Graeme Nattress
Forum Replies Created
-
I tried to hack it, and failed. Perhaps writing a custom RT enabler might do it. They’re all written in what looks lik fxscript, but with commands that are totally undocumented. I wonder if our friends at BMD or the people qho do the DC30 codec and MPEG Streamclip could give us some pointers.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
Ah but, the lens that comes with the JVC costs what, around $1200? which is awfully cheap for an SD lens, never mind and HD lens. The HVX lens is (quality wise) an unknown quantity at this point. However, it’s focus ring may not have end stops, but is fully repeatable (so you can add a follow focus) in it’s focussing unlike a Sony-Style wet cabbage lens (you know, like you get on the PD150 etc where the lens feels like the focus is connected to the lens by wet cabbage). The zoom however, is fully manual. In addition, Panasonic provide two ports for camera control so that you can change focus and zoom at the same time. So no, it’s not quite as “nice” as a standard removable lens, but it’s as fully featured as one.
One thing we do know, is that the lens requirements for a 1/3″ CCD HD camera are very high indeed, higher indeed than for a full sized HD camera with 2/3″ chips and higher than 35mm film. We are all going to be very interested in seeing if that by Panasonic making the HVX200 lens attached to the camera, they’ve been able to increase the quality of the optics enough to do justice to the rest of the camera.
My feelings, from carefully viewing the footage of the JVC HD100 is that it’s very nice indeed, much nicer than the footage from the Sony HDV cameras, but it still lacks compared to the Varicam footage that I have. It looks slightly softer than the Varicam stuff, even though it’s 1280×720 rather than the Varicam’s recorded resolution of 960×720, giving rise to me thinking perhaps the lens that comes with the JVC is not the best piece of glass and is perhaps an SD quality lens, rather than an HD quality one. My tests were totally unscientific, but given that normally HD lenses cost a hell of a lot more than what the Fujinon that comes with the HD100 costs, it does make some kind of sense. But it certainly adds to the question of will Panasonic be able to put good enough glass inside the HVX200 to do justice to it’s CCD chips and codec? I guess we’ll know soon enough though! So I’d certainly doubt your final line that the JVC definately has a better optic, unless you’re privvy to more information about that lens, and if so, given the scope of my investigations so far, I’d ber very keen indeed to learn more of it. The one piece of footage I don’t have from the JVC is that of a resolution chart, so if you have, or have seen one, that’s something I’d dearly like to know more about.
Thanks,
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
As far as I can tell from the footage I have, the JVC looks better than the Sony HDV cameras, but worse than a Varicam. We don’t know how FCP will handle it’s 24p yet though…
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
But a “real” HD lens costs more than any of these cameras. AFAIK, the Panasonic HVX lens has the same features and controlability at as “real” lens, but it’s built in rather than removable.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
When you put it like that, Martin, it makes you wonder why they even bothered….
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
I don’t think changing codec is going to change this bloated file size bug though. I’d be tempted to make a new project, open up the bin for the new project and drag all the files and timelines from the old project across to the new one, and then save that, and see if the project size shrinks back to normal.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
Well, because your video is 4:2:2, going to 4:4:4 is not going to add any quality, and the actual amount of compression is the same, other than that difference, between 75% and 100%, so there’s no real advantage to the 100% version, and as you say, could introduce luma issues.
However, Apple have not RT enabled PhotoJPEG codec beyon 35% and small frame sizes for it’s Offlilne RT modes. This is totally evil on the part of Apple. You’ll therefore get more RT on your uncompressed 8bit video.
Thanks!
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
I’d not use PhotoJPEG100% as an offline codec as it’s 4:4:4 RGB. Use PhotoJPEG75% instead as it’s Y’CbCr at 4:2:2. Visually, it’s excellent.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
I wish it wasn’t so, but there’s limits with what you can do inside FCP, and the Standards Conversion plugin goes up and over what was though possible.
All I can suggest is that you look at the tutorial movies here for it’s operation:
https://www.nattress.com/standardsConversionMovie.htm
And either post here, or email me if you have any issues.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
But as Qrez was never released, we have no idea how it would have worked at all!
But really, PhotoJPEG75% is more than awesome as a compressed codec for SD and HD with great quality, but Apple follishly leaves it unaccellerated for RT. Fix that, and our problems are gone.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP