Progressive video on a consumer camcorder, an idea

Rob Hester · May 11th, 2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

The two videos I took were done from a tripod pointing out my glass sliding door facing the lake. I did not move, or zoom the camcorder between photos, I just flipped the switch that changes it from photo mode, to video camera mode, and all settings remained the same

Robert, I am getting more and more convinced that your camera does exactly the same thing as mine. The added evidence lies in the fact that you did not move the camera position, yet the FOV became larger in picture mode. If you would, please check out the screenshot on my post http://www.dvinfo.net//conf/showthre...5&pagenumber=1 and maybe try to do some sort of similar test? The picture is the 2nd one I posted in the thread called "480P.jpg".

Here is the direct link if you don't want to wade through the post:
http://www.aloofhosting.com/robh/480P.jpg
(Right click, save as)

Good luck!
Rob

Rob Hester · May 11th, 2004, 02:11 PM

Thought i'd give you all some pics...this is the difference between d.wide (camera mode) and picture mode on my camera. Notice the difference in sharpening and compression artifacts...I have a few ideas...Robert, would you want to try that one too? Maybe there is a compression difference?
http://www.aloofhosting.com/robh/dvpicture.gif
(Right click, Save As)

Rob

Robert Kamrowski · May 11th, 2004, 03:00 PM

Rob: I did not do the same test as you did, but what I did was do a screen capture of a frame directly by firewire to the computer in the photo mode. The screen capture was 720x480. I then without moving the tripod took a still picture to the memory card at my camcorders highest quality setting 1280x960. In comparing the two stills the field of view is the same. What this tells me is that when I capture video in the photo mode directly to the computer the camcorder is resizing the 1280x960 CCD image down to 720x480 then sending it out the firewire port. I wish I had a camcorder like your JVC that had the d.wide mode so I would be able to do it all in camcorder without any extra equipment.

Robert Kamrowski · May 11th, 2004, 03:15 PM

Rob: I did not see your 3:11PM post before my last post. Were you saving your photo mode still to a memory card and your d.wide to DV tape. If so that would explain the difference in the quality. The photo still uses about 500KB~900KB per picture, DV video I imagine uses much less per frame, that in itself would explain the compression artifacts.

Rob Hester · May 11th, 2004, 09:34 PM

No, I was capturing through my PC with Premiere Pro in both Picture mode, and D.wide mode...my best guess is that the resizing from the picture sized ccd is happening at different points down the encoding chain?

In reply to the previous post, I think you'd need to go back and read the other thread...I was comparing 3 video modes on my camera. Ones only appear bigger than the others because they were resized in accordance to their FOV, or effective CCD sample side.

Also, when you talk about mechanical shutter, I have a third test for you to do. Can you adjust shutter speeds in picture mode, and have a real difference in the blurring of the captured-on-pc video? On my camera you can...I have a bunch of snapshots up at my website http://robvideo.netfirms.com I am referring to that quote you took from Canon...if you can adjust the shutter speed...something more must be going on, correct?

Rob

Robert Kamrowski · May 12th, 2004, 07:28 AM

Rob: I'm to the point where I say, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!" With work, and 6 hours of wild fowl footage to edit down to one DVD I have to stop testing, and put what I've learned into practice. I enjoyed your web sight, and see you have done extensive testing into your camcorder and it's progressive scan possibilities, keep up the good work! I did look at my Optura and it has 60, 100, 250 shutter speeds in photo mode. All testing I did was on auto shutter. In conclusion, the results of my tests with my two consumer camcorders shows that they can take, what appears to be progressive scan video using the method outlined in my first post in this thread. I'm seeing no dropped frames, or duplicated frames at 29.97fps, it to all appearances is frame-based video without any interlacing. Now, the question of whether it is worth the effort needed to achieve this will have to be left up to each individual. For the great majority of people with consumer camcorders the answer is no.

Raimo Repo · May 12th, 2004, 03:25 PM

In a thread started by Steve Nunez on the optura 300 the progressive scan (frame mode) video was similarly produced with that Canon camcorder. The discussion on that thread is very similar to this one.

David Warrilow · May 14th, 2004, 01:07 AM

Hmm,

this is something Rob and I have touched base on a couple of times on another forum. An interesting thing that happened a few weeks ago - I was running some tapes shot on my old JVC DVX8 camera - a 'true progressive' 1 chipper - (had it written on the side and everything). When I ran them through my DV3000 - a JVC with the enigmatic 'D.Wide' mode - a little "PS" showed up in the viewfinder - stating that the camera recognised and was playing back 25p footage just fine. However, when you record something in the D.Wide mode - it doesn't show this "PS" in the viewfinder. What does this mean? Well, I don't know for sure. Either a) D.Wide is NOT progressive and some sort of 'Frame mode' or b) the Camera recognises footage shot in d.wide and just doesn't need to tell you it's progressive. The look and motion signature of the footage is identical by the way - between my old cam's (true) progressive footage and the d.wide on the 3K - no difference to look at whatsoever.

