Record uncompressed 14-bit (4:4:4) on your HVX200
- Thread starter pertierr
- Start date
Why are people concerned about the lack of sync sound? Before the video camera came along we had slates and audio recorders. Recording a backup stream to P2 and then pulling the footage in and syncing it up with the Hydra footage wouldn't be a problem at all, especially if you're using a slate and marking everything properly.
arrestthisman
Well-known member
Kholi said:
I call straight BULL on this. The camera, and sound devices on the set of a movie are tools.
Filmmakers don't get "too much" from the digital age! They get what they can. It has nothing to do with laziness; it has to do with automating as many tasks as possible to keep the crew and time down, which also keeps costs down.
Lighting is a completely different ballgame, and I agree there are some people who expect digital to work without proper lighting, at this point they ARE discarding part of the craft of filmmaking. But there's no ART to syncing audio. Lighting IS an art.
The idea with better tools is to reduce redundant and unnecessary tasks.
Are you telling me we should ditch all computers because it GIVES writers too much! They should all be writing on pen and paper just like WE used to do!!! They're LAZY!!!! How dare they rid themselves of bad handwriting and re-writing due to formatting issues. Those lazy bastards!
I think the core underlying point (which I agree with), is that the whole concept of having a Film-Like gammas in video cameras and other similar features creates an illusion that there will eventually be a camera which you can simply turn on under any situation and it will look like a hollywood motion picture. As arrestthisman points out, there is a LOT more skill, particularly in lighting, makeup and many other 'little things' that add up to something not so little.
A camera, I think, is like a blank canvas, the dynamic range of the camera, resolution and bitdepth in a sense describe the palette you have to work with. However, a lot of those subtle qualities such as smooth highlights that give motion picture film its look, are in great part achieved by the work that goes on to setup each shot, not only the wide palette that film offers.
Specially when films are well done, it makes it look simple. You may see a somwhat typical dark shot of somebody parked in a car at night outside a house, and one might think that all it takes is to actually go out and shoot a parked car in the night. If you just went out and did that even with film you'd probably get a horrible grainy picture. Add a few huge generators, huge lights, reflectors, know-how and careful color correction in post, and you can get something radically different.
Cheers,
Juan
A camera, I think, is like a blank canvas, the dynamic range of the camera, resolution and bitdepth in a sense describe the palette you have to work with. However, a lot of those subtle qualities such as smooth highlights that give motion picture film its look, are in great part achieved by the work that goes on to setup each shot, not only the wide palette that film offers.
Specially when films are well done, it makes it look simple. You may see a somwhat typical dark shot of somebody parked in a car at night outside a house, and one might think that all it takes is to actually go out and shoot a parked car in the night. If you just went out and did that even with film you'd probably get a horrible grainy picture. Add a few huge generators, huge lights, reflectors, know-how and careful color correction in post, and you can get something radically different.
Cheers,
Juan
siniarch
Veteran
Everyone keeps talking about syncing audio and that is a great point. But someone mentioned above that it didn't need to come from the camera which I feel has been lost somewhere in this discussion.
If you are going to have an HVX w/ Hydra and therefore will have a computer on the set. Why not use the computer's available audio inputs to automatically sync with the video. This would be more of a software capability.
Juan I'm sure has invested much time, money, and efforts, taking the HVX apart and figuring out how to tap into the CCds directly (which are probably located at the front of the camera)
The idea that he would now need to figure out where the audio components are, find out how they work and how he can tap into them (which would probably take place towards the back of the camera) seems like a huge undertaking to me.
It entails having to work on a different part of the camera, somehow internally bringing the audio from the camera towards the front and running it through the Network cable that will be bringing the video in.
I for one don't like the internal mics on the camera, and feel that in no way they should be use in anything that is really professional and justifies using Hydra. I think external mics should be use.
If you feel the same, then you still have to run a cable from the external mic (on a boom or something) to the camera. Why not run the cable from the mic to the computer ingesting Hydra files? And having that computer syncing the video and audio?
If not syncing the audio and video into one. How about having a HydrAudio application running at the same time that Sculptor 2 is. and having it be controlled slightly by sculptor. so when you hit record on sculptor, HydrAudio hits record as well and names the files exactly the same name Sculptor is name their file (just with a *.wav extension) and placing them in the same folder. When it comes time to edit, you have both files identically named in the same folder. Not really hard to sync if you ask me.
