some tests on my NV-MX500EG at DVinfo.net

Mattia Visintini · February 12th, 2004, 07:09 AM

After surfing these forums for some time, to help me decide which camera to buy, finally I decided for the mx500....(i would have chosen the dvx100... but my bank account wasn't thinking the same way ;-) )

Well, my PANA just arrived two days ago, and I decided to put it to the test immediately.
For the moment i concentrated on DOF and the differences between frame and normal mode, which are the ones that really interest me most.

Regarding frame vs interlaced, I was expecting a lot more of a difference in resolution... in the truth i found them almost identical, being able to see the resolution loss only while closely inspecting freeze frames on my computer.... During playback, it isn't so easy to spot. (TESTS BELOW)

For the DOF, I found out that it is possible to reduce it to some degree.... as long as the zoom is set to minimum 3X.... it's not much, but hey how much does the lens inside the pana cost????

here are the tests:
(they are all in PAL 16:9 format)

DOF tests:
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/DPOF1.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/DPOF2.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/DPOF3.jpg

frame vs interlaced tests:
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/NORMALFRAME1.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/NORMALFRAME2.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/NORMALFRAME3.jpg

other frame grabs (all in frame mode):
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/pan1.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/sunset.jpg
(note the distortion in the horizon in this one..... )
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/zoom.jpg

Tommy Haupfear · February 12th, 2004, 09:47 AM

Nice frame grabs.

I see a little loss in resolution with frame mode but thats to be expected.

Do you have any interlaced vs. frame mode with a moving subject?

Guy Bruner · February 12th, 2004, 10:15 AM

Nice frame grabs, Mattia. These correspond to what I have found with respect to the resolution of frame mode...it is quite good and hardly discernable from 60i. Where I have seen the most deviation in quality is with very low light levels. Frame mode is much grainier than normal mode in low light even with the 1 F stop gain in frame mode. I presume you didn't change any of the exposure settings when you switched between normal and frame? That would explain why your frame mode grabs are brighter.

Tommy Haupfear · February 12th, 2004, 10:22 AM

Quote:

That would explain why your frame mode grabs are brighter.

You mean darker, right? My GS100 is noticeably brighter in interlaced versus frame mode.

Mattia Visintini · February 12th, 2004, 12:32 PM

Tommy, I did it on purpose to shoot only static images.... it is quite difficult to judge the resolution of interlaced mode with moving subjects..... those field lines really garble things up a bit! (at least for freeze frames, in playback its easier)

As for the loss/increase in brightness i noticed it also.... frames look a bit brighter in frame mode.
Having locked the exposure settings in both tests, i really don't know what to think about it.
I'll have to do some tests with some other subjects to see what is really happening.

btw Guy, what's the 1-F stop gain difference you are talking about?

Tommy Haupfear · February 12th, 2004, 01:27 PM

In this frame interlaced looked brighter to me.

http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/NORMALFRAME2.jpg

John Gaspain · February 12th, 2004, 01:50 PM

Great shots! You are in a very cool area to be able to just pull that out.

Good DOF, Im gonna have to try the 3x trick.

Thanks for the beatifull pics

Guy Bruner · February 12th, 2004, 01:59 PM

Based on what I saw, all the frame mode pix were quite a bit brighter than the interlaced. According to technical information posted here before on frame vs. interlaced mode in DV camcorders, frame mode has about 6 dB more gain due to the way the pixel information is interpolated as compared to interlaced mode. I have not seen that in my frame grabs, but it is clearly observable in Mattia's.

Mattia,
Did you lock your exposures in interlaced mode and hold that in frame mode? If so, the camera probably couldn't auto adjust the exposure...just a guess.

Here's the link I mentioned above.

Mattia Visintini · February 12th, 2004, 02:28 PM

Guy, I am sure that in pics 1 and 3 i shot first in frame mode, locked the exposure and then switched to normal mode. I am not sure if pic 2 was first done in the opposite way... (Tommy, perhaps this is why there isn't much difference in that case? I truly don't know.......)
I didn't really notice the differences in brightness at first, since I didn't expect any (nor had i read anything about it). It is something i definitely have to find out. Tomorrow i'll try to do some more tests just for this. I'll post them as soon as i can.

