Rob, Juan

Links:

Thanks. I was able to click on my links w/o a problem. I included the urls in my post instead of naming the links because many people like to know where the link is taking them.

Block Sizes relevance:

The way I usually work in Maya and Prman I have one tif or other numbered file for each frame. So there _are_ a lot of files the way I work; however, a frame at 4k resolution is good sized.

Juan's File design:
If Juan puts all the frames in one file, I may need another application to parse his file (no big deal). If he uses quicktime or mov file structure.

Xfx block sizes:
Xfs block sizes can be from 512b to 64kb. For most applications 4kb is about right. Sometimes the journal and metadata are put on another drive to speed things up. The journal is always on a different partition than the data. Terabyte databases can be addressed since the addressing is 64bit.

Using robust off the shelf software [linux, xfs] although mor complicated) may allow a more capable and reliable system in the long run.

Juan,

You know to evenly light the blue screen. Hopefully you have a pure monochromatic blue (sometimes difficult to find).

Suggestion:
Try to avoid reflections of blue off the bluescreen on to your foreground.

Try to avoid having the foreground cast shadows on the blue screen. Usually the foreground and the bluescreen are lit separatey. The bluescreen is lit with very flat light.

The foreground can have key and fill and backlight. Use lights with the same color temperature 3200K. Kill any flourescent lights. Try to avoid shadowing the bluescreen.

you might include hard edges and soft fury edges and glass in your foreground objects just to see how difficult it is to composite.

Try an evenly lit and a cross lit foreground.

Ok, while it gets dark outside I have taken a frame of a resolution chart. I know it's off center, but I tried to align it such that the sides where parallel with the CCD edges as much as I could. This is intended to make R,G,B alignment as easy as possible.

Please try it out and post exactly what shifts and resizing you did in photoshop, relative to the original file. Then we can compare each other's findings.

These are completely raw, no alignment no nothing. Ignore the few speckles as usual.

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/rez_RAW.psd

Are there any guidelines for testing with a resolution chart as far as camera positioning? I did this with the resolution chart about 2-3 feet from the DVX so I had to use a bit of zoom.

I noticed what seems to be a defect of the 3-ccd approach...the blue channel has a little different focus than the other two channels, probably because it is slightly farther away than the other two CCD's due to the prism design. The stuff we have to put up with. <g>

Juan,

The different focus for blue and red is specified in the standard for Prism blocks. Its called offset. The reason is that the lens
focuses at a different point depending on the frequency of the light.

Higher frequencies like blue are bent more and focus closer I believe. Longer wavelengths like red are bent less and focus farther back. The lens tries to compensate by using two different kinds of glass but there is always some residual differences in focus between the colors especially at the edge of the frame.

I think I posted the link to the european standard. I think the offset is something like 30 microns(different back focal lenght) for blue for a 2/3" block. The DVX100 uses 1/3" sensors.

Maybe panasonic didn't get the offset right or they are morphing the colors in their processing? The overall back focal length in air is something like 48mm (changes for 1/3", 1/2", 2/3", and 1")

I hope each camera doesn't have its own particular misregistration? I always thought ccds should have tracking adjustments but they are usually just glued to the prism block.

I need some more bluescreen pointers.

First of all, this is what i'm using. I've got a blue posterboard, and two work lights. The only way that I have managed to not cast shadows on the bluescreen is to locate the two lights on both sides behind the key object, pointing about 45 degrees at the blue screen. The problem is that the two lights are pretty close to the blue screen so brightness pattern can be clearly seen on both sides of the bluescreen...if i move them farther away, then it casts shadows of the key object. Im using a compressed air bottle as an object for now.

I'm thinking the ideal situation would be powerful lights with diffusers, but i don't have that...any suggestions?

Ok guys/gals, this is my first pathetic attempt. Like I said before, never done this before so i'm going just by intuition...attempting to isolate the object that is.

I have a problem with either the lighting, or the color of the board(or both) because the blue is coming out too dark, and I can't separate it from black.

Anyway, this is a scene with just the bluescreen and a bottle of those cool armor-all wipes.

