Playback, upconverting, etc at DVinfo.net

Dave Valencic · July 2nd, 2003, 10:19 PM

I watched the footage posted here, and its not much better than a test I did blowing VX2000 footage up to 1280x720 in Vegas 4 (it lets you upconvert to all HD resolutions and output MPG files) Plus the noise-free image of the VX2000 instantly makes it a winner over the JVC....obviously if a 3chip camera were to be made that was 720p native, It would blow 480i upconverted footage out of the water.

I'll borrow a friend's XL1S and DVX100 and upconvert some more footage and see what it looks like... I'll even try some more techniques like some processing in After Effects to enhance the video a bit more...

BTW: does anyone have a solid solution of getting the JVC footage onto an HDTV from a PC? Right now, i'm playing the video through a 1600x1200 scan converter (running at 1280x720) that has component outputs (borrowed from work...its like a $1200 unit) hooked up to my Mitsubishi 55" HDTV (1080i native, but the JVC footage upconverts quite nicely)

So far... playback (software only based) seems to require atleast a 2Ghz Pentium 4 to get a solid 30fps playback.

Playback on my PIII 550Mhz (1.5Gb ram) is about 8-12fps...Playback on my AMD XP2000+ system is running about 20-30fps...playback on my P4 2.4Ghz is perfect....and playback on my friend's 3.06Ghz Alienware laptop is obviously flawless.

Please post your experiences with playout of this footage and offer some theories on up-converting existing footage to 720p (possibly to intercut?)

-Dave
Ultimind Studios

Paul Mogg · July 2nd, 2003, 10:41 PM

Sorry, but I find that hard to believe Dave, as I've done side by side comparisons with footage from my Ikegami HL-DV7W (an $18,000 camera) which definately has a sharper picture than a VX2000, and the JVC still wins out easily in terms of picture detail. I just don't think SD DV has the native resolution to compete on an HD monitor. Are you viewing both on an HD monitor at HD resolutions i.e 1280*720? At NTSC resolutions the difference isn't as clear.

Dave Valencic · July 2nd, 2003, 10:53 PM

I totally agree that the image is sharper and more defined, but I'm talking about video noise...I mean...if the lighting was good (and outdoors it really can't be bad) there should be no *noticeable* video noise...In the Bay Bridge video it looks like video I shot with my VX2000 at +12dB gain...

But at the same time, video like the one of the duck is amazingly sharp and beats the crap out of any SD camera.

Needless to day, this being the first HD consumer camera its still got problems (the noise problem would be a negative selling point for me)

90% of the video I shoot is for DVD distribution, and HD isn't really a field that I need to get into for atleast another two-three years.

If anyone has seen chuckmeister's site, he is now talking about the Panasonic MX7000 which (in memory mode, he told me) is capable of HD recording...i'll believe it when I see it...but I will give Panasonic credit for making an extremely attractive 1/4" 3CCD camera in an EXTREMELY tiny form factor...even if it won't record "true" HD...

Hey Paul: Can you post a direct comparison between your DV7W and the HD10? Even if it's just a still, I'd like to see the difference in quality.

I'm still thinking that because of the DV7W's 2/3" CCDs, the apparent video quality will be higher (especially if you're shooting a scene with a large dynamic range) I know that the sheer fact that the JVC has more active pixels will instantly give it a sharper image...

In the duck clip, like you said, the whites are blown way to easily it seems. That would be a nightmare for any DP trying to light for this camera...

Paul Mogg · July 2nd, 2003, 11:42 PM

I've believe that I've solved the blown whites problem simply by adding an appropriate ND filter. You could be right about the color noise issue though, I don't have enough experience with the camera yet to say if it's at all controllable, though for me the natural DV pixelation noise is far worse, and the artifacts that go with it when it is blown up. I'd far prefer to have the HD detail and a bit of olor noise than the blocky look of DV blown up. I guess time will tell though, I'm looking forward to getting something from this camera projected on a cinema screen as a test.

All the best

Paul Mogg · July 2nd, 2003, 11:47 PM

p.s. Yes I will definately post some side by side tests as soon as I get a day to do it. Right now unfortunately I'm tied up with work. Someone else may be able to get to it before me. A comparison with a DVX100 might be fairer, as so much hype has surounded that camera as a "make a movie" tool, which personally I just don't buy, having seen the 35mm blow ups.

Yang Wen · July 3rd, 2003, 05:46 AM

I enlarged a 720x373 frame(letterboxed) from my DVX100 to HD 720P res. The results were very good.

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~ywenz/Mammoth/SDtoHD.jpg

Dave Valencic · July 3rd, 2003, 09:54 AM

Yang Wen: Yes, that looks very good, but try the same blowup using alot of red objects or alot of things with diagonal lines. Something like what you've done shows that DV (in some cases) CAN be blown up to HD with little quality loss...but I'm working on a similar test using red objects (DV doesn't like red) and alot of diagonal lines, and the blowups look like Paul said...bad....

Before the end of today, I will post my results from my blowup tests using a VX2000.

Joe Russ · July 3rd, 2003, 03:02 PM

it looks like that dvx shot (of the bush and what not) is towards the tele end of the lens, but its still a LOT softer then the jvc, i mean, yes the jvc over sharpens, but you can compensate with a little blur in post and its still got more detail.

the dvx takes the cake in color rendering and contrast range, flat out, if only it were hd.

