DETAIL and noise, your opinion please

John Mitchell · January 29th, 2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Actually 720p should have as much or more detail than 1080i. 1080 24p is another story however.

Yes the increased sharpness is probably more a factor of the glass and the much larger sensor on the F900.

Michael Maier · January 29th, 2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

Yes the increased sharpness is probably more a factor of the glass and the much larger sensor on the F900.

Native 1080 in 24p will be sharper than 720p, it's not only a matter of lens difference. But given the cheapest native 1080 capable of 24p is the F900, I don't even feel bad for not having a 1080 progressive camera.

Diogo Athouguia · January 29th, 2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

You can setup the camera for very little noise. Check this out. It is a wmv encode but still check it out. The thing it that the JVC is so customizable that you can find a combination that works in any given scenario. This was shot with the 'warm' scene file @ 0 gain. JVC delivers incredible quality.

Click here for WMV

Stephen, how was the detail adjusted in this shot? This is the kind of stuff I sometimes do, filmic look is not a priority to me in this situations. So, if you're shooting shows and stuff where the video look is natural, how do you set the detail level?

Stephen L. Noe · January 29th, 2006, 08:03 PM

1080p will be bigger than 720p but not necessarily sharper. The potential for a sharper image is there.

Gary Morris McBeath · January 29th, 2006, 08:05 PM

John: your'e right; I can't do much about the sensor size, but my glass on the HDCAM was in the neighborhood of $25K, street price, and the glass on the HD100, is, maybe $800.

I've asked my dealer to get in a 13x3.5 lens for testing and possible purchase. I'll report back then.

Over and out.

Michael Maier · January 29th, 2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

1080p will be bigger than 720p but not necessarily sharper. The potential for a sharper image is there.

There's no really such thing as 1080p, but 1080 in 24p, 25p and 30p. The 1080p term gives the wrong impression and or would mean 1080 60p or 50p which doesn't exist. Just out of curiosity

Stephen L. Noe · January 29th, 2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogo Athouguia

Stephen, how was the detail adjusted in this shot? This is the kind of stuff I sometimes do, filmic look is not a priority to me in this situations. So, if you're shooting shows and stuff where the video look is natural, how do you set the detail level?

I used the warm scene file (a T.Dashwood recipe) which I believe is detail set to -3 (off the top of my head).

How about this shotClick here for wmv by our friend Pete over at VidProstudios

Where do you think the detail is set to on this shot? It could easily pass for super 16, I think.

BTW: Pete said this was his very first shot. He pulled the camera out of the box and shot this on "out of box" defaults.

Stephen L. Noe · January 29th, 2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

There's no really such thing as 1080p, but 1080 in 24p, 25p and 30p. The 1080p term gives the wrong impression and or would mean 1080 60p or 50p which doesn't exist. Just out of curiosity

1080(p)rogressive (ie 1920x1080) as opposed to 1080(i)nterlaced (ie 1440x1080)....

Thanks for pointing that out amigo..

Michael Maier · January 29th, 2006, 08:29 PM

Hey Stephen, nothing personal, it's just that people use 1080p loosely when it actually doesn't exist. 720p means 720 60/50p and anything in between or in other words that it’s available in full. 1920x1080 is only available in 24p, 25p, 30p and interlaced. When you are talking about let's say 1280x720 in 24p, you normally wouldn't say 720p. 1080p doesn't exist, at least yet. I'm not sure I'm making any sense here, but I know you know what I’m talking about. I was just pointing it out of curiosity to others, because as I said 1080p is used so loosely. 1080p is not the same thing as 1080 progressive, even though many think it is

By the way are those clips shot in 30p and with the stock lens?

Stephen L. Noe · January 29th, 2006, 08:48 PM

You're absolutely right Micheal, my oversight. Anyway, those shots were taken 24p with the stock lens. I think the stock lens is much maligned. Take a look at the pan down the neck of the guitar. You can see the grain in the wood on the fret board as the camera moves down the neck. The 1280x720 CCD's are providing the incredible resolution as the camera is in motion. This is a feather in the cap of JVC because full resolution CCD's are what make the camera have such great detail in static as well as motion shots.

