So, we got ours 2 days ago... what's the first thing we tried? 720p60, who wouldn't? This footage is my partner David dropping coins into a glass cup on the table, he lit it well with the Arri soft lighting kit. He even lit the back wall a bit. I think to get any kind of footage to look good on DV or HD, you have to light it well.

The next step would be to order the G35 adapter and give our camera to REEL | STREAM let them do their magic and get 4:4:4 color space. But then my partner says.. "be patient little root!" geez, I'm already spoiled with this new camera and I want more already.

http://www.motivitypictures.com/hvx200/720p60_coins.html

Music from E.T. :-D

Some nice images.

I was wondering if anyone would recognize the music..

I also forgot to tell everyone we used the highest shutter speed possible... no motion blur as you can see... but now that we have shot it this way, it seems that using a high shutter speed with 60p is tough to do, I actually think high shutter speeds look better with even higher frame rates... like the shots on "Gladiator", during the first scene when the battle is going on, and there are mud chunks flying everywhere, I am certain a higher frame rate than 60p was used. Because as I play back the footage with the link I posted, I almost wish there were more frames... Coins drop so fast. Maybe in 5 or 10 years we'll get 200p, 4096x3112 resolution.

yea right.

Lovely pictures Cassidy...very impressed by them
Gareth

Thanks Gareth, we'll try and post as much as we can until everyone receives theirs..

Ok now try shooting the same thing with an HDV camera to see how MPEG2 handles that kind of motion.

What shutter speed were you using? 1/60 or was it higher?

HDV can only shoot 30P max... if you are going to do a lot of slow-mo, the HVX is the cheaper better choice. There are some post programs that can do amazing slow mo but it takes a lot of expertise and rendering. HVX will do it on the fly.


ash =o)

1/2000 was the shutter speed.. for HDV are you referring to frame resolution independence, and the fact that the Sony Camera doesn't do as well?

1/2000 was the shutter speed.. for HDV are you referring to frame resolution independence, and the fact that the Sony Camera doesn't do as well?


Wow--I want one.

It would be sweet if you did 60p 1/125 shutter so we can see that buttery 1/48 @ 24fps when you run it realtime.

That was nice Cassidy, thanks for providing the images.

Phil, I will see if we can do that... I know exactly what you mean...

Question:

In the 23.976 conformed part of the clip, I'm seeing two images of single coins that are in motion, as if two separate frames are blended. This shouldn't happen with simply conforming progressive frames to a slower speed. Two possibilities I can think of are:

- improper pull-down of an interlaced signal (which there shouldn't be in DVPRoHD?)followed by frame blending
and perhaps
- some odd anomaly of my viewing an embedded web page clip with a Windows box that has QT7.x Basic (freeware version)

Are Mac users or Win QT7 Pro users (who are able to download the clip) seeing this?

Ash. It was a joke. My point is the HVX beats 1/3" HDV cameras in doing this kind of stuff. People are arguing minutia in other threads. This is the kind of stuff a client NOTICES!

Pete, I'm seeing the same thing with QT7 on a Mac. Somewhere progressive frames are getting combined.

Question:

In the 23.976 conformed part of the clip, I'm seeing two images of single coins that are in motion, as if two separate frames are blended. This shouldn't happen with simply conforming progressive frames to a slower speed. Two possibilities I can think of are:

- improper pull-down of an interlaced signal (which there shouldn't be in DVPRoHD?)followed by frame blending
and perhaps
- some odd anomaly of my viewing an embedded web page clip with a Windows box that has QT7.x Basic (freeware version)

Are Mac users or Win QT7 Pro users (who are able to download the clip) seeing this?

For the second half of the video, I believe he adjusted the Speed in the timeline by 40% with frame blending.

Cassidy,
You are gonna give your HVX to REEL | STREAM?
I bet you mean a DVX (REEL | STREAM doesn't do HVX...yet, if ever)
in that case I would love to see the comparison between the two:

HVX vs DVX(REEL | STREAMed)


super Nice Footage !!!
Keep it coming

For the second half of the video, I believe he adjusted the Speed in the timeline by 40% with frame blending.
That's what I suspected but don't understand. If you have 60 progressive frames each second, and conform them to 24 progressive frames per second in a NLE's timeline, there shouldn't be any frame blending -- or at least no need for it, anyway -- just 40% speed footage.

Cassidy, do you think this was a function of a setting (such as frame blending) that would normally be used for interlaced footage being turned on unnecessarily, or is there a peculiarity of the 60p itself that causes this? It is really tough to tell when I can't do a frame advance, just random pauses, but it gives the feel of a pull-down cadence problem a la DVX100 or XL2...but that should be impossible with true progressive footage. Any ideas what's happening?

The NLE did it. He said in the file that he turned frame blending on.

Cassidy,

Assuming Barry Wan Kenobi is correct (as usual) and this was nothing more than an export "oops"...

If you have the time, I'd be interested to see a re-export without the frame blending as a downloadable QT file, as many of us can't enjoy the full resolution of the picture in a small embedded web page window.

It is wonderful thing to shoot HD, eh?

bob this is correct

Cassidy,
You are gonna give your HVX to REEL | STREAM?
I bet you mean a DVX (REEL | STREAM doesn't do HVX...yet, if ever)
in that case I would love to see the comparison between the two:


Hey John, yes I know they haven't confirmed that HVX will be able to work with andromeda.. but why wouldn't they develop this technology ASAP... so when they do, I think we'll get some beautiful images...

That's what I suspected but don't understand. If you have 60 progressive frames each second, and conform them to 24 progressive frames per second in a NLE's timeline, there shouldn't be any frame blending -- or at least no need for it, anyway -- just 40% speed footage.

