Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. Collapse Details
    AVC rears it's ugly head.
    #1
    Senior Member cheezweezl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Downtown Burbank
    Posts
    2,363
    Default
    Let me start by saying that I have been thoroughly impressed by how well the avc codec holds up during basic grading. i have lifted mids several stops with useable results. This isn't meant to be a slam to the codec or to say that it's no good, because in general, I like it. In fact, I was almost convinced that I didn't need to buy an external recorder, until tonight.

    I finally got out from under a mountain of work and had a chance to throw some fs100 footage on the davinci. The footage was transcoded to prores hq prior to flying in. Where the codec seems to fail is when doing more complicated grading. More specifically, when pulling a key. I did a simple luma key and then further processed by isolating just the areas with less saturation. This is where I saw the big ugly blocks show up. Now, I could smooth this out a bit by softening the key and adding blur to it, but getting rid of those big giant blocks may be impossible. This would really limit how far I could take the correction before you would start to see those blocks.

    So, external recorder it is.

    Below is a screenshot of the key. Mind you that this key could be improved slightly with some tweaking. I just left it ugly to demonstrate the starting point and the blocks.


    Screen shot 2011-06-20 at 11.57.37 PM.jpg
    full size pic
    Last edited by cheezweezl; 06-21-2011 at 12:19 AM.
    "There is no forest. There are no trees."

    Cinematography Reel on Vimeo

    www.fisherfilmworks.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Default
    I cant really tell anything from the screen grab but I'd expect there to be limits in such a high compressed codec. So are you going to buy the Atmos Ninja? $995 on B&H looks great - few bad reviews on B&H but those are questionable - one clown gave it one star because it didnt work with his 7D...whats that saying about a fool and his money? ;-)

    The only issue I can see with the Ninja though is at this stage it doesn't accept a 1080/60p signal - only records 60i - kind of a deal breaker for me unless they can change that in a firmware upgrade.

    EDIT

    Forgot to ask - when it comes to pushing the codec in a harsh grade - would you say its better or worse than that of the 5D / 7D ?


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member Duke M.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    CA & FL
    Posts
    2,736
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by PabloOzzy View Post
    I cant really tell anything from the screen grab
    Look at the macro blocking on the ground and in the trees. Its a little more understandable in the busy leaf areas, but the ground shouldn't look like that.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member Richard Allen Crook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rowlett, TX
    Posts
    520
    Default
    Isn't this more a casualty of the 8bit codec than AVCHD? The 256 steps that 8bit provides is a severe limitation...just as it is with any other 8bit codec. Does this issue pop up from Canon DSLR h264 footage too? Just curious. Does an 8bit 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 key better than 8bit 4:2:0? How does it compare to P2 footage from an hvx200 which is 8bit as well but considered a great codec?

    I'm not asking as a challenge to your findings, just truly interested in your thought of the AVCHD codec compared to others. I've been grading dslr footage for so long, when I did some grading tests with AVCHD from the fs100 it seemed that I could push it further than the crappy h264 codec.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member cheezweezl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Downtown Burbank
    Posts
    2,363
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Texas Jones View Post
    Isn't this more a casualty of the 8bit codec than AVCHD? The 256 steps that 8bit provides is a severe limitation...just as it is with any other 8bit codec. Does this issue pop up from Canon DSLR h264 footage too? Just curious. Does an 8bit 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 key better than 8bit 4:2:0? How does it compare to P2 footage from an hvx200 which is 8bit as well but considered a great codec?

    I'm not asking as a challenge to your findings, just truly interested in your thought of the AVCHD codec compared to others. I've been grading dslr footage for so long, when I did some grading tests with AVCHD from the fs100 it seemed that I could push it further than the crappy h264 codec.
    I don't think so. Here's why. My ex1 is 8bit 4:2:0 as well. When it's footage is converted to prores, I can do grades like this without seeing the giant blocks. However, I have seen this before with h.264 footage that was converted. Avc and h.264 are essentially the same from what I understand. 8 bit footage may mean visible banding at times but the macro blocks are from the compression for sure.

    As far as this compared to canon dslr footage, unfortunately I have to say that the canon does better in this type of situation.
    "There is no forest. There are no trees."

    Cinematography Reel on Vimeo

    www.fisherfilmworks.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member Richard Allen Crook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rowlett, TX
    Posts
    520
    Default
    I thought they were essentially the same as well, but I guess according to this thread AVCHD is far more superior: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...-Canon-SLR-MP4

    Suprising to hear that Canon's H264 holds up to grading better than AVCHD in your tests and not mine. But I use Premiere which is native for both codecs so I don't convert before grading...maybe that's the reason? Converting to ProRes is cleaner from Canon H264 vs AVCHD? Hmmm...

    Anyway thanks for the findings...damn I hope they give us the paid option to upgrade the FS100 to a 10bit codec. I doubt they'll undercut their F3...but we can always hope right?
    Richard Allen Crook
    Filmmaker
    www.crookedpathfilms.com



    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member cheezweezl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Downtown Burbank
    Posts
    2,363
    Default
    i should have been clearer. the fs100 footy holds up better for general cc, such as lifting dark areas. it holds up well. i suspect the cleaner sensor and lower overall noise are to thank for this.

    it's only when i am pulling a key like this that the canon footage is better. it has blocking but they seem to be about half the size and not as apparent. i suspect that recording hdmi direct to prores will be just the ticket.

    i TOTALLY agree with you on 10bit. i would pay for it in a second...

    also, i don't think sony is conspiring to cripple the fs100 to protect the f3. they already gave us 4:4:4: out of the box, 1080/60p internally, and overcranking to 60 frames at 1080. not to mention 30db gain. the f3 can't do any of these things out of the box. on the contrary, while your paid upgrade to 10 bit sounds awesome, i doubt it will ever happen...
    "There is no forest. There are no trees."

    Cinematography Reel on Vimeo

    www.fisherfilmworks.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Suriname
    Posts
    2,772
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke M. View Post
    Look at the macro blocking on the ground and in the trees. Its a little more understandable in the busy leaf areas, but the ground shouldn't look like that.

    I dont think its a good idea to key a forest
    No matter what codec....it will always be ugly.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Section Moderator Rick Burnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    4,395
    Default
    I've not done any green screen work with my FS100 yet, but I have been doing working with 5D footage for a week. I find the macroblocking on the 5D footage to be horrible and VERY hard to keep from getting edges that chatter. It's funny because certain parts of the scene key just fine, but other parts are horrible.

    I think it's more H.264 related from all that I have seen. While 4:2:0 does have a lot more reduction in color resolution, as long as it is consistent, it's not as hard to pull. With the macroblocks, the differences between the blocks with a keyer that does despilling, this is where the problems come in.

    I think keying from footage off an external recorder in the future is going to be a must for me as well. (And this includes the AF100 too as I have keyed that and saw the same thing)
    formerly know as grimepoch.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member cheezweezl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Downtown Burbank
    Posts
    2,363
    Default
    yeah rick. i had the same issue with greenscreen and the 7d. it worked marginally for some stuff, like if it was a simple talking head with plain clothing. but the minute a striped shirt or a lot of movement was added, the key took the hit. i'm not even going to attempt any paying greenscreen gigs with this camera without an external recording solution.
    "There is no forest. There are no trees."

    Cinematography Reel on Vimeo

    www.fisherfilmworks.com


    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •