My (new) Used DVX100a doesn't appear to produce a sharp image on TV

D

danstanbury

Active member
Hi
Just bought a second hand DVX100a on ebay and I'm a little worried there might be something wrong with the camera.

As a complete newbie there is a good chance that I've got the settings wrong but I did faithfully follow Andy Strabucks wonderful guide to starting out and now I view my first images on a TV screen it looks as if the sharpness or definition of the picture is well below broadcast quality. It's as if the definition of things likes eyes etc are slightly fuzzy.

What could it be?

Perhaps its in the wrong mode, on my tv it automatically switches to 16:9 wide screen so perhapse the camera is operating in squeeze mode and reducing the definition.

Could it be something to do with the setting of the pixel shape, I understand TV screens have different shaped pixels to computers?

Any advice would be most welcome as I've got that sinking feeling I may have bought a dud camera. Or maybe my expectations were just too high.

Many thanks for your help

Dan
 
Best thing to do is put up a frame grab of an image and let us take a look at it. That way we'll be able to see if it's the camera, or the render to TV-compatible format.

The TV pic shouldn't be non-sharp.
 
Thanks mate, I'll try and get a screen grab tonight. I suppose I just have to upload the footage to computer via firewire and then use the screen grab function on the computer. Does this site allow me to post a screen grab or do I have to upgrade my membership?
Many thanks
Dan
 
Oh...well...I was thinking more like load the footage into your editor and grabbing a frame there.

You mean you're seeing less-than-wonderful footage running from the camera's video out to the TV? That might be an entirely different issue (and I'd have no clue).

As for uploading here...that's privilege only a select few enjoy. :) Best to put the image on another website like www.putfile.com and link to it here.

Dan (too)
 
Hey Dan, thanks for helping me out here. Yes I've been playing the footage directly onto my tv from the analogue output on my dvx. I'm thinking it might have something to do with the output being analogue, perhaps when I upload onto a computer screen digitally it will look better. Also I'm not really experienced enough to describe the issue, it might be as much to do with the apparent definition of the image rather than sharpness, for example if my camera is in one of the 16:9 modes perhaps its losing definition there. I think a good night in with the manual might help, I hope. Cheers Dan
 
When I hook my camera directly into a TV, it doesn't look so hot either. Get that footage into your computer and take a look at it. I think you'll be amazed by the difference.
 
Hi all, thanks so much for your advice, here are grabs from the footage uploaded onto computer http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=11/30703260031.jpg&s=x11 http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=11/30703124371.jpg&s=x11 . I agree it looks much better on computer, let me know if you think this is on Par? Mind you I think the issue was more to do with the moving image than a still, seemed to be flickering or pixelating on the edge of hard lines. Also I think its clear I've had it on squeeze mode without knowing. The problem I've found with the digitised version is there seems to be lots of intermittent frames missing, occasionally it just jumps. Is this what you call drop outs? Could it be to do with the panasonic DS 60 I've been using as a deck or maybe the cheap standard microsoft film editor I'm using which comes as part of microsoft office? Icarus I'll check the file settings tonight, I assume this is editing one of the 6 files via the menu? Any insights would be most helpful, thanks again Dan
 
Think your grabs look OK.

First shot looks slightly blurred, but think it's MOTION blur. Were you handheld, or panning?

Focus in the second shot is not on the kid's eyes! - look at the ridges on the sofa material, they appear to be in focus forward of the kid's eyes. Are you relying on autofocus? If you're manual focussing , did you zoom right into the eyes, focus then zoom out and compose the shot? This makes it easier to see the point of sharpest focus.

Below is a link to a thread about flicker on horizontal lines. The second post on it links to 3 other threads about it!

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=33260&highlight=flicker

"Dropped frames" can be a lot of things. Underpowered computer, programmes (like antivirus or backup) running in the background, specific camera model not supported by capture programme, insufficient spare disc space or RAM, dodgy firewire cable, and so on! "Drop outs" refer to recordings on tape that have missing frames, caused by tape damage or clogged heads. If the tape plays back OK in the camera, then the problem is "dropped frames" during capture ("digitising").
 
Hey, thanks for this, priceless. yes I was handheld in the first shot, probably not too steady but not moving that fast. Spot on about the eyes yes I was in autofocus as moving around. I think I'm going to have to be a bit more disciplined about using the camera, its the eyes that have been throwing me so far and autofocus does not seem to notice them. I look forward to checking out the threads on flickers. I think you are right about the computer dropping frames, its only about 250mb ram and lots of anit virus software in the background, do you suggest I dissable this when uploading footage? I remember it was not happening when played directly from the tap. Cheers, Dan
 
Autofocus is OK on higher contrast detail in the centre of the frame in interlace mode. In progressive, it's much slower and Panasonic then call it 'focus assist' - it'll be too slow for moving objects or moving camera. In a wide shot, the eyes may be too small to register well with the autofocus. It won't work with offcentre subjects. When the autofocus is struggling, it may "hunt" for focus with the result that it's out of focus for most of the shot. If so, switch to manual focus, zoom right in, focus and then zoom out to desired framing. This will keep focus as long as you don't change the distance between subject and camera too much.

If you don't mind deep depth of field, you can increase your light levels (or gain) and decrease your iris/aperture, and stay at the wide end of the lens to help with focus when your subject to camera distance is changing a lot due to movement of subject, camera or both.

As far as capturing. Yes, it is a good idea to temporarily disconnect from the internet, and disable background programmes during capture. 250Mb RAM is on the low side if you're doing video work. I've got 512Mb and that's on the edge. I would max out your PC memory if you can afford it. What CPU and speed is your computer?
 
mmm the computer's at home so cannot check now but I think the processor is the latest intel probably about 2 ghz, I think I need to look into getting a ram upgrade card or alternative new computer, not cheap. Might wait until I can afford to get a mac and do it properly. I the short term I guess my best option is to digitise in short clips ie 2-5 minutes what do you reckon?
 
2 GHz is plenty fast enough. Have at least 1 or 2GB free disc space. Disable your background programmes temporarily. That may be enough.

If not, upgrade your RAM next to at least 512MB.

Short clips are more efficient if you're selective, but not necessary.
 
Time for me to be the computer geek I am:

I have a 2+ GHz Athlon, with 1 GB of ram, and that captures fine....very little to no frame drops on huge captures.

I would also invest into a "scratch drive" - like a seperate 80GB hardrive or something that sits totally and physically independent of the main system drive.

That way while you are doing all the capturing and rendering, you aren't tearing the living hell out of you main harddrive, and therefore putting your system files and programm files in danger. Some people would call this overkill, but better safe than sorry.

Also, this would reduce the need to defrag your harddrive since you might record, then delete the files, fragging up your harddrive and making your harddrive work harder.

Just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top