So I had a chance to shoot some greenscreen tests tonight with the Intensity and will be posting the video and pics asap.

My initial observations of the different shooting options I tried:

1. Uncompressed

No brainer, it looks the best, but not over NEOHD by as much as you'd think. Unfortunately it's just not an economic reality to shoot uncompressed. You'd probably be much better off saving all the money you'd spend on storage and buying a mini Red Camera when they come out. I don't have a raid setup so I was only able to get about 8 seconds of video before the recording stopped.

2. NEOHD

Looks really, really good. Gives the uncompressed footage a real run for it's money. Seriously, you have to blow it up to 200% to see any real difference and even then it's just a fraction of a bit more smudgy then the uncompressed but to even see that little difference you have to squint at a spot and flip the images back and forth.

3. NEOHDV

Really nice, and actually pretty close to the NEOHD, not quite as sharp but very close to it's big brother in quality. If you read this post initially I said it wasn't worth the money but I was wrong as that was based off a bad screenshot. If you don't care about working in 10bit with NEOHD this would be a great choice.

4. MJPEG

Obvious signs of JPEG compression. It's free with the card so you can't complain much.

5. HDV

Good ol' HDV. All the options above blow this codec away as you'll see by looking at the images. Seriously, the HDV looks like it is out of focus when compared to the others it is so much softer. I'd really LOVE to see this codec replaced by NEOHD on all cameras...

CONCLUSION

NEOHD is a winner. If you're going to be buying the Intensity card for capturing video I really think it's the best solution. Of course, these are just my opinions I know everyone has different tastes. Soon you'll be able to download the pics and footage and see if you agree with me or not.

Thanks for your input - NeoHD sounds great for a compressed codec.

Over HDV, sure, I'd choose NeoHDV. But only 1440 res? Not so hot if from an original 1920x1080 source (uncompressed). MJPEG does have those artifacts and isn't an option for CC work IMO.

Now if only NeoHD actually worked on my Mac...

Thanks for this. Could you post some stills from your tests to give a better idea of what to expect from these options? any idea how the realtime encoding system requirements for Blackmagic MJPEG differ from neohd? does blackmagic have no extra settings for increasing bitrate or decreasing cpu requirements?

I would like to see images are well. The CineForm codec is designed for grading, so if you intend a lot of that it is a good reason to avoid MJPEG compression artifacts. The question is whether the HV20 can resolve more then 1440 horizontal lines. Bayer sensors can only approach their native resolution with advanced debayer algorithms, which the HV20 is unlikely to have. There may not be any addition information in the 1920 vs 1440 images, just the noise of JPEG ringing may make it look sharper (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm -- check the bottom image for what I mean.) That said NEO HD is going to be the best overal performer.

Thanks for this. Could you post some stills from your tests to give a better idea of what to expect from these options? any idea how the realtime encoding system requirements for Blackmagic MJPEG differ from neohd? does blackmagic have no extra settings for increasing bitrate or decreasing cpu requirements?

Blackmagic has no extra settings. You have 2 choices uncompressed or MJPEG, that's it.
I'm not sure of the different system requirements between the two, but it's safe to say if you can do one, you can do the other.


Footage is here:
http://www.hv20.dreamhosters.com/

User: canon
PW: hv20

You'll need to UNRAR some of the files.
There's a Photoshop file that contains all the screenshots. I recommend downloading this file, but if you don't have Photoshop there's a TIFF file containing the screenshots in TIFF format.

There is a file called Video which contains all the videos. I recommend downloading this as it is smaller than downloading the videos individually but if you only want to see a specific video they are there by themselves too.

One quirk I noticed is the MJPEG footage is fine until you bring it into Aftereffects. Aftereffects flips it upside down for some reason so you will have to reflip it if you're using AE.

Warning though, these are large files and may take awhile to download. A couple of the larger files haven't finished uploading. They should be done in about 60 minutes.

I would like to see images are well. The CineForm codec is designed for grading, so if you intend a lot of that it is a good reason to avoid MJPEG compression artifacts. The question is whether the HV20 can resolve more then 1440 horizontal lines. Bayer sensors can only approach their native resolution with advanced debayer algorithms, which the HV20 is unlikely to have. There may not be any addition information in the 1920 vs 1440 images, just the noise of JPEG ringing may make it look sharper (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm -- check the bottom image for what I mean.) That said NEO HD is going to be the best overal performer.

