SONY 3D CAM VS JVC 3D CAM short Test - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 34 Old 05-17-2011, 02:58 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
W.Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
since some days i have both 3d cameras the JVC and the Sony and i try to find out what camera show the best 3d picture.

both models are us models with 60i.

i try to make it short.

the SONY
+ much better low light performance very noise free and more resolution
+ wider angel the optic can record
+ much better 3d display
-in daylight conditions it can not record as much details as the jvc can
-not so easy to adjust the 3d deep

the JVC
+very sharp more details at daylight or when you have enough light compare to the sony
+very easy system to adjust manually the 3d deep
-3d display is not so good
-low light produce a lot of noise and strange other similar to noise looking artefacts
-optic cant record as wide as I like
-my camera suffers from the right eye not always in the right focus problem some times

so who wins?
hard to say.
i will try to say it this way.
if you record much outside or where you have ggod light condition the jvc will show the best picture with more details than the sony.
if you record a lot in low light condition may the sony is the better choice as it have much less noise and more visible details compare to the jvc.

the very good 3d display the sony have is nice but not really important for me as more important is how the picture looks at my Panasonic 65 plasma.
but its good to have it and people see this the first time like it a lot.

when you sit in a normally seating distance may you not see this more details the jvc can record under good light condition and than
the sony is may the better overall 3d cam.

if you sit close or you use a 3d pr. with huge picture but again if you sit not closer to 2 times the screen wide in distance you may not can
see this more details the jvc can record under good light conditions.

but if you can see this more details you like the jcv.

here some screen shots to show what I report.
please note that this are test pattern but my outside test show exactly the same trend but test pattern often show it more clear means
that outside the differences are a bit less visible.
i count that the sony record a wider picture but I compensate this in this test and in the pictures with the zoom.


this pictures was made with a canon 5d mk2 camera direct from the Panasonic 65 3d plasma with a shutter in front of the optic and playback the
material direct from the cam to the plasma.
so this what you eye also see when you playback the 3d content.

please note that the shutter was not big enough to cover the whole optic from the canon camera so color for sample was far from the center
a bit wrong and may you can see bad uniformity.

low light the sony




low light the jvc




high light the jvc




high light the sony





if you take a close look to the pictures you can see when you compare high light sony with high light jvc that the jvc have some enhancement on
as you can see some stairstepps but also It show more real details.
so the jvc show a combination from real more resolution and a bit enhancement.
the sony looks like the filters high freq. a bit out to produce a very clean natural image that looks nice but i miss the details the jvc can do.
may also the lower data rate the sony have need some kind of filtering to adjust to the the lower bit rateor for some other reason.

i found it strange that the sony can record more details in low light
and less resolution in good light condition and the jvc did it opposite!

i hope that there will be soon a new 3d cam out that have all the good one from both 3d cams.

there are at least 2 other companys Pansonic and Canon that very likely
will have soon also a full hd 3d cam.
W.Mayer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 34 Old 05-17-2011, 03:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Interesting test... thanks.

I think it's also important to mention that... at this point in time anyway.... you can't really edit the jvc footage in post yet as you can the Sony. That may be an issue with some.

It would also be interesting to compare the audio between the two cams.... which one has the better sound.....
bigbarney is online now  
post #3 of 34 Old 05-17-2011, 09:02 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
W.Mayer-

Really appreciate your test paterns. The differences in resolution test charts was obviously in favor of the jvc and convergent lines compare resolving to 425 JVC vs 375 Sony on one chart. What was really surprising is your test was opposite the scuttle going around that the JVC had better low light quality. Clearly this went to Sony. In the low light test your study confirmed what I mentioned earlier that the images I saw showed the JVC has a red shift in it's white balance.

I must emphasize that for me, a shooter, the goal is the collection of all assets and liabilities each system offers, The collection of all these with weighting as to importance, will generate a total score for which camcorder will do the best job. BigBarney alluded to this in his post.

Final comment- would you describe how each camera was set for the test. e.g. whether you used auto, or manual on white balance, whether you set intelligent auto to on on both camcorders, etc.
Don Landis is offline  
post #4 of 34 Old 05-17-2011, 09:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pteittinen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Very surpised wrt low light performance. In my tests the JVC has performed very well indeed. This makes me even more interested in testing the Sony. Too bad Sony Finland still isn't able to deliver a sample unit.

