The Dvinfo.net Dvd

Mark Kubat · January 16th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Guys, just host the footage somewhere on an ftp in native dv avi format and those who want it can get what they want - only a couple of seconds say 5 to 10 or even 30 seconds is worth the wait. So if someone only wants Panasonic DVX100 vs. say GL2 they can do that, etc.

As another variable, maybe compare gain...??? Would be interesting to see if XL1's -3 to +18 db settings are really something to write home about...?

Mark Austin · January 21st, 2003, 01:09 AM

for the 1/2 marathon the weekend of Feb 1st, if you need me and my GL2.

Sounds like a nice little project gone wild, but a great resource for all.
Mark

Jim Pulfer · January 21st, 2003, 07:21 AM

IMHO....all projects get derailed for this very reason - it's called scope creep....you start with something do-a-ble and then you add, and add, and add. Everything mentioned would be 'nice to have', but what is the minimum you could do - even if it counted only towards a 'first step'. Use the 80 - 20 rule - what's the minimum you could do that would satisfy 80% of the target audience (I guess first someone [Chris H. ?] picks AN audience since democratic consensus might never be reached) and then when that's complete use a phased approach to add to it later. You should be able to do that fairly quickly - but getting the last 20% might take the rest of your lives....

Don't try to save the world in the first phase - just get it off the ground in the right direction.

Pick someone (Chris H.?) to define the scope of the project.

Chris Hurd · January 21st, 2003, 09:49 AM

Absolutely right, Jim... defining the scope of this project is what's kept me from even attempting it so far. It is do-able; all the cameras are here (that is, an hour away in Austin) and within reach; available to me for a weekend, say. The question is, how should the tests be structured, what is the scope? And then, what is the distribution format. There's some flexibility but I can't get buried in it.

Steve Nunez · January 30th, 2003, 09:18 PM

Wouldn't the simplest way be, just to capture a minute of footage from each camera under identical lighting conditions (it's a bit harder outdoors- but still very much possible and useable) and put the rav dv clips onto DVD- this way you're comparing uncompressed DV footage straight from the cameras.......Mac users could simply view the footage using Quicktime- I believe PC users could view raw Dv with Quicktime for PC as well (or maybe Media Player??)

You'd end up with possibly 20 minutes or so of raw DV footage- well under the 4.7GB limit of most blank DVD-R's....end user's could sample the footage for themselves.

(As a baseline- we could vote on this forum for which mode we'd like sampled- say "Progressive or Frame modes....etc...unless Chris wants to go the extra mile and provide samples in each camera's mode!)

Rhett Allen · January 31st, 2003, 12:08 AM

But what about NTSC and PAL?? Just kidding. I have actually used most of the cameras (except for the DVX100) so it doesn't do much for me, but it is an interesting idea.

The biggest problem with all the techno mumbo jumbo is that it doesn't mean diddley if it doesn't look good when YOU are done with it. You can take 2 cameras and shoot the exact same resolution chart under the exact same settings and see the differences, BUT, what do those exact same 2 cameras look like under real live shooting conditions, in YOUR hands. Maybe one doesn't score as high on the resolution chart but consistently LOOKS better shooting a real movie.

I think we sometimes get sidetracked into thinking that this is a black and white process and it isn't. All the variables involved are too complex. Even to the point of capturing the video, there is codec work there that will affect the image too, even if it is never compressed. The only TRUE way to see the image is to go to the store and put a tape thru each camera and then take it home and look at it on YOUR editing system (first generation). Remember the article on audio that put all the cameras and DAT recorders up against each other? Well the cheapo mini-disk recorder beat 'em all (almost, the DSR-500 was top). Do you think the industry is dumping their tens of thousands of dollars worth of DAT recorders to run out and buy little mini-disks? I doubt it. They know it is all relative.

Let's face it, all of these cameras are perfectly capable of producing award winning images in the right hands. The ONLY difference is the bells and whistles included. Decide what you NEED and narrow it down. If your budget is $4000 and you need 24P, there's only one choice. Interchangable lenses, one choice, DVCAM maybe 2 choices, and so on and so on. It's pretty basic but it requires YOU to decide what you want. I would bet that Chris H. could take ALL of these cameras out and shoot footage and then post process them so you couldn't tell the difference at all. (well even if he couldn't I bet he knows who can).

I still think it is a great idea but I would encourage those who can't make a commitment, not base their decision SOLELY on the results of the DVD (or tape). You have to look at more than the picture first.

