not happy with 1920x1080 p quality

I always like still shots of the JVC100, but almost every time I look at a movie shot with the JVC, I notice some strange motion jerking. I like the basic look , but I wonder if the occasional jerkiness is a product of the intraframe compression. I doubt if the it is always a problem with the QuickTime or WMV compression.

I have a few landscape shots that look a little soft to me, but they are beautiful. I think the HVX is awesome.

Seamus
 
^
Hmmm...I personally really dislike the JVC's image. The colors just look off and there's too much edge enhacment for my taste. Different strokes I guess.
 
True about the edge enhancmnnt, but its hilight handling is very pretty. very natual and organic.
 
I've heard that from Barry. Perhaps in Black and White I could take it but good looking colors are too important to me and JVC (and Sony's) just don't stack up. Canon's is currently the only HDV codec that produce decent looking colors to my eye.
 
TimurCivan said:
I wonder if the codec thats responsible or if its the DSP and chipset?
Click to expand...

It's most definitely the image processing of the DIGIC DVII DSP combined with a sharp and colorful/contrasty lens. Camera tweakage and operation play a big part in getting good color too.

I've recorded uncompressed output from the JVC and Canon (both with color tweaks--JVC had the "Paolo True Color settings"), and there's just no getting around it; the JVC's colorimetry is radically different than the H1, and I believe the bane of the JVC is its lens, despite the pro tactile feel of it. Heck, even the SD 16x Canon manual lens is a better HD lens than the little Fujinon.

HDV is just a low bit-rate/efficient MPEG2 intra-frame codec. It's all in how the codec is fed from the DSP that maximizes its potential.
 
Hmmm ok. I am unfmiliar with work flow on JVC and canon. Ive seen canon Footy, its good. But so is JVC and HVX. I really can hardly tell the difference between these machines. the only clue, is the HVX stuff looks like Sharp DVX footage. Same.... image charachteristics.

Damn i need to get into the HD market......
 
I always thinks that the footage isnt sharp DVX footage. The DVX can tweak its footage so much that there isnt just one DVX look.

The HVX footage to looks to me like a soft but detailed picture. Just as film on cinema looks.

I have never on cinema seen sharp edges. Detailed but not sharp. Filmlook have never been about sharp edges. Video on the other hand has.
 
I will post some shots later on ... need to find some similar subjects shot at different times. As I did the testing during a medieval procession ... I need to find the same subjects during the day ... please give me some time. Barry ... I am surprised to read
the HVX makes 'fake' interlace from a progressive scan. I am not saying I don't believe you ... far from ... but it makes my results look strange. Some other member on this forum said Shake and Compressor have the same settings ... I don't agree ... Even if it is the same engine ... the three basic presets ... you know ... good ... better and best ... or from bad ... to 'I'm without my computer for a week' don't yield the same results ... all i want to say ... tweaking all the sliders in Compressor might yield what Shake does with the flip of a button ... And to answer one of the first remarks ... yes all this de-interlacing is for film-output ... it looks good on my 30" Cinema Displays ... but not as good on my Pioneer PDP-5000EX HD plasma ... which has the choice of progressive and interlaced ... to my biggest surprise! I sure thought that this HD plasma with an HD decklinck would yield the best picture evver in progressive... and it doesn't. I blame it on the beta drivers I have from Blackmagic. I'll keep you all posted on my testing. I find it funny that all the technical number crunching theories sometimes don't add up to the reality. Or is it all just personal taste ? So ... that was my two cents worth for today.
 
Final ... thoughts ... I kinda wonder if by the nature of the camera, a PAL 25 frames or an NTSC 30 frames ... we actually might be comparing apples to pears. Maybe these cameras yield very different pictures in their respective system. I once tested the Sony and filmed in NTSC and in PAL and I must say ... the PAL results were way better than the NTSC. ... On a lighter note ... you know what we call NTSC in Europe ? Never The Same Color ...
 
HD Studio Belgium said:
On a lighter note ... you know what we call NTSC in Europe ? Never The Same Color ...
Click to expand...
Never Twice the Same Color...

Anyway, 1080/24p or 30p is just called as NTSC version 'cause the frequency rate (60Hz) and the subsequent frame format (30 or 24). Besides it doesn't make sense to call NTSC or PAL @HD_environment. The frame size is actually the same otherwise than the SD world. Aside the 1440x1080 (50i) vs. 1280x1080 (60i) of the different versions of the DVCPRO-HD codec.
 
HD Studio Belgium said:
I am surprised to read the HVX makes 'fake' interlace from a progressive scan. I am not saying I don't believe you ... far from ... but it makes my results look strange.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm scratching my head over this, I'd love to see what your results are.