Please, feel free to call me by my first name, Petri.
pteittinen is offline  
post #5 of 34 Old 05-17-2011, 12:41 PM
vsv
Advanced Member
 
vsv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
From Peter Wimmer:

Stereoscopic Player finally supports MVC content in MPEG-TS (*.mts) and MP4
(*.mp4) containers as used by the Sony HDR-TD10 and JVC GS-TD1 3D camcorders.

Download the new version from http://www.3dtv.at/Downloads
As usual, customers of previous version can upgrade for free (use your existing product key).

Please obey the following hint: Both camcorders record in interlaced format,
however, the Stereoscopic Player does not enable deinterlacing by default. For
best results, click "File|Video Properties" after opening the file and check the
"Interlaced video (deinterlacing required)" option. I'll fix this inconvenience
in a later version.

Thanks very much to all of you who provided sample files!

Here is the full change log:

* Added support for interlaced MVC content.
* Added support for MVC content in MP4 containers.
* Fixed issue with Coraline Blu-ray disk.
* Fixed seeking deadlocks with left/right *.m2ts files.
* Fixed exception when calling GetDuration automation command on still files.
* Fixed that player doesn't close file handles of jpg files.
* Fixed long load delay with certain files when ffdshow Video Decoder is used.
* Fixed error after resume from sleep mode.
vsv is offline  
post #6 of 34 Old 05-17-2011, 04:56 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
VSV- Will this player play an MVC rendered edited file from Vegas 10d at full frame rate off my hard drive? Do you need a file like this to test?
Don Landis is offline  
post #7 of 34 Old 05-18-2011, 07:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
I am VERY surprised that the Sony is showing better low light detail. Primarily I expected the brighter lens F1.2 on the JVC to help in that regard. I am not sure if I am seeing more detail in the JVC at brighter light or the result of sharpening as there is also increased staircasing.

I would actually expect the Sony to have more detail in better light because it uses optical lens stablisation rather than electronic...meaning more pixels are available for the actual image ...whereas the JVC uses those extra pixels to eliminate the motion blur.

EDIT: There is defintely in-camera sharpening on the JVC....look at the wheel on the left and you can see clear "halo" white edges at the end of each wheel spoke.
JonStatt is online now  
post #8 of 34 Old 05-18-2011, 08:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
JediMastr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, TX USA
Posts: 993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 62
looking at those sample test pattern pics, I think the sony has better PQ in both low and high light...of course a color comparison might be important too.

thread closed
JediMastr is offline  
post #9 of 34 Old 05-21-2011, 12:50 PM
Member
 
3Dmadman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsv View Post

From Peter Wimmer:

Stereoscopic Player finally supports MVC content in MPEG-TS (*.mts) and MP4
(*.mp4) containers as used by the Sony HDR-TD10 and JVC GS-TD1 3D camcorders.

Download the new version from http://www.3dtv.at/Downloads
As usual, customers of previous version can upgrade for free (use your existing product key).

Please obey the following hint: Both camcorders record in interlaced format,
however, the Stereoscopic Player does not enable deinterlacing by default. For
best results, click "File|Video Properties" after opening the file and check the
"Interlaced video (deinterlacing required)" option. I'll fix this inconvenience
in a later version.

Thanks very much to all of you who provided sample files!

Here is the full change log:

* Added support for interlaced MVC content.
* Added support for MVC content in MP4 containers.
* Fixed issue with Coraline Blu-ray disk.
* Fixed seeking deadlocks with left/right *.m2ts files.
* Fixed exception when calling GetDuration automation command on still files.
* Fixed that player doesn't close file handles of jpg files.
* Fixed long load delay with certain files when ffdshow Video Decoder is used.
* Fixed error after resume from sleep mode.

This is really good news but I would like to see some samples. Does any know where I can get some RAW video Samples from a Sony TD10 to try and play on Stereoscopic player? By RAW I mean files directly from the camera in 3d that have NOT been processed by Vegas 10d.
3Dmadman is offline  
post #10 of 34 Old 05-21-2011, 09:00 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Dmadman View Post


This is really good news but I would like to see some samples. Does any know where I can get some RAW video Samples from a Sony TD10 to try and play on Stereoscopic player? By RAW I mean files directly from the camera in 3d that have NOT been processed by Vegas 10d.

I posted one clip shot recently that was imported to my hard drive using PMB but not processed by Vegas.

