4:4:4 12-bit Uncompressed DVX100

Juan P. Pertierra · July 27th, 2004, 11:57 PM

Good news...i just picked up today an 'old' NEC MultiSync 4FGe CRT monitor...it's not a broadcast unit but it's better than the LCD's i have. The RAW frames look AMAZING. I'm comparing them directly with DV footage, and there are incredible differences.

One of the main differences that are not as obvious on LCD's is the absence of noise...because the dynamic range of the DV footage lies on the low end of the CCD's latitude, the DV footage is plagued with noise. With the RAW footage I can't see ANY thermal noise. It only becomes visible when I uprezz it with Photozoom, in which case i'm not sure if it's CCD noise or just from the sharpening.

I just got the DV camera back so I will do some more latitude test shoots, and post the images.

Juan

Frank Roberts · July 28th, 2004, 01:33 AM

Jesse,
I agree with you. Ultimately, what Juan is working on could alter the plans of the camera moguls and have a direct impact on the perception of indie quality. Talk about killing off a high end market. :) I can't wait to see more latitude tests. Best- Frank

Jef Bryant · July 28th, 2004, 01:48 AM

I applaud Jaun's work.

I wonder how long it'll be before someone tries this with the XL2? Haha.

Brent Douglas · July 28th, 2004, 06:21 AM

I've been following this thread for a while but i've been kinda lax registering so i didn't post this before. I've been thinking that if you attach the JPWonderBox (ahem) to the bottom of the camera will this still work with the Mini 35 adapter? I'm not so sure how the adapter mounts cause I don't have one (or a DVX for that matter :( ) but they look like they mount on tthe bottom. I thought this would be important cause I recon if anyone is crazy enough to spend $6000US + lenses on the camera to get (from what i've heard) a marginally better picture and slightly shallower depth of field then every single one is going to be jumping on the bandwagon for this baby here.

Juan I guess I should say that the JPExtreme (*clears throat...*) looks like an awesome peice of work and will become a must have item for any semi-pro/pro/whoever with a DVX.

Cheers

Brent

David Warrilow · July 28th, 2004, 10:33 PM

I can see the headlines now...

"Video Electronics Innovator vanishes without trace - Panasonic/Sony/Canon say 'we know nothing'"

:)

DW.

Ernest Acosta · July 29th, 2004, 09:02 AM

Juan, just a reminder to include the inversion of the image for us folks who built or are building homemade mini-35s. Keep up the good work. Peace!

Obin Olson · August 1st, 2004, 09:46 PM

12 stops?!?!??!?! Juan that is more then the VIPER camera!

dude that is amazing!

Juan P. Pertierra · August 1st, 2004, 10:24 PM

Just an update!

The prototype now has a VGA output. It turns out that it was very easy to provide a VGA output, and the signal is almost identical to what goes into the DVI chip.

We have a domain name and the webpage is almost done, just adding some content. Will be complete by the end of this week, probably earlier.

Will definitely take some pictures of the actual device soon, we're basically carefully machining the case so the LCD screen/keypad peeks through nicely. This project brings new meaning to the term 'hand-crafted' :)

Juan

Charles Papert · August 2nd, 2004, 12:25 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Brent Douglas : II've been thinking that if you attach the JPWonderBox (ahem) to the bottom of the camera will this still work with the Mini 35 adapter? I'm not so sure how the adapter mounts cause I don't have one (or a DVX for that matter :( ) but they look like they mount on tthe bottom. I thought this would be important cause I recon if anyone is crazy enough to spend $6000US + lenses on the camera to get (from what i've heard) a marginally better picture and slightly shallower depth of field then every single one is going to be jumping on the bandwagon for this baby here.>>>

Brent, as one of the "crazies" who has spent the $10K it actually costs for a Mini35, I can tell you that the adaptor indeed mounts directly to the bottom of the DVX100a, so a breakout box would indeed need to be relocated for use with the Mini35. And while I'm at it, I can also tell you that the ability to use cine lenses introduces factors and possibilities unknown to most video users; focal lengths longer or wider than stock video lenses: better resolution characteristics and flare handling, not mention the world of specialized lenses such as swing-and-tilts, 2:1 anamorphic lenses, boroscopes, etc etc etc...and as far as "slightly shallower" depth of field, it's far more than slight. And yes, this particular crazy will probably jump on the bandwagon for this system once it becomes practical, so I'm watching from the sidelines and looking forward to seeing some frame grabs.

