4:4:4 12-bit Uncompressed DVX100

Luis Caffesse · July 26th, 2004, 07:50 AM

Juan,

You're right, that is huge.

I'll be the first to ask what everyone else is probably thinking as
they read this.....

Can you post your tests?

I can't wait to see an actual motion clip of this either.

-Luis

Phil Rhodes · July 26th, 2004, 09:30 AM

Hi,

I presume "Phil" is addressed to me.

What does anything you've said have to do with me? I was talking about the relative usefulness of various output formats. Still don't really see the attraction of an output requiring a very expensive recorder, but if you already have SDI gear, fine. I would normally expect anyone doing SDI post to have better camera equipment thana DVX-100, though!

I am the last person in the world you should be lecturing about "the new age of digital".

Phil

Luis Caffesse · July 26th, 2004, 09:50 AM

"I would normally expect anyone doing SDI post to have better camera equipment thana DVX-100, though!"

Phil,

I'm only posting to clarify, I'm not trying to argue with you.

Many people I know work in post production as freelancers and
have SDI capable postproduction gear, but they don't shoot
enough high end content to justify owning a digibeta (or
equivalent) camera. For example, I make most of my money off
postproduction, not production jobs. So, my postproduction gear
is much higher end than the production gear I own, because that
is what pays the bills. But, for the occasional small
production job I have a DVX100. The times that jobs have
required higher quality production, we have rented our
production gear.

While Juan's modification may not be the perfect solution for
every single shoot I do, it would definitely be a welcomed option.
We could offer our present clients higher quality production
without greatly increasing our overhead through gear rental.

Just wanted to give you a better idea of where I'm coming from.
Sorry, didn't mean to take the thread off topic, I just didn't want
this to turn into a big debate/argument.

-Luis

Phil Rhodes · July 26th, 2004, 10:25 AM

Hi,

I was writing in reference to Mr. Olson's post.

Phil

Luis Caffesse · July 26th, 2004, 10:43 AM

I realized that, I was just trying to give a better idea of where
some of us are coming from equipment-wise, to help explain
the usefulness of including SDI.

That was all.

-Luis

Juan P. Pertierra · July 26th, 2004, 06:04 PM

I did more tests today and I got the same results: About 5 Fstops of added latitude.

I understand why we got less difference before...if the white balance is set incorrectly, the whites in an image are not balanced white but rather a shade of some other color. So in essence, the brightest color in the scene is not white, but in reality the CCD's are clipping at a lower color level.

This explains why I was getting magenta looking skies, and i thought something was wrong because the output from an independent CCD seemed to clip at gray sometimes.....this was just an incorrect WB setting.

The latitude is there, but the critical aspect now is bit depth. For example, at F5.6 I get a near perfect exposure of a scene on DV, but a very dark image on RAW. The data is still there, and I can pump up the blacks to get a similar looking image to DV, but the the entire image is crammed into the lower end of the dynamic range, so the colors are nowhere as precise as they can be.

The key here is to correctly set exposure based on the RAW feed, and you get some AMAZING latitude. I think we are now in the neighborhood of 11-12 F-stops at least.

Juan

Justin Burris · July 26th, 2004, 08:07 PM

Juan,

What would be really great is if you could post "Best DV Exposure", and a "Best Raw Exposure" pics of a very high contrast scene so we can see the difference.

In addition to that, if you could get a hold of a lightmeter, posting the pictures with the exposure ratings of certain areas listed as they are in this article: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm (scroll down a bit to see the pictures I am talking about) then that would really let us know how many stops are realistically being captured.

Aaron Koolen · July 26th, 2004, 09:13 PM

Juan, sorry if I missed it, but do you have a website with your current progress on it? Frame grabs etc? It would seem to be a really good thing to have if not, so that people don't have to go back through all the posts to see the images etc.

Cheers
Aaron

Juan P. Pertierra · July 26th, 2004, 11:52 PM

The website is almost done and will be up by the end of this week.

A lightmeter is one of the first things on my list to purchase...however, above that on the list is a broadcast quality CRT monitor...all i have are LCD's and a very very bad TV. :)

Juan

Brett Erskine · July 27th, 2004, 12:04 AM

Juan-
Correct me if Im wrong but did you say the RAW footage was noticeably darker than the DV tape footage? If I understood you correctly you mentioned that the image was all still there just needed to be corrected in post.

