Very cool - can't wait to see clips. I can host large clips if you need space.

This is how the DVX looks once the probing cabling has been installed.

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/DSC00417.jpg

WOW!!!!

Congratulations Juan!!!!!!!!

That's awesome. And the the camera looks great. Only difference seems to be the cable out the bottom. Fantastic. Good Job. Can't wait to see some footage.

camera body

juan,

sorry for my lack of knowledge, but does this means that this cabling is the only thing which is outside of the camera itself. everything else will be in that aluminium/plastic box?

does this means if someone wants to upgrade dvx to juanHDvx solution - must send the camera to you? or it can be done in diy manner?

thanks

filip

That's right.

Like i said before, if you had to solder to install the probes, it would be really difficult because it is all 0.5mm pitch surface mount. But since I am not soldering at all, it is even more difficult. It takes special tools and careful alignment to install it, but it is extremely reliable andf very simple to remove. To illustrate, the first time i did it it took me several days(weeks?) just to figure out how to align it properly(documented in this thread). Now, it only takes me 30 minutes to install including dissasembly/assembly.

I've had unexpected tests of how well the probing method works, i've had the DVX fall to the floor from 4ft up dissasembled, and all the probing cabling is still perfectly in-place and working...while the camera's stock DV connector was ruined in the fall.

Juan

Congrats Juan
 

I am looking forward to seeing the footage....as well as sending you a check for the mod to my DVX.

Great job...

I'm looking forward to have you drop my beloved DVX from 4 ft up.
Only Kidding

oh that was a little uncalled for, emmanuel! i know it was a joke, but lets remember how amazing juan is being, inventing all of this for the greater good and all.

My apologies, sincerly. I tried to be funny, and no one laughed.
Yet, I may not be the only one to have concerns about the logistic issues of this wonderful project.
Again Juan I'm sure everybody is as impatient as myself, and if some details need to be worked out, this is a great place to do so.

PS:Dear Benjamin, from me to you, don't you think Juan called a little for it in his last post ? Or am I just being french ?

Hey, i laughed! :)

No harm done, and yes, i should've explained it.

The camera had been open for, oh about 6 months at least. I had gotten incredibly used to working on it and seeing it just completely disassembled.

One day, i was doing some outdoor shots, with the camera sitting on a flat board, set on top of my tripod which has a bogen 516 fluid head.

Well, it came time to go get some food and i didn't feel like taking it all down for a few minutes, so i took a chance and went out.

I made the mistake of not setting the drag to maximum and the fluid head slowly tilted down until the entire thing fell down.

On one hand, it was stupid, but on the other i confirmed that my little probing clip works extremely well which i was wanting to test somehow.

So there. :) And yes, i am extremely picky with my gear but(and some engineers/technicians would agree) once you start working on something you own for such a long time and repeated tests, it becomes more of a workhorse than my little 'baby'. :)

Logistics-wise, the only thing I am still figuring out is how/where to have the PCB boards printed. Everything else is pretty much figured out.

Juan

A interesting developments i haven't mentioned before:

The white balance adjustment actually changes the white level of the CCD block, so it affects the RAW image you get out. This is why I was getting pink skies in some of the first outdoor shots, etc.

In experimenting with the anamorphic adapter, i figured out that since the DV footage is actually cropped horizontally somewhat, if you use the full resolution RAW image with the anamorphic adapter, you actually get ~1.85 aspect ratio. Very cool.

Juan

So I'm assuming ur gonna try it on an XL2 now.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=10350

Yup. The same hardware will work on the XL2, given I have the techincal manual.

Changes would have to be made if it were HD, but since it's not the only changes would be the probing method.

Juan

Juan,
When all the details are ironed out, is there a list or anything for those of us that would like to have our camera altered? Is there a definitive price as well? Best Regards -Frank

So what kind of resolution/ dynamic range do you think you can get out of this new XL-2 Juan?

from the diagrams i've seen, it looks like the XL2 chip is much larger than the actual area used to create the image. i.e. it has "non-firing pixels" on the top and bottom of the chip. I wonder if it would be possible to get those pixels to fire using Juan's modification. Could potentially get a higher resolution picture out of the camera.

just a thought.

Can't wait for the DVX mod to be available. Keep up the good work Juan.

If that is true, then my mod will yield the complete CCD frame, regardless of what the camera actually uses. My guess is that it uses the extra pixels for stabilization or just plain downsizes the image to a DV-supported frame-size.

The DVX does something similar, since it has a wide CCD and it shrinks it to NTSC frame size, but the wider CCD yields a sharper image horizontally.

Juan

Juan,
Your mod won't get the whole ccd worth of image if the camera electronics aren't clocking out the 'missing' top and bottom, right?

You are really just getting the same signal the camera electronics wants to see. Who knows of the XL2 clocks out the whole chip?

-Les




<<<-- Originally posted by Juan P. Pertierra : If that is true, then my mod will yield the complete CCD frame, regardless of what the camera actually uses. My guess is that it uses the extra pixels for stabilization or just plain downsizes the image to a DV-supported frame-size.

