I'm looking for a camcorder in the under-$2,000 range with just one requirement:

It MUST have a video output range of 8-bit 16-235 (BT.709), otherwise no deal.

OK if selectable between 16-235 and 0-255.

Thank you.

8-bit output, that's your only requirement?
Hmm, seems kind of strange not not care about resolution, sensor size, lens, type of output connector, size, cost, battery, exposure controls, frame rates, codecs, memory cards, focus performance, audio input, etc.

But if all you care about is 8-bit, here you go, and it's only $96.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1732608-REG/minolta_mn90nv_m_mn90nv_full_hd.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1732608-REG/minolta_mn90nv_m_mn90nv_full_hd.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801)

8-bit output, that's your only requirement?


Read the post again.

What did I miss? You said ONE requirement. Technically, if you want to stay under $2000 that is a second requirement, but who's counting. You can get 20 of these Minoltas and still be under budget.

I'm looking for a camcorder in the under-$2,000 range with just one requirement:

It MUST have a video output range of 8-bit 16-235 (BT.709), otherwise no deal.

OK if selectable between 16-235 and 0-255.

Thank you.
Have you though about building your very own 8 bit computer?
https://eater.net/8bit/

It MUST have a video output range of 8-bit ***16 - 235 (BT.709)***, otherwise no deal.


>>> Output range of ***16 - 235***. <<<

sorry I don't really understand so dont know if this is of any help but it does mention 8 bit in some formats. As for the rest of your requirements i think are too specific to be in any posted specification for camcorders


Panasonic HC-X1500 ( about £1400) it does broadcasts as well

MOV [4:2:0 8bit] UHD 3840x2160 59.94p/50.00p 150M: Average 150Mbps (VBR)
UHD 3840x2160 29.97p/25.00p/23.98p 100M: Average 100Mbps (VBR)
[4:2:2 10bit] UHD 3840x2160 29.97p/25.00p/23.98p 150M: Average 150Mbps (VBR)
FHD 1920x1080 59.94p/50.00p 200M (ALL-Intra): Average 200Mbps (VBR)
FHD 1920x1080 29.97p/25.00p/23.98p 100M (ALL-Intra): Average 100Mbps (VBR)
FHD 1920x1080 59.94i/50i 100M (ALL-Intra): Average 100Mbps (VBR)
FHD 1920x1080 59.94p/50.00p 100M: Average 100Mbps (VBR)
FHD 1920x1080 29.97p/25.00p/23.98p/59.94i/50.00i 50M: Average 50Mbps (VBR)
MP4 (HEVC) [4:2:0 10bit] UHD 3840x2160 59.94p/50.00p HEVC 100M: Average 100Mbps (VBR)
UHD 3840x2160 29.97p/25.00p/23.98p HEVC 72M: Average 72Mbps (VBR)
MP4 [4:2:0 8bit] UHD 3840x2160 29.97p/25.00p/23.98p 72M: Average 72Mbps (VBR)
FHD 1920x1080 59.94p/50.00p/23.98p 50M: Average 50Mbps (VBR)
AVCHD [4:2:0 8bit] PS 1920x1080 59.94p/50.00p: Average 25Mbps (VBR)
PH 1920x1080 59.94i/50.00i/23.98p: Average 21Mbps (VBR)
HA 1920x1080 59.94i/50.00i: Average 17Mbps (VBR)
PM 1280x720 59.94p/50.00p: Average 8Mbps (VBR)

I'm looking for a camcorder in the under-$2,000 range with just one requirement:

It MUST have a video output range of 8-bit 16-235 (BT.709), otherwise no deal.

OK if selectable between 16-235 and 0-255.

Thank you.

16-235 are the 8-bit values that are the same levels as 64-940 in 10-bit values. Both ranges are "709 levels". I don't know of any camera released in the 50 or 60 Hz world that doesn't cover all those 16–235 output levels plus more, whether it be an under $2,000 camcorder or a high-end broadcast camcorder. Some of your GH series Panasonic mirrorless cameras can be limited to 235 output levels. But then they are not camcorders in the trus sense.

