Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Sanyo

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2007, 11:37 PM   #221
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 101
Default

Caelum wrote:
Quote:
ray301 wrote:
Quote:
Actually, I found that using the standard ffdshow h264 codec, the shadow areas looked great with visible detail. However, using the coreAVC codec, the shadow areas were all black. I was surprised at how differently the two codecs rendered the image color and gamma wise.
That's interesting, while it's possible CoreAVC may be decoding much faster at theexpense of rendering qualityI don't see obvious differences between this video rendered with CoreAVC and ffdshow (libavcodec) on my PC. Are you sure your media player(s) are rendering in the same color space using the different codecs? Because color space (gamma) will have an impact on the perceived video contrast. Some media players render usinga PC's"overlay" renderer, which often does not share the same color space as the rest of the screen (the VMR renderers do use the color space LUTs). (Try Quicktime, it maydo it's own color space adjustment, I don't know). I have my monitor calibrated (and overlay renderer) to a gamma of 2.2. I'm pretty sure the camera must record using the standardNTSC camera gamma of 1/2.2.

EDIT: Ok, here's something to try using VLC for those who find it too dark: start VLC, goto:Settings, Preferences... (Ctrl+S); Under "Video", select "Filters" then check the "Image properties filter" checkbox; select "Image Adjust",change Image gamma a little,i.e. "1.3", click "Save". Try playing the video, it should appear brighter and dark areas should be visible if they weren't before. (Note that the gammavalue here is not final gamma butcompounded withexisting gamma.) If your monitor is properly gamma calibrated but not your "overlay" renderer, try changing the output module to a DirectX renderer (advanced options) instead.
I use media player classic for both codecs... I do have to add that on my vista laptop, there was much less difference than on my PC. I also work on a calibrated environment (i1 photo). I found quicktime to be rendering in the classic apple 1.8 gamma, the footage is much brighter than the ffdshow and coreAVC.
ray301 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2007, 4:29 PM   #222
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

ray301 wrote:
Quote:
[...]I found quicktime to be rendering in the classic apple 1.8 gamma, the footage is much brighter than the ffdshow and coreAVC.
Yes, I haven't used Quicktime in a while, but that was also my experience in the past. Imight have made reference to this already here, a link to a post I made nearly two years (!) ago illustrating the problem using Sanyo Xacti C4 video footage at the time: Quicktime vs Media Player Classic.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2007, 4:35 PM   #223
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 101
Default

Caelum wrote:
Quote:
ray301 wrote:
Quote:
[...]I found quicktime to be rendering in the classic apple 1.8 gamma, the footage is much brighter than the ffdshow and coreAVC.
Yes, I haven't used Quicktime in a while, but that was also my experience in the past. Imight have made reference to this already here, a link to a post I made nearly two years (!) ago illustrating the problem using Sanyo Xacti C4 video footage at the time: Quicktime vs Media Player Classic.
To be fair to apple though, the colors are pretty spot on... just the gamma needs some fixing I found VLC's own codec to render with a magenta bias, that's why i've basically narrowed down the players to just MPC with ffdshow.
ray301 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2007, 4:58 PM   #224
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 68
Default

I've used HD1000 quite a bit last weekend and I am pleased with quality. I do not care for HD resolution it has to offer, but I do care for low light capability. As a matter of fact I filmed a birthday party in a dim lightning for about an hour using 640x480 resolution (makes it easier to upload on Facebook because it uses the same resolution, unlike YouTube that downscales to 320x240)

The only thing I am bummed about is that I am only able to take pictures at the selected video resolution while recording.

Also, this thread/forum is a bit slow. Anyone knows a better Sanyo forum that has more activity going on.

klas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2007, 9:04 PM   #225
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 101
Default

I received my HD1000 a few hours ago... some quick impressions:

- I don't think i can go back to just 30fps again the 1080i 60 field/s and 720p 60 frames/s modes makes a world of difference in fluidity of motion

- the codec can be tripped up, if you have a smooth gradient type area on the image, and you wave your hands in front... the codec struggles a bit.

- Surprisingly, the EIS does not crop the field of view anymore! I suspect they designed the overscan area into the sensor so not to degrade the image like previous models
ray301 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2007, 9:54 PM   #226
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3
Default

Hope I'm doing this right, it is my second post here. Still trying to figure out how to delete my first one.
I was hoping someone could give me the physical size of the HD1000.
I am thinking of trying it for skydiving. The only sizes I have seen didn't make sense.
Please make the width from side to side, the depth from front of lens to where the eye piece would be it had one. This sounds funny to describe it this way but people think of depth and width differently.
Thunderbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2007, 10:33 PM   #227
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Thunderbow, I replied in your new thread.

By the way, Sanyo has made available an English on-line digital movie camera guide (tips)for the HD1000 now:

"Let's shoot more movies"... with the HD1000.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2007, 11:11 PM   #228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 145
Default

ray301 wrote:
Quote:
Surprisingly, the EIS does not crop the field of view anymore! I suspect they designed the overscan area into the sensor so not to degrade the image like previous models
I don't believe it. EIS has to crop by definition. If it didn't, then you'd see black edges. There's only two other options. One is they just crop/zoom with or with EIS engaged now, which would suck. Or they aren't taking advantage of the entire size of the chip, which wouldn't be that great either. Are you shure?

Someone should try filming a ruler from a tripod with EIS on and off, aligning one side with "zero" on the ruler (like the left side). Then see if you get more ruler with it off or not.
Taynt3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2007, 1:11 AM   #229
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 101
Default

Taynt3d wrote:
Quote:
ray301 wrote:
Quote:
Surprisingly, the EIS does not crop the field of view anymore! I suspect they designed the overscan area into the sensor so not to degrade the image like previous models
I don't believe it. EIS has to crop by definition. If it didn't, then you'd see black edges. There's only two other options. One is they just crop/zoom with or with EIS engaged now, which would oops. Or they aren't taking advantage of the entire size of the chip, which wouldn't be that great either. Are you shure?

Someone should try filming a ruler from a tripod with EIS on and off, aligning one side with "zero" on the ruler (like the left side). Then see if you get more ruler with it off or not.
I'm sure they created the chip with the crop accounted for, there is no change in field of view when the EIS is turned on. I had the CA65/E1, which was really obvious when you turn EIS on.

UPDATE* I just tested using the 1080i resolution with a cutting board (with rulers and grids printed on it). there was zero change in field of view with or without EIS. Its not uncommon for sensor sizes to have a smaller actual output. APS-C sensors all have larger than output chips which are used for noise reduction. And according to this article explaining different stabilization methods (posted earlier in this thread) http://www.videomaker.com/article/7310/ its not unsual for newer camcorders to do this (under EIS, last two paragraph).
ray301 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2007, 10:18 AM   #230
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 145
Default

Well, that is very good news indeed. My HD1000 should arrive in days, can't wait!
Taynt3d is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:21 AM.