UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panasonic!

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

ok that's what i'm trying to understand-demostrate: there isnt't any defect on the rocorded image! (all the previous shots are form pans) and the problems appears only when played back on an inadeguate dispositive: maybe that 25p "in absolute" (i've noticed some experts having problems of strobing with hig-end hd professional camera)
is perfect for film out but not with electronics media that involves different tecnology and have particulars frame frequence and refresh and this footage needs to be manipulated for the output:
Yesterday i've downloaded "Magic bullet suite"
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/magbulsuit.htmlit is not been made for ours probem but it seems to be very usefull i'm running some test and seems that it make a good job.
Anyone known this suite or something like this one?
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

I think now we are reaching some better understandings on the strobbing issue. As I have noted in my earlier posts that I was able to control all strobing at 1/120, almost the same quality as mauro's image at 1/1000, and off course a lot brigheter image. Sorry I cannot post my results, at least for now. I also noted that while the movie shot at 1/120 looked silk smooth in the 32 inches wide screen SONY Multi system TV, some (just some) strobbing was visible when I transferred it to my computer through the firewire. I used Premier Pro 7.0 for that and also burnt a DVD RW. However, the same DVD seen on the TV shows no strobing. So, based on our discussion here in this forum so far, CAN we conclude that:

1. The PAL version of the DVX100 family (both DVX100E and DVX100AE) are technically  'OK' cameras???

2. By making use of the various options (shutter speed, Iris, gamma settings etc), and by using the camera properly (tripods etc) we can 'effectively' control the strobbing???

3. the issues raised in this thread and the other one concerning the problems of the DVX100, are partly due to the fact that the 25P, for which this cam was a pioneer in the Mini DV category, has NOW reached at the crossroads of usage between various old and new technologies (of recording and display), and users (professinals and prosumers). It sounds probable given the fact that all these ''problems or issues'' which are now being expereinced or at least being reported, did not come to the fore earlier.???

These are off course not foregone conclusions. However I got these IMPRESSIONS from the discussion so far. I would very much like to see your views.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Interesting to hear these POV.

Aejaz
“1. The PAL version of the DVX100 family (both DVX100E and DVX100AE) are technically 'OK' cameras

2. By making use of the various options (shutter speed, Iris, gamma settings etc), and by using the camera properly (tripods etc) we can 'effectively' control the strobbing”

I don’t think we can conclude this because Panasonic use this Progressive to interlace conversion {i.e. the splitting of a progressive frame into A and B fields like telecine does} to be compatible with PAL systems and in panny’s words- ‘for correct PAL display’ Now I simply cant get a moving image which I could describe as being correct on a PAL display regardless of whether I’m using
50 60 or 120 shutter,
my cheapy Manfrotto or Pricey Fluid Cartoni,
my Halogen desk lamps or Kinoflo Kit,
an NHS wheelchair or Chapman Peewee 2.

Footage I’ve shot with S16 and telecined to interlaced video looked great even on a crappy old PAL TV.
Footage viewed on pal monitor via BNC from original HDcam 25p tape Looked great.

By the powers of common sense alone I decree that

Hence Svideo feed to monitor from DVX100 25P footage should look good surely!!??

But alas no, not unless viewed on Progressive display.

Unfortunately this ‘inadequate dispositive’ is how 99.9% of clients will view my work. If this type of display works for HD & film, why not the DVX? :-/

“is perfect for film out but not with electronics media that involves different technology and have particulars frame frequency and refresh and this footage needs to be manipulated for the output:”

This is a progressive camera designed to easily integrate into current interlace delivery & viewing technologies.
An Under 3K PAL based dv camera designed to be cut on an under 3k PAL based Dv edit system that then has to be tweaked and manipulated {possibly at an expensive post house} just to make the footage viewable using the system it was intended and designed for {PAL 50i}??
What’s the point in that!!?? ???

