Jump to content

Stephen de Vere

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stephen de Vere

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Oxford, UK

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.stephen-devere.co.uk
  1. Yes, Full Range in 5DtoRGB is usually the safer way to go with footage from cameras that record a greater range than Legal / Broadcast Range of 16-235. The trouble is that most modern cameras record using neither Full Range (0-255) nor Broadcast Range but instead use Extended Range (16-255) (and increasingly both Extended aa well as Broadcast depending on the setup and picture profile used) and 5DtoRGB has no option for correctly mapping values for footage that uses Extended Range. If your camera is one of the many now that sometimes produces these 16-255 values (also known as super-
  2. I guess you are referring here to hybrid stills/video cameras. Even an ancient mid-range 1080 video camera like the Sony PMW-EX3 that doesn't use de-bayering can resolve the maximum HD resolution (1080 lines vertically). Plenty of others do it too. The arrival of UHD/4k modes in hybrid stills/video cameras has at last provided the opportunity to get full res HD from stills cameras, albeit in postproduction (as long as the downscaling is done carefully) from the mostly sub full 4k resolution '4k' recordings.
  3. Can it downscale from UHD/4k files? Just discovered it can. Anyone have any experience on the downscale quality (EditReady)? I don't have UHD footage to test. Lanczos 3 algorithm would be good.
  4. I think it's a community thing - yes, 8-bit in the DSLR community is bound to have a 'bad' name compared with 8-bit in broadcast worlds.   I can't really say whether in my experience sampling regime or 8-bit/10-bit etc. makes the bigger difference. There are just too many other elements that play into the mix.   Yes, basically 8-bit gives you very little leeway, even when it's in a professional implementation like DVCProHD that eg. Planet Earth was shot with - you need to get the exposure right, in camera, very close to what you want in the final. In my professional experience (m
  5. Just a reminder...   In the article, Andrew is referring and comparing to low spec 8-bit type video that comes from most DSLRs.   8-bit video comes in a professional format too. Recorded in other cameras or recorders using less compression (or even no compression) and 4:2:2 sampling 8-bit is a very different experience.   Big budget BBC HD shows like 'Planet Earth' were largely shot using 8-bit video.  
  6. I'm checking again at how the '25p stream in a 50i wrapper' is being interpreted by VLC. As VLC reads it as 50i but is dispalying it on a progressive monitor it might not be giving a progressive result. I've been reading up at personal-view again and it seems from posts in the last few days that HBR mode is not quite as good as other modes and produces more artefacts. Just done some quick test shots in 24p (FlowMotion2.02) and they look good.
  7. [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/19454/5048b245a5535_vlcsnap00002.png[/img] This is the whole image [attachment=290:vlcsnap_00003.png] This is the 1:1 crop of the full 1080 frame to look at.
  8. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346878227' post='17395'] I don't see how the big sensor in the FS700 is a disadvantage, you can still use a very long lens on it and stop down for more manageable focus.[/quote] It IS a major problem due to lens magnification crop factor. Creating a lot of fresh interest in the very good Sigma 300-800 zoom though but still that doesn't match what you get in the frame with the standard wildlife kit - a 2/3" Varicam and 28-500 (with 2x) zoom, and will be harder to stabilise. [quote] The FZ200 could be interesting for wild
  9. Hmmm, I don't follow you on the lenses, sorry. I have a £25k f2.8 constant aperture zoom that isn't very good wide open but it's not what it's good at so it's not really a problem. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346877180' post='17392'] How is 70Mbit i-frame sub BBC-spec? They allow 50Mbit 4-2-2 long GOP! [/quote] Needs to be minimum 100 I-frame or 50 long-gop last time I checked, (at constant bit rate too ?). BBC spec only matters to me while I'm in EX3/Nanoflash land with my personal films and selling out-takes to stock libraries. It
  10. [quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1340986531' post='13288'] For me, slow motion in a movie is like loud melodramatic music (see LOTR for both). It's okay if it's an action movie, otherwise it comes across as a cheap trick. [/quote] In much high end wildlife doco films you don't even notice gentle slowmo (and fastmotion) being used it's so commonplace. Very little gets shot at 'normal' frame rate. We've been stuck with a general 60fps limit on the Varicam for almost 15 years now when we had 150fps in super16 for years before that. If
  11. Those are all skewed to the very fast category and not focal lengths that are so much use to me, thanks. I think it must be a question of degree. It does a great job for the price. Alan Roberts' teachings in 'Circles of Confusion' explain better than I can. I'm using HBR 25p Smoothe, -2 on all but the colour, with FlowMotion v1.11 (actually loaded v2.02 today for it's promise of better banding handling) and viewing 1:1 in VLC. I guess the max I-frame bit rate of the new GH3 is deliberately sub BBC broadcast spec for a good reason. I can't wait to see if that camera i
  12. [quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1346235550' post='16777'] Not at all bud:). Most of us are wondering ourselves. I hate the halos that emit from bright lights. ........... I'd assume it's the 8 bit space it has to work with......... [/quote] No not the 8-bit alone - it's a range of things including 4:2:0 and the response curve. The very first miniDV camera I had was 8-bit 4:2:0 and it had no banding issues. My current camcorder the EX3 gives me banding-free images recorded in 8-bit.
  13. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1341093429' post='13313'] Your tests need fixing ;D [/quote] The lenses on the GH2 were: Panasonic 14-42 Nikon 18-55 Tamron SP 90/f2.5 macro (manual) Canon 500/4.5L (manual) On the EX3 - the stock Fuji zoom. It's close though - it's mainly the ailiasing in the GH2 image that holds it back, compared with the EX3 which has 'none' - and the difference only really starts to show when looking at everyday scenes (rather than a chart) on a big display or projector. Is there a test that shows the GH2 can resolve
  14. I can't find any reference on this site to the hope that the banding issue in GH2 will be resolved with the GH3. For me, unless that get's fixed every other improvement is pointless. Am I missing something ?
  15. [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=911.msg6639#msg6639 date=1340920328] As you'd expect for the price they resolve detail very well. A little less detailed than the GH2 but more organic looking. Not quite up there with the C300 and GH2 for sharpness and fine grain but very close. [/quote] That's disappointing to hear. My testing shows my hacked GH2 to be not as detailed as my EX3 even. Doesn't bode well for 4k either.
×
×
  • Create New...