DVL-Digest 477 - Postings: Index Components on DV Recommended drive space Components on DV - "Perry" I've just finished writing a review of the GY-DV500 in comparison with the Sony DSR-300. One of the few areas to come out poorly was the viewfinder quality. Whilst it was quite usable, it didn't produce as crisp or bright pictures as the Sony and didn't have as handy adjustments to suit the cameraman. Apparently the viewfinder (VF-P115BE) is technically an option, and can be replaced by the VF-P116E, which is the same viewfinder normally used with the DY-90E or KY-D29E. (note - these may be PAL numbers). This would then probably give as good or better viewfinder performance for the JVC as for the Sony. Whether you can persuade a JVC dealer to split a 'kit' in this way is another matter of course. The lens can make a big difference to the image quality, and an internal focus type (where the front element does not rotate with focus) makes it much easier to attach filters. You would be well advised to try as many lenses as possible before you buy. Unfortunately, many lenses made to fit this 1/2 in. standard are converted from 2/3in. by the manufacturers and are therefore expensive. Especially missing is a cost effective wide angle; what is needed is a lens that could have a restricted zoom range (X5 is plenty) but is reasonable quality and cheap enough to buy as a second lens. Perry Mitchell Video Facilities http://www.perrybits.co.uk/ Recommended drive space - "Perry" **blushes profusely** Hey Guys, just wanted to add to and correct Barry G's mail. > I did a side-by-side test between it and FilmFX/2 (www.bigfx.com) and showed > it to some people. While there was a difference, nobody tested expressed a > preference for one over the other, they looked quite comparable, just a bit > different. (Consider that you can apply the same preset for the same stock > on CineLook and FilmFX/2 and they'll look quite different too). So you noticed that too about Cinelook and FilmFX? :-) I tried to aim for something inbetween (taking the pragmatic approach to it all). Hopefully if FilmRender makes me some money I can go and and analyzing the original film stock and producing a very close color balance. Trouble is after working on colour management software I'm not about to try a half measure in it, it would have to be done properly. > FilmRender is fully multithreaded, so it should > be dramatically faster on an NT or Win2K system with multiple processors > (and I suspect FilmFX & CineLook may enjoy similar speed gains). The benefit from rending two streams at once is entirely depentant on the implementation of the compressor/decompressor. If this is done entirely in hardware and the entire system isn't blocked whilst this is happening, it will potentially run faster on Win95/8 as well. > Mind you, FilmRender is still in beta... Not for much longer. Did a build today extending the grain system to where it needs to be. (upload tomorrow 11am GMT) As long as there are no show stoppers in that build, that is version 1. But that's not to say that development is finished by a long shot. As somebody far more poetic than me put it 'A good software project is never finished, only abandoned'. I have a bunch of ideas for intelligent de-interlacing that I'm going to try out, plus I have to convert the engine to work with the direct show APIs. (BTW, licence codes will work for all version 1 builds, you don't have to wait, err, apart from the fact there is no place to buy the thing yet!. Should be sorted in a week or two.) > One final difference: FilmRender is a standalone application. That means > you don't need AfterEffects, and you don't need Speed Razor, and you don't > need Premiere. You can use it with any of them, or with MediaStudio Pro, or > EditDV, or on an Avid, or anything. The real reason I did this was because I was fed up with editing in 'normal' video mode, then applying the film effect when you are ready to export, then taking your 4 days. I personally don't like that, so it's there so you can process your source images *before* editing. > It'll process any .AVI file regardless > of format or compression or whatever. That's a huge plus, in my book. Currently, I only use the VFW AVI APIs under windows, so I think that will exclude the DV files that have the video and audio in together and need direct show to read properly ( is that DV type1? I cannot remember), that I'm going to add when the rest of the code is finalised. > (note: currently Windows-only). If there is a mac coder out there we could collaberate on a mac version... The rendering routines should be easy to convert :-) Regards Ned (diese posts stammen von der DV-L Mailingliste - THX to Adam Wilt and Perry Mitchell :-) [up] |
 slashCAM  News HD Camcorder database One-on-One Cam comparison About our tests About us |
|
|