The DVX does something similar, since it has a wide CCD and it shrinks it to NTSC frame size, but the wider CCD yields a sharper image horizontally.

Juan -->>>

Actually, that's not the way it usually works. CCD's have modes, like if you have an HD CCD you can switch to a pre-defined resolution mode, and get a smaller resolution with a higher frame rate. But you can't just pick and choose what the frame size coming out of the CCD is down to the pixel. The modes are pre-defined in hardware.

Furthermore, the chances of Canon, or any company putting a CCD in a camera that is much larger than what area is actually used, is pretty much zero. It's just not cost effective. True, there is a few lines cropped to match aspect ratios, and some data used for stabilization, but the data is still received by the circuitry.

If it is true the CCD's are larger than the largest DV frame size the XL2 records to tape(which it is, from the specs posted), then the data at the A/D's corresponds to the complete CCD frame.

Juan

Juan,

So, if I'm reading your post correctly, does that mean you could potentially get a 960x720 frame out of the XL2 by tapping into the chips?

-Luis


PS.
I know the DVX prototype is done, and your are waiting to find out where to get the boards printed, but do you have some sort of rough timeline as to when you may be ready to start taking other people's cameras to modify?

Keep up the good work Juan!

We are making an assumption, that the XL2 has 960x720 chips to begin with....but if it does, yes.

The info is coming...i am working on this pretty much full time, it's just been an incredible amount of work. There is a lot of stuff being worked on in parallel, website, software, hardware, circuit board layout, etc. All updates will be posted here.

Thanks for your patience... :)

PS:It now has an LCD + Menu buttons!

"PS:It now has an LCD + Menu buttons!"

PS: You now are a total badass!

Can't wait to see it in action.

-Luis

24p
 

Question: If the footage is captured in raw format, but I want the end result to be 24p, would I then put the footage through Magic Bullet or equivalent? How would I go about this and retain the 24p look of the DVX with the raw footage?

Eduardo,

Juans Mod is taking the images straight off the chips.
The chips are shooting at 24 frames per second, so you are getting the RAW files at 24 frames per second.

There is no need to use magic bullet or anything else.

In fact, this is a cleaner way to get the footage.
There is no pulldown to remove or anything.

It is true 24 frame per second progressive capturing.

-Luis

Eduardo:

The DVX's CCDs can capture in progressive mode. The only reason why you have to know about pulldowns, etc. is because of the DV format. The DV format was designed to encode 60i, so in order to put the 24 progressive frames onto a DV tape they have to come up with some ingenious method, while still complying to the DV standard.

With my device, you do not have to worry about standards. If the DVX is in either 24P or 24PA, you get 24 complete frames a second. If the camera is in 30p, you get 30 complete frames a second.

What you get is similar to just scanning a film strip. If you record for a second, you endup with 24 uncompressed image files(TIFF,BMP,etc). You get true 24P, uncompressed, at 36-bit RGB 773x494 resolution with 10 F-stops of dynamic range.

Hope this helps!
Juan

Juan, I'm probably more excited about the range than anything else. That is fantastic, 10 f-stops. It's too bad that a practical homemade DOF adapter hasn't been created for the DVX yet. I hope that will be next.
Best- Frank

Wow. That's music to my ears. Thanks for your quick response and all you do.



es

New thoughts
 

Hello.

I've not posted into this forum for quite a lot of time and just come by to see what is happening. Glad things go straight forward and glad also Juan that you gained a lot of knowledge on digital videography and that you do well.

I have just one suggestion. You go straight into commercial implementation of it and that is obviously ok. But if you intend to earn money on this project I think it should be vital to make all of the RAW benefits available. Of course, one part of it is proper hardware - and that is what you are doing now. But on the other hand in my opinion you should put stress on that part, that will miss (and very good that will) in your equipment - the bypassed colour correction done in the camera, as this stage is obviously just vital to obtain final good-looking footage.

None of us is a professional colourist, and concerning that the image-processing module in dvx does a very good job (at least in terms of DV), the most vital thing for now is the proper handling of the RAW 12 bit image and finding a good way to proper downsampling it to standard 8 bit. I think this is the right time to start thinking of it as a second crucial part of your project, if I may suggest, apart from the hardware. I'm afraid of the situation that the final user will have perfect RAW footage and from some reasons be unable to correctly process it, making all the work of bypassing DV not so reasonable.

I think you could just hire somebody to write a short manual how to handle this properly or just prepare some presets for most popular applications for handling the footage. Maybe you could take advantage of the DVX color management menu, and base some solututions on it?

And, finally, maybe this is right time to establish an official web site of the project?

regards and good luck

Milosz:

I think i should post some images after i learned that the WB setting affects the CCD output. I am getting images that look great, even without color correction.