July 2nd, 2003, 10:19 PM	#1
Dave Valencic Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Cleveland OH Posts: 34	Playback, upconverting, etc I watched the footage posted here, and its not much better than a test I did blowing VX2000 footage up to 1280x720 in Vegas 4 (it lets you upconvert to all HD resolutions and output MPG files) Plus the noise-free image of the VX2000 instantly makes it a winner over the JVC....obviously if a 3chip camera were to be made that was 720p native, It would blow 480i upconverted footage out of the water. I'll borrow a friend's XL1S and DVX100 and upconvert some more footage and see what it looks like... I'll even try some more techniques like some processing in After Effects to enhance the video a bit more... BTW: does anyone have a solid solution of getting the JVC footage onto an HDTV from a PC? Right now, i'm playing the video through a 1600x1200 scan converter (running at 1280x720) that has component outputs (borrowed from work...its like a $1200 unit) hooked up to my Mitsubishi 55" HDTV (1080i native, but the JVC footage upconverts quite nicely) So far... playback (software only based) seems to require atleast a 2Ghz Pentium 4 to get a solid 30fps playback. Playback on my PIII 550Mhz (1.5Gb ram) is about 8-12fps...Playback on my AMD XP2000+ system is running about 20-30fps...playback on my P4 2.4Ghz is perfect....and playback on my friend's 3.06Ghz Alienware laptop is obviously flawless. Please post your experiences with playout of this footage and offer some theories on up-converting existing footage to 720p (possibly to intercut?) -Dave Ultimind Studios

July 2nd, 2003, 10:41 PM	#2
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	Sorry, but I find that hard to believe Dave, as I've done side by side comparisons with footage from my Ikegami HL-DV7W (an $18,000 camera) which definately has a sharper picture than a VX2000, and the JVC still wins out easily in terms of picture detail. I just don't think SD DV has the native resolution to compete on an HD monitor. Are you viewing both on an HD monitor at HD resolutions i.e 1280*720? At NTSC resolutions the difference isn't as clear. __________________ Paul

July 2nd, 2003, 11:42 PM	#4
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	I've believe that I've solved the blown whites problem simply by adding an appropriate ND filter. You could be right about the color noise issue though, I don't have enough experience with the camera yet to say if it's at all controllable, though for me the natural DV pixelation noise is far worse, and the artifacts that go with it when it is blown up. I'd far prefer to have the HD detail and a bit of olor noise than the blocky look of DV blown up. I guess time will tell though, I'm looking forward to getting something from this camera projected on a cinema screen as a test. All the best __________________ Paul

July 2nd, 2003, 11:47 PM	#5
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	p.s. Yes I will definately post some side by side tests as soon as I get a day to do it. Right now unfortunately I'm tied up with work. Someone else may be able to get to it before me. A comparison with a DVX100 might be fairer, as so much hype has surounded that camera as a "make a movie" tool, which personally I just don't buy, having seen the 35mm blow ups. __________________ Paul

July 2nd, 2003, 10:53 PM	#3
Dave Valencic Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Cleveland OH Posts: 34	I totally agree that the image is sharper and more defined, but I'm talking about video noise...I mean...if the lighting was good (and outdoors it really can't be bad) there should be no noticeable video noise...In the Bay Bridge video it looks like video I shot with my VX2000 at +12dB gain... But at the same time, video like the one of the duck is amazingly sharp and beats the crap out of any SD camera. Needless to day, this being the first HD consumer camera its still got problems (the noise problem would be a negative selling point for me) 90% of the video I shoot is for DVD distribution, and HD isn't really a field that I need to get into for atleast another two-three years. If anyone has seen chuckmeister's site, he is now talking about the Panasonic MX7000 which (in memory mode, he told me) is capable of HD recording...i'll believe it when I see it...but I will give Panasonic credit for making an extremely attractive 1/4" 3CCD camera in an EXTREMELY tiny form factor...even if it won't record "true" HD... Hey Paul: Can you post a direct comparison between your DV7W and the HD10? Even if it's just a still, I'd like to see the difference in quality. I'm still thinking that because of the DV7W's 2/3" CCDs, the apparent video quality will be higher (especially if you're shooting a scene with a large dynamic range) I know that the sheer fact that the JVC has more active pixels will instantly give it a sharper image... In the duck clip, like you said, the whites are blown way to easily it seems. That would be a nightmare for any DP trying to light for this camera...

July 3rd, 2003, 05:46 AM	#6
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	I enlarged a 720x373 frame(letterboxed) from my DVX100 to HD 720P res. The results were very good. http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~ywenz/Mammoth/SDtoHD.jpg

July 3rd, 2003, 09:54 AM	#7
Dave Valencic Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Cleveland OH Posts: 34	Yang Wen: Yes, that looks very good, but try the same blowup using alot of red objects or alot of things with diagonal lines. Something like what you've done shows that DV (in some cases) CAN be blown up to HD with little quality loss...but I'm working on a similar test using red objects (DV doesn't like red) and alot of diagonal lines, and the blowups look like Paul said...bad.... Before the end of today, I will post my results from my blowup tests using a VX2000.

July 3rd, 2003, 03:02 PM	#8
Joe Russ Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 99	it looks like that dvx shot (of the bush and what not) is towards the tele end of the lens, but its still a LOT softer then the jvc, i mean, yes the jvc over sharpens, but you can compensate with a little blur in post and its still got more detail. the dvx takes the cake in color rendering and contrast range, flat out, if only it were hd.