Candle Test uncompressed HDMI capture

[lordtangent]

After seeing jmalmstens recent candle light test I found the inspiration I needed for a scene to test my new Intensity card. I was not able to totally reproduce his results (I have just a smidgen of detectable noise in my shots) it might be that I accidentally exposed too much an got gain or it might have been one of my other settings (like sharpening) that popped the grain out a little in the final signal. It could also be that HDV compresses out the noise. Who knows.

I captured UNCOMPRESSED 24p via the Intensity card. I'm providing the processed files. (already IVTC processed true 24p) I was very careful when processing these. They stayed in 4:2:2 all the way though and I'm providing the uncompressed in losslessly compressed (reversible) Lagarith format AVIs. Maybe they will be useful for someone who wants to see what stuff looks like totally uncompressed. I put them in Lagarith to save some space. I didn't tape this test so I don't have HDV to compare. I'll try to do that next time. (I really want to see the difference myself by a direct comparison.)

Here is a high quality MP4 movie if you don't want the full uncompressed[15MB]:
http://www.hv20.info/yopu/hdmi_candle_light_24p720.mp4

Here is the Lagarith uncompressed movie [240MB]:
http://www.hv20.info/yopu/hdmi_candl..._LAGS_YUY2.avi

Here is a still:

[jmalmsten]

Nice to see someone doing it with the, often spoken about but I have no access too, HDMI direct to disc recording... And it's interesting to hear (the way one hears when reading) that you had some difficulty recreating it...

I seem to have some problem with the Lagarith-files... I never really used the format myself and I can really only blame myself for not having my computer set up for it. But the MP4 720p looks really nice and crisp. Could you let us in on how the cam is set up in terms of WB (guessing, sunny), you mentioned something about some small amounts of gain, how much, and all of those techie-stuff...

Oh... and could you do some footage captured both with the HDMI and HDV. Something like capturing on HDV while capturing to lagarith. Then capture from tape with firewire, and do a lagarith video with the two video's (the one from HDV-Firewire and the one from Lagarith-HDMI) in comparable ways... both after each other and split screen. Maybe even with one on top of the other with a blending mode set to difference. I just want to see what the benefits of HDMI-capture gives...

And also... I remember I watched a DVD-lesson on filmmaking and they talked about sound. And the speaker said something in the likes of:

"The easiest way to get good lighting in the frame is to have good sound. I know it sounds crazy, but it never fails! As soon as you ask someone what they thought about a movie that in reality just had bad sound, people have a tendency to answer, 'the lighting was bad'. Every time there's something wrong with a movie they blame the lighting..."

or something like that. And I really feel ashamed for using Badalamenti's music because it may have made my video look better than it actually is...

Put some music to your footage (and maybe intercut it with a couple cuddling in a candle-lit bed) and it'll be Oscar-worthy... I doubt that no one will notice the small artifacts that may or may not be in there


>>>Off topic now... sort of... :
I think it's only fair if I provide the inspiration to my test, I mean... I can't take all the credit for the idea...

The RED ONE Thread:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...ight=low+light
Hot-link to the footage posted there:
http://brainspasm.com/red/UpInSmoke.mov

I notice something when looking at the footage from the $10k (plus lenses and everything) Red-footage comparing it to your footage and mine from a HV20... well I'll be darned... the range from lit to pitch black ain't that dissimilar from the HV20... Quick... someone that smokes a pipe... try to recreate the Red's conditions with your HV20... I want examples for comparison!

Ok, After viewing it again I realize that the difference between red and HV20 is quite great... but still...

I wonder how much gain the RED has to use to get the ASA1000? I don't remember the native ASA-specs for that monster of a cam...

And while searching reduser for the footage I came up with this:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...ight=low+light

Here they show a picture of the Famous movie Barry Lyndon... Lit only with Candles(!)... And they do mention that in the film every candle was especially made and had 3 strings burning. The film itself was pushed from ASA100 (fastest available at the time) to ASA200 and was shot with lenses (custom built by companies providing optics for NASA's space-telescopes) having an aperture of something like F0.7 ... On ASA 800 and f1.4 lens it should be the same...

