March 15th, 2007, 05:30 AM | #541 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 91
|
Quote:
I'll compile my little tool tonight and post the raw files. And i forgot to say that the previous video is completly amazing! |
|
March 15th, 2007, 08:11 AM | #542 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
This is what was talked about an week or two ago, that Andrey had an Bayer compression scheme for the 323. It would also be interesting to see how good an result could be achieved by Jpeg compressing the bayer sensor image in camera, rather than speculating how bad it is. When I say how good can be achieved, by trying all Jpeg compression options and setup available in the existing circuit.
|
March 15th, 2007, 08:40 AM | #543 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 74
|
Quote:
Yes a bigger then standard image is going to result in great looking video or film. I will want to film 4:3 though for the PC. Although even many PC monitors now days are wide screen. |
|
March 15th, 2007, 06:30 PM | #544 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 260
|
I get 2000x800 @ 85% quality on the 333 at exactly 24 frames per second.
http://www.buysmartpc.com/333/333framecc.jpg (color corrected) I am very pleased. |
March 16th, 2007, 12:11 AM | #545 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
Impressive Daniel. What data rate does that work out to?
|
March 16th, 2007, 12:40 AM | #546 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 74
|
Quote:
So if your filming a face with blue sky the image will be small & thus also the data rate, If your filming in the forest with loads of leaves its going to be huge. You need to think about this before you set up the camera. There perhaps needs to be a variable % quality setting that adjusts the quality level of the jpeg stream? You can see this effect with any digital camera. the elphel when filming mjpeg is in effect a super fast digital camera. Phil |
|
March 16th, 2007, 03:33 AM | #547 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 260
|
I'm curious if I can push it any higher. I don't know if the bottleneck is the computer or I reached the limit of the camera.
x64 3500 amd 1 gig ram 7900 geforce 7200 sata II hdd I have not yet found a laptop available to me fast enough to handle the 333 stream at 2000x800@85. The best I have found so far was 11 fps on a new sony vaio. Currently I am building an acrylic body for the camera to hold all the necessary computer components. While I will still require a power source, it would be nice to integrate everything into a single unit. I have a prototype built, and while I am satisfied with the size I still need to refine it to get a more professional appearance. A keyboard and mouse is not a very mobile solution so I plan to use the Nostromo N50 for input. I will address noise issues with sound dampening foam and proper cooling. |
March 16th, 2007, 04:07 AM | #548 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 74
|
Quote:
|
|
March 16th, 2007, 04:15 AM | #549 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 74
|
Are you filming inside with it? If you are then you you have to think exposure & use a LOT of extra light. Light the inside up like a TV studio. If exposure needs to be longer then the frame rate the frame rate will drop. its probably this thats causing the slow down. Try it outside in the sun.
|
March 16th, 2007, 04:40 AM | #550 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 260
|
Quote:
The tests were done with the laptop outside on a sunny day. I'm not sure about the laptop specs, I believe it was an intel core duo with a 5400 hdd. |
|
March 16th, 2007, 05:22 AM | #551 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 74
|
Quote:
Yes then for sure you need to pop that drive out & stick in a 7200rpm one (Hitachi make a good one). Format that drive to Fat32 & buy a little cadi for it so you can replace it with the Sony one after filming & use it with your editing PC. I plug it into a windows machine & run all the ogg video into Virtualdub to make a avi from it. you can also stitch all the files together with this. |
|
March 16th, 2007, 07:47 AM | #552 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium)
Posts: 735
|
Quote:
original deatifact Zoom in to see how good it works, it also gets rid of some pixel blocs, although for that I put a very small box blur on all my Elphel footage. Besides that, it looks very good... what lens did you use? |
|
March 16th, 2007, 08:22 AM | #553 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 260
|
Oscar, please check your link. I am unable to view the image.
I believe the lens was "TV ZOOM LENS T6X13.5 13.5-81mm 1:1.8" |
March 16th, 2007, 08:36 AM | #554 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 613
|
whats with the color spots? what sort of debayer algorithm does the 333 use? i dont think i get that on my sumix m73 with sumix's lapacian debayer. I do with nearest color debayer though. what exactly does zmatte deartifact do? sharpness loss with filter doesnt look bad, but itd probably be nice not to have to filter and recompress all footage just to get rid of artifacts that should have been avoided with a good debayer in the first place.
|
March 16th, 2007, 08:56 AM | #555 | ||
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 88
|
Quote:
EDIT: I tried to find a menu where I could download a RAW frame...but really couldnt find it...? Any pointers? Quote:
//O. |
||
| ||||||
|
|