Ok! Thanks Ralph! One question more. I recorded 1080 50i in the ninja. I canīt record in 1080 60i, maybe this is the problem too i think. I donīt know.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
HDMI Capture Problem SOLVED - AviSynth RULES!
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by JSRAIMUNDI View PostOk! Thanks Ralph! One question more. I recorded 1080 50i in the ninja. I canīt record in 1080 60i, maybe this is the problem too i think. I donīt know.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JSRAIMUNDI View PostMmm... i canīt put the ninja or the camera in 1080 60i. I only can record in 1080 50i. Whatīs the camera configuration to record in 1080 60i in PAL versions?
BTW, did you solve the problem with the script errors?
Comment
-
HDMI vs AVHCD for Feature Film Production Quality
Hi Ralph,
Great work with putting together the solution for HDMI out recording. I'm currently working with an independent film group in Pre-Production for a Feature Film and we've looked at using the GH2 as we like the image quality, particularly using the hack/Driftwood settings.
Do you think using the HMDI out recording (then using Avisynth) yields a better image than using hack/Driftwood settings, particularly when thinking about how that will project onto a large theater screen?
Also, do you think the workflow is rock solid - in other words, reliable for shooting important production footage?
Lastly, I had looked at using the Hyperdeck Shuttle 2, as I believe that can record uncompressed. Would this work with the Hyperdeck Shuttle 2, and do you believe that would be even better image quality vs. Ninja?
Thank you so much for your work and your response to my questions,
Matt
Comment
-
Astroimaging - video test
Hi
I have a question about the relative merits of this feature. I use my GH2 for astro imaging. There is a trick in astro in which images of planets (which are very small e.g. 100 pixels +/-) are created by stacking the frames from video cameras. (from 640 pixel webcams to dedicated 640 pixel ccd cameras shooting raw). The individual frames can look like mush but when several hundred are stacked in software the results can be amazing. The key aspect is to get clean uncompressed data. (see http://www.theimagingsource.com/en_U...or/dfk21au618/ for dedicated camera spec). Smaller pixels of GH2 do offer some benefits and for info images are generally at iso160 to 320 - they are quite bright, the issue being atmospheric disturbance, you just need to find approx 400 images in a 3 or 4 minute window when the atmosphere is steady for a fraction of a second. So 24mins is plenty of video.
So the question I am asking myself is do you think the quality of the individual images in prores would be noticeably free from artefacts and detail loss (which is small and subtle) more so than one of the GH2 hacks? To be clear the final result here is a static image composed from information in several hundred video frames (which is then post processed in specialist software) not a video
In terms of final image quality is there any difference between the ninja and the blackmagic or is it just implementation difference
regards
Steve
PS In canon's live view is the preferred way of doing image stacking
Comment
-
To matt_gh2 and billhinge:
Both of you are asking whether the HDMI picture is better than the hacked picture. There is a difference, but it's subtle. The problem is each person has their own perception of what's acceptable. Mine may not match yours, so there's no way I can say do it or don't do it. The best advice I can give you is to get a hold of an HDMI recording device or capture card, and run your own tests. The good news is you can record simultaneously in-camera and externally, so you can compare the two later.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ralph B View Post@billhingeJust wondering why you would use video mode for astro pictures. Seems like you should shoot in still mode for the highest quality. And perhaps use the 40 frame burst mode for bright objects.
Deep sky images like star fields do tend to contain stars and nebula which are generally faint and in the case of stars they are point objects. Here the name of the game is to take multiple single frames and stack them using clever software. Pro's would used peltier cooled ccd astrocameras but they are expensive, fortunately DSLR's hold up reasonably well except the normal canon/nikons usually have fairly severe internal UV/IR cut filters to maintain sharpness. The GH2's internal filter is lazy being sensitive to some uv and ir which softens the image. Adding an external UV/IR cut with a narrower range sharpens the image (on GH2 - works on cameras with weak internal filters) and improves the colour, drawback is that a decent filter is expensive.
Anyway, planets and the moon differ because they are much brighter, have a visible area rather than point image. Being bright they only need a short exposure e.g. Mars through a telescope could be 1/100s @iso160 fl=2800mm f10. The images are tiny though, typically jupiter will cover approx 100 pixels on the GH2, so surprisingly shooting at 640x480 produces a larger looking imageNow the problem is that the atmosphere causes the image to literally boil at such a high magnification e.g. few hundred to even x1000. But for say approx 1/100 of a second every second we may some useful info the rest being garbage as the atmosphere steadies briefly.
If you shoot as many 640x480 frames in say 3 minutes as you can at the highest possible data rate without compression you just might get some useful data (individual still image will still look crap) but by using special stacking software you take say 400 to a thousand of the best and stack them and a useful still image appears. Then using other software such as deconvolution, wavelets etc to post process to bring out hidden detail, so really its collecting 'bits' of data and averaging not video as you would think of it(each data compression
negatively affects the final result thats why dedicated planetary cameras would use a small 640x480 ccd)hope that makes sense
here are some stacked images (split into raw images, rgb channels and combined)
Comment
-
I use the GH2 with a Ninja. Works great (as I only shoot in 25p, being European), however, you still have chroma issues. My problem is that I (like many other professionals) use a Mac.
Right now I'm using this plugin:
https://sites.google.com/site/hsgh2chromafix/
But would much prefer to have it in Premiere instead (anybody know if it could be ported easily) or even better... Does anybody have a solution to get the AVIsynth working on a Mac? I've tried WineBottler, but the software doesn't install properly it seems. Help much appreciated!Help support my Lovecraft inspired 80s horror film I'm DPing on 16mm:
http://www.indiegogo.com/insanemadness
http://www.facebook.com/insanemadness2012
Gabriel de Bourg Cinematography
www.gabrieldebourg.se
Comment
-
In the first post, I added a link to a page with tons of Avisynth filters. Although these filters are not specifically related to the GH2 problem, they show the power of Avisynth, and why it's not a bad idea to learn to use it.
http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/External_filters
Comment
Comment