Http://www,tv-shopper.com/pwimmer/

The file is in that folder.
Don Landis is offline  
post #11 of 34 Old 05-22-2011, 08:41 AM
Member
 
3Dmadman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks Don, I really appreciate it.
3Dmadman is offline  
post #12 of 34 Old 05-22-2011, 06:21 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Dmadman View Post

Thanks Don, I really appreciate it.

I'll post a couple more for people to experiment with when I get home. I shot all day in DD5.1. So, now I have a good collection of 2.0 and DD5.1 clips
Don Landis is offline  
post #13 of 34 Old 05-23-2011, 12:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
I'll post a couple more for people to experiment with when I get home. I shot all day in DD5.1. So, now I have a good collection of 2.0 and DD5.1 clips
Don, have you documented in any of the threads, the Vegas workflow to get the best results on a 3D blu-ray?

I tried to process a Sony file, and got a successful 3D blu-ray, but the motion is not as smooth as the original, and neither is the resolution/detail. Being a European TD10, I chose 1920x1080 50i for the project and set 3D to "difference". I then burned the 3D blu-ray with the same 1920x1080 50i but it seemed to be restricted to 10Mbit throughput which may be part of the issue but wouldn't explain the motion issues.
JonStatt is online now  
post #14 of 34 Old 05-23-2011, 03:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post


Don, have you documented in any of the threads, the Vegas workflow to get the best results on a 3D blu-ray?

I tried to process a Sony file, and got a successful 3D blu-ray, but the motion is not as smooth as the original, and neither is the resolution/detail. Being a European TD10, I chose 1920x1080 50i for the project and set 3D to "difference". I then burned the 3D blu-ray with the same 1920x1080 50i but it seemed to be restricted to 10Mbit throughput which may be part of the issue but wouldn't explain the motion issues.

You can increase the bit rate to a max of 25,000,000 by setting up a custom template in render as. Its what i use even though the rendering take a tad longer. This will show up in the blu-ray burn options later as the settings are valid choices. 3D blu-ray in the us is 24 fps standard. Vegas does the conversion and from what I have seen does an excellent job. Good enough for my eyes!
Don Landis is offline  
post #15 of 34 Old 05-24-2011, 12:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

You can increase the bit rate to a max of 25,000,000 by setting up a custom template in render as. Its what i use even though the rendering take a tad longer. This will show up in the blu-ray burn options later as the settings are valid choices. 3D blu-ray in the us is 24 fps standard. Vegas does the conversion and from what I have seen does an excellent job. Good enough for my eyes!

Thank you Don. Interesting about the framerate. 3D blu-ray in Europe is also 24fps despite the fact that European camcorders are 50/i/p or 25p. I need to check if the blu-ray standard even supports 25p. But in this case it should be fairly easy to get from 50i to 24fps by slowing everything down 4%, so perhaps Vegas doesn't do as good a job as it does with 60i.
JonStatt is online now  
post #16 of 34 Old 05-24-2011, 10:45 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Jon- Traditional 24 fps frame rate is film based. Universal world-wide. Blu-Ray went with that as a standard for movies. This way the film conversion to Blu-Ray matches exactly the original so there is no conversion artifact. Non Traditional film and video can be shot in a wide variety of rates for particular effects.
Don Landis is offline  
post #17 of 34 Old 05-24-2011, 11:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Jon- Traditional 24 fps frame rate is film based. Universal world-wide. Blu-Ray went with that as a standard for movies. This way the film conversion to Blu-Ray matches exactly the original so there is no conversion artifact. Non Traditional film and video can be shot in a wide variety of rates for particular effects.

Sure, but then why do the European versions of camcorders have 25p and not 24p? In fact, if the camcorders are capable of 24p, 25p, 50i, 60i, 50p, 60p, why not offer ALL of those options?

