Murph pulls another trick out of the hat - FX1 footage for my buddies!

Ben Buie · October 14th, 2004, 10:20 PM

Interesting footage. I agree the night footage is the most impressive. The rest is hard to tell because of the compression.

Looks like it is compressed at roughly 6.5 Mbps (6.8 Mbps total, a portion of which is audio).

The quality of the compression is surprisingly low considering the relatively high bit-rate, I hope that is a factor of the MPEG2 encoder that was used. We've gotten much better results with HD10 footage output to MPEG2 for DVD (basically the same bitrate).

There seem to be a lot of interlacing artifacts; I guess I am spoiled by the 30p of the HD10.

I tell you, the lack of a true progressive scan on this new Sony is the only thing that bothers me. Working in 30p through the entire edit chain (and outputting to progressive MPEG2 for DVD) with the HD10 is really a joy.

I wish they just would have stuck with 720/30p instead of going with 1080/60i; I would bet that the marketing department had a big hand in that unfortunately -- 1080 is a bigger number than 720, afterall :)

I guess we can't have everything. Still, I look forward to actually using the Sony, maybe when combined with a good de-interlacer and MPEG2 encoder we can get good results.

Oh yeah, having said all that, that actual quality of the video from a color / latitude standpoint looks pretty impressive. It is obviously superior to the HD10 in that regard.

Ben

Mark Kubat · October 14th, 2004, 10:43 PM

Dan, re: bridge rotation - I don't see any artifacting on the DVD I burned. Actually, I'm impressed how well this "quick-pan" in light of all the speculating about the quality of quick-panning with this cam...

try burning to DVD if you haven't already - it's worth it.

Adrian White · October 15th, 2004, 12:11 PM

Could anyone tell me if 50i to 25p via de-interlacing would produce good results? I am looking very hard at the pal hdr-fx1.

Daniel Broadway · October 16th, 2004, 10:22 AM

Even though you are deinterlacing, you don't loose as much picture sharpness as you would with SD. It will still look mighty good. I deinterlaced an HD frame in Adobe After Effects. The difference was almost unprecievable.

My plan is to always shoot with 1080i, then to use After Effects to make a 30fps/720p frame out of it. So bascially, I will master at 720p. After Effects built in deinterlacer is very good. However, I am looking at Magic Bullet.

Adrian White · October 16th, 2004, 05:56 PM

So let me get this clear (in my non-technical mind), if I de-interlace from 1080 50i with fx1 will I still have 1080 at 25p?

If this is true this IS an exciting camera.

I'm based in the UK. Pal fx1 50i/25p coming in November.

By the way do you know if Twixtor is any good for de-interlacing?

Daniel Broadway · October 16th, 2004, 06:55 PM

Well, you won't have the same image as if you shot at true 1080p. TECHNICALLY, you will loose 50% resolution. However, if you use a good deinterlacer that is based on interpolation, and not line doubling, it will reconstruct the frame to look ALMOST identical to a full progressive frame.

For example if you use the new After Effects de-interlacer, or something like Fields Kit or Magic Bullet, the noticeable loss of picture quality will be very minimial. Most people wouldn't know the difference.

My bet is that it will look at least as good as XL2 footage, and probably even a lot better. My plan is to shoot at 1080i and deinterlace to 720p.

Barry Green · October 16th, 2004, 09:03 PM

Yeah, if you deinterlace 1080/50i, you'd technically have the resolution of 540/25p.

540's still about as high-res as a PAL camera, and you'd have 1440 pixels horizontally as compared to 720 on the PAL camera, so resolution-wise you'll be ahead of the game no matter what... but that's all theory until we try it.

Also, the color sampling could possibly be 4:2:2, since the 4:2:0 sampling system has two color samples every other line, and if you throw one of those lines away, you'd then have two color samples every line...

... sounds promising... hope the reality holds up to the speculation!

Wayne Orr · October 17th, 2004, 10:55 AM

"The next two flowers look very nice, but the second shot has some DOF happening that I really dig. If it wasn't a trick with distance it has some nice DOF to look forward to."

More likely the footage was shot at a high shutter speed, such as 500 or faster to create the narrow depth of field. As long as the camera uses small size chips, you will have similar DOF as other small chip cameras. Unless you increase the shutter speed, which will be perfectly acceptable for MOS shooting, but won't work with dialogue.

