Various posts concerning GR-HD1U and JY-HD10U

Robert Jackson · August 14th, 2003, 03:24 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Hyun :

General rule of thumb- it is better to slightly underexpose then slightly overexpose.

Experience and patience are probably the 2 best qualities to posess when using this camera. -->>>

It's funny how exactly opposite this is to shooting film where you can overexpose by several stops without worrying too much and spend the whole day doing run-and-gun shooting with good results. Video, the supposedly more convenient format, requires painstaking control of the lighting and contrast ratios and a lot more setup time in general.

Of course, you get to see the results immediately and you can do 30 takes if you want without worrying too much about how much the media is costing you.

I'm practically counting the days until the next CES. ;-)

Frank Granovski · August 18th, 2003, 01:27 PM

The JVC HD cam is on display at FutureShop on Broadway (Vancouver) - it will be there until the 23rd of August. ---Arseniy

Glenn Gipson · August 20th, 2003, 10:09 AM

So how would the HD10 fair with dolly and jib movement? Would it be a problem?

Eric Bilodeau · August 20th, 2003, 03:17 PM

Personnaly, I used quite a bit of dolly and crane movements with the camera and it holds up very well, pretty much like a miniDV camera. No compression noise seems to appear. Ideally you should keep your shutter at 1/30 or 1/60.

Eric

Penfold Plum · August 21st, 2003, 10:47 AM

Just thinking out loud, but if the HD1 and HD10 encode their HD MPEG using a 6 GOP structure, then it might be fairly easy to convert 30p to 25p by simply reducing the GOP structure to 5 GOP and recalculating the B and P frames from the 5 original I frames per second?

I dont know the original structure but you could go from say 5 of these per sec:

IBBPBB

which give 30fps, to 5 of these per sec

IBBPB

which would give 25fps.

I haven't written an MPEG encoder before, so if this is nonsense let me down nicely :)

Eric Bilodeau · August 21st, 2003, 02:24 PM

Well, it's an interresting suggestion, I think there is a chance that it would do only a drop frame each 6 frames but it's worth the try...

"If you don't intend to try, you might as well not think about it..." Laurient de Medicis

Eric

Penfold Plum · August 21st, 2003, 02:51 PM

Dropping a frame per GOP was my first thought for a solution Eric, but I was actually trying to avoid doing that as just dropping a frame would mean a slightly larger temporal gap between two particular frames in every GOP. I was trying to propose a method that would yield smooth motion and maintain temporal integrity between frames (i.e. by recalculating the B and P frames).

I've no idea if it's feasible though?

Peter Moore · August 22nd, 2003, 08:32 AM

Does anyone remember the old Michael Jackson music video, Black or White, which was one of the first examples to use morphing technology?

Couldn't this sort of thing be used to interpolate frames in video for conversion to/from 24, 30, 60, etc?

David Kennett · August 24th, 2003, 10:10 AM

I have a freeze frame comparison of HD1 to 10 with same subject material (jpg). could someone post it? It's pretty representative of several clips I took while evaluating the cameras at Industrial Video here in Cleveland area. These are crops (no resampling). Everything was auto, so exposure varied somewhat. After reviewing several clips I thought the HD10 might have a slightly lower auto exposure.

Also, while preparing the clips I noticed notches in the histograms of the shots from both cameras. Anybody else seen this? It's like there are certain brightness levels missing - all evenly spaced. I can't really see anything in the picture that I think is a result of this.

I bought the HD10!

Ken Hodson · August 24th, 2003, 01:38 PM

I don't see why not. But it would be a huge job unless it was automated, and then it would take serious time. It may be worth it to do that at specific moments when the pull down process leaves a noticable "jerk"

Eric Bilodeau · August 25th, 2003, 07:41 AM

Most people posting in these threads have an intention of using the camera and want to know about it's plusses and minusses. Gather information and make a choice. Not all of them will use the machine in HD in the end (though they may shoot HD). Let's not forget this machine has a very interresting SD 60p, for people making indie DV movies this rocks because you can do incredible progressive slo-mo's. Of course it's the first step to affordable HD, witch means that most of us will have to update all of their gear to take full advantage of the beast, this is a major concern. But still this camera packs an incredible definition when down-converted to SD so it might be usefull for a lot of people.

