View Full Version : Dvinfo.net Footage
Policar
10-02-2005, 12:24 PM
I don't know if there's a thread on this yet, but there's a thread at dvinfo.net with some great sample footage.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52060
My thoughts?
Wow. No chromatic abberation except so minor it barely is noticeable (blows the JVC lens away), no motion artifacts even in areas of high motion (I have no idea how they pulled this off, it honestly looks incredible and I've seen major motion artifacts in Sony HDV before), and breathtaking resolution. There's a tiny bit of noise, but much less than I would have expected. The 24f mode does not look "cinematic" (but that has to do with gamma curves and exposure so I'm not worried) but the resolution is amazing. Looks like full progressive resolution from an interlaced chip, and what's most amazing is that this probably means less light loss in 24f mode than in 24p.
Honestly, it looks like it lives up to the hype. The dynamic range looks pretty poor, however, but the lens looks simply stunning and the lack of chromatic abberation makes this seem okay. The circle of confusion is much smaller because it's HD so the depth of focus even looks shallower.
Anyhow, this camera looks like a real winner. The price is absurd, but other than that it looks stunning.
J.R. Hudson
10-02-2005, 01:04 PM
Why is there always some monkey running the camera during these 'Demo's'? It's like they gave the camera to my 5 year old to capture the event.
I am impressed.
The new technology and the strides these manufactures are taking is inspiring; it's a matter of time before the ultimate indiefilmmaking camera is on our hands and affordably priced
This looks great; even on the blur it loos as if a still camera took it (and CC'ing helps)
http://xs48.xs.to/pics/05390/Bike1.jpg
sparkle_and_fade
10-02-2005, 01:23 PM
What programs plays those files? Divx?
J.R. Hudson
10-02-2005, 01:28 PM
I used Windows (and Vegas to cc that grab)
vidled
10-02-2005, 01:40 PM
Why is there always some monkey running the camera during these 'Demo's'?
LOL, maybe because monkeys are the fastest ones to get their little hands on these new cams? Agree though, that it's pretty bad stuff.
....even on the blur it loos as if a still camera took it
You know, on that note, I was wondering how long it will take for a still cam to get up to 24fps? Currently the EOS 1D does about 8.5 fps for 48 frames. A big leap from just a short while ago. Maybe not in the too distant future one could buy a decent still cam, shoot at 24fps, and simply import the still sequence. Not a new idea mind you, but we're closer than ever...
But alas, I'm getting side tracked.
Nice samples though, for its informational purpose.
The only thing that you can really see from these tests is that the resolution is very high. The latitude will probably have suffered a little, but we'll need some more controlled tests to really see that.
The buzz seems to suggest that 24f is only using one field, but interpolating using data from the other field to increase resolution if possible. This could void resolution charts as a true way to test resolution as the resolution would be higher on stationary objects. HDV seems to be producing amazing results yet again from such low bandwidth, but the 24f frames seems to be causing some compatibility issues unfortunately.
I am sure we are going to see amazing things from all these cameras, exciting times.
PixelMagic
10-02-2005, 02:55 PM
Wow. I just watched the footage. I inspected the chroma channels and there seems to be MUCH less artifacting in high motion scenes. How could they achieve this at 25Mbs?
Celluloid Dream
10-02-2005, 03:23 PM
Why is there always some monkey running the camera during these 'Demo's'? It's like they gave the camera to my 5 year old to capture the event.
It's a crying shame :cry: that the first chance we get to see footage from these new cameras has to be such utter crap. The same guy did the same thing when the HC1 came out from Sony this summer.
Canon and Sony, Can you please get your new cameras in the hands of someone who can:
1. set proper exposure
2. focus
3. show us 10% of what a good shooter knows about light control
4. set up some indoor interview type closeups with (gasp) 3 point lighting
5. keep off the dam zoom
:angry:
Canon gave the guy the camera, i.e. they selected him to test the camera, knowing he would post stuff on the web... WHY GOD, WHY!
J.R. Hudson
10-02-2005, 03:53 PM
The point is if I was giving my HUDSON K1000-24p Camcorder to someone knowing it would make an appearance on the web I'd give it too someone who would start the pimping properly.
You know that mmm
Policar
10-02-2005, 05:10 PM
I've got to agree--the footage could have been shot under much better conditions. My only guess as to why it's being presented this way is that the first footage released is being targeted more towards videographers than us wanna-be filmmakers. After all, videographers are a bigger market and they're looking to use the camera in "run and gun" situations like these. The main reason I say this is because only one of the clips is in "24f" and none of them are lit or anything. Oh well, if this is the worst the camera can do, just imagine the best...
yellowdog
10-02-2005, 05:37 PM
Shakes The Clown has a new career in testing cameras.
PixelMagic
10-02-2005, 06:01 PM
Hey, at least you guys got to see some footage. Don't complain so much.
Shakes The Clown has a new career in testing cameras.
I have been considered sick for thinking that movie was great!!