If you want to electronically "limit" your peak levels to 100 IRE, 235 or 940 depending on whether it's 8 or 10-bit, you will need to find a camcorder which allows you to set black levels to 0 IRE and white levels, the clipper in other words, to 100 IRE.

I can't recall any domestic camcorder that offers you those settings in its setup menus. Most fully featured professional cameras will in their "Paint" menus allow you to set Black levels to 0 IRE and White Clip levels to 100 IRE. Once set, you will really need to put any camera on a WFM [Waveform Monitor] to get a 100% accurate adjustment of those blacks and white clip levels.

Going to 109 IRE allows for the retention of detail above 100 IRE in the recording. That's why most cameras will go to 109 levels. Why? With a view to those over 100 IRE levels being controlled during post-production editing. Usually by the application of levels or curves to the signal. This way you can maintain and bring into the permissible 0-100 range (16-235 levels) the detail that you would lose if you clipped your recordings in camera at 100 IRE.

If you set a clipper at 100 [235 in 8-bit, 940 in10-bit] in your camera, what happens? If your camera is hard limited to 235, when you expose correctly for your overall picture levels in the mid-range and skin tone levels, you will clip your highlight levels and lose detail. Highlights which are now totally gone and lost forever, and that looks awful.

If you need to strictly stick to an output of 100 IRE [ those 235 or 940 levels] and yet still want half decent looking images, you will need a camera with a knee/slope circuit where you can "sculpt" your highlights in just under that 100 IRE [235] clip that you have set. That is precisely why most broadcast 709 spec camera have knee and clipper circuits. To get as much dynamic range into that 0-100 IRE, 700 millivolts range of the 709 broadcast video signal. Another option. Many Sony cameras offer Cine Gammas and Hypergamma presets, some of these presets are limited to 100 IRE. The 235 8-bit output levels you want. But in most cases, because of these fixed levels, the images will need some grading in post afterward to really look decent.

Probably one of the cheapest cameras that offers you fixed selectable 100 IRE levels in Cine Gamma mode and the ability to set knee, slope and clip levels to 100 IRE in 709 mode and that would come in under $2,000, and yet still deliver pretty decent images in the right hands would be the Sony EX1 and EX3 models.

Look at Alister Chapman's video on these cameras. Especially from about 2:40 onwards when he walks through the various 100 and 109 output levels. The 100 levels being your 235 8-bit levels.

This may also help explain the situation.

https://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/professional/xdcam/_creativeshootingtechniques/CSTGB05-0.pdf

Chris Young

XDCAM EX Gamma Curves and Knee, what they do and which ones to use. - YouTube

>>> Output range of ***16 - 235***. <<<

All consumer HD cameras are 8-bit 16-235, therefore it is not necessary for manufacturers to advertise that fact. It is a given, unless otherwise stated. Therefore, the $96 Minolta I recommended earlier fits your specifications perfectly.

All consumer HD cameras are 8-bit 16-235

All the 8-bit camcorders I've used output 0 - 255 natively.

16-235 are the 8-bit values that are the same levels as 64-940 in 10-bit values. Both ranges are "709 levels". I don't know of any camera released in the 50 or 60 Hz world that doesn't cover all those 16–235 output levels plus more, whether it be an under $2,000 camcorder or a high-end broadcast camcorder.


All of the ones I've used output 0 - 255 natively and there is no way to confine the levels to 16 - 235. If dealing with a video file (not streaming live) you have to run the video through ffmpeg and this is an extra step which takes time.

All the 8-bit camcorders I've used output 0 - 255 natively.

Which ones? And how are you measuring the live output?

Which ones?

Three from Canon and one from Sony (AX53)

how are you measuring the live output?

On a scope via HDMI. I wrote a scope program which captures frames using ffmpeg and plots the amplitude of the signal from left to right, just like a Tektronix :) It's calibrated in IRE units (people like to call it "percent" now).

