going down to 368 is still much better than going down to 272. Also the 864 rez from the XL2 would be pure pixels and not stretched from an anamorphic 720x480 so it would look much better when blown up. If you have a 720x480 image that is anamorphic and correct it your 864x480 image is interpolated. Even though it looks good a raw 864x480 image would still look better.

Thomas, yeah, I agree it's still better then the previous option and a raw image would definitely be better. I wonder if another option might be to use a P+S technic with anamorphic lenses, and then expand it further in post?

It seems like there might be different versions of this device, with SDI/DVI, etc.

As far as the editing goes, the best way is to just treat it like film. Use the DV footage for editing, and create an EDL which renders the final product using the RAW frames. The RAW frames can be color corrected in your favorite program.

Juan

Or once everything is captured you could render the raw frames and the audio track into one of the 16 bit video codecs that were discussed on this forum and then you would have a video file of raw frames and audio to work with. If you use the microcosm codec for this purpose you could even get lossless compression to save some space. Once you convert everything you could then delete the raw frames and the dv video and save a lot space.

Juan, does that mean you'll be including a SMPTE time code, for the EDL's?

Hi,

Signed up specifically to ask this question - from the way you're doing this modification, the timecode data isn't readily available to you. However, it's pretty much an absolute requirement to be able to work with this stuff in postproduction. The simplest and most generic way to do it would be to insert the timecode into the filename of each frame as a frame count; this is the way film scanners tend to do it. This way you could roll tape in the camera as well and use that as your offline. This would save a lot of messing about processing offline versions of the 12-bit data.

Also, I don't get the purpose of SDI. You want to modify a 3K camera so it needs a deck costing 15 to record? Hard disk and DVI for monitoring if possible would be fine by me.

Phil

"Also, I don't get the purpose of SDI. You want to modify a 3K camera so it needs a deck costing 15 to record? Hard disk and DVI for monitoring if possible would be fine by me."


The purpose for SDI is ease of use for many people.

SDI is an industry standard. Also, it allows for the use of a deck
which is an advantage for some who feel more comfortable
with their footage on a tape than on a hard drive.

Secondly, a deck is not necessary, as many capture cards are
available that utilize SDI. Blackmagic Design makes an SDI
capture card for under three hunderd dollars.

Lastly, SDI allows for the easy capture of uncompressed 10 bit
4:2:2 video footage as opposed to 4:4:4 RAW frames. It would
be easier to work with, and would take up much less space.
This would make it much more feasible for long form projects,
like feature work.


Either way, from what Juan has said, it is not a zero sum game.
There is no reason we can't have SDI as well as the other
ptions. So, there is no reason to use the option, but it would
be great to have the option.

-Luis

PS.
The cheapest Digibeta camera on B&H costs 44K.
So I think it's worth modifying a 3k camera to get the
image of a 44K camera.

Secondly, a deck is not necessary, as many capture cards are
available that utilize SDI.

Great, just what we need, an interface that requires an expensive capture card. How do you expect to capture in the field? Please, Gigabit Ethernet or Firewire 800. They're built-in to many computers these days and easy/cheap to add to older computers.

- ben

"Great, just what we need, an interface that requires an expensive capture card"


Again, it is an interface that allows you to use industry standards if you choose to. Many people already have equipment with SDI.

And, once again, it is an option that you do not have to use.

I don't think anyone has suggested that SDI should replace the use of FW800 or anything else.

Much like the silly 'film grain' function included on the new XL2, don't use it if you don't like it.

-Luis

Hi,

> SDI is an industry standard.

Yes, I'm aware, I use it weekly.

> Secondly, a deck is not necessary, as many capture cards are
> available that utilize SDI. Blackmagic Design makes an SDI
> capture card for under three hunderd dollars.

Hang on. You want to overlook the drive on the camera and lug an entire computer around with you, to record the image data on its.... hard drive?

> The cheapest Digibeta camera on B&H costs 44K.
> So I think it's worth modifying a 3k camera to get the
> image of a 44K camera.

Yaright, okay, you're one of those people! I really don't have time to list the differences between the DVX-100 and the DVW-790, but suffice to say that no matter what you do to a DVX-100, it will never be a 790.

