GY-HM Resolution? at DVinfo.net

Kenn Christenson · April 3rd, 2009, 10:21 AM

Anyone have any ideas about how the HM700 camera performs on the resolution charts?

Tim Dashwood · April 3rd, 2009, 01:56 PM

I just got the 17x5 Fujinon lens in my hands so I'll run resolution tests this weekend.

Kenn Christenson · April 3rd, 2009, 03:19 PM

Thanks, Tim.

I've got a project with a fair amount of match moving, involved, and this looks like the highest res CCD camera in the sub $10K range.

David Petersen · April 3rd, 2009, 03:52 PM

If you download some of the demo footage, there's an overcranked shot of two kids running in the forest. It tracks quite well in Syntheyes.

Kenn Christenson · April 3rd, 2009, 04:22 PM

Thanks, David. I must have missed that one.

So far it's been between the EX1 and the HM700. I like the EX1's resolution and low noise, but I'm a little concerned about the skew/wobble factor, especially since there will be some hand-held match move shots - similar to this video test: YouTube - Through A Glass, Darkly - Patrol

David Petersen · April 3rd, 2009, 08:10 PM

I've basically written off CMOS sensor cameras for that reason. I know it's still trackable, but the track error can be quite large and you can get slipping. The other biggie is if you track and stabilize the footage - with the rolling shutter you'll end up with jellocam.

I've been considering the HMC and HPX since they seemed to be the best CCD cameras out, but they are a bit soft at full 1080 resolutions. And I wanted tapeless and no HDV... Then JVC announced the HM700 and it seems like the perfect camera for my needs, although a little more expensive.

Kenn Christenson · April 3rd, 2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Petersen

Then JVC announced the HM700 and it seems like the perfect camera for my needs, although a little more expensive.

That's been my thinking, as well. I work with both the HVX200 & HPX500 - both are pretty soft, to my eyes. Looking forward to Tim's chart - should, hopefully, answer that question

Jim Andrada · April 4th, 2009, 11:12 PM

I've talked to Russ Andersson (Mr Syntheyes) at Siggraph and he seems to be absolutely down on CMOS based cams because of the jello-cam (rolling shutter) effect on tracking accuracy. On the other hand, I'm not sure he's ever tried a cam as good as the latest from Sony or Panny.

David Petersen · April 5th, 2009, 10:09 AM

Have you seen video from the new Panasonic HPX300? There's no way (in 1080p24 at least) you'd be able to get an acceptable track out of that footage - every time the camera changes directions during a pan the entire background jellos from one side to the other.

Check out (esp. the background around 0:37 in): HPX300 with Super16 Adapter Footage | CineTechnica

I'd take him as a good source of info for the tracking stuff. If you're heavy into 3d tracking the fact of the matter is the CMOS cameras just aren't going to cut it in every shooting situation. You just can't have the rolling shutter artifacts and get the mathematic precision required for 3d tracking.

Jim Andrada · April 5th, 2009, 11:22 AM

Strange isn't it, that the human eye can adapt to this kind of footage and feel like it's a great picture, but the computer is completely blown away.

It seems that CMOS has almost totally become the technology of choice for this class of camera, and it has a lot going for it - low light performance, sensor site density, etc.

There just seems to be this "one small problem" for those who also want to use the camera for match moving footage.

David Petersen · April 5th, 2009, 11:37 AM

Well at least the manufacturers have a bunch of options out now! Low light and noise may be a dealbreaker for some, so the EX-series is great for them. Long-GOP compression for others, so the HPX and HVX are great for them. I'm just happy JVC's coming out with this camera - removable lenses, inexpensive media, XDCAM compression, shoulder form factor, and CCDs. You might almost think they thought, "Hmm, what would happen if an EX3, HD250, HPX170, and HMC150 had a child..."

I am eagerly awaiting the resolution test results, though, to see how the new spatial offsetting helps resolution.

Jim Andrada · April 5th, 2009, 12:04 PM

Yes, I'm delighted that JVC didn't just jump on the CMOS bandwagon. I just worry about the future of the CCD based cameras in this market space. Hopefully technology will eventually find a way to deal with the rolling shutter issues.

I just worry that camera makers think of match moving as something done by Hollywood studios with big budgets, not by independent guys with small pockets, and thus don't weight it heavily in making decisions about technology in this segment of the market.

Keith Moreau · April 6th, 2009, 07:35 PM

I have an EX1 (CMOS rolling shutter) and I hope that the HM100 has good enough image quality to match with it. The EX1 image is beautiful and the wobble isn't noticeable unless you have special needs, ie tracking or computer steadicam, in which case the 'jello' effect is apparent. I do hope that future CMOS evolves where this isn't an issue because it seems that the manufacturers are going in this direction.

Kenn Christenson · April 6th, 2009, 07:45 PM

Rumor is, around 900 lines - we'll see. Tim Dashwood was going to try and shoot a resolution chart.