Barry_Green
10-02-2005, 07:05 PM
Wow. No chromatic abberation except so minor it barely is noticeable
According to the Canon rep at the ResFest booth, he says that the lens resolves a full 1200 lines! He said that a large, large portion of the cost of the camera is in the lens. I tried to weasel out of him how much that might be, by asking that if they sold a body-only kit it'd be a whole lot less, right? And he agreed, but wouldn't commit as to how much less...
but the resolution is amazing.
I wonder how much of that "look" is due to the chips, and how much is due to the lens. A great lens can make everything look sharper. Either way, the combination does lead to some very, very sharp-looking footage!
Wasn't there talk a few weeks or months ago about these 1/3" camera lenses simply not being able to resolve well enough for HD? I thought it was tossed around that the quality and cost of making a sharp enough lens was too high for this bunch.
Did I get the wrong impression?
Spiff
10-02-2005, 07:54 PM
This camera, with lens, is $3k more than the HVX is projected to be (w/o P2 cards). That money had to go somewhere.
-Spiff
Barry_Green
10-02-2005, 08:00 PM
No, you got the right impression. And the question is still out regarding diffraction and how that may limit sharpness. Actually, it's not even a question: Sony puts a disclaimer in the manual about it, and even includes a menu setting which limits how small your iris can go.
So I'm sure the Canon will have a similar limitation -- we're talking about the wavelength of light here, not exactly something they can engineer around. We'll need to see some testing under controlled circumstances to see what happens.
If I'm not mistaken, Canon has already limited the smallest iris. On the XL1 you could choose f/32, which caused diffraction issues. On the XL2 I think the smallest iris is F/11, isn't it? And I believe on the XL H1 the smallest iris is something like f/9.5.
So is it theoretically possible to resolve an HD image on a 1/3" chip? I know there are quite a few variables like sensor resolution. If the lens resolves enough for the chip and there's some sort of uprezzing that's one thing, but it should resolve enough even for pixel shifting right? Is the limitation the lens size and quality or the sensor size?
The XVX has an 82mm lens. What does that mean? Does the H1 and HD100 have the same size? Does that exclusively have to do with focal length or the resolving ability?
Barry_Green
10-02-2005, 10:55 PM
Lens size isn't necessarily a limiting factor, but the lens' ability to resolve at a rate of 200 line-pairs-per-millimeter. With 720p the needs are less stringent, but for full 1080 you need almost 200lp/mm. If they can do that, then yes, they should be able to resolve a full HD image on a 1/3" chip.
The other limitation is diffraction, because once you get down to where your pixels are 3 microns across, you start running into limitations caused by the size of the wave of light. So you'll likely have a very limited f-stop range within which the image could be resolved; stopping down beyond f/5.6 may introduce diffraction and lower the perceived sharpness. For this reason, the Canon lens is limited to f/9.5, and the Sony has a menu option to force the aperture to go no smaller than f/8 or f/5.6 (your choice).
The XVX has an 82mm lens. What does that mean? Does the H1 and HD100 have the same size?
It means the front element is 82mm in diameter (or, more precisely, that the front of the lens accepts 82mm filters). The HD100 has the same; don't know about the XL H1.
Does that exclusively have to do with focal length or the resolving ability?
Doesn't really have much to do with either...
The point is if I was giving my HUDSON K1000-24p Camcorder to someone knowing it would make an appearance on the web I'd give it too someone who would start the pimping properly.
You know that mmm
I couldn't figure out what you meant for a minute John and then I re-read my post... sorry... once again, due to the peril of the written word, I was unclear in what I meant.
I meant "WHY GOD WHY" didn't they get a seriously good cameraman to shoot the first footage!?! I mean, it is insane! First impressions stick and they should be making the best first impression they can - It wouldn't even cost a lot! Release some shit hot footage and us internet geeks will distribute it for them! I can't believe that only Jan and Pany seem to realise the (postive and negative) potential of internet forums.
I guess you read the post as "Are you guys thick or something!?" ...when I actually meant "Are Canon thick or something?!" :laugh:
Sorry for any confusion :grin:
Spiff_2
10-03-2005, 09:05 AM
we're talking about the wavelength of light here, not exactly something they can engineer around.
Well - not to put too fine a point on it - but that's exactly what lens designers are engineering around ;)
-Spiff
LanceB
10-03-2005, 11:25 AM
At the RES Fest seminar Sunday - Canon showed footage shot by a true pro crew - camera cars, cranes, dollies etc. in 24f mode via HD SDI to a HDCAM deck. 90% looked studio quality. The only exception being some strobing on a pan early in the demo. A long distance rack focus showed the quality of the lens which was feature film quality in every way. Didn't see any HDV footage but the camera looks like a winner.
Barry_Green
10-03-2005, 12:16 PM
Kaku Ito on DVInfo posted a clip where he tried to get the XL H1's lens to display chromatic aberration. It looks very, very clean. If there's any aberration in there, it's very minor (I couldn't display it at native res on this monitor, so I'm not 100% sure, but boy did it look clean). Looks like Canon delivered on the glass.