What I did is I used the 'clear' feature in photoshop to get rid of the keyed selection, and see if I could get to just keep the object alone. It replaced the background with the back-color(white), and areas that were lit with the bluescreen also appear lit in white. There's also some transparency in the wipe so i thought that would make a good test.

I couldn't keep the black letters out of the selection, someone else can probably do a better job.

I need some brighter paint, and probably better home-made lights. Any suggestions from the chroma-keyers would be greatly appreciated.

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/bluescreen0.tif

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/bluescreen1.tif

Since i only have two lights, the key object was lit with the same lights that are lighting the background, i just moved it towards the camera until it cast no shadow.

The only advice I can give is to make sure you separate your subject well with backlight, giving it a rim. Whe I don't do that, my Chroma Keys look terrible. Of course, you need to have that rim motivated by the background you're gong to replace the bluescreen with. I think you'll se a noticable difference.

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan P. Pertierra : ... Any suggestions from the chroma-keyers would be greatly appreciated.
-->>>


treat this as a starting point

http://www.ultimatte.com/

and you can find many *.pdfs about ultimatte solutions. you can download also demo from their site. probbably the best soft/hard ware i know now - sicnce ZBIg (rybczynski) enjoyed ultimatte and stopped his own product for cromakeying called zbig.

all the best

filip

p.s.

i cannot find really really good pdf from ultimatte (kind of " for dummies" series) which i downloaded some years ago with exellent explanations how, when and why to use chromakeying techniques. but if i find - will send it here.

p.s. 2

but maybe you should find ZBIG demo, it's available somewhere on the net. this is really amazing soft. demo will put some grid on your screen, but... if you need it for your tests - it works perfectly

Hey Juan don't worry about a shadow. I would just point one light at the subject and board at an angle and just leave a shadow on one side. Maybe with the other light you could point it at the ceiling or the oposite wall to bounce a small amount of light onto the dark side of the subject. Shhoting shadowless bluescreens are fine for fake or head only composite jobs but what about virtual environments? When actors stand on a bluescreen stage there are always shadows. This is just something a good keyer has to know to deal with. Besides we know this thing will work great with a perfect blue screen setup. Even DV can look good with a perfect setup. We should test setups with uneven lighting and harsh shadows.

that bluescreen looks pretty dark. Bring your subject and light closer to the screen to get a nice deep blue color. Don't worry about shadows.

Ok, so I will try and find a brighter blue.

What specifically is bad about the key I posted? I know the letters shouldn't have keyed out, but other than that what are the problems I have to fix?

Another problem is that I did some rough alignment, but if the channels aren't lining up that is going to cause trouble.

Anyone tried the alignment/resizing of the rez chart?

Juan,

I don't know if you remember but a few weeks back I identified an issue with the green channel not only being out of alignment but also having a about a milimeters worth larger FOV. That would never allow you to align the three channels unless you did a resizing to only the green channel. You were gonna do another test with some elements close to the edge of the frame so that I could test that FOV difference in the green channel and compare it to the same frame as DV. Remember we talked about you doing one this time where you didn't knock the camera. You've been so busy with interface issue that I didn't want to remind you. But now that you're diving back into this Greenscreen area I think it's an important thing for us to figure out because unless we can get those channels perfectly aligned, you'll never be able to get a professional level key out of these frames.

John

Hey Juan,

Were you ever able to use that anamorphic clip to your advantage at all? Just curious.

I played around with the rez chart a little bit trying to line up the channels. I was having a lot of trouble with the green channel. Every time I lined up one section the other side of the image would be off. If I aligned the center of the image I got very close. I never heard it mentioned but the blue channel is off as well. It appears to be 1 pixel up so it needs to be shifted down 1 pixel. I blew my image up by 400% so I would have more precision in moving 1/4 a pixel at a time. The green channel was aligned at the center by moving down and right 2 nudges which would equal 1/2 a pixel down and 1/2 a pixel right. All 3 channels were then perfectly aligned at the center. I then checked the left side of the image and everything seemed mostly ok. The right side of the image however showed a slight problem with both the green and blue channel. I have to agree that perhaps all three channels have different distortions that would make perfect aligning very hard. It seems odd that the right side of the image would be off and not the left. The amount of distortion on the right side for the green and blue channel appears to be 1/4 of a pixel or less. I can shift the green and blue channels by 1/4 of a pixel to the right and they line up better. By doing this however the center and left side of the image are now off by 1/4 a pixel.