My Canon XF-100 has a master pedestal control which works OK. I revisited the knee control and got it to do passable white limiting, so problem solved. The only problem is that the internal color-bar generator still puts out 0 - 255. Oh well.

I also took some video which was nicely clipped to 16-235 and uploaded it to YouTube, then downloaded it. It came back as 0 - 255, so YouTube DOES screw with your video levels (no big surprise).

Chris, sorry if I misunderstand, but you seem to be confusing output levels with output scales. For example, you can describe 0,0,0 (black) as either 0 on a 0-255 scale or 16 on a 16-235 scale, it's full black in both cases. If you put 16 on a 0-255 scale, it's grey, on a 16-235 scale 0 is out of range. Eight bit RGB camera output is the same whichever scale is used. It doesn't matter unless you mix them up - in edit conversions are often automatic or easy.

And just to add, YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out. If you upload full range 16-235, your download from YouTube might be 0-255, but your footage will be fine since it's the same thing.

Yes, Rainer. I understand what you are saying. I probably haven't explained myself too well. What I am trying to get at is that all delivery of video for TV, BD, DVD and internet delivery should be delivered as 16-235 levels. These are ITU Rec 709 standards, which all of these mediums are designed around.

Most software players will scale levels correctly, as they will interpret the levels from the file they are playing. Some poorly written software players will NOT, which can cause problems. Some players give you a choice between 0-255 and 16-235 as your display preference. See below. This can be a trap for those who are not aware of these settings, as you can inadvertently be using the wrong settings.

Rec. 709 is by far the most common working and delivery color space for most video projects. If you’re creating video for broadcast delivery, or that will be consumed online, then Rec709 is most likely what you need to work and monitor in. The Rec709 gamut is supported by all common display technologies across many devices. Most computer video players know how to deal with Rec709 encoded video, and can display it correctly on an sRGB computer display.

Rather than get involved in long posts back and forth, it's probably best to refer to some very good reference material from highly qualified sources and experienced people. Take the time to read these in depth to get a good understanding of what I am trying to convey. If you don't have the time to read these sources in depth, here are the main takeaways. Always deliver all material as 16-235 / 64-940 (8-bit and 10-bit) and then there is very little chance of your material being displayed incorrectly. I quote from one of the references below.

Chris Young

https://www.thepostprocess.com/2019/09/24/how-to-deal-with-levels-full-vs-video/

https://www.lightillusion.com/data_legal_levels.html

QUOTE"

"Most cameras shoot video level signals not full. Some of these cameras allow for YUV headroom. Check your settings for your camera to understand how your files are created so that you interpret them correctly in your software and use those out of range values.

Make sure that your signal path for monitoring is consistent and matches across software and hardware outputs whether it’s video or data levels.

Files exported for broadcast should be video levels. Most of the time broadcasters require Rec709 ProResHQ 4:2:2 which is video levels.

Files exported for the internet should be video levels. Most codecs that are used for file delivery are video levels, not full. Encoders expect video level files for most delivery formats.

Exporting files using video levels WILL NOT lead to your files looking washed out. Exporting files using full levels WILL NOT make your files look better or more accurate. Even though your computer display is RGB, video level files will look correct on your screen because (my edit: MOST) players will scale the values correctly."

Whoops - sorry Christopher, I actually was trying to simplify things for Chris C, the OP. No problems whatsoever with any of your comments, I was just hoping to cut through the details.

I'm looking for a camcorder in the under-$2,000 range with just one requirement:

It MUST have a video output range of 8-bit 16-235 (BT.709), otherwise no deal.

All my Panasonic "photo" camera's (gh and s series) have the option to select 3 different luminance levels for 8 or 10 bit recording but as far as I know no handicam with a fixed lens under 2K exist that has a option to select this in the camera menu.

Rainer. My last post was just mainly in reference to yours, to clear up any confusion I may have created re levels. I think the original OP would by now know that there are no camcorders that are specifically locked to 709 levels of 0-100 IRE, which is Black 16 to 235 White on the 8-bit scale, or 64-940 on the 10-bit scale. The only way you can do this internally with a camera is if it has a Paint menu that allows you to set Black levels and White clip limits.

