I've uploaded 12 clips to dvinfo.net site
 

Hi there,
I've uploaded 12 clips to the DVinfo.net site, if someone could let people know how to access them I'd be grateful.

Hope you like them.

Paul

p.s. the "peaking" circuitry on the LCD screen of the camera seems to work well to make focusing easier than you would think.

The complete directory listing may be viewed at http://www.dvinfo.net/jvc/media/, however all the clip's file extensionsare .m2t which won't load properly in Windows Media 9 (my copy, at least). Should I re-name them as .mpg?

No Chris, leave the files as is. That is a special file format. Did the Golden Gate Bridge shot from Emotion get posted as well for comparisons against other HD camera?

Michael Pappas

Great work paul! Thanks for doing this! I am downloading them now, which file is the GGB shot with the cinealta?

Not aware of that one. Can you suggest a viewer for .mt2 files?

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : No Chris, leave the files as is. That is a special file format. Did the Golden Gate Bridge shot from Emotion get posted as well for comparisons against other HD camera?

Michael Pappas -->>>

Could someone explain the format, I'm not familiar with it and a quick search doesn't yield any information about it on the web.

-Rob

It's MPEG2, use DVD player software.

It's an MPEG-2 transport stream, but the only DVD player I have on this machine (InterVideo WinDVD) doesn't want to open it (apparantly a limitation of my particular version, which came with this Vaio laptop).

I didn't bring the CineAlta clip with me today so I'll upload it tonight, my JVC version of it is up there though, it's the golden gate bridge head on telephoto shot.

Yeah, I can't get the OS-X DVD player, Quicktime or MPlayerOSXGUI to play it. Any Apple users got any recommendations?

You will need a VideoLan player for this file. For macOSX and Windows.

Here is the link: http://www.videolan.org/

michael pappas

Paul,

Any advice and tips for me now that I have my HD10? This will help me out and give others a chance to see how you got those shots.

heath

Thanks for the software tip, it's running fine now.

Great footage! I don't see anything to be unhappy about in the way these images are being captured. Thanks so much for posting these clips!

-Rob

That footage is pretty good. If I had the camera myself, I'd personally just shoot in HD to downconvert to SD, it looks really good then. There seems to be lots of color noise for some reason though, maybe its the mpeg2 compression? Try upping the saturation and the noise will jump out at you.

Heath,
The main things I've learned that all these shots were done with, is to set the shutter speed to 1/30th and leave it locked there, I found it seems to cure any juddering on pans and tilts in the main, and I love the motion it produces.
To focus, hit the autofocus button once to let the camera do it's thing, then turn it off again when you're happy. Also look for the peaking on the LCD screen to focus, it works well and really pops out at the right point.
I bought one of those Hoodman hoods for the LCD screen, works great outdoors where you can't do without it.
I also tried a little portable LCD monitor (4*6) for focusing more acurately and it helps a lot, especially at less than 15' from subject.
The viewfinder is useless for most purposes.
The manual zoom ring is useless for most purposes, it is not manual and jumps around even when you move it smoothly, the rocker zoom switch is better though very difficult to maintain a slow zoom with.
This weekend I filmed a wedding and used a .6 ND filter in bright sunlight and had no problems with the sky blowing out (that's not in these shots).
Apart from that, the usual, use a tripod or steadicam if at all possible, I'm dying to try it with a small steadicam.
The battery seems to last longer than I thought it would, though I bought a spare 8 hour one from B&H that you carry round in a little pouch.
I'll upload a few more clips in a little while when I get time.

Hope this helps

Paul

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg :
Hope this helps

Paul -->>>

Yeah, it did. What about the .6 filter, is that in the camera? Tomorrow, I spend more time with the camera. How do you lockdown the shutter? just hit the button?

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger : There seems to be lots of color noise for some reason though, maybe its the mpeg2 compression? Try upping the saturation and the noise will jump out at you. -->>>

I noticed that, too, but it effectively ends up feeling a little like film grain to me. I suspect that's a compression artifact, but if that's as bad as it gets it isn't such a terrible issue. I was expecting much worse compression artifacts. The colors seem a little washed-out, which was something I'd been expecting. As you say, increasing the saturation makes the noise more apparent. I notice, though, that the amount of noise seems to change depending on the lighting. In some clips it isn't nearly as noticable as others. This may be an issue where experimentation will yield better results.

I also notice that the zooms are a little jumpy, especially the one at the Bay Bridge. I imagine that's a combination of the zoom control's sensitivity and the framerate conspire to make a smooth zoom difficult. I had suspected that zooms were going to be really difficult on this rig, though.

The camera obviously has some quirks that users will have to accept or make an effort to work around. Still, this is a really nice jump ahead, IMO. It finally makes high-quality capture possible on a budget.

Much thanks to Michael for providing all this excellent footage for us to check out. It's great to finally see.

