HVX200 Has Only 960x540 Pix Chip?

[Pascal Parvex]

You also have to consider that the CCD's may only have a resolution of 960x540, but it has three of them, so there should be plenty of information for the "uprez". Every (exept the one Foveon) digital SLR has only one CCD, but nobody is complaining. And three chips should beat a single full-rez-CCD.

 

[Elton]

I've seen Z1 footage hardware uprezzed and hardware deinterlaced to HDCam SR 1920x1080 and that looked splendid. Graded in 4:4:4 with the Davinci2k it looked amazing, but the Davinci seems to add to the color res of footage. How? I don't know. I asked our colorist and he said that basically the Davinci takes the image apart and puts it back together cleverly, so if it finds some yellow in the image, it expands on the color and only adds it to parts of the image (a wall in our footage) without messing with other elements of the image (ie, people, objects, etc). So yes, if treated right HDV footage can look splendid, but we're all keen to know what can be done with HVX footage. Varicam footage put through this process looks like 35mm, not just to the Layman but also to experienced pro's. That said if the image was blown up to a cinema screen it'd probably fall down a bit. Even so it's good and we're hoping that lighting and shooting footage well will yield better results with the HVX (not to the Varicam, but to the Z1) when put through the same process.

A small amount of testing with H1 footage put through that process had our colorist saying. "That XLH1 looks like some camera."

But he still wanted us to get a HVX.

Nice post, booth. Interesting. I do understand how alluring the out of the box cine colors of the HVX can be. Panny really tagged something there. Still, I say it's all a matter of what characteristics of the image matter most to you, and whether you can accept the tradeoffs. I like the cc flexibility of the H1's image, so whether it gets it absolutely perfect in-camera doesn't really matter to me because there should always be a grading stage anyway. Some like to simply get the look in camera and call it a day, but I like to have maximum flexibility in post.

Good luck in your endeavours with the camera. What's great about alll this stuff is that a quality threshold has been crossed with these cameras so there are no SD mush hindrances or excuses to hide behind. Content matters more than ever now.

 

[Justyn]

heard this before but NEVER seen it come close

heard this before but NEVER seen it come close

Have you ever seen H1 HDV converted to DVCproHD, or SDI straight to DVCproHD?
Funny thing is I use the same format with very satisfactory results...and SD downconverts to DV50 are phenomenal too. Full 4.2.2 believe it or not.

While I do really like the Varicam-like features of the HVX, I've found I can get results that are quite similar in post. I've done "overcrank" by doing a 1080i to 60p conversion in Compressor, and then conforming to 24p in Cinema Tools. If the 1080i is shot fast shutter for this effect, the results are basically the same as if you shot 24N. But the one thing I cannot get back with an HVX is the rez. It just doesn't have the pixels to begin with.

JMHO too.

Elton, I got some swamp land here to go along with that approach.. LOL. Everytime I see that effect, which I used to do, its glaring and nothing like the slow mo in the HVX.. as you point out, but slightly modified, it just doesn't have the frames.

I do love the res info out there.. just similar to the noise nonsense that was going around in the beginning. There's always gonna be one thing too poo poo or another... so everyone pick ya poision- go out and shoot and be happy ya made a decision. I have done 3 demos with the camera already.. with each production company coming away.. full of wonder and a "WOW" factor certainly in tact. These are companies used to renting varicams and Cinealtas... but have a whole teer of work that could be jumped up in quality since the costs are relatively small...

Regardless of the camera, we are all in such a good position right now to get superior quality at a fraction of the price. I just have to pop over to my buddies studio.. that's digibeta, beta and component land.. and wonder how much his 150K studio is really worth now... It was the bomb back in 99, but not sure if it's a scud or a dud now.... Sure, it's been paid for several times over, but he's kind of stuck in a way.

I'd love to shoot with the Canon next. Shot with the JVC and the Sony and time to try out another flavor....