Juan, I'm trying to understand what you are indicating about the exposure compensation: are you saying that what would normally be a f5.6 to achieve DV exposure would now require a wide-open (f2.8) exposure for RAW capture? That is pretty significant, as I rate the DVX at around 320 ASA, so this would bring it down to 80 ASA. The Mini35 costs another stop, bringing it down to 40 ASA...ouch! Perhaps this explains why the DVX is so noisy in the blacks--the nominal 0 gain setting is actual partially gain-boosted to begin with, something I've been suspecting.

Aaron Koolen · August 2nd, 2004, 01:43 AM

Charles, have you used the mini35 with the DVX? If so I would have imagined, the fact that the lens doesn't come off, that the sharpness of cine lenses is lost? Is this the case?

Aaron

Charles Papert · August 2nd, 2004, 01:51 AM

Yes, that is the setup I own and just used on a 9 day shoot.

I had assumed the same thing, that going through the optics of the DVX would handicap the system, having used it extensively with the XL1s. However, I was surprised to see how much quality was retained with the DVX. It looks fantastic.

Phil Rhodes · August 2nd, 2004, 02:21 AM

Hi,

I noticed the gigantic amount of overexposure (compared, that is, to the DV) that the setup seems to require to get the best out of the raw images. On the other hand, images exposed at the DV level do pump up quite well and you can then end up with a large dynamic range. You just end up putting a huge negative gamma curve onto it.

If you exposed such that the raw looked bright enough straight off the camera, you'd be throwing away a lot of luminance resolution in clipping.

Also: people constantly rate video cameras at between 300 and 400ASA. This directly contradicts my experience and I believe it's a lot to do with the misapplication of film-style exposure and metering techniques to video. To wit: a few weeks ago I was shooting some makeup tests on 35mm stills (Fuji Superia 1600) and video (Panasonic AG-DVC200, a reasonable semi-broadcast video camera.) The stills were underexposed at 1/15 of a second and F2.8 whereas I was some way from fully open (probably around F4) on the PAL video at 1/50 to get a reasonable video exposure. Lighting was a mix of small 500 1K tungsten and sub-100W fluorescent with a 575W HQI backlight. So, small light, but the (very fast) film was struggling and the (entirely average) video was fine. This also happened to me on a night exterior in Amsterdam where the unit photographer was unable to shoot without flash on 800 stock yet I was shooting quite happily under the street lighting without gain.

Draw from this what you will, but I have formed the opinion that video cameras are effectively a lot faster than standard characterisation techniques make them out to be - at least equivalent to ISO800 and probably more.

Phil

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · August 2nd, 2004, 04:41 AM

The same happened to me in a recent work.
We shoot a whole feature film in Buenos Aires (you will be able to see it at next San Sebastian festival) with a DVX100 at night just using the sodium street lights, nothing more...
We calculate that going film, we should have used at least 500 ASA to obtain simillar results...

Rodger Marjama · August 2nd, 2004, 08:01 AM

For what it's worth...

The DVX100 has been tested by Berry Green and Jarrad Land from dvxusers.com. They find the DVX100 has equivalent ASA rating of 640. Both are very competent, knowledgeable individuals and I have no trouble believing the accuracy of their tests.

-Rodger

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · August 2nd, 2004, 08:07 AM

I think the same.640 ASA sounds right...