Wayne Orr, SOC

Gabor Lacza · October 17th, 2004, 09:28 PM

Guys,somebody please tell me how this new sony camera will be better in resolution compared to the jvc hd10u ??? As I am seeing here that when you deinterlace 1080i you will get 540p?? Isnt 720p is better ??? We are comparing this camera here to the XL2 and Daniel said it will look as good as the xl2 footage but isnt it supposed to be so much better than that ??
I am kind of getting confused here...
I own the jvc hd10u but wouldnt mind to get the sony as well but I though we will be going forward regarding the resolution not backwards..I know it will be a 3chip vs 1chip and this cam will be much better in low light but that is it...??
Thanks
Gabor

Barry Green · October 18th, 2004, 12:42 AM

You shouldn't be trying to compare this camera AS A PROGRESSIVE CAMERA against the JVC, because the Sony isn't a progressive camera.

In its native mode, it shoots 1920 x 1080 at 60 fields per second. That's 62 million pixels per second. The JVC shoots 1280 x 720 at 30 frames per second, for about 28 million pixels per second.

The Sony is interlaced. The JVC is progressive. They're entirely different. The Sony is much higher resolution, the JVC has more of a filmlike feel.

If you want to get a filmlike feel from the Sony, you can use their CineFrame 30 or CineFrame 24 mode, but we don't know how good that looks yet, or how it affects resolution.

Keep in mind that the Sony is also a 3-CCD camera vs. the 1 CCD for the JVC, and that the Sony has lots of manual control and features that the JVC just doesn't have.

So they're not really comparable to each other. The Sony, as a camera, is in an entirely different league from the JVC. But it's interlace-only, not progressive.

(even if it was de-interlaced to simulate progressive scan, you'd still be talking about 1920 x 540 at 30fps (or 1,036,800 pixels per frame), vs. 1280 x 720 (or 921,600 pixels per frame) so they'd be roughly comparable, based on the math. However, that doesn't mean anything -- you can't decide anything about it yet based on numbers! You'd have to take into account that the Sony's using a 960-pixel-wide sensor to scan a 1440-pixel-wide image that gets up-rezzed to 1920 on display, vs. the JVC using a 960-pixel-wide sensor that scans a 1280-pixel image...

Best to just wait for the footage when the camera's on the market.

Steve Crisdale · October 18th, 2004, 09:04 AM

I've run the HD sample via my Roku HD1000 to a Sharp 32" HD LCD TV, and in direct comparison to 720p HD10u footage I've shot shown on the same setup; the FX1 footage in this clip, holds up damn well - even given the compression (and who knows whether the edit was done uncompressed?), which is actually more obvious than on the HD10 native .ts.

I have to say that the low light capability displayed in the clip is what has grabbed my attention the most. Some of the colouring in the Temple scenes is overly intense in chroma compared to the JVC's colour (with similar crushed whites - maybe the camera man didn't adjust WB or ND), but this could again be the author's preference rather than the nature of the FX1.

This clip also displays much more chroma noise than the earlier Sony released promo clip, which was relatively chroma noise free. I suspect that the differences are due to the skill/knowledge and experience of the author with producing 'down-rezzed' material.

Unlike some other people, I believe it will be relatively painless to integrate material from the HD10 at 720p with the 1080i signal from the FX1.

Basem Elsokary · October 18th, 2004, 04:15 PM

I'm trying to play this mpeg clip in both winmedia and quicktime, but keep getting an error? Is there a better program to view this clip?

Donal Briard · October 19th, 2004, 12:17 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Basem Elsokary : I'm trying to play this mpeg clip in both winmedia and quicktime, but keep getting an error? Is there a better program to view this clip? -->>>

videolan.org

As for this clip, I don,t see what the fuss is about. First, it's a 720X404 clip. It doesn't show us what the camera can do in HD. Even the godawful JVC HDV looks ok if you downsize it.

Second, both XL2 clips (the beach one and the San Diego one) look MUCH sharper than this one:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=31660

I'm hoping that the FX1 will kick butt, but this clip is not very convincing.

Corey Smith · October 22nd, 2004, 03:17 PM

Someone said above that 1080i deinterlaces into 540p. I thought 1080i deinterlaces into 1080p. I mean, aren't you taking two half frames with 540 lines and putting them together to make a full frame with 1080 lines? Or am I missing something?

I ask this because don't progressive scan dvd players deinterlace 480i DVDs making them 480p, not 240p? So why would it be different than 1080i?

Basem Elsokary · October 22nd, 2004, 04:48 PM

i believe you may be correct Corey...the whole reason 1080 looks better (at least in my opinion) is that at 60 frames a second, our eyes cannot detect the alternating frames of 540 lines per frame...but yes, deinterlacing should in theory take your first frame (field) and next frame and combine 540 lines from each to create the whole 1080 line picture....thus getting your 1080p at 30fps...at least thats what makes sense to me as well, I could be wrong...