Incidentally I’d love to know how you get on with that ‘magic bullet suite’ software! ;)

Maybe one day I may be able to turn that round dial beyond F4!! Here’s hoping!!
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Brendan--you're absolutely right: this camera was not designed for film outs only--it should look good on a standard video monitor, and that's what the majority of people will be showing their work on. And I'm glad you brought up the fact that you've done 16mm and HD tests, because it's important for both PAL and NTSC users to come to terms with the comparisons between film/progressive HD and DVX100 24P. Despite what anyone tells me, I can see a very noticeable difference between the motion rendering on pans--there's a stutter. It doesn't matter what shutter speed, type of lighting, etc. it's there. the image looks great when it's locked down, even when images are moving rapidly across the screen. but panning (no matter how slowly) will look choppy in a way that no telecined 16mm i've ever shot or seen has ever looked. and it may just be a simple matter of resolution--i'm not sure. but they don't handle motion the same, that's for sure--the eyes don't lie.

it's still a great camera, and allows for some interesting aesthetics. but it does make me wonder why the huge dichotomy exists between people who love the look and people who hate the look, as well as why some people seem to be completely unaware of any strobing and why some are driven insane by it. could there be "bad batches" of cameras out there as some people have speculated? maybe, but not likely. i think it has more to do with a combination of factors, the first being that people were (and are) so excited about a camera that shoots at a film frame rate that they glossed over the camera's limitations in regards to motion rendering. secondly, i think some people have never shot on film before and just think that the DVX footage looks "just like 16mm" because it has some of the choppy elements of a mediocre telecine job. i wish i had an answer, but i don't think we'll ever get one.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

AT LAST! Okay guys, I know what's happening now, and I know why PAL users are complaining more than NTSC users are.

First, let's clarify: the "double image" is a nonissue, as it's simple motion blur. That's not part of the problem, those still shots demonstrate that the camera is working properly.

As far as the "double lines": I think I finally have an explanation for that. As I understand it, you guys are saying that the foootage is perfectly progressive when viewed on a progressive monitor, but when viewing pans on a television, you're seeing lines.

For our NTSC friends, this isn't strobing they're seeing: it's interlace line artifacts.

What's happening is that you're seeing the "A" and "B" (or "even" and "odd") fields displayed at different instances in time.

To recap: the camera captures both the "A" and "B" fields at the same time. The TV, however, displays them at different moments in time. The TV is interlaced. It draws a new "field" every 1/50th of a second. It draws the even lines, then 1/50th of a second later it draws the odd lines. While it's drawing the odd lines, the even lines are still visible. Then when it goes to draw the new even lines, the old odd lines are still visible. Follow me so far?

Okay, so let's take frame 1: the even lines get drawn, and then the odd lines get drawn. You have a beautiful 25P frame now displayed on your television. So the TV now starts to draw frame two: it takes the even lines from frame two and draws them.

STOP: right now you have the even lines from frame 2, and the odd lines from frame 1 still visible on your TV! So if you were panning horizontally, yes, you'll see interlace artifacts and lines and "comb" artifacts all over the frame! This sounds exactly like what you guys are seeing. And this process will repeat for every frame. It'll draw the odd lines from frame 2, and all is well, but then it'll draw the even lines from frame 3, and the odd lines are still visible from frame 2, and you'll see lines!

If it's any consolation to you, we also get that in NTSC. However, NTSC guys don't complain about it as much because it's less prevalent for us here, because nobody here bothers to shoot in 30P. If we were to shoot in 30P, we'd see the exact same artifacts and problems you guys are seeing in 25P, because our 30P works like your 25P system does: each frame gets drawn by 2 television fields. But because we shoot in 24P, there's more field-doubling and field-blending, so the line edges are less prevalent. But in 30P, we get the exact same artifact that you guys get in 25P.

So, what can you do about it? I'm not sure. The camera is recording exactly what it's supposed to be recording: 25 pure progressive-scanned frames per second. The camera is storing it on tape exactly as the brochure describes: splitting that frame into two separate fields. The camera is feeding that to the television exactly as it should: one field at a time. It's the television's doing, not the camera's.

How can you improve the look? I'd suggest not shooting in THIN mode, as shooting in THIN mode would make the problem MORE NOTICEABLE. You should probably be using THICK mode, since that will blur the distinction between the lines. And, heck, Panasonic recommends that you always use THICK when displaying on a television anyway, THIN is only for computer displays or film transfer, something where interlacing will not occur. THICK should mask the problem. May not make it go away, but it should mask it.