I've been in the broadcast industry, cameraman through editor to TD and trained as a TV engineer. Been a registered SMPTE engineer for well over forty years. This confusion on exactly what levels mean and how they are interpreted has always been one of the biggest bugbears I've run across in training techs, TDs and editors. Basically, if the OP is not prepared to grade the levels that come out of most lower end camcorders, I pretty sure he won't find what he wants. Short of using a Panasonic GH series camera as a video camera. As that will offer him the three following options. There may well be other options available to the OP, but others would have to advise on that.

0-255
16-235
16-255

Chris Young

Three from Canon and one from Sony (AX53).

I find that very difficult to believe and I'm skeptical it is correct. But because I ever never used those specific cameras I will say no more, except to stay that It has been my experience that consumer cameras record and output Video levels to ensure that the picture looks correct on consumer televisions.

Chris, I decided it was worth it to get to the bottom of this question about Video levels vs. Data levels on consumer cameras, so I reach out to my friend Hugo Gaggioni. Hugo is chief technology officer of Sony Imaging Products and Professional Solutions. he joined Sony in 1988, holds several patents and has authored more than 40 technical publications in the areas of video compression, digital filter banks, HDTV, and UHDTV devices and systems. Prior to joining Sony, he worked at RCA Corporation and Bell Communications Research.

Credentials good enough? :-)

Here's what he said: "HDMI connections in consumer video cameras are always in YCC mode (mostly 8 bits , sometimes 10 bits). Therefore the levels are 16-235 (in 8-bit) or 64-940 in 10 bits). There is no Full level in consumer video cameras."

That's what I said before, so with that in mind the previously mentioned $96 Minolta meets all your specifications. If you want to spend a little more for a better camera, Sony has the CX-405 for $230.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1109390-REG/sony_hdr_cx405_hd_camcorder.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1109390-REG/sony_hdr_cx405_hd_camcorder.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801)

That's what I said before, so with that in mind the previously mentioned $96 Minolta meets all your specifications. If you want to spend a little more for a better camera, Sony has the CX-405 for $230.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1109390-REG/sony_hdr_cx405_hd_camcorder.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801

If the output levels are always levels are 16-235 (in 8-bit) then why suggest these cheap camera's since the OP his current canon and sony camera's already output these levels, it only means the way he is measuring the output levels are wrong.

Yes, he's measuring wrong. Notice also a Lumix FZ2500 (under US$900) lets you select 3 luminance levels. And mobile phones?

The vast majority of topics have no real purpose other than to debate technical minutia. On another board there was a question about a shotgun mics and turned out at the end of the thread the OP had no plans on buying said mic or solving an actual issue, rather the sole purpose was to use it in an argument on another forum. So if you're hoping to help someone you'll often be disappointed and frustrated at wasting your time.

In this thread it starts out with the bizarre question of looking to buy an 8 bit camcorder only to find it's some nit picking of values that were incorrectly read that has virtually no impact on the real world output of the video.

If the output levels are always levels are 16-235 (in 8-bit) then why suggest these cheap camera's since the OP his current canon and sony camera's already output these levels, it only means the way he is measuring the output levels are wrong.

Yes.Or rather interpreting wrong. Notice also for example a Lumix FZ2500 (under US$900) lets you select one of 3 luminance levels. And mobile phones?

If the output levels are always levels are 16-235 (in 8-bit) then why suggest these cheap camera's since the OP his current canon and sony camera's already output these levels, it only means the way he is measuring the output levels are wrong.

Seriously, you're giving me shit for actually answering his question in my very first post? He said he used some other cameras but I have no interest in keeping tracking of which cameras he actually owns, if any. I answered his original question and gave him two of the least expensive options I could find that met both of his specifications. If he want to spend more than that, he is certainly welcome to do so. But he already said no other specifications matter to him. So why spend more than $96?

Why didn't YOU tell him to use the camera you think he already has, rather than just telling us about some unnamed cameras YOU own. Yeah, that was helpful.