(I've never used andromeda, so I might not understand how sculptor works. but I hope this makes sense)
If you are going to have an HVX w/ Hydra and therefore will have a computer on the set. Why not use the computer's available audio inputs to automatically sync with the video. This would be more of a software capability.
Juan I'm sure has invested much time, money, and efforts, taking the HVX apart and figuring out how to tap into the CCds directly (which are probably located at the front of the camera)
The idea that he would now need to figure out where the audio components are, find out how they work and how he can tap into them (which would probably take place towards the back of the camera) seems like a huge undertaking to me.
It entails having to work on a different part of the camera, somehow internally bringing the audio from the camera towards the front and running it through the Network cable that will be bringing the video in.
I for one don't like the internal mics on the camera, and feel that in no way they should be use in anything that is really professional and justifies using Hydra. I think external mics should be use.
If you feel the same, then you still have to run a cable from the external mic (on a boom or something) to the camera. Why not run the cable from the mic to the computer ingesting Hydra files? And having that computer syncing the video and audio?
If not syncing the audio and video into one. How about having a HydrAudio application running at the same time that Sculptor 2 is. and having it be controlled slightly by sculptor. so when you hit record on sculptor, HydrAudio hits record as well and names the files exactly the same name Sculptor is name their file (just with a *.wav extension) and placing them in the same folder. When it comes time to edit, you have both files identically named in the same folder. Not really hard to sync if you ask me.
(I've never used andromeda, so I might not understand how sculptor works. but I hope this makes sense)
pertierr said:SculptorHD already has the capablity to do selective horizontal and/or vertical flip on both monitoring and rendering/export.
Cheers,
Juan
Yeah - I figured that the Andromeda/Hydra could do this on the software side. I was talking about internally in the camera - before it goes to the P2 card. So that the LCDs and what is recorded is rightways round. Come on do some magic.
Pete
arrestthisman said:
People have been syncing sound for ages. Granted, a lot of the tools now don't require such, but really--
Point is: There ain't no sound over the ethernet connection. Deal with it or move on. Bringing it up when someone else has already brought it up AND it has been addressed is kinda pointless. If they want to go into such a thing and you want to pay more money for it, A+.
HDforINdies (Only go once a week to catch up):
http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/03/reel-stream-mods-hvx200-mikes-analysis.html
So is 86db accurate? Or a typo? Or guesstimation?
What say you?
http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/03/reel-stream-mods-hvx200-mikes-analysis.html
So is 86db accurate? Or a typo? Or guesstimation?
What say you?
Hello,
It's not a typo, nor a guess or guesstimation. It's an actual hardware spec for the A/D conversion dynamic range. Mike is correct in that the sensor capabilities have yet to be measured, which is exactly what we have said, we will post dynamic range test results as soon as they are available.
I guess the only other comment is that it is my understanding that up-scaling=uprezzing, i.e. taking an image of a certain resolution and generating a higher-resolution image with no additional information. This is just not the same thing as a 3-sensor pixel shifted block or a bayer sensor. The resolution information is there, these are just different ways of accomplishing a certain level of resolving power.
If I had a car with 3 engines in it each with 2000ft/lb torque, I doubt people would be so quick to say the car only generates 2000ft/lb of torque. But talk megapixels, and that's it.
Cheers,
Juan
It's not a typo, nor a guess or guesstimation. It's an actual hardware spec for the A/D conversion dynamic range. Mike is correct in that the sensor capabilities have yet to be measured, which is exactly what we have said, we will post dynamic range test results as soon as they are available.
I guess the only other comment is that it is my understanding that up-scaling=uprezzing, i.e. taking an image of a certain resolution and generating a higher-resolution image with no additional information. This is just not the same thing as a 3-sensor pixel shifted block or a bayer sensor. The resolution information is there, these are just different ways of accomplishing a certain level of resolving power.
If I had a car with 3 engines in it each with 2000ft/lb torque, I doubt people would be so quick to say the car only generates 2000ft/lb of torque. But talk megapixels, and that's it.