I will be doing comparative tests between the HD10u, and both the pannasonics DVX-100 and the new SDX900 for the feature film "Pure". I will make a thorough review of that in the comming week. I might as well make editing tests with a Pinnacle Cinewave for HD editing, (depending on availability).

Eric

Glenn Gipson · August 25th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Sounds good, looking forward to it.

John Eriksson · August 26th, 2003, 03:09 PM

I know a great program for that:
It is called Twixtor, and it does great slowmotion and frame conversions http://www.revisionfx.com/rstwixtor.htm
I have used this software for a long time now, and it is great!
- And Twixtor Pro can do HD aswell!! -
/John Eriksson

John Eriksson · August 29th, 2003, 05:54 AM

Can I get a smooth 24fps slowmotion by shooting in the SD mode? I mean because of it´s high framrate (60fps)?

T. Patrick Murray · August 29th, 2003, 12:08 PM

I wrote this question on the wrong thread, so I re-ask it here:

The MTV VIDEO MUSIC AWARDS (re-running on MTV all the time)
were the FIRST time I have seen a broadcast (live) that looked
unmistakably and unbelievably like film...

Since it was live, we know it was video.

Was it 24p HD?

I don't think this is a casual issue- I think it's REVOLUTIONARY.

Sure, STAR WARS proved HD can look like film years ago,
but I was startled to realize that the entire future of broadcasting-

from TV news to sitcoms to meaningless awards shows-

will not only be in HD,
but with a wonderful 16mm slightly grainy wonderful look.

It's funny- some Kodak filmstocks look so sharp now (the low speed ones)
that sometimes it can look flat and video like.

And now the cutting edge of video (HD) employs progressive scan (and whatever other enabling technology) AND LOOKS MORE LIKE FILM than some filmstocks themselves!

Anyway- DOES ANYONE KNOW what cameras were used for the MTV show?

The reason? We will all be able to afford such a camera in a few years.

Until then, I am happy with my HD10u.

T. Patrick Murray

August 18th, 2003, 01:27 PM	#107
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	JVC 1-chip MPEG2 HD cam on display in Vancouver The JVC HD cam is on display at FutureShop on Broadway (Vancouver) - it will be there until the 23rd of August. ---Arseniy

August 20th, 2003, 10:09 AM	#108
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	HD10 and Camera Movement So how would the HD10 fair with dolly and jib movement? Would it be a problem?

August 20th, 2003, 03:17 PM	#109
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Personnaly, I used quite a bit of dolly and crane movements with the camera and it holds up very well, pretty much like a miniDV camera. No compression noise seems to appear. Ideally you should keep your shutter at 1/30 or 1/60. Eric __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

August 21st, 2003, 10:47 AM	#110
Penfold Plum New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: London England Posts: 15	Converting 30p to 25p Just thinking out loud, but if the HD1 and HD10 encode their HD MPEG using a 6 GOP structure, then it might be fairly easy to convert 30p to 25p by simply reducing the GOP structure to 5 GOP and recalculating the B and P frames from the 5 original I frames per second? I dont know the original structure but you could go from say 5 of these per sec: IBBPBB which give 30fps, to 5 of these per sec IBBPB which would give 25fps. I haven't written an MPEG encoder before, so if this is nonsense let me down nicely :)

August 21st, 2003, 02:24 PM	#111
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Well, it's an interresting suggestion, I think there is a chance that it would do only a drop frame each 6 frames but it's worth the try... "If you don't intend to try, you might as well not think about it..." Laurient de Medicis Eric __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

August 14th, 2003, 03:24 AM	#106
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Hyun : General rule of thumb- it is better to slightly underexpose then slightly overexpose. Experience and patience are probably the 2 best qualities to posess when using this camera. -->>> It's funny how exactly opposite this is to shooting film where you can overexpose by several stops without worrying too much and spend the whole day doing run-and-gun shooting with good results. Video, the supposedly more convenient format, requires painstaking control of the lighting and contrast ratios and a lot more setup time in general. Of course, you get to see the results immediately and you can do 30 takes if you want without worrying too much about how much the media is costing you. I'm practically counting the days until the next CES. ;-)

August 21st, 2003, 02:51 PM	#112
Penfold Plum New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: London England Posts: 15	Dropping a frame per GOP was my first thought for a solution Eric, but I was actually trying to avoid doing that as just dropping a frame would mean a slightly larger temporal gap between two particular frames in every GOP. I was trying to propose a method that would yield smooth motion and maintain temporal integrity between frames (i.e. by recalculating the B and P frames). I've no idea if it's feasible though?