Why don't films transferred to video show this artifact in PAL? Well, I'll bet they do... they must. They can't NOT show it. But the telecine system probably has some sort of advanced blur method incorporated, to minimize the effect. I'm sure if you research the history of telecine in PAL countries you'll probably find somewhere where they encountered the same issue and developed some sort of blur technique to mask the problem.

Why would Magic Bullet help? Because Magic Bullet de-interlaces and blends fields together, which would cause some blurring between the fields which would mask the sharp edges of the interlaced field lines. Lower resolution, but smoother transition between fields.

In summary, only ever shoot THICK for a PAL television. Try it, it should help. May not make the issue disappear entirely, but it should help.

At least we know what's going on now.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Jarred, come on man, give these guys some credit--they've been running through tests for weeks & I'm sure they've been smart enough to put the camera on a tripod. I know Brendan's tried at least two different ones based on his posts.

Secondly, Barry, thank for for an excellent post than actually gives so technical answers to these problems instead of the typical brush-off these concerns usually garner. I think you're absolutely correct that it must have something to do with the way the DVX does the pulldown, because the only time I've noticed the "strobbing" effect I see in the DVX in 16mm is from a really cheap telecine job.

I think you're absolutely right about (at least for the NTSC DVX) the interlaced frame being the problem child on DVX footage played back on a monitor. So what is the answer? Wait until progressive scan monitors become cheaper? Wait for Panasonic to work a new type of pulldown into the next version of the DVX? Was this camera just introduced before its time?

I guess these are some questions that need to be addressed by Panasonic and DVX users alike.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Jarred, you're certainly right to question the most obvious things first--90% of these problems are from people expecting to see glossy 35mm shooting handheld in the dark. But these guys have had some serious issues and questions & it seems like they've legitimately tried all possible scenarios to get the camera to work for them.

I think Barry's post brought up some hugely important issues about how the DVX's footage operates in relation to NTSC/PAL monitors & I would love to see some discussion generated about this. I would also like to hear Barry's thoughts on the "interlace flickering" issue brought about by the DVX's pulldown viewed on an NTSC monitor & what some possible workarounds would be.

Today I was watching some footage I shot of a theater performance last month--theatrical lighting, shot in 24P normal, Thick, Vertical Detail -4, on a fluid head bogen, shutter off, no OIS. I viewed it on a 27" Sony WEGA and a Sony PVM-14L5 Professional monitor. When I kept the camera still, zoomed in, etc. the footage looked great--i couldn't tell the difference between it and 16mm. But as soon as I panned right, the choppiness started. definitely related to the interlaced frame--it looks like a bad encoding job.

what to do, what to do.....??? :P
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Hmmm. I don't think it has anything to do with the chroma patterning issue, but what do I know, I can't see the PAL footage! ;D

I noticed the stair-stepping interlace artifacts on quick pans on NTSC footage way back in Aug '02 when the preview camera was being shown at WEVA. That's what made me make the connection.

It also seems to gibe with what they were saying on the CreativeCow forum, where there would be ringing or buzzing in the footage -- uncorrected high-frequency detail might do that in a picture, especially on an older set... although I'm getting a bit out of my element even talking about that.

It seems to make perfectly logical sense: a PAL user, or a 30P NTSC user, would be seeing a "split frame" a full 50% of the time. Whereas with 24PN, we'd see a split frame about ... hold on, doing the math here... oh, about... looks like 40% of the time. Better, but not dramatically so.

Solutions seem to be the same as always, either slow down your pans (so there isn't so much displacement difference between the fields), or use a slower shutter speed (so there's more blur, and again, less temporal distinction between fields). And try to avoid stark contrast in vertical lines (i.e., panning across a white picket fence might exaggerate the noticeability of the issue). And use THICK mode, so there's even less sharp distinction between fields.

