|
|
Posted by Smarty on 11/04/07 14:54
I'm really glad to hear the good news Paul, and my prior gushing enthusiasm
hopefully now seems justified and doesn't seem induced by drinking special
Kool-Aid.
On the subject of HDV editing, I want to mention that Premiere Pro stumbles
on machines which can otherwise do very competent and fast HDV editing, and
I would argue that a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a gig of RAM makes an absolutely
fine editing platform with some software. Vegas 8 is actually pretty decent,
and programs like VideoReDoPlus, a true bargain in the same spirit as the
HV-20, is quite awesome. Ulead VideoStudio Plus version 11 is another cheapo
wonder which handles HDV extremely well.
If you are truly committed to running Premiere on a fast processor, for my
money I would definitely await until November 12th for the release of the
new Intel Penryn CPU, whose SSE4 instruction set speeds up video encoding by
at least a 2X or greater factor when the programs have been written to use
the new instructions. The current Core 2 Duo folks with 6600s, 6700, and
6850 processors will be very unhappy when their Conroe, Kentfield, and
Woodcrest machines (including the 8 core MacPro Xenons) suddenly seem to be
running at glacial speeds, comparatively speaking. Check out the
"Skulltrail" links for more info. I assume that Premiere and others will be
updated to exploit the new SSE4 instruction set. The DiVX encoder is already
running SSE4 and is just blazing fast, a very promising piece of news for
those of us also interested in AVC/h.264/AVCHD and all of the associated
codecs.
Good luck with the new HV-20. And definitely check out the Canon hi def wide
angle converter.
Best,
Smarty
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5p4bg2Fpgn50U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ3Xi.437$m44.219@trnddc06...
>> Paul,
>>
>> I just read your Saturday afternoon update on the DVI forum, and am very
>> pleased to learn that readjusting the TV set sharpening apparently solved
>> the problem.
>>
>> Today's overcast weather in the L.A. area may prevent seeing the HV-20 at
>> its' best, but I am anxious to see / hear how the experimentation and
>> comparisons went. I meant it most sincerely when I said my 3-CCD FX-1
>> could not compare to the HV-20, to such an extent that I literally put
>> the FX-1 on craigslist.com and sold it once I saw how well the HV-20
>> performs. Same thing with the HC-5. Others have made similar comments and
>> reports.
>>
>> What are your present thoughts?
>>
>> Smarty
>
> I'm now a convert -- the HV20 is really amazing. For anyone reading this
> who doesn't follow dvinfo.net, the problem I had experienced was a
> combination of the camera's default setting for sharpening being too high,
> and sharpening set too high on my high-def television. I really don't
> understand Canon's thinking in this regard, as the default "medium"
> sharpening setting in the HV20 really degrades high-frequency detail
> without offering any advantage. Kudos, however, to Canon putting
> sharpening adjustments in the user's control (I just wish there was a way
> to turn it off entirely).
>
> I shot a few more minutes of test video a little while ago (it's sunny
> here in Santa Monica) and the video is simply stunning. My VX2000 will
> probably go on eBay tomorrow if I have the time to take some pictures of
> it. I can't imagine why anyone would consider a different consumer
> camera, and if you're willing to sacrifice some manual control (and an XLR
> input), this thing compares favorably, actually more than favorably, with
> prosumer offerings costing four times as much.
>
> There are still some minor motion artifacts, but no worse than I get with
> VX2000, and I've been happy with that for years. The lens could probably
> stand a few more elements -- there is some minor fringing in the telephoto
> position but, again, nothing I can't easily live. I've also figured out a
> way to put a strap on it that lets me manage my usual shooting style of
> keeping the camera at chest level with the strap providing support for the
> front of the camera. The HV20's image stabilization is very effective --
> the stuff I shot this afternoon isn't as steady as when I shoot with a
> tripod, but it's pretty good and better than what I could do with my
> VX2000.
>
> I haven't yet broken the news to my wife that I've bought Yet Another
> Camera, but I think the combination of the tiny form factor, which she'll
> like, and the fact that I can almost certainly get more for the VX2000 and
> all the accessories I have for more than I paid for the HV20 should
> mitigate the coming storm when she finds out. ;) Actually, I'm looking
> forward to doing some travel video without carting around the weight of
> the VX2000, its extra batteries, the WA lens, etc. I barely notice the
> HV20 when I'm carrying it, and the batteries weigh less than a fourth of
> the VX2000's.
>
> The only bad news is that my 3 GHz P4 with 1 gig of ram isn't up to
> editing HDV -- previews in Premiere Pro CS3 are jerky and often freeze.
> I'm going to have to upgrade this computer (and I'm not looking forward to
> telling my wife that!). Happily, though, my laptop, a Core 2 Duo-equipped
> Sony Vaio with 2 gig for RAM can manage editing HDV fairly well. I'll
> probably use that for editing until I can afford to get a new computer.
> One of the interesting possiblities it offers is to start editing in the
> field, something I've never tried before. I'm way behind in my editing
> projects, and still have at least one standard-def shoot that I need to
> finish.
>
> The combination of 24p and "cine" mode on the HV20 is really interesting.
> As I mentioned on dvinfo, I really have no need for this feature, but the
> camera's ability to produce a fairly convincing "film look" is impressive.
> If I was a young film maker or film student, I'd definitely get one of
> these. Maybe I can talk Mrs. PTravel into considering a new career. ;)
>
> I also went over to B&H's website this afternoon to order some
> accessories. Of course, they don't take orders for another hour or so
> (sundown in NYC), but they've got the HV20 for only $798! I assume that
> means there's an HV30 on the horizon, but I'm off to Cambodia in a few
> weeks and don't want to wait. Though I can think of some improvements to
> the HV20, I don't think there's a compelling reason for anyone to wait.
>
>>
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5p12idFof3pjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13imfvhg31fbe63@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> There doesn't look much wrong with this screen grab. There is a
>>>> considerable amount of sharpening that will catch the eye as the video
>>>> moves. With so much native resolution there is little value keeping
>>>> the sharpening that high.
>>>
>>> Yep -- that's exactly what I'm seeing. I'm pleased with the resolution
>>> and color fidelity of the image, but "shimmering" on movement is driving
>>> me crazy.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> PTravel, why not post a RAW m2t clip to Rapidshare??? It won't cost
>>>> you anything.
>>>
>>> I'll try that this weekend.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How hot are the whites in the image? Check their level.
>>>
>>> I'll look this weekend.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Smarty wrote:
>>>>> For whatever it is worth, the frame grab looks to my (60+ year old)
>>>>> eyes as being pretty typical of what I would expect for the HV20 with
>>>>> additional JPEG processing applied. If I look at the very finest
>>>>> detail in the picture, such things as the parking meter next to the
>>>>> car, small signage detail on the lamp-post as well as the very tip of
>>>>> the lamppost, variegations in the fencepost masonry, and other really
>>>>> small (just a few pixel wide / tall) elements, my impression is that
>>>>> the capture has both preserved the edge definition without fringing
>>>>> (unlike the cheaper Sonys which make artificial edge sharpness by
>>>>> deliberate overshoot) and that there are no clear examples of a
>>>>> defect. The areas you enlarged do look a lot different from the very
>>>>> same areas which I enlarge using Photoshop, and thus your surrounding
>>>>> magnified crops do look distorted but only when I look at your
>>>>> magnified crops, and not when I look at the same high magnification of
>>>>> these areas using the central 1440 by 1080 image. I am not sure what
>>>>> to make of all of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these comments / observations apply, of course, to what you
>>>>> are seeing on your TV set, or what the moving, dynamic video looks
>>>>> like versus this single static frame. All I am saying is that the
>>>>> sensor and encoder appear to be doing their job for this image without
>>>>> losing the fine detail, and that the detail which is preserved does
>>>>> not (to my eyes) appear to have distorted or exaggerated edges, color
>>>>> issues, or other evidence of a defective sensor, encoder, or optics.
