DSE 5 #276 March 4, 2009 QuoteFile size wasn't of any concern, but I needed to get it edited and deinterlaced I misunderstood your point; I was under the impression you wanted to share the quality of the footage with the forum, not that you were intent on sharing an edited piece. Quotehow can I not convert it to MPG4? I need to choose something IMHO ... Or which format/container do you recommend for best quality for computer viewing, resp. archiving (in Vegas)? Lots of options here. Archiving? The answer to that is dependent on what you're attempting to achieve. Archive original quality for later use/recall? Original media only. Archive master edit that you used to deliver on DVD? The MPEG2. Archive for posterity? MPEG 4, but understand nothing will smoothly play it back at full size/resolution without hardware, so i'd use a Blu-ray template vs the custom one you used for this. QuoteAnother question, would you recommend using another deinterlacing method than the ones provided in Vegas, whereof interpolate seems like the only way to go anyways, or am I mistaken? For example Mike's smart deinterlacer could be an alternative but I get jerky playback with it at the moment, still experimenting ... You can blend or interpolate. For slow moving footage, Blend is the best option. For fast moving footage, Interpolate is the best option. Mike Crash' deinterlace filter is very good for what it is, but it's slow. If speed is your need...let Vegas do it on its own. If you're delivering for the web, I'd just use the settings as I recommended in the YouTube article. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedamigo 0 #277 March 4, 2009 Thanks for your answer DSE. You're right, I wanted to share the footage quality but spare everyone the 600MB main mts file with 5min of helicopter indoors I had just finished editing and thought it reflected the quality of the original footage by 99% anyways, since I chose Sony AVCHD profile for rendering and only changed the deinterlacing method. Seems like I'm wrong here!? Does Vegas recompress in this case? Working with different formats can be so confusing ... So, would you also recommend AVCHD Upshift for archiving (or a script that does the same) since it gets transcoded? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #278 March 4, 2009 ANY time you modify the content of a frame, it's recompressed. Deinterlacing, color correction, transition, title, etc... all create recomp. The frame has to be reassembled because you changed it. In this thread of discussion, you're not only modifying the content of the frame, you're converting it to another format, so again, it'll recompress. Can't avoid it. QuoteWorking with different formats can be so confusing ... Yes, it absolutely can be. There is no "right nor wrong" answer, because the answer is dependent on your needs. Tell me more about your archiving needs and delivery needs, I'll try to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 74 #279 March 4, 2009 Ive just spent an hour or so pointing the camera at everything I could find, shaking it around, holding it upsideside and hitting it on the side...basically everything you normaly do when you have a new girlfriendImpressed with this little camera. The only negative thing I could find was a bit of lag (compression related) on quick panning moves. Resulting in the image-jitter described here earlier... Its quite specific...having an object in front of the lens, with a panning background seems to cancel out the stuttering. I dont really see this being an issue, but think my style of filming wingsuit stuff (usually without wide-angle, and zoomed in) will probably show this to be a shortcoming (or not) real soon... Dont expect it to be a problem..but we'll see! JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydemon 0 #280 March 4, 2009 Thanks Icon!! Just to make sure, anyone knows if this lens (century 0,55) has a noticeable better image than a royal lens? Blue ones, EDIT: spell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #281 March 4, 2009 QuoteJust to make sure, anyone knows if this lens (century 0,55) has a noticeable better image than a royal lens? There is a link to a lens comparison that DSE created a while ago... in the FAQ at the top of this forum which compares a number of different wide angle adapters. Spot's Lens comparison to my untrained eye it seem apparent that the Royal lenses are noticably softer then the Century 0.55. but the Rayonx Wide angle adapter is sharper then the Century.Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #282 March 4, 2009 Quote At the risk of sounding like my girlfriend... DAMN THAT THING IS SMALL! Attached a pic of the camera on my desk, next to my bank-card You just wanna show off your bank card ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 74 #283 March 4, 2009 Quote You just wanna show off your bank card ShhhhhNow if there would be any money on that bank-account, that would be even better haha Luckely this camera is a 'company purchase' approved by my boss....ooh wait...thats meJC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdazel 0 #284 March 4, 2009 Quote The only negative thing I could find was a bit of lag (compression related) on quick panning moves. Resulting in the image-jitter described here earlier... I'm glad someone else noticed it. See, I'm not crazy... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dresherr 0 #285 March 4, 2009 Aside from linear vs. non-linear, is the CX-100 a competitor to say... the PC1000. How about the CX-12 compared to the CX-100. My DZ uses a PC1000 for tandems. Will this compete? (again aside from editing) I finally read every page of this post but some points are a little murky for me. DSE: You said this camera is still an entry-level compared to other cameras at the DZ? In what ways? Thanks for the input and please bare with my lack of techy knowledge at this point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #286 March 4, 2009 There is a *huge* difference between stabilization, interlacing, and compression issues. From your earlier description, it sounds like interlacing. Jarno understands compression pretty well (he's a compositor by profession), so I'm pretty confident he's describing GOP issues, which are present whether it's AVCHD or HDV (or any other form of IBP MPEG). There I go being technical again. Gotta quit that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Acroboy 0 #287 March 4, 2009 Has anyone tried using the CX100/5 in dual mode? Taking stills while shooting video? I read that it drops the stills from 4Mp to 2.3Mp. Anyone have pics? I was specifically thinking to use this with the Hype eye D, and was wondering what the Frame per second rate was? Any info appreciated. Thanks.-come one let's do one more! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdazel 0 #288 March 4, 2009 Quote There is a *huge* difference between stabilization, interlacing, and compression issues. From your earlier description, it sounds like interlacing. Jarno understands compression pretty well (he's a compositor by profession), so I'm pretty confident he's describing GOP issues, which are present whether it's AVCHD or HDV (or any other form of IBP MPEG). There I go being technical again. Gotta quit that. Jarno's description sounds exactly like what I was trying to describe - albeit unsuccessfully. So, assuming it is compression-related, is that something that will just have to be accepted? Or is there a way to minimize it? I tried different bitrates, but didn't notice a difference between different AVCHD bitrates - the problem is apparent in all HD modes. If it isn't too noticeable in freefall or on the ground for landings and interviews, it might not be a deal-breaker. In fact, I often use a video effect to create the same type of look. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bomb420 1 #289 March 4, 2009 It's still fairly slow but seems not to have a limit on number of pictures like the CX7. The images are fairly low quality 2.3MP and seem grainy. I may be wrong, but it seems these cameras get their image quality from integrating a few higher a shutter speed images together to make a reference frame. When you take a still, the image quality appears to be that of a single shutter sample, so the colors seem muted and grainy. (DSE and others know the technical nomenclature) I think it was around 4 seconds per frame with a burst of 4 when I last tried it. Someone can try it while recording and pressing the photo button; I'm away from my camera right now.HYPOXIC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #290 March 4, 2009 What app are you using? This next "description" sounds like frame skip, not compression artifact. Compression artifact can be clearly seen when pausing on a single frame and macroblocks are visible in the high motion areas vs solid segments in the low motion areas. The app you use, computer for playback, decoder all play a role in seeing this correctly. That's one of the downsides of the new codecs, so many relevant factors, it's not easy to tie to one thing. Have you viewed the footage over HDMI directly to display? Are you still seeing the artifact/frame skip/less than happy image over HDMI? I can easily make this camera look terrible by shooting wth certain movements and subjects. I can make those same scenes look great by altering how I'm managing the camera. With highly compressed formats, working with the camera is fairly important, although what you're describing *seems* to be app/playback related. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefli 2 #291 March 4, 2009 In post #281, someone puts a link to your lens comparison. When I look at these comparison images, seems like the diamond actually looks better than century lens. DSE, would you please clarify that the century .3 will actually be a better lens for inside a formation wilth this camera versus the diamond .2 I am using now with my pc1000. looking at your lens comparison page, I'm left a little confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #292 March 4, 2009 I'm not sure what you're seeing there, but the Century has nearly three times the resolution of the Diamond at the centerpoint, and significantly more resolution at the edges than the Diamond. Of course, cost is a significant difference too. The Diamond .2 is a terrific handcam lense; maybe I'm too much of a snob but I can't see using it anywhere but there. It's pretty soft, as are all .2 lenses once you move from the center. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdazel 0 #293 March 4, 2009 Quote What app are you using? Sony's PMB software that comes with the camera for playback on PC, but I don't trust it because my processors are maxed out. But PMB seems sketchy anyway - 50% of the time it says "that's not AVCHD" or "cannot play specified file." Quote This next "description" sounds like frame skip, not compression artifact. Compression artifact can be clearly seen when pausing on a single frame and macroblocks are visible in the high motion areas vs solid segments in the low motion areas. The app you use, computer for playback, decoder all play a role in seeing this correctly. That's one of the downsides of the new codecs, so many relevant factors, it's not easy to tie to one thing. I understand there is a lot going on here that I don't understand yet - and if it was just a PC playback thing, I wouldn't be concerned at this point. What concerns me is that the jittery/skipping/sticking/frame wierdness thing shows up both on the camera LCD when recording and also on the camera LCD during playback. It happens in all combinations of the following: steadyshot on/off; wide angle conversion on/off; and with the raynox .3 lens on/off. Quote Have you viewed the footage over HDMI directly to display? Are you still seeing the artifact/frame skip/less than happy image over HDMI? Not yet. I haven't been to the store to pick up the cable... so that is still in the works. Quote I can easily make this camera look terrible by shooting wth certain movements and subjects. I can make those same scenes look great by altering how I'm managing the camera. With highly compressed formats, working with the camera is fairly important, although what you're describing *seems* to be app/playback related. As long as those of you who understand how to work with AVCHD are convinced that this camera has the capability to produce good video, then I suppose I shouldn't be too concerned. I'll get it figured out eventually. Thanks a bunch for the input. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 74 #294 March 4, 2009 Try doing a pan, with an object in front of the camera (your hand for instance) and you'll notice the background jitter is gone. I think it wont be too big of an issue as long as there is a subject in the center of your screen (I do hear some freeflyers having a heart-attack here) And the panningspeed has to be pretty fast for it to occur. I dont think its something which will be an issue, unless you're usually shooting empty skies and looking around in frantic manner...in which case your $$ should probably be spent on jumps instead of buying this cameraIll be doing some freeflying with the camera on saterday/sunday (weather permitting) and shooting some no-wideangle stuff (because Im cheap!) Ill upload some clips if the footage is any good.. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ralph_W 0 #295 March 5, 2009 Over here the weather forecast for the weekend sound anything but promising. So I got a new camera but no chance to try it out. Could anybody please be so kind as to point out which settings to use with the 105, which settings have proofed to give good results, so I can play at least on the ground with it. Thanks in advance RalphSilence is golden. www.bt-ag.ch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave1960 0 #296 March 5, 2009 how do the Liquid lenses compare to the Raynox and the century lenses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #297 March 5, 2009 Quotehow do the Liquid lenses compare to the Raynox and the century lenses? If the lens test doesn't answer your question, I don't know what will. The Liquid, WayCool, Royal lenses are all approximately the same. The Royal in testing, has a very thin, marginal edge. Not enough to get overly excited about. Century and Raynox shown in the tests clearly offer better resolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave1960 0 #298 March 5, 2009 Sorry. Didnt see the liquid mentioned. scanning the posts too fast I guess Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waldschrat 0 #299 March 5, 2009 QuoteDoes this cam come with a remote? or does the existing Sony remote's work on it? I looked at Sony page spec - no remote was listed. I have a TG1 - I miss not having a remote when debriefing footage. http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665304384&tab=Features Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #300 March 5, 2009 QuoteFunction : Photo Shutter, Recording Start/Stop, Variable Zoom(2 steps) Trunk, you must be able to make a more functional remote with review capabilities?Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
