|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 4th, 2006, 05:02 PM | #31 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
Peace! |
|
January 4th, 2006, 05:16 PM | #32 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
So you're already squared away on the editing side, with a Mac and Final Cut Pro, right?
|
January 4th, 2006, 05:25 PM | #33 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
You just nailed it. That's exactly what goes on in any Panasonic board. I have seen people get humiliated just because they dared to point a real flaw in the DVX or HVX. Truth is, it's out, and I'm not impressed by what I've seen so far. Not for 10k anyways. |
|
January 4th, 2006, 05:28 PM | #34 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
If you are directing that to me I have 2 different answers. 1)I am still going to be editing most of my immediate projects in SD/DV so I will still be on my XP workstation for that. I am not in a huge hurry to go full blown HD. I can afford to dabble as the clients get up to speed and the software matures a little. 2)I do have a Mac-mini and access to 4 different G5's at the office though they are dedicated to graphics so I'd have to use those after hours. I also do have a copy of Final Cut Pro at the office but never needed to use it. However with several reports that you can actually do a little work on the mini (with DVCPRO-HD) I am going to test it out and see how I like it. I currently use Livetype 2 for most of my titles anyway then bring them over to the PC for compositing in Premiere or AE. Tonight I am going to try some of Kaku's clips in FCP and see how the performance is. I am not expecting much but anything right now is better than nothing. Also.....I sold my RTX100 Matrox card and breakout and was able to add 1 4GB P2 card onto my order so I can at least get access to the variable frame rates that the HVX offers. Even if I downsample to a DV tape that is still a feature that no other SD camera can boast. |
|
January 4th, 2006, 05:44 PM | #35 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
|
|
January 4th, 2006, 06:41 PM | #36 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Yes Marty that was directed at you and I really like your answer. It makes perfect sense to use the camera for SD recording for now, and then move up to HD later. That's the way I'd probably play it myself.
Either that, or I'll go Mac for the first time ever. Thereby shocking all of my Mac friends. |
January 4th, 2006, 06:41 PM | #37 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 681
|
Quote:
My guess is that the CCDs have a native res of 1024x768 or something very close to that. Just a personal theory of mine and based on what I've seen of the clips so far. I really do think the chips have a higher resolution than 720 lines vertical, which would be the minimum (with pixel shift) to scan a 1080p equivalent. IMO, I'm seeing more vertical detail than what we're seeing from the JVC HD100 that has 1280x720 native CCDs (also with pixel shift). Horizontally the image seems to be softened a bit and this could be that DVCPROHD already undersamples 1080i as 1280x1080 rather than the 1440x1080 of HDV and other formats. But it could also mean that the horizontal pixel count is lower than we would expect. Could it be possible that we're looking at a 16:9 CCD that has an odd pixel photosite (pixel) aspect that would be something like 860Hx820V ? Hmmm....
__________________
- Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience - www.darkscience.com |
|
January 4th, 2006, 07:24 PM | #38 |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Are you seeing actual detail, or are you seeing aperture correction and coring?
What it boils down to is whether it produces a decent picture or not. Lets imagine for arguments sake that the FX1 has a 2mp ccd and the HVX had a 1mp ccd. Now imagine that the HVX had more picture contorl, handled a wider contrast range, and reproduced colours better. Resolution numbers don't mean much now do they? I don't support one or the other, but if you like the picture a camera produces, then go with that camera. The main limitation of these cameras is not the ccd block, but the lens. Want to know something strange? Some people often go for the Varicam over HDCAM because of the softer 'film' look. Some claim that HDCAM is too sharp (despite many setups in use actually turning all the detail circuits, and hence artificial edge enhancement off). There are limitations with DVCproHD. There are limitations with HDV and HDCAM too. Which leads me to something else. Many are claiming that certain codecs fall apart under heavy post adjustment and codec a is better than codec b for bluescreen/greenscreen etc. Some questions. 1. What ITH are you doing with your footage in order to have to push it so far?! 2. Taking into acount all the questions about bluscreen and greenscreen, where are all these composited videos being shown? Is everyone just talking about these effects or are they actually making them? 3. What do you expect for 6k? |
January 4th, 2006, 07:30 PM | #39 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
I'm not sure the clips I have seen are any sharper than what the HD100 produces. It's sure more colorful, but not sharper. Most seem to agree the 1080 is uprezed 720. About the reason they are hiding the CCD specs, reading your post I got the impression you agree it may be inferior pixel count, even though you started saying it may not be so. So I got a little confused over your opinion here. |
|
January 4th, 2006, 07:36 PM | #40 | ||
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 4th, 2006, 07:50 PM | #41 | ||
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 4th, 2006, 08:40 PM | #42 |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,214
|
I donwloaded the DVCPro50 raw MXF files offered and all I can say is NOISE. I'm looking at them raw with no transcode or anything (my editor supports the raw MXF).
I wish I could report better news but it is "rub my eyes" noisy. |
January 4th, 2006, 09:40 PM | #43 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 175
|
it looked like webcam! :(
|
January 4th, 2006, 10:13 PM | #44 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, Il.
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
-Nate |
|
January 4th, 2006, 10:16 PM | #45 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
|
No it's not good. I can't understand why. The HVX can be such an awesome camera. I fear it may be inferior ccd's that are causing this.
By the way I just got back from Promax after and exhausting capture from an XLh1 of material I filmed at Birns and Sawyer. I will be posting jpegs for now taken straight from the tape via sd card. look for them later. Early thoughts on what I have seen are they look good. I hate log and capture, I wish the H1 had P2 slots....... Michael Pappas Arrfilms@hotmail.com PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here: http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms http://www.PappasArts.com http://www.Myspace.com/ |
| ||||||
|
|