JVC gambled on the 2 CCD per block solution but it is worth it when you see the results of retained resolution when the camera is in motion. Now that the SSE has been "tamed" to a large degree and people are starting to see the quality of the camera's image, I believe we'll see more adopters of ProHD. Don't You?

Joel Aaron · January 29th, 2006, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Take a look at the pan down the neck of the guitar. You can see the grain in the wood on the fret board as the camera moves down the neck.

Something I keep seeing people throw out there is HDV has trouble with action type shots. Since the HD100 samples fewer frames I'd guess it would be better than the others.

I just saw the lacrosse footage -- it does seem a little "Gladiator-ish" at times... but that may have been the shutter speed. Anybody have thoughts on this topic?

Also - do you know if the promos at http://www.vidprostudios.com are HD100?

Michael Maier · January 30th, 2006, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

JVC gambled on the 2 CCD per block solution but it is worth it when you see the results of retained resolution when the camera is in motion. Now that the SSE has been "tamed" to a large degree and people are starting to see the quality of the camera's image, I believe we'll see more adopters of ProHD. Don't You?

^

Wise words my friend.

Michael Maier · January 30th, 2006, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

I just saw the lacrosse footage...

What footage?

Joel Aaron · January 30th, 2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

What footage?

The lacrosse footage Stephen linked to.
http://www.vidprostudios.com/media/R...20Lacrosse.wmv

Tim Dashwood · January 30th, 2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

The thing is, it's a known thing HD needs some edge enhancement. Any DP used to shoot on the F900 will tell you that and also that the F900 needs some edge enhancement. It's just a normal thing when shooting HD.

I agree. I wouldn't turn it off completely (unless you are doing a 35mm blowup - make sure you test first!!!)
MIN is as low as I would ever go, or the softness level may exceed what you can pull back by adding detail in post. Just make sure you are using a good HD monitor when establishing your ideal detail setting.
I've gone as high as +4 for high-contrast "bleach-bypass" style looks and as low as MIN for candlelit romantic scenes. My general suggested compromise setting is -6 or -7. You will still have enough edge enhancement that any image will look sharp, but not so much that it stands out as "video."

January 29th, 2006, 08:03 PM	#19
Stephen L. Noe Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,214	1080p will be bigger than 720p but not necessarily sharper. The potential for a sharper image is there.

January 29th, 2006, 08:05 PM	#20
Gary Morris McBeath Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Steilacoom Washington Posts: 72	John: your'e right; I can't do much about the sensor size, but my glass on the HDCAM was in the neighborhood of $25K, street price, and the glass on the HD100, is, maybe $800. I've asked my dealer to get in a 13x3.5 lens for testing and possible purchase. I'll report back then. Over and out.

January 29th, 2006, 08:29 PM	#24
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Hey Stephen, nothing personal, it's just that people use 1080p loosely when it actually doesn't exist. 720p means 720 60/50p and anything in between or in other words that it’s available in full. 1920x1080 is only available in 24p, 25p, 30p and interlaced. When you are talking about let's say 1280x720 in 24p, you normally wouldn't say 720p. 1080p doesn't exist, at least yet. I'm not sure I'm making any sense here, but I know you know what I’m talking about. I was just pointing it out of curiosity to others, because as I said 1080p is used so loosely. 1080p is not the same thing as 1080 progressive, even though many think it is By the way are those clips shot in 30p and with the stock lens?

January 29th, 2006, 08:48 PM	#25
Stephen L. Noe Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,214	You're absolutely right Micheal, my oversight. Anyway, those shots were taken 24p with the stock lens. I think the stock lens is much maligned. Take a look at the pan down the neck of the guitar. You can see the grain in the wood on the fret board as the camera moves down the neck. The 1280x720 CCD's are providing the incredible resolution as the camera is in motion. This is a feather in the cap of JVC because full resolution CCD's are what make the camera have such great detail in static as well as motion shots. JVC gambled on the 2 CCD per block solution but it is worth it when you see the results of retained resolution when the camera is in motion. Now that the SSE has been "tamed" to a large degree and people are starting to see the quality of the camera's image, I believe we'll see more adopters of ProHD. Don't You?