Spares

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Gary Eickmeier, Apr 22, 2013.

  1. Really, I *believe* I got your first (milder) version of that, but I
    can't resist pulling on chains :)

    It's personality flaw, I guess ;-)

    But I wouldn't have posted anything at all, except that I had just
    looked up the words of that aria (from Pagliacci, by Leoncavallo), so
    that the idea of laughing on the outside & crying on the inside was
    still rattling around my brain.

    Rattle, rattle...Actually, that's what some of my tinnitus is like...
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 27, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Actually, some believe that the ultimate victory would be to take out a loan
    for a half a million or so, blow it all on cruises, women, and booze, and
    then die in debt....

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 27, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. You crazy DR - you can't shoot video on a still camera. I liked your
    Panasonic a lot better. But press on.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 27, 2013
    #23
  4. LOL!

    I've never been that great at planning, but you set an admirable
    standard...
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 28, 2013
    #24
  5. Hmmm, I may be "all wet" with this, but that sounds like
    an inner ear infection...
    --Dr. Dave 8^)
     
    David Ruether, Apr 28, 2013
    #25
  6. Yes, I be ser-ti-fy-a-blee KEE-RAZY! 8^) But a surprising amount
    of independent film-making is being shot now using these still
    cameras that also shoot video. Popular was the Canon 5D Mk. III
    (at about $3.3K) and sometimes the $7K Canon 1D, but then along
    came the cheap Panasonic GH2, which people hacked to increase
    the video recording data rate. Seeing that, Panasonic went "all
    out" with the GH3 (at nearly double the price...) to produce a
    still-camera-that-also-takes-video that is better with video
    than the Canons, Nikons, etc., and MUCH cheaper/smaller/lighter.
    The GH3 has been so popular that the selling price even at
    discounters is well above list price! (I will wait to buy it
    when the price goes down...;-). As far as I can tell, its only
    problem with it (and similar) is with reliably zooming smoothly
    (but the Panasonic G5 solves this [*PARTIALLY*!] by having a
    zoom toggle on the body, but it works only with a couple of
    electronically-zoomed lenses, sigh!). For everything not
    requiring zooming during shooting, the GH3 can out shoot even
    the TM700 (plus quite a few other good video cameras...;-).
    And, hey, it even shoots VERY good stills (I've been amazed
    by what I've been getting with these lenses - and if you want
    a few samples to see, reduced to 1920x1440 for emailing, just
    holler!;-).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 28, 2013
    #26
  7. Gary Eickmeier

    Brian Guest

    I agree that still photo cameras can record very good videos these days. i
    can't tell the difference between a video recorded on my video camera (Sony
    CX700) and my still camera (Sony HX200) maybe if they used a different
    brand of lens then I'd notice a difference.
    There seems to be a trend these days to produce a camera that will handle a
    wide range of situations.
     
    Brian, Apr 28, 2013
    #27
  8. I would love to see some of these amazing video samples. The stills from all
    of these new digital cameras are pretty much alike, but the video is a
    special area.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 28, 2013
    #28
  9. I intended by the above to send still photos, but I can send
    some video frame-grabs from various cameras. I will send a
    few to start, but these 1920x1080 images average almost 2-megs
    each, so don't get too upset if your email program doesn't
    respond for a while after I send them (I will try to send a
    warning email first - but I forget a LOT these days...).
    UH-UH!!! This is NOT true! I see obvious field-curvature,
    obnoxious CA problems, illumination-evenness problems,
    and soft corners even stopped well down (and even soft
    *edges* on one famous-brand, much-respected company's
    newest camera - and even the corners of this company's
    main-line full-frame lenses are still soft in the corners
    at f8[!]). Don't make assumptions about this! (I found
    this while researching a compact camera for a friend,
    and a replacement for another friend's soft $2,000 24mm
    f1.4, and found that even the company's 50mm macro and
    50mm f1.8 lenses were "much" in the corners at f8, which
    I consider VERY unacceptable!) "Oddly", the Panasonic
    LX7, which is a superb pocket camera in almost every
    way, is often half the price (or less...;-) than the
    competition's offerings, and is also better (sometimes
    spectacularly so) for stills.
    With video, the cameras also vary considerably in image
    quality, ranging from unacceptable to remarkably good.
    OK, here's the warning: a load of Frame-Grab video
    samples will soon be on its way to you...;-) The cameras
    and often lenses are given (perhaps too cryptically...;-)
    in the file names. So, I will begin to collect some now
    from my absurdly-over-stuffed collection now...;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 28, 2013
    #29
  10. kljehl$ch9$:

    Uh, that line in the above should have read, "... and I found
    that even the company's 50mm macro and 50mm f1.8 lenses were
    "mush" in the corners at f8..." ;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 28, 2013
    #30
  11. David -

    Thanks for the frame grabs. No, it didn't clog up my computer. Howsomever -

    I found most of them dreary and "acceptable" until I came to the Panasonic
    TM700 which was spectacular. Maybe it was just the colorful subject, maybe
    fewer generations from source to me, but I found myself looking for more of
    those for the pure pleasure of looking at some more images.