-Rob

Rob,

Actually, it's Paul who shot it.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Rob,

Actually, it's Paul who shot it.

heath -->>>

Heh...I know that. I had one of Michael's posts on my mind and my brain mis-fired. Sorry, Paul. Again, much thanks to PAUL. And I'll try to find some herbal method of increasing my neural transmitter production soon, I promise. ;-)

-Rob

I am impressed... most of the clips I had seen so far had very annoying video artefacts in the highlights edges. Don't forget that Paul re-compressed the images (since he added his signature... so the compression is most probably greater than the original footage compression, could you check that Paul?). The ND filter really helps a LOT, I mean it looks like another camera than the one I've seen. This really gets interresting. As for the noise, it is nothing like the DV noise wich I usually encounter, it looks much better. In my opinion, the lack of strenght in the colors is a plus since some colors tend to produce a lot of artefacts when compressed in high chromatics ( I personally desaturate a little usually). You took great care I figure because using a single CCD camera in high contrast sunlight exposition is a very tricky thing. Of course the progressive capabilities of the chip helps in controlling the video artefacts but it is neat nonetheless. I am happy to have seen your clips, it gets my hopes high. Can you test it in a controlled environnement?

Anyway thanks Paul, this really helps.

You're right about the color noise, it's more apparant in less busy shots with flat areas of color, especially sky. But hardly noticable at all in more busy shots, compare the wedding shot for example, where it's very clean, or the dog shot. I think there may be ways to improve on this, but I also think that compositing the title in MPEG edit pro may have added a little, but not much. This is straight out of the camera stuff by the way, no color correction. I used a polarizing filter on the beach shots, that may also have added a little noise as I didn't think the filter was particularly good. I do think that the color noise adds to the filmic quality of it though.

Paul, do you work on Mac or PC? I use a Mac and I would like to manipulate (color correct, etc) this footage or any other I have. As I plan to use this camera sometime soon I want to know what my options are...

Can't seem to be able to convert the m2t stream to uncompressed.

Eric

Well I've got to say that these group of clips really looked much better than any other clips in the past. The added details is quite apparent. With proper control, the highlight bloom can be somewhat kept undercontrol it seems. The color reproduction however still leaves much to be desired. I suppose you can bump up the colors in post but imagine how long it would take to render HD sized frames....

Eric, I've already messed with these clips in Vegas, it looks pretty good, but like I mentioned, you can't bump up the saturation in some of the clips for some reason, the color noise gets out of hand. I'd like to have that camera for sure, not to shoot HD, but to shoot "HD" in the camera and take it down the SD in post, like I mentioned, that looks really great.

Paul,

Do the colors/image look like a 1 chip camera in any of the modes? I can't tell since I am going from the LCD (screw the viewfinder--YIKES)--and yeah, that LCD is awesome. Never used it before, so it's new for me (I used my XL-1, a BetacamSP, DVCPro and cameras like that). I dig it.

My HD monitor (just the 15 inch Sharp LCD) comes in tomorrow, so I'll have a better idea.

Can someone tell me how to post my images up? I'm interested in the 1 chip DV mode (HD10) vs. 3 chip XL-1, just for the heck of it. Should be interesting.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger : Eric, I've already messed with these clips in Vegas, it looks pretty good, but like I mentioned, you can't bump up the saturation in some of the clips for some reason, the color noise gets out of hand. I'd like to have that camera for sure, not to shoot HD, but to shoot "HD" in the camera and take it down the SD in post, like I mentioned, that looks really great. -->>>

Whats the point of Shooting HD and then down rezing to SD? All the details that were there will be lost anyways. And yes, the color is quite bad, I'd say I've seen more vibrant color reproduction in some 1-Chip cameras. Look at the bay scenes, there is almost no green at all. The wedding shot made the people looked like they're all suffering from malnourishment

Actually Yang, they're all from Transylvannia, which explains their palid complexions of course!.
The Bay scenes, color wise, look to the eye exactly as they looked on the the day, it was a bit of a murky day. I like the color myself, I much prefer it to the artificially saturated colors that you get out of most DV cams, and I do think you'll be able to saturate it more in post, though I haven't tried yet.
I also just uploaded 5 more clips without any title on them, so you could judge if you think the color noise is affected by the compositing. Take a look at the couple walking on the beach clip, it's the biggest, but looks quite film-like in motion to me. One thing that's great about this being such a small camera, is that people pay less attention to you. I love it!

All the best

<<<-- originally posted by Paul Mogg : I much prefer it to the artificially saturated colors that you get out of most DV cams, and I do think you'll be able to saturate it more in post, though I haven't tried yet. -->>>

I agree, I am not a high saturation vibrant color guy myself, most of the time, saturation gives a more video look because film cannot achieve as high saturation as digital video, wich was a frustration of Jean-Pierre Jeunet on "Amelie" (le fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain). I will look at those new clips.

Eric

Oh yes, about the point Yang made that there's little point in shooting in HD then downsizing to DV. I do not believe that this is true at all!. That's why if you shoot with a camera capable of 800 lines of resolution at the front end, the picture will look much much crisper than a camera with 400 lines of resolution, even though both are writing to the same 720*480 DV tape format. Just compare the picture from a GL1 to that from a Sony dsr-500, it's a world of difference, yet the same tape format.

