Get 9.5 Stops of dynamic range from your DVX100

andre said:
I hope that somebody will do a test with optimized settings for the DVX to proof that exactly the same number of (unclipped) grayshades can be captired and yr last statement is completely wrong.
Click to expand...
That's what you're missing. I used to think just like you do -- that the andromeda shots were merely underexposed and the DVX shots were overexposed. But the notion is completely false, because the image is being taken at the exact same moment in time, from the exact same CCD data.

The black levels match. The dark chips match. It is properly exposed. The DVX is not overexposed, they are properly exposed.

You cannot, under any circumstances, "proof that exactly the same number of (unclipped) grayshades can be captired", because the DVX cannot, by its own internal processing, retain the same number of shades. The andromeda does. The DVX pushes the upper range into clipping.

The data is there, obviously, because the Andromeda is not inventing new image data! It's recording what the chips are putting out. But the DSP processing in the DVX is stretching the signal and discarding stops at the top of the scale. The Andromeda doesn't discard them, it keeps them. That's where the difference is.

Believe me, I had the same line of thinking you did, and Juan and I exchanged quite a few e-mails about this subject, with me trying to figure out where he was making his mistake. And it turns out that there is no mistake -- the final test is most definitive. Juan is telling the truth, and his results are proving it.
 
Alex:

I completely understand your reasoning about the interface standards. The problem for the specific case of the DVX100 is that interfaces such as SATA are not only overkill, but they would be a lot more expensive to produce and would prevent our device from being contained in the camera. This means that there would need to be an external box, and it would cost considerably more. Our very first prototype was an external box which mounted under the camera, and we got requests across the board to change the form factor so it wouldn't interfere with any accessories.

Our goal was to make Uncompressed 4:4:4 available to everybody. Thus, we aimed to keep the price as low as possible. By making the device USB, we could make it compact enough to fit inside the camera, allowing the installation of any accessories you can normally use such as a micro35, etc. The USB implementation is also a big reason why the system is so inexpensive compared to the other 4:4:4 uncompressed aquisition systems out there.

I hope this clears some things up a bit :)
Juan
 
Thanks Juan,
It does clear things a little bit. I know that SATA is overkill though I didn't think that Firewire implementation would be bigger or much more expencive than USB. I just want a PC version anyway. Hope you will make it one day.

Alex
 
The fruits and vegetables bowl image in 24 bits is superb.
(http://www.reel-stream.com/betacap/vg_1031_01.tif)

When you're talking about "digital purity" ; with this image you reached your goal.

---

(We can have regrets about the fact that a PAL model is not in pipeline, but soon used NTSC DVX will be available and affordable, I think and hope)
 
Juan,

The latest clip of the footage outside looks good but I'm seeing some chromatic aberration. Is this due to the demosaicing process? I've never seen the DVX have problems with this on it's own before (maybe I'm just not looking hard enough). For instance, look at the trees. There's a fairly clear purple fringe on the left side of the image and green fringe on the right side.
 
Yeah, that is actually a setting in Sculptor which the beta tester didn't adjust properly. Overall it looked good but we decided to post it without having him re-process all the files. Because you have access to all the data, sculptor allows you to set the R,G,B offsets which varies from camera to camera. Once you set these values they don't change however. This was a case of an offset incorrectly set which caused one of the layers(looks like blue) to be slightly off).

The DVX does have chromatic aberration problems, just like pretty much every other camera in its price range. Once you know what to look for you can see them in just about any shot done with the DVX. The cool thing is, that unlike with the pre-packaged output of any of these cameras, with Andromeda you can even compensate, if you wish to do so, for these aberrations because you have the raw uncompressed data for each CCD.

You can't really escape aberrations. You can only minimize them by using a more expensive lens. But in the price range that we are talking about, aberrations are going to be there. I think one of the main reasons is the complexity of the lens and the way it has to be designed in order to be so inexpensive.

Cheers,
Juan
 
What is the maximum amount of frames per second (throughput) that can be captured using the process? And if it is 24 frames per second what is the bottleneck in the process? In other words can this product be used in a studio environment to be used for HD TV or regular TV?

2nd Question: Is there a way to be able to take the output of two modified cameras and take the feed from both and run it into a switcher and then out to an array??
 
