Extra resolution

Brendan Marnell · June 30th, 2007, 05:13 PM

This is very timely, Dan.

I was about to give up if nobody came back with a firm opinion about the working advantages of XHA1 et al. You had told me about the benefits of the extra resolution in post but that was not quite enough to swing it for me.

On the scope for improving in post would you please address these specific questions:

Here is a link to some bird flight footage: http://www.birdcinema.com/view_video...fec5da1b71d36c

When you have spare time please have a look at this compressed collection of bits edited out of one clip. Having cut up the bits to eliminate the worst portions I stretched the remainder. Doesn't that mean that I have asked the surviving frames/pixels to spread themselves over longer timeframe and that I have thereby reduced the image quality of the footage? Is this another reason for having at my disposal the extra resolution of the XHA1? I should be able to prove this for myself but I don't view my stuff, original or otherwise, on my telly. Do you use an independent monitor to test out your image quality before and after post?

Thank you for staying around this thread.

Dan Keaton · June 30th, 2007, 07:47 PM

Dear Brendan,

I will watch your footage as soon as possible.

Before then, here are some answers:

By "Streching", I assume you mean that the timeframe has been modified, so that the effect is some degree of slow motion, in other words, the resulting footage takes longer than originally shot. For example, 10 seconds of footage streched to 15 seconds.

If the above is correct, then the resolution (number of pixels in each frame) has not changed.

When I edit, I use Vegas 7.0, but the same applies to Vegas 6.0. I view the footage on my monitors which I have calibrated (to the best of my ability) using SMPTE Color Bars.

When I used to edit SD footage, I used the firewire output of my computer, connected to a Canon Camera (XL1s in my case, at that time), connected to a Sony SD Field Monitor.

Now that I edit HDV footage, my monitoring setup is not up to professional standards. I intend on purchasing a high quality HD monitor in the future.

So, currently I still use some very good Sony HS94P 19" LCD's (which I have calibrated to the color bars). My experience is that when I burn a DVD and then play it on a very low end Sanyo 30" HD CRT set, the footage appears fine. I have not had any problems with color or anything else.

A proper, professional HD monitoring setup would be far superior for critical work. For

I, of course, monitor my footage while recording. When practical, I use a Sony 9" SD Field Monitor. I am in dire need of a professional HD Field Monitor. However, the SD Field Monitor is useful as it is easier to catch problems in the image on the Field Monitor than it is on the XL H1 viewfinder.

I capture the footage using Vegas, monitoring the progress on the computer monitors, then edit the footage, again using computer monitors.

I do not know why you never watch your footage on the telly. You can calibrate you monitor, if you can generate proper color bars. If you can not generate the color bars, you may find that they are broadcast at certain times, or you could use a DVD with color bars.

I will start watching your footage now.

Dan Keaton · June 30th, 2007, 08:16 PM

Dear Brendan,

I watched your footage.

I noticed that there were double images of the bird in certain frames. I feel that this was probably due to the way that the footage was shot, in combination with the technique to "strech" it (to create slow motion).

If you know that you will be creating slow motion from your footage, I recommend a shutter speed of 1/120th or 1/100th instead of the usual 1/60th.

Also, their may be other reasons why the footage has double images. If the original footage does not have double images, then there is hope that reasonable slow motion footage can be created in post.

In general, I liked the footage, but the double image is distracting.

Brendan Marnell · July 1st, 2007, 03:38 PM

You're right on both counts, Dan.

There were double images in the original ... all my own work, by hand, of course ... the closer the Egyptian Vulture came to being vertically overhead, the more I was shaking. I was going to make the excuse that there was not a wall or a stake to lean against within a mile of me; then I remembered that the car was 10 feet away ...

Back in 2006 I had no awareness of frame rate possibilities. Everything was shot @ 1/50 (default). Now thanks to a few generous DVInfo members like yourself I know all about frame rates ... go on, ask me, ask me where the button is on XM2 to enable me change the frame rate; I found it, yes, I did, eventually, today. So this would be a good time to ask, while it's fresh in my mind ...