July 29th, 2004, 09:02 AM	#996
Ernest Acosta Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New York Posts: 59	Juan, just a reminder to include the inversion of the image for us folks who built or are building homemade mini-35s. Keep up the good work. Peace! __________________ Ernest L. Acosta, Jr. President Garage At Large Productions P.O. Box 42 Times Square Station New York, NY 10108

August 2nd, 2004, 12:25 AM	#999
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	<<<-- Originally posted by Brent Douglas : II've been thinking that if you attach the JPWonderBox (ahem) to the bottom of the camera will this still work with the Mini 35 adapter? I'm not so sure how the adapter mounts cause I don't have one (or a DVX for that matter :( ) but they look like they mount on tthe bottom. I thought this would be important cause I recon if anyone is crazy enough to spend $6000US + lenses on the camera to get (from what i've heard) a marginally better picture and slightly shallower depth of field then every single one is going to be jumping on the bandwagon for this baby here.>>> Brent, as one of the "crazies" who has spent the $10K it actually costs for a Mini35, I can tell you that the adaptor indeed mounts directly to the bottom of the DVX100a, so a breakout box would indeed need to be relocated for use with the Mini35. And while I'm at it, I can also tell you that the ability to use cine lenses introduces factors and possibilities unknown to most video users; focal lengths longer or wider than stock video lenses: better resolution characteristics and flare handling, not mention the world of specialized lenses such as swing-and-tilts, 2:1 anamorphic lenses, boroscopes, etc etc etc...and as far as "slightly shallower" depth of field, it's far more than slight. And yes, this particular crazy will probably jump on the bandwagon for this system once it becomes practical, so I'm watching from the sidelines and looking forward to seeing some frame grabs. Juan, I'm trying to understand what you are indicating about the exposure compensation: are you saying that what would normally be a f5.6 to achieve DV exposure would now require a wide-open (f2.8) exposure for RAW capture? That is pretty significant, as I rate the DVX at around 320 ASA, so this would bring it down to 80 ASA. The Mini35 costs another stop, bringing it down to 40 ASA...ouch! Perhaps this explains why the DVX is so noisy in the blacks--the nominal 0 gain setting is actual partially gain-boosted to begin with, something I've been suspecting. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

August 2nd, 2004, 01:43 AM	#1000
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Charles, have you used the mini35 with the DVX? If so I would have imagined, the fact that the lens doesn't come off, that the sharpness of cine lenses is lost? Is this the case? Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

August 2nd, 2004, 01:51 AM	#1001
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Yes, that is the setup I own and just used on a 9 day shoot. I had assumed the same thing, that going through the optics of the DVX would handicap the system, having used it extensively with the XL1s. However, I was surprised to see how much quality was retained with the DVX. It looks fantastic. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

August 2nd, 2004, 02:21 AM	#1002
Phil Rhodes New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: London Posts: 19	Sensitivity Hi, I noticed the gigantic amount of overexposure (compared, that is, to the DV) that the setup seems to require to get the best out of the raw images. On the other hand, images exposed at the DV level do pump up quite well and you can then end up with a large dynamic range. You just end up putting a huge negative gamma curve onto it. If you exposed such that the raw looked bright enough straight off the camera, you'd be throwing away a lot of luminance resolution in clipping. Also: people constantly rate video cameras at between 300 and 400ASA. This directly contradicts my experience and I believe it's a lot to do with the misapplication of film-style exposure and metering techniques to video. To wit: a few weeks ago I was shooting some makeup tests on 35mm stills (Fuji Superia 1600) and video (Panasonic AG-DVC200, a reasonable semi-broadcast video camera.) The stills were underexposed at 1/15 of a second and F2.8 whereas I was some way from fully open (probably around F4) on the PAL video at 1/50 to get a reasonable video exposure. Lighting was a mix of small 500 1K tungsten and sub-100W fluorescent with a 575W HQI backlight. So, small light, but the (very fast) film was struggling and the (entirely average) video was fine. This also happened to me on a night exterior in Amsterdam where the unit photographer was unable to shoot without flash on 800 stock yet I was shooting quite happily under the street lighting without gain. Draw from this what you will, but I have formed the opinion that video cameras are effectively a lot faster than standard characterisation techniques make them out to be - at least equivalent to ISO800 and probably more. Phil