Anyway, thought I'd add this for yuks...

Best,

DW.

David Warrilow · May 17th, 2004, 04:17 AM

Oh, and another thing,

the image will be slightly different coming off 'still' mode than off the video mode as they use two different filters. I think, (from my observations) that the 'still' mode is slightly 'harder' i.e. a little more contrasty with more edge enhancement than the video mode, which to me appears a little 'softer'.

best,

DW.

Jesse Bekas · June 2nd, 2004, 01:28 AM

I have just come across this thread and have some more input. I have a PV-DV851 (same feature set as the 901 -3.5" LCD). The camcorder has a 1/4" megapixel (1200x900) CCD. I captured video using WinDV straight from the firewire port in both the SD card mode (which has progressive photoshot), and regular tape mode. The stuff in the card mode shows no signs of interlacing and is pretty, although I don't know if I'd lug around a laptop just to record in "progressive" (could get a firewire HDD recorder).

What really gets me thinking, though, is that at the widest lense setting (lowest zoom) the pixel count can change in camera. I captured video in the SD card mode set first at 640x480 (same pixel count as DVtape), but then boosted the the pixel count in camera to 1200x900. The lense provided a wider field of view naturally because the entire CCD was being utilized (the rest is usually just saved for EIS and sharpening in tape mode). I was using WinDV to capture, so the video was captured at 720x480 no matter what mode the camera was in. Here's the kicker... with the new HDV spec being accepted by all the updated NLEs, could we somehow set them to capture AVI at this higher pixel count 1200x900, thereby getting HD in AVI format?

David Warrilow · June 3rd, 2004, 09:16 PM

Just running with that idea...(well, why the hell not?)

what about those NLE apps that can do - (or soon will) DVCPRO 50 through firewire? FCP and Avid XpressPro. Couldn't you just hook up the camera via 1394 and record straight to the 4:2:2 uncompressed format? I could be way off here but hey, it's a thought...

D.

Jesse Bekas · June 5th, 2004, 07:10 AM

I'm wondering if the camcorder is actually outputting the signal at 1200x900, or if it is being downconverted to a normal DV25 spec. In the photo mode, the camcorder definitely records stills to the SD card at the higher resolution, but once that signal goes through firewire...who knows? All we need is a capture program that could capture at a higher resolution to test this. Does anybody know of such a program?

David Warrilow · June 6th, 2004, 06:50 PM

Yeah, I dunno about this.

There are other (read: smarter and more knowledgeable) guys lurking on this forum that would best be able to answer these types of questions. I seem to remember something about a video signal transferred via Firewire is both interlaced AND compressed at 5.1 PAL/NTSC. Then on the other hand you hear about uncompressed being shot thru FW800 and (again) DVCPRO50 going through standard FW to FCP and (soon) AvidXpressPro. I don't know if it's a case of the 'receiving' software being critical - or the FW protocol. Makes you salivate just dreaming about the possibilities..

best,

D.

Jesse Bekas · June 6th, 2004, 10:59 PM

Where are these other members who know better than us? Don't we all want cheap HD? Anybody that knows about this stuff please reply. All we need is a capture program to test higher res DV captures. I can try to find something like Photoshop and see if I can grab a still from the incoming firewire signal, and then check its resolution...it's a stretch, but...

David Warrilow · June 6th, 2004, 11:40 PM

Hi fiery Jesse,

I D/L the mainconcept dvcpro50 codec demo which I will run into PremPro and see if I can capture 4:2:2 dvcpro. It's supposed to work with any directshow supported NLE. We'll see. I'm thinking that looking at the file size will give me an idea if it's capturing dvcpro50 through firewire - i.e they will be bigger than the standard dv of the same duration.

Although, this is still not anything like HD - it's stll sd frame sizes just a different datarate and less compression. I still have the irritating feeling that it'll be (for me) 720 x 576 and not a larger frame size - 'cos the fw output is substantially down the image chain from the chips - which are capturing the larger resolution. I think only a mod like "the incredible Juan" is doing on the DVX-100 is going to actually pull the larger frame size off the chip/s. They don't engineer these things to be easily tampered with and modified. It's not in their best interests...

I'll let you know my findings.

Best,

DW.