It's not so much "fake" interlace as it is generated from two progressive frames. There is no interlace scanning of the chips at all in the HVX (which differs from the DVX, which could scan its chips in interlace mode or in progressive mode; in the HVX it scans at up to 1080/60p and then slices the 60 frames in half to make fields out of 'em).

You can read a bit more about it here:

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/papers/P2-WP.pdf
 
HD Studio Belgium said:
I once tested the Sony and filmed in NTSC and in PAL and I must say ... the PAL results were way better than the NTSC.
Click to expand...
They should be; PAL is a more-advanced video standard than NTSC is. It's 20% higher resolution with better color fidelity.

The same doesn't hold true for high-def though; in high-def all things are equal (color space, frame dimensions, etc); the only thing different is the actual frame rate.

... On a lighter note ... you know what we call NTSC in Europe ? Never The Same Color ...
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what we call it over here too!
 
After reading, that shake-deinterlaced pictures provide better quality than HVX200 progressive pictures I shot some non moving images in 1080i/50i and in 1080i/25p mode, which I guess are the two modes that post was referring to. If the externally deinterlaced pictures are better quality, than the 50i should be better quality as well (I can't imagine a any process that actually adds detail...). But the pictures shot in the two modes look exactly alike. I can not tell any difference whatsoever.
Maybe I misunderstood that post...but there seems to be no loss in quality from 50i to 25p. Maybe shake just sharpens the picture or does something else to make it appear a better picture.
 
Id be really curious to see some tests if someone has time for it, id do it but i am still stuck to my editing solution and i got no shake, so hdstudio, we are waiting for your comeback and some nice tests!

Splitscreen would be nice, maybe posting really short uncompressed clips..!?!
 
jwfilm said:
After reading, that shake-deinterlaced pictures provide better quality than HVX200 progressive pictures I shot some non moving images in 1080i/50i and in 1080i/25p mode, which I guess are the two modes that post was referring to. If the externally deinterlaced pictures are better quality, than the 50i should be better quality as well (I can't imagine a any process that actually adds detail...). But the pictures shot in the two modes look exactly alike. I can not tell any difference whatsoever.
Maybe I misunderstood that post...but there seems to be no loss in quality from 50i to 25p. Maybe shake just sharpens the picture or does something else to make it appear a better picture.
Click to expand...

Try this test: Put one person in Medium Close up and do a pan with him always centered. Use a shutter above or equal to 50. Do this in both 50i and 25p modes. You'll definetly see the difference. Also, be sure to use a shutter from 50 or above. If you're using 24 shutter, you're losing resolution.
 
Try this test: Put one person in Medium Close up and do a pan with him always centered. Use a shutter above or equal to 50. Do this in both 50i and 25p modes. You'll definetly see the difference. Also, be sure to use a shutter from 50 or above. If you're using 24 shutter, you're losing resolution.
Click to expand...

How do I pan with a person always centered? That demands a very advanced setup, doesn't it? But anyway, the point of using non moving images (no camera movement and nothing in the picture moves) was to bypass any interlace problems and to see whether 50i is capable of delivering a more detailed picture under the best circumstances (as it was indicated in the original post). I used a shutter speed of 50 in both cases.

But it is interesting to hear that I loose resolution (actually that should be detail though, since the the resolution is fixed by the cameras settings) at lower shutter speeds. I will have to remember that, as I often use a shutter speed of 25.
 
jwfilm said:
<snip>
But it is interesting to hear that I loose resolution (actually that should be detail though, since the the resolution is fixed by the cameras settings) at lower shutter speeds. I will have to remember that, as I often use a shutter speed of 25.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I'm pretty sure that applies to interlaced video only. Shooting with a progressive camera at 25P and 1/25 shutter should yield full resolution (motion blur from the shutter speed not withstanding). There will be a correction on that if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure on that.

While I'm on this thread, I see no way to get a better 25P from a 50i stream as opposed to a recorded 25P stream. If shake can make a 50i video look really nice as 25P then I just think that means shake can make your native 25P look even better. The HVX is a progressive camcorder and shooting it in interlace mode is not going to add one line of resolution. My 2 cents.

www.philipwilliams.com
 
philnerd said:
Hmm.. I'm pretty sure that applies to interlaced video only.
Click to expand...
You are correct.
Shooting with a progressive camera at 25P and 1/25 shutter should yield full resolution (motion blur from the shutter speed not withstanding). There will be a correction on that if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure on that.
Click to expand...
No correction necessary, you're absolutely right.

While I'm on this thread, I see no way to get a better 25P from a 50i stream as opposed to a recorded 25P stream. If shake can make a 50i video look really nice as 25P then I just think that means shake can make your native 25P look even better. The HVX is a progressive camcorder and shooting it in interlace mode is not going to add one line of resolution. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Those would be 2 cents well spent, as I think you're exactly right. If anything is happening it's probably some sharpening filter or something, which you could apply to the progressive footage as well and get the same effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top