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Oh yes, about the point Yang made that there's little point in shooting in HD then downsizing to DV. I do not believe that this is true at all!. That's why if you shoot with a camera capable of 800 lines of resolution at the front end, the picture will look much much crisper than a camera with 400 lines of resolution, even though both are writing to the same 720*480 DV tape format. Just compare the picture from a GL1 to that from a Sony dsr-500, it's a world of difference, yet the same tape format. -->>>

And, to use a commonly avaiable medium, DVDs. You can certainly tell a film transfer from something that originated on Mini-DV on a DVD, even though the final resolution isn't very high. Nobody's going to confuse "Full Frontal" for "Apocalypse Now." You always want the master to be as good as it can be.

-Rob

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Oh yes, about the point Yang made that there's little point in shooting in HD then downsizing to DV. I do not believe that this is true at all!. That's why if you shoot with a camera capable of 800 lines of resolution at the front end, the picture will look much much crisper than a camera with 400 lines of resolution, even though both are writing to the same 720*480 DV tape format. Just compare the picture from a GL1 to that from a Sony dsr-500, it's a world of difference, yet the same tape format. -->>>

It's all 1s and 0s, that's why they use that tape. I bet the HD cameras use a thicker tape to be sturdier, but wouldn't be surprised if we could use any digital video tape to record a CineAlta. It's a conspiracy!!!! Call Matlock! :-)

In case I didn't mention it, GREAT WORK, PAUL! Now, to shoot some focus wheels or whatever in engineering while the Apple at work optimizes (what a fragmented mess!). And use the vector scope. Check my review page for it!

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11459

(By the way, I can't get the link code thing to work, can someone help out so that's an actual link?)

heath

I totally agree with you, shooting with a 2/3 ccd instead of a 1/3 actually makes a difference, also best to shoot with 520 000pix than 380 000, it will give a best overall definition with less noise. But the thing here is to get a good downconversion device or else it will be a pain in the ass to do it manually

Eric

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Jackson : And, to use a commonly avaiable medium, DVDs. You can certainly tell a film transfer from something that originated on Mini-DV on a DVD, even though the final resolution isn't very high. Nobody's going to confuse "Full Frontal" for "Apocalypse Now." You always want the master to be as good as it can be.

-Rob -->>>

Acutally, as I said in another post, 28 DAYS LATER looked like it was shot on that cool 35 mm film Spielberg used for the action scenes in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and Ridley Scott in GLADIATOR and BLACK HAWK DOWN (better not take it off topic, but do a search on 28 DAYS LATER). Maybe I'm naive, but I had NO idea it was done on a Canon XL-1s (I assume PAL) with 35 mm and HD lenses...

Anyway, I'm happy with the camera, and I've only been screwing around at work.

heath

*Whats the point of Shooting HD and then down rezing to SD? All the details that were there will be lost anyways.*

Shoot in standard SD mode with that JVC and then shoot in HD mode and then downsize that to SD, and guess which one will look better.

Not when there are plenty of SD cameras that excel at producing better SD res images, but feel free to experiment that theory for this particular workflow and please let us know how it turns out.

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger : *Whats the point of Shooting HD and then down rezing to SD? All the details that were there will be lost anyways.*

Uh? Have you ever downsized a picture? It looks better right? Shoot in standard SD mode with that JVC and then shoot in HD mode and then downsize that to SD, and guess which one will look better. It's common sense. -->>>

I don't see a difference on my TV at home now that my station switched from SD to HD. Nothing at all, and the cameras have always been HD. Maybe if I had the HDTV/receiver...

Here's one for you, let's say you're at home in West Palm Beach, Florida, relaxing. You have the latest HDTV and such and ready to watch NewsChannel 5 in 16:9 HD glory! But you don't know that HD camera # 2 is in the shop, temporarly replaced by SD 4:3-only camera # 2. ARGH! Now, I don't know if it's possible, but I wonder if while you're sitting at home, you'll notice one of the most-used cameras isn't in 16:9 and isn't HD (I bet the quality level drops). Something to ask our Chief Engineer.

heath

1. downloaded clips
2. downloaded viewer
3. viewed clips
4. placed order for HD10

Thanks Paul, seeing is believing!

<<<-- Originally posted by Raymond Krystof : 1. downloaded clips
2. downloaded viewer
3. viewed clips
4. placed order for HD10

Thanks Paul, seeing is believing! -->>>

I couldn't download the clips on my Apple...of course, my Apple just died (and I'm going to piss off a friend who I've been cutting a video for...).

I downloaded the player, but couldn't access the clips...

Loving my HD10!

heath

can't view the files even with the vlc player
 

Hey guys, trying to watch Paul's clips with the VLC player from videolan. For some reason when it plays it looks horrible, what setting do you have to have to view it properly? Thanks,
Josh M.

Josh, first make sure your screen resolution is set to at least 1280 * (more than 720). Then make sure you have a fast enough PC, you need more than 1.5ghz pentium speed to see smooth 30fps playback, this is a guess but I know that my 800mhz PC isn't fast enough, nor is my dual 450mhz Mac G4. Then play the clips full screen, there is a button on the Videolan player for this and also on the Elecard player if you're on the PC. If you have an HDTV, I'd be interested to know how they look, as I don't have one myself yet.

I hope this helps.

Paul