 

[Barry_Green]

While I do really like the Varicam-like features of the HVX, I've found I can get results that are quite similar in post.

If all you want is 60p, that may work after a fashion.

But what about 48? 36? 32? 26? 22? 20? 18?

Ain't the same.

 

[FatBird19]

You also have to consider that the CCD's may only have a resolution of 960x540, but it has three of them, so there should be plenty of information for the "uprez". Every (exept the one Foveon) digital SLR has only one CCD, but nobody is complaining. And three chips should beat a single full-rez-CCD.

How cool it would be to see a 16:9 35mm Foveon sensor in the next varicam.

 

[xray]

Let me say that I am no colorist with know how, so if I need a professional result and the job done, I #know# someone else can do it better, but I tried. I read the stuff, I juggled the handles, but can´t get the colors like the HVX is producing and I like. I tried it with the JVC shots and with the Z1. Out of the box the Pana color pallet is joyful.

 

[Elton]

If all you want is 60p, that may work after a fashion.

But what about 48? 36? 32? 26? 22? 20? 18?

Ain't the same.

Map the frames in post.

 

[Barry_Green]

Ain't the same.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Map the frames in post.

Now you're stretching ! :2vrolijk_08:

-

I'm with Proximity; I ain't ever been good at Math

-

 

[Elton]

Hey, all I'm saying is if the 60p conversion is satisfactory, you have the frames. Algolith has a frame rate converter. I'll double check, but I believe Nattress Map Frames will do the math too.

Not saying doing this is as exciting as having your camera do the math. But that's all it is ultimately. Math...not magic.

 

[Barry_Green]

That's the same argument that PD150 shooters used to use. "just shoot 60i and convert to 24p in post."

It ain't the same.

I'm not saying you couldn't come up with something, but it is never going to look the same as actually shooting the proper frames at the proper frame rate with proper progressive capture at the right shutter speed, reclocking the CCD to run at the right capture rate.

If someone's happy with 60i converted to 24p, then maybe they'd be happy with what you suggest. But the DVX became a blockbuster smash hit because a lot of us prefer real 24p capture to some 60i post-processed mishmash. And we prefer real true variable frame rate capture to some algolith'd frame-blended mishmash too.

It ain't the same.

 

[joelnet]

Not saying doing this is as exciting as having your camera do the math. But that's all it is ultimately. Math...not magic.

If you've got the frames then reducing them to match what the camera is doing CAN BE the same. So getting one camera's 24p to look like another camera's 18p or 6p is no big deal IF you choose the exact same 6 frames. That truly is the same unless the HVX is choosing frames in a different cadence than 24p. Even then fast motion is much less visually critical than a slow motion. As you say - it ain't magic. The whole undercrank thing never impressed me much.

The HVX overcrank is great. Adding frames that aren't there IS magic... Shake has an optical workflow that appears to be pretty amazing at retiming... but I'd rather have 60p or better still 120p straight out of the camera.

I'm kinda curious to see the JVC SD 60P uprezzed (properly) to 720p and conformed to 24P then compare the results vs. the HVX. That might be a better solution than adding frames where there are none.

If I really needed to do hypercritical slow motion I'd rent the proper camera.

 

[Elton]

That's the same argument that PD150 shooters used to use. "just shoot 60i and convert to 24p in post."

Come on, Barry. 1080i has basically the same temporal sampling as 720 60p. It has less vertical res but more horizontal if you extract the fields. It's not nearly as far off as 60i to 24p conversions of NTSC are. Big difference temporally. I'm not talking about true 24p vs 60i, I'm talking about getting 60 frames to work with.

It ain't the same.

Maybe not exactly, but it's close enough to get away with it. Maybe not for the uber geeks here, but certainly for the unwashed masses that you hope would be watching your effect.

I'm not saying you couldn't come up with something, but it is never going to look the same as actually shooting the proper frames at the proper frame rate with proper progressive capture at the right shutter speed, reclocking the CCD to run at the right capture rate.

