PDA

View Full Version : BlackMagic Hypershuttle vs. FS100 AVCHD



Postmaster
08-10-2011, 05:10 AM
Okay, here comes the promised comparison between uncompressed recording via BlackMagic Hypershuttle and Sony´s flavor of AVCHD recorded to SD card in camera.

As you can see, you can´t see barley any difference at all. Only in fast motion some minor differences are visible. Eveb with excessive grading to the material (much mor that you would normally do) both material holds up about the same, before it falls apart.

That is good and bad. Good, because you can use cheap SD cards and AVCHD almost every time. Bad because I was spending money on the Shuttle and SSDs that I will use very seldom.

Actually I´m shocked how good Sony´s implementation of AVCHD is.

Frank


http://vimeo.com/27529215

Bassman2003
08-10-2011, 07:23 AM
Thanks for posting and testing. More often than not the people who make the cameras are usually correct in offering their products. It is the internet fear of random numbers and comparisions to major motion pictures/broadcast that make us think bigger is always better. It is tests like this that really help to keep within a budget and still produce quality images.

The only thing I do not like about AVCHD is the stitching together of clips after a long record time. In Edius I can edit easily in realtime but if a recorded piece spans two clips some frames are missing at the end of the 4GB clip. So I need to run them through a clip join program to get the GOP straightened out. Not a huge deal but if you shoot a lot of longer situations it can be just more to do.

Douglas Villalba
08-10-2011, 07:24 AM
It is hard to judge from that video, but easy to get a headache.
A couple of questions. I understand that the Shuttle can only use SSDs, correct? and How many GB/hr for 1080p24?

SPZ
08-10-2011, 07:45 AM
That's why I'm going for the F3. Yes, a world of difference in price, but better internal processing and 10 bit set it really apart. If going for a "proper" camera vs a DSLR, I figure I might as well go for the best in class (by class I mean sub 15K)

cuervo
08-10-2011, 07:47 AM
Okay, here comes the promised comparison between uncompressed recording via BlackMagic Hypershuttle and Sony´s flavor of AVCHD recorded to SD card in camera.

As you can see, you can´t see barley any difference at all. Only in fast motion some minor differences are visible. Eveb with excessive grading to the material (much mor that you would normally do) both material holds up about the same, before it falls apart.

That is good and bad. Good, because you can use cheap SD cards and AVCHD almost every time. Bad because I was spending money on the Shuttle and SSDs that I will use very seldom.

Actually I´m shocked how good Sony´s implementation of AVCHD is.

Frank


Interesting. I see the same indestinguishable differences between native FS100 AVCHD and the Hyperdeck. I also made a comparison between the Native AVCHD and my Nanoflash recording at I-frame only 280 MBPS. The results were rather astonishing. Here's an image saved from After Effects comparing the two...
38192

mico
08-10-2011, 07:56 AM
Interesting. I see the same indestinguishable differences between native FS100 AVCHD and the Hyperdeck. I also made a comparison between the Native AVCHD and my Nanoflash recording at I-frame only 280 MBPS. The results were rather astonishing. Here's an image saved from After Effects comparing the two...
38192

Wow. Major difference. Perfect test. High detail. Nanoflash does a great job.

PDR
08-10-2011, 08:01 AM
Interesting. I see the same indestinguishable differences between native FS100 AVCHD and the Hyperdeck. I also made a comparison between the Native AVCHD and my Nanoflash recording at I-frame only 280 MBPS. The results were rather astonishing. Here's an image saved from After Effects comparing the two...


cuervo - Did you do your tests with the hyperdeck on the same shoot as the nano under same conditions ? I suspect you would see differences under the same conditions with the hyperdeck

Mark Crabtree
08-10-2011, 08:07 AM
Wow. Major difference. Perfect test. High detail. Nanoflash does a great job. Frank,Have you done a comparable test with the BM?

cuervo
08-10-2011, 08:07 AM
no....they were different shoots

I gotta say that I'm feelin' a little uncetain about this "uncompressed" QT that the Hyperdeck uses. It's not recognized by many players, in fact, I can get it recognized only by After Effects. To call it "uncompressed" is a little misleading, since it really is 4:2:2. But, it's 10 bit recording an 8-bit source, as where the Nanoflash is 8-bit 4:2:2. I would hope the Hyperdeck just adds zero's to the 10 bit data stream, and not some Orwellian scheme. But, I am seeing much better images with the Nanoflash. Bitrates compare with a factor of 10x, i.e. the Hyperdeck bitrate is 10x the Nanoflash bitrate; and file sizes also differ by 10x, as one would expect.