October 14th, 2004, 10:20 PM	#16
Ben Buie Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 184	Interesting footage. I agree the night footage is the most impressive. The rest is hard to tell because of the compression. Looks like it is compressed at roughly 6.5 Mbps (6.8 Mbps total, a portion of which is audio). The quality of the compression is surprisingly low considering the relatively high bit-rate, I hope that is a factor of the MPEG2 encoder that was used. We've gotten much better results with HD10 footage output to MPEG2 for DVD (basically the same bitrate). There seem to be a lot of interlacing artifacts; I guess I am spoiled by the 30p of the HD10. I tell you, the lack of a true progressive scan on this new Sony is the only thing that bothers me. Working in 30p through the entire edit chain (and outputting to progressive MPEG2 for DVD) with the HD10 is really a joy. I wish they just would have stuck with 720/30p instead of going with 1080/60i; I would bet that the marketing department had a big hand in that unfortunately -- 1080 is a bigger number than 720, afterall :) I guess we can't have everything. Still, I look forward to actually using the Sony, maybe when combined with a good de-interlacer and MPEG2 encoder we can get good results. Oh yeah, having said all that, that actual quality of the video from a color / latitude standpoint looks pretty impressive. It is obviously superior to the HD10 in that regard. Ben __________________ Ben Buie, Producer "On Our Way Up" - Shot Completely in HDV http://www.onourwayup.com HD Articles and Reviews at HDSource! http://hdsource.highlydef.com

October 14th, 2004, 10:43 PM	#17
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	Dan, burn DVD - no artifacts. Dan, re: bridge rotation - I don't see any artifacting on the DVD I burned. Actually, I'm impressed how well this "quick-pan" in light of all the speculating about the quality of quick-panning with this cam... try burning to DVD if you haven't already - it's worth it.

October 15th, 2004, 12:11 PM	#18
Adrian White Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: leicester uk Posts: 26	50i to 25p Could anyone tell me if 50i to 25p via de-interlacing would produce good results? I am looking very hard at the pal hdr-fx1. __________________ how far can we push these cameras?

October 16th, 2004, 05:56 PM	#20
Adrian White Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: leicester uk Posts: 26	To Daniel Broadway So let me get this clear (in my non-technical mind), if I de-interlace from 1080 50i with fx1 will I still have 1080 at 25p? If this is true this IS an exciting camera. I'm based in the UK. Pal fx1 50i/25p coming in November. By the way do you know if Twixtor is any good for de-interlacing? __________________ how far can we push these cameras?

October 18th, 2004, 09:04 AM	#26
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	So...back to the FX1 sample...... I've run the HD sample via my Roku HD1000 to a Sharp 32" HD LCD TV, and in direct comparison to 720p HD10u footage I've shot shown on the same setup; the FX1 footage in this clip, holds up damn well - even given the compression (and who knows whether the edit was done uncompressed?), which is actually more obvious than on the HD10 native .ts. I have to say that the low light capability displayed in the clip is what has grabbed my attention the most. Some of the colouring in the Temple scenes is overly intense in chroma compared to the JVC's colour (with similar crushed whites - maybe the camera man didn't adjust WB or ND), but this could again be the author's preference rather than the nature of the FX1. This clip also displays much more chroma noise than the earlier Sony released promo clip, which was relatively chroma noise free. I suspect that the differences are due to the skill/knowledge and experience of the author with producing 'down-rezzed' material. Unlike some other people, I believe it will be relatively painless to integrate material from the HD10 at 720p with the 1080i signal from the FX1.

October 16th, 2004, 10:22 AM	#19
Daniel Broadway Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 165	Even though you are deinterlacing, you don't loose as much picture sharpness as you would with SD. It will still look mighty good. I deinterlaced an HD frame in Adobe After Effects. The difference was almost unprecievable. My plan is to always shoot with 1080i, then to use After Effects to make a 30fps/720p frame out of it. So bascially, I will master at 720p. After Effects built in deinterlacer is very good. However, I am looking at Magic Bullet.

October 16th, 2004, 06:55 PM	#21
Daniel Broadway Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 165	Well, you won't have the same image as if you shot at true 1080p. TECHNICALLY, you will loose 50% resolution. However, if you use a good deinterlacer that is based on interpolation, and not line doubling, it will reconstruct the frame to look ALMOST identical to a full progressive frame. For example if you use the new After Effects de-interlacer, or something like Fields Kit or Magic Bullet, the noticeable loss of picture quality will be very minimial. Most people wouldn't know the difference. My bet is that it will look at least as good as XL2 footage, and probably even a lot better. My plan is to shoot at 1080i and deinterlace to 720p.

October 16th, 2004, 09:03 PM	#22
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Yeah, if you deinterlace 1080/50i, you'd technically have the resolution of 540/25p. 540's still about as high-res as a PAL camera, and you'd have 1440 pixels horizontally as compared to 720 on the PAL camera, so resolution-wise you'll be ahead of the game no matter what... but that's all theory until we try it. Also, the color sampling could possibly be 4:2:2, since the 4:2:0 sampling system has two color samples every other line, and if you throw one of those lines away, you'd then have two color samples every line... ... sounds promising... hope the reality holds up to the speculation!