Cheers,
Juan
arrestthisman
Well-known member
Kholi, the guy who brought it up was quoting my post .
Second, Juan did not dismiss it entirely, and he's a great guy who is interested in features desired by his customers. So don't go bitching just because you're not interested yourself. I don't use the tape deck on the HVX200, and probably never well, but I don't go yelling at people who do, simply because panasonic is pleasing a larger group than myself.
<<PERSONAL ATTACK DELETED BY MODERATOR>>
About the 86db. I believe it. Juan doesn't lie, and the sensors on the HVX are pretty amazing. The footage off the HVX even compressed looks far better than its specs would have you believe, so once the DSP/compression is lifted, I wouldn't be surprised. Of course, the most important thing is real world proof. When we see samples it will be immediately apparent. Andromedia is AMAZING. I don't know what the db is off that system, but I own a DVX, and my shots don't even come CLOSE to the andro samples.
With that in mind. Being that the HVX already looks amazing, 86db could be real. What's amazing though is RED is "only" -- haha-- 66db, so hydra would have an advantage if it comes true.
But yeah, here's a quick anecdote on how much I love the HVX: I was considering, about 6 months ago, going 16mm for quality. I went to my local film purist/friend for advice and some samples of vision stock and such and was not shocked, but it was pretty damn good, albiet still a bit grainy. I chose the HVX after seeing a few samples online and hoped it could come close in terms of lattitude and fidelity in my own tests. After taking it out of the box, and viewing the 1080p, it killed the idea of ever going to 16mm in five seconds flat.
. Second, Juan did not dismiss it entirely, and he's a great guy who is interested in features desired by his customers. So don't go bitching just because you're not interested yourself. I don't use the tape deck on the HVX200, and probably never well, but I don't go yelling at people who do, simply because panasonic is pleasing a larger group than myself.
<<PERSONAL ATTACK DELETED BY MODERATOR>>
About the 86db. I believe it. Juan doesn't lie, and the sensors on the HVX are pretty amazing. The footage off the HVX even compressed looks far better than its specs would have you believe, so once the DSP/compression is lifted, I wouldn't be surprised. Of course, the most important thing is real world proof. When we see samples it will be immediately apparent. Andromedia is AMAZING. I don't know what the db is off that system, but I own a DVX, and my shots don't even come CLOSE to the andro samples.
With that in mind. Being that the HVX already looks amazing, 86db could be real. What's amazing though is RED is "only" -- haha-- 66db, so hydra would have an advantage if it comes true.
But yeah, here's a quick anecdote on how much I love the HVX: I was considering, about 6 months ago, going 16mm for quality. I went to my local film purist/friend for advice and some samples of vision stock and such and was not shocked, but it was pretty damn good, albiet still a bit grainy. I chose the HVX after seeing a few samples online and hoped it could come close in terms of lattitude and fidelity in my own tests. After taking it out of the box, and viewing the 1080p, it killed the idea of ever going to 16mm in five seconds flat.
; And... I'm the angry one? Seriously-- he addressed it, gave his response more than once in the thread, and he still gets beat over the head for audio requests? PM me if you have an issue.----------------------------- End of Public Discussion
Thanks for the response, Juan. I can't see where I was calling you a liar, nor anyone else, but apparently it was taken that way. Apologies, if so.
Barry_Green
Moderator
86db sounds like the theoretical maximum, probably the observed maximum will not be that high.
At 86dB you're talking about 14 stops. That's a lot. Considering that the HVX pixels are the same size as the RED's, I'd expect real-world observable dynamic range to be more akin to what Red accomplishes or less (considering Red is CMOS). So maybe 10 stops (which is still two stops more than the base HVX!)
At 86dB you're talking about 14 stops. That's a lot. Considering that the HVX pixels are the same size as the RED's, I'd expect real-world observable dynamic range to be more akin to what Red accomplishes or less (considering Red is CMOS). So maybe 10 stops (which is still two stops more than the base HVX!)
Christopher Barry
Veteran
Juan, my question was lost in the many. :dankk2:in advance.Christopher Barry said:
Dude Chill. Its a Camera.
Bpress Krew got your back!
Bpress Krew got your back!