Camcorder 16-235

[Chris Clementson]

straighten me out? Perhaps just focus on one?

you seem to be confusing output levels with output scales.

I'm not. You have to understand how pulse-code modulation works for video. The numbers 0, 16, 235, 255, etc. are the actual 8-bit digital numeric values for a given pixel component which describes the amplitude of the pixel component when converted to analog. Pixel components can be R G B or Y U V. Effectively output levels and "scales" are one and the same. We're not talking about IRE units or % scales here. There is no distinction between "output levels" and "output scales". This is all being measured directly off files, ahead of all graphics hardware, ahead of Windows, ahead of display devices, etc.

YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.

[quote]
YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.
{/quote}

It appears YouTube does change the levels. I've tested this very carefully using a scope which is easier to read than the ffmpeg scope. The calibration of my scope and the ffmpeg scope match so I'm confident about it. YouTube changes 16 - 235 video to 0 - 255 by controlled test, however, I'm taking it on faith that the video-downloader I'm using with Firefox isn't altering the levels.

[Chris Clementson]

straighten me out? Perhaps just focus on one?

you seem to be confusing output levels with output scales.

I'm not. You have to understand how pulse-code modulation works for video. The numbers 0, 16, 235, 255, etc. are the actual 8-bit digital numeric values for a given pixel component which describes the amplitude of the pixel component when converted to analog. Pixel components can be R G B or Y U V. Effectively output levels and "scales" are one and the same. We're not talking about IRE units or % scales here. There is no distinction between "output levels" and "output scales". This is all being measured directly off files, ahead of all graphics hardware, ahead of Windows, ahead of display devices, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation

YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.

It appears YouTube does change the levels. I've tested this very carefully using a scope which is easier to read than the ffmpeg scope. The calibration of my scope and the ffmpeg scope match so I'm confident about it. YouTube changes 16 - 235 video to 0 - 255 by controlled test, however, I'm taking it on faith that the video-downloader I'm using with Firefox isn't altering the levels.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Seriously, you're giving me shit for actually answering his question in my very first post?

Lol, the only thing you did was to ridicule him with providing a link to the cheapest camera you could find on B&H based on his only requirement, even after he told you he had a sony ax53 and a canon xf100 you still recommended that toy camera fully aware his current camera's where capable of 16-235 output levels. That's why I questioned your clearly demeaning recommendation.

Why didn't YOU tell him to use the camera you think he already has, rather than just telling us about some unnamed cameras YOU own. Yeah, that was helpful.

Because I just like you was initially not sure his measurements on luminance levels where correct or not, only I did not have a friend called Hugo Gaggioni to ask for advise. Therefore I suggested the panasonic gh and s series which have selectable luminance values since that was what he mainly cared about. I also said no consumer handicam exist under 2K that have that option, not sure how that is not being helpful.

Why you always are so easily triggered and defensive, try to be more friendly next time and don't insult or demean people.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Chris Clementson

I've been looking at some Panasonic DSLR's and they do have three selectable luminance ranges. Camcorders in the traditional camcorder form factor seem to be fixed at 0 - 255.

There are still very cheap second hand gh5's with a stock zoomlens available (at least where I live) but not sure if a photocamera works for you to do video, the handicams you mentioned are much easier to handle but all depends on the type of videowork you do. If having selectable luminance values is what matters most and you want to stay within a 2K budget then I guess you have no other option.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

One thing I’ll freely admit I was wrong about… I had no idea how spicy an 8 bit luminance thread could get.

[Chris Clementson]

It's ironic that DSLR's have selectable luminance and traditional camcorders do not, and the DSLR's I've seen with selectable luminance are only from Panasonic.

[Noa Put]

You maybe could rent a gh5 or gh6 to see if your test to evaluate the luminance levels is correct?

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Why you always are so easily triggered and defensive, try to be more friendly next time and don't insult or demean people.

The pot calling the kettle black. You had no reason to comment on my advice that was directed to the OP, not you. I know you love to nitpick my posts, so it was fully expected. That's how you have fun, I get it. If you have a different opinion or advice, please share it. But keep the personal attacks to yourself.

BTW, my advice for the $96 camcorder was 100% sincere, and still is. If NOTHING else matters except his two criteria, why spend more money?