Tim Dashwood · April 7th, 2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenn Christenson

Tim Dashwood was going to try and shoot a resolution chart.

Done. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-gy-hm...ion-tests.html

April 3rd, 2009, 10:21 AM	#1
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	GY-HM Resolution? Anyone have any ideas about how the HM700 camera performs on the resolution charts?

April 3rd, 2009, 01:56 PM	#2
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	I just got the 17x5 Fujinon lens in my hands so I'll run resolution tests this weekend. __________________ Tim Dashwood

April 3rd, 2009, 03:19 PM	#3
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	Thanks, Tim. I've got a project with a fair amount of match moving, involved, and this looks like the highest res CCD camera in the sub $10K range.

April 3rd, 2009, 03:52 PM	#4
David Petersen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 28	If you download some of the demo footage, there's an overcranked shot of two kids running in the forest. It tracks quite well in Syntheyes.

April 3rd, 2009, 04:22 PM	#5
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	Thanks, David. I must have missed that one. So far it's been between the EX1 and the HM700. I like the EX1's resolution and low noise, but I'm a little concerned about the skew/wobble factor, especially since there will be some hand-held match move shots - similar to this video test: YouTube - Through A Glass, Darkly - Patrol

April 3rd, 2009, 08:10 PM	#6
David Petersen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 28	I've basically written off CMOS sensor cameras for that reason. I know it's still trackable, but the track error can be quite large and you can get slipping. The other biggie is if you track and stabilize the footage - with the rolling shutter you'll end up with jellocam. I've been considering the HMC and HPX since they seemed to be the best CCD cameras out, but they are a bit soft at full 1080 resolutions. And I wanted tapeless and no HDV... Then JVC announced the HM700 and it seems like the perfect camera for my needs, although a little more expensive.

April 4th, 2009, 11:12 PM	#8
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	I've talked to Russ Andersson (Mr Syntheyes) at Siggraph and he seems to be absolutely down on CMOS based cams because of the jello-cam (rolling shutter) effect on tracking accuracy. On the other hand, I'm not sure he's ever tried a cam as good as the latest from Sony or Panny.

April 5th, 2009, 10:09 AM	#9
David Petersen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 28	Have you seen video from the new Panasonic HPX300? There's no way (in 1080p24 at least) you'd be able to get an acceptable track out of that footage - every time the camera changes directions during a pan the entire background jellos from one side to the other. Check out (esp. the background around 0:37 in): HPX300 with Super16 Adapter Footage \| CineTechnica I'd take him as a good source of info for the tracking stuff. If you're heavy into 3d tracking the fact of the matter is the CMOS cameras just aren't going to cut it in every shooting situation. You just can't have the rolling shutter artifacts and get the mathematic precision required for 3d tracking.

April 5th, 2009, 11:22 AM	#10
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	Strange isn't it, that the human eye can adapt to this kind of footage and feel like it's a great picture, but the computer is completely blown away. It seems that CMOS has almost totally become the technology of choice for this class of camera, and it has a lot going for it - low light performance, sensor site density, etc. There just seems to be this "one small problem" for those who also want to use the camera for match moving footage.

April 5th, 2009, 11:37 AM	#11
David Petersen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 28	Well at least the manufacturers have a bunch of options out now! Low light and noise may be a dealbreaker for some, so the EX-series is great for them. Long-GOP compression for others, so the HPX and HVX are great for them. I'm just happy JVC's coming out with this camera - removable lenses, inexpensive media, XDCAM compression, shoulder form factor, and CCDs. You might almost think they thought, "Hmm, what would happen if an EX3, HD250, HPX170, and HMC150 had a child..." I am eagerly awaiting the resolution test results, though, to see how the new spatial offsetting helps resolution.

April 5th, 2009, 12:04 PM	#12
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	Yes, I'm delighted that JVC didn't just jump on the CMOS bandwagon. I just worry about the future of the CCD based cameras in this market space. Hopefully technology will eventually find a way to deal with the rolling shutter issues. I just worry that camera makers think of match moving as something done by Hollywood studios with big budgets, not by independent guys with small pockets, and thus don't weight it heavily in making decisions about technology in this segment of the market.

April 6th, 2009, 07:35 PM	#13
Keith Moreau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brisbane, California Posts: 530	I have an EX1 (CMOS rolling shutter) and I hope that the HM100 has good enough image quality to match with it. The EX1 image is beautiful and the wobble isn't noticeable unless you have special needs, ie tracking or computer steadicam, in which case the 'jello' effect is apparent. I do hope that future CMOS evolves where this isn't an issue because it seems that the manufacturers are going in this direction.

April 6th, 2009, 07:45 PM	#14
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	Rumor is, around 900 lines - we'll see. Tim Dashwood was going to try and shoot a resolution chart.