Phil

>>Hang on. You want to overlook the drive on the camera and lug an entire computer around with you, to record the image data on its.... hard drive?<<

I assume you mean build in a drive on the camera? As far as I know there isn't a drive on the DVX100 normally..

>>Yaright, okay, you're one of those people!<<

It won't be as good you are right. I'm not sure if digibeta cameras record at higher than 10 bits normally but that could be one difference. The only other factor that really makes a difference is the optics which will of course be better on that level of camera (though the DVX does a darn good job).

The only other factor that really makes a difference is the optics
Not true at all -- sensor quality varies wildly.

Mmm yes very true. Thanks for correcting me Ben. I didn't think of that aspect!

"Hang on. You want to overlook the drive on the camera and lug an entire computer around with you, to record the image data on its.... hard drive"

In order to be able to capture footage which I can edit directly, and not have to deal with RAW files and offlines. Yes.
To me it's worth it. To you it may not be. That's fine by me, why
do you seem to have such a problem with it? No one is asking you to use SDI.

And by the way, if I understand correctly, the drive won't be "on" the camera, but will be connected to the camera through a FW800 port.


"Yaright, okay, you're one of those people"

Phil, you've jumped into this thread out of nowhere, and you don't know me from Adam. Please don't assume to know "what kind" of person I am, if there even is such a thing.

Again, if you don't want to use SDI, don't.
I'm not trying to convince you to use it.
Please don't try to convince me not to.

I am really baffled as to why anyone would try to argue that LESS options would be better.

But, this thread is getting off topic.

There really isn't anything else to say about SDI.
It's up to Juan as to whether or not he will include it in the final design.

Until then, I'll just be quiet on the whole SDI issue.
For some reason it seems to ruffle feathers.

-Luis

There are many things to consider.

Optics-wise, anything with changeable lenses is probably better than having to stick with a single lens.

CCD wise, i'm not sure what the 790 has, but i'm betting it's a bit larger in size and resolution, and yields lower noise.

The quality of the output you can get from the camera is where this mod(gotta stop saying that some day) probably edges out an expensive digibeta.

Does the SDI output on the 790 provide the video BEFORE compression? Is the dynamic range limited after the SDI output? Probably not. If there is something i've learned, is that just about every camera with a tape in it has to first of all comply with the video standards, and then try and get a decent look out of the whole thing. Just now it seems to be slowly changing, but even cameras like the SDX900 are nothing more than standard video cameras with, i must say, ingenous ways of 'looking' like you are getting around the video limitations while still complying with standards.

It is true up to a certain point, that even with larger CCD's, if all you can get is a compressed NTSC 8-bit video stream, the 12-bit undecimated uncompressed data from a more humble camera will look better.

Whether the 790 is above or below this point, i don't know. Anyone have access to a 790? :)

Juan

by chance i have the access to beta 790, i'm assuming you are talking about dvw790. correct?

if you need any details from manual/user's guide etc. or just personal opinion i will be glad do send you any info. but you can check also this link

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/ModelInfo?m=0&sm=0&p=2&sp=11&id=19524

thanks,

filip

Filip,

that's great, i guess my main questions would be:

1.Concerning the SDI output, is the video on the SDI port the same quality you get off tape, or does it lack compression artifacts? SDI itself is uncompressed(though decimated 4:2:2), but it is possible that the video streamed is after the compression layer.

2.Can you post some test frames?

Thanks!
Juan

yes a 2/3 inch chip camera will generally give you better results but only really in difficult situations. I have used a SONY DSR300 (1/2 inch) and a SONY DSR-500 (2/3 inch). Even though these are great cameras they only really stand out from a really good 1/3 inch camera when in bad or low light situations. Even if great light situations the image may look a little better but only by a little bit.

When you are dealing with shooting a movie however the lighting should be carefully done so there will not be a problem. You have time to set things up properly. In live events such as weddings or when shooting for the news at nighttime you a camera that will perform well in bad situations. If I were to shoot live events in bad lighting I might choose a digibeta over the dvx100a. The whole point of this "mod" (sorry) is not to shoot cousin Timmy's Bar Mitzvah but to create a high quality movie.