Berk
08-10-2011, 08:18 AM
hey Frank
could you provide a screen grab as in previous example with Nanoflash. It is too hard to judge when vimeo compression kicks in.
a high detail steady grabs would be perfect in full rez.

i am sure we will see some sort of differences between uncompressed and native codec.

thank u for your time

Dermot
08-10-2011, 08:18 AM
can you/ did you try secondaries on a fastish moving shot to look for compression artifacts in the real world?

mico
08-10-2011, 08:31 AM
cuervo,

Regarding I-frame MBPS settings on the nano. I believe 280 is the highest, in your opinion is there a really significant difference between say 100 and 280 MBPS?

cheezweezl
08-10-2011, 10:31 AM
Have you tried keying the avc compared to the uncompressed? I suspect you'll see a noticeable difference.

Postmaster
08-10-2011, 10:43 AM
hey Frank
could you provide a screen grab as in previous example with Nanoflash. It is too hard to judge when vimeo compression kicks in.
a high detail steady grabs would be perfect in full rez.

i am sure we will see some sort of differences between uncompressed and native codec. thank u for your time

Here you go:

These are JPEGs, since the Shuttle records interlaced, I deinterlaced the pics - loosing resolution on the way of course.

38199382003820138202

These are uncompressed and not deinterlaced straight from the timeline:
Download for uncompressed TIFFs: http://www.file-upload.net/download-3652175/Sequence-02.Still001.rar.html

Frank

PDR
08-10-2011, 10:43 AM
no....they were different shoots

I gotta say that I'm feelin' a little uncetain about this "uncompressed" QT that the Hyperdeck uses. It's not recognized by many players, in fact, I can get it recognized only by After Effects. To call it "uncompressed" is a little misleading, since it really is 4:2:2. But, it's 10 bit recording an 8-bit source, as where the Nanoflash is 8-bit 4:2:2. I would hope the Hyperdeck just adds zero's to the 10 bit data stream, and not some Orwellian scheme. But, I am seeing much better images with the Nanoflash. Bitrates compare with a factor of 10x, i.e. the Hyperdeck bitrate is 10x the Nanoflash bitrate; and file sizes also differ by 10x, as one would expect.


First, thanks cuervo and Frank for sharing these tests and results



cuervo - Can you elaborate on "much better images with the Nanoflash" ? In what way?

PDR
08-10-2011, 10:45 AM
since the Shuttle records interlaced, I deinterlaced the pics - loosing resolution on the way of course.




That could be the difference between the nano results that cuervo was seeing if he was deinterlacing it.

Frank - are you sure it's interlaced? Or is it hard telecined , or 24 PsF ?

How is your software/timeline interpreting it ?

cuervo
08-10-2011, 11:11 AM
hmmmm....
OK, let me try to define some specifics...
The FS100 AVCHD native files were imported directly into After Effects. I shot 720p60 footage with Frank's outdoor profile. Note: everything was shot progressive. The Nanoflash will accept progressive output footage if it is of the 720 variety, since that is part of the old HDMI specification. It's the 1080p60 stuff that is non-standard. The FS100 uses 1080p60 as the progressive HDMI output at 1080.
The Nanoflash footage was recorded to mxf. Since AE won't accept Sony 422HD mxf footage, i had to convert to DNx220x(10 bit 4:2:2 720p60) which was then imported into AE. No other intermediate steps were involved. Everything was imported into a 32 bit float project in AE. A comparison of the raw AVCHD footage to the MXF footage played back thru the Sony Clip Browser shows the same difference in detail sharpness as the image I posted.

As far as the Nanoflsh is concerned, my experience is that there is a continuous improvement in resolution as you increase the bitrate. You reach a point of diminishing returns around 220mbps. I'd be hard pressed to pick between 100mbps and 220mbps for static shots, but, if there's any panning motion, the 422HD codec starts to reach a bandwidth limit in the 100mbps. IOW, when interframe motion is involved, the higher the bitrate, the better. Bitrate choice selects overall bndwidth. So, if there is interframe motion, the compression algorithms get stressed more than for static shots. This manifests most when there's a lot of detail in the shot and a lot of horizontal panning. And all this goes without consideration for keying 422 over 420.

In terms of qualitative assesment of the differences in the images.....the nanoflsh 422HD mpeg 2 at 280mbps shows significantly sharper detail than the native avchd footage. I see no quantization artifacts with either format, and that blockiness is really noticeable with the 422HD footage at 35mbps.

I hope this helps everyone.

PDR
08-10-2011, 11:18 AM
cuervo - I've used nano with other cameras, and I agree with your assessment

But my question was regarding your statments comparing the hyperdeck with nano. I'm at a loss as to why nano results would be much better than hyperdeck. If anything , I would have expected the other way around. ~250Mb/s I-frame MPEG2 is visually lossy, but you can still see significant differences between uncompressed if you pixel peep (or am I just misreading what you said earlier ?)

cuervo
08-10-2011, 11:24 AM
PDR...
I admit, I'm at a loss to explain why the Hyperdeck footage doesn't perform as well. I would have expected it to look really good. As I posted earlier, I know very little about the technical details of this "uncompressed QT" format. But, the more I play with the Hyperdeck, the more insecure I'm getting with that footage. I have no explanation other than empirical experience.

I really need to spend some time with the Hyperdeck and my EX1. I just haven't found the time, yet.
-Bill

edit:here's another bit of random info:
I ran a comparison test of the hyperdeck and the nanoflash with a sony NEX-VG10. In that test, the nanoflash showed worse moire than the native VG10 AVCHD. Curiously, the Hyperdeck footage looked really clean, i.e., not as much moire. I just was baffled by this result as i would expect the level of moire to be identical between the nanoflsh and the hyperdeck.....and I may just need to spend more time with the Hyperdeck.

Postmaster
08-10-2011, 11:31 AM
But, the more I play with the Hyperdeck, the more insecure I'm getting with that footage. I have no explanation other than empirical experience.



Yeah, I´m in the same boat. Some funky stuff is going on here.

Frank

Barry_Green
08-10-2011, 11:40 AM
That could be the difference between the nano results that cuervo was seeing if he was deinterlacing it.
Deinterlacing is evil and you should never do it. With 24p-in-60i footage you should perform an inverse telecine, but you must *never* deinterlace.


Or is it hard telecined , or 24 PsF ?
The FS100 can't output 24PsF. It only outputs 60i, so the 24p is 2:3'd within 60i.

mico
08-10-2011, 01:15 PM
PDR...
I admit, I'm at a loss to explain why the Hyperdeck footage doesn't perform as well. I would have expected it to look really good. As I posted earlier, I know very little about the technical details of this "uncompressed QT" format. But, the more I play with the Hyperdeck, the more insecure I'm getting with that footage. I have no explanation other than empirical experience.

I really need to spend some time with the Hyperdeck and my EX1. I just haven't found the time, yet.
-Bill

edit:here's another bit of random info:
I ran a comparison test of the hyperdeck and the nanoflash with a sony NEX-VG10. In that test, the nanoflash showed worse moire than the native VG10 AVCHD. Curiously, the Hyperdeck footage looked really clean, i.e., not as much moire. I just was baffled by this result as i would expect the level of moire to be identical between the nanoflsh and the hyperdeck.....and I may just need to spend more time with the Hyperdeck.

Just speculating but from what I've read the VG10 has inherent moire issues and since the nano is doing such a good job its just accentuating whats already there while the hyperdeck from what i've been reading in this thread seems to not be doing a good job at all and wouldn't accentuate the moire as well as the nano. Comparing the two, it would show less on the hyper because its not doing as good a job and visually closer to the original AVCHD.

