cocconspacem2t is amazing closeup...
 

wow, the downconversion of this in vegas to NTSC DV avi looks incredible. I can't believe you can get an image like this for under $10,000.00...

Bill Ravens, re: your comments in the other thread re: Sony Vegas comparison with XL2 - I took a survey here at our t.v. station where I work... everyone here has worked with all the latest gear, including our XL2...

And they all agree that they've never seen an image like this (the FX1 HDV downconversion to avi via Vegas) for this price point. This latest "cocoon" close-up clip was especially impressive - obviously, Kaku is clearly starting to ace using this camera with the various manual settings...

We were waiting to get our hands on the cam firsthand before deciding which way to go - but now with our boss seeing the cam for himself and all the Kaku footage, we are sold... and thus so will our "old" XL2's!!! Our boss has decided to go HDV!!! All the way!!!

Before anyone here gets excited and wants to buy, I'll mention that we have an arrangement with a local film school to sell to them our "old gear" at a good rate - it's our way of "giving back." Well, at least the kids will get 24p!!!

Kaku, impressive footage, these new "daylight" clips. Great work!

Thank you!

Great stuff, all!

Kaku, the HDV forums were Chris Hurd and the others' here at DV Info's brain child. I had some input, but I'm just here to make sure things are cool and questions are answered as best as possible.

heath

nice looking footage
 

I put the footage into DVD Architect and burned it to a DVD. Of cource, DVD Architect re-encoded it down to 720, but WOW! This stuff looks awesome. Incredible sharpness and detail, a real bang for the buck. It's a pretty video-y picture, but I imagine some gritty filtration or a net could help there.

Anyhow I'm sold. Will wait to see what the pro model actually has and whether it's worth the extra freight.

Heath, I know but I thought you are the wrangler here in this topic.
Chris and Jeff are really being generous about my clips. Soon I will be setting up separate space at my company's server, so I don't have to burden so much.

Re: nice looking footage
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Nelson : I put the footage into DVD Architect and burned it to a DVD. Of cource, DVD Architect re-encoded it down to 720, but WOW! This stuff looks awesome. Incredible sharpness and detail, a real bang for the buck. It's a pretty video-y picture, but I imagine some gritty filtration or a net could help there.

Anyhow I'm sold. Will wait to see what the pro model actually has and whether it's worth the extra freight. -->>>

That was one of the reasons why I wanted to get into higher resolution cams. I provide mountainbiking footage to magazines and I wasn't satisfied with the quality I was providing, comparing to the ones shot via film produced by like Fox Racing. I never had time to check the work flow, so reading your feedback, I'm happy to hear the result was positive.

Re: How view clips in Premiere, or Storm?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Nelson : How can I convert these to go into Premiere or DV Storm? Any suggestions? Don't have any fancy converting software here, but would be nice to somehow get them in and view on a monitor. Thanks for any suggestions. -->>>

Just change the .m2t file extension to .mpg and play in WMP. With the mpg extension instead of m2t you can also load the stream into Premiere Pro.....

Kako - a request please
 

Hi Kako

Thanks for the samples. I've been playing with removing the 3:2 pulldown from your "dwaterfront24p.m2t" to convert the footage to true 24P. My initial tests show promise, however I'm having some difficulty.

The main object of the test is to ascertain the quality of motion when converted to true 24P. The difficulty I'm having is that the sample footage you provided appears to be shot at a high shutter speed. This makes motion evaluation very difficult as the images tend to 'strobe'.

What I wanted to ask, is if you could shoot another short test, but with you shutter manually set to 1/30th or 1/60th (either or both would be great). If you can do this and post it, I will perform the pulldown tests to 24P and post the results.

Ideally the test should have some sections with a lot of movement and some with little movement.

Thanks so much, Josh

Thank you, Steve Crisdale
 

Easy solution, changing extensions fo mpg!

Kako -- do you have any filters to test out? Like maybe a black diffusion FX #2? Would be interested to see something on the lens. Is the lens detachable? If so, you could do the old snot glue stretching some stocking across the back of the lens trick, see if we can start getting more of a Sopranos look, take down some of the brassiness. Just curious what different filters will do here...

Kako - a request please
 

Hi Kako

Thanks for the samples. I've been playing with removing the 3:2 pulldown from your "dwaterfront24p.m2t" to convert the footage to true 24P. My initial tests show promise, however I'm having some difficulty.

The main object of the test is to ascertain the quality of motion when converted to true 24P. The difficulty I'm having is that the sample footage you provided appears to be shot at a high shutter speed. This makes motion evaluation very difficult as the images tend to 'strobe'.

What I wanted to ask, is if you could shoot another short test, but with you shutter manually set to 1/30th or 1/60th (either or both would be great). If you can do this and post it, I will perform the pulldown tests to 24P and post the results.

Ideally the test should have some sections with a lot of movement and some with little movement.

Thanks so much, Josh

Kaku,

Have you shot anything red (in the light), black and really dark stuff or heavy shadows? That's something I'd like to see (when I get my new DSL, that is).

heath

Re: Kako - a request please
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Joshua Litle : Hi Kako

Thanks for the samples. I've been playing with removing the 3:2 pulldown from your "dwaterfront24p.m2t" to convert the footage to true 24P. My initial tests show promise, however I'm having some difficulty.