Rainer — a lot of misconceptions in your two posts.

Chris, I decided it was worth it to get to the bottom of this question about Video levels vs. Data levels on consumer cameras, so I reach out to my friend Hugo Gaggioni. Hugo is chief technology officer of Sony Imaging Products and Professional Solutions. he joined Sony in 1988, holds several patents and has authored more than 40 technical publications in the areas of video compression, digital filter banks, HDTV, and UHDTV devices and systems. Prior to joining Sony, he worked at RCA Corporation and Bell Communications Research.

Credentials good enough? :-)

Here's what he said: "HDMI connections in consumer video cameras are always in YCC mode (mostly 8 bits , sometimes 10 bits). Therefore the levels are 16-235 (in 8-bit) or 64-940 in 10 bits). There is no Full level in consumer video cameras."

I won't argue with any of that. Other than to say, there are, or were, cameras out there that have delivered illegal black levels below 16. Convergent Design ran into this problem when they started to get complaints that their NanoFlash recorders would suddenly stop recording. What was happening was the auto stop function on the detection of NO signal was cutting in. Camera HDMI levels below 16 were causing this auto stop function to cut in.

I know because I had cameramen blasting the NanoFlash for this reason. So I looked into the problem. In the NanoFlash Video Menu you could set HDMI Rx color to Legal or Full. But the problem still existed as the HDMI chipsets being used obviously wouldn't accept anything under 16 as the display would say NO SRC (no source). In fact, they would cut out at 16. Raise your black levels to 17 and they would record.

If the cameras the original OP is looking at only have HDMI outputs then they should follow the original HDMI specs. But I now know, as did Dan Keaton at CD did back then, that not all cameras are created equal to the specs.

When the HDMI (Silicon Image) set up the HDMI spec, they put down some ground rules. According to Section 6.6 of the HDMI 1.3 Specification document:

"Black and white levels for video components shall be either “Full Range” or “Limited Range.” YCbCr components shall always be Limited Range while RGB components may be either Full Range or Limited Range. While using RGB, Limited Range shall be used for all video formats defined in CEA-861-D, with the exception of VGA (640x480) format, which requires Full Range.

Basically, in YCbCr mode, full range signal (0-255, which it can do) is not allowed and limited range values are specified (16-235 for 8-bit color sources). Initially, analogue sources & displays had something called under- or overshoot which in essence took into account the 1-15 and 236 to 255 values so YCbCr was limited to 16-235."

Chris Young

All my Panasonic "photo" camera's (gh and s series) have the option to select 3 different luminance levels for 8 or 10 bit recording but as far as I know no handicam with a fixed lens under 2K exist that has a option to select this in the camera menu.

I've been looking at some Panasonic DSLR's and they do have three selectable luminance ranges. Camcorders in the traditional camcorder form factor seem to be fixed at 0 - 255.

Rainer — a lot of misconceptions in your two posts.

So straighten me out? Perhaps just focus on one?

straighten me out? Perhaps just focus on one?



you seem to be confusing output levels with output scales.


I'm not. You have to understand how pulse-code modulation works for video. The numbers 0, 16, 235, 255, etc. are the actual 8-bit digital numeric values for a given pixel component which describes the amplitude of the pixel component when converted to analog. Pixel components can be R G B or Y U V. Effectively output levels and "scales" are one and the same. We're not talking about IRE units or % scales here. There is no distinction between "output levels" and "output scales". This is all being measured directly off files, ahead of all graphics hardware, ahead of Windows, ahead of display devices, etc.

YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.

[quote]
YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.
{/quote}

It appears YouTube does change the levels. I've tested this very carefully using a scope which is easier to read than the ffmpeg scope. The calibration of my scope and the ffmpeg scope match so I'm confident about it. YouTube changes 16 - 235 video to 0 - 255 by controlled test, however, I'm taking it on faith that the video-downloader I'm using with Firefox isn't altering the levels.

straighten me out? Perhaps just focus on one?



you seem to be confusing output levels with output scales.


