SONY 3D CAM VS JVC 3D CAM short Test - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 34 Old 06-14-2011, 08:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
kuebler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

The two tests run by different AVS members here prove one thing to me, that the tests are not valid ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Second, I assume that these "test" shots are ...

I'm sorry that I couldn't match your high quality criteria, and I even have to admit, that I hadn't tried to and hadn't claimed that...

And while I certainly do understand much much less about video than you guys, I might at least understand not less about how to communicate reasonably polite, diplomatic, and modest.

I had done my test 80% for myself, but I thought that the additional 20% effort might satisfy somebody else's interest, and I assumed that all others would simply ignore my post. I hadn't foreseen that my innocent layman's post might violate some feelings of videographers' "law and order"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

In the future, I would like to see these tests state the camera settings, as in manual exposure, manual iris at f8, 60th of a second shutter speed 0 AE adjust. Then adjust the lights to achieve a ...

It sure is your perfect right, that you "would like to see" something in the future.

But the original poster hadn't given this as a request for his thread, and therefore I assume...

Quote:


If we are to evaluate in auto mode, the test needs to be dynamic with changing conditions rather than a static test chart

... that "we" is primarily "you".

Quote:


Reason is that the sole purpose of auto [emphasis by kuebler] is to help the shooter follow a changing scene and have the camera auto adjust depending on the conditions in the scene.

Even as a layman I can recognize that statement to be wrong: for you that may indeed be the sole purpose of that mode/function, but I'm quite sure that the Sony people see auto not least as a helpful feature for those laymen like me, who want to press the start button and achieve instantly not an artwork, but a reasonable family video, e.g. of the kids, automatically.

Falk Kuebler
kuebler is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 34 Old 06-14-2011, 10:00 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Falk- I apologize for you becoming offended because I requested additional information. Your response sarcasm was quite obvious. I assure you I meant absolutely no insult to your contribution here. I welcome it and I only am here to learn from others and offer something in return. In that process if I make new friends, that is a side benefit. If I offend some because I ask questions, then so be it. But in the end I look past the sarcasm and hunt for the things that can educate me. There is no rule of law here, I do have a right to ask and you have a right to become offended.

I do thank you for answering my question in that the tests you ran were conducted under full auto settings. I happen to disagree with this practice for this type of test and I explained why.

What I learned from your test is that there remains an unanswered question as to which camcorder induces the higher noise content at low light levels. Also, by your tests, confirming Mayer's tests, I see there is a red push, albeit a small one in the JVC as compared to Sony. This also goes along with all Sony camcorders which seem to be factory set for a cooler image. The questionable difference I saw was the noise level in each image between yours and Mayer's.

All in all, my interest is academic since I have no intention in buying a JVC as the JVC lacks other more important to me, features that the Sony offers. It is nice to know what I give up however. So I remain curious.
Don Landis is online now  
post #33 of 34 Old 06-14-2011, 01:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
kuebler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Falk- I apologize for you becoming offended because I requested additional information.

That's for sure a nice try...

You know it, I know it, and you know that I know it: not your questions were even the faintest problem, but your attitude was... And therefore your apology was left with only half of its nominal value...

But this remaining half I take and accept...

Quote:


I do thank you for answering my question in that the tests you ran were conducted under full auto settings. I happen to disagree with this practice for this type of test and I explained why.

There are different people with different wishes re equipment, and I'm one of those guys, who will consistently use a camcorder in auto mode, and only in auto mode. And therefore I made my test accordingly. Don't forget: it was done for myself.

Quote:


The questionable difference I saw was the noise level in each image between yours and Mayer's.

Mayers test (validly) introduced 2 additional low pass filters: his projector, and his still camera. As I know Mayer, both are of the most superb quality, but low pass filters they nevertheless are. Maybe this had an influence.

And the captured picture possibly was taken from a non-deinterlaced half frame? May those have a tendency to show stronger noise than a full frame picture, due to a lack of averaging? Hmmm, this may be just silly layman-mumble-mumble...

Quote:


All in all, my interest is academic since I have no intention in buying a JVC as the JVC lacks other more important to me, features that the Sony offers.

So the layman and the big video honcho appear to have come to the same conclusion.

Funny...

Falk Kuebler
kuebler is offline  
post #34 of 34 Old 06-15-2011, 10:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 104
I'm cross posting this from the JVC camcorder thread, since some people might not be following both. This is footage shot with my JVC TD1 at Shaw's Garden in St. Louis. The MVC files were converted with Peter Wimmer's MVCtoAVI utility, then edited and burned to a 3D Blu-ray iso in Sony Vegas. This post also refers to other matters being discussed in that JVC thread, so ignore them.

Here are a couple of scenes from the Shaw's Garden video. The iso is over 860 MB, so give it some time to upload to Dropbox. If you don't, it will error out.

I decided to show the Childrens Garden and The Center for Home Gardening, instead of the Japanese Garden. Remember, this is a rough first cut. There are shots that will go, others will be added and the order will be rearranged. I've cut some of my favorite shots because they just wouldn't flow, and there's more butchering to be done. There's blood everywhere.

At present the temp music for this project is a mixture of Mozart, Haydn and Mannheim Steamroller. I'm thinking of asking the help of a friend who used to play violin for the St. Louis Symphony - if I ever decide what I want to do with this project. Right now, it lacks focus.

One thing that doesn't lack focus is the image. The depth of field is incredible. This camcorder is capable of resolving detail to such a degree that I'm discovering the limitations of my 3D shutter glasses. I've found that my JVC shutter glasses are softer than my Xpand 103s (although Xpand makes both). I have to turn my head just so with the JVCs, or things go soft. There's a bit of that with the Xpands, but not as much. My favorite glasses for detail are the Samsung glasses that came with my 3D plasma. If they didn't lose sync so darn often, they'd be great.

I left two shots in one of the segments that will never find their way into the finished video. One is a Blackbird stabilizer shot, there so I could see what kind of judder effect I get with it (not too bad, but still noticeable). This was a shot I took after about 30 minutes experience. I call it Drunken Master, which is appropriate, except for the "Master" part. It really is dreadful. The other shot is of a girl walking in front of the camera with a stroller. It shows the judder/strobing effect clearly. This is what I need to find a way around. Such shots are not usable. This is entirely a side effect of conversion from 60i to 24p. Straight from the camcorder, such shots are perfect. There's just no way to translate such motion smoothly when you throw away 6 of 30 frames and try to blend the other fields into 24 coherent frames. Frank's suggestion of a slower shutter speed may well work. 60i to 24p conversion has little visible effect on motion at a distance. I barely notice it. It's really only rapid lateral motion up close that suffers.

I'll get around to writing up the workflow for this in the next few days, and start a thread - so as not to bore the uninterested with editing minutiae.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
Reply 3D Source Components

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

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