July 27th, 2004, 11:57 PM	#991
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	Good news...i just picked up today an 'old' NEC MultiSync 4FGe CRT monitor...it's not a broadcast unit but it's better than the LCD's i have. The RAW frames look AMAZING. I'm comparing them directly with DV footage, and there are incredible differences. One of the main differences that are not as obvious on LCD's is the absence of noise...because the dynamic range of the DV footage lies on the low end of the CCD's latitude, the DV footage is plagued with noise. With the RAW footage I can't see ANY thermal noise. It only becomes visible when I uprezz it with Photozoom, in which case i'm not sure if it's CCD noise or just from the sharpening. I just got the DV camera back so I will do some more latitude test shoots, and post the images. Juan

July 28th, 2004, 01:33 AM	#992
Frank Roberts New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: los angeles,ca Posts: 23	Jesse, I agree with you. Ultimately, what Juan is working on could alter the plans of the camera moguls and have a direct impact on the perception of indie quality. Talk about killing off a high end market. :) I can't wait to see more latitude tests. Best- Frank

July 28th, 2004, 01:48 AM	#993
Jef Bryant Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 31	I applaud Jaun's work. I wonder how long it'll be before someone tries this with the XL2? Haha.

July 28th, 2004, 06:21 AM	#994
Brent Douglas Tourist Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Parkes, NSW, Australia Posts: 3	I've been following this thread for a while but i've been kinda lax registering so i didn't post this before. I've been thinking that if you attach the JPWonderBox (ahem) to the bottom of the camera will this still work with the Mini 35 adapter? I'm not so sure how the adapter mounts cause I don't have one (or a DVX for that matter :( ) but they look like they mount on tthe bottom. I thought this would be important cause I recon if anyone is crazy enough to spend $6000US + lenses on the camera to get (from what i've heard) a marginally better picture and slightly shallower depth of field then every single one is going to be jumping on the bandwagon for this baby here. Juan I guess I should say that the JPExtreme (clears throat...) looks like an awesome peice of work and will become a must have item for any semi-pro/pro/whoever with a DVX. Cheers Brent

July 28th, 2004, 10:33 PM	#995
David Warrilow Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 106	I can see the headlines now... "Video Electronics Innovator vanishes without trace - Panasonic/Sony/Canon say 'we know nothing'" :) DW.

August 1st, 2004, 09:46 PM	#997
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	12 stops?!?!??!?! Juan that is more then the VIPER camera! dude that is amazing!

August 1st, 2004, 10:24 PM	#998
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	Just an update! The prototype now has a VGA output. It turns out that it was very easy to provide a VGA output, and the signal is almost identical to what goes into the DVI chip. We have a domain name and the webpage is almost done, just adding some content. Will be complete by the end of this week, probably earlier. Will definitely take some pictures of the actual device soon, we're basically carefully machining the case so the LCD screen/keypad peeks through nicely. This project brings new meaning to the term 'hand-crafted' :) Juan

August 2nd, 2004, 04:41 AM	#1003
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	The same happened to me in a recent work. We shoot a whole feature film in Buenos Aires (you will be able to see it at next San Sebastian festival) with a DVX100 at night just using the sodium street lights, nothing more... We calculate that going film, we should have used at least 500 ASA to obtain simillar results...

August 2nd, 2004, 08:01 AM	#1004
Rodger Marjama Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 101	For what it's worth... The DVX100 has been tested by Berry Green and Jarrad Land from dvxusers.com. They find the DVX100 has equivalent ASA rating of 640. Both are very competent, knowledgeable individuals and I have no trouble believing the accuracy of their tests. -Rodger __________________ Rodger Marjama www.speedwing.net

August 2nd, 2004, 08:07 AM	#1005
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	I think the same.640 ASA sounds right...