First shoot with HVX?
- Thread starter Jim Arthurs
- Start date
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
flostro said:
I believe he just shot 60i, then interprolated the fields up to full frames...
Regards,
Jim Arthurs
what is real
what is real
Great. A still shot of a car and two people. I know my panties are wet.
I think I'll just wait until one of you guys that ordered it puts some footage up on here. At least I can always count on you guys to be "real". This website is so phony it's ridiculous. It almost feels like Panasonic is trying to make their customers feel stupid. And this John Bannen guy..is he real? No offence to you John (if that is really your real name) if you're reading this but you might be just a a guy working in the mail room at Pansonic USA. It's also confusing. Maybe dvxuser was a project developed some time back and Jarred Land is not even a real person!!!
I have to question the quality of this camera and if Pansonic is hiding something. Show us some real untouched footage. I've worked in post for a long time and this picture has definatly had a face lift.
You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
what is real
Great. A still shot of a car and two people. I know my panties are wet.
I think I'll just wait until one of you guys that ordered it puts some footage up on here. At least I can always count on you guys to be "real". This website is so phony it's ridiculous. It almost feels like Panasonic is trying to make their customers feel stupid. And this John Bannen guy..is he real? No offence to you John (if that is really your real name) if you're reading this but you might be just a a guy working in the mail room at Pansonic USA. It's also confusing. Maybe dvxuser was a project developed some time back and Jarred Land is not even a real person!!!
I have to question the quality of this camera and if Pansonic is hiding something. Show us some real untouched footage. I've worked in post for a long time and this picture has definatly had a face lift.
You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
Can Scanner
Well-known member
Whoa.
Jim Arthurs said:
And how would that differ from the DVX? I have watched the clips Barry included on the DVD that came with his book, and it wasn't that smooth. But, when I watched Sin City it was smooth.
So, if they shot at 60i, then we could achieve the same with the DVX, right? Theoretically, I mean.
KnockOutFilms
Active member
araujofh said:
With the F900 they take the 60i thru a quantel box, (very very expensive) Then they create discreet frames from the 60i. This is high end hardware. Most editors do their edit with a crappy speed change on the NLE, then they only send out the specific shots that need to be "quantel-ed" so say.
You could theroretically do this with 60i from the DVX, but the cost is enormous.
Cheers,
Chris
Dmitry Kichenko
Well-known member
What about Twixtor or Retimer? I have got great results with it, especially if the original footage contains little motion blur or [DV] artifacts. I have looked through what the owners of FX1 have come up with, and it's just insane slow-mos.
the new Twixtor is pretty clean.. they did alot to resolve some of the artifact issues, and remains to be the best slow motion simulator out there.
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
araujofh said:
Sure, it doesn't differ from what you could do with the DVX, using After Effects, Fusion, etc. Simply separate the fields into a 60fps stream and do a quality scale up vertically. Make sure "thin" is set in your DVX menu to preserve the fine vertical detail when recording your interlaced footage. There are different methods with different compositing software, the basic idea is the same.
As to Sin City, it was recorded with HDcam SR using the 950 camera. I know at last NAB (or maybe the one before?) Sony had some sort of 60fps demo going on. I don't know if it is/was available for Sin City.
Regards,
Jim Arthurs
Angrius said:
Hey not to burst your confused little bubble here, but this blurb is displayed right at the top of the page
"Tosh Bilowski is a fictional character used to deliver real information from multiple sources at Panasonic in an entertaining way. We hope you find the information helpful and we look forward to hearing from you."
:thumbsup:
yeah.. that little blurb is pretty new though, and im very happy they put it there.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Angrius said:
It would be very cool if John did work in the mailroom, he could serenade Jan's office everyday.
We're not talking about "PAL" or "NTSC" cameras at all, but HD cameras in which context "PAL" or "NTSC" are utterly meaningless terms - I suspect you mean to talk of "50Hz" or "60 Hz" models, for want of a better description.araujofh said:
Even in the SD digital world PAL and NTSC were used carelessly. Think about it - a 480i/30 recording may get called "NTSC" in the US, but in Brazil it's analogue form would be PAL. (PAL-M to be precise.) In much of Europe a 576i/25 recording would normally be thought of as PAL - but to a Frenchman it could equally be thought of as SECAM.
What we talk of in the HD world is even further removed from the analogue standards, lets drop all reference to "PAL" or "NTSC" except for the downconverted analogue outputs.
Alex Leith
Well-known member
harddrive said:
You're right in one sense about PAL and NTSC being misnomas even in the SD world - yes, strictly speaking PAL and NTSC describe the subcarrier frequency and chroma encoding of a modulated video signal.
However, almost every bit of video kit in the world is designed to output an analogue signal that is compatible with either a PAL or NTSC television. Surely it's easiest to identify them that way?
And if we're being pernickety, strictly speaking SECAM only applies to broadcast signals and pretty much every bit of French kit is actually PAL (at least internally).
Well, in the SD world I described the use of PAL and NTSC when referring to digital component signals as "careless" rather than downright incorrect for the sort of reason you mention. In the HD world their use IS incorrect, since NO piece of HD video kit AFAIK will deliver an analogue HD output with the chrominance carried on a modulated subcarrier, be it "PAL" or "NTSC". I'd reckon 50/60Hz to be much better terminology to distinguish between the two main markets, and terms such as "1080i/25" and "720p/50" to really clarify what the system is. As is now mostly being used in data sheets.Alex Leith said:
That was just an example to make the point that 576i/25 need not be exclusively PAL, it's just as accurate (if less likely) to use it to refer to a SECAM signal. Nowadays I'd expect most French kit to be component anyway, so as much "SECAM" as "PAL". In the past a French Betacam player may have had SECAM analogue in/outputs - but that did not make the recording on the tape SECAM, it was identical to that recorded on a "PAL" machine.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Where are you seeing "1080i/25" as proper terminology? All the manufacturers are using 1080/50i as far as I know... I thought only Avid used the "30i" nomenclature to denote what the rest of the world calls "60i"...harddrive said: