Raw HDR-FX1 mpeg2 files are posted. - Page 8 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1

Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1
Pro and consumer versions of this Sony 3-CCD HDV camcorder.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 27th, 2004, 08:31 AM   #106
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Saskatoon, Canada (was London, UK)
Posts: 138
Quote:
And mpeg2 compression is weak on moving objects.
Yeah, but in the closeup most of the frame is almost stationary, so most of the MPEG-2 bitrate should be going into her face. I'd have to say that if the camera is going to make moving faces look out of focus, I won't be buying it... but given how sharp the other footage is, I still can't help but feel that it's soft focus.

Did you use the zoom on the LCD when focusing? Her face looks fine when downconverted to DV res, so if it is a focus issue it's only slightly out of focus and probably wouldn't have been visible when scaled down for the LCD if the LCD view wasn't zoomed.
Mark Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 08:58 AM   #107
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Shibuya, Tokyo
Posts: 1,381
I was focusing with the viewfinder while she was looking at the LCD screen flipped to her side.
Kaku Ito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 11:45 AM   #108
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
I am not getting interlace playback, but instead 30p ( field 1 and 2 combined ) from my PC dvi out to HD monitor. Why is this? It looks great, like 30p film ( Iwerks ) Though I would like to look at it in interlace 60i. Is this a probelm with the graphics card or? Any suggestions would be great. Thanks!


Michael Pappas


<<<-- Originally posted by Kaku Ito : I manually focused it to her face.

It might be because of the compression issue. Since she is moving, if you are not watching the clip without interlaced capablity, she might not look as sharp. And mpeg2 compression is weak on moving objects. Then still objects might look even more stable because it is compressed. I can see her skin details on my interlaced monitor fine. -->>>
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 12:54 PM   #109
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rego Park , NYC
Posts: 649
First of all, I want to thank Kaku for all his work.

The footage is amazing!

Kaku, I was wondering if you have confirmed the HDV->DV down conversion thru firewire?

Does it work?(can you import it in iMovie for example?)

Because if it does---one wouldn't have to invest in a new NLE or upgrade one(just yet) and just work with the footage like it is straight DV. I know you have a million things to do...but please?

Thanks again!
John C. Chu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 02:10 PM   #110
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 375
Michael Pappas - I am getting same thing in Vegas - filmic look from 60i

I've seen you hint at this before - I noticed it first with the night clip of the descending bike through the traffic - on VLC, I rendered out a wmvhd 60/720p (60p) and boy, did it look so "video-y" whereas my vegas avi downconverts all had a slight filmic look to them!

Weird, huh? I think vegas is resampling due to different resolution (ie. down to 720x480) and the processing introduces some sort of effect (you using vegas too? - I've had this happen too on pal->ntsc conversions and NOT due to 25 -> 30 - i've had it happen using some vegas filters on plain-jane ntsc 60i footage too - as filmmaker I like it - but very mysterious!)

are we talking about the same thing? I think we are...
Mark Kubat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 03:31 PM   #111
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 236
Interesting...

The HD1 records @ 30fps and outputs DIGITALLY at that same frame rate but the ANALOG output is 60.

So maybe the FX1 is recording @ 30fps and it does the same as the HD1 (outputs DIGITALLY at that same frame rate but the ANALOG output is 60).

That would mean that you could keep the output @ 30fps instead of 60 for editing and output.

Troy
Troy Lamont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 09:42 PM   #112
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
Re: Michael Pappas - I am getting same thing in Vegas - filmic look from 60i

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Kubat : I've seen you hint at this before - I noticed it first with the night clip of the descending bike through the traffic - on VLC, I rendered out a wmvhd 60/720p (60p) and boy, did it look so "video-y" whereas my vegas avi downconverts all had a slight filmic look to them!

Weird, huh? I think vegas is resampling due to different resolution (ie. down to 720x480) and the processing introduces some sort of effect (you using vegas too? - I've had this happen too on pal->ntsc conversions and NOT due to 25 -> 30 - i've had it happen using some vegas filters on plain-jane ntsc 60i footage too - as filmmaker I like it - but very mysterious!)

are we talking about the same thing? I think we are... -->>>

Every system I take those raw files to have the 30p look like Iwerks to tape. 30P mode of the DVX100, frame mode too. I have played it on three HD tv's A 50" XBR HD sony. A 26" HD CRT and my friends Bob Jones ( Owner and creator of the awesome SkyCrane jibs ) 15' HD LCD monitor at his house. Now on everyone of them they are playing not live 60 field interlace but 30P feel. I don't know what's up. The HDV demo that was posted two weeks or ago with the awesome shot of the boat at night this entire clips looks the same as well.
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 10:12 PM   #113
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 414
Pardon my potential ignorance here, but don't most HD displays out there convert everything to 720p? I'm not real up on the pro equipment, but most every HDTV consumer set I've looked at seems to convert everything to 720p...a true 1080i set seems hard to find... unless I don't know where to look.

Anyways, that would account for the more "filmic" 30p look, would it not?
Kevin Dooley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 10:23 PM   #114
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 236
Actually vice versa

Kev,

Actually it's the other way around dependent on the technology involved. 99.9% of CRT displays only do 1080i and upconvert 720p to 1080i.

Digital displays (LCD, Plasma, SEC, LCOS, D-ILA etc.) usually display everything at a 720p res and they downconvert 1080i to 720p (or whatever derivative they're using i.e. 768p).