Another alternative is to test the analogue output from the camera into an analogue capture card/uncompressed deck. You could dictate the frame size in your nle in setting up your project and then capture away. Not sure if it will go thru the same hoops as when the signal comes down firewire. I just don't know enough about this stuff.

May 11th, 2004, 02:11 PM	#17
Rob Hester Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 113	Thought i'd give you all some pics...this is the difference between d.wide (camera mode) and picture mode on my camera. Notice the difference in sharpening and compression artifacts...I have a few ideas...Robert, would you want to try that one too? Maybe there is a compression difference? http://www.aloofhosting.com/robh/dvpicture.gif (Right click, Save As) Rob __________________ JVC DV3000U - 30P (non-interlaced) capture on a budget - tests@http://robvideo.netfirms.com

May 11th, 2004, 09:34 PM	#20
Rob Hester Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 113	No, I was capturing through my PC with Premiere Pro in both Picture mode, and D.wide mode...my best guess is that the resizing from the picture sized ccd is happening at different points down the encoding chain? In reply to the previous post, I think you'd need to go back and read the other thread...I was comparing 3 video modes on my camera. Ones only appear bigger than the others because they were resized in accordance to their FOV, or effective CCD sample side. Also, when you talk about mechanical shutter, I have a third test for you to do. Can you adjust shutter speeds in picture mode, and have a real difference in the blurring of the captured-on-pc video? On my camera you can...I have a bunch of snapshots up at my website http://robvideo.netfirms.com I am referring to that quote you took from Canon...if you can adjust the shutter speed...something more must be going on, correct? Rob __________________ JVC DV3000U - 30P (non-interlaced) capture on a budget - tests@http://robvideo.netfirms.com

May 11th, 2004, 03:00 PM	#18
Robert Kamrowski New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Lake George, Minnasota Posts: 23	Rob: I did not do the same test as you did, but what I did was do a screen capture of a frame directly by firewire to the computer in the photo mode. The screen capture was 720x480. I then without moving the tripod took a still picture to the memory card at my camcorders highest quality setting 1280x960. In comparing the two stills the field of view is the same. What this tells me is that when I capture video in the photo mode directly to the computer the camcorder is resizing the 1280x960 CCD image down to 720x480 then sending it out the firewire port. I wish I had a camcorder like your JVC that had the d.wide mode so I would be able to do it all in camcorder without any extra equipment.

May 11th, 2004, 03:15 PM	#19
Robert Kamrowski New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Lake George, Minnasota Posts: 23	Rob: I did not see your 3:11PM post before my last post. Were you saving your photo mode still to a memory card and your d.wide to DV tape. If so that would explain the difference in the quality. The photo still uses about 500KB~900KB per picture, DV video I imagine uses much less per frame, that in itself would explain the compression artifacts.

May 12th, 2004, 07:28 AM	#21
Robert Kamrowski New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Lake George, Minnasota Posts: 23	Rob: I'm to the point where I say, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!" With work, and 6 hours of wild fowl footage to edit down to one DVD I have to stop testing, and put what I've learned into practice. I enjoyed your web sight, and see you have done extensive testing into your camcorder and it's progressive scan possibilities, keep up the good work! I did look at my Optura and it has 60, 100, 250 shutter speeds in photo mode. All testing I did was on auto shutter. In conclusion, the results of my tests with my two consumer camcorders shows that they can take, what appears to be progressive scan video using the method outlined in my first post in this thread. I'm seeing no dropped frames, or duplicated frames at 29.97fps, it to all appearances is frame-based video without any interlacing. Now, the question of whether it is worth the effort needed to achieve this will have to be left up to each individual. For the great majority of people with consumer camcorders the answer is no.

May 12th, 2004, 03:25 PM	#22
Raimo Repo New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Markdale Posts: 18	In a thread started by Steve Nunez on the optura 300 the progressive scan (frame mode) video was similarly produced with that Canon camcorder. The discussion on that thread is very similar to this one.

May 14th, 2004, 01:07 AM	#23
David Warrilow Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 106	Hmm, this is something Rob and I have touched base on a couple of times on another forum. An interesting thing that happened a few weeks ago - I was running some tapes shot on my old JVC DVX8 camera - a 'true progressive' 1 chipper - (had it written on the side and everything). When I ran them through my DV3000 - a JVC with the enigmatic 'D.Wide' mode - a little "PS" showed up in the viewfinder - stating that the camera recognised and was playing back 25p footage just fine. However, when you record something in the D.Wide mode - it doesn't show this "PS" in the viewfinder. What does this mean? Well, I don't know for sure. Either a) D.Wide is NOT progressive and some sort of 'Frame mode' or b) the Camera recognises footage shot in d.wide and just doesn't need to tell you it's progressive. The look and motion signature of the footage is identical by the way - between my old cam's (true) progressive footage and the d.wide on the 3K - no difference to look at whatsoever. Anyway, thought I'd add this for yuks... Best, DW.