If someone's happy with 60i converted to 24p, then maybe they'd be happy with what you suggest. But the DVX became a blockbuster smash hit because a lot of us prefer real 24p capture to some 60i post-processed mishmash. And we prefer real true variable frame rate capture to some algolith'd frame-blended mishmash too.

It ain't the same.

I own a DVX and really love it too, and I realize the splitting hairs truth of what your saying...but just how important is this ultimate progressive purity? All that matters are results, and I know that there's a lot of temporal sampling in 1080i that plays well in 720p. If you have 60 good frames (or fields) per second to work with, (shot with the appropriate shutter speed for your intended effect) you can extract the needed frames for this "under and overcrank' thing, especially if we're talking about 720p HD. Again, I do appreciate that the HVX is dialed in to do the proper effects, but I can't help pointing out that frames are frames, and 1080i fields are basically frames too. Very close to the same actual resolution as DVCproHD 720p.

 

[Barry_Green]

Come on, Barry. 1080i has nearly the same temporal sampling as 720 60p.

Come on, Barlow. You know that's not what I was talking about. I specifically spelled out the other frame rates, not 60p. I'll grant that 60i to 60p has the same motion sampling, obviously, but that's not what was under discussion. I said you can't do the other frame rates, and you can't -- not without some frame mishmash, which results in some sort of blended approximation.

It ain't the same.

Maybe not exactly, but it's close enough to get away with it. Maybe not for the uber geeks here, but certainly for the unwashed masses that you hope would be watching your effect.

And that is *exactly* the argument that PD150 shooters used to use. And some still use today. Their 60i to 24p wasn't exact, but they wanted to believe that it was "close enough to get away with." Well, if that's what they want, more power to 'em. But it ain't the same.

Again, I do appreciate that the HVX is dialed in to do the proper effects, but I can't help pointing out that frames are frames, and 1080i fields are basically frames too. Very close to the same actual resolution as DVCproHD 720p.

And again, I'll say that first of all, no they aren't, because you're only getting about 400 lines of res per field; it takes two fields to get the close to 800 lines possible, and you're only using one. But secondly, that argument only holds for 60P simulation. It doesn't work at all for, say, 36P. Or 12P. You're not going to simulate a 1/12 shutter speed on a 60i field no matter how hard you try. 60i means 1/60th exposure; any slower than that means field-blending and field accumulation.

It's not a difference of degree, it's a difference of kind.

It's like saying "I don't need to overcrank 60p for my 24p project, I'll just use Twixtor." Well, if you like, go ahead. But it ain't the same thing. It's not a difference of degree, it's entirely a difference of kind. Some people may be satisfied with what Twixtor does. But for us HVX users (and this is, by the way, a thread in the HVX forum), we prefer genuine legitimate overcranking, with genuine proper temporal motion sampling, versus some frame-invented motion-predicted Twixtor approach.

Because it ain't the same thing. It just isn't.

 

[Justyn]

Sweet. I'll just lean over and cheat off Barry's term paper... Mine has funny doodles on it, but I knows what I knows.. and I knows that ya can't do what that there HVX does... AAAAGGGGHHHh.

I did have a friend back in the day who used to get great slow-mo off his VX1000, but it was because he dumped it to digibeta.. and played it back as variable frame rates and then recorded that... Looked good, but I think the deck was like 50K or something crazy...

lovin' the overcranking and the timelapse. I did a timelapse of a beautiful sunset tonight over a lake... Man it looks so good.. don't think you'd be able to get this from just shooting to tape and speeding it up in post... but then again a challenge would be in order.. especially since I'm left with one beautiful clip.. and someone else would have had to record 90 minutes to tape to get this...


I certainly do miss MJ lighting it up.