It's hard to say but from my eyes it is capturing the full 1920. Even if it's just upscaling from 1440, it does such a good job and makes the image so much sharper that it's worth it.

While I prepared to disagree with that last statement, I will need to see the images first. Unfortunately the log-in doesn't work.

I would be a little disappointed if there was no possible way to get 1920. Most people would have to admit that cute 1920 x 1080 HD CMOS sticker left them all but excited to think they could somehow get 1920 x 1080 HD video. When viewing the frames side by side zoomed at the pixel level in Photoshop, one should be able to detect a 25% loss of horizontal pixels that have been upscaled to 1920 next to a supposedly original full 1920. I'd like to check it out but I can't log in either...

Log in not working...

The resolution of the chip does not reflect the resolving detail of any camera. A camera can have a true 1920x1080 sensor but there are many other issues that mean the actual image doesn't have that level of detail. Like David said a single chip camera will never ever resolve the exact amount of detail as one would expect without some really advanced processing. That is just the nature of a single chip design because the color pixels have to alternate so the in between pixels are interpolated in some way.

Others factors include lens quality and the phyiscal size of the chip itself.

Any type of interlaced video is also filtered to reduce aliased edges and flicker. So even if you had a perfect camera with a perfect chip with a perfect lens you still end up getting a image that is slightly filtered. If it was not filtered it would actually look pretty bad.

With that said that HV20 does have a true 1920x1080 pixel chip and 1920x1080 pixels are processed in the DSP. The detail level of the HV20 is amazing but no HD camera even the XDCAMHD or Cinealta cameras resolve a perfect 1920x1080 pixels.

The login worked fine for me. Certainly interesting seeing this comparison. Thanks for going to all the trouble to provide us with those samples. I've only looked at the tiffs since I havent had time to download the videos. For some reason, MJPEG seems to have some interlaced artifacting, but none of the other samples seem to... What was your workflow for arriving at these. Why would there by interlaced artifacting on only the MJPEG? I imagine that wouldnt help the compression artifacting since it introduces some extra fine detail. perhaps the blackmaging MJPEG is interlaced-only? compressing in fields even on progressive video? was the original uncompressed footage inverse telecined to 24fps before all compression?

This way worked for me:

User: canon
PW: hv20

It seems you may have messed up the scaling on the NEO HDV .TIF as it is soft vertically, and we don't scale in that direction. If you compare http://www.miscdata.com/downloads/NEOHDV1920.png with your uncompressed and MJPEG, you will find it superior to MJPEG and nearly as good as NEO HD. I generated this file form the CineForm 1440x1080 MOV. Not that I don't want everyone to consider NEO HD, yet this comsumer camera only really needed NEO HDV to capture all the detail it can resolve. NEO HD should be for those who need 1920x1080 10-bit in their workflow.

It seems you may have messed up the scaling on the NEO HDV .TIF as it is soft vertically, and we don't scale in that direction. If you compare http://www.miscdata.com/NEOHDV1920.png with your uncompressed and MJPEG, you will find it superior to MJPEG and nearly as good as NEO HD. I generated this file form the CineForm 1440x1080 MOV. Not that I don't want everyone to consider NEO HD, yet this comsumer camera only really needed NEO HDV to capture all the detail it can resolve. NEO HD should be for those who need 1920x1080 10-bit in their workflow.

David, sorry I can't get your link to work. How do you recommend converting 1440 to 1920 for highest quality? I was putting the footage on a 1920 square pixel comp in aftereffects and then exporting the image. I'd like to redo my screengrabs if there's a better way.

I was surprised by the poor quality of the NEO HDV sample, so it wouldnt be impossible there was a workflow problem, although the same goes for MJPEG. And david, your link doesnt seem to work.

Sorry, I got the path wrong, this works : http://www.miscdata.com/downloads/NEOHDV1920.png

David, sorry I can't get your link to work. How do you recommend converting 1440 to 1920 for highest quality? I was putting the footage on a 1920 square pixel comp in aftereffects and then exporting the image. I'd like to redo my screengrabs if there's a better way.

It looks like you had an interlaced composite be so the fields were blended during the rescale. Note : this doesn't explain why the MJPEG is missing the top and bottom scanlines -- how did that happen?

