More JVC vs. up-rezzed DVX clips

Yang Wen · December 17th, 2003, 06:41 PM

Holly crap. the Chroma noise on the JVC is tremendous. This has to be the disadvantage of the single CCD. Anyone who said anything about single CCD being good for digicams thus good for vidcams is just wrong.

After seeing the wild west wide shots, the JVC shots contain a wee bit more detail than the DVX, but the edge enhancement on the JVC looks like crap. And what happened to that blue sky in the JVC?? I assume that clip wasn't color corrected? It just looks totally unatural and looks very much like its got a stylized color correction done to it.

Les Dit · December 17th, 2003, 06:59 PM

"it has to be the single chip making that chroma noise..."

What basis you people have for this??? Don't you realize that there are a lot more variables in this cameras design than 'chip count'?
I highly doubt the extra blocking is because of the ccd. It is much more likely that it's the mpeg2 compressor. There is a way of masking that, by some post processing of the chroma channel. That does not change detail much, as the luminance channel holds what people see as detail.
I've done some restoration work on film where I used the luminance channel from the film ( at 2K res ) and the chroma from a video tape ( 720 res ). It looked fine. The film had some water damage, but it's lum. chan was still ok.

-Les

David Newman · December 17th, 2003, 07:03 PM

Yang Wen,
That is the look you get when you don't white balance. You should ignore the color of the sky, it has more to do with the camera setup than the camera itself. Edge Enhancement is on HD1 not on the HD10. These tests can only prove that the HD1 has more chroma noise than the DXV, and the JVC has better resolution and lower luma noise. Little else can be concluded.

Barry Green · December 17th, 2003, 09:38 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Grgurev : Was the footage uprezzed from a Pal DVX100 or NTSC -->>>

NTSC.

Ken Hodson · December 18th, 2003, 12:48 AM

Barry - Did all of the DVX shot use the mini35?

Barry Green · December 18th, 2003, 01:47 AM

None of these clips used the mini35, they were all shot with the DVX and anamorphic adapter.

We shot the "matrix" spot on the mini35, but we took a few comparison shots with the anamorphic adapter, and those are the shots I used in these comparisons.

December 17th, 2003, 07:03 PM	#33
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Yang Wen, That is the look you get when you don't white balance. You should ignore the color of the sky, it has more to do with the camera setup than the camera itself. Edge Enhancement is on HD1 not on the HD10. These tests can only prove that the HD1 has more chroma noise than the DXV, and the JVC has better resolution and lower luma noise. Little else can be concluded. __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

December 18th, 2003, 12:48 AM	#35
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Barry - Did all of the DVX shot use the mini35? __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

December 17th, 2003, 06:41 PM	#31
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Holly crap. the Chroma noise on the JVC is tremendous. This has to be the disadvantage of the single CCD. Anyone who said anything about single CCD being good for digicams thus good for vidcams is just wrong. After seeing the wild west wide shots, the JVC shots contain a wee bit more detail than the DVX, but the edge enhancement on the JVC looks like crap. And what happened to that blue sky in the JVC?? I assume that clip wasn't color corrected? It just looks totally unatural and looks very much like its got a stylized color correction done to it.

December 17th, 2003, 06:59 PM	#32
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	"it has to be the single chip making that chroma noise..." What basis you people have for this??? Don't you realize that there are a lot more variables in this cameras design than 'chip count'? I highly doubt the extra blocking is because of the ccd. It is much more likely that it's the mpeg2 compressor. There is a way of masking that, by some post processing of the chroma channel. That does not change detail much, as the luminance channel holds what people see as detail. I've done some restoration work on film where I used the luminance channel from the film ( at 2K res ) and the chroma from a video tape ( 720 res ). It looked fine. The film had some water damage, but it's lum. chan was still ok. -Les

December 17th, 2003, 09:38 PM	#34
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Grgurev : Was the footage uprezzed from a Pal DVX100 or NTSC -->>> NTSC.

December 18th, 2003, 01:47 AM	#36
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	None of these clips used the mini35, they were all shot with the DVX and anamorphic adapter. We shot the "matrix" spot on the mini35, but we took a few comparison shots with the anamorphic adapter, and those are the shots I used in these comparisons.