January 16th, 2003, 08:05 PM	#16
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	why not just host comparison footage on an ftp? Guys, just host the footage somewhere on an ftp in native dv avi format and those who want it can get what they want - only a couple of seconds say 5 to 10 or even 30 seconds is worth the wait. So if someone only wants Panasonic DVX100 vs. say GL2 they can do that, etc. As another variable, maybe compare gain...??? Would be interesting to see if XL1's -3 to +18 db settings are really something to write home about...?

January 21st, 2003, 01:09 AM	#17
Mark Austin Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 188	Chris; I'll be in Austin for the 1/2 marathon the weekend of Feb 1st, if you need me and my GL2. Sounds like a nice little project gone wild, but a great resource for all. Mark __________________ I'm humbled by the greatness that surrounds me.

January 21st, 2003, 07:21 AM	#18
Jim Pulfer New Boot Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 15	KISS IMHO....all projects get derailed for this very reason - it's called scope creep....you start with something do-a-ble and then you add, and add, and add. Everything mentioned would be 'nice to have', but what is the minimum you could do - even if it counted only towards a 'first step'. Use the 80 - 20 rule - what's the minimum you could do that would satisfy 80% of the target audience (I guess first someone [Chris H. ?] picks AN audience since democratic consensus might never be reached) and then when that's complete use a phased approach to add to it later. You should be able to do that fairly quickly - but getting the last 20% might take the rest of your lives.... Don't try to save the world in the first phase - just get it off the ground in the right direction. Pick someone (Chris H.?) to define the scope of the project. __________________ James,

January 21st, 2003, 09:49 AM	#19
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Absolutely right, Jim... defining the scope of this project is what's kept me from even attempting it so far. It is do-able; all the cameras are here (that is, an hour away in Austin) and within reach; available to me for a weekend, say. The question is, how should the tests be structured, what is the scope? And then, what is the distribution format. There's some flexibility but I can't get buried in it. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 30th, 2003, 09:18 PM	#20
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Universal Fix ~~ Wouldn't the simplest way be, just to capture a minute of footage from each camera under identical lighting conditions (it's a bit harder outdoors- but still very much possible and useable) and put the rav dv clips onto DVD- this way you're comparing uncompressed DV footage straight from the cameras.......Mac users could simply view the footage using Quicktime- I believe PC users could view raw Dv with Quicktime for PC as well (or maybe Media Player??) You'd end up with possibly 20 minutes or so of raw DV footage- well under the 4.7GB limit of most blank DVD-R's....end user's could sample the footage for themselves. (As a baseline- we could vote on this forum for which mode we'd like sampled- say "Progressive or Frame modes....etc...unless Chris wants to go the extra mile and provide samples in each camera's mode!) __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

January 31st, 2003, 12:08 AM	#21
Rhett Allen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 607	But what about NTSC and PAL?? Just kidding. I have actually used most of the cameras (except for the DVX100) so it doesn't do much for me, but it is an interesting idea. The biggest problem with all the techno mumbo jumbo is that it doesn't mean diddley if it doesn't look good when YOU are done with it. You can take 2 cameras and shoot the exact same resolution chart under the exact same settings and see the differences, BUT, what do those exact same 2 cameras look like under real live shooting conditions, in YOUR hands. Maybe one doesn't score as high on the resolution chart but consistently LOOKS better shooting a real movie. I think we sometimes get sidetracked into thinking that this is a black and white process and it isn't. All the variables involved are too complex. Even to the point of capturing the video, there is codec work there that will affect the image too, even if it is never compressed. The only TRUE way to see the image is to go to the store and put a tape thru each camera and then take it home and look at it on YOUR editing system (first generation). Remember the article on audio that put all the cameras and DAT recorders up against each other? Well the cheapo mini-disk recorder beat 'em all (almost, the DSR-500 was top). Do you think the industry is dumping their tens of thousands of dollars worth of DAT recorders to run out and buy little mini-disks? I doubt it. They know it is all relative. Let's face it, all of these cameras are perfectly capable of producing award winning images in the right hands. The ONLY difference is the bells and whistles included. Decide what you NEED and narrow it down. If your budget is $4000 and you need 24P, there's only one choice. Interchangable lenses, one choice, DVCAM maybe 2 choices, and so on and so on. It's pretty basic but it requires YOU to decide what you want. I would bet that Chris H. could take ALL of these cameras out and shoot footage and then post process them so you couldn't tell the difference at all. (well even if he couldn't I bet he knows who can). I still think it is a great idea but I would encourage those who can't make a commitment, not base their decision SOLELY on the results of the DVD (or tape). You have to look at more than the picture first.