it's not my personal goal - I can't stand interlaced images - but people pay money for it - money talks


uploading the wmv HD test file again...hope it works this time

Hmmmm ... yeah, if money talked to me, it would probably be my personal goal too! :-) :-)

Hey Obin,

There's no reason why you can't generate a 1080i signal from a 1080/30p or even 1080/60p signal. Frankly interlace is so . . . ugh. But you can't go from interlace to progressive very well, although going from progressive to interlace is quite easy.

try this:
http://www.dv3productions.com/Video%.../HD%20test.wmv

Re: HDTest.wmv clip
 

Obin,

The images are very clean (such low noise.) This more than proves the capabilities of these camera types. The dancer sequeue seems to show more natural smooth blur. This is very nice.

The only weird thing I see is that half the sequences have a strong motion ghost. I have extracted an example frame the shows the problem:

www.cineform.com/temp/ObinGrab01.jpg

The flower's step appears to be in two places at once. Yet other sequences not have this artifact at all. Was this a filter you have applied?

flower in post filter -yes
dancer(my sister) - 48fps playback at 24fps for slow-motion effect

take a look at a comparison frame!
 

Obin, Interesting footage!

To see where things are related to the consumer JVC HD camera, I made this frame that has a frame of yours on the top and a frame I took with my HD10 on the bottom. No image enhancement was done to either.
I think the HD10 is a good camera to compare to, because it is better looking than DV, but has many other limitations for serious film making. ( only 8 bits, no manual control, etc )
I know the Bayer demosaiker is junk right now, etc, but people should see what the JVC does. Some people are so used to looking at DV, it's sad. I call DV web cam resolution these days, because that's what it is, really.

300KB comparison frame:

http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/JVC-1300-comparo.jpg

Other images in that dir are my orbital GG mechanism, in progress.

-Les

Well, even the slow motion scene has ghosting and I don't know why, I still think a 24 fps cycle with a mechanical shutter would be better.The first time I used a Cinealta camera, back in 1999, I remember it had the option of a mechanical one( don't know if it was a prototype or what).
I mean, it isn't exactly a natural motion blur but looks like a cheap frame blending (like the one used to add blur to synthetic images)
Obin, did you use some kind of noise reduction filter (temporal) ?

Also, have you tried the dual slope mode?
I'm really interested about how it looks, but nobody says anything about.

It sounds simular to frame blending they use to go from 24/25 to 30FPS and vice versa, is something changing the frame rate along the workflow/viewing cycle. But then it doesn't quiet look like it. Steve?

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn :

Also, have you tried the dual slope mode?
I'm really interested about how it looks, but nobody says anything about. -->>>

Yes. Steve, how does this actually work, is it exactly the same as the Small sensors version? You said the results look un-normal, but is it possible to manage the positioning of the range of both slopes so they naturally run into each other to give a visually continouse range.

Thanks

Wayne.

this sensor does not have dual-slope! it's not a crappy FillFactory chip like the IBIS5 with dualslope

I have not used any frame blending at all maybe somthing in the compression...I see NOTHING on the original that has any type of frame blending arifacts...the flowers have 2 layers that fade in and out over each other...everything else is 24fps and 48fps

webcam....HAHHAHAA perfect! I love that! well a really good dvcamera has a good pic but it is low res forsure!!

Les I have the camera and computer at home today do you want me to get the 2 images you have been after for months!? ;) I could do it today...let me know what you want and I will do my best

Help! I just bought a 4mm c-mount lens and when it arrived it works - but with 4 very dark corners...it's like it was made for a 1/3 in camera chip not 1/2.....how do I know what to buy for lenses for this camera...I can see that c mount is not the only thing to look for! (4mm is a NICE wide I wish it was 2/3 in size!)

in looking at the back of the lens I can see that the glass on the back is smaller then the 12.5mm and 75mm I got from Steve...is this a clue?

on the lens the 4mm reads:

1:2.2/4mm

and the 12.5mm reads:

12.5mm 1:1.3


I understand the 12.5mm and the 4mm, what about the 1:1.3 and 1:2.2??



this looks 100% like what I have here but it's 25mm not 4mm:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30077&item=3826939852&rd=1

On a comical note, Robs, I just watched this without speakers, and still laughed:

http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/fe...nsidejack.html

Not many listings appear to specify the aperture size (is that the right way to say it?). I noticed that there were different sizes when I was trying to figure out the lens I bought. If you look here you'll see that these lenses are specified as having a "format" which can be 1/2", 2/3" or 1". In this line of lenses, the 1/3" format is only for CS-mount lenses.

Sorry, I don't really have any more advice.

Software update: I'm making some progress with writing to multiple disks, but I range into comething strange with my hard drives. I have two 160 GB drives which should be identical, both mostly empty and unfragmented, but one gives me 22 MB/sec and the other ~12 MB/sec. They are on separate IDE channels, one is the master on its channel and the other is the slave on its channel. There are more details in the blog entry for today. Thanks!

Test images
 

Obin,
OK heres what would be great:

Take 3 pictures, all of the same motionless setup ( still life ).

Try to use the 1/24 or 1/48 sec exposure and timing you would use for a motion picture. ( very Important ! )

Store the pics as B&W raw with > 8 bits
Have the image be of something with darks and lights in the same scene.
Have the camera be way out of focus for the images. ( see example below )

Even though it's out of focus, the images should still have areas with large dark and large while areas.

If this pic was motionless, this amount of focus would be perfect:
http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/test.jpg

So, It's out of focus, but there are still lights and darks.

That's it, let me know if you have questions!
-Les