The login worked fine for me. Certainly interesting seeing this comparison. Thanks for going to all the trouble to provide us with those samples. I've only looked at the tiffs since I havent had time to download the videos. For some reason, MJPEG seems to have some interlaced artifacting, but none of the other samples seem to... What was your workflow for arriving at these. Why would there by interlaced artifacting on only the MJPEG? I imagine that wouldnt help the compression artifacting since it introduces some extra fine detail. perhaps the blackmaging MJPEG is interlaced-only? compressing in fields even on progressive video? was the original uncompressed footage inverse telecined to 24fps before all compression?

Sorry guys, I was going to post more details about the workflow but I was trying to get this up before I had to go out for awhile.

Details:

-Camera was 4ft away from objects
-No zoom
-TV mode 48 frame rate; 24p mode
-Manual white balance; dropped exposure -2 to get rid of any zebras
-Removed pulldown on the NEOHD and NEOHDV in real time capture. You will see interlacing on these two for the first 10 frames or so, as this is what has been talked about in other posts.
-I didn't attempt to remove pulldown on any of the other clips. They should all be interlaced but you should be able to remove pulldown as the camera was set to 24p.
-all blackmagic clips were captured with their capture utility
-all cineform clips were captured with hdlink
-all clips were brought into a square pixel 1920 comp in after effects. Like I mentioned earlier, after effects flips the MJPEG video for some reason so I had to flip it.
-exported as a photoshop file from after effects
-exported as tiffs from photoshop

So if only the cineform ones were inverse telecine'd, theres a good chance the MJPEG one was still telecined and the screen grab ended up happening on a hybrid frame? maybe thats why there seem to be interlace artifacts. David's rescale of the neo hdv frame certainly does look much better than the previous version of that image. Any idea why it's so different?

It looks like you had an interlaced composite be so the fields were blended during the rescale. Note : this doesn't explain why the MJPEG is missing the top and bottom scanlines -- how did that happen?

Sorry David, your observation is correct. I went back and checked my AE file and for some reason, the NEOHDV footage had separating fields on. I have replaced the PSfile and TIFF file of the NEOHDV footage and updated my original post.

I'd like to retract my observations that I posted in the initial post about NEOHDV. It does look a lot better then the MJPEG. I'm glad I was wrong about this, as I was really hoping in the first place that the NEOHDV would be a good option since it doesn't cost all that much.

Thanks Derek. That is what we where hoping people would find. While there is a small cost to NEO HDV, the benefits of improved quality and on the fly pulldown removal, makes it idea for a low cost, "uncompressed-lite", capture and post solution of these new cameras.

I made some comparisons of Derek's footage and found what to me looks like very positive results as to whether or not 1920x1080 is downrezzed to 1440x1080 and back to 1920x1080 before HDMI output. I used Photoshop to zoom in 1600% on a target area of the HDV sample which we know has been through the down-conversion process due to the HDV codec. As I examined the pixels, both closely and at a distance, I saw vertical lines. I highlighted them to reveal that they were evenly spaced at every 4th horizontal pixel, which happens to correspond to pixel interpolation of every 4th pixel associated with a 25% horizontal pixel contraction and expansion in the conversion process.

Then I examined the same area on Derek's uncompressed sample and did not see any evidence of vertical patterns, which is a very good thing because that means down-conversion before HDMI output is not evident within these samples.

I uploaded the highlighted comparisons to http://thomann.net/hv20/interpolation/

EDIT: What is most notable about these comparisons is that each pixel within the uncompressed sample sharply appears to represent a single individual color on its own, especially when compared to HDV. That is some incredible footage. I am extremely impressed.

EDIT: I have also examined NEOHDV against NEOHD and Uncompressed. As expected, since NEOHDV is 1440x1080, the same lines are evident every 4th horizontal pixel; whereas they are not evident with NEOHD and uncompressed which are full 1920x1080. This is further evidence that HDMI out has not been down-converted to 1440x1080. I have added these comparisons to the link above as well.