    From the others I found a sameness, a lack of punch and sharpness, can't
    explain why. But what I would love to compare would be some video from the
    best DSLR and from your TM700. I know that in my experience, with my humble
    Sony a35 DSLR which is 16MP imager, the video just sucks but the stills are
    to die for. And USING the damn thing for video is a pain. It just wasn't
    designed for video.

    Maybe we should do another shootout between our cameras on a DVD - Blu-ray
    preferably - between the TM700 video, the Sony a35 video, and my Sony
    HDR-TM10 video camera.

    You may remember my commenting that I could see little or no difference
    between modes in my Sony. I shot at the lowest bitrate that Hi Def can go
    and still be 1920 x 1080 to the highest 28MB/s bitrate at 1920 x 1080 60P,
    and could see not much difference on my 39" monitor.

    These comparisons are interesting to me, because I am shooting at the second
    highest bitrate to save a LITTLE data, but I am wondering about that P vs i
    part of the spec. I have found some rationale for shooting progressive
    because when I convert to SD for some clients, if I have shot the original
    in i and I convert to progressive SD, it has some artifacts such as
    horizontal line shimmer left over from the interlaced shooting.

    Well, let me backtrack for a second. I shoot everything in Hi Def because of
    the aspect ratio problem. If I were to shoot in SD, the square picture would
    probably be stretched some wrong way on their monitors, so I shoot in Hi Def
    for many reasons. Then, if they are SD kind of clients, I convert the
    project from Premiere into a widescreen progressive scan SD file, then burn
    to disc. This technique makes all graphics and still images come out sharp
    and clean-edged, with no line structure from the interlaced shooting. But
    when MOTION happens, especially with horizontal lines in the image, as
    everyone who ever edits SD knows, there is a shimmer in the video that is an
    annoying artifact. So we used to just go "Always deinterlace" when we had
    stills in our SD footage, which would now be the equivalent of just
    outputting in progressive. So I do that, and still find some shimmer in
    video footage shot in interlaced Hi Def.

    Moral of the story, shoot in 60P Hi Def and then you can do what you wish
    with it and the only difference between the Hi Def and the SD on playback
    will be resolution, not artifacting. So THEREFORE, I wonder if I can tell
    the superiority of progressive when editing and producing in Hi Def only -
    or is it a waste of bits.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 28, 2013
    #31
  12. Either