I hope this helps

There's no question in my mind that the three channel are different in terms of FOV or distortion or somthing... but it's odd that the DV stills don't seem to have the same problem. The best way for us to figure this out is to anylize an exact same shot in it's RAw form as well as it's DV form. Removing the letterbox from the DV would be helpful, but that may not be possible since I know you've disconnected the joystick... but if you can, it would definitly help... also do the shot indoors so that no elements like wind can change the the composition by even a millimeter... that way you don't have to search for the exact same frame from both. And make sure that you include object with detail near the sides of the frame... since that's where we'll be looking to line things up.

Thanks,
John

I just finished reading all the posts, took me a long time to get caught up.

Juan, just wanted to commend you for pushing the envelope, its great to see how much progress you've made.

I think its a real testement to the spirit of indie filmmakers, that we will make the best out of what we have to work with.

Users of the DVX100 might finally get what they actually paid for if your mod is successful.

Im an Xl1s owner and even though this mod probably wouldnt be functional for the xl1s, I'm still thrilled to see the results you've gotten from a 1/3in 3chipper. Coupled with some sort of 35 adapter, these cameras will have latitude and depth of field comparable to 35mm or HD. Impressive. The lense options for the Xl1s have suddenly become overshadowed by the potential of your mod. I want a DVX100 now.

Wish I could contribute, it seems like everything has progressed to a point where I could be of no service.

The green screen:
it may be better to find a green posterboard, in my experience, it is harder to find a uniform blue than it is to find a uniform green. Light the greenscreen as evenly as possible, but not too bright, as you dont want to bounce any of the color onto the subject.
Suggestion: put the camera in the corner. Direct the worklight into the corner/ceiling. This should create enough soft light to illuminate both the subject and the greenscreen. Use your second worklight to create a rim, by directing the lamp at the backside of the subject.

If that is not enough light, here is a more complicated suggestion:
use the same worklight to bounce into the corner/ceiling.
use the second light as a key light on the subject about 45 degrees off camera. Use something (like the white side of your blue screen posterboard) to bounce the light from the second light directly back at the subject. what this will do is use the key light also as the rim light. Remember, the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.

Also, mirrors are a great way to increase the light level in a room.

Stephen Birdsong

Just trying to figure out this channel issue.

A quick question for Juan.

does the image of the raw image actually have a larger fov or are there just more pixels that represent the same area. I assumed it was actually a wider view and then the camera just crops the image.

If that is the case do you know how the image is being cropped? Does it just take 360 left and right of the center and then 240 top and bottom from the center. This may help figure out what is going on with the image.

I agree that we need a perfect raw frame and dv frame to figure out exactly what the dvx100 is doing to the image. How about using the remote control to hit the record button that way you wouldn't nudge the camera. I also say ditch the rez chart and shoot something with finer detail. What I suggest is making your own chart to test the alignment. Creat a series of one pixel width lines that form cross shapes. Stick them in each corner, then some more centered between those, and finally one in the exact center. Print this out on white paper at the highest rez you can do. This will give us only the details we need to figure out for the alignment. The rez chart can be a little messy to try to match up pixels because the lines are too thick and soft. Having the thin cross shapes at the edges corners and center will allow us to figure out the offset on each side.

I think we should figure out how the dv image is cropped first. We should then crop the raw image in the same way so we can compare the dv to the raw frame with better results.

Its probably a rehash of our previous discussions on FAT32 etc. but I found this discussion on Slashdot informative:

http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/03/08/13/2211230.shtml

FAT32 seems to be the only systems readable on all 3 commonly used O/S. The question is raised: what file formating tools exist to format larger than 40gb FAT32 partitions. Some disks come preformatted in FAT32 with much larger partitions. How do we format (or reformat disks) with large Fat32 partitions.