I have a feeling the problems I am seeing is because Vegas doesn't do a 4% slow-down to make 50i become 24p, and instead is dropping frames.
JonStatt is online now  
post #18 of 34 Old 05-25-2011, 07:36 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
25p is the 50i deinterlaced. It is not 24p slowed down that you are after but when we derive 24p from video at 29.97 fps interlaced it uses a 2:3 pull down process where some frames are dropped. when it goes the other way, some frames are repeated. In digital video camcorders we can now shoot the exact frame rate as film. This allows us to exactly match frame for frame so when you decide to spend the big bucks and have your masterpiece get transferred to real film, no conversion will be needed and the frame rate will be 1:1.
It is often a joke among videographers that shooting 24P or the desire to shoot 24P is really for real film makers on a tight budget, but mostly for film maker wannabees wishing to make believe they are Hollywood film makers. In reality there is a subtle surreal effect generated with 24 FPS that you lose as the frame rate goes higher.
The reason why all those options aren't offered is because of cost. The more expensive cameras do offer more options. For a price, the manufacturers look at what the average buyer wants and frankly, the average joe, isn't a wannabee film maker or even amateur story teller, or a professional cameraman. The average buyer of these low priced camcorders just want something they can shoot their kids and family and friends, play it back on TV and mabe, today, upload to facebook. That's the logic of putting more budget into a remote control ( like a VCR) and everything automatic, than to offer manual exposure overrides, multiple shutter speeds, smpte colorbars and tone and manual audio volume adjust. Average consumer doesn't care about that stuff.

Back to the 24P issue- If you want smooth, go to your highest frame rate. If you want the surreal, film look, shoot at 24P. The best is to shoot so you have the least number conversions, especially where the conversion results in repeated or dropped frames. If you want to understand more, then do a search on 3:2 Pulltown or convert film to video or vice versa.
Don Landis is offline  
post #19 of 34 Old 05-25-2011, 09:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
25p is the 50i deinterlaced. It is not 24p slowed down that you are after but when we derive 24p from video at 29.97 fps interlaced it uses a 2:3 pull down process where some frames are dropped. when it goes the other way, some frames are repeated. In digital video camcorders we can now shoot the exact frame rate as film. This allows us to exactly match frame for frame so when you decide to spend the big bucks and have your masterpiece get transferred to real film, no conversion will be needed and the frame rate will be 1:1.
It is often a joke among videographers that shooting 24P or the desire to shoot 24P is really for real film makers on a tight budget, but mostly for film maker wannabees wishing to make believe they are Hollywood film makers. In reality there is a subtle surreal effect generated with 24 FPS that you lose as the frame rate goes higher.
The reason why all those options aren't offered is because of cost. The more expensive cameras do offer more options. For a price, the manufacturers look at what the average buyer wants and frankly, the average joe, isn't a wannabee film maker or even amateur story teller, or a professional cameraman. The average buyer of these low priced camcorders just want something they can shoot their kids and family and friends, play it back on TV and mabe, today, upload to facebook. That's the logic of putting more budget into a remote control ( like a VCR) and everything automatic, than to offer manual exposure overrides, multiple shutter speeds, smpte colorbars and tone and manual audio volume adjust. Average consumer doesn't care about that stuff.

Back to the 24P issue- If you want smooth, go to your highest frame rate. If you want the surreal, film look, shoot at 24P. The best is to shoot so you have the least number conversions, especially where the conversion results in repeated or dropped frames. If you want to understand more, then do a search on 3:2 Pulltown or convert film to video or vice versa.
Hi Don. Thanks. I have been shooting the only option that is offered on the camcorder for 3D, which is 50i. But when you burn to blu-ray in Vegas Pro, it forces a conversion to 24p. It is this process which is resulting in poor motion handling.
JonStatt is online now  
post #20 of 34 Old 05-25-2011, 01:49 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
When you burn to blu-ray you have two options- 1080x 1920 24P and 720 x 1280 60P

For fast action, select the later. In addition then you can add custom templates at higher bitrates up to 25,000,000.
Don Landis is offline  
post #21 of 34 Old 05-26-2011, 08:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

When you burn to blu-ray you have two options- 1080x 1920 24P and 720 x 1280 60P

For fast action, select the later. In addition then you can add custom templates at higher bitrates up to 25,000,000.

I will try the 720x1280 60P version, although of course it throws away some resolution. Nevertheless it will still have to convert 50p to 60p for the European camcorders which could introduce its own set of problems. It seems to me I should try to obtain a US rather than European model.
JonStatt is online now  
post #22 of 34 Old 06-12-2011, 10:13 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
For those interested I have made test shootings re resolution. You find VLC-done Jpeg-extracts from the *mp4 (JVC) resp. *.MTS (Sony) files recorded in their respective MVC-formats, shot for bright and for somewhat darker lighting.

Unfortunately the pictures would be reduced by the forum server to 1280x800 resolution, so I had to attach them as zip-files.

Although in bright light the quality difference is very substantial (to the disadvantage of the Sony) I nevertheless kept the Sony and sold the JVC. This is due to the following effects:
1. the Sony has exactly the same weight, but is substantially smaller. Because I always have to lug with me my Lumix GH2 for stills plus the 3D camcorder, this does matter for me.
2. wide angle is better on the Sony.
3. the screen of the Sony is much better in 3D.
4. the optical image stabilization of the Sony has significantly better effect.
5. the UI and operation of the Sony is somewhat more friendly.
6. in darker light the Sony has at least the same video quality.
7. although the JVC's implementation of MVC appears more standard, support in editing programs might instead favor the Sony approach, due to their sales power.

 

Sony.zip 470.0615234375k . file

 

JVC.zip 418.4521484375k . file

Falk Kuebler
kuebler is offline  
post #23 of 34 Old 06-13-2011, 01:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
W.Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
great pictures!

the result is the same as my results but you made much nicer pictures

the only difference i see is may be because your low light pictures are
not "that low" i did when i make the test.
did you also this in very very low light?

i will go out for a holiday and as i have still both i think which one i will take?

as almost all i will record are outside i will take the jvc even if i have the
focus problem some times as the jvc have far more details visible.

i hope some day we will see a 3d cam that offers a better picture
wider sharper noise free and so on.....
think it will not take that long......

did your jvc show the focus bug?
W.Mayer is offline  
post #24 of 34 Old 06-13-2011, 02:26 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
The two tests run by different AVS members here prove one thing to me, that the tests are not valid as there was no mention how the cameras were set to create the image. If they were st the same, then why did the JVC on each test clearly demonstrate opposite results. Using the Sony as a basis, the JVC in Kuebler's test showed superior low light and less noise than the Sony while I saw in Mayer's test the Sony was lower noise than the JVC.
My guess is the two of you honestly tried to perform a valid test but failed to standardize the camera conditions with respect to auto vs manual or manual to the same adjustments.

One thing was consistent between the two and that was color temperature- In all 4 tests the JVC demonstrated a tendency to balance more to the reds than the Sony which is why the JVC often looks better with a warmer friendlier image and the Sony looks cooler and less friendly. In low light Mayer's JVC image was down right awful while the same test from kuebler showed a much better image, actually quite a bit better than Sony.

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 good exposure of the test chart and shoot both cams to those settings. If you use any auto setting, the camera will do different things that could result in color push, noise from high video AGC, to name a few.

If we are to evaluate in auto mode, the test needs to be dynamic with changing conditions rather than a static test chart. Reason is that the sole purpose of auto is to help the shooter follow a changing scene and have the camera auto adjust depending on the conditions in the scene.
Don Landis is offline  
post #25 of 34 Old 06-13-2011, 04:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Don, First, I agree with you that we are in the dark as it were with respect to settings. And something is wrong when the results are completely different.

But, there are no settings in 3D mode on the Sony, as you know - not WB, not iris, not shutter - except exposure.

So, we just need iauto for both, shooting in 3D mode. Period.

Second, I assume that these "test" shots are from the one full video stream (left lens). Essentially then on the Sony we are seeing its 2D performance at 17Mbps 108060i (the left lens view). What we are not seeing is how well each camcorder handles the difference info in the (Sony=11Mbps) second channel. In fact we are not seeing what matters - 3D performance.

The soft focus-look I have seen in the right view from the JVC, for example, may be a problem in decoding the difference info. Or an alignment problem between the two lenses. These issues matter to the extent what we care about here is 3D video.

Otherwise why not just compare the Sony at 2D 108060? I can tell you it is much, much better.

In fact, how about a 3D comparison, even anaglyph will do, of a scene that actually has depth? A 2D frame grab of a video of a flat piece of paper from one lens is not what matters here.
markr041 is online now  
post #26 of 34 Old 06-13-2011, 05:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Don, First, I agree with you that we are in the dark as it were with respect to settings. And something is wrong when the results are completely different.

But, there are no settings in 3D mode on the Sony, as you know - not WB, not iris, not shutter - except exposure.

So, we just need iauto for both, shooting in 3D mode. Period.

Second, I assume that these "test" shots are from the one full video stream (left lens). Essentially then on the Sony we are seeing its 2D performance at 17Mbps 108060i (the left lens view). What we are not seeing is how well each camcorder handles the difference info in the (Sony=11Mbps) second channel. In fact we are not seeing what matters - 3D performance.

