"If it is obvious at 200%, then it might stick out in an theatre."

For me it only just started to become noticeable at 300%. The fact that such a capable camera can be had for so little can have a tendency to make people not realize the amount of work and cost that's been put into solutions at this level over the years. Remember that when you're talking about hardware capture solutions, editors and compression software for theater quality video, $599 for a suitable compression codec is a steal. The difference between NEOHD and NEOHDV at 10 feet away on any size home theater just isn't there, and NEOHDV kills HDV. If I look at the eyes of the mask, I can see a difference at 50% zoom, that means zooming out! Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with us David.

All I can say is WOW!
 

I new some of these topics to do with this subject matter are hot here on this forum but I'm blown away now if some of you are actually trying to create a product that was shot with HV20 that might wind up being shown on the big screen in a theater. I'm not trying to get cute here but what would be the reasoning behind shooting with a $1100 camcorder when spending $500 for a codec is nothing. It would just seem like a typical budget that would allow for some of the hardware-software costs being tossed around, doesn't jive with an $1100 camcorder.

I guess I shouldn't be one to speak about costs, since I bought the camera for $1100 and turned around and spent about another $1200 for wireless sound, wide angle lens, and a good tripod. I haven't started to think beyond my piddly low end Studio 10.7 for capture, edit, and output file creation.

Color & focus asside, does it all come down to pixels per inch and how for away your eyes are from those pixels. I guess you could be blown away by this High Def on a one inch screen if the screen was in a pair of goggles that you're wearing.

"I'm not trying to get cute here but what would be the reasoning behind shooting with a $1100 camcorder when spending $500 for a codec is nothing"

its not so much about using a $1100 camera to do feature type work.. its about THIS camera. it seems to have such a unique blend of features and quality that makes it even better for the task than many cameras costing 5 figures.

it wont be suited for all types of filming due to the shutter type and limited dynamic range, but with carefull planning it can easily have its place on the big screen. it has the resolution, and the quality to compare top end cinema cams (film or digital) in specific situations, and with a lens adapter, can be pushed even further.

all in all, its a great camera.. the low price is just a bonus really.

terence.

Actually, the dynamic range is surprising as well, at least according to this test... http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=93493

It's still limited to a fair amount of light for excellent quality video and it requires an adapter for cinema lenses. The only real issue as far as quality is the rolling shutter effect, which can be software corrected. If Canon really wanted to get this right, rolling shutter could have been compensated for before output.

Also, I was not suggesting that anyone spend that much on a codec (although it may be worth it), I was reminding people of the value of the things this camera has us looking at.

I don't know if it can be used for capturing (I doubt it), but on my 2x SATA drive Raid 0 Intel E6600 CPU PC I can playback 720P Huffy avi files without any frames being dropped. Perhaps on a faster machine with a 4 drive array it could achieve 1080P? The Huffy codec is a lossless codec similar to Microcosm or Apple's Animation. I generally use it for final renders. I'd tried the Cineform Connect trial version quite a while back, but couldn't convert the files to DivX for web playback.

I would like to know a bit more about this to. Any owners care to clarify? I have the vision of it being very similar to an analog capture card (only digital :P), thus allowing me to select any codec's for a/v i want (and even the software i use to capture). Is it not like this?

Should be no issue with NEO HDV/HD for DivX exports.

I actually tried installing the NeoHDV trial version either last week or the week before, but it told me the time limit was up, most probably because I'd had the trial version of Connect installed sometime last year. Infact the NeoHDV installion even appeared as Connect HD itself, so maybe it was the wrong file I'd downloaded?

Anyway, I'll consider it if I get around to buying an Intensity card. If it included some kind of Magic Bullet style deartifacting like someone mentioned, that would be great.

If you are capture live from the Intensity, no deartifacting is neccessary as no MPEG compression has been applied.

Maybe I was hoping one of you guys had an 2 to 4 socket dual core to try it ;). More interested in lossless performance, as the processing power will be there one day, with Intel scheduled for 1teraflop 80 core processor at around 45w in 2010. They already have it working (2tflp version is way more power). I remember suggesting stuff like this to VIA years ago for there 1W processors, but Intel saw the chance.

He, I warned them 100mb/s wasn't going to be enough and recommended they increase it to 400mb/s, which is really doable as far as storage and drive sustained writing rate goes. 220mb/s is alright for many purposes though, but theatre people can be demanding, reportedly George thought the low compression of the Sony cinema wasn't enough, so they introduced even lower compression. 220 equals around 55mb/s for each 2mpixel.

This aren't the cinematographers forum, yes, if it can do it, not that we are going to be doing Starwars Episode 7 or anything like that with it.

With my estimation of how to extract the signal from the noise, and then lift it to even higher accuracy from there, should be possible. Remember my ideas included elements of the original image in the noise itself. If you talk to people from cinema about how credible it is, you are going to get an flawed opinion, because their noise is really grain, that wipes out more of the original information at the unresponsive grain level, but I admit that grains that have responded do contain original information.

Noise is never signal, or the original image being filmed, it is an inconvenience, not an fundamental part of the scene that was filmed. Imax can look an lot better, because the noise is so fine it is not so noticeable. I think 8mp, or even 2mp, deniosed and upscaled could achieve similar effects within an distance of the Imax. As long as it looks better than before, there is an improvement.

Now something I am sure I have asked before, in your professional opinion, how could they be achieving this 6:1 lossless compassion average claim (used to be 4:1 from memory)? I am assuming they mean true lossless, as I did not see any visually lossless claim, I can however see how this could be done with low noise images, 4:4:4 or an certain data type (I understand that high dynamic range compression also achieves higher compression, but don't know if they do that). I could imagine that when all these things are combined that an higher than normal result could be achieved.


I think an comparison of images between the two codecs would be good here.


Still on the HV20 thread, as all these things go towards achieving better image for it, and many cameras, and what options to sue in capture.

Previous Cineform tests:
With the original Canon HDsdi to cineform compression tests, I noted that the compressed images looked, basically, and grade away from the original, defiantly something that could effect peoples subconscious perception of the film. It made the frames look like they were slightly less focused compared to the original, with less contrast in the details. You have done an lot more cinema compression work since then, has the situation improved?


I am examining still rather than downloading large uncompressed HD video files nowadays. If anybody would care to add anymore, that would be great. At the moment, the HV20, is the number one camera I recommend to consumers, and some more serious users, though I am waiting on a few other cameras to come out.

Blackmagic Design Announces Final Cut Studio 2 Support
Includes support for ProRes, open format timelines, new easy setup management, and color software

Now all Blackmagic Design cards support capture and playback natively with the ProRes 422 format, and easy setups are included.

Availability and Price
DeckLink v6.2 and Multibridge v6.2 software, with support for Final Cut Studio 2, is available today for download from the Blackmagic Design support web site at no charge. www.blackmagic-design.com

source - http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/8093.html

This have never been claimed for normal full color image sequences, nor will it every be acheived.

I suggest you revisit our codecs, try NEO 2K within After Effects Pro 6.5/7.0.

Thanks, I figured it wasn't straight forward, but what sort of images and format would it have been achieved on? In due time I will probably be comparing the performance of Red and Microcosm, and anything else that has significant claims.

some clarification please... the NeoHDV does not come with hardware capture card and costs $249 for the software? plus another $250 for BlackMagic Intensity Card (that comes with the free MJPEG), that totals $500 for a setup that is an excellent match for HV20 right?

will a PCI Express card to PCMCIA converter work for laptops?