The main object of the test is to ascertain the quality of motion when converted to true 24P. The difficulty I'm having is that the sample footage you provided appears to be shot at a high shutter speed. This makes motion evaluation very difficult as the images tend to 'strobe'.

What I wanted to ask, is if you could shoot another short test, but with you shutter manually set to 1/30th or 1/60th (either or both would be great). If you can do this and post it, I will perform the pulldown tests to 24P and post the results.

Ideally the test should have some sections with a lot of movement and some with little movement.

Thanks so much, Josh -->>>

Josh,

I never shot anything other than 1/60th. When you set it to do 24p or 30p, you can't set the shutter speed slower than 1/60th and I wouldn't speed up the shutter speed neither. I think this is the limit they put on FX1 and hopefully Sony wouldn't on Z1 for cinema people.

KakU

Re: (CineFrame 24 only works with 1/60 shutter)
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Joshua Litle : Hi Kako

(Regarding CineFrame 24) What I wanted to ask, is if you could shoot another short test, but with you shutter manually set to 1/30th or 1/60th (either or both would be great)...

...Thanks so much, Josh -->>>

CineFrame 24 can only be shot at 1/60 and faster. It has to do with the way that the fields are rearranged before laying them down to tape.

-Lorin

I just looked at the shots of the girl singing. I believe she might be slightly out of focus. Because her fine hair detail and the detail of her sweater are kind of shot.

What I mean is, if you took the same screen area from a SD cam, you would have more resolution. However, the textue of the tree behind her is very sharp. Does anyone else notice this?

Yes
 

I noticed the same thing. The tree was rock solid and she was slightly soft, but only very slightly. Is it hard to achieve critical focus on the camera? If there's a b&w eyepiece, it's probably better to focus through there than the monitor on the handle?

looks super sharp to me!
 

I down converted to NTSC avi and have through firewire out to t.v. - the sweater detail, her face in both shots is "sharp."

What are you guys looking at? On the computer through VLC?

I have to say, those shots going down the street where the camera is looking sideways at the stores going past are pretty scary. Our HD-1s never warbled images like that, did they? I hate to say it because the images are otherwise so beautiful but that warble might be a deal breaker if you're trying to make a movie.

focus on the girls' face
 

t's a very minor thing. It's like complaining that her lipsynching isn't up to Britney Spears standards. :-)

That was just an observation that the focus was sharper on the tree behind her than on her face (this is in the one called cocoon), but still w/in the acceptable range on her face. I viewed on vlc and noticed, but downconverted to avi and on a 25" tv, looks very good.

Agree with Betsy that the shots on the scooter panning the sidewalk at night aren't impressive, lots of artifacts. Granted it was a night shot, but still, would like to see more shots like that to get a better idea of compression issues. Obviously for work on a steady arm, tripod or dolly, this camera will rock. For some run and gun, shoot and snap, want to see more.

If I've learned anything from HD, esp. after watching tons of HDNet and Discovery HD, is that it has a very deep depth of field. EVERYTHING is focused and sharp, generally speaking.

As for that shot, could be a case of being slightly closer to the subject, which put her slightly soft (more apparent in HDV) and the background sharp. My old XL-1 had a backfocus problem that was only apparent to eagle-eyed shooters.

heath

Shutter Speed
 

Hi Kaku,

Thanks for your response:

"When you set it to do 24p or 30p, you can't set the shutter speed slower than 1/60th and I wouldn't speed up the shutter speed neither."

Did you shoot everything with full manual control? Because if your Exposure (or shutter) was in auto mode, especially for a day exterior, the camera would automatically adjust the shutter to a faster speed.

The footage really looks as if it were shot at 1/125th or 1/250th shutter speed. If you look at a still frame of the bicyclist he is nearly frozen. 1/60th typically would show much more motion blur on something moving so quickly in front of the camera.

We call 1/250th the "Saving Private Ryan" shutter.

heath

I thought I was shooting manual, but I will find another one with 1/60th like that and post it.

Have you shot anything in standard DV resolution yet? My guess is that with all those pixels, it shouldn't have the loss of verticle resolution that other interlaced DV cams have because of averaging even and odd lines each frame to add gain. It stands to reason that the interlaced footage should look about 25% sharper, or as sharp as a Canon XL2 shooting 16:9 progressive mode.

I'd love to know if this is the case. Even just posting one outdoor daylight SD clip would be really helpful.

Yes, at full resolution on a monitor her face is a bit soft: down-converted to DV resolution it looks fine.

Looks pretty clear that she's slightly out of focus rather than that the camera can't record full detail there though, it's a close shot and the tree is in clear focus so her face probably can't be.

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.

new clip
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Kaku Ito : I thought I was shooting manual, but I will find another one with 1/60th like that and post it. -->>>

Kaku, thanks. BTW, I've been able to get a pretty clean de-interlaced true 24P image. When you post the 1/60th shutter image @ cineframe24, I'll remove the pulldown and post the results for everyone to look at.

Best, Josh

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.

I was focusing with the viewfinder while she was looking at the LCD screen flipped to her side.

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. -->>>

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!

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...

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

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.

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?

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

Good to know...thanks. I guess most of the exposure I've had to HD has been in the digital display realm...

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!!!.

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.

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.

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

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!!!. -->>>

I assume he meant Rorke?

<<<-- 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.