And hope interlace dies a quick and nasty death, and we can all get on to progressive TV's! ;D

If I can get a free camera-test-caliber transfer, maybe I'll torch a little 16mm film at 30fps, and transfer it frame-for-frame, and compare that against DVX 30p shot at the same time (maybe I'll mount both cameras side-by-side on my car and drive past a picket fence... anybody out there work at a transfer house, willing to do a one-light one-minute xfer for cheap/free, in the name of science?) ;)
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Jarred, come on now don’t be silly, the double image in those stills was definitely motion blur but you know this is something different. :P
Barry I think ur right on the money. I figured that the cadence of the B field is to long so its still visible when the next A field appears. But surely as this cam is designed for PAL use this should have been a real obvious issue for the panny R&D techies and dealt with BEFORE the product was released. I don’t know how but film telecine to pal does work, and HD 25P displayed on a standard pal display DOES WORK, and without the double lines & detail buzz that we’re seeing. Trust me, over the past month every film I’ve seen {of HD or 35mm origin} on TV I’ve been looking for these interlaced artefacts and they’re just not there!!?? Now we’ve got a better understanding of what’s going on we just need to work out what we can do about it, even if it has to be fixed in post. An NL editor or FX plug in courtesy of panny maybe!? I just want to go shoot some 25P stuff that I can USE in my pal projects. I’m sure my clients will love the look if I could just remove those interlaced artefacts! :-/
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

So, buy or not to buy now. I'm going to buy PAL cam in three weeks. It seems that 25P will be unusable at beggining but do You think that later it will be corrected with new cam software?
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

And is there really big difference in picture look and quality between 50i and 25P on standard PAL TV when all other settings (gamma, pedestal, chroma level, ...) I set to same values? I mean if I turn off progressive mode in F6?
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Laco, 50i and 25P are noticeably very different in the way they look. you see it the motion of the picture. the rest settings deal with the picture's contrast, color etc.
and i wouldn't say 25P is unusable.. though i still can't tell if there is or isn't a problem with PAL and the new "A" models... sooner or later we'll get to a conclusion regarding this.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso


Hi,
sorry I've been out for some time.

First of all, I want to *thank* Jay!!! Thanks for admitting there truly is an "issue"...Thanks for giving us some credit.

Jarred, I know, my test shot was one of the "handheld-practicals only" ones. I actually really had no time to take the tripod out when I did that "on the fly" shot.
But then again, I'm with Brendan....I really don't expect any 35mm look in the dark. But I do want images I can actually *look at* without feeling sick with a "Titanic" feeling... :-X

So...I can also say that I'm always using Thick mode. And I'm using a tripod. And ok, I just have one pro light so far, but I hardly believe having a Hollywood light set would solve the "issue"...(see Jay's post about his theatrical shots)

I unfortunately cannot try the shots on a progressive TV, but I can say, just like Mauro for instance, that the flicker is noticeable even on a PC monitor. No doubling lines, though.

Laco, actually, this is a question I asked myself, too. It's actually hard to aswer...Something just changes in the image when you turn progressive mode on, but I think it has something to do more with movement than with image quality/colors itself, at least at first glance. You just say: hey, this way it's better....Sorry I can't be of more help...

Cris
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Barry--i can see the logic in keeping the shutter open longer to increase the motion blur, but is this really going to help? if it's an issue related to the interlaced frame, motion blur may help fade it, but it's still going to look like a blurry mistake.

I think it would do some good for the PAL people (as well as NTSC people) to talk with Panasonic about what's going on, because as I'm seeing it right now, this camera is basically useable for only still shots & film outs. and if that's the case, you're better off just buying a PD-150 & Magic Bullet.

also, if the camera's motion rendering is so extremely delicate that you can't do any handheld with it, that's something that should have been brought up by Panasonic from the beginning, because not all films/tv shows/etc. are shot locked down. quite a bit of documentary footage is handheld, as well as music video, television programs like "law and order" and reality shows, etc. and even some feature films are shot handheld. and nearly every person involved in event videography, corporate shoots, etc. shoots handheld either extensively or part of the time. to say to someone "oh, just put it on a tripod" is severely limiting a filmmaker's aesthetic choices.

this camera was never advertised as a "film-outs only" camera or a "progressive monitor only" camera. And until Panasonic does something to change that (easiest way being to figure out a more usable pulldown scheme), they really should let the consumer know about 24/25P's extreme limitations.