There is according to the discussion on slashdot a $40 tool from Paragon that allows you to mount ext3 files everywhere. ext3 has advantages over FAT32 so maybe Juan should consider ext3.

see the august 13th post of Dougmc.

Not sure whether Paragon allows read and right of xfs from windows.

Paragon's Mount Everything [mount-everything.com] also Ext2fs Everywhere [ext2fs-anywhere.com]

There is another tool that allows reiserfs from windows.

The main objection to FAT32 (in the long run) is that since its not
a jounaling file system. There is a good chance a power outage or a tripped over firewire could cause data to be lost. Other objections to FAT32 are mentioned in the Slashdot discussion.


I add that the max 4gigabyte -2 bytes file size could be a problem with long takes if all the frames go in one pile.

You can make large fs32 disks from Windows Xp from the command line interface: format d: /fs:f32 So thats not a big problem.

Doesn't work on a mac though :-(

I just connected the joystick again, and took off the letterbox, I also set the pedestal back to 0, since all the other options where netural as well.

I'm going to go and find green poster board right now, if I'm lucky I can do some new tests tonight.

Also, does my current lighting work? I have two yellow work lights from wal-mart :P

The best I can do is make sure they have the exact same type of bulb in them?

Juan

just white balance to those lights, try to make your subject and your greenscreen evenly lit. You dont want too much light on the green screen, as it will bounce onto the subject, giving them a rim of green, which makes for a piss poor key. But, like someone said earlier in the thread, it doesnt need to be pretty..

stephen

Ok, i got two new posterboards. One is blue, which is clearly much brighter than the one i used before, it looks to be actual flat blue. The other one is green, but it looks kinda flourescent so i'm not really sure. I'll try both.

I'll be sure to grab DV stills as well.

Juan

Ok, someone post a simple description of doing the keying in photoshop CS. Should I do it with separate R,G,B layers or with all the layers together? I'm currently using 'Select Color range", but i'm not sure if i'm doing it right.

Juan

Jason,

Well maybe something can be done with ext3 on Mac OSX. You might recall that OSX is a flavor of BSD. Free BSD has tools for reading Ext3 so tools have also been created for Mac OSX. See the following urls:

MAC OSX:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/ 18619

This tool works with OSX 10.2 and later. According to the site it supports reading, writing, and formating, both hard disks and recordable cdroms.

EXT3 Linux and Windows:
http://www.ibiblio.org/mdw/HOWTO/Filesystems-HOWTO -6.html

http://www.it.fht-esslingen.de/~zimmerma/software/ ltools.htm

suggested by nsrbrake on slashdot.

New bluescreen test
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok, i followed the same procedure as before, but this time I used the bright blue screen. Here is the photoshop file for the RAW R,G,B layers, uncorrected & unaligned:

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/blue0.psd

In addition to the traditional 10-bit handicap, something was causing a hefty amount of noise so take that into consideration. This is my 'try' to isolate the object:

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/blue0.tif

Now, i'd like to hear specifically what looks wrong so I can try and fix that. I'm not sure how good the isolation has to be, but at least this time I didn't get the letters! <g>

Finally, here is the DV frame for the EXACT SAME SCENE AND SETTINGS. Why capital letters? You'll understand when you see it. This is only a few frames apart from the RAW frame, and i took care not to bump the camera.

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/blue0_DV.tif

It's painful to look at. Basically this is what happens when you put the RAW data above through the camera circuitry and get it off the DV port or DV tape.

Actually it only supports Ext2, but I'm thinking that the only difference between the two filesystems is journaling, so they should be pretty compatible with each other, no?

Either way, I'd say that Ext2 is probably the best bet then, because everybody can mount it, and it's a modern filesystem that won't give us the space problems that FAT32 confines us to.

So this is just rough... but I can say for sure that the height of 492 is actually not compressed at all as I had originally thought. full hoz res stays in tact, but is cropped mostly on the bottom and a bit on the top. Widthwise the image needs to be compressed roughly 94.7% in order for it to match up with the DV... with that squeeze, it ends up with a rez of 730... ten extra pixels... not much, but not bad. especially since a few pixels on the right of the DV are blacked out and are not so on the RAW. Those 10 pixels in question are cropped only on the right side of the frame. And the entire image seems to be shifted over exatly the number of black pixels on the left. Pretty interesting stuff. THis is getting closer to figuring out what the camera is actually doing to the image as it converts it to DV... looks like there's a bit of cropping as well as a bit of compressing in order for it to fit into the 720 x 480 DV standard.

As for the channel problem, this grab isn't really a good one for that. The DV is so clipped and since the only detail exisits in the middle of the frame it's hard to do the comparison. The channel test would be much better suited to an image like the one of your cat, the couch, and the TV (and you of course in the background). An image with a dense composition and detail all the way across the frame. We'd need both a DV grab and a RAW, of course.

That flourescent Green posterboard you bought is exactly what you should be using for this greenscreen test. Those drugstore flou green poster boards are perfect for green screen work. We used some on a film I directed last summer and they worked as good as the green screen stage we rented earlier in the shoot. Also, I'm curious to see how the camera handles that saturated of a green.

John

isn't the horizontal compression you are doing just due to the aspect ratio? I still get a perfect image when i apply the NTSC aspect ratio. You still get the 773 pixel resolution, they are just not square sensor elements.

I will do some tests using the green board tomorrow, and post the results. If you have any other suggestions let me know...I will try to setup a darker scene this time...i thought i did but then i look at the DV footage and it's all clipped.

Juan

Yes you are correct I believe that with this application the mac mounts ext3 as ext2 (no journaling). Perhaps someone is working on this though.

Its up to Juan what file system he wants to use. I think there is a strong case for Ext3/Ext2. Its the logical choice.

However, as we saw in the case of VHS vs. Beta the market will sometimes choose a system because its ubiquitous and "open" rather than the best solution available.

The system chosen by the market or by market leaders is not always technologically superior.

The bottom line is that Juan wants to sell his mod. If Juan goes the logical route, people who buy the mod may not understand why ext3/ext2 was chosen.

Users might prefer ext3/ext2 when they actually go to use the mod; however, in choosing to buy they might not understand why a Linux file system was chosen when they want to download the files on Windows and Mac only.

However, a file system that is likely to fail (fat32) cannot be good for long term sales. So perhaps the use of ext3/ext2 has to be sold as a feature and not an unecessary complication. One also has to worry whether the application that allows MAC OSX to read ext2 files will be maintained in future versions of MAC OSX.

The rumour is that Apple is prepared to make LINUX a part of their business plan if that ever makes sense for them. OSX is partly an effort to position themselves to be able to port Linux applications easily. Its not so easy to port linux appliations to windows.

Juan,

There are many rumors ciruculating that by August the Canon XL-1 HD version will be on the market. Do you think your mod will be applicable to that camera?

Also, your mod will work with a mac editor right?

Of course, Juan can do anything. Now all we need is someone to sneak into Canon corporate headquarters and steal the specs so Juan can start planning his attack strategy.

Juan,

Please trust me on this... the pixels are not NTSC. Do the test for yourself. In order for the image to match up proportionately with the DV version (and I don't mean the DV version after NTSC aspect has been applied, but DV 720x480), it must be compressed horizontally by about 94.7. Then that image which will have the proportion of 720 x 480 will need to have NTSC applied. Do you want me to show you what I mean? I can save a few different JPGs and email them to you.

There is something different going on here with this camera in terms of encoding to DV and I'm sure the secret of the unaligned cannels is in there somewhere.

John

Also Juan,

If this green screen test is going to serve the purposes of the channel test as well, please place a few more object in the scene and have some detail close to the right of the screen and some close to the left.