 

[Elton]

Barry

I guess we can just leave it at that. I'll just respectfully disagree about the superiority of the HVX variable frame rate stuff. It's cool, no doubt but I also think it's going to be a bit cliche' in the future just because it will be so easy to do and there's no cost and commitment like film.

There's no need for us to get into the old "tastes great, less filling" stuff. My point really was simply that the H1 can do some HVX-like tricks with a little work in post. Have you seen the BeachBBall clip?

www.homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton

I'll also have to say that I think there's more than 400 lines there. Mishmash? Fine. To me "mishmash" is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think achieving convincing effects in post is just as legitimate as doing it in camera. I only care about results and the fun thing with the H1 is there's more than meets the eye with it.

Isn't it amazing how far these cameras have come? We're having hair splitting little pissing contests over image qualities we could scarcely have dreamed of in the 1/3" category just a few short years ago.

 

[Emanuel]

Interesting discussion between the two Bs (Barry and Barlow)... That «It ain't the same» it re-sounds into my head. And regarding 24p vs. 60i -> 24p@post, will it be possible not to remember your words, Barry? Maybe not...but about the Barlow's slowmotion tests, did you see them? Simply amazing!...

 

[Elton]

It's funny. At a certain point it we get lost in the esoterica of it all. It can so easily devolve into pixel counting (tastes great!) and progressive baby! (less filling!)

Justyn's right. It's great that we've all made a decision and are happy with what we have. I can't wait to see HVX, HD100 and H1 stuff on the big screen at Sundance next year. I have a sneaking suspicion that it will quickly eclipse the DV stuff.

 

[Barry_Green]

Your BBall clip looks great, and it's not a mishmash, because it was 60i to 60p. One field per frame. The mishmash would come in from trying to simulate other frame rates; trying to cram 60 fields into 36 frames = mishmash.

So in the basketball clip the motion looks fine, motionwise it looks like what a 60p clip should look like, but there are aliasing artifacts on the diagonals as a result of the field de-interlacing. They're all over people's arms, the dark-skinned man's red shirt, their shoulders... anywhere there's a diagonal, there's aliasing de-interlace artifacts rather than a smooth progressive-style frame. These are pixel-for-pixel extractions, but you can easily see the aliasing when watching the clip in motion too.

Referencing the 400 lines: if a full XLH1 frame has 800 lines of res, and you're using only one field, that means you're getting 400 lines. 400 lines from each field = 800 per frame. You may be interpolating the data up from 540 to 720 pixels, but you're starting with 400 lines. Why it looks so much better than standard-def 400 lines is because you're still retaining all the horizontal res. There's plenty of horizontal res, but not too much vertical. I do think it looks like about 400 lines.

Like I said, if it works for you, that's great. That doesn't make it the same, but if you're getting results you're happy with then that's all that matters, for you. If we on the HVX side are not satisfied with that, that should be okay too.

And yes, the technology is flat-out amazing; it was barely a year ago that the JVC was first announced, the HVX was under a veil, and the XLH1 wasn't even being dreamed about. I think most of us would have been thrilled and delighted with any of these products a year ago. We now have an embarrassment of riches.

 

[Barry_Green]

And regarding 24p vs. 60i -> 24p@post, will it be possible not to remember your words, Barry? Maybe not...

I don't know what you mean?

but about the Barlow's slowmotion tests, did you see them? Simply amazing!...

Yes I have, and yes it looks pretty good. It's the same technique I've been endorsing for DVX shooters, to shoot 60i and slow down to 40% speed. But it also brings in the same resolution-softening and the same aliasing in the XLH1 as it does in the DVX too.

To each his own. There are plenty of products on the market to choose from. They all have unique capabilities. The HVX cannot interchange its lens, and the XLH1 cannot do variable frame rates. I can get a teleconverter for my HVX, but as Barlow would rightly point out, "that ain't the same." And XLH1 users can de-interlace and slow down in post to simulate one of the HVX's dozen frame rates, but I can also point out: "that ain't the same."