Isn't this the same issue that comes up with noisy cameras and the nano. The nano does it job so well it also emphasizes the noise.

cuervo
08-10-2011, 02:07 PM
Just speculating but from what I've read the VG10 has inherent moire issues and since the nano is doing such a good job its just accentuating whats already there while the hyperdeck from what i've been reading in this thread seems to not be doing a good job at all and wouldn't accentuate the moire as well as the nano. Comparing the two, it would show less on the hyper because its not doing as good a job and visually closer to the original AVCHD.

Isn't this the same issue that comes up with noisy cameras and the nano. The nano does it job so well it also emphasizes the noise.
That sure makes sense to me....:cheesy:

Razz16mm
08-10-2011, 03:02 PM
Beyond the straight out of camera differences, how does the on board AVCHD stand up to heavy grading and FX compared to the external options? Any body pushed the limits there yet?

Postmaster
08-11-2011, 12:25 AM
I did, check it out: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/sony-fs100-avchd-holds-better-in-color-grading-than-anything-else/

Frank

PDR
08-11-2011, 08:31 AM
Deinterlacing is evil and you should never do it. With 24p-in-60i footage you should perform an inverse telecine, but you must *never* deinterlace.



Yes, that's the point I was trying to bring up. Frank mentioned something about deinterlacing it, so I was wondering why. I wanted to clarify what workflow these guys are putting the streams through, looking for a connection as to why they are seeing -IMO- "unexpected" results from the hyperdeck. In my experience PP can make errors with IVTCing, often there are combed frames that get through.






Just speculating but from what I've read the VG10 has inherent moire issues and since the nano is doing such a good job its just accentuating whats already there while the hyperdeck from what i've been reading in this thread seems to not be doing a good job at all and wouldn't accentuate the moire as well as the nano. Comparing the two, it would show less on the hyper because its not doing as good a job and visually closer to the original AVCHD.

Isn't this the same issue that comes up with noisy cameras and the nano. The nano does it job so well it also emphasizes the noise.


Which is why this doesn't make sense, because uncompressed recording should preserve even more of the signal (details and noise) compared to the nanoflash





I did, check it out: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/sony-fs100-avchd-holds-better-in-color-grading-than-anything-else/





Razz16mm was asking about grading AVCHD compared to external recording options, but your blog link compares AVCHD to AVCHD converted to an intermediate. It doesn't compare external recording options. I believe there were problems with your workflow, as discussed in the other thread. You have clipped superwhites somewhere in your workflow prior to applying the filters (I suspect because of an intermediate standard range RGB conversion.) Several people think the same way your blog , including David Newman (cineform).


External recording options (either uncompressed, or lightly compressed like nano or others) should preserve more of the camera signal (and noise). Fine details along with grain and noise are preserved. Often you get worse grading results (in some respects) unless you selectively denoise, or the shot is well lit and the sensor produces exceptionally noise free images. Noise is often the largest factor that limits you in heavy grading, even more than pushing a true 10-bit vs. 8-bit workflow IMO. The AVCHD compression drops noise (and detail), which produces a "cleaner" image, easier to grade .

Postmaster
08-11-2011, 08:46 AM
Razz16mm was asking about grading AVCHD compared to external recording options, but your blog link compares AVCHD to AVCHD converted to an intermediate. It doesn't compare external recording options. I believe there were problems with your workflow, as discussed in the other thread. You have clipped superwhites somewhere in your workflow prior to applying the filters (I suspect because of an intermediate standard range RGB conversion.) Several people think the same way your blog , including David Newman (cineform).


External recording options (either uncompressed, or lightly compressed like nano or others) should preserve more of the camera signal (and noise). Fine details along with grain and noise are preserved. Often you get worse grading results (in some respects) unless you selectively denoise, or the shot is well lit and the sensor produces exceptionally noise free images. Noise is often the largest factor that limits you in heavy grading, even more than pushing a true 10-bit vs. 8-bit workflow IMO. The AVCHD compression drops noise (and detail), which produces a "cleaner" image, easier to grade .