John

I dropped the images in photoshop, and i got the exact same results as you, John. You're absolutely right. The lens is in fact doing something similar to an anamorphic adapter but in the horizontal direction. It probably does that in order to better use the surface of the CCD. Even though the image has to be squeezed to get 720 pixel across, you still get a sharper image in the horizontal direction.

There is still a big advantage to getting the full raw image, since any post production processing probably yields better results when applied to the cleanest, largest resolution image available, even if it is going to be squeezed down to NTSC DV frame size.

I guess the secret to the DVX's sharp image lies in this fact. They optically stretched an image to fit a wide CCD sensor, and capture more horizontal detail.

I will start the green screen test now, and place some more reference objects around. It's still light out so i have light coming from the sliding door, but if i can't get good results now i'll do it in a few hours.

Juan

Greenscreen Test
~~~~~~~~~~

The green screen is sure much better than the blue one. Once again I did DV and RAW captures of the exact same thing.

In addition to the original object, I added two spray cans on the edge of the visible DV frame to add a bit of reference.

I also made the objects darker such that the DV frame is not clipping as much as the previous one.

I think the results are great...i was able to isolate the objects in the RAW scene perfectly, the only exception being the few speckles in the green screen which is to be expected. Once again, the speckles are only a by-product of the experimental setup.

Here is the 4:4:4 10-bit RGB(in layers) frame:
http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/green0.psd

Here is the DV frame:
http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/green0_DV.tif

I found a place on the web where you could buy a service manual for the DVX100. Perhaps the arcane design of the DVX100 is not disclosed in full; however, I think the service manual might be a good place to look to see if there are answers.

Of course John Cabreras detective work and Juan's diligent development is appreciated.

oh my god is this thing amazing. Good job on the green screen test Juan.

I found it interesting that right now to me it seems like no pixels are cropped on the left of the image. The D on the can on the left seems to be in the same exact place in both images which means only pixels are cropped on the right.

I think the distortion is even worse.

I aligned both images and got everything to match on the left side. I still have not figured out the exact distortion to match the right side but on top of that the can on the right was 3 pixels to low when the left was perfect. It appears that both dimensions of the image have a little distortion.

I tried the 94.7 image scale and then cropped 10 pixels and that didn't give a perfect match.

Hey all - been rooting for you from the sidelines.

Wondering if it's the right time to ask about the possible dimentions of this mod? mount sizes? location of controls and cable ports?

Randall - not sure what your online source is, but I just ordered a DVX manual from Panasonic Services Corp (800 833-9626) - $57.57 w/ S&H.

- Damion

http://www.uemforums.com/2pop/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=41828&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#41828

It's a link to a post by a former Panasonic engineer who was lead on repairs for the DVX, who is advertising his services. If there is no resolution to the alignment problem, maybe he could offer some advice?

I've had the service manual for about a year now, and there's nothing that helps. The thing to note is that it is a ~service~ manual, and they only give you the bare info to make adjustments relevant to the DV functionality. How the lenses are setup and how the CCD's are implemented is part of the design and irrelevant for the use the camera was intended for.

Like I said before, they even left out some stuff that I had to find out on my own.

Juan,

Green screen looks great.

Sorry to hear the service manual is not more helpful on the alignment question. Perhaps Tim's suggestion you seek advice from Fox Valley Video Repair is in order. They might know something that would be helpful.

Damion:
thanks for supplying the telephone no. for ordering the manual. My source was one of those manuals for everything services.

I am confident Juan can reengineer the DVX100 as required but it sure would be nice not to have to figure out how it all works from scratch.

ALL:
I am facing a perhaps equal reengineering challenge.
I bought an Ikegami HDL-37 High Definition camera head w/o a ccu. I am hoping the service manual will tell me at least what pulses are required to drive the head. I don't want to reengineer the pulse electronics to drive the ccd. The head needs
HDTV Horizontal Drive with timing pulses and Vertical Drive and power.

This Ikegami camera head provides only analog RGB. So I have to build an A toD or use AJA's HD10A to get HD-SDI out.
