HVX samples

[Neil Rowe]

figured id add this in the clips/footage section

http://www.rowecine.com/HVX/

video is low bitrate now so i dont exceed bandwith again. sorry. :) full res version is here:

http://hvx200.moctel.com/Users/Neil_Rowe/

thanks to user mochouinard for hostng the high bitrate version

[Policar]

Wow, it really nails those reds....

The resolution doesn't look as good as the xhl1 but the gamma curves look beautiful. I wish I had the money.

[UncleBenji1977]

What's up with DVfilm watermark? Did you run it through the demo version of DVfilm maker? And why if you were already shooting 24p?

[Justin_Kirch]

wow Neil, i'd just take down the first clip. it looks horrible unfortunately. i'm downloading full res version now.

[Emanuel]

wow Neil, i'd just take down the first clip. it looks horrible unfortunately. i'm downloading full res version now.Don't worries...and you can see the differences. It's better forget the low rez version. It's not fair (only as low vs. high rez comparative) but thanks anyway for the effort and specially for the HVX footage so much appreciated. :beer:

BTW, Neil it's not full rez, right? Circa 133Mb to 2:16 is not 80-megabits@1080/24p, quite different compression, isn't it?

[Barry_Green]

What's up with DVfilm watermark? Did you run it through the demo version of DVfilm maker? And why if you were already shooting 24p?
Neil uses DVFilm's Raylight codec to edit HVX footage. The trial version adds a watermark.

[mynamesbuck]

Thats some of the sweetest HVX footage I've seen posted. Good work.

[Rodrigo]

yeah, very good work.... is it me or the highlight handle is way better in wide than in tele position of the lens?

[Emanuel]

Neil uses DVFilm's Raylight codec to edit HVX footage.Does it mean that's the reason why we have such compression quality? That is equal to 80-megabits DVCPRO-HD@1080 quality? That is the full rez version a HD version to 1080 delivery? Is it so?

Or despite its quality -- better than any other seen til now, is it just other web compression delivery quality?

Better than others to web, but only to web and not to HD delivery.

As I said: circa 133Mb to 2:16 is not 80-megabits@1080/24p, quite different compression, isn't it?

And in this case, have DVFilm's Raylight a truly 1080 codec to HD delivery or am I wrong?

Better than this full rez version or not?

If so, can it compete with DVCPRO-HD 8-bit codec? Or with Cineform 10-bit codec?

[Barry_Green]

Raylight is a private DVCPRO-HD codec. It's not for delivery, it's to let other editing programs work with MXF DVCPRO-HD files.

[mvb]

Not sure how useful it is, but Raylight can be used for delivery to other users of Raylight. When you recompress to Raylight AVI, a .rayl file is created which contains the new DVCPRO-HD frames. The .rayl file is in a simplified MXF format. So to share with other users of Raylight, you just rename it to .mxf and post it. To view the .mxf file, you process it the same way as an MXF file from the HVX200 camera.

An example of this is the Flare.mxf file we provide on our website, which was created in After Effects with the Raylight compressor.

Later (in the next release of Raylight) the .rayl files will be made fully MXF compliant and then you can use them with any system that plays back MXF.

[Student]

Sounds Great
But, I don't understand what you mean by rename and post .Where do I post it?
Sorry for my confusion.

[Emanuel]

Raylight is a private DVCPRO-HD codec. It's not for delivery, it's to let other editing programs work with MXF DVCPRO-HD files.

Not sure how useful it is, but Raylight can be used for delivery to other users of Raylight. When you recompress to Raylight AVI, a .rayl file is created which contains the new DVCPRO-HD frames. The .rayl file is in a simplified MXF format. So to share with other users of Raylight, you just rename it to .mxf and post it. To view the .mxf file, you process it the same way as an MXF file from the HVX200 camera.

An example of this is the Flare.mxf file we provide on our website, which was created in After Effects with the Raylight compressor.

