How to get clips that look like this?
 

There are some NASA clips and Clinton clips on this ftp site that are free... is there any way to get clips this quality with the JVC camera? I notice that they seem smoother and less film like which is what i prefer, or is there a trick to get it looking more like video and less like film?

ftp://ftp.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/pub/iHDTV/

These NASA clips are outstanding quality but huge files... also anyone know how these are exported to mpg and what codec is used?

The main reason they look less film-like in terms of motion is because they are 60p. That is what broadcasters use for sports mainly because it creates an almost surreal movement. It adds to the almost too real look that some people say HD has. Another thing is the optics, the HD10 just doesn't have the glass needed to get images that clear with that DOF. That will be a little less true once the Mini35 is available for this camera. The third and final reason is the cameras they are using are 3CCD. It's a big fight in this board about how the HD10 can compare with the Varicam but the fact is that 3CCD will always be better. The HD10 can get close to the Varicam but straight out of camera the Varicam footage will always look better. I know this doesn't directly answer your question but I don't think anyone here really can. Alot of people, including myself, are still testing this camera and pushing past it's problems and learning how to squeeze the best image out of it. So who knows what will be possible with the right combination of filters, lenses and post sofware. Sorry if I couldn't help more but hopefully this might give you little insight and I'm sure someone will come along behind me with an even better explanation for you.

"the fact is that 3CCD will always be better."
not always. How about a cam that captures 4k x 4k @ 10bit, but has one chip? How about a one chip cam but it shoots 4:4:4 colour space uncompressed?
Ken

alright...alright...a 3ccd camera that records on a video tape at this time is always superior to a single chip camera that records onto tape. Is that better? picky picky

Mini35
 

Mark

I agree that glass is important and the HD1/HD10 don't have a very good one. My Canon Gl1 has a much better glass in my opinion. You are talking about mini35 as a partial solution.
I understand the mini35 would give a new frontal lens but the picture still go trough the old lens (I believe). Isn't this bad anyway?
I thought mini35 can give different focal lenghts to play with but I never thought that it was an improvment over the existing lens.

Let me know if I miss something, probably I do.

Regards
Gabriele

lens: the emperor wears no cloths
 

I still find it strange that camera systems that record only 360 line pairs total are so concerned about the glass.
Talk about diminishing returns!
Even the JVC , that records a measly 1280 pixels across is no big deal to accomplish with ordinary optics.

So whats the beef about the lens on the JVC?
Let me list the usual suspects:
1> Sharpness : Seems fine. Remember that a $10 35mm camera with it's plastic lens can out resolve the JVC. Plus the compression takes more toll than the lens anyway.
2> Contrast: Too much anyway, users strive for filters to *reduce* contrast.
2> Chromatic aberrations: I haven't noticed any, maybe that's the issue?

IMO the only problem with the JVC optics is that the servos that move it are so sloppy and non repeatable.

-Les

Back to mpeg recording. You cannot choose a codec with mpeg,
you either choose MPEG1 or MPEG2. Yes there is also an MPEG4
standard for example, but these don't have the extension .MPG
and are usually used within AVI files for example. MPEG *IS* the
codec.

I'm downloading one at the moment, so I don't know for sure,
but it is probably plain MPEG2. Any good MPEG2 encoder like
ProCoder, TMPGEnc or CCE should be able to encode MPEG2's at
high resolutions and high bitrates.

It's looking stunning indeed. But that isn't too much of a suprise
if you consider how it is being encoded. I downloaded the
endevour.mpg and it has the following statistics:

1280 x 720 @ 59.97 fps (interlaced, lower field first)
45 mbps (as comparison, DVD is max 11 mbps and HDV is 25 mbps)
Color format 4:2:0

To Les Dit about the lens
 

This camera records 360 line pairs? Last time I saw mine it recorded 640 line pairs! I think we have to take the side with the highest resolution to measure a lens not the lowest.

In any case, on the surface your reasoning seems right but it is not in reality. Just a simple question to everybody:

If what it takes to make a good DVD is a good SD resolution camera, why everybody confirms that scaling down a HDTV footage gives better results? Why a professionally made DVD starting from a film gives outstanding results? Aren't always the same 720x480 pixels? Why more is better?

All that above goes with your techy lens theory.

The 360 line pairs was in reference to the GL1 camera with it's better 'glass'.
I don't think that scaling down the HDV footage looks better at all. I think detail is lost in that process. The 19 Mb data rate of HDV just barely covers the resolution possible of 720P, but it does offer more detail than a DVD.
Some of the things that make DVDs look so good are very careful attention to color correction, and the advantage that the source material was more than 8 bits deep to allow that correction to occur.
Also DVDs are encoded with much more quality than the real time mpeg2 compression chip in the JVC.
There is a lot of Gucci effect going on in the sales pitch of camcorders, and the Florite glass and unobtanium lens stuff is mostly sales hype.
How is it that a $10 35mm disposable camera out preforms the 'florite' lensed on a GL1? The lens is not the problem on most video cameras.
-Les

Actually....
 

Those clips were nice, but I did see either some chroma noise or MPEG2 artifacts in some of the shots. Especially some of the close ups of the Endeavor. I also saw some jaggies around the edges of the fuel rockets.

Maybe it's the encoding.

They were nice looking tho'...

Troy

Ya these clips are fantastic!!

This is what i would like to see when I am filming with my gr-hd1 which sounds like I may be dreaming.... this is just for my own personal use with family, birthdays, holidays, etc.,

I think it may be the 60 Frames Per Second that make a difference and I just seem to like it better than the 30 fps.

Everyone should dowload these clips of hdtv... they are stunning.

Only for the brave and cable/dsl subscribers only!!

Most of the files ar 1Gb or so.

Troy

Les Dit
 

So, Sony, Panasonic, Philips, they all put fantastic lenses on their professional cameras just for the sake of it, right? After all they just need to resolve 360 lines pair, a plasitc lens from a 10$ camera would do even a better job...

Re: Les Dit
 

For pro cameras the diminishing returns of high quality optics might be worth the extra 1% quality.
Of course a $10 camera lens won't work, because that lens won't have an adjustable aperture,no zoom control, no longevity, etc.
But what I want to reiterate is that especially for SD video cameras the actual image quality being presented to the image plane (ccd) is not the problem with common lenses.

There is a lot more than science involved in selling a video camera to people. Marketing needs buz words, perceived needs, sexy looks,style and a lot of strategic decisions to separate you from your money. The purposeful omission of manual controls on the JVC is an example of a blatant marketing decision.

So it's not "for the sake of it" , it's for the sake of selling product.
A little like selling cars. H2 anyone?
-Les


<<<-- Originally posted by Gabriele Sartori : So, Sony, Panasonic, Philips, they all put fantastic lenses on their professional cameras just for the sake of it, right? After all they just need to resolve 360 lines pair, a plasitc lens from a 10$ camera would do even a better job... -->>>