let's see the before and after!

[Ron Wilber]

So many of you have your Nanos now. I would love to see some side by side before and after screen grabs. I'm really interested in how it will improve low-light and darks in HDV footage. I know there are more than a few people who would like to see this. Anyone with Sony or Canon hdv cams have samples? prettty please!!!??

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Ron,

You may have already seen this, maybe not.

This is a an extreme case, but this shows that 4:2:2 at 100 Mbps can be visually better than 35 Mbps 4:2:0.

Please go to Post #3 in this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/converge...ng-photos.html

Be sure to maximize the browser window, then click on the image to examine the difference closely.

We hope others will post their before and after images.

[Gerardo Campos]

http://www.gecoproducciones.cl/extre...nditions01.m2t

here you can find a side by side from HDV and 100Mbs, look in the corners and borders when light change, I put it in really slow velocity, that way you can see the difference.

Gerardo Campos
www.gecoproducciones.cl

[Ron Wilber]

Hi Dan, yes I have seen those before... it realy does seem to help with that type of movement and flashing. Would you say that would be similar stress to a character in motion?

Gerardo, thanks, the blocky compression is bad in the HDV, but otherwise your hdv footage is really clean compared to what I sometimes get. I usually get this bad noise in my darks and I'm not sure if that's hdv compression or camera noise. What cam are you using?

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Ron,

The Sony EX1 and EX3 produce a very good 4:2:0 image in many circumstances.

The same applies to the Canon XL H1.

Our users that carefully evalulate the differences between these cameras say the following:

The 4:2:2 images are richer in color, the detail is better, and all of this makes sense from a technical standpoint.

Our 100 Mbps Long-GOP and above, and our higher bit-rate I-Frame Only modes provide images which are almost always free of image artifacts, even with an excessive amount of detail, and/or motion in the image, and/or camera motion.

We still believe that 100 Mbps Long-GOP is the sweet spot for most applications

The problems with the blacks and shadow detail are not always a camera noise problem, but can be a problem with a bit-starved codec. The only way to really tell is to record with a higher quality codec, at a higher-bit rate, and check if the image improves.

I do not know, at this moment, what camera you are using. Many with a Canon XL H1 and Sony EX1 and EX3 report that they can still a substantial improvement.

[Mark Job]

Hi Ron:
I own the Canon XL H1 and I have done a great deal of shooting to HDV tape with it. I can confirm the image detail produced by the H1's internal MPEG 2 hardware encoder is the cleanest HDV I have ever seen. I have never noticed any artifacting in the H1's HDV video - even with fast movement. The Flash XDR gives shockingly superior results in both Long GOP as well as in I-Frame (Intra) encoding. Personally, I think the I-Frame, and not the Long GOP settings look superior to my eye, but the Long GOP format is more efficient. I-Frame encoding takes a higher data rate to equal what you're getting in Long GOP, but the top end I-Frame looks better to me than the top Long GOP settings. I-Frame is also easily edited in NLE's like Avid Media Composer and FCP, whereas Long GOP 100 Mbps or higher cannot be edited in Avid at this time. I haven't begun testing the new higher data rate I-Frame 280 Mbps setting yet, but the 220 Mbps setting looks ever so slightly better to my eye than Long GOP 100, plus you can post it easily. Long GOP 140 and 160 look very good.

[Ron Wilber]

Dan - I have the sony fx1000 which has the same sensor as the sony z7u and z5. Not sure if you have experience with any of those?

Mark - in what ways do you see the picture quality inmproving with the nano?

thanks

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Ron,

Personally, I have not worked with the FX1000, z7u, or z5.

Any camera with an HDMI output will benefit when using a nanoFlash.

The HDMI output will not be compressed, as it is when recording in camera.

The FX1000 records using HDV, which can produce a nice image, but the HDMI output has more color information, will work better in general and is dramatically better if you are doing any green screen work.

I hope others will share their experience.

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Ron Wilber

Mark - in what ways do you see the picture quality inmproving with the nano?

thanks

....I use the XDR, but its the same CD encoding and identical file structure. With my XL H1, the camera drops allot of its potential image quality when it hands off the signal from its image sensors to its internal MPEG 2 encoding circuitry. Fortunately enough, the encoding technology is second to none (including Sony) for producing HDV Long GOP digital video.

When you use the internally recorded HDV cassettes, you are only dealing with 4:2:0 color space, and a thick raster 1440 x 1080 HD pixel count.

With recording to an XDR or to a Nano Flash unit, you are taking the signal from the camera's HD-SDI video output. First, the signal is uncompressed (unlike HDV). Secondly, the pixel count is Full Raster 1920 x 1080 HD vs 1440 x 1080 HDV. Thirdly, the color space of the video signal jumps up to 4:2:2 color space, which is a broadcast standard.

The audio signal also gets a boost by using the XDR or Nano. In HDV, you are dealing with a highly compressed 16 bit 48 Khz signal, whereas, the audio signal in the XDR or the Nano is at the full broadcast standard of 24 bit 48 Khz audio. This is a big jump in audio quality and is also PCM, therefore uncompressed as well.

When I shot my first test with my XDR, I shot at Long GOP 100 Mbps data rate (4 x the data rate of HDV) to see what it would look and sound like. Wow ! It was like I went out and purchased another camera ! I thought I was going to have temporary loss of bladder control ! The difference in the video quality was that striking to my eye.

There are a few features I would like to see developed for the XDR and the Nano.

I would like to see a 96 Khz 24 bit audio option, which is a standard both in the film industry and for digital cinema production. Indeed, both FCP an Avid Media Composer can handle 96Khz 24 bit audio in post. FCP can handle up to 128 Khz 32 bit audio in post.

Many improvements has been made to both products in terms of their overall stability, and I'm hoping for more features. The XDR and nano are rather unique products and their development has been equally unique. CD's approach to enabling greater functionality via downloadable firmware upgrades is equally a unique approach.

[Ron Wilber]

Mark - Thanks for the testimony, sounds like it was definitely worth the purchase. I'm always tempted when I read stuff like this... any chance for pics of side by side :)

[Mark Job]

Hi Ron:
This should be easy enough to do. I simply need to find the time to out and shoot something. Montreal is being hit by a roaring blizzard right now, but sometimes snow doesn't give you enough relief in the images to make a good comparison. Let me figure out a test and get back to you on that. I have been wanting to shoot a side by side for awhile now.

[Olof Ekbergh]

I will be doing some side by side shots this week including res charts.

It is snowing like crazy here in NH as well. I may do some blizzard comparisons as well.

I will post back here soon.

[Mark Job]

Hi Olaf:
Yes. This storm is plastering the entire North Eastern part of the Continent. I'm also thinking of some blizzard shooting here in Montreal. Thank God I put on brand new Winter tires a couple of weeks ago :-)

[Ron Wilber]

oh can't wait guys, I really appreciate it! It would be great if you can sneak in some low light or dark stuff that would stress hdv..

thanks!

[Gerardo Campos]

HI, sorry for a late answere, but I was out town; I use a Sony HVR-Z7 and connect nanoflash via HDMI