John, it may be obvious, but i forgot to write that you'll need some pretty dense ND's (at least with sunlight) to open the iris as much as you can.... the ideal being on the "open" setting. Anything less will start putting everything in focus....

Mattia Visintini · February 12th, 2004, 02:32 PM

Guy, oops i missed your link on my first reading....
thanks a lot!
it's a very interesting article!

Allan Rejoso · February 12th, 2004, 07:26 PM

Tommy, are you not referring to Procinema mode instead (the frame mode which is dimmer than normal interlaced)?

Tommy Haupfear · February 12th, 2004, 07:52 PM

Allan, correct as usual. I rarely use just the frame mode without being in Pro Cinema and hadn't thought about all the factors that go into making this mode.

Guy Bruner · February 12th, 2004, 08:30 PM

Allan or Tommy,
This is a little OT, but do either of you know what the light sensitivity specs are for the DV953/MX5000? I know low light is 15 Lux, and I believe that is at +18 dB @ 1/60 in normal mode. The manual says standard illumination is 1400 Lux, but is that at F4, F8...at 1/60, normal mode?

I'm trying to establish the ASA value for the DV953. I've sorta got it using my Canon AE1 Program's AE modes but I want to compare this to some reference info.

Mattia Visintini · February 13th, 2004, 07:24 AM

here are some new test i did...

http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST1.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST2.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST3.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST4.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST5.jpg

results are consistent with the 6dB's (perhaps a bit less) increase in brightness, by switching from normal to frame mode.
frame mode grabs also show some more grain, noticeable on darker, or uniform areas of colour... just as Guy said.

Guy Bruner · February 13th, 2004, 08:00 AM

Mattia,
Beautiful shots! I'm going to have to visit there one day.

Your frame mode grabs are cleaner than mine. I suspect that is due to the added resolution in PAL. However, I really only notice a loss in resolution at very low (15 Lux) light levels. Otherwise, I'm quite satisfied with the frame mode quality. Video is very good and looks exceptional in 16:9. When uprezzed to WMV 9 HD, it is stunning. Thanks for posting those comparisons.

February 12th, 2004, 07:09 AM	#1
Mattia Visintini New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Trieste, ITALY Posts: 8	some tests on my NV-MX500EG After surfing these forums for some time, to help me decide which camera to buy, finally I decided for the mx500....(i would have chosen the dvx100... but my bank account wasn't thinking the same way ;-) ) Well, my PANA just arrived two days ago, and I decided to put it to the test immediately. For the moment i concentrated on DOF and the differences between frame and normal mode, which are the ones that really interest me most. Regarding frame vs interlaced, I was expecting a lot more of a difference in resolution... in the truth i found them almost identical, being able to see the resolution loss only while closely inspecting freeze frames on my computer.... During playback, it isn't so easy to spot. (TESTS BELOW) For the DOF, I found out that it is possible to reduce it to some degree.... as long as the zoom is set to minimum 3X.... it's not much, but hey how much does the lens inside the pana cost???? here are the tests: (they are all in PAL 16:9 format) DOF tests: http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/DPOF1.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/DPOF2.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/DPOF3.jpg frame vs interlaced tests: http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/NORMALFRAME1.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/NORMALFRAME2.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/NORMALFRAME3.jpg other frame grabs (all in frame mode): http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/pan1.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/sunset.jpg (note the distortion in the horizon in this one..... ) http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/zoom.jpg

February 12th, 2004, 01:50 PM	#7
John Gaspain Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: WA-USA Posts: 371	Great shots! You are in a very cool area to be able to just pull that out. Good DOF, Im gonna have to try the 3x trick. Thanks for the beatifull pics __________________ The glory of the World passes by.

February 12th, 2004, 09:47 AM	#2
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Nice frame grabs. I see a little loss in resolution with frame mode but thats to be expected. Do you have any interlaced vs. frame mode with a moving subject?

February 12th, 2004, 10:15 AM	#3
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Nice frame grabs, Mattia. These correspond to what I have found with respect to the resolution of frame mode...it is quite good and hardly discernable from 60i. Where I have seen the most deviation in quality is with very low light levels. Frame mode is much grainier than normal mode in low light even with the 1 F stop gain in frame mode. I presume you didn't change any of the exposure settings when you switched between normal and frame? That would explain why your frame mode grabs are brighter.

