Record uncompressed 14-bit (4:4:4) on your HVX200

I looked at a clip from the 60 fps capable camera, it was bubbles in a glass. There is a weird pattern going on. Personally, I think this is the result of a bad de-mosaic algorithm. When Andromeda first came out, some of the footage rendering looked horrible and had all kinds of aliasing issues, especially with diagonal lines and curves. The nice thing about RAW though, your footage might look crappy today... but in a few months or years.....

:)
 
"Output bits per pixel Selectable, 8 bits or 12 bits Lookup table Downloadable for user selected 8 bits mode: converts 12 bits of imaging chip's ADC to 8 bits of output separately for each color channel (R, G, B)"

Thats quite nice!

I checked out a still frame, oddly enough, much better looking, and from the same camera. Weird. It wasn't exposed too well, or the least, processed very good. There is very hard clipping on the white flowers petals.
 
By the way, they messed up the link for the flower still's camera. It says "SMX-12A2C" but leads to a page for a different sensor... The image itself has "SMX-12A2C" in the file name though.... That webmaster better make some corrections!
 
It's different though. The Sumix is a single-sensor Beyer pattern, so no 4:4:4 is possible; a 3-chip camera can do 4:4:4. This is in no way a replacement for the Hydra; with the Hydra you had a fully functional awesome video camera that you could also extend by plugging in a gigabit ethernet cable and post-processing your raw-sensor footage. The Sumix is only the raw-sensor footage, it's missing that whole "awesome video camera" portion. :)
 
Gualbert,
The clip that I downloaded was the one of the phone sliding open, so I think its the correct camera. Also, the still with the flowers has the same horizontal line thing as well. I agree with the comment someone made about the software doing the de-mosaic poorly.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's different though. The Sumix is a single-sensor Beyer pattern, so no 4:4:4 is possible; a 3-chip camera can do 4:4:4. This is in no way a replacement for the Hydra; with the Hydra you had a fully functional awesome video camera that you could also extend by plugging in a gigabit ethernet cable and post-processing your raw-sensor footage. The Sumix is only the raw-sensor footage, it's missing that whole "awesome video camera" portion. :)
Click to expand...
But to repeat what had been said earlier, Hydra, even with three chips, wasn't true 4:4:4 natively: the chips were radically pixel-shifted to increase luminance resolution, at the expense of chrominance resolution. The missing color information was then filled in by Juan's demosaicing algorithm.
 
For 2K, yes. But for 720p he could probably have gotten 4:4:4 out of it, or darned close.

Then again, you could probably do similar with this; a 1920x1080 beyer pattern gives you 960x540 color info anyway. So, yeah, probably close enough.
 
Just an update guys....

Were at 163 signatures! Lets keep this going guys!!!

Tips:

Spread the word on your local list serves and other forums.

Go here for petition password and petition link:

http://forum.reel-stream.com/viewtopic.php?t=850

Thanks for the support, but we still need more signatures. My goal is to get well over 1,000 and I think thats perfectly possible.... LETS DO IT!
 
Barry_Green said:
But for 720p he could probably have gotten 4:4:4 out of it, or darned close.
Click to expand...
By definition, 4:4:4 means colour resolution equal to luminance, and all colours with equal resolution.

The HVX200 chip set will only meet that criteria at a resolution of 960x540.

Pixel shift will certainly enable more resolution than that - but will not maintain the 4:4:4 aspect. You don't get something for nothing. The beauty of pixel shift is that when exploited to the full, it mimics the behaviour of the eye in registering more luminance than chrominance detail, and is well matched to then being recorded with a sub sampled colour system. But that is not then 4:4:4.
 
Think of it this way, a Reel Stream modded cameras performance blows away any sub 10 grand camera period. This is coming from a guy thats messed with plenty of "high" end cameras, like SDX 900, Varicam...
 
Do we have any idea yet on who even purchased the tech. from them? It hit me today that I a mod. like this, on a HPX3000, could potentially hit a 4k resolution. If they can get 2k on HVX from the sensors it has, I'm assuming they could atleast double the res. on a 1080P sensor.
 
AlienFX said:
Do we have any idea yet on who even purchased the tech. from them? It hit me today that I a mod. like this, on a HPX3000, could potentially hit a 4k resolution. If they can get 2k on HVX from the sensors it has, I'm assuming they could atleast double the res. on a 1080P sensor.
Click to expand...

That all depends on the camera's sensors being shifted. The only way an HVX or DVX can hit HD resolutions is because of the sensors physical offset.
 
cardmaverick said:
That all depends on the camera's sensors being shifted. The only way an HVX or DVX can hit HD resolutions is because of the sensors physical offset.
Click to expand...
According to the website, all thats done in the software that comes with the mod.. It says it merges and offsets the images. (I know the HVX does indeed have pixels offset in the camera, also.)

http://www.reel-stream.com/andromeda.php

All you need to do is offset the three incoming images, which would form a type of bayered pattern.....
 
Last edited:
The only way an HVX or DVX can hit HD resolutions is because of the sensors physical offset.
Click to expand...
Exactly -- that's why he couldn't boost the resolution from a JVC HD100. It doesn't employ spatial offset, so no resolution boost was possible. He could have gotten uncompressed 4:4:4 out of it, but not higher res. So if the HPX3000 employs spatial offset, he could probably get it up to 4K. But not at full 4:4:4. If it doesn't have spatial offset, then he could get uncompressed 1920x1080 @ 4:4:4 from it.

According to the website, all thats done in the software that comes with the mod.. It says it merges and offsets the images. (I know the HVX does indeed have pixels offset in the camera, also.)
Click to expand...
Well, no, it's not "also", it's "because". He does the pixel shift process in software specifically because the pixels are offset on the chips. The spatial offset of the pixels provides the possibility of increased resolution, but it needs to be processed in software to extract and define that resolution.

If the chips weren't offset, there's nothing he could do in software (other than a garden-variety cheap up-rez, kind of the opposite of what a true spatial offset system does).
 
Barry_Green said:
Exactly -- that's why he couldn't boost the resolution from a JVC HD100. It doesn't employ spatial offset, so no resolution boost was possible. He could have gotten uncompressed 4:4:4 out of it, but not higher res. So if the HPX3000 employs spatial offset, he could probably get it up to 4K. But not at full 4:4:4. If it doesn't have spatial offset, then he could get uncompressed 1920x1080 @ 4:4:4 from it.


Well, no, it's not "also", it's "because". He does the pixel shift process in software specifically because the pixels are offset on the chips. The spatial offset of the pixels provides the possibility of increased resolution, but it needs to be processed in software to extract and define that resolution.

If the chips weren't offset, there's nothing he could do in software (other than a garden-variety cheap up-rez, kind of the opposite of what a true spatial offset system does).
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks. Then I guess I'm gonna be stuck with the Dalsa.... I was just hoping to pull double duty (4k for features and 1080P for behind the scenes) out of the HPX3000's I''m buying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top