Shocked at DVinfo.net

Rafael Amador · November 14th, 2009, 06:21 AM

Is the first time I try seriously to correct footage from the NANO.
I had to stop my color grading to write here that I'm completely astonished with the masks in the Secondary Rooms.
After few years suffering 420, this is a different planet.
Viva mi NANO.
Rafael

Dan Keaton · November 14th, 2009, 08:55 AM

Dear Rafael,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts!

We share your enthusiasm!

I will share your comments with our team.

Aaron Newsome · November 14th, 2009, 11:36 AM

Rafael, I've tried color correcting 4:2:0 footage and honestly, in my opinion if you're doing anything more than a few small tweaks, the footage just falls apart if you push it too much. Nothing like having deep data packed in there to push around.

This is hard to quantify with raw numbers when talking about codecs, speeds and bitrates*so I think that most people shooting on crappy codecs will miss this if they're not shown first hand.

Alister Chapman · November 14th, 2009, 04:03 PM

I don't think the difference is due to 4:2:2 over 4:2:0, I believe it is simply that with the higher bit rates there is so much less mosquito noise and other artifacts. Whatever it is however the difference is striking. At 100 Mb/s or above you really can, as you have found grade the material so much harder.

Rafael Amador · November 15th, 2009, 08:43 AM

Hi Alister,
Sure, I forgot to say the most obvious: The extra data rate.
Now if I find something wrong in my pictures I know that is because limitations of the camera, or the cameraman.
Now I can not blame the EX-1 codex:-)
rafael

November 14th, 2009, 06:21 AM	#1
Rafael Amador Major Player Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Vientiane (Lao PDR) Posts: 349	Shocked Is the first time I try seriously to correct footage from the NANO. I had to stop my color grading to write here that I'm completely astonished with the masks in the Secondary Rooms. After few years suffering 420, this is a different planet. Viva mi NANO. Rafael

November 14th, 2009, 08:55 AM	#2
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Rafael, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts! We share your enthusiasm! I will share your comments with our team. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

November 14th, 2009, 04:03 PM	#4
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	I don't think the difference is due to 4:2:2 over 4:2:0, I believe it is simply that with the higher bit rates there is so much less mosquito noise and other artifacts. Whatever it is however the difference is striking. At 100 Mb/s or above you really can, as you have found grade the material so much harder. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

November 14th, 2009, 11:36 AM	#3
Aaron Newsome Major Player Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Rancho Santa Margarita Posts: 590	Rafael, I've tried color correcting 4:2:0 footage and honestly, in my opinion if you're doing anything more than a few small tweaks, the footage just falls apart if you push it too much. Nothing like having deep data packed in there to push around. This is hard to quantify with raw numbers when talking about codecs, speeds and bitrates*so I think that most people shooting on crappy codecs will miss this if they're not shown first hand.

November 15th, 2009, 08:43 AM	#5
Rafael Amador Major Player Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Vientiane (Lao PDR) Posts: 349	Hi Alister, Sure, I forgot to say the most obvious: The extra data rate. Now if I find something wrong in my pictures I know that is because limitations of the camera, or the cameraman. Now I can not blame the EX-1 codex:-) rafael