February 12th, 2004, 12:32 PM	#5
Mattia Visintini New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Trieste, ITALY Posts: 8	Tommy, I did it on purpose to shoot only static images.... it is quite difficult to judge the resolution of interlaced mode with moving subjects..... those field lines really garble things up a bit! (at least for freeze frames, in playback its easier) As for the loss/increase in brightness i noticed it also.... frames look a bit brighter in frame mode. Having locked the exposure settings in both tests, i really don't know what to think about it. I'll have to do some tests with some other subjects to see what is really happening. btw Guy, what's the 1-F stop gain difference you are talking about?

February 12th, 2004, 01:27 PM	#6
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	In this frame interlaced looked brighter to me. http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/NORMALFRAME2.jpg

February 12th, 2004, 01:59 PM	#8
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Based on what I saw, all the frame mode pix were quite a bit brighter than the interlaced. According to technical information posted here before on frame vs. interlaced mode in DV camcorders, frame mode has about 6 dB more gain due to the way the pixel information is interpolated as compared to interlaced mode. I have not seen that in my frame grabs, but it is clearly observable in Mattia's. Mattia, Did you lock your exposures in interlaced mode and hold that in frame mode? If so, the camera probably couldn't auto adjust the exposure...just a guess. Here's the link I mentioned above.

February 12th, 2004, 02:28 PM	#9
Mattia Visintini New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Trieste, ITALY Posts: 8	Guy, I am sure that in pics 1 and 3 i shot first in frame mode, locked the exposure and then switched to normal mode. I am not sure if pic 2 was first done in the opposite way... (Tommy, perhaps this is why there isn't much difference in that case? I truly don't know.......) I didn't really notice the differences in brightness at first, since I didn't expect any (nor had i read anything about it). It is something i definitely have to find out. Tomorrow i'll try to do some more tests just for this. I'll post them as soon as i can. John, it may be obvious, but i forgot to write that you'll need some pretty dense ND's (at least with sunlight) to open the iris as much as you can.... the ideal being on the "open" setting. Anything less will start putting everything in focus....

February 12th, 2004, 02:32 PM	#10
Mattia Visintini New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Trieste, ITALY Posts: 8	Guy, oops i missed your link on my first reading.... thanks a lot! it's a very interesting article!

February 12th, 2004, 07:26 PM	#11
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Tommy, are you not referring to Procinema mode instead (the frame mode which is dimmer than normal interlaced)?

February 12th, 2004, 07:52 PM	#12
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Allan, correct as usual. I rarely use just the frame mode without being in Pro Cinema and hadn't thought about all the factors that go into making this mode.

February 12th, 2004, 08:30 PM	#13
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Allan or Tommy, This is a little OT, but do either of you know what the light sensitivity specs are for the DV953/MX5000? I know low light is 15 Lux, and I believe that is at +18 dB @ 1/60 in normal mode. The manual says standard illumination is 1400 Lux, but is that at F4, F8...at 1/60, normal mode? I'm trying to establish the ASA value for the DV953. I've sorta got it using my Canon AE1 Program's AE modes but I want to compare this to some reference info.

February 13th, 2004, 07:24 AM	#14
Mattia Visintini New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Trieste, ITALY Posts: 8	here are some new test i did... http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST1.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST2.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST3.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST4.jpg http://users.skynet.be/divinefilms/TEST5.jpg results are consistent with the 6dB's (perhaps a bit less) increase in brightness, by switching from normal to frame mode. frame mode grabs also show some more grain, noticeable on darker, or uniform areas of colour... just as Guy said.

February 13th, 2004, 08:00 AM	#15
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Mattia, Beautiful shots! I'm going to have to visit there one day. Your frame mode grabs are cleaner than mine. I suspect that is due to the added resolution in PAL. However, I really only notice a loss in resolution at very low (15 Lux) light levels. Otherwise, I'm quite satisfied with the frame mode quality. Video is very good and looks exceptional in 16:9. When uprezzed to WMV 9 HD, it is stunning. Thanks for posting those comparisons.