DVX100ap; Frame grabs & DOF test

[Mark Austin]

I finally got to shoot my DVX100a today and I thought I'd post some frame grabs & a depth of field test.

• Grab1 www.markaustin.com/images/grab1.jpg
  A wide shot
  
• Grab2 www.markaustin.com/images/grab2.jpg
  About 75% zoom, 25' from window
  
• Grab3 www.markaustin.com/images/grab3.jpg
  100 % zoom. Notice the hair on the right side of the statue, the focus is starting to fall of nicely! ND @ 1/8, F1.8, 1/24th second exposure. About 6' from statue. SWEET!
  
• DOF Test www.markaustin.com/images/dvx100a.mp4
  Back yard shot, ND@ 1/8, F4, 1/24th second exposure. About 2' from plant.

These were grabbed from tape shot in 24p advanced mode, CINE D, captured in FCP 4(.1.1) and pulled down at 2:3:3:2.

I haven't done any kind of correction on the images, it's all native footage.

Needless to say I'm quite impressed by the VERY film like DOF. If you set it up like a film shot, you can get great results. In fact I think I just saved myself from spending $8000 on a MINI35!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Nice looking stuff - thanks for posting.

[Mark Austin]

I couldn't believe how rich the colors were, and how much control I had over DOF.

Mark

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Color saturation and rendition is clearly improved in the 100A model over the 100. It looks like Panasonic has done a nice job.

[Mark Austin]

The stained glass window had sunlight coming through it, and I had set my white balance for the interior of the church. It would be MUCH richer looking if I had set my WB for daylight!

I was scouting the location for a short that I've been working on, and if the church says okay I'll have a lot more time to set up my shots. I hope to get some more accurately balanced images soon. If I had a huge budget I'd probably gel the all windows. But I'm only a poor (but happy) DVX100a owner.


my2cents
Mark

[Brian Mitchell Warshawsky]

>>>DOF Test www.markaustin.com/images/dvx100a.mp4
Back yard shot, ND@ 1/8, F4, 1/24th second exposure. About 2' from plant.>>>

Mark,

Was this cropped in FCP for the aspect ratio?

Have you tried the anamorphic squeeze, and if so, can you post the results?

Thanks,

Brian

[Mark Austin]

No it's not. The image is a result of the non square pixel syndrome. I just dumped it on the Cinema Tools compressor to make the MP4 without setting it up properly. I'll correct it in the next shots and I'll post some squeezed shots too.


Regards,
Mark

[Imran Zaidi]

These are great samples, thanks for posting them. UPS tracking says I get mine tomorrow, and I'm so anxious I can't stand it!

Very surprised about the DOF control. Was it like this in the previous 100, or does it have to do somehow with their new lens the 100A has? I never used the previous model so I have no idea myself.

[Young Lee]

The power of 12-bit A/D convertor (similar to the DV300) !!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

DOF in this camera is no different from previous model or other DV cameras.

DOF control with camera with larger CCD's (and 16mm and 35mm cameras) is much greater than any miniDV except using the mini35 or similar adaptor, though they involve big compromises.

[Matt Grdinic]

OK, this is more like a commentary/question...
All referenced grabs can be found by following this link:
http://organicfoodnetwork.net/dls/

I recently found these:
http://new.dvinfo.net/panasonic/media/index.php
clips and decided to try em out to see how the reverse telecine operation works in Cinema Tools. I downloaded Beach.mov and immediately played it in quicktime to see how it looked. Reaction: It doesn't look good (see originalCapture.pdf) I thus assumed that Quicktime was having problems, so I tried VLC player and while the picture was sharper, it played at about 10 fps.

Anyway, i fired up Cinema Tools and performed the reverse telecine operation, launched FCP, imported the clip, then output it at high quality using the Sorenson 3 codec.

--Then came the biggest shock of my life--when i played the Sorenson clip it was hands down gorgeous. (see reverse->finalCut->Sorenson_3.pdf) All of the smudging was gone, scan lines were obviously non existent. The picture, while beautiful as a still, is very textured and professional looking while moving. Ah so nice.


So, with moderately high expectations, I recently shot a movie with a DVC-80 and, while i was happy with some footage i shot (see kittyCat picture) i found myself dealing with the same "look" as my old GL1. Sure the pictures seem a bit sharper with the DVC-80, but not by a whole lot. Where was the look had in the beach pictures? My feeling was that the images from the DVC-80 (see...
kittyCat.pdf
dvc-80ScreenGrab.pdf)
looked about the same as the DVX-100 24p footage BEFORE the pulldown.

Thats the commentary, here's the question...
Does 24p really make that much of a difference? Because i can understand about the scan-lines and progressive vs. 30i etc, but the picture's from the 100 just seem so much sharper than anything i got with the DVC-80. So rather than asking, "was i doing something wrong" perhaps owners of 80's and 100's could share some insight.

Perhaps owners of a 100 could post some grabs using the technique i described (using cinema tools and leaving footage at 24 fps), then posting the same footage but shot using using 30i and 60i.

Thanks allot everyone!


ps, all grabs are uncompressed pdf screen captures in OS X 10.3

broadband ho!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Simply, the loss of quality from interlaced image capture is why the DVX100 looks so nice/sharp/rich in progressive mode.

Interlace sucks. The only reason it exists is because of technology limitations in the olden days of yore :)

24p, 30p, even 60p (when available) blow interlace away. I think with the plunge in prices of progressive equipment, consumer and pro, and the better eyes people are developing, interlace will die and even 1080i will give to 1080p.

Some older 1080i HD sets will remain for some time given what people paid, but 1080p will usurp it when it's the same price as 1080i.

When people what a film look, they will shoot 24p or 30p. When they want video look, they will shoot 60p.

With the DVC-80, if you want progressive, either 24p or 30p, you bought the wrong camera. The DVX100a is worth every penny to get progressive. Because with the DVC-80, you need to drop $1000 on Magic Bullet to get reasonable progressive. I've seen all the other options and have tested or owned 90% (including an XL1), and only Magic Bullet comes close to provided decent progressive in all different shooting scenarios, but it still does not equal, or even come that close to true 24p.

[Brian Mitchell Warshawsky]

>>>>The DVX100a is worth every penny to get progressive. >>>

How about existing DVX100s (sans A).

It looks like there are deals aplenty to be had.

Any concerns buying a non A model?

Brian

[Mark Austin]

The bottom line is this - the DVX100 is one AWESOME camera and it virtually ruled the MiniDV marked from day one. How could you go wrong buying a camera that great when it's a great deal?

They are both giant killers.

my2cents

Mark

[Michael Wisniewski]

Beautiful shots better than any advertisement for getting the DVX100a