I'm not. You have to understand how pulse-code modulation works for video. The numbers 0, 16, 235, 255, etc. are the actual 8-bit digital numeric values for a given pixel component which describes the amplitude of the pixel component when converted to analog. Pixel components can be R G B or Y U V. Effectively output levels and "scales" are one and the same. We're not talking about IRE units or % scales here. There is no distinction between "output levels" and "output scales". This is all being measured directly off files, ahead of all graphics hardware, ahead of Windows, ahead of display devices, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation


YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.


It appears YouTube does change the levels. I've tested this very carefully using a scope which is easier to read than the ffmpeg scope. The calibration of my scope and the ffmpeg scope match so I'm confident about it. YouTube changes 16 - 235 video to 0 - 255 by controlled test, however, I'm taking it on faith that the video-downloader I'm using with Firefox isn't altering the levels.

Seriously, you're giving me shit for actually answering his question in my very first post?

Lol, the only thing you did was to ridicule him with providing a link to the cheapest camera you could find on B&H based on his only requirement, even after he told you he had a sony ax53 and a canon xf100 you still recommended that toy camera fully aware his current camera's where capable of 16-235 output levels. That's why I questioned your clearly demeaning recommendation.

Why didn't YOU tell him to use the camera you think he already has, rather than just telling us about some unnamed cameras YOU own. Yeah, that was helpful.

Because I just like you was initially not sure his measurements on luminance levels where correct or not, only I did not have a friend called Hugo Gaggioni to ask for advise. Therefore I suggested the panasonic gh and s series which have selectable luminance values since that was what he mainly cared about. I also said no consumer handicam exist under 2K that have that option, not sure how that is not being helpful.

Why you always are so easily triggered and defensive, try to be more friendly next time and don't insult or demean people.

I've been looking at some Panasonic DSLR's and they do have three selectable luminance ranges. Camcorders in the traditional camcorder form factor seem to be fixed at 0 - 255.

There are still very cheap second hand gh5's with a stock zoomlens available (at least where I live) but not sure if a photocamera works for you to do video, the handicams you mentioned are much easier to handle but all depends on the type of videowork you do. If having selectable luminance values is what matters most and you want to stay within a 2K budget then I guess you have no other option.

One thing I’ll freely admit I was wrong about… I had no idea how spicy an 8 bit luminance thread could get.

It's ironic that DSLR's have selectable luminance and traditional camcorders do not, and the DSLR's I've seen with selectable luminance are only from Panasonic.

You maybe could rent a gh5 or gh6 to see if your test to evaluate the luminance levels is correct?

Why you always are so easily triggered and defensive, try to be more friendly next time and don't insult or demean people.

The pot calling the kettle black. You had no reason to comment on my advice that was directed to the OP, not you. I know you love to nitpick my posts, so it was fully expected. That's how you have fun, I get it. If you have a different opinion or advice, please share it. But keep the personal attacks to yourself.

BTW, my advice for the $96 camcorder was 100% sincere, and still is. If NOTHING else matters except his two criteria, why spend more money?

If you have a different opinion or advice, please share it.

I already did but apparently you don't like to be questioned.

There are still very cheap second hand gh5's with a stock zoomlens available (at least where I live) but not sure if a photocamera works for you to do video, the handicams you mentioned are much easier to handle but all depends on the type of videowork you do. If having selectable luminance values is what matters most and you want to stay within a 2K budget then I guess you have no other option.

Somewhere back in this thread I did mention the FZ2500: Selectable luminance, 1" sensor, 24-480 equivalent zoom in FHD, unfortunate 4K crop, under US$1000.

I'm not. You have to understand how pulse-code modulation works for video. The numbers 0, 16, 235, 255, etc. are the actual 8-bit digital numeric values for a given pixel component which describes the amplitude of the pixel component when converted to analog. Pixel components can be R G B or Y U V. Effectively output levels and "scales" are one and the same. We're not talking about IRE units or % scales here. There is no distinction between "output levels" and "output scales". This is all being measured directly off files, ahead of all graphics hardware, ahead of Windows, ahead of display devices, etc.

YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.

[quote]
YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.
{/quote}

It appears YouTube does change the levels. I've tested this very carefully using a scope which is easier to read than the ffmpeg scope. The calibration of my scope and the ffmpeg scope match so I'm confident about it. YouTube changes 16 - 235 video to 0 - 255 by controlled test, however, I'm taking it on faith that the video-downloader I'm using with Firefox isn't altering the levels.

OK, thanks. We're concerned with color models. My understanding is that a pixel at 16 on the 16-35 luminance scale has the same pixel value as a 0 pixel on the 0-255 scale. It seems to me the way you are measuring, every camera, no matter what scale you set in camera, will give you a 0-255 reading. But get a camera where you can and set the scale to 16-235 and see if I'm wrong.

The pot calling the kettle black. You had no reason to comment on my advice that was directed to the OP, not you. I know you love to nitpick my posts, so it was fully expected. That's how you have fun, I get it. If you have a different opinion or advice, please share it. But keep the personal attacks to yourself.


Could you guys please take your bitchfight elsewhere?

Thank you.

My understanding is that a pixel at 16 on the 16-35 luminance scale has the same pixel value as a 0 pixel on the 0-255 scale. It seems to me the way you are measuring, every camera, no matter what scale you set in camera, will give you a 0-255 reading. But get a camera where you can and set the scale to 16-235 and see if I'm wrong.


That makes no sense whatsoever.

In PCM the quantized values are not quantities to be measured on a "scale". You would know that if you had read the wikipedia page I linked to. There no "scale"; there is only the range of values that can be represented by 8 binary bits. I suggest you bone up on the binary number system.

Either you didn't read the wikipedia page on PCM or you don't understand it. Read it again. You should also read up on binary or "base 2" number system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number

Could you guys please take your bitchfight elsewhere?

Thank you.

Yes sir! I'm sorry if the discussion has offended you in some way.
Next time a troll insults me, I will keep you in mind and ignore it. Lesson learned.

And by the way, you're welcome for answering your question.. In addition to helping you come in $1900 under your budget.

Lesson learned, again.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

In PCM the quantized values are not quantities to be measured on a "scale". You would know that if you had read the wikipedia page I linked to. There no "scale"; there is only the range of values that can be represented by 8 binary bits. I suggest you bone up on the binary number system.

Either you didn't read the wikipedia page on PCM or you don't understand it. Read it again. You should also read up on binary or "base 2" number system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number

I respectfully submit you didn't read the articles Christopher posted:

https://www.thepostprocess.com/2019/...full-vs-video/

https://www.lightillusion.com/data_legal_levels.html

Note especially the color range is identical for both the 32-235 and 0-255 luminance scales. As a further suggestion, perhaps instead of rushing out and buying a new camera you could check your footage with MediaInfo, which will identify if it's full or limited, and then compare that with your scopes.

My scope has been extensively tested in many different ways including checking the input file using MediaInfo and the ffmpeg scope. It works flawlessly. MediaInfo does not tell you the maximum and minimum Y, U and V values in a file; my program does.

You still don't seem to grasp the fundamentals of pulse-code modulation and digital video and the applicable standards, sorry.

BTW, my advice for the $96 camcorder was 100% sincere, and still is. If NOTHING else matters except his two criteria, why spend more money?

So you still recommend this camera to him while you do know his current camera's already meet his only requirement, yet you expect me to

tell him to use the camera you think he already has

Not sure how anyone can take you seriously...you might want to look into the mirror to see what a troll actually looks like.

It works flawlessly

If you are so sure about your own findings then do like Rainer suggested and get a camera where you can set the scale to 16-235 and then prove he is wrong.

If you are so sure about your own findings then do like Rainer suggested and get a camera where you can set the scale to 16-235 and then prove he is wrong.


Enough out of you.

Stow it, please.

One thing I’ll freely admit I was wrong about… I had no idea how spicy an 8 bit luminance thread could get.

I'm kinda impressed myself!

(backs away slowly)

Andrew