Later (in the next release of Raylight) the .rayl files will be made fully MXF compliant and then you can use them with any system that plays back MXF.OK my question is if at Raylight full rez (?) version, we have 133Mb to 2 min. 16 s., natively@DVCPRO-HD 1080, we have circa or even more than 2Gb, right? So, 15x or something like this ratio comparatively to the full rez version.

Thus, I'm asking: if we have such quality at Raylight codec, at 15x the quality will noticeable increases? That it means noiseless, less compression artifacts, etc?...

[mvb]

Sorry but I don't understand what you're asking. By the way, ignore the
size of the AVI because it is just a proxy.

[Emanuel]

mvb, sorry my non-native english if it is the case. What I'm asking is precisely the size of the available file.

Natively at DVCPRO-HD 1080, 2 minutes and 16 seconds must be around 2Gb. So, if here there is just 133Mb it means that natively, at DVCPRO-HD, the image quality must be better -- if natively there is more data...

Or am I wrong?

[mochouinard]

Raylight only extract the audio and put it into the AVI, this is your file size. But the rest is a 'driver' that link to the ORIGINAL files. It just allow to read the MXF file as if it were a uncompress AVI file. So it doesn't actually create a new file (except for audio), it just allow realtime MXF DVCPRO HD conversion to AVI uncompress for editing software.

If raylight were to create a uncompress AVI of the DVCPRO HD file, it would take ALOT of times, and HUGE ammount of HD Space. Probably over 100gig per minutes, you do not want that, so it why it does it live in memory.

[Emanuel]

Raylight only extract the audio and put it into the AVI, this is your file size. But the rest is a 'driver' that link to the ORIGINAL files.Does it mean that the 133Mb file that we can see at any affordable notebook is the best quality? That is, the native quality? Without any compression plus? I'm referring that precise file and not the method used@Raylight. Thanks.

[mochouinard]

Ok you mean the wmv file... Sorry. The DVCPRO HD source file is alot better quality. But take alot of bandwidth. my site hvx200.moctel.com will take 700gig of internet transfer per month, and it is only growing. It was at 251gig in January...
I wont beable to keep it running like this for ever, but it nice for people to have until we get bigger shippement of camera.


So if it were the 2 gig original file, and I know that file were downloaded about 641 times. So if it were 2gig, it already 1300gig for that single file. With the 133mb file, it 85gig of transfer. And that is only for 15 days.

The RiverRock from Kenn Christenson were downloaded over 2398 time in the last 15 days. 14 meg file, so it 34gig of transfer. If it were a DVCPRO file, it would be about 180meg per file, that is 431gig for 15 days.

I wish Bandwidth were free, but it not :( I hope to beable to find a way to pay for all this. But in the mean time, DVXUSER.com... Enjoy ;)

Back to the subject... You should keep your raw footage as source always. Do not compress to get smaller filesize to be used in editing. HD are cheap, buy more of them.

[Emanuel]

Ok you mean the wmv file... Sorry. The DVCPRO HD source file is alot better quality.I'm referring the 133Mb not the 16,6Mb one from the Rowe's site. U2 -- you too, isn't it?...when you are saying the wmv, right? Well, my concern is not the noise 'cause this wmv file it's almost noise free but the compression artifacts are noticeable@some_midtones/shadows. So, do you know the original file? What's happened there? BTW, what's your opinion concerning the noise and compression artifacts issues?


But take alot of bandwidth. my site hvx200.moctel.com will take 700gig of internet transfer per month, and it is only growing. It was at 251gig in January...
I wont beable to keep it running like this for ever, but it nice for people to have until we get bigger shippement of camera.


So if it were the 2 gig original file, and I know that file were downloaded about 641 times. So if it were 2gig, it already 1300gig for that single file. With the 133mb file, it 85gig of transfer. And that is only for 15 days.

The RiverRock from Kenn Christenson were downloaded over 2398 time in the last 15 days. 14 meg file, so it 34gig of transfer. If it were a DVCPRO file, it would be about 180meg per file, that is 431gig for 15 days.

I wish Bandwidth were free, but it not :( I hope to beable to find a way to pay for all this. But in the mean time, DVXUSER.com... Enjoy ;)We must be grateful for your contribution here, so much appreciated.


