. The only correction I did was to apply a lazy S gamma curve to give it more contrast, but that's it. As you can see, the color balance is pretty much perfect.

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/cap15_small.tif

[Ben Syverson]

Juan, that looks freakin amazing. Blown up to 1280x720, that's definitely passable as HD... You should shoot another resolution chart -- this looks better than ever. Make sure you've got enough light, fill the frame, and give us a nice clean res chart. This thing looks like it's going past 800 lines...

- ben

[Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn]

Really,really good results!!!!
I work recently in a feature film made with this camera (unmodified I mean :) ) and yes, its quality is amazing, I can't understand why some people still say that Sony's camcorders have the best image quality.
Juan, are you Mexican?
In my heart I'm still waiting to see what you could do with the HD Camera project we are trying to push at the other threads :D.

[Luis Caffesse]

Juan,

the color looks fantastic.
If you get a chance, I would love to see a resolution chart as
well, and possibly a clip chart if you can get your hands on one.

Do you still want us to do the gamma vs. normal curve
comparison? I know Gordon posted some links for you, but I
wasn't sure if they answered your questions. Just let us know
if you need it.

Although, my 2 cents would be, why manipulate the gamma curve
on capture just to mimic something we can do easily enough in
post?

I take it that all the gamma settings on the DVX menu are
disabled through the mod? That shouldn't be an issue for most
people I think.


Lastly, I can't help but ask, is that a large urine sample on top of
your TV or what?
:)

jk

-Luis

[Anhar Miah]

Quote:

Frank Roberts Said:

"Can you flash foward into the future where cameras will be able to capture latitude similiar to the human eye?"


Erm.., the humam eye is a vastly complex organ, and the eye and brain (Vision Centre) operate togther to "percieve" images, and does raise philosopcal questions that have troubled man from the dawn of history ---------"To Whom does the eye inside belong"

But that aside as a crude compasion the resolution of the eye is aprrox 72 Mega Pixel

from http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

Human eyes have about a 1,000,000,000:1 absolute range from fully adapted dark vision to fully adapted snow conditions at noon on the equator. But when we are adapted to a normal working range we see about a 30,000:1 range of brightness values.

from http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secret...micRanger.html

[Luis Caffesse]

Juan,

The picture really made me want to see a moving clip.
Is there any chance of posting a 5 - 10 second clip?

Thanks,

Luis

[Juan P. Pertierra]

Sure, i'll take one tonight.

Note that the output is still 10-bit RGB because my software is flaking out on me :P. I'll also have to make the frame size small like with this last frame to save space, my account is almost full.

[Luis Caffesse]

Can't imagine what it will be like at 12 bit.
I just put the frame grap into after effects to even out the gamma curve (seeing as it seems so dark initially).

I was able to pull all the detail out the shadows without any visible noise addition.

The incredible thing to me was, when viewing such a shot on the histogram, that after pushing it as much as I did, I saw no signs of banding.

Usually, with 4:1:1 DV footage, you would see large gaps of missing information on the histogram after pushing the levels to much.

I can't wait to see a sample clip.

Very exciting.
Keep it up Juan,

-Luis

[Frank Roberts]

Juan, when you do the clip, any chance the footage could involve panning in a really bright, contrasty area? Just curious. Best- Frank

[Juan P. Pertierra]

Sure, that last frame was taken indoors with two work lights. It's not optimal lighting, but it gets relatively high contrast images.

And luis, no that is not a urine sample <g> that's where I keep all the DVX screws and small parts while i'm working on it :)

[Luis Caffesse]

Juan,

Do you happen to remember what fstop you were at when you took that still?

And what kind of wattage are those worklights?

I'm trying to get an idea of the sensitivity of these chips, and what kind of light we'll need compared to shooting DV with the DVX.

Thanks,

Luis

[Luis Caffesse]

Sorry to post again so quick.

I was looking over the still frame again (still shocked as to how well it reacts to some color work) and it looks like you might still have some noisy pixels.

I see a small group of them above your laptop monitor, near the top in the center of the frame. They weren't completely apparent at first, but as I played with the hue in the frame, they became pretty obvious.

-Luis


EDIT:

I realize now that the easiest way to see the pixels is to turn the color saturation all the way down, making the image black and white.

You should see the small group of black pixels against the white wall above the laptop in the photo.

[Mark Nicholson]

I just found this thread late last night and read the whole thing. This is great! The results are amazing! I thought it wouldn't be possible from disscusions that started when the DVX came out. Then when I thought I heard Jan say it only did 4:1:1 off the DSP I lost all hope. Guess I heard wrong.

I am really excited at all the possibilites of the new DVX filmstream. If those errant pixel problems are taken care of, it will be perfect! 2:35.1 will look so much better too.

Now I've started my plans to build a box that will hold support rails, a hard drive, PCB and an adaptor to power it from another Panasonic battery.

[Juan P. Pertierra]

Luis,

My software was bugging out so that frame was captured using the old method, that's why there are some speckles present...i didn't notice them when i captured it though...

Juan