-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Brian Flint
-
-
2 hours ago, KaiS said:
To verify the findings I'd use a small temperature probe inside the card slot.
The card's contact area seems to be located close enough to the critical parts (CPU/RAM) to give a reasonable representation of what's goig on inside.
Even more so during the cooling down phase when no extra heat is generated.
I would agree with this. If very cold ( or fairly cold ) air could be forced into the Memory card area ( Memory cards are removed ) some this cold air should flow past the CPU. My experience ( as an engineer ) is that even a slight amount of moving air across the top surface of a chip ( cpu in this case ) will have a significant cooling effect.
-
14 hours ago, Lux Shots said:
Most embedded non-volatile memory has a max write cycle of 200,000. A separate EEPROM or FRAM, has higher write/erase cycles, but I doubt they added another chip to do this.
Yes you are right. To prevent too many write cycles the timer would have its count value written to the non-volatile memory every, say, 2 minutes. At this rate the 200,000 max write cycle would take a 277 days of continuous use to reach the limit. It it is assumed the camera is in use, say 4 hours, of every day then the limit would be reached in 4 1/2 years.
-
I am retired now but have experience over many years as an electronic design engineer.
If there are 'timers' employed in the design then it is likely they would 'reset' to a zero or starting count state when the power is removed and then returned to electronics. This would occur when the battery is removed. for a short period..
However if Canon was clever they could continuously write the count value of the timer(s) to a non-volatile memory and when the power is resumed ( after battery removal ) the values of the count stored in the non-volatile memory could be returned to the timer(s). To do this there would have to be some non-volatile memory in the camera.
-
It should be noted that 720x480 is 1.5 to 1 , and 640x480 is 1.333 to 1. So converting from one to the other means black bars must appear somewhere if you don't stretch the original image.
I have converted some old SD interlaced footage in the PAL format. An some of it was widescreen PAL where the pixels are nowhere square ( can't remember the ratio ) but the result is a 16 by 9 image from SD which has ( in PAL ) 720 x 625.
I wanted to put my old footage ( family movies etc ) made on a DV recorder ( PAL) into a non interlaced ( ie progressive ) format which I felt would be more future proof. I tried various things , but in the end I just put the SD footage into an editor and set the output to be 1920x1080 ( progressive ) and kept the frame rate the same. Davinci Resolve will not accept interlaced video , so I used handbrake to do this conversion. This would result in a image which had black bars at the sides. I would then if necessary stretch the image so that it was as original . I would try and find a circular object in the image and make it round . I found that Davici Resolve was useful for this as it allowed the x to y ratio to be fine tuned. I would still have black bars at the sides but at least people did not look fat or thin. I don't know if any of this helps , but that is what I do.
-
A couple of days ago, I down-loaded the beta version of Topaz Megapixel AI to my PC ( Windows 10 , i7, 16GB ram, GTX650 Ti graphics card with 2GB memory )
It is free for a 30 day trial.
I tried some sample clips - process was painfully slow. To render a clip 1080 30p which was 1 minute long was going to take 7.5 hours.
I have some clips made 12 years ago of my grandchildren. 640x480 15fps . I have managed to up-scale these to 1920x1080 30fps in Resolve 15 and get improvements
The stabilizer seems to reduce jerky effect of 15 fps and produce something which is better to view.
I wondered what the Topaz Megapixel AI would do when using it to up-scale from 640x480 to 1920x1080. I tried it on a clip 2 seconds long to reduce render time.
It did 'improve' the image quality to some extent. I compared a before and after image of a single frame.
I also tried it on some 1920x1080 30fps clips converting them to 4K. I compared before and after a still frame but couldn't see any difference.
-
I tried to install PotPlayer and it put a virus on my PC . My antivirus software ( McAfee ) fortunately stopped it.
-
I don't have a GH5, but some time ago, I downloaded some original footage from the GH5. It was 4K h.264 10 bit 422.
I don't use premiere or FCP . I do have Davinci Resolve and some other editing software. I tried to edit ( grade ) the downloaded original footage , but nothing would accept it.
I can play the original footage with VLC and MPC-HC video players on my windows 10 PC.
I used HandBrake to transcode the 4K h.264 10 bit 422 footage to 4K h.264 8 Bit 420. I can now edit the transcoded footage in Davinci Resolve and a number of other video editors. Of course the advantages of 422 and 10 bit have been lost.
-
I think a lot of people with their new GH5 will have problems trying to edit their 4K ( UHD ) h.264 4:2:2 10bit files.
I downloaded the latest version of DaVinci Resolve 12.5.5.026 and it will not recognize this file. My Windows Media ( Windows 10 ) will not play this file, although other video players such as VLC will.
-
Thanks Neumann films for the original GH5 files.
It is interesting to have some h264 files with 4:2:2 and 10bit . I guess this will become much more common in the near future.
I also found these were not accepted by Davicii Resolve.
-
Today I discovered H265 HVEC files will play on Windows media player without any problems , this includes 1920x1080 50p, 3840x2160 25p, 4096x2160 24p ( all original files from the NX1 which I downloaded ) . I have windows 8.1 on my pc. There must have been a windows update in the last day or so for this to happen. I also can play H265 HVEC files which I have converted using Handbrake from various H264 coded video files. Note all of these H265 HVEC video files will also play on the MPC-HC player.
Good to see support trickling out yet further. What spec PC do you use?
My PC is Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 6-Core 3.2GHz with 16GB ram
-
Today I discovered H265 HVEC files will play on Windows media player without any problems , this includes 1920x1080 50p, 3840x2160 25p, 4096x2160 24p ( all original files from the NX1 which I downloaded ) . I have windows 8.1 on my pc. There must have been a windows update in the last day or so for this to happen. I also can play H265 HVEC files which I have converted using Handbrake from various H264 coded video files. Note all of these H265 HVEC video files will also play on the MPC-HC player.
How to edit MiniDV footage so that it looks good
In: Cameras
Posted
About 12 years ago I did a lot of home movies of family using a Canon Camcorder with a DV tape. I bought a Firewire card, IEEE 1394, and fitted into my PC. With suitable cable from Camcorder to PC I transferred the recordings to the Hard Drive on my PC. This resulted in .avi file 720 x 576 , 25.00 fps , Data rate 28887kbps. Interlaced. In some cases I had 'wide screen PAL' ie 16 by 9 and in other cases I had 4 by 3 ( widescreen not selected when recording ). Back then I decided to transcode the .avi to mpg files suitable to burn onto DVD . The bit rate drops to around 6Mbps and I kept the frame rate at 25 fps interlaced. This gave good results for a family movie. A year or so ago, I decided that DVDs are not future proof and I need to make the footage be 16 by 9 with black bars either side if original was 4 by 3 and use progressive scan - ie de-interlace and use a resolution of 1920 x 1080. I felt the biggest problem was the de-interlacing of fast moving image - ie children running about. There is also another problem I find today and that there is difficulty to find an Editor which will accepting the original .avi files. Resolve 16 does not accept it. Anyway I have managed one way or another to make the format to what I want, but I may have not choose the best way to do it. When I show the footage to my grandchildren they just see the content and couldn't care about the finer details of the quality.