[Noa Put]

If you have a different opinion or advice, please share it.

I already did but apparently you don't like to be questioned.

[Rainer Listing]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

There are still very cheap second hand gh5's with a stock zoomlens available (at least where I live) but not sure if a photocamera works for you to do video, the handicams you mentioned are much easier to handle but all depends on the type of videowork you do. If having selectable luminance values is what matters most and you want to stay within a 2K budget then I guess you have no other option.

Somewhere back in this thread I did mention the FZ2500: Selectable luminance, 1" sensor, 24-480 equivalent zoom in FHD, unfortunate 4K crop, under US$1000.

[Rainer Listing]

[quote=Chris Clementson;1969559]I'm not. You have to understand how pulse-code modulation works for video. The numbers 0, 16, 235, 255, etc. are the actual 8-bit digital numeric values for a given pixel component which describes the amplitude of the pixel component when converted to analog. Pixel components can be R G B or Y U V. Effectively output levels and "scales" are one and the same. We're not talking about IRE units or % scales here. There is no distinction between "output levels" and "output scales". This is all being measured directly off files, ahead of all graphics hardware, ahead of Windows, ahead of display devices, etc.

YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.

YouTube doesn't change the level - the media identifies the scale used - if you clipped your 0-255 levels to 16-235 YouTube still sees 0-255 - your footage will appear washed out.
{/quote}

It appears YouTube does change the levels. I've tested this very carefully using a scope which is easier to read than the ffmpeg scope. The calibration of my scope and the ffmpeg scope match so I'm confident about it. YouTube changes 16 - 235 video to 0 - 255 by controlled test, however, I'm taking it on faith that the video-downloader I'm using with Firefox isn't altering the levels.

OK, thanks. We're concerned with color models. My understanding is that a pixel at 16 on the 16-35 luminance scale has the same pixel value as a 0 pixel on the 0-255 scale. It seems to me the way you are measuring, every camera, no matter what scale you set in camera, will give you a 0-255 reading. But get a camera where you can and set the scale to 16-235 and see if I'm wrong.

[Chris Clementson]

The pot calling the kettle black. You had no reason to comment on my advice that was directed to the OP, not you. I know you love to nitpick my posts, so it was fully expected. That's how you have fun, I get it. If you have a different opinion or advice, please share it. But keep the personal attacks to yourself.

Could you guys please take your bitchfight elsewhere?

Thank you.

[Chris Clementson]

My understanding is that a pixel at 16 on the 16-35 luminance scale has the same pixel value as a 0 pixel on the 0-255 scale. It seems to me the way you are measuring, every camera, no matter what scale you set in camera, will give you a 0-255 reading. But get a camera where you can and set the scale to 16-235 and see if I'm wrong.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

In PCM the quantized values are not quantities to be measured on a "scale". You would know that if you had read the wikipedia page I linked to. There no "scale"; there is only the range of values that can be represented by 8 binary bits. I suggest you bone up on the binary number system.

Either you didn't read the wikipedia page on PCM or you don't understand it. Read it again. You should also read up on binary or "base 2" number system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Chris Clementson

Could you guys please take your bitchfight elsewhere?

Thank you.

Yes sir! I'm sorry if the discussion has offended you in some way.
Next time a troll insults me, I will keep you in mind and ignore it. Lesson learned.

And by the way, you're welcome for answering your question.. In addition to helping you come in $1900 under your budget.

Lesson learned, again.

[Rainer Listing]

Originally Posted by Chris Clementson

That makes no sense whatsoever.

In PCM the quantized values are not quantities to be measured on a "scale". You would know that if you had read the wikipedia page I linked to. There no "scale"; there is only the range of values that can be represented by 8 binary bits. I suggest you bone up on the binary number system.

Either you didn't read the wikipedia page on PCM or you don't understand it. Read it again. You should also read up on binary or "base 2" number system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number

I respectfully submit you didn't read the articles Christopher posted:

https://www.thepostprocess.com/2019/...full-vs-video/

https://www.lightillusion.com/data_legal_levels.html

Note especially the color range is identical for both the 32-235 and 0-255 luminance scales. As a further suggestion, perhaps instead of rushing out and buying a new camera you could check your footage with MediaInfo, which will identify if it's full or limited, and then compare that with your scopes.