If I was doing a movie with a lot of fx and keying I would gladly choose to have 24p RGB 444 12 bit images over a compressed 30i 422 8 bit anyday. Even more so considering the former option is 1/10 the cost or less. Is the very slight increase in image quality worth 10x the price? It used to be when you had the options of straight DV or highend but not anymore.

Besides the slightly lower end image optics of the dvx100a the image would actually be superior to the digibeta.

I agree that if it will not drive the cost up to much that we should have SDI. Keep in mind however that the SDI also may not have any audio so you would still need to have a dv version with the audio and then sync them up.

Juan (and everyone else helping with ideas):

I just wanted to jump in here and say thanks again for all the hard work with this. It's easy to lose sight of the sheer magnitude and impact that this "device" will have on the world of indie filmmakers, and therefore want to say a big THANKS!

I can't wait to see the finished product in action, and hopefully get my DVX "upgraded" in the near future. Keep up the great work, and keep us posted!

i will check all things on monday - i cannot check it now (saturday and sunday). hope the camera is not on the shooting on monday :)

will pass you stills as soon as i get the camera.
i understand that you will need uncompressed tiffs? or what? anything special?

do you need to shoot something specific in front of the camera?
i have macbeth chart and panavision resolution/sharpness test chart. should i shoot them?

filip

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan P. Pertierra

1.Concerning the SDI output, is the video on the SDI port the same quality you get off tape... etc.
2.Can you post some test frames?
-->>>

Filip,

Thanks for doing this, the ideal thing would be to get frames into an uncompressed image format like TIFF.

Color and resolution chart would be good, or if you already have a lit scene setup, you can just take a test frame of whatever is in it, or something simple like a chair, etc.

Thanks again!
Juan

juan,

i spoked today with a camera assistant who knows very well "my" 790 camera. i'm not sure is he right in this case - i will check tomorrow (monday morning - european time - camera is not on the shooting). he told me very sad thing...

probbably "my" camera has just and only analog composite output. both monitor out and video out are just composite(monitor out has possibility to show info, tc etc on screen).
NO SDI out at all. but i will check that again. as i read somewhere on the net - you can find special board for SDI output from 790 but this is probably not the case with this very camera.

do you still need these images? since one frame will be from digital tape (i can grab it from digibeta tape in 10bit mode through SDI input, no additional compression) and another from composite output.... is it good at all for you?

please tell me your thoughts.

filip

ok, juan. i have an idea... well.. maybe


if camera is NOT cappable to deliver signal through SDI output, i hav idea how to send you at least analog COMPONENTsignal... if i'm not wrong in my brainstorming method...

i will try to work with menus. i know that there is possibility to send signal to video/monitor output not as a whole composite but just, for example as Y, or B-y or R-y channels. maybe if i send static image 3 times - each time with different channel - you can manage to mix it somehow and to see what will happen? what do you think? i know this is not SDI but it should be the same as component signal... i hope.

filip

Good news!

So, i'm playing around with some 4:4:4 clips, and I notice something huge.

Apparently, since before I wasn't aware that the WB adjustment altered the A/D output, the latitude tests were done without WB adjustments.

I did some tests of a high contrast scene using correct white balance adjustment, and i am getting a much higher increase in latitude, at least more than 2 FStops.

The last test i did tonight, i took a clip on DV at F5.6, with a few highlights slightly clipping. The RAW output was all but pitch black. I had to set the exposure to OPEN to get a correctly exposed image in 4:4:4.

I am very impressed...i didn't expect the 2Fstops initially, but this is incredible. It makes sense though...when i made the latitude test the WB was way off, and the white level was probably set very low on the CCD's.

Juan

Phil needs to "wake up amd smell the coffee" and get a GRIP on what Juan is doing here..It goes so far past any "standard" camera it's not funny at all...maybe he is afraid that all the money he spent on his camera is going down the tube when Juan is done with the little black box?

Phil, things change we are in a new age of digital.

it's a GOOD thing

so how many f-stops are you getting now Juan?

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

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

"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

Hi,

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

Phil

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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:)

This is incredible Juan, keep it up!

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!

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"

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

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

I applaud Jaun's work.

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

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

I can see the headlines now...

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

:)

DW.

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!

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

dude that is amazing!

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

<<<-- 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, 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