The soft focus-look I have seen in the right view from the JVC, for example, may be a problem in decoding the difference info. Or an alignment problem between the two lenses. These issues matter to the extent what we care about here is 3D video.

Otherwise why not just compare the Sony at 2D 108060? I can tell you it is much, much better.

In fact, how about a 3D comparison, even anaglyph will do, of a scene that actually has depth? A 2D frame grab of a video of a flat piece of paper from one lens is not what matters here.

The right lens soft focus issue is with some JVC units, not all. My JVC does not exhibit the problem. I consider the 2D performance of the JVC one of its major strengths. Are you saying that you believe the Sony 2D image is "much, much better" than the JVC 2D image? If so, on what are you basing that?

As for 3D, unless I'm badly mistaken, at its best quality the JVC records MVC at a higher bit rate than the Sony - 34mbps vs 28 for the Sony. I haven't seen many Sony clips, or read much except for anecdotal reports here and there. The 3D effect looks very similar to me, but from what I've seen, the JVC image looks better. Again, though, I haven't seen much, and it's just my opinion. Frankly, that's all that matters. If I could perform tests on my own, I'd know really fast from first hand experience which one I think looks better. All I have to go on now are the few clips some people have posted. The bottom line is that every time I watch clips shot with my JVC, I'm extremely happy I own it. I could go into detail and explain why, but it would be pointless. At this juncture, it's simply my opinion and other people do not necessarily value the same things I do.

I have zero regrets about this purchase. It's the best 2D consumer camcorder I've ever owned, and I'm rediscovering video editing because of 3D. What had turned into a chore and kind of a drag is fresh and exciting again.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #27 of 34 Old 06-13-2011, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Joseph,

No, I am just saying that the 28 Mbps 108060p looks much better than the 17Mbps 60i on the Sony, I have no basis for comparing the Sony to the JVC.

I am glad you are happy with the JVC. The videos I have seen in 3D - from you, burned iso played on 3D HDTV - look very nice. I am just saying if comparisons are going to be made on this forum, it ought to be about 3D. It also ought to be about motion too - we are comparing video cameras, not still cameras. My Fuji W3 will blow away any stills or frame grabs from these camcorders in 3D and 2D (the W3 video is another matter).

This is 3D video we are talking about. So, I am just not thrilled about 2D framegrabs of a one-dimensional, still object with lines on it!
markr041 is online now  
post #28 of 34 Old 06-13-2011, 06:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Joseph,

No, I am just saying that the 28 Mbps 108060p looks much better than the 17Mbps 60i on the Sony, I have no basis for comparing the Sony to the JVC.

I am glad you are happy with the JVC. The videos I have seen in 3D - from you, burned iso played on 3D HDTV - look very nice. I am just saying if comparisons are going to be made on this forum, it ought to be about 3D. It also ought to be about motion too - we are comparing video cameras, not still cameras. My Fuji W3 will blow away any stills or frame grabs from these camcorders in 3D and 2D (the W3 video is another matter).

This is 3D video we are talking about. So, I am just not thrilled about 2D framegrabs of a one-dimensional, still object with lines on it!

Gotcha. Yeah, I have the W3 and its stills look great. Video, not so much.

The main problem we have right now is not having an easy way to watch 3D from these cameras in full quality from a computer. Some people have this working, and I should put more energy into getting it working, too. Any 3D Blu-ray burns from Vegas involve compromises to the original image quality from the JVC. I've only done a few, but that quickly became obvious. 2D or 3D stills are pretty much pointless for a 3D camcorder.

In the end, the only thing I trust is seeing clips for myself. I don't care what the numbers say. If I don't like what I see, I don't like it. We all have our priorities.

The JVC is far from perfect as a 3D camcorder. I can easily point out where its problem areas are, but people need to see for themselves to find out if a camera creates images that are pleasing for them. As a first gen 3D camcorder, though, I consider myself pretty lucky to have stumbled upon it. I haven't been that fortunate with several of my consumer electronic purchases in the past.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #29 of 34 Old 06-13-2011, 10:51 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
But, there are no settings in 3D mode on the Sony, as you know - not WB, not iris, not shutter - except exposure.

So, we just need iauto for both, shooting in 3D mode. Period.
Mark- My point was that we don't need the restrictions of the 3D mode to evaluate the camera's 2D qualities, such as low light noise levels, color balance, and resolution. Therefore all the manual settings are available. Don't you agree?