I am considering HD-SDI and Gigabit ethernet chips from National Semiconductor.

Does anyone know of a chip that makes HDTV tri-level sync or just Horizontal and Vertical drive?

Nice Green screen shots:

Several weeks ago, we discussed drives for capture. I thought this article was interesting in getting great performance from cheaper drives:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116076,00.asp

Well, I just took the plunge and ordered an anamorphic adapter from B&H. I figured this is something that I was going to use anyway, i shoot everything 16x9, and it will be a must for testing this thing.

I will post anamorphic RAW frames as soon as i get it.

Right now I am concentrating on the easier of the two connection methods, capturing to a PC/Mac. The direct-to-PC application encapsulates some functionality required for the drive application, so it's a good place to start testing.

Everything is standard OHCI, so you don't need a driver but rather just run the program I have written with the camera hooked up. You can see a preview of the image, and capture directly to any drive on the system. My internal powerbook drive will probably not be fast enough, but we'll find out soon enough....

Juan

I was playing around with the R,G,B alignment using the rez chart image. I seem to be getting an almost exact lignment if i resize the Red channel down by 1 pixel in both dimensions, and then align the layers.

Can anyone else try this with another RAW image and see if they get the same results? The blue channel is harder because it is slightly off focus, but this seems to get the green and red channels very close.

If something like this could be done with the JVC HD 10, I'd buy it right away. You have a high def chip, high def lens, 16x9 aspect ratio. Juan, you may be the genious that could also be able to lock the exposure of that camera. Then you could use a 35 mm adapter and also do follow focus or whatever.

Now, if you could do that with the upcoming 3 chip HDV Canon, you'd get rich fast.

I considered which camera to start with at the very beginning, Canon XL1s, DVX100 or the JVC HD camera.

My first choice was the Canon due to it's popularity and the fact that you can put nicer lenses on it if needed, but due to some difficulties obtaining the manual i went with the close second choice, the DVX.

The HD10 was my last choice for a lot of reasons. First of all, the camera has other problems that need to be fixed, such as the exposure problem. That makes it more complicated, and I didn't feel like reverse engineering something just to make it lock exposure.

Second, the color off the DVX runs circles around the output of the HD10. I know that the buzz word right now is HD, and it's 'all' about resolution, but I personally think it is more about color and latitude than most people realize. When I mean 'more' i am talking about achieveing the film look we are all after, at least on TV. The HD10 uses a mosaic CCD which is halfway between doing an up-rez from a smaller chip, and actually have 3 sensors of the actual resolution. I say this because it is a hardware approximation of the full resolution. Although better than a DV uprez, I bet that a RAW 36-bit capture from the DVX up-rezzed has more dynamic range and color than anything the HD10 can do.

Look at 28 days later. The XL1se, even in PAL, has one of the smallest pixel counts of just about any 3CCD camera available today, yet it was able to produce some pretty cinematic images on TV. Now granted, there was a ton of sharpening on, but I think that was more about the look they were going for.

Now I haven't seen it on a theater, so it might be total pixelated crap on a projection screen.

I felt that with a raw uncompressed output in 36-bit RGB, full latitude of the chips and perhaps slightly larger resolution than standard NTSC you could come up with some great film-like images, and perform some great up-rezzing.

You be the judge, i have posted up-rezzed versions of RAW captures(look back in the posts) and compare them to the output from the HD10. I think you'll agree, it's leaps and bounds better.

The only question in whether I can do this with the new Canon(or any new HD cam) is if I can get the service manual for it, and of course have a camera to work with.

Juan

Juan,

You're right. But since you started the project the market has changed a little and is moving in the HD direction quite fast. Also what you're doing would benefit the HD10 more.

You can get service manuals from Japan for free as a rule. I had the HD1 manual as soon as it was introduced. Give them some good reason in Japan and you'll get it for free. Some may be just there on their web sites. The one I had was in Japanese. The US version was not ready at that time yet.

You're doing a great job. Still look where the market is going in the long run.

I saw 28 days in a theater. The DV camera gave it that particular look, but believe me, if it was another movie, it would have been a total crap.

Mike