So if the lens size doesn't have anythng to do with focal length, or resolution, whey did they go with a bigger lens?
evinsky
10-03-2005, 02:51 PM
Lens size does have something to with quality, but filter size dosen't necessarily. It is obvious if you look at the quality of the lens on the Z1U Vs. the HVX demo/XL-H1 that the last two have really engineered a superior lens. This is because HD requires more space for corrective elements as well as higher refractive index exotic glass. The Canon seems to have the cleanest lens but the HVX is much wider, and that in the end may be more important.
Forgive me for the twenty questions but his fascinates me. Why would a wide angle have better resolution? Is it that at the long end, the limitations of the glass resolution begins to show?
Policar
10-03-2005, 03:57 PM
It's not really about focal length in this case. It's just that a wide lens is very versitile...for steadicam shots, getting shots in a small room, etc. wide angle lenses rock. I'm curious to see how good the hvx's lens is, since the dvx has a decent lens, but a pretty soft one.
Pete Saia
10-03-2005, 04:17 PM
Heres Kaku's second batch for anyone who hasn't seen it.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52110
Spiff_2
10-04-2005, 10:54 AM
Interestingly enough, wide angle lenses are more prone to exhibit chromatic and other aberrations because the optical path length in the lenses is significantly higher. One has to wonder if Canon's zoomy lens is automatically at an advantage with its telephoto nature.
-Spiff
It definitely is. Much harder to design a wide angle lens than a telephoto (er well, maybe not a FAST telephoto lens....).
Haakon
10-06-2005, 12:47 AM
I wonder how much of that "look" is due to the chips, and how much is due to the lens. A great lens can make everything look sharper. Either way, the combination does lead to some very, very sharp-looking footage!
I will admit, the resolution of these clips looks fantastic. It's so cool to play around with hi-def footage that's so crisp and clear!
On the other hand, the latitude of this camera looks TERRIBLE... I realize the guy is overexposed on most of the shots, but nearly all of the whites are completely blown out and the noise in the dark areas isn't very nice, either. To top it all off, the compression of the HDV is very apparent... while this would be acceptable to "show to a friend," I wouldn't want to capture any kind of master using this format. Even in shots where the camera *isn't* moving, the compression artifacts stand out quite a bit. I think it's not a surprise they showed uncompressed output at RESFest, because the HVX looks worlds cleaner from the output that I've seen.
Robert_Niemann
10-06-2005, 04:39 AM
Haakon, I absolutely agree with You. You can see the compression artifacts all the way. The green grass in the video with the dog looks terrible. I wonder, how it will look on a blow up/big screen.? I guess, there you will see it still more obviously.
Dmitry Kichenko
10-06-2005, 06:54 PM
That is exactly why H1 has an uncompressed output.. :huh:.
Haakon
10-06-2005, 07:47 PM
That is exactly why H1 has an uncompressed output.. :huh:.
Except that it takes a $20,000 deck and a place to store terabytes of footage to be of any use. Not really suitable for anyone but large studios at this point...
mezelf27
10-07-2005, 06:33 AM
Interestingly enough, wide angle lenses are more prone to exhibit chromatic and other aberrations because the optical path length in the lenses is significantly higher. One has to wonder if Canon's zoomy lens is automatically at an advantage with its telephoto nature.
-Spiff
Haven't you got this the other way around? The optical length the rays have to pass at a wide angle is SHORTHER, therefor imperfections in chromatic dispersion won't always yield visible chromatic abberations. If the foacal length is long (that means also physically longer lenses), the optical path is longer, multiplying the effects of wavelength-dependancy.
Spiff_2
10-07-2005, 08:07 AM
Haven't you got this the other way around?
I might have it wrong... but a wide angle lens has to bend the light further to get it where it has to go. Any small deviations of the material with respect to wavelength will result in more frequency dispersion through the glass - and more chromatic effects.
To be sure, the number of elements in a lens will have far more to do with the optical path length than the focal length of the lens.
-Spiff
stephenlnoe
10-07-2005, 10:32 AM
I might have it wrong... but a wide angle lens has to bend the light further to get it where it has to go. Any small deviations of the material with respect to wavelength will result in more frequency dispersion through the glass - and more chromatic effects.
To be sure, the number of elements in a lens will have far more to do with the optical path length than the focal length of the lens.
-Spiff
This, of course, is what drive the price of really worthy lens' through the roof. The level of clarity to carry the light without diffraction issues.
fiercecurry
10-15-2005, 03:45 PM
Except that it takes a $20,000 deck and a place to store terabytes of footage to be of any use. Not really suitable for anyone but large studios at this point...
the solution for non studio people is this:
RENT the deck. Capture to computer in offline quality.
Once you have your cut, than capture at online quality your selects.
Simple. And affordable.