So another request... How many candles with how many burning threads per candle would be enough to get a gain-grain-free image from a HV20 with no supporting lights? Anyone want's to try?

[lordtangent]

could you do some footage captured both with the HDMI and HDV. Something like capturing on HDV while capturing to lagarith. Then capture from tape with firewire, and do a lagarith video with the two video's (the one from HDV-Firewire and the one from Lagarith-HDMI) in comparable ways... both after each other and split screen. Maybe even with one on top of the other with a blending mode set to difference. I just want to see what the benefits of HDMI-capture gives...

Well, I might not go as far as doing the "difference" stuff myself. But I might post some footage. I'm doing a test like that for myself right now. So far my observation is that HDV is actually quite good, especially considering the data rate. (The loss is minimal) Actually, I think I need to make a better test up, because I think there isn't enough motion in my last test footage to expose HDVs weakness. (Motion)

The main thing I notice with the Intensity captures is that I'm getting high enough fidelity to capture the noise. It exposes the noise that might have otherwise bean eaten up by the HDV codec. (along with some detail)

I'm not sure if there is any advantage to capturing from tape via the Intensity. I intend to test that. Right now the main advantage I can think of is that maybe the HV20s MPEG decoder is better than the software decoder I have, providing better quality. Also, the output wont have the "4:2:0 chroma bug" because the HV20 would know how to handle interlaced 4:2:0 properly. My software 3:2 pull down removal system address the "chroma bug" but I'm still suspicious it still doens't work quite right. I want to compare the software vs. hardware decoded and see which looks better. The main thing is I need to make a good test. And for me than means a model actually doing something on camera to make some motion. (I don't want to model myself, so I need to find a willing model)

[threadhanger]

Interesting stuff. I love the clip from the Red camera where the guy lights up the pipe. It looked better than film.

As for Barry Lyndon, that was the best scene in the film. I remember hearing something about Kubrick having a special lense or camera to record that.

On one of the other boards there was a thread where it was decided that the ISO of the HV20 is about 100.

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=779007


Maybe I could use my Polaris light meter to determine how many candles it would take. I've been wondering how to encorporate my meter with the Canon.

[mbamber]

Kubrick got the special lenses from Nasa....why? What was so special about Kubrick?

It was his payback for helping NASA during the fake moon landings!


You dont know how many times I've heard that...they even have a whole mockumentary about it featuring people like Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is kinda sneaky though...WHY DID he get the super awesome Nasa lenses that nobody since has even been able to re-create (barry lyndon scene)?????

INteresting

[mbamber]

Heres what I was talking about:

Look at 2:30 - 3:30 - Talking about the unique multi-million dollar lens that was used for filming spy sattelites....given to Kubrick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbegH4HMafQ



Its a mockumentary.

[Ian-T]

Heres what I was talking about:

Look at 2:30 - 3:30 - Talking about the unique multi-million dollar lens that was used for filming spy sattelites....given to Kubrick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbegH4HMafQ



Its a mockumentary.

Ha HA ...I loved this....this was great. I got to show my friends at the space center. What clued me early on was the CIA director speaking Russian and the Russian KGB officer sounding like he was from down south...lol. But man...it's freaky what one can do with sound bytes.

[lordtangent]

Kubrick got the special lenses from Nasa....why? What was so special about Kubrick?

It was his payback for helping NASA during the fake moon landings!


You dont know how many times I've heard that...they even have a whole mockumentary about it featuring people like Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is kinda sneaky though...WHY DID he get the super awesome Nasa lenses that nobody since has even been able to re-create (barry lyndon scene)?????

INteresting

He just called Zeiss and asked for the lens. They will do custom work for anyone who can pay for it. NASA wasn't involved at all.

[mbamber]

So how did the "nasa lenses" thing get started?