"This is further evidence that HDMI out has not been down-converted to 1440x1080. I have added these comparisons to the link above as well"

it could also just mean that the camcorder is better at resampling the footage than whatever editor derek is using since the hdv and neohdv are actually 1440x1080 on disk.

i think the footage looks great regardless.

terence

When having to remove and re-create every 4th pixel, the only option is to take an average of the pixels around it. The only variation is in which pixels you take an average from. Photoshop provides a choice of nearest neighbor, linear, and bicubic. I have resized the uncompressed sample to 1440x1080 and back to 1920x1080 with Photoshop using those three resampling methods. I then did a layered comparison of those to the original uncompressed sample. Bicubic and linear were nearly identical to each other as expected in a strictly horizontal resize and both appear to impose quite a bit of blur on the image on the pixel level, and without comparing to their original source there are no signs of downrezzing. After looking at them, the uncompressed appears 3D like and razor sharp. The nearest neighbor resampling method on the other hand showed the same pronounced evidence of downrezzing as HDV and NEOHDV, but this method appeared just as sharp as the uncompressed but with less distinguishable detail. It may stand to reason that *IF* the HV20 was to downrez before HDMI output, it would do so with this method and hence we would see evidence of it. There is a chance that the HV20 uses a resizing method such as linear or bicubic which would leave little evidence of resizing. When looking at the amount of blur they generate on the pixel level I'm unable to see how Derek's uncompressed sample could possibly be the result of such a method. There's just too much blur taking place that spans all the pixels to the point that it appears as though you're looking at a compression codec. I'm not typically one to come to such conclusions but it's obvious to me that Derek's uncompressed sample has not been through such a process, and I'm happy with that. In the end, even if resizing was taking place, at these resolutions I need to view it a foot away with at least 300% zoom to begin to notice and in the real world I would need to be within 10 feet of a 55 foot screen. ...but like I said I see it as obvious that no resizing is even taking place.

David, I'm quite impressed by your Neo HD codec, but at $599 its more expensive than a copy of Vegas+DVD, and is also the same price as a MacMini. At that price I just think you could be excluding a large portion of low budget indie film makers who are just starting out. If they're working with the HV20 for instance, they're going to need a fast computer to start with which may cost as much as the camera. Then an Intensity card if they plan on capturing high quality (1920x1080P) footage using HDMI, which I've seen for $250. Finally the NEO HD codec which is more than double the price of the Intensity.

Don't take this the wrong way as I realise it's a great product and I'm sure you'll sell a lot to more professional film makers, but a lot of people coming from say a DV background just aren't going to be able to fathom paying so much for what is essentially a capture codec. Perhaps you could do a cheaper cature only version without all the conversion features?

Glenn, High quality comes at a cost. That is why there is NeoHDV which is much cheaper. If you are really on a budget you could always use the free mjpeg codec that comes with the Intensity card.

In my opinion the fact that you can now get a camera that can shoot 24p for $1,000.00 compared to in the past needing to buy a DVX100 for over $3,000.00 should mean many indies should have about $2,000.00 left over to buy a new computer and software. Everything is already much cheaper then it used to be. With SD 24p many of us had to spend a lot of money to get higher then DV quality. Even if you wanted to capture live uncompressed the only option we had was a Y/C S-video output from our cameras. The only camera I had that could pump out close to uncompressed SD was a $10,000 DSR-300 with a $80 26 pin connector that allowed component output. Now for $1,000.00 + $250.00 we can capture pure uncompressed or lightly compressed HD.

There is also the fact that there really isn't all that much extra detail when you capture 1920x1080 from pretty much any HD camera. You will only notice a very tiny amount of sharpness between 1920 and 1440. If somebody really insists on having that tiny edge in detail then they should be ready to pay for that tiny boost.

So I had a chance to shoot some greenscreen tests tonight with the Intensity and will be posting the video and pics asap.

My initial observations of the different shooting options I tried:

1. Uncompressed

No brainer, it looks the best, but not over NEOHD by as much as you'd think. Unfortunately it's just not an economic reality to shoot uncompressed. You'd probably be much better off saving all the money you'd spend on storage and buying a mini Red Camera when they come out. I don't have a raid setup so I was only able to get about 8 seconds of video before the recording stopped.

2. NEOHD

Looks really, really good. Gives the uncompressed footage a real run for it's money. Seriously, you have to blow it up to 200% to see any real difference and even then it's just a fraction of a bit more smudgy then the uncompressed but to even see that little difference you have to squint at a spot and flip the images back and forth.

If it is obvious at 200%, then it might stick out in an theatre.

NeoHD, something new.