    1. You are all wet, or

    2. The inner ear infection has been around for 10 years, and the doctors
    didn't notice that infection when I had my hearing checked (MRI and all)
    a couple of years ago.
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 28, 2013
    #32
  13. WHEW! 20-megs of still-frame-grabs-from-video, sent in four
    parts just in case, made it OK! Maybe...;-) Best to save what
    images you want, and then dump the emails to clear space in
    your mailbox...
    It is a good camera for image-quality, but it does have some
    unfortunate quirks, mostly concerning some awkward menu problems
    and a poor eye-level finder. The TM700 can take rather nice 60P
    video, though, but even with that, it has a quirk that is more
    odd than annoying or a source of problems (every other frame is
    at an slightly alternating focus point...;-). But the point of
    the frame-grabs is to show the detail-level, tonal-range, and
    inherent artifacting characteristics present with each camera,
    and sometimes to be able to compare them directly with another
    camera - not to impress with a "beautiful" image (which can get
    in the way of the evaluation of the "tools"...;-). The frame-
    grabs were captured either directly from original video files,
    or from very high quality online copies - and they were kept
    as JPGs, but with the least possible compression. They pretty
    accurately convey the performance levels of the various cameras.
    For instance, in the direct comparisons between the Canon
    cameras and the GH3 with the same subject material, the Canon
    video images looks good, until you see that the GH3 video of the
    same subjects has a very noticeably higher detail level, and
    that information in the shadows is quite a bit more clearly
    rendered. The other samples are either similar to the Canon
    ones (such as the Nikon ones), or they are quite a bit
    inferior and/or have "quirks" (like the iPhone 4s essentially
    destroying detail when the camera is moved - but there are
    fewer common defects present, like haloing and aliasing, than
    with some other cameras). The video from the Sony A77 was
    quite poor (soft, over-sharpened, and in the original motion
    footage, quite poor with motion even though it is specified
    as being 28Mbps 1080-60P). As with any footage, the original
    material should be considered as "source", to be worked with
    to improve it (as I did with the before-and-after frame-grabs
    from video shot with the LX7 and TM700 - but not much can be
    done to improve some things if the inherent defects prevent
    much from being accomplished by attempting it).
    I should send you some stills from the Panasonics! 8^) But,
    see above - the point was technical comparisons, not
    beautiful imagery...
    Tune in again after I buy a GH3 (I wanna see THAT comparison,
    too!;-). But, I think I know the answer already: likely both
    will have different image quirks and also different operational
    plusses and minuses, but in terms of image quality, I expect
    the GH3 to "win" - but they may be close...;-). At that point,
    I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages of both, and
    maybe I will not part with either as a result!;-)
    With the exception of zooming-while-shooting-video, the GH3
    *appears* to be well-designed for shooting both stills and
    video. The LX7 is actually (mostly) nice for shooting video.
    Ummmm......, well............., ah..., maybe not......;-)
    I have heard this before, with samples given, and even in the
    frame-grabs, the differences (while sometimes subtle), were
    easy to see, especially between 60P and 60I - or with motion,
    between 60P/I and 24P (UGH!). (As in, "Hey folks, this is
    *motion-video* we're talking about here, not a flickering set
    of stills shown in succession at a too-slow rate!";-) Also,
    the difference shows in visual-resolution between 60 whole
    frames per second vs. the 60 half-frames per second inherent
    with 60I (there is simply more information available in the
    motion image per a given unit of time. But, if you can't see
    the differences, I guess I wouldn't bother using the higher
    data and frame rates...;-) Also, "video-shooters", even with
    the identical specs (such as 28Mbps 1920x1080-60P) do not
    necessarily produce the same level of image quality (witnessed
    by the LX7 and A77 vs. the TM700 or GH3). Some cameras (like
    Nikons) also do not even have a 60P mode... On the other side
    of this, I've been surprised that at export, a product with
    even a considerably lower data rate can look good (so long as
    what came before was of high quality...;-).
    Yes, there can be other reasons for using even 30P (for other
    than wanting the highest possible image quality with motion),
    or 24P (for direct transfer to film).
    Yes. (Mostly...;-) But doing so is not without difficulties.
    I built my own computer so that I could have one that could
    easily handle HD 60P without spending a "fortune" on it.
    I don't know if you can see the difference, but I CAN - and
    being a quality-nut (when practical...!;-), I choose not only
    to shoot 60P, but to output in 60P, at least for archiving
    even if I can't yet show it that way from disks. Or can I?
    I must get around to checking out whether or not I can put
    60P AVCHD on a disk and have it playable. I know it is not
    in the Blu-ray spec - but I've read that it can work with
    most players... Hmmmmm......! 8^) BTW, some HDTVs (like ours)
    cannot show 60P using the HDMI inputs (but can, using the
    DVI inputs). This may also be true for your TV...(?).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 28, 2013
    #33
  14. It may be that an MRI could not detect it, but an "MRA" may
    be able to(?). BTW, as a result of using CPAP gear while
    sleeping (ESSENTIAL, alas...!), I appear to have a long-term
    ear infection of some sort that causes "palpitate tinnitus"
    (I hear my pulse in the HF tinnitus, which is [WHEW!] not
    always present... [the tinnitus, NOT my pulse, although
    sometimes I wonder - and my pulse *is* unusually difficult
    to detect, otherwise...;-]).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 29, 2013
    #34
  15. Because it's not there?

    I might add that you're not here, whereas I and my doctors *are* here...
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 29, 2013
    #35
  16. Of course...;-) There was no intent to annoy, but only
    possibly to help. I had never heard of "MRAs" until a
    friend was concerned about a hearing problem and finally
    had an MRA done. I looked it up, and was surprised by
    the detail visible in an MRA compared with an MRI,
    which is downright "fuzzy" in comparison (I've had a
    couple of those...;-). Anyway, good luck with it.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 30, 2013
    #36
  17. My bad - I hold have looked up MRA when you first mentioned it.

    Anyway, your post made me do it - thanks. It seems quite interesting.
    I'll have to look in more detail later, since I have to do some chores
    in a moment.

    Technology seems never to stand still :)
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 30, 2013
    #37
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.