Question:
In order for you to get the FULL latitude that the RAW information can give you do you need to compensate your exposure in post or during shooting/in camera? Basically does low light situations become more of a problem when using RAW data?

Juan P. Pertierra · July 27th, 2004, 12:51 AM

Nope. When shooting for RAW data, you basically expose differently because of the added latitude. Namely, aperture is going to be about 2-6 F-stops less than what you would set it at for DV output. You will get a correctly exposed image.

The only reason i mentioned that one RAW capture looked dark was because that capture was recorded with exposure set for DV (at F5.6), so it was under-exposed. I then set exposure using the RAW footage at OPEN iris, and I got a correctly exposed RAW frame.

A friend of mine borrowed my other DV camera, so as soon as I get that, i will post the results together with DV frames. It's pretty impressive.

Juan

Milosz Krzyzaniak · July 27th, 2004, 04:40 AM

Juan - remember my historical idea to OVEREXPOSE the image in terms of DV to get more information in shadows in RAW for further processing?

Thank you for your aplause:)

Laurence Maher · July 27th, 2004, 08:34 AM

This is incredible Juan, keep it up!

July 27th, 2004, 09:14 PM

no seriously, i can't tell you how appreciative i am of your work. and i'm totally serious when i say that i hope to be a paying customer once you have your system going.

i may have missed some posts, but have you developed a straight-shooting no-brainer way of converting the RAW files to look "right" in post? because i do some colorist work professionally and will be glad to help you figure out a no-brainer photoshop action or aftereffects effect setting that might be able to take care of it. i tried some stuff out on some of the older stills you posted. just let me know if you're still trying to iron that out.

thanks again!

Jesse Rosten · July 27th, 2004, 10:40 PM

You do realize Juan that this "mod" could very well make you famous? I can see all the major video magazines wanting interviews with you. Maybe you'll be on the cover of American Cinematographer. Maybe you'll even have your own booth at NAB.

Your work on this camera might even change the video world permanantly. Maybe camera manufacturers will have to include 4:4:4 now to compete with your share of the market :) And we who have followed this thread will say "I knew Juan way back when he started all this."

I know there are a lot of maybes in this post, but it could happen...maybe :)

peace
jes
p.s. how bout you give a prize of a free "mod" for the person that can come up with a better name than "mod"

July 26th, 2004, 09:13 PM	#983
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Juan, sorry if I missed it, but do you have a website with your current progress on it? Frame grabs etc? It would seem to be a really good thing to have if not, so that people don't have to go back through all the posts to see the images etc. Cheers Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

July 27th, 2004, 04:40 AM	#987
Milosz Krzyzaniak Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 64	heh Juan - remember my historical idea to OVEREXPOSE the image in terms of DV to get more information in shadows in RAW for further processing? Thank you for your aplause:)

July 27th, 2004, 09:14 PM	#989
Guest Posts: n/a	let's organize a parade for Juan no seriously, i can't tell you how appreciative i am of your work. and i'm totally serious when i say that i hope to be a paying customer once you have your system going. i may have missed some posts, but have you developed a straight-shooting no-brainer way of converting the RAW files to look "right" in post? because i do some colorist work professionally and will be glad to help you figure out a no-brainer photoshop action or aftereffects effect setting that might be able to take care of it. i tried some stuff out on some of the older stills you posted. just let me know if you're still trying to iron that out. thanks again!

July 26th, 2004, 07:50 AM	#976
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	Juan, You're right, that is huge. I'll be the first to ask what everyone else is probably thinking as they read this..... Can you post your tests? I can't wait to see an actual motion clip of this either. -Luis

July 26th, 2004, 09:30 AM	#977
Phil Rhodes New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: London Posts: 19	Hi, I presume "Phil" is addressed to me. What does anything you've said have to do with me? I was talking about the relative usefulness of various output formats. Still don't really see the attraction of an output requiring a very expensive recorder, but if you already have SDI gear, fine. I would normally expect anyone doing SDI post to have better camera equipment thana DVX-100, though! I am the last person in the world you should be lecturing about "the new age of digital". Phil