Has anybody tried the trial version of this lossless codec, averaging over 6:1 compression:
http://www.digitalanarchy.com/micro/micro_main.html

I understood, from BM, that Intensity was supposed to allow you to sue any codec you wanted?

Thanks for the images, I am starting to download them.

David, for your codecs and software, can I suggest an cleanup/film processing tool. Basically cleans artifacts, restores image, removes noise from compressed images like XDCAMHD HDV, MiniDV, AVCHD, h264 cameras (like the recent 720p $299 h264 pocket camera, and Sanyo in news). Both applied post, and automatically on capture. Back to HV20 Intensity.

>If it is obvious at 200%, then it might stick out in an theatre.

He didn't say it was obvious, the compression is light only subtle noise variation is visible in magnified views. We aim, just like uncompressed, to store everthing, noise and all. Also theatre presentations are easiest to achieve a quality result, we passed all those test years ago. Just consider RED's snafu, the 4K presentation looked great, yet when people got to see the stills they saw compression issues, which is an issue for effects work, now the camera is delayed. It is much harder to do compression for the compositor -- this is the area we have grown. Read more here : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/04/mastering-to-hdcam-sr-vs-cineform-444.html

Anyway, aren't we talking about the HV20 here? Are we really planning theatre presentations? :)

> Has anybody tried the trial version of this lossless codec, averaging over 6:1 compression

Lossless compression only averages 2:1 from any vendor, the noise component of film or video is too great for much more compression. Your idea (which we discussed before) of extracting the noise, and compressing only the "signal" is an idea that can't be reached to the industries satisfaction -- always some signal is lost with the noise reduction. This is why highend is so pro uncompressed, signal + noise, decide later what to do with it. Yet uncompressed is such a pain, and the industry has generally accepted HDCAM-SR level compression, this is the compression quality target for us: store everything such that you couldn't tell which was the source. More here : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/03/quality-results-and-green-screen.html

Now back the the HV20 + Intensity thread.

from the sound of it, that microcosm codec might be too slow for realtime capture, and isnt much more better at compressing than bitjazz sheervideo. Looks like for live video it only gets around 3:1 compression and only supports RGBA.

"If it is obvious at 200%, then it might stick out in an theatre."

For me it only just started to become noticeable at 300%. The fact that such a capable camera can be had for so little can have a tendency to make people not realize the amount of work and cost that's been put into solutions at this level over the years. Remember that when you're talking about hardware capture solutions, editors and compression software for theater quality video, $599 for a suitable compression codec is a steal. The difference between NEOHD and NEOHDV at 10 feet away on any size home theater just isn't there, and NEOHDV kills HDV. If I look at the eyes of the mask, I can see a difference at 50% zoom, that means zooming out! Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with us David.

I new some of these topics to do with this subject matter are hot here on this forum but I'm blown away now if some of you are actually trying to create a product that was shot with HV20 that might wind up being shown on the big screen in a theater. I'm not trying to get cute here but what would be the reasoning behind shooting with a $1100 camcorder when spending $500 for a codec is nothing. It would just seem like a typical budget that would allow for some of the hardware-software costs being tossed around, doesn't jive with an $1100 camcorder.

I guess I shouldn't be one to speak about costs, since I bought the camera for $1100 and turned around and spent about another $1200 for wireless sound, wide angle lens, and a good tripod. I haven't started to think beyond my piddly low end Studio 10.7 for capture, edit, and output file creation.

Color & focus asside, does it all come down to pixels per inch and how for away your eyes are from those pixels. I guess you could be blown away by this High Def on a one inch screen if the screen was in a pair of goggles that you're wearing.

"I'm not trying to get cute here but what would be the reasoning behind shooting with a $1100 camcorder when spending $500 for a codec is nothing"

its not so much about using a $1100 camera to do feature type work.. its about THIS camera. it seems to have such a unique blend of features and quality that makes it even better for the task than many cameras costing 5 figures.

it wont be suited for all types of filming due to the shutter type and limited dynamic range, but with carefull planning it can easily have its place on the big screen. it has the resolution, and the quality to compare top end cinema cams (film or digital) in specific situations, and with a lens adapter, can be pushed even further.

all in all, its a great camera.. the low price is just a bonus really.

terence.