October 17th, 2004, 10:55 AM	#23
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	"The next two flowers look very nice, but the second shot has some DOF happening that I really dig. If it wasn't a trick with distance it has some nice DOF to look forward to." More likely the footage was shot at a high shutter speed, such as 500 or faster to create the narrow depth of field. As long as the camera uses small size chips, you will have similar DOF as other small chip cameras. Unless you increase the shutter speed, which will be perfectly acceptable for MOS shooting, but won't work with dialogue. Wayne Orr, SOC

October 17th, 2004, 09:28 PM	#24
Gabor Lacza Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Budapest , Hungary Posts: 194	Guys,somebody please tell me how this new sony camera will be better in resolution compared to the jvc hd10u ??? As I am seeing here that when you deinterlace 1080i you will get 540p?? Isnt 720p is better ??? We are comparing this camera here to the XL2 and Daniel said it will look as good as the xl2 footage but isnt it supposed to be so much better than that ?? I am kind of getting confused here... I own the jvc hd10u but wouldnt mind to get the sony as well but I though we will be going forward regarding the resolution not backwards..I know it will be a 3chip vs 1chip and this cam will be much better in low light but that is it...?? Thanks Gabor

October 18th, 2004, 12:42 AM	#25
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	You shouldn't be trying to compare this camera AS A PROGRESSIVE CAMERA against the JVC, because the Sony isn't a progressive camera. In its native mode, it shoots 1920 x 1080 at 60 fields per second. That's 62 million pixels per second. The JVC shoots 1280 x 720 at 30 frames per second, for about 28 million pixels per second. The Sony is interlaced. The JVC is progressive. They're entirely different. The Sony is much higher resolution, the JVC has more of a filmlike feel. If you want to get a filmlike feel from the Sony, you can use their CineFrame 30 or CineFrame 24 mode, but we don't know how good that looks yet, or how it affects resolution. Keep in mind that the Sony is also a 3-CCD camera vs. the 1 CCD for the JVC, and that the Sony has lots of manual control and features that the JVC just doesn't have. So they're not really comparable to each other. The Sony, as a camera, is in an entirely different league from the JVC. But it's interlace-only, not progressive. (even if it was de-interlaced to simulate progressive scan, you'd still be talking about 1920 x 540 at 30fps (or 1,036,800 pixels per frame), vs. 1280 x 720 (or 921,600 pixels per frame) so they'd be roughly comparable, based on the math. However, that doesn't mean anything -- you can't decide anything about it yet based on numbers! You'd have to take into account that the Sony's using a 960-pixel-wide sensor to scan a 1440-pixel-wide image that gets up-rezzed to 1920 on display, vs. the JVC using a 960-pixel-wide sensor that scans a 1280-pixel image... Best to just wait for the footage when the camera's on the market.

October 18th, 2004, 04:15 PM	#27
Basem Elsokary Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 33	clip not working? I'm trying to play this mpeg clip in both winmedia and quicktime, but keep getting an error? Is there a better program to view this clip?

October 19th, 2004, 12:17 AM	#28
Donal Briard Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 43	Re: clip not working? <<<-- Originally posted by Basem Elsokary : I'm trying to play this mpeg clip in both winmedia and quicktime, but keep getting an error? Is there a better program to view this clip? -->>> videolan.org As for this clip, I don,t see what the fuss is about. First, it's a 720X404 clip. It doesn't show us what the camera can do in HD. Even the godawful JVC HDV looks ok if you downsize it. Second, both XL2 clips (the beach one and the San Diego one) look MUCH sharper than this one: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=31660 I'm hoping that the FX1 will kick butt, but this clip is not very convincing.

October 22nd, 2004, 03:17 PM	#29
Corey Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hot Springs, AR Posts: 31	1080i deinterlaces into 540P? Someone said above that 1080i deinterlaces into 540p. I thought 1080i deinterlaces into 1080p. I mean, aren't you taking two half frames with 540 lines and putting them together to make a full frame with 1080 lines? Or am I missing something? I ask this because don't progressive scan dvd players deinterlace 480i DVDs making them 480p, not 240p? So why would it be different than 1080i?

October 22nd, 2004, 04:48 PM	#30
Basem Elsokary Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 33	i believe you may be correct Corey...the whole reason 1080 looks better (at least in my opinion) is that at 60 frames a second, our eyes cannot detect the alternating frames of 540 lines per frame...but yes, deinterlacing should in theory take your first frame (field) and next frame and combine 540 lines from each to create the whole 1080 line picture....thus getting your 1080p at 30fps...at least thats what makes sense to me as well, I could be wrong...