Another point to consider, and i'd like everyone else's opinion on this, is that i was under the impression that anyone who is concerned about getting RAW uncompressed 36-bit 4:4:4 out of the DVX, already does their own color correction. Am i wrong? The whole point of getting RAW out of the camera is such that you have the most pristine data to start with the post process...? I could write software that puts a predetermined film-look on the footage and has some parameters the user can modify, but honestly i think that would be wasted time.

I don't know, is there anyone here who plans to just use RAW footage as is and doesn't already do his/her own color correction?

Juan

Well...maybe just a *couple* presets might be nice.... : )


but i'll take what i can get, no complaints...

I think that those of us who dream of sending you a Canon XL2 and getting back a baby Viper are well aware of the hardware, software, talent and workflow considerations of the type of files your mod will be handing off to the hard drive. And we silently pray each night that you don’t go on vacation or otherwise become distracted from your task at hand.

However I do respect that some are looking for a 4:4:4 version of what their gear already pumps out. Here is where the tutorials and faq on your website comes into play and I know that you’re already working on that.

If you need any help on the site many of us would jump at the opportunity to contribute.

Gordon

I would second Gordon's post.
Most of us looking for this type of mod are well aware of what will be required in post.

I look forward to the RAW files.

however, if you still plan on implementing SDI out for 10 bit 4:2:2, that would be incredibly welcomed as well. It woudl be nice to have the option to out to a deck every now and again.

Overall, seeing as the white balance is still intact, I don't see what other camera functions I would want access to. THe less image manipulation the better.

I would also second Gordon's offer to help out. Count me in if there is any way I can help.

-Luis

PS.
Gordon, your mention of a "baby Viper" made me drool.
:)

Ok, that makes sense...

Actually i could use your help with this: import some frames of a static scene from your DVX in normal gamma mode and cinelook mode. Then, see what color correction and most importantly, gamma curve you have to apply to the normal footage to get it to resemble the cine look footage. This will allow me to program corrections that resemble the look that we expect from the DVX....

In any case, I think Milosz's idea of posting tutorials on the webpage is a great one.

Juan

Juan,

John Beale did a DVX100 Gamma Comparison Chart between the Normal and Cine-Like gamma settings.

http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/color/

And Michael Bergeron at Panasonic Broadcast also did a document on this.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:k7wpMUn6kLUJ:www.hpaonline.com/files/public/Begeron.doc+DVX100+Gamma+Curve&amp;hl=en

Gordon

Juan, how many manual adjustments to the image(skin detail, chroma level, mast pedestal, etc.) can u still do with the DVX in camera?

The idea of being able to manipulate with total autonomy in RAW format is almost surreal! As long as the image is clear, without artifacts, and having a latitude of 10 f-stops, I sincerely think that even the way we light a set will change significantly. Can you flash foward into the future where cameras will be able to capture latitude similiar to the human eye? It's kind of sad because I think it will mark the end of a lot of established cinematography techniques in favor for post. But even now, emulsions from film are treated and altered. Maybe a lot of DPs want a film stock that just displays a pristine image that they can bleach-bypass for example and play with rather than a stock that has inherent qualities that make it unique. So as far as software for a more filmic look is concerned, I do not think it is a necessity when going RAW. Look at the digital SLR the SIGMA S10. It captures RAW format with a Foveon chip and there are no "in-camera" adjustments such as sharpness or contrast.
Best- Frank

Mark:

So far the only controls that affect the raw output are all the necessary optical controls(focus, zoom, exposure, shutter, etc) and the White Balance adjustments.

I understand why the WB affects it now, since it alters slightly what the 'white' level out of each CCD is to match the white in the image.

Here is an example of the colors I am getting out of the camera, now that I am doing a WB adjustment. The only correction I did was to apply a lazy S gamma curve to give it more contrast, but that's it. As you can see, the color balance is pretty much perfect.

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~pertierr/cap15_small.tif

Wow...
 

Juan, that looks freakin amazing. Blown up to 1280x720, that's definitely passable as HD... You should shoot another resolution chart -- this looks better than ever. Make sure you've got enough light, fill the frame, and give us a nice clean res chart. This thing looks like it's going past 800 lines...

- ben

Really,really good results!!!!
I work recently in a feature film made with this camera (unmodified I mean :) ) and yes, its quality is amazing, I can't understand why some people still say that Sony's camcorders have the best image quality.
Juan, are you Mexican?
In my heart I'm still waiting to see what you could do with the HD Camera project we are trying to push at the other threads :D.

Juan,

the color looks fantastic.
If you get a chance, I would love to see a resolution chart as
well, and possibly a clip chart if you can get your hands on one.

Do you still want us to do the gamma vs. normal curve
comparison? I know Gordon posted some links for you, but I
wasn't sure if they answered your questions. Just let us know
if you need it.

Although, my 2 cents would be, why manipulate the gamma curve
on capture just to mimic something we can do easily enough in
post?

I take it that all the gamma settings on the DVX menu are
disabled through the mod? That shouldn't be an issue for most
people I think.


Lastly, I can't help but ask, is that a large urine sample on top of
your TV or what?
:)

jk

-Luis