Cees Mutsaers
Veteran
sept 16th is today so there should be more info available by now !!!!
So now when specs and footage?
- Thread starter stephenvv
- Start date
There is one really cool effect that can be attained without the camera being able to do ramps that is a "rampoid", but much crazyer! :shocked: If the stops are enough to create a ramp then you can shoot the same sequence over and over again having your talent do his movements exactly the same and with the same tempo... this can only be used for short periods and there can't be too many exact movements, props or backrouds that help establish positions easily... Overly rehearsed sequences can look really cool like this. You need to shoot the same thing in all the different speeds and that is a bit tricky...
Kenn_Christenson
Active member
Ramping (in this case) is the smooth transition from one frame rate to another to gradually create the look of going form say normal speed into slow motion. Of course there are numerous motion effects that can be ramped into and out of (fast motion to normal, slow motion to fast, etc.) Ramping just means the motion effects have a smooth "graduation" from one to the next.FatBird19 said:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Are you saying that the chip pixel spec is more important to you than what the footage looks like?FatBird19 said:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
This oughta be good.
Barry_Green said:
eh? the chip pixel spec IS what the footage looks like.
I'm hesitant of HDV. I don't like the idea of editing MPEG2. I like the fact that the HVX uses an established format for video recording rather than a new standard. I don't care how many people tell me that HD can safely be compressed with MPEG2 onto 19mbps of data, I'd still feel more comfortable editing HD on 100mbps.
Plus, the HVX can shoot in 4:2:2 rather than 4:2:0.
But, if the HVX's chips are interplortated to 1280, then I'm wondering if I'd prefer to go the JVC HDV route. I'm wondering which one will look better.
Basically, if that were true, I'd be debating between color sampling and image resolution.
I don't know which one will really affect the image more, but if the HVX DOES have native 1280wide chips, then I choose it over the JVC hands down.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
FatBird19 said:
It is statements like this that tell me that people actually believe that to make an HD image it has to have a 720 X 1280 imager. So tell me how are they getting those HD images out of the Adromeda and the SD DVX imager. The imager is an analog device. There is no pixel for pixel relationship from the chip set to the recording so my feeling is that you really should look at the pictures, the resolution as it is recorded, the low light sensitivity, the dynamic range as these are really vastly more useful in determining whether a camera will be an appropriate choice for recording HD.
Best,
Jan
Jan_Crittenden said:
Given how great the DVX100 was, I'm just trusting that all those attributes will be there in the HVX already. So now my only concern is specs details.
But again, I don't know. It could be that the HVX fails in all of those departments. Until I know for sure, I'm going to trust that it holds up where the DVX did and after that the only thing I'm concerned with is chip resolution.
We'll see in december won't we?
Damon Botsford
Court Jester
Barry's got a flyswatter and every time somebody buzzes around with "small chips no good", he nails 'em. It's highly entertaining.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There's not a statement I can think of that would be further from the truth. By that logic, Canon would never have sold a single XL1 or XL1s...FatBird19 said:
The footage looks like the sum of a lot of things. The quality of the lens, the type of sensor (CCD or CMOS), the number of chips, the size of the pixels on the chip, the number of pixels on the chip, the sampling algorithms used to sample an image off the chip, the DSP (and the gamma curves and all the other digital signal processing that goes on with it), the chroma sampling employed, the type of compression used... there are so many things that go into the making of an image, that the pixel count on the chip is arguably the LEAST important item among them.
You can search for other info, but let me sum it up like this: a higher pixel count hurts footage quality in every way but one: overall resolution. Higher pixel count = higher luminance resolution, but worse latitude, worse sensitivity (worse low-light performance), worse signal-to-noise ratio, worse everything. Lower pixel count is just the opposite: better signal-to-noise better latitude, better sensitivity, better everything -- just potentially lower resolution (depending on how the chip is sampled; spatial offset can give you just as high resolution but keep the pixel count down so your footage look BETTER).
Okay, let me sum it up like this: a $48,000 Sony Digital Betacam camera has 520,000 pixels on its chip. A $600 Sony DCR-HC90 has 2 million pixels on its chip. Which do you think produces the better-looking video?
No chips are "interpolated". Spatial offset is not interpolation, it's a completely legitimate and validated technique that has been reported by the BBC to legitimately increase resolution to a max of 41% more than the native pixel count. In other words, it works, and it works well, and provides many, many benefits to the image quality.
Interpolation implies "making up pixels that aren't actually there." Spatial offset means aligning the CCDs in such a way that they cover far more actual pixels than the native resolution of each chip by itself. The pixels are legit -- they're actually there. It's just the way they get sampled that lets you get much higher actual resolution out of the chips.
Exactly! That's the question -- how it LOOKS, not how the spec sheet reads. If the image looks better, would you really care which one had which spec?
Not necessarily. I wrote a huge page here a few months ago which explained how various pixel specs could be used, from 1280x1080 to 1280x720 to even 960x720, and all still deliver full native resolution and better color representation and better color sampling than a "native-res" CCD.
Questions about resolution should be answered by shooting a resolution chart, not by wondering whether one chip has more pixels than another. The more pixels your chip has (beyond a certain point), the worse your video is going to look.
Let's answer that by shooting some side-by-side shots as soon as both cameras are available.
............wow
well, besides a few tidbits, I knew most of that already.
one thing I did learn from your post was about the color representation in smaller pixels. I know that more pixels crammed isn't always better, and I knew that eventually smaller pixels will amount to a worse image. What I didn't know was exactly how the smaller pixels degraded the image:
---------------------------------------------------------
Higher pixel count = higher luminance resolution, but worse latitude, worse sensitivity (worse low-light performance), worse signal-to-noise ratio, worse everything.
---------------------------------------------------------
Again though, the rest I already knew. You could have just asked me a few simple questions and saved yourself a lot of typing.
well, besides a few tidbits, I knew most of that already.
one thing I did learn from your post was about the color representation in smaller pixels. I know that more pixels crammed isn't always better, and I knew that eventually smaller pixels will amount to a worse image. What I didn't know was exactly how the smaller pixels degraded the image:
---------------------------------------------------------
Higher pixel count = higher luminance resolution, but worse latitude, worse sensitivity (worse low-light performance), worse signal-to-noise ratio, worse everything.
---------------------------------------------------------
Again though, the rest I already knew. You could have just asked me a few simple questions and saved yourself a lot of typing.