Cassidy, do you think this was a function of a setting (such as frame blending) that would normally be used for interlaced footage being turned on unnecessarily, or is there a peculiarity of the 60p itself that causes this? It is really tough to tell when I can't do a frame advance, just random pauses, but it gives the feel of a pull-down cadence problem a la DVX100 or XL2...but that should be impossible with true progressive footage. Any ideas what's happening?

The first clip is just 60p footage conformed to 23.98 which I see no frame blending when i go frame by frame, which confirms that this is the right work flow..

The intension behind slowing this "conformed" footage to 40% was to make it slower. Even though I knew there would be frame blending... you can't pull blood from a stone, I wish i could.

So the first clip should be a perfect representation of what a variable frame rate like 60p looks like in a 23.98 timeline.

Although we will definitely try some different shutter speeds, maybe we can break some stuff out on the street.

I will also try to make downloadable links... I run into this problem with windows media player when i want to go frame by frame... I can't. Which is probably what your referring to by not being able to "frame advance" I know that is frustrating.

So rather than "conforming" (at least by the After Effects definition of the word) to a new timebase -- making a 60p clip into a 24p clip -- you simply slowed down the footage to 40% speed while remaining in a 60p workflow? If so, then I understand the frame blending. If it was conforming...taking "X" number of frames over "Y" amount of time in 60p and making a clip that is "X" number of frames over "Y x 2.5" time, at 24p...then I'm still confused about it, as no new frames would be created. (Note: error in formula EDITED after original post)

I don't know about other NLEs but in Final Cut Pro, when you do a SlowMo (speed change of any sort), you can turn off frame blending. I'd consider that ability a must have when doing this sort of thing with the HVX.


The first clip is just 60p footage conformed to 23.98 which I see no frame blending when i go frame by frame, which confirms that this is the right work flow..

The intension behind slowing this "conformed" footage to 40% was to make it slower. Even though I knew there would be frame blending... you can't pull blood from a stone, I wish i could.

So the first clip should be a perfect representation of what a variable frame rate like 60p looks like in a 23.98 timeline.

Although we will definitely try some different shutter speeds, maybe we can break some stuff out on the street.

I will also try to make downloadable links... I run into this problem with windows media player when i want to go frame by frame... I can't. Which is probably what your referring to by not being able to "frame advance" I know that is frustrating.

I don't know about other NLEs but in Final Cut Pro, when you do a SlowMo (speed change of any sort), you can turn off frame blending. I'd consider that ability a must have when doing this sort of thing with the HVX.

Think about it though... and i did try it... if you take footage that only has 60 frames and you slow it down 40 percent... your going to get 2 or 3 frames in a row if you don't use frame blending... (using a 23.98 timeline)

again, you can't pull blood from a stone... you can only extrapolate so much data... If I did do this... it would be choppy. It's an aestheic taste at this point. So if I wanted a choppy slow mo, i would uncheck frame blending.

So rather than "conforming" (at least by the After Effects definition of the word) to a new timebase -- making a 60p clip into a 24p clip -- you simply slowed down the footage to 40% speed while remaining in a 60p workflow? If so, then I understand the frame blending. If it was conforming...taking "X" number of frames over "Y" amount of time in 60p and making a clip that is "X" number of frames over "Y x 2.5" time, at 24p...then I'm still confused about it, as no new frames would be created. (Note: error in formula EDITED after original post)

Actually, what he did was he conformed the footage to a 23.59 FPS timeline, then, in the second half, he turned the speed of that clip down to 40% of the speed after it had been conformed, and when he did that, he added frame blending to keep it from being too choppy.

Yes, Tom.. right on the money.

Sorry to belabor this. I meant it to be a straightforward "Method A" or "Method B" sort of question. But now that my morning cappucino has kicked in, I think that I can figure out the answer that hasn't been explicitly stated.

I'm realizing that since both the normal-motion and slow-motion versions of the scene are in the same file, they have to be displayed using the file's frame rate...almost certainly 60p or 60i because the normal-speed doesn't exhibit anomalies. If the slow-mo version is in a 60p/i file, there will have to be either frame blending (60p) or a pull-down scheme (60i) for the slo-mo .

If the slow-mo were actually conformed from 60p to 24p -- eg, taking 60 frames and displaying those 60 frames in 2.5 seconds rather than 1 second -- it would have to be saved to a separate file with a 24fps timebase.

This and Cassidy's indication that frame blending was absolutely necessary, pretty well answer the question for me: the slow-mo has the "coin doubling anomaly" because it was kept in a 60p or 60i timeline, rather than being exported as an actual 24fps file (which would not require frame blending).

Would still look forward to a downloadable, 60p-to-24p conformed slo-mo, but at least I'm confident now that the anomaly was a NLE workflow issue, and NOT a camera output issue.

EDIT: Just read Tom's post...thanks for explaining the workflow; that's what we needed. So conforming from 60p to 24p, and then doing a timeline slo-mo of 40% gives us slo-mo of 16% of realtime, if I did my morning math right.

Would still look forward to a downloadable, 60p-to-24p conformed slo-mo, but at least I'm confident now that the anomaly was a NLE workflow issue, and NOT a camera output issue.


I put a download file link underneath the movie now... just right click save as...

Ok here is a full-res quicktime file of the first half of what i posted earlier...
My compression settings were H.264 set to high, not best.. to keep the file small... so i may have contradicted the full res statement.

http://www.motivitypictures.com/hvx200/720p60_24conformed.mov right click save as

Here is my sequence setting...

http://www.motivitypictures.com/hvx200/720p60_setting.jpg