June 30th, 2007, 05:13 PM	#46
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	downside of less resolution This is very timely, Dan. I was about to give up if nobody came back with a firm opinion about the working advantages of XHA1 et al. You had told me about the benefits of the extra resolution in post but that was not quite enough to swing it for me. On the scope for improving in post would you please address these specific questions: Here is a link to some bird flight footage: http://www.birdcinema.com/view_video...fec5da1b71d36c When you have spare time please have a look at this compressed collection of bits edited out of one clip. Having cut up the bits to eliminate the worst portions I stretched the remainder. Doesn't that mean that I have asked the surviving frames/pixels to spread themselves over longer timeframe and that I have thereby reduced the image quality of the footage? Is this another reason for having at my disposal the extra resolution of the XHA1? I should be able to prove this for myself but I don't view my stuff, original or otherwise, on my telly. Do you use an independent monitor to test out your image quality before and after post? Thank you for staying around this thread.

June 30th, 2007, 07:47 PM	#47
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Brendan, I will watch your footage as soon as possible. Before then, here are some answers: By "Streching", I assume you mean that the timeframe has been modified, so that the effect is some degree of slow motion, in other words, the resulting footage takes longer than originally shot. For example, 10 seconds of footage streched to 15 seconds. If the above is correct, then the resolution (number of pixels in each frame) has not changed. When I edit, I use Vegas 7.0, but the same applies to Vegas 6.0. I view the footage on my monitors which I have calibrated (to the best of my ability) using SMPTE Color Bars. When I used to edit SD footage, I used the firewire output of my computer, connected to a Canon Camera (XL1s in my case, at that time), connected to a Sony SD Field Monitor. Now that I edit HDV footage, my monitoring setup is not up to professional standards. I intend on purchasing a high quality HD monitor in the future. So, currently I still use some very good Sony HS94P 19" LCD's (which I have calibrated to the color bars). My experience is that when I burn a DVD and then play it on a very low end Sanyo 30" HD CRT set, the footage appears fine. I have not had any problems with color or anything else. A proper, professional HD monitoring setup would be far superior for critical work. For I, of course, monitor my footage while recording. When practical, I use a Sony 9" SD Field Monitor. I am in dire need of a professional HD Field Monitor. However, the SD Field Monitor is useful as it is easier to catch problems in the image on the Field Monitor than it is on the XL H1 viewfinder. I capture the footage using Vegas, monitoring the progress on the computer monitors, then edit the footage, again using computer monitors. I do not know why you never watch your footage on the telly. You can calibrate you monitor, if you can generate proper color bars. If you can not generate the color bars, you may find that they are broadcast at certain times, or you could use a DVD with color bars. I will start watching your footage now. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

June 30th, 2007, 08:16 PM	#48
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Brendan, I watched your footage. I noticed that there were double images of the bird in certain frames. I feel that this was probably due to the way that the footage was shot, in combination with the technique to "strech" it (to create slow motion). If you know that you will be creating slow motion from your footage, I recommend a shutter speed of 1/120th or 1/100th instead of the usual 1/60th. Also, their may be other reasons why the footage has double images. If the original footage does not have double images, then there is hope that reasonable slow motion footage can be created in post. In general, I liked the footage, but the double image is distracting. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia Last edited by Dan Keaton; July 1st, 2007 at 04:31 PM.

July 1st, 2007, 03:38 PM	#49
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	You're right on both counts, Dan. There were double images in the original ... all my own work, by hand, of course ... the closer the Egyptian Vulture came to being vertically overhead, the more I was shaking. I was going to make the excuse that there was not a wall or a stake to lean against within a mile of me; then I remembered that the car was 10 feet away ... Back in 2006 I had no awareness of frame rate possibilities. Everything was shot @ 1/50 (default). Now thanks to a few generous DVInfo members like yourself I know all about frame rates ... go on, ask me, ask me where the button is on XM2 to enable me change the frame rate; I found it, yes, I did, eventually, today. So this would be a good time to ask, while it's fresh in my mind ...