May 17th, 2004, 04:17 AM	#24
David Warrilow Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 106	Oh, and another thing, the image will be slightly different coming off 'still' mode than off the video mode as they use two different filters. I think, (from my observations) that the 'still' mode is slightly 'harder' i.e. a little more contrasty with more edge enhancement than the video mode, which to me appears a little 'softer'. best, DW.

June 2nd, 2004, 01:28 AM	#25
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I have just come across this thread and have some more input. I have a PV-DV851 (same feature set as the 901 -3.5" LCD). The camcorder has a 1/4" megapixel (1200x900) CCD. I captured video using WinDV straight from the firewire port in both the SD card mode (which has progressive photoshot), and regular tape mode. The stuff in the card mode shows no signs of interlacing and is pretty, although I don't know if I'd lug around a laptop just to record in "progressive" (could get a firewire HDD recorder). What really gets me thinking, though, is that at the widest lense setting (lowest zoom) the pixel count can change in camera. I captured video in the SD card mode set first at 640x480 (same pixel count as DVtape), but then boosted the the pixel count in camera to 1200x900. The lense provided a wider field of view naturally because the entire CCD was being utilized (the rest is usually just saved for EIS and sharpening in tape mode). I was using WinDV to capture, so the video was captured at 720x480 no matter what mode the camera was in. Here's the kicker... with the new HDV spec being accepted by all the updated NLEs, could we somehow set them to capture AVI at this higher pixel count 1200x900, thereby getting HD in AVI format?

June 3rd, 2004, 09:16 PM	#26
David Warrilow Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 106	Just running with that idea...(well, why the hell not?) what about those NLE apps that can do - (or soon will) DVCPRO 50 through firewire? FCP and Avid XpressPro. Couldn't you just hook up the camera via 1394 and record straight to the 4:2:2 uncompressed format? I could be way off here but hey, it's a thought... D.

June 5th, 2004, 07:10 AM	#27
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I'm wondering if the camcorder is actually outputting the signal at 1200x900, or if it is being downconverted to a normal DV25 spec. In the photo mode, the camcorder definitely records stills to the SD card at the higher resolution, but once that signal goes through firewire...who knows? All we need is a capture program that could capture at a higher resolution to test this. Does anybody know of such a program?

June 6th, 2004, 06:50 PM	#28
David Warrilow Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 106	Yeah, I dunno about this. There are other (read: smarter and more knowledgeable) guys lurking on this forum that would best be able to answer these types of questions. I seem to remember something about a video signal transferred via Firewire is both interlaced AND compressed at 5.1 PAL/NTSC. Then on the other hand you hear about uncompressed being shot thru FW800 and (again) DVCPRO50 going through standard FW to FCP and (soon) AvidXpressPro. I don't know if it's a case of the 'receiving' software being critical - or the FW protocol. Makes you salivate just dreaming about the possibilities.. best, D.

June 6th, 2004, 10:59 PM	#29
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	Where are these other members who know better than us? Don't we all want cheap HD? Anybody that knows about this stuff please reply. All we need is a capture program to test higher res DV captures. I can try to find something like Photoshop and see if I can grab a still from the incoming firewire signal, and then check its resolution...it's a stretch, but...

June 6th, 2004, 11:40 PM	#30
David Warrilow Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 106	Hi fiery Jesse, I D/L the mainconcept dvcpro50 codec demo which I will run into PremPro and see if I can capture 4:2:2 dvcpro. It's supposed to work with any directshow supported NLE. We'll see. I'm thinking that looking at the file size will give me an idea if it's capturing dvcpro50 through firewire - i.e they will be bigger than the standard dv of the same duration. Although, this is still not anything like HD - it's stll sd frame sizes just a different datarate and less compression. I still have the irritating feeling that it'll be (for me) 720 x 576 and not a larger frame size - 'cos the fw output is substantially down the image chain from the chips - which are capturing the larger resolution. I think only a mod like "the incredible Juan" is doing on the DVX-100 is going to actually pull the larger frame size off the chip/s. They don't engineer these things to be easily tampered with and modified. It's not in their best interests... I'll let you know my findings. Best, DW. Another alternative is to test the analogue output from the camera into an analogue capture card/uncompressed deck. You could dictate the frame size in your nle in setting up your project and then capture away. Not sure if it will go thru the same hoops as when the signal comes down firewire. I just don't know enough about this stuff.