Back to the subject... You should keep your raw footage as source always. Do not compress to get smaller filesize to be used in editing. HD are cheap, buy more of them.I agree with you.

Off-topic: I haven't yet opportunity to visit Quebec...mais en ce qui concerne mon avis, vous êtes unique dans le Nord de l'Amérique. Donc, Vive le Québec!

[mochouinard]

I was talking also about the 133mb file. It is highly compress, Im sure Neil love the original footage, and we would also. But bandwidth is the constrain to make the source available to anyone.

C'est vraiment intéressant d'avoir les racines francaise, mais avec le style de vie américain... MOIN la mentalité americaine ;) C'est compliquer mais bon... ;) Le seul problême c'est que on est un peuple vaincu, mais on travail ladessus hehe ;)

[Emanuel]

mvb, after my last posts, now I could follow that you are from dvfilm.com...well, good. [BTW,] I'd like to know what's your bet to better 35mm film-out at big screen: 1/3" CCD HVX or 1/2" CCD XD-CAM HD Sony's series?

[second BTW] A 35mm adapter like G35 added to HVX will it be blow-up acceptable or not?

[Emanuel]

C'est vraiment intéressant d'avoir les racines francaise, mais avec le style de vie américain... MOIN la mentalité americaine ;) C'est compliquer mais bon... ;) Le seul problême c'est que on est un peuple vaincu, mais on travail ladessus heheEs-tu francophone? N'est-ce pas? J'aimerai voir et connaître meilleur cette culture québécoise franco-américaine. Je me souviens de la visite de De Gaulle au Québec [par télé :D par images d'archive...je suis né en 1969] ;)

[mvb]

mvb, after my last posts, now I could follow that you are from dvfilm.com...well, good. [BTW,] I'd like to know what's your bet to better 35mm film-out at big screen: 1/3" CCD HVX or 1/2" CCD XD-CAM HD Sony's series?

[second BTW] A 35mm adapter like G35 added to HVX will it be blow-up acceptable or not?

Don't know much about the XDCAM HD, I read it is >$20,000 for the camera, that is way too high for our typical customer.

The HVX should be great for a transfer to film, 24P native, 100MB/s and 4:2:2 color. Those features should put it ahead of the HDV cameras. Use the 1080-24P advanced pulldown mode with DVFilm Raylight to get every pixel.

I personally don't like spinning/shaking glass devices, makes the image too soft. I would not use it for a transfer to film unless you need some shots with an extreme depth of field effect.

[Emanuel]

The HVX should be great for a transfer to film, 24P native, 100MB/s and 4:2:2 color. Those features should put it ahead of the HDV cameras. Use the 1080-24P advanced pulldown mode with DVFilm Raylight to get every pixel.I'm in Europe, so 25p, no pulldown but 25p -> 24p. Otherwise, real 100mbps, isn't it? I'm thinking 24p/60i is just 80mbps or am I wrong? 1440x1080 instead 1280x1080...well, what do you think?


I personally don't like spinning/shaking glass devices, makes the image too soft. I would not use it for a transfer to film unless you need some shots with an extreme depth of field effect.That's the case. Shallow DoF. Does it work?

Noise? Compression artifacts? If from XL-H1 can it have more risk to pixelization or not?

Thanks in advance!

[mvb]

I'm in Europe, so 25p, no pulldown but 25p -> 24p. Otherwise, real 100mbps, isn't it? I'm thinking 24p/60i is just 80mbps or am I wrong? 1440x1080 instead 1280x1080...well, what do you think?

That's the case. Shallow DoF. Does it work?

Noise? Compression artifacts? If from XL-H1 can it have more risk to pixelization or not?

Thanks in advance!

For the HVX200 you would shoot 1080 25P

You need extreme shallow DOF in every shot?

If not then simply open up the lens, back up the camera and zoom in to limit DOF.

You might want to get the book that we sell through our website, it covers things like this, goto http://dvfilm.com/book