I don't expect a $3000 camera to look just like 16mm; i don't expect that the resolution is going to be there or the grain, etc. but i do expect to be able to show clients footage i've shot in a professional studio environment and not have them say "what's wrong with this tape?" and good luck telling them it looks like film...

Again, I would love to hear Panasonic's viewpoint, as well as hear from someone who is a telecine professional and is familiar with the DVX's look. And I would like to see some 16mm/DVX side-by-side tests on panning footage & handheld footage.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Jay is right.

I dont know how many of u have seen these grabs and clips (I am sure many would have), but i saw them for the first time. May be of interest...some good illustrations of motion blur on pans..in the NTSC version. In fact not quite dis-similar to what we are talking about in the 100 PAL.

http://www.dvinfo.net/panasonic/reports/farr/
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso


Jay: great post!!! :D

"Barry--i can see the logic in keeping the shutter open longer to increase the motion blur, but is this really going to help? if it's an issue related to the interlaced frame, motion blur may help fade it, but it's still going to look like a blurry mistake."

Exactly. As I said in a previous post, I actually made some tests with lower shutter speeds....the result looked even worse to me!!! >:(


"I think it would do some good for the PAL people (as well as NTSC people) to talk with Panasonic about what's going on, because as I'm seeing it right now, this camera is basically useable for only still shots & film outs. and if that's the case, you're better off just buying a PD-150 & Magic Bullet."

Yep...!

"also, if the camera's motion rendering is so extremely delicate that you can't do any handheld with it, that's something that should have been brought up by Panasonic from the beginning, because not all films/tv shows/etc. are shot locked down. <cut> to say to someone "oh, just put it on a tripod" is severely limiting a filmmaker's aesthetic choices."

Holy words!!!! ;)

Aejaz Posted:

I saw the screen captures from the page you posted the link to. These actually look like there's motion blur....if there are doubling lines, they're very blurred, like they used a very slow shutter.... ???

Cris
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

[quote author=Jay_Blanchard link=board=Events;num=1077903628;start=25#36 date=03/03/04 at 06:34:56]And I would like to see some 16mm/DVX side-by-side tests on panning footage & handheld footage.  
[/quote]

Handheld 16mm and handheld DVX panning footage, side-by-side, is in one of the clips in this thread:
[/url]http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1068605987;start=[/url]

The specific clip with the handheld stuff is:
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXFilm1.avi

Use right-click and "save target as..." to download these. These are huge files, 17mb to 33mb in size, because they're raw uncorrected AVI's suitable for downloading and viewing through firewire on a television.  There's not much point in watching them on a computer, since they're interlaced files, but on a TV you can see what they really look like, which I believe is the point of this exercise.  Viewed on a television, the motion looks identical between the two.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

One other issue that makes critique of images difficult is the fact that the majority of users are posting/viewing clips on PROGRESSIVE SCAN LCD computer monitors. Of course you're not going to see the interlacing problems in this format because you're playing back true 24P imagery. I think people are not seeing anything wrong with some of the images because 1) we're used to seeing artifacts on compressed web material 2) it's progressive monitoring.

i think the best way to handle this issue is to do the following:

1) Start an "online petition" list of people having this problem.
2) Set up a test shoot that includes the DVX, 16mm & HD 25P
3) Try to perform an identical (or very close to identical) panning shot with each.
4) Have all transfered to a 50i tape and note the differences.
5) Send a copy of your notes & a formal request for explanation to Panasonic, along with a printed list of petition signatories.

It's Panasonic's job to keep their customers happy, otherwise they'll lose them. And it sounds like there are enough unhappy customers out there right now to get Panasonic to pay attention.

On the NTSC front, I'm going to do a series of tests this weekend based on Barry insights and I'll report back with my findings.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Today I tried something else. First I hooked up my camera to the Sony 32 inches flatscreen widescreen WEGA TV FX66 (it is progressive mode) and there was no blur....no doubling images.

Then I attached it to my son's 20 inches Toshiba TV (an old model, he uses for palying video games etC) and there was a lot of the doubling images....or motion blur.

I am convinced, as Barry has said, it is the PROGRESSIVE DIPLAY....NOT......the PROGRESSIVE CAPTURE of the camera which is the main issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top