>>>>>
>>>>> You alone can judge how faithfully this HV20 is capturing the true
>>>>> scene, and in this regard, another still camera with high resolution
>>>>> might allow you to make some further comparisons. I will often use my
>>>>> 8 MPixel Nikon to take comparison shots for seeing where the video
>>>>> camera is weak. Obviously the color gamut and resolution is worse in
>>>>> the video sample, but the comparison to a reference can help discern
>>>>> the video shortfalls easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be interesting to see if any of my observations agree with
>>>>> anybody else's. I am not an expert at all in these matters, and have
>>>>> cataracts to further confuse the issue, so I am merely offering my 2
>>>>> cents worth in a sincere effort to be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad to keep working this to get more insight into what you are
>>>>> encountering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Smarty
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1193986489.385033.199060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact
>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally
>>>>>>> capture
>>>>>>> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the
>>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>>> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from
>>>>>>> tape
>>>>>>> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via
>>>>>>> HDMI,
>>>>>>> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI
>>>>>>> forum you
>>>>>>> linked to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in
>>>>>>> HDMI
>>>>>>> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
>>>>>>> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency /
>>>>>>> half-power
>>>>>>> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution.
>>>>>>> And on
>>>>>>> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display
>>>>>>> shows no
>>>>>>> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
>>>>>>> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the
>>>>>>> camera's
>>>>>>> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this
>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent
>>>>>>> resolution. If
>>>>>>> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to
>>>>>>> judge
>>>>>>> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so
>>>>>>> as to
>>>>>>> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
>>>>>>> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water
>>>>>>> motion,
>>>>>>> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is
>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
>>>>>>> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my
>>>>>>> son was
>>>>>>> using.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the
>>>>>>> HDTV. The
>>>>>>> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and
>>>>>>> introduce no
>>>>>>> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency
>>>>>>> ringing
>>>>>>> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port
>>>>>>> look bad.
>>>>>>> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> HDMI cable to substitute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> deal-breaker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Smarty
>>>>>> Smarty, thanks for the response. I've got a bunch of HDMI cables
>>>>>> here
>>>>>> but, as it happens, the one I was using is the best I have -- though
>>>>>> money isn't necessarily a measure of quality, this one cost me $70.
>>>>>> I'll try a couple of others this weekend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took a look at a frame grab. To my eye, there are sharpening
>>>>>> artifacts or, at least, some kind of high-frequency distortion. I
>>>>>> posted it here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.travelersvideo.com/hv20.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the interest of bandwidth, I had to compress it rather heavily,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> I think the artifacts show through. I REALLY want to like this
>>>>>> camera, so I'm going to do some more extensive tests this weekend,
>>>>>> including lowering sharpening and trying it in 24p mode (though my
>>>>>> preference is to shoot 1080i/60).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "PTravel" <ptra...@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>>>>>>>>> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera,
>>>>>>>>> since I
>>>>>>>>> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
>>>>>>>>> non-professional user.
>>>>>>>> As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in
>>>>>>>> skill,
>>>>>>>> experience or knowledge. However, I've hit a significant problem
>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>> HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>>>>>>>> Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in
>>>>>>>> high-frequency
>>>>>>>> detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
>>>>>>>> camcorder. The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output,
>>>>>>>> far less
>>>>>>>> visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
>>>>>>>> something odd with my television.
>>>>>>>> I've discussed it at length here:
>>>>>>>> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>>>>>>>> Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the
>>>>>>>> camera
>>>>>>>> as long as it looks good on the component output. However, I'm
>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>> do so more tests this weekend. If the output continues to display
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and
>>>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>>>> until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>>>>>>>> I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|