Barry_Green said:
That's what you're missing. I used to think just like you do -- that the andromeda shots were merely underexposed and the DVX shots were overexposed. But the notion is completely false, because the image is being taken at the exact same moment in time, from the exact same CCD data.
Click to expand...
Not to throw fuel on the fire... but... :)
Here is a comment from their web site which actually proves that if you set the exposure correctly for Andromedia that the other footage coming out of the DVx side will be over exposed:

RealStream.com said:
NOTE: Please understand that because of the added dynamic range of the Andromeda output, if the camera operator adjusts the controls as to take full advantage of this dynamic range, the regular video recorded to tape will probably be overexposed (clipped to white) in some areas. In our experience it is still perfectly usable as editing footage, but if there is a possibility of wanting to use the tape video for the final product, the operator must adjust exposure for the regular camera video accordingly.
Click to expand...
http://www.reel-stream.com/faq#eight

I still believe Andromedia produces a better picture though. I can see it!!
 
heisest:
I'm not sure what you mean, why would you think that it couldn't be used in a regular studio environment for HD TV or regular TV? Since the data is not formated for any medium, you can target just about anything, including HD TV and regular TV.

You can't just instantly switch a USB device like that, specially one that is streaming data continously. What exactly did you have in mind? If you explain the application I can easily tell you if it can be done or not. :)

And BTW, that FAQ is about to get updated. The information on the FAQ has been there since the site was first put up, but we are in the middle of finishing up a new website. In either case, it makes no difference. Andromeda still records more dynamic range, it doesn't matter how you expose either output.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Thanks for the clarification Juan. Very helpful.

One more question if you don't mind. What is the actual resolution of the DVX CCDs? I know that you've managed to tap into some extra unused pixels. I'm curious what the highest theoretical maximum resolution the camera could provide. Barry, please correct me if I am wrong, hasn't spatial offset been evaluated to be around a 1.4x boost in resolution? And that would apply to shifting in only one dimension right?

Juan, does the Andromeda utilize spatial offset in both the vertical and horizontal?
 
pertierr said:
heisest:
I'm not sure what you mean, why would you think that it couldn't be used in a regular studio environment for HD TV or regular TV? Since the data is not formated for any medium, you can target just about anything, including HD TV and regular TV.

You can't just instantly switch a USB device like that, specially one that is streaming data continously. What exactly did you have in mind? If you explain the application I can easily tell you if it can be done or not. :)
Click to expand...
Well... there are studios that do "Live" recordings... where you don't actually go back and edit anything... you do the show live and switch from camera to camera as you need. So there IS no editing... as you are doing on-line editing.

I have no idea if this is possible and it sounds like it isn't. But it would have the advantage of a multicamer shoot with only one take and not having to have 300 GB storage for a 3 camera shoot lasting an hour.
 
I have followed this post for awhile and have the following observations;

PROS;

1). The Andremedia provides superior results over an un-modified DVX 100, at least from what I have seen - prove me wrong.

---- Challenge - If anyone has equal or better footage they would like to share using an un-modified dvx please provide a link. Note: please provice the full 720 x 480, basically the best you can offer.

2). The Andremedia has MAC compatibility, it is nice to offer an alternative to MS, those dogs...ha ha.

3). The Andremedia mod does not affect normal DVD features, when you need DV you have it, go back to what you are used to.

4). Andremedia extends the life of the normal NTSC SD camera, and will inspire videotographers who choose to use it.

5). More control, which yeilds better results. In most cases.

6). Clients want a more professional look, I think the Andremedia gives a step in that direction.

CONS;

1). The Andremedia is not Microsoft compatible, and entails a learning curve for a new OS and monetary outlay for MAC support.

2). HD in tapeless acquisition and is a space hog... this is not just related to Andremedia but all tapeless acquisition, be prepared to address "proper" storage, as I have stated this before.

3). The unknown ;
No one likes the gotcha's..most people expect things to behave as nornmal, lens adapters, scene setting files. etc, learing something new on the fly may be challanging.

4). Real Stream - New compay ? are you willing to invest? New and upcoming! What if the go under ?

5). Is the price right considering a new hvx is just a few weeks away ?


I know I have overlooked alot of details, but wanted to get away from the technical side for just a moment. For me, it's what I see that counts and from what I see the Andremedia looks a lot better.

Kindest of regards
 
dmbdvx said:
PROS;
4). Andremedia extends the life of the normal NTSC SD camera, and will inspire videotographers who choose to use it.
5). More control, which yeilds better results. In most cases.