Actually, the dynamic range is surprising as well, at least according to this test... http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=93493

It's still limited to a fair amount of light for excellent quality video and it requires an adapter for cinema lenses. The only real issue as far as quality is the rolling shutter effect, which can be software corrected. If Canon really wanted to get this right, rolling shutter could have been compensated for before output.

Also, I was not suggesting that anyone spend that much on a codec (although it may be worth it), I was reminding people of the value of the things this camera has us looking at.

I don't know if it can be used for capturing (I doubt it), but on my 2x SATA drive Raid 0 Intel E6600 CPU PC I can playback 720P Huffy avi files without any frames being dropped. Perhaps on a faster machine with a 4 drive array it could achieve 1080P? The Huffy codec is a lossless codec similar to Microcosm or Apple's Animation. I generally use it for final renders. I'd tried the Cineform Connect trial version quite a while back, but couldn't convert the files to DivX for web playback.

.....

I understood, from BM, that Intensity was supposed to allow you to sue any codec you wanted?
.

I would like to know a bit more about this to. Any owners care to clarify? I have the vision of it being very similar to an analog capture card (only digital :P), thus allowing me to select any codec's for a/v i want (and even the software i use to capture). Is it not like this?

I'd tried the Cineform Connect trial version quite a while back, but couldn't convert the files to DivX for web playback.

Should be no issue with NEO HDV/HD for DivX exports.

I actually tried installing the NeoHDV trial version either last week or the week before, but it told me the time limit was up, most probably because I'd had the trial version of Connect installed sometime last year. Infact the NeoHDV installion even appeared as Connect HD itself, so maybe it was the wrong file I'd downloaded?

Anyway, I'll consider it if I get around to buying an Intensity card. If it included some kind of Magic Bullet style deartifacting like someone mentioned, that would be great.

Anyway, I'll consider it if I get around to buying an Intensity card. If it included some kind of Magic Bullet style deartifacting like someone mentioned, that would be great.

If you are capture live from the Intensity, no deartifacting is neccessary as no MPEG compression has been applied.

from the sound of it, that microcosm codec might be too slow for realtime capture, and isnt much more better at compressing than bitjazz sheervideo. Looks like for live video it only gets around 3:1 compression and only supports RGBA.

Maybe I was hoping one of you guys had an 2 to 4 socket dual core to try it ;). More interested in lossless performance, as the processing power will be there one day, with Intel scheduled for 1teraflop 80 core processor at around 45w in 2010. They already have it working (2tflp version is way more power). I remember suggesting stuff like this to VIA years ago for there 1W processors, but Intel saw the chance.

>If it is obvious at 200%, then it might stick out in an theatre.

He didn't say it was obvious, the compression is light only subtle noise variation is visible in magnified views. We aim, just like uncompressed, to store everything, noise and all. Also theatre presentations are easiest to achieve a quality result, we passed all those test years ago. Just consider RED's snafu, the 4K presentation looked great, yet when people got to see the stills they saw compression issues, which is an issue for effects work, now the camera is delayed. It is much harder to do compression for the compositor -- this is the area we have grown. Read more here : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/04/mastering-to-hdcam-sr-vs-cineform-444.html

He, I warned them 100mb/s wasn't going to be enough and recommended they increase it to 400mb/s, which is really doable as far as storage and drive sustained writing rate goes. 220mb/s is alright for many purposes though, but theatre people can be demanding, reportedly George thought the low compression of the Sony cinema wasn't enough, so they introduced even lower compression. 220 equals around 55mb/s for each 2mpixel.

Anyway, aren't we talking about the HV20 here? Are we really planning theatre presentations? :)
This aren't the cinematographers forum, yes, if it can do it, not that we are going to be doing Starwars Episode 7 or anything like that with it.

> Has anybody tried the trial version of this lossless codec, averaging over 6:1 compression

Lossless compression only averages 2:1 from any vendor, the noise component of film or video is too great for much more compression. Your idea (which we discussed before) of extracting the noise, and compressing only the "signal" is an idea that can't be reached to the industries satisfaction -- always some signal is lost with the noise reduction. This is why high end is so pro uncompressed, signal + noise, decide later what to do with it. Yet uncompressed is such a pain, and the industry has generally accepted HDCAM-SR level compression, this is the compression quality target for us: store everything such that you couldn't tell which was the source. More here : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/03/quality-results-and-green-screen.html

With my estimation of how to extract the signal from the noise, and then lift it to even higher accuracy from there, should be possible. Remember my ideas included elements of the original image in the noise itself. If you talk to people from cinema about how credible it is, you are going to get an flawed opinion, because their noise is really grain, that wipes out more of the original information at the unresponsive grain level, but I admit that grains that have responded do contain original information.

