FX1 Footage Part 2

Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

Yeah.... take a look at 0.46 -> 0.48 isn't it just perfect?
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

[quote author=Jestorius link=board=XL2;num=1097737005;start=0#1 date=10/14/04 at 03:06:05]Yeah.... take a look at 0.46 -> 0.48 isn't it just perfect?[/quote]
Yes, the nighttime footage did look very nice. Arguably, I think it was better than the examples Johnnie placed for the XL2 several months ago. The FX1 has a lux rating of 6 (according to Sony), so that may account for the better perceived light capture. However, until side by side tests are conducted, it’s purely speculation. I was also very pleased to see boat and vehicle motion held up very well under those limited visibility conditions.

However, the footage did look a tad bit heavy on compression, but it seems more a result of post processing and optimization for web viewing than in-camera limitations.

Overall, I thought this was great footage to whet the appetite for more things to come. Nice "film look" appearance, no chromatic aberration, and accurate colors ... damn I'm excited. Perfect timing also: I’m planning a military staff study to Iwo Jima in February, a visit to the Great Wall of China in May, and a three week leave to Japan in April. That’s not even including the sights and sounds of Korea. I’m keeping my fingers crossed and hope that the HVR-Z1 is all that it’s hyped up to be.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

[quote author=Ranger link=board=XL2;num=1097737005;start=0#3 date=10/14/04 at 11:32:11]

However, the footage did look a tad bit heavy on compression, but it seems more a result of post processing and optimization for web viewing than in-camera limitations.
[/quote]

Are you sure about the web optimization? I think its just straight, raw footage.

It's about 48 MB, so that's about right for a 60 sec. MPEG-2. I really want to see this camera with the "Cine24" or 30 on. I'm about to try and see if I can get these files into FCP.

Good stuff.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

[quote author=Solaam link=board=XL2;num=1097737005;start=0#4 date=10/14/04 at 14:39:05]Are you sure about the web optimization?  I think its just straight, raw footage.

It's about 48 MB, so that's about right for a 60 sec. MPEG-2.[/quote]
That does not look like raw footage. Compression looked too severe for a raw cut. The encode rate for this footage was at 6618kps bitrate.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

Ranger, you're right. The aspect ratio was also 720 x 404.

I brought it in FCP and rendered. Even the compressed file looked fine.

I'd love to see this cam at a full 1080i in Cine24 mode.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

[quote author=Solaam link=board=XL2;num=1097737005;start=0#7 date=10/14/04 at 19:44:44]I'd love to see this cam at a full 1080i in Cine24 mode.[/quote]
That seems to be the $64,000 question.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

Could anyone tell me if 50i to 25p via de-interlacing would produce good results? I am looking very hard at the pal hdr-fx1.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

That camera has a built-in de-interlacing option, called CineFrame 25.

As far as "good results", I guess that depends on what your definition of "good" is. Even if you did just a straight de-interlace, throwing away the odd field and duplicating the even field, you'd still end up with a picture with resolution just as high as a progressive-scan PAL DVX (on the vertical axis) and twice as high resolution on the horizontal.

So if by that terminology you think the picture would be good, then yes, the odds are that you could get good results by doing this. Soon (hopefully within a month) the camera will reach store shelves and we can test out this CineFrame 25 feature and find out what the truth is about it.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

..it be interesting to see ..especially since the motion rendering will be differnt since its not 24 fps .. its 30/60 fileds per sec dropping every 5th frame. certainly not the cam for me.. ill wait till they do it the right way with true 24p so i can use the ful res progressive frames at 24p, but im still excited to see what it can do :)
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

For Barry Green:

So I will actually lose resolution by de-interlacing. I'm not as tecnically savvy as you guys. I found the following written steve mullen:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dvcnyc/Sony HDR-FX1.htm

There will be two versions of the FX1.
One for “Region 60” that will support 1080i60 (1080i59.94)
plus 4:3 and 16:9 NTSC DV.
The other for “Region 50” will support 1080i50 (1080i50.00)
plus 4:3 and 16:9 PAL DV.
While we typically don’t concern ourselves with Region 50 equipment,
the Sony HDV camcorder will be an exception
because 1080i50 can be converted by software
to yield 1080 at 25fps—very acceptable for transfer to film.


Can someone clear this up, I'm getting confused
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

De-interlacing loses resolution. No question about it. But 1080 at 50i starts out with a lot of resolution to begin with, so converting it (by de-interlacing, or by using a more sophisticated method such as DVFilm's Maker software uses) will result in a 25-frame-per-second project, with at least 540 lines and probably a lot more.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

finally got the chance to download the footage and view it, it was good, but i must say the night time shots of the boats really had a filmic look WOW! cant wait 2 see more :)
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

The night time shot of the boat was just perfect.

Barry_Green - why loses de-interlacing resolution? We are using field A and B to make the frame. If you are using only one of them than you lose resolution. Is it correct?
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

Field A and Field B, if both used together, would be an interlaced frame, not de-interlaced. It would be an image constructed of two separate moments in time.

In true de-interlacing you discard one field entirely and duplicate the remaining field to fill in the gaps. That will give you an image that was all captured at one moment in time (simulating a progressive frame) but obviously at half the resolution.

More sophisticated de-interlacers try to preserve some information from the other field; however, some manipulation has to be done to eliminate the time difference between the two fields. If you're shooting a completely static frame you can probably keep both fields with no downside, but if the camera is panning or the subject is moving, some processing will be necessary to get rid of the temporal difference between fields. And that processing will result in lower resolution.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

Field A and B used together makes an interlaced frame in video world. But if you are using advanced motion detection, a software analysing the motion and making motion blur where it is needed, than we have a film frame.
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

Interlaced frames are not really "frames", they're pairs of interlaced fields. Pause video on an interlaced frame and you'll see amazing flicker and interline jitter, nothing like a film frame.

That's why de-interlacing is so popular, it removes that jitter and makes the result look more like a real "frame" -- except at lower resolution.

There are some sophisticated de-interlacers that can preserve a lot of resolution and use motion detection, etc. to determine when true de-interlacing is necessary. DVFilm Maker is one example of such a program. And, I believe, a free trial version is available for download so you could test it out on FX1 footage (as soon as some FX1 footage is available for test!)
 
Re: FX1 Footage Part 2

I know how the interlace works. I'm working with animations. I did this in the past 16 years. When 3D animations softwares didn't had the interlace render engine, only the motion blur function, than we had to make the interlace manuell. We made 2x the number of frames and we used an interlace alpha mask. Than we just blend this 2 frames together with this alpha mask and we got an perfect interlaced image. A 2 min. animation had a 4 min. footage to work with. Than could we single frame to a studiorecorder.

So , if we transfer this frame to a video than the tv shows it as an interlaced video. If you transfer this frame to a film than it playes as a frame. And if in the process you make motion blur of the interlace flickering than you get a nice smooth movement on film.

Of course if we make animation to film than the rendering gonna be a frame with motionblur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top