4:4:4 12-bit Uncompressed DVX100

Taylor Moore · July 7th, 2004, 04:11 PM

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

Great job...

Emmanuel Cambier · July 7th, 2004, 04:29 PM

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

Benjamin Palmer · July 12th, 2004, 01:09 PM

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.

Emmanuel Cambier · July 12th, 2004, 06:06 PM

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 ?

Juan P. Pertierra · July 12th, 2004, 06:25 PM

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

Juan P. Pertierra · July 13th, 2004, 01:24 AM

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

Mark Grgurev · July 13th, 2004, 09:56 AM

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

Juan P. Pertierra · July 13th, 2004, 11:13 AM

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

Frank Roberts · July 13th, 2004, 02:46 PM

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

Laurence Maher · July 14th, 2004, 01:34 PM

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

Jesse Rosten · July 14th, 2004, 04:31 PM

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.

Juan P. Pertierra · July 14th, 2004, 06:03 PM

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

Les Dit · July 14th, 2004, 07:28 PM

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 -->>>

Juan P. Pertierra · July 14th, 2004, 08:04 PM

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

Luis Caffesse · July 14th, 2004, 08:14 PM

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!

July 7th, 2004, 04:11 PM	#886
Taylor Moore Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 94	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...

July 12th, 2004, 01:09 PM	#888
Benjamin Palmer New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7	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. __________________ ............................ benjamin palmer president the barbarian group 617.424.7666 332 Newbury St. Boston, MA 02115 www.barbariangroup.com

July 7th, 2004, 04:29 PM	#887
Emmanuel Cambier Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Paris, France Posts: 20	I'm looking forward to have you drop my beloved DVX from 4 ft up. Only Kidding

July 12th, 2004, 06:06 PM	#889
Emmanuel Cambier Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Paris, France Posts: 20	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 ?

July 12th, 2004, 06:25 PM	#890
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	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

July 13th, 2004, 01:24 AM	#891
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	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

July 13th, 2004, 09:56 AM	#892
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	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

July 13th, 2004, 11:13 AM	#893
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	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

July 13th, 2004, 02:46 PM	#894
Frank Roberts New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: los angeles,ca Posts: 23	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

July 14th, 2004, 01:34 PM	#895
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	So what kind of resolution/ dynamic range do you think you can get out of this new XL-2 Juan?

July 14th, 2004, 04:31 PM	#896
Jesse Rosten Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Redding, California Posts: 114	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.

July 14th, 2004, 06:03 PM	#897
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	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

July 14th, 2004, 07:28 PM	#898
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	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 -->>>

July 14th, 2004, 08:04 PM	#899
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	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

July 14th, 2004, 08:14 PM	#900
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	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!