|
|
Posted by PTravel on 11/04/07 17:12
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:23lXi.1667$b%1.104@trnddc01...
> 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.
I've drunk the Koo-Aid, too! ;)
My post on dvinfo was sub-titled, "This can't be right" because lots of
people whose opinion I respected, including you, though the HV20 was a
terrific camera. It's interesting, though, that the combined default
settings on the camera and my TV conspired to produce a seriously degraded
image. These days, manufacturers are so concerned about the "OOBE" (out of
box experience), that they do all sorts of things, like setting up
sharpening, contrast and saturation, that may make the image appear
appealing to naive consumers, but look awful to anyone with a little
experience with video. I was very close to returning my HV20, and if I
hadn't been fairly certain that the artifacts were the result of
over-sharpening, I wouldn't have persisted and Canon would have lost a sale.
>
> 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.
I'm afraid I'm commited to Premire Pro or, more accurately, to Adobe's
products -- I like the tight integration between Premiere Pro, Photoshop and
Encore. A bare-bones or entry-level editor also wouldn't work for me -- I
do too much compositing, correction and other things that require the
features of an advanced editor. Premiere Pro works very well on my laptop
and I'm overdue for upgrading my desktop editing machine.
>
> 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.
These look nice, but I usually buy technology that is 1 step behind the
latest and greatest. This year, particularly, I have to do things on a
budget, so I think a Core 2 Duo machine with a couple of gig of RAM should
work just fine, particularly under XP (my laptop is running Vista
Business -- don't ask. ;) ).
>
> Good luck with the new HV-20. And definitely check out the Canon hi def
> wide angle converter.
Thanks. The accessories I ordered yesterday were the Canon WA adapter, a UV
filter, a polarizing filter, an extra extended-life battery and a quick
charger.
>
> 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]
|