CONS;
2). HD in tapeless acquisition and is a space hog... this is not just related to Andremedia but all tapeless acquisition, be prepared to address "proper" storage, as I have stated this before.
5). Is the price right considering a new hvx is just a few weeks away ?
Click to expand...

This is a serious consideration for me- it would extend the life of my DVX's, and cost considerably less the switching to two new HVX's. I'll definitely be following this and probably jump on board at some point.
 
A quick comment about the price point.

I just watched the DVD from Panasonic "AG-HVX200 Countdown" today. If you consider a system like the one Panasonic visualizes being used in the field, you get:

HVX-200 with 2 8GB P2 cards, since without the cards it's just a miniDV cam:$10,000
According to the DVD, each 8GB card holds about 8minutes of full HD, so you will definitely be swapping cards in and out in the field. For this they have the P2 store, which is another $1,800. This comes at around $11,800, not taking into consideration the computer you need to download the footage to when the P2 Store is full. The cheapest configuration will probably be an HVX200 with Firestore, which i guess will be like $6k + $1.5k or so.

Now, since we are on DVXuser i'm going to make the wild assumption that most people here already have a DVX :grin:. That's $3k for the Andromeda device, installation and software. Even when you tack on the cost of a mac mini it ends up being much less than the HVX setup, which provides decimated, compressed video with less dynamic range and color precision.

I think the key here is that these two systems do different things, and I know it's initially difficult to visualize this because Andromeda is based on the DVX. But basically it all comes down to whether you need uncompressed footage for your productions or not, and whether getting footage with extended dynamic range that's better for color correction and possible film-outs outweighs any problems of having to be connected to a computer while recording.

From the DVD it seems like the HVX will be dependent on the P2 Store or a computer as well, but instead of a cable there will be someone with good sneakers and fast hands going back and forth. :)

I do have to say, that their gratuitous use of the jogging female as test footage was worth the watch.

Cheers,
Juan
 
pertierr said:
From the DVD it seems like the HVX will be dependent on the P2 Store or a computer as well, but instead of a cable there will be someone with good sneakers and fast hands going back and forth. :)
Click to expand...

If the HVX came standard with one of those assistants, I would buy one right now! :thumbsup:
 
Good point, I think the jogging female might've been carrying P2 cards from a shoot to the production truck.
 
I was groovin on this until I read that Andromeda isn't MS-system compatable.

Oh, well. It was a nice thought, while it lasted.
 
Sad Max said:
I was groovin on this until I read that Andromeda isn't MS-system compatable.
Click to expand...
Actually I do believe that while it would be better to capture the footage using a mini-mac they have stated that you can take the video file and edit this on a pc.

My question would be: What program on the PC would be comparable to SculptorHD?? Or what programs could one use to edit this in HD??
 
heisest said:
What is the maximum amount of frames per second (throughput) that can be captured using the process? And if it is 24 frames per second what is the bottleneck in the process? In other words can this product be used in a studio environment to be used for HD TV or regular TV?
Click to expand...
Also I was hoping for an answer to the above. I ask because I've heard that 24p is the most that your process allows because it is not compressed and USB can't handle anything higher?? But if to go to broadcast you need 60(30) fps then won't there be some type of banding in trying in post to move this from 24p to 30fps?? (In the same way there are issues with moving from normal video to 24p which is why they came out with the DVX100 in the first place??)
 
To answer your questions:

Yes, you can work on PC for editing.

Remember that your editing/fx/etc software doesn't have to directly "support Sculptor". Sculptor simply allows you to shoot and export your raw uncompressed footage in whatever format you desire. If you want the output as frames(as with film), you can export your footage in .cin, .dpx, .tiff, .bmp, .jpg, .etc. If you want to export clips, then you can export Quicktime .mov files in any codec you have on the capture system.

These exported files are what you put in your editing software, so you can edit on any platform. There are no propietary formats that need to be supported by other software in order to edit. You export from sculptor in standard computer formats, either uncompressed or compressed, your choice.

The system does only work in 24P/24PA mode as of now, but it is no trouble to export footage into 60i, this is done with the standard DVX footage all the time. For example, if you record 24PA footage with the DVX, you can obtain the original 24 complete frames, and then go from there. With Andromeda you get 24 images a second. It's no different than working with standard 24PA from the DVX.

Hope this helps!
Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top