Noise is never signal, or the original image being filmed, it is an inconvenience, not an fundamental part of the scene that was filmed. Imax can look an lot better, because the noise is so fine it is not so noticeable. I think 8mp, or even 2mp, deniosed and upscaled could achieve similar effects within an distance of the Imax. As long as it looks better than before, there is an improvement.

Now something I am sure I have asked before, in your professional opinion, how could they be achieving this 6:1 lossless compassion average claim (used to be 4:1 from memory)? I am assuming they mean true lossless, as I did not see any visually lossless claim, I can however see how this could be done with low noise images, 4:4:4 or an certain data type (I understand that high dynamic range compression also achieves higher compression, but don't know if they do that). I could imagine that when all these things are combined that an higher than normal result could be achieved.


I think an comparison of images between the two codecs would be good here.


Still on the HV20 thread, as all these things go towards achieving better image for it, and many cameras, and what options to sue in capture.

Previous Cineform tests:
With the original Canon HDsdi to cineform compression tests, I noted that the compressed images looked, basically, and grade away from the original, defiantly something that could effect peoples subconscious perception of the film. It made the frames look like they were slightly less focused compared to the original, with less contrast in the details. You have done an lot more cinema compression work since then, has the situation improved?


I am examining still rather than downloading large uncompressed HD video files nowadays. If anybody would care to add anymore, that would be great. At the moment, the HV20, is the number one camera I recommend to consumers, and some more serious users, though I am waiting on a few other cameras to come out.

Blackmagic Design Announces Final Cut Studio 2 Support
Includes support for ProRes, open format timelines, new easy setup management, and color software

Now all Blackmagic Design cards support capture and playback natively with the ProRes 422 format, and easy setups are included.

Availability and Price
DeckLink v6.2 and Multibridge v6.2 software, with support for Final Cut Studio 2, is available today for download from the Blackmagic Design support web site at no charge. www.blackmagic-design.com

source - http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/8093.html

Now something I am sure I have asked before, in your professional opinion, how could they be achieving this 6:1 lossless compassion average claim (used to be 4:1 from memory)?

This have never been claimed for normal full color image sequences, nor will it every be acheived.

I suggest you revisit our codecs, try NEO 2K within After Effects Pro 6.5/7.0.

This have never been claimed for normal full color image sequences, nor will it every be achieved.

I suggest you revisit our codecs, try NEO 2K within After Effects Pro 6.5/7.0.

Thanks, I figured it wasn't straight forward, but what sort of images and format would it have been achieved on? In due time I will probably be comparing the performance of Red and Microcosm, and anything else that has significant claims.

Glenn, High quality comes at a cost. That is why there is NeoHDV which is much cheaper. If you are really on a budget you could always use the free mjpeg codec that comes with the Intensity card.


some clarification please... the NeoHDV does not come with hardware capture card and costs $249 for the software? plus another $250 for BlackMagic Intensity Card (that comes with the free MJPEG), that totals $500 for a setup that is an excellent match for HV20 right?

will a PCI Express card to PCMCIA converter work for laptops?

some clarification please... the NeoHDV does not come with hardware capture card and costs $249 for the software? plus another $250 for BlackMagic Intensity Card (that comes with the free MJPEG), that totals $500 for a setup that is an excellent match for HV20 right?

That is correct.

will a PCI Express card to PCMCIA converter work for laptops?

PCMCIA is too slow, so it will not work.

thanks Chief :)

If you are capture live from the Intensity, no deartifacting is neccessary as no MPEG compression has been applied.

Sorry, I should have mentioned if it was being used to capture normal HDV footage. Although I guess the HV20's footage isn't too bad to begin with, so the conversion to 4:2:2 may improve the image quality anyway.

If you are capture live from the Intensity, no deartifacting is neccessary as no MPEG compression has been applied.

Begs to ask when the HDMI attachable hard drive will come out. ;)

Greetings

Does this direct-capture method help in terms of pan speed or scene/object motion?

Thanks
JohnG