The clipped superwhite theory doesn´t apply here:

This is the original AVCHD file

38248

This is the AVCHD file converted to BM 10bit RGB

38247

As you can see, there is no difference in the luma levels.
The only difference you can see is in the histograms, due to upsampling.

David said I used the wrong tool or workflow for converting to Cineform - well actually I used Davids own HDlink program to do the conversion, and there is not much workflow you can do there, but selecting the file, setting the parameters (Film in this case) and hit the GO button.

Now what?

Frank

Frank

PDR
08-11-2011, 09:01 AM
The clipped superwhite theory doesn´t apply here:

This is the original AVCHD file

<snip>

This is the AVCHD file converted to BM 10bit RGB

<snip>

As you can see, there is no difference in the luma levels.
The only difference you can see is in the histograms, due to upsampling.

David said I used the wrong tool or workflow for converting to Cineform - well actually I used Davids own HDlink program to do the conversion, and there is not much workflow you can do there, but selecting the file, setting the parameters (Film in this case) and hit the GO button.

Now what?



Interesting. Your final screenshots on your blog strongly suggest data has been clipped prior to your grade

Frank, can you post a small sample of the native clip ? You can use a free file hosting site e.g. mediafire.com

If you want to cut it, you can use a free utility tsmuxer, you can go the the split and cut tab and specify cut points

cuervo
08-11-2011, 11:07 AM
I hope I'm posting this in the right place! Relevant to this discussion, I had some time, this AM, to do a comparison between the Sony EX1 SxS native capture and the BMD Hyperdeck. The results are showing the Hyperdeck to be better than the SxS in noise. Otherwise, I am hardpressed to see a difference. Keep in mind that this footge was taken in static mode, i.e., no camera panning, no inter-frame motion. Keep in mind that, while I used a 10-bit workflow, the native SxS is 8-bit 4:2:0 and the Hyperdeck is 10-bit 4:2:2, accounting for the difference in color.

edit: I forgot to mention that these are 400x blowups of the originl footage. 3826138262

PDR
08-11-2011, 04:25 PM
Frank - I did some tests in color finesse (in AE) and I think it's waveform monitor is reading incorrectly. When I encode to R10K (BlackMagic's 10-bit RGB ) is definitely clipping , and you cannot recover the superbrights, although Color finesses' monitor doesn't show clipping (similar as in your screenshots). But the same file shows clipping in other monitors like test gear, and premiere's own YC waveform and other programs.

Can you double check with Premiere's own YC waveform or another program?

cuervo
08-11-2011, 05:36 PM
PDR...

I just went thru this. If you want to extract the full RGB range(i.e. not limted to 16-235) you have to go into your composition settings before you import the footage and set the composition to 32 bit float. Every other selection will clip the footage to 16-235.

PDR
08-11-2011, 05:55 PM
PDR...

I just went thru this. If you want to extract the full RGB range(i.e. not limted to 16-235) you have to go into your composition settings before you import the footage and set the composition to 32 bit float. Every other selection will clip the footage to 16-235.

I did. Full range YUV imports are treated fine in 32bit mode (you have access to superbrights/darks), but exports using BM are clipped. Try it out yourself

PaPa
08-13-2011, 04:14 AM
So what's the consensus? Does the blackmagic clip information that avchd is able to retain?

PDR
08-13-2011, 07:14 AM
So what's the consensus? Does the blackmagic clip information that avchd is able to retain?

No, those comments were actually referring to another thread, transcoding to BM (either 10bit RGB or YUV) as an intermediate. I am almost certain the results in the screenshots are due to issues in the the workflow clipping the superbrights.

