DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-hvr-z1-hdr-fx1/)
-   -   Raw HDR-FX1 mpeg2 files are posted. (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-hvr-z1-hdr-fx1/33865-raw-hdr-fx1-mpeg2-files-posted.html)

Kaku Ito October 26th, 2004 09:29 AM

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

Lorin Thwaits October 26th, 2004 03:24 PM

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

Daniel Broadway October 26th, 2004 04:46 PM

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?

Jeff Nelson October 26th, 2004 04:51 PM

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?

Mark Kubat October 26th, 2004 05:41 PM

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?

Betsy Moore October 26th, 2004 05:50 PM

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.

Jeff Nelson October 26th, 2004 06:00 PM

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.

Heath McKnight October 26th, 2004 06:31 PM

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

Joshua Litle October 26th, 2004 06:44 PM

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.

Heath McKnight October 26th, 2004 07:45 PM

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

heath

Kaku Ito October 26th, 2004 07:52 PM

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

Laurence Kingston October 26th, 2004 08:58 PM

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.

Mark Grant October 27th, 2004 04:37 AM

Quote:

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

Kaku Ito October 27th, 2004 05:16 AM

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.

Joshua Litle October 27th, 2004 06:13 AM

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2020 The Digital Video Information Network