August 22nd, 2003, 08:32 AM	#113
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Frame interpolation using Morphing Does anyone remember the old Michael Jackson music video, Black or White, which was one of the first examples to use morphing technology? Couldn't this sort of thing be used to interpolate frames in video for conversion to/from 24, 30, 60, etc?

August 24th, 2003, 10:10 AM	#114
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	HD1 vs HD10 detail enhancement I have a freeze frame comparison of HD1 to 10 with same subject material (jpg). could someone post it? It's pretty representative of several clips I took while evaluating the cameras at Industrial Video here in Cleveland area. These are crops (no resampling). Everything was auto, so exposure varied somewhat. After reviewing several clips I thought the HD10 might have a slightly lower auto exposure. Also, while preparing the clips I noticed notches in the histograms of the shots from both cameras. Anybody else seen this? It's like there are certain brightness levels missing - all evenly spaced. I can't really see anything in the picture that I think is a result of this. I bought the HD10! __________________ Dave

August 24th, 2003, 01:38 PM	#115
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	I don't see why not. But it would be a huge job unless it was automated, and then it would take serious time. It may be worth it to do that at specific moments when the pull down process leaves a noticable "jerk" __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 25th, 2003, 07:41 AM	#116
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	incoming tests between the JVC and the two 24p SD Panas Most people posting in these threads have an intention of using the camera and want to know about it's plusses and minusses. Gather information and make a choice. Not all of them will use the machine in HD in the end (though they may shoot HD). Let's not forget this machine has a very interresting SD 60p, for people making indie DV movies this rocks because you can do incredible progressive slo-mo's. Of course it's the first step to affordable HD, witch means that most of us will have to update all of their gear to take full advantage of the beast, this is a major concern. But still this camera packs an incredible definition when down-converted to SD so it might be usefull for a lot of people. I will be doing comparative tests between the HD10u, and both the pannasonics DVX-100 and the new SDX900 for the feature film "Pure". I will make a thorough review of that in the comming week. I might as well make editing tests with a Pinnacle Cinewave for HD editing, (depending on availability). Eric __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

August 25th, 2003, 06:18 PM	#117
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Sounds good, looking forward to it.

August 26th, 2003, 03:09 PM	#118
John Eriksson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 57	I know a great program for that!! I know a great program for that: It is called Twixtor, and it does great slowmotion and frame conversions http://www.revisionfx.com/rstwixtor.htm I have used this software for a long time now, and it is great! - And Twixtor Pro can do HD aswell!! - /John Eriksson

August 29th, 2003, 05:54 AM	#119
John Eriksson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 57	IS the SD-mode going to give me slowmotion, if I want to? Can I get a smooth 24fps slowmotion by shooting in the SD mode? I mean because of it´s high framrate (60fps)?

August 29th, 2003, 12:08 PM	#120
T. Patrick Murray Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 33	MTV Video Music Awards FILM LOOK I wrote this question on the wrong thread, so I re-ask it here: The MTV VIDEO MUSIC AWARDS (re-running on MTV all the time) were the FIRST time I have seen a broadcast (live) that looked unmistakably and unbelievably like film... Since it was live, we know it was video. Was it 24p HD? I don't think this is a casual issue- I think it's REVOLUTIONARY. Sure, STAR WARS proved HD can look like film years ago, but I was startled to realize that the entire future of broadcasting- from TV news to sitcoms to meaningless awards shows- will not only be in HD, but with a wonderful 16mm slightly grainy wonderful look. It's funny- some Kodak filmstocks look so sharp now (the low speed ones) that sometimes it can look flat and video like. And now the cutting edge of video (HD) employs progressive scan (and whatever other enabling technology) AND LOOKS MORE LIKE FILM than some filmstocks themselves! Anyway- DOES ANYONE KNOW what cameras were used for the MTV show? The reason? We will all be able to afford such a camera in a few years. Until then, I am happy with my HD10u. T. Patrick Murray __________________ www.TheLastGame.com "The HOOP DREAMS of football..." USA TODAY (Mike Clark) FOUR STARS