I do not believe the recording straight out of the hypershuttle clips superbrights , but I don't have one to verify

Dermot
08-13-2011, 07:18 AM
So what's the consensus? Does the blackmagic clip information that avchd is able to retain?

you may be mixing BMD terms up

BMD codecs = compression / decompression software, has an issues with full range signals & not allowed through the front door of my shop for this reason
BMD recorder = uncompressed hardware, no issues with full range... substaintial issues with removeing pulldown it seems from forum chatter,

i'm waiting another week or two for the SoundDevices PIX220, they claim pulldown removal on ingest, so it records 23.98P from a camera set at 23.98 with no post PITA involved.

d/

mico
08-13-2011, 08:42 AM
you may be mixing BMD terms up

BMD codecs = compression / decompression software, has an issues with full range signals & not allowed through the front door of my shop for this reason
BMD recorder = uncompressed hardware, no issues with full range... substaintial issues with removeing pulldown it seems from forum chatter,

i'm waiting another week or two for the SoundDevices PIX220, they claim pulldown removal on ingest, so it records 23.98P from a camera set at 23.98 with no post PITA involved.

d/

Sony states flagged 24p out of HDMI so why is there a problem removing pulldown?

I am also waiting for the sound devices for the same reason, the 240 specifically and I am also hoping that convergent decides to drop the price of the nano seeing as the sound devices offers much more for the same price. And if they do I'll jump on the nano.

Dermot
08-13-2011, 09:35 AM
Sony states flagged 24p out of HDMI so why is there a problem removing pulldown?


Donno Mico.. reading the chatter it seems most of the folks using Vegas, AE, FCP, P5 are creating muck from the BMD recorder.. I have not seen a test completed in a DS, eQ, Flame or other finishing tool tho, and nor i have tested it.. and i cannot tell what the issues are from afar, i don't use any of the tools that the tests i've seen have been completed in.. so until i can test it for myself i just don't know where the issues come from... the tools used in post or the recorder?

waiting for the PIX220 to show up, my dealer says "soon" for a shot at his demo unit.. he's pre-sold quite a few now, so i will have to take a place in line if it works as advertised...

d

PDR
08-13-2011, 10:15 AM
Sony states flagged 24p out of HDMI so why is there a problem removing pulldown?


Traditionally timecode info is only recorded through HD-SDI. I don't know much about Sony's HDMI implementation, but a quick google search says it records something about "enhanced HDMI" - not sure what that is...

Even if it sends timecode information with flags, you would need a device that can record it. AFAIK hyperdeck does not.

Even if you record it successfully with the additional data , you would need software that can read/interpret that data and apply IVTC

Most software will just assume strict 3-2 (or 2-3) cadence, but if you don't use adaptive field matching, when you have cadence breaks , combed frames can get through. It depends where in the cycle you start and end.

Dermot
08-13-2011, 10:47 AM
Traditionally timecode info is only recorded through HD-SDI. I don't know much about Sony's HDMI implementation, but a quick google search says it records something about "enhanced HDMI" - not sure what that is...

Even if it sends timecode information with flags, you would need a device that can record it. AFAIK hyperdeck does not.

Even if you record it successfully with the additional data , you would need software that can read/interpret that data and apply IVTC

Most software will just assume strict 3-2 (or 2-3) cadence, but if you don't use adaptive field matching, when you have cadence breaks , combed frames can get through. It depends where in the cycle you start and end.

not sure what IVTC is? is the a codename for pulldown removal?

d

PDR
08-13-2011, 10:56 AM
not sure what IVTC is? is the a codename for pulldown removal?



Yes, it's essentially the same thing; IVTC = Inverse Telecine

The FS100 uses "hard telecine", where 24p content is encoded as interlaced in a 60i stream

In the soft telecine case, 24p is encoded as progressive, but TFF/RFF flags are used to output a 60i stream - this implies you can just strip the flag and you get your 24p stream back

In the hard telecine case, you need to field match and decimate the duplicates

This makes a bigger difference when you use less compressed formats, because progressive encoding is more efficient than interlaced encoding; with uncompressed recording it won't make a difference in encoded quality.

Dermot
08-13-2011, 01:59 PM
Question about terns then.. when there's no Spirit or Rank or even TK76 for miles around why use the term "telecine"? There's pull down here, but there's no telecine involved... and not all telecine's involve adding pull down either...

Oh well.. I'm guessing it's something to do with prosumer stuff (that i've not really been involved with)? Not heard the term before.. after only a few decades on Flame, DS, Jaleo, Axial/Abekas, CMX/GVG...