As it stands the majority of HD capable displays are CRT based with digital displays slowing closing the gap. There are some 'TRUE' 1080i/p displays that have just recently come out or have been introduced. The first 1080p Plasma is slated for release 1Q next year. Sharp has a 1080p LCD panel that is 45" and one on the way that will be 55" @1080p.

Sony has the Qualia 004 1080p SXRD digital projector that's a true 1080p and is reviewed to be the best front projection equipment on the home theater market.

Anyway, 1080i is the norm for CRT/analog and 720p in that realm is almost unheard of although there are a handful of displays that will accept a 720p signal natively and upconvert it to 1080i/p . 720p is the standard for digital with 1080i/p slowly trickling in.

Troy
Troy Lamont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2004, 10:39 PM   #115
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 414
Good to know...thanks. I guess most of the exposure I've had to HD has been in the digital display realm...
Kevin Dooley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2004, 08:33 AM   #116
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Katoomba NSW Australia
Posts: 635
Although.... I think Kevin may be sort of right here.

I've recently bought a Sharp Aquos 83cm LCD HDTV, which is one of the few TV/monitors to actually state it's viewable resolution, which is 1330x800.

That rez is BTW one of the highest you'll get on any readily available display - apart from the just released (well prototyped anyway) 1920x1080 resolution LCD panels.

So; even for the Aquos, which is infinitely superior in image to any plasmas I've looked at, the 1920x1080 image has to be squeezed down into 1330x800.

The 'filmic' look that is being referred to is, I suspect, related to a quite different issue. For instance, playing video via DVI from computer to external monitor requires a video card with timing rates, colour depths and resolution settings that can match or exceed the secondary display devices'. Everything has to be 'just right' with hardware and software or frame-rate, bit-rate and possibly resolution will be attenuated. Appz like Power Strip come in handy here - though I couldn't get Power Strip to work when connecting my 3.4Ghz laptop via DVI to the Aquos, despite the monitor showing up correctly (resolution/refresh rate etc) as the 2nd display device. Not everything is perfect just yet........

I've played the same clips back to the Aquos as native m2t through a Roku HD1000 at 1080i (definitely no possible bottlenecks) to the Aquos, and the video is indistinguishable from broadcast 1080i in every respect - including motion, not filmic - just bloody marvelous!!!.
Steve Crisdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2004, 09:55 AM   #117
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 236
Quote:
which is one of the few TV/monitors to actually state it's viewable resolution, which is 1330x800.
When you're talking digital displays the actual pixel resolution is the same as the viewable. Digital displays usually don't have overscan like CRT displays which usually accounts for the decrease in viewable resolution.

Quote:
the 1920x1080 image has to be squeezed down into 1330x800.
Not true as I pointed out above. Your set and the 45" 1080p Aquos sets are different models, you can't compare resolution specs. You may also want to check your specs again. The Sharp 1920X1080 is 1920X1080 viewable, it's already been confirmed by several owners.

Quote:
Anyways, that would account for the more "filmic" 30p look, would it not?
As far as I know, 720p is at 60Hz or 60fps. That's about as far away from a filmic look as anything. There are a lot of other processing in each HDTV set that may account for a different look on each set.

Ste

Troy
Troy Lamont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2004, 01:02 PM   #118
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
What is a Roku HD1000? And how are you playing HDV clips through it?



<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : Although.... I think Kevin may be sort of right here.

I've recently bought a Sharp Aquos 83cm LCD HDTV, which is one of the few TV/monitors to actually state it's viewable resolution, which is 1330x800.

That rez is BTW one of the highest you'll get on any readily available display - apart from the just released (well prototyped anyway) 1920x1080 resolution LCD panels.

So; even for the Aquos, which is infinitely superior in image to any plasmas I've looked at, the 1920x1080 image has to be squeezed down into 1330x800.

The 'filmic' look that is being referred to is, I suspect, related to a quite different issue. For instance, playing video via DVI from computer to external monitor requires a video card with timing rates, colour depths and resolution settings that can match or exceed the secondary display devices'. Everything has to be 'just right' with hardware and software or frame-rate, bit-rate and possibly resolution will be attenuated. Appz like Power Strip come in handy here - though I couldn't get Power Strip to work when connecting my 3.4Ghz laptop via DVI to the Aquos, despite the monitor showing up correctly (resolution/refresh rate etc) as the 2nd display device. Not everything is perfect just yet........

I've played the same clips back to the Aquos as native m2t through a Roku HD1000 at 1080i (definitely no possible bottlenecks) to the Aquos, and the video is indistinguishable from broadcast 1080i in every respect - including motion, not filmic - just bloody marvelous!!!. -->>>
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2004, 02:04 PM   #119
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Shibuya, Tokyo
Posts: 1,381
I assume he meant Rorke?
Kaku Ito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2004, 02:57 PM   #120
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Clermont, FL.
Posts: 941
<<<-- Originally posted by John C. Chu : First of all, I want to thank Kaku for all his work.

The footage is amazing!

Kaku, I was wondering if you have confirmed the HDV->DV down conversion thru firewire?

Does it work?(can you import it in iMovie for example?)

Because if it does---one wouldn't have to invest in a new NLE or upgrade one(just yet) and just work with the footage like it is straight DV. I know you have a million things to do...but please?

Thanks again! -->>>

This is the first I've heard of the "HDV->DV down conversion thru firewire". I'm curious about this as well.
Laurence Kingston is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:33 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network