July 26th, 2004, 09:50 AM	#978
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"I would normally expect anyone doing SDI post to have better camera equipment thana DVX-100, though!" Phil, I'm only posting to clarify, I'm not trying to argue with you. Many people I know work in post production as freelancers and have SDI capable postproduction gear, but they don't shoot enough high end content to justify owning a digibeta (or equivalent) camera. For example, I make most of my money off postproduction, not production jobs. So, my postproduction gear is much higher end than the production gear I own, because that is what pays the bills. But, for the occasional small production job I have a DVX100. The times that jobs have required higher quality production, we have rented our production gear. While Juan's modification may not be the perfect solution for every single shoot I do, it would definitely be a welcomed option. We could offer our present clients higher quality production without greatly increasing our overhead through gear rental. Just wanted to give you a better idea of where I'm coming from. Sorry, didn't mean to take the thread off topic, I just didn't want this to turn into a big debate/argument. -Luis

July 26th, 2004, 10:25 AM	#979
Phil Rhodes New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: London Posts: 19	Hi, I was writing in reference to Mr. Olson's post. Phil

July 26th, 2004, 10:43 AM	#980
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	I realized that, I was just trying to give a better idea of where some of us are coming from equipment-wise, to help explain the usefulness of including SDI. That was all. -Luis

July 26th, 2004, 06:04 PM	#981
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	I did more tests today and I got the same results: About 5 Fstops of added latitude. I understand why we got less difference before...if the white balance is set incorrectly, the whites in an image are not balanced white but rather a shade of some other color. So in essence, the brightest color in the scene is not white, but in reality the CCD's are clipping at a lower color level. This explains why I was getting magenta looking skies, and i thought something was wrong because the output from an independent CCD seemed to clip at gray sometimes.....this was just an incorrect WB setting. The latitude is there, but the critical aspect now is bit depth. For example, at F5.6 I get a near perfect exposure of a scene on DV, but a very dark image on RAW. The data is still there, and I can pump up the blacks to get a similar looking image to DV, but the the entire image is crammed into the lower end of the dynamic range, so the colors are nowhere as precise as they can be. The key here is to correctly set exposure based on the RAW feed, and you get some AMAZING latitude. I think we are now in the neighborhood of 11-12 F-stops at least. Juan

July 26th, 2004, 08:07 PM	#982
Justin Burris Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 54	Juan, What would be really great is if you could post "Best DV Exposure", and a "Best Raw Exposure" pics of a very high contrast scene so we can see the difference. In addition to that, if you could get a hold of a lightmeter, posting the pictures with the exposure ratings of certain areas listed as they are in this article: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm (scroll down a bit to see the pictures I am talking about) then that would really let us know how many stops are realistically being captured.

July 26th, 2004, 11:52 PM	#984
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	The website is almost done and will be up by the end of this week. A lightmeter is one of the first things on my list to purchase...however, above that on the list is a broadcast quality CRT monitor...all i have are LCD's and a very very bad TV. :) Juan

July 27th, 2004, 12:04 AM	#985
Brett Erskine Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Anaheim, CA Posts: 445	Juan- Correct me if Im wrong but did you say the RAW footage was noticeably darker than the DV tape footage? If I understood you correctly you mentioned that the image was all still there just needed to be corrected in post. Question: In order for you to get the FULL latitude that the RAW information can give you do you need to compensate your exposure in post or during shooting/in camera? Basically does low light situations become more of a problem when using RAW data?

July 27th, 2004, 12:51 AM	#986
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	Nope. When shooting for RAW data, you basically expose differently because of the added latitude. Namely, aperture is going to be about 2-6 F-stops less than what you would set it at for DV output. You will get a correctly exposed image. The only reason i mentioned that one RAW capture looked dark was because that capture was recorded with exposure set for DV (at F5.6), so it was under-exposed. I then set exposure using the RAW footage at OPEN iris, and I got a correctly exposed RAW frame. A friend of mine borrowed my other DV camera, so as soon as I get that, i will post the results together with DV frames. It's pretty impressive. Juan

July 27th, 2004, 08:34 AM	#988
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	This is incredible Juan, keep it up!

July 27th, 2004, 10:40 PM	#990
Jesse Rosten Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Redding, California Posts: 114	You do realize Juan that this "mod" could very well make you famous? I can see all the major video magazines wanting interviews with you. Maybe you'll be on the cover of American Cinematographer. Maybe you'll even have your own booth at NAB. Your work on this camera might even change the video world permanantly. Maybe camera manufacturers will have to include 4:4:4 now to compete with your share of the market :) And we who have followed this thread will say "I knew Juan way back when he started all this." I know there are a lot of maybes in this post, but it could happen...maybe :) peace jes p.s. how bout you give a prize of a free "mod" for the person that can come up with a better name than "mod"