Back to BMD's recorder.. yea uncompressed would be the cleanest way to pull 24P out of 60I, far better than trying it with a layer of compression added to the "I" part.. but the PIX220/240 removes the pull down on ingest, so before any codec is involved, and the codec is compressing a P stream on that device ( not yet tested, only information from the sales guy)

A fair bit diffrent from say a Ninja that compresses an I stream, and then you have to extract P from it and throw away 25% of the data i would agree...

d

PDR
08-13-2011, 03:53 PM
Question about terns then.. when there's no Spirit or Rank or even TK76 for miles around why use the term "telecine"? There's pull down here, but there's no telecine involved... and not all telecine's involve adding pull down either...

Oh well.. I'm guessing it's something to do with prosumer stuff (that i've not really been involved with)? Not heard the term before.. after only a few decades on Flame, DS, Jaleo, Axial/Abekas, CMX/GVG...



Really? "telecine" is commonly used interchangably for 2:3 or 3:2 pulldown. It's used everywhere, and these days does not necessarily refer to an old school telecine machine. Just like "IVTC" is commonly used to indicate "remove 2:3 (or 3:2) pulldown". "Pulldown" comes from the same historic roots, but no film is actually being "pulled down" in your digital camera :) Maybe it's because "IVTC" is shorter than "remove 2:3 pulldown".


(It's the same business with "60i" vs "30i". In the old days, everyone called it 30i, expressed as frames per second but these days everyone calls it 60i as in fields per second - even though they both refer to the same thing.)

Dermot
08-13-2011, 04:59 PM
well lets look aroudn the tools i have at hand on this sunny Saturday while i'm at work;
DS? "pulldown removal"
MochaPro? "pulldown removal"
Media Composer? "pulldown removal"
Nuke? "pulldown removal"

no sign of "IVTK"

So i asked a closed list i am on.. the answer came back "it's marketing speak for the FCP/Panasonic workflow of a few years ago" does that sound about right? And if so will the marketing speak follow out the door right behind FCP as it shuffles into the sunset?

When we need to be accurate we use 59.94 for HD, and 29.97 for SD, and do not interchange the terms, use them as specfic to the formats, but i can understand how someone who does not need to be to concerned about getting deliverables out the door mangles it

I used 60i in the context of discussing pulldown removal straight out of camera, not deliverables, so i will give my self a pass on that one ;-)

And fortunatly there's not going to be cadence breaks on camera files - at least one hopes so!


d/

PDR
08-13-2011, 05:33 PM
Dermot - you mentioned some people having issues with the Black Magic Hypershuttle



Donno Mico.. reading the chatter it seems most of the folks using Vegas, AE, FCP, P5 are creating muck from the BMD recorder


Can you be more specific or provide some links ? Was this related to cadence/pulldown removal (IVTC :)) , or something else ?

Trying to make sense of this. I haven't seen an "enthusiastic" review of this unit yet, and both cuervo and frank expressed their concerns in this tread....

mcgeedigital
08-15-2011, 08:40 AM
Got a prototype of a great mounting plate and bracket from John Saunders at Connectivity Group:

38429
38430
38431

Rock solid with plenty of 1/4-20 and 3/8 threaded holes.

Gary Senda
08-15-2011, 01:47 PM
My poor man mounting plate: 20 USD for the painting + recycled material

384443844538446

It works well: I'm satisfied

:-)

Regards

Gary

shilohhh
03-23-2012, 02:05 AM
I don't find this to be a useful comparison, as all the frames you are comparing from the hyperdeck are the interlaced ones. It would have been more useful to grab the progressive ones from that stream and compare them with the avchd. Of course anything interlaced looks terrible. I guess it's a non-issue anyway. From what I can tell, there is no way to easily remove the pulldown if the hyperdeck can't see or record the flags from the timecode over HDMI. I don't care how wonderful and recorded file's compression (or lack there of) is, if I have to manualy asses and assign the pulldown pattern to remove the it for every shot, it's not worth my time. It's a shame. I want to like the hyperdeck, but until sony sends 24p over hdmi (and hyperdeck records it), or hyperdeck records the timecode with pulldown flags (or better yet removes pulldown before recoding), the hyperdeck is useless with the FS100!