In 3D, we only need to evaluate the Z depth and ghosting but then the monitor seems to have a significant influencing factor over these. Bottom line- 3D in the camera is nothing more than two of the cams we already evaluated combined for 3D. IMO, the 3D aspect is more important as to how the output file works than the video noise. In Video noise is high then the video noise of the two images will also be high. Another issue is the Vertical alignment and the focus tracking; as we have seen JVC has a problem with this and the Bloggie 3D has a vertical alignment issue. These would be the attributes of a 3D test. Just my opinion on comparative testing. In other words I also agree with your comments following the ones above. The tests run earlier were only evaluating the 2D camera output just needed conditions stated to be sure they were set the same and NOT in auto mode.


There is no doubt in my mind that the images I have seen shot by Joe look fantastic and bring a smile to my face too. The camera's ability to resolve color fill in extremes of light range is far superior to that of my TD10, no doubt there. In fact it looks as good as a full broadcast HD camera shooting in 4:2:2, not 4:2:0. HOWEVER, as I stated before I need a shooting system, a complete production kit and my limited time I held that JVC, gave me nothing but frowns. No way would I carry that JVC outdoors with that awful cheap 3D monitor. Sorry, but that alone was the initial deal breaker. It looks the same as the Bloggie in 3D. In contrast, the video quality I get with my TD10 is adequate, the sound quality superb, and the infrastructure for shooting in documentary style on the run is just fantastic. This is what I want to do. If I had the time to work EFP style shooting like Joe is doing, I would still have a frown because I have so few choices to adapt the JVC to my accessory pack. Joe and I have different goals. Unfortunately, I can't have the stunning image quality he gets out of the camera and still easily and quickly run and shoot to capture the moment. At the end of the day, I haven't seen any full range long form productions yet of the JVC in documentary shoot on the run style. For me if it's small I'll carry it, but I can't be bothered by a tripod. I can be bothered by a polarizing filter to screw on when glare is an issue. I can't be bothered by a steady cam but the handheld Optical stabilizer in the Sony is amazing. The off road safari ride is at least watchable. Motion blur doesn't bother me but Sony completely lacks the judder I saw in the stunning JVC clips. I hope Joe gets that worked out.
Don Landis is offline  
post #30 of 34 Old 06-14-2011, 08:15 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 W.Mayer View Post

great pictures!

the result is the same as my results but you made much nicer pictures

Thank you for your nice words. Specially because not everybody here in this thread feels tempted to be polite, unfortunately...

You had two additional optical conversions in the chain: projecting and fotographing from the big screen, while my pictures are just from an internal capture of VLC running the respective native video files out of the cameras. I have asked myself whether I might have got additional deinterlacing effects different with both cameras, but I guess not.

Basically I came to the same conclusion as you did in your original posting: I like the JVC much more in bright light, and in dark light both are not the same, but to me they appear roughly in the same quality category. Or if someone prefers: in the same bad ballpark...

Quote:


the only difference i see is may be because your low light pictures are
not "that low" i did when i make the test. did you also this in very very low light?

I did it in very low light. This is a subjektive term, but it was so dark, that I never would have come to the thought of using this level of light for videotaping my family. But apparently that would even have been somewhat feasible for private family archival of the kids.

Quote:


i will go out for a holiday and as i have still both i think which one i will take?

as almost all i will record are outside i will take the jvc even if i have the
focus problem some times as the jvc have far more details visible.

It's easy to see your very valid reasons for that...

I had some hard time to decide, but then for the reasons mentioned in my post I decided for the Sony.

BTW: Later I had asked myself whether something was wrong with the distance of the Sony to the test picture, or with the SteadyShot function switched on, although the cameras were placed on a tripod (Sony warns against that). But I checked that explicitly by varying it, and it didn't change anything.

One criticism was admittedly right: I had not explicitly told that I had used both cameras under identical geometric and lighting conditions, and that both cameras were in their standard automatic recording setting without any adjustments being made from my side.

Quote:


i hope some day we will see a 3d cam that offers a better picture
wider sharper noise free and so on.....
think it will not take that long......

Yes, I agree very much. I doubt that my Sony will live with me for much longer than 6 months. When Canon and Panasonic enter this class of device, there will most probably be an improved replacement for me.

Quote:


did your jvc show the focus bug?

I couldn't test that, because at present I have no 3D display equipment and also no software, which would give me easy access to the right picture. And now my JVC is going anyway.

Falk Kuebler
kuebler 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