When small interaxials just don't cut it! - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 1097 Old 07-25-2011, 11:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Excellent test, Frank. Obviously, the Canons blow away both the JVC and Sony in terms of 3D depth. No surprise there - that should be all the proof anyone needs. Both the single camcorders dramatically flatten space, while the dual Canons maintain the separation front to back. The difference is night and day. It makes me want to get on eBay and find another Canon to match the one I have (HF10). That's real 3D.

I also noticed that all three 3D systems exhibited stuttery motion when objects move across the screen swiftly. You can see it as you move screen right to left, and as the kids run a few feet from the camera. I'm actually relieved to see this. I had begun to think it was a problem with the JVC alone. It's not. I wonder if this is just an artifact of the conversion from 60i to 24p. This stuttering doesn't appear when I watch the raw footage straight from my TD1 on my 3D displays.

I really enjoyed watching this exercise. Thanks again for doing it. Do you have more tests planned?

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 06:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSchultz View Post

[SPOILER ALERT - Don't read this post if you want to watch Frank's BD ISO first]




Dual Canon HF-M32 (shooting progressive?) vs. JVC TD1 vs. Sony TD10 PQ?

In bright light I would expect:

1. Dual Canon
2. JVC (makes sense given higher bitrate)
3. Sony

In Low light:

1. Dual Canon (Sony might be close here: low light footage I shot on the TD10 turned out very good. My Canon HF11 is good in low light but not as good as Panasonic TM700 or TD10)
2. Sony (more advanced hardware+software to reduce noise vs. JVC)
3. JVC

See also: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1335637

Watching Frank's 3D BD: results are as expected for bright light. The JVC has a bit less saturation and contrast vs. Canon & Sony. JVC is sharper than Sony (higher bitrate and perhaps better glass). Sony looks more heavily image-processed (and/or compressed).

The 3D depth is as expected: at zoom 3D objects are compressed more when the cameras are closer together (follows the math).

The dual Canon's at wide angle produce hyper stereo: objects look artificially small. Use tilt-shift lenses (perhaps on 2 5Dm2s) and will have a very nice miniature effect (can also selective blur in post to achieve a similar effect).

Thanks for the demo, Frank!

Great feedback! Thanks....

The canon HF-M32s do not have a native progressive mode and thus were set to 60I.

My wife and I both preferred the Sony to the JVC even though we own two of the JVCs. We find the JVC image to be overly sharp and somewhat unnatural looking even in this video shot in sunlight. (simiiar to turning up the sharpness control on a TV)
This is especially evident in the lower light settings which hopefully I will be able to demonstrate soon.

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #183 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 06:41 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Excellent test, Frank. Obviously, the Canons blow away both the JVC and Sony in terms of 3D depth. No surprise there - that should be all the proof anyone needs. Both the single camcorders dramatically flatten space, while the dual Canons maintain the separation front to back. The difference is night and day. It makes me want to get on eBay and find another Canon to match the one I have (HF10). That's real 3D.

I also noticed that all three 3D systems exhibited stuttery motion when objects move across the screen swiftly. You can see it as you move screen right to left, and as the kids run a few feet from the camera. I'm actually relieved to see this. I had begun to think it was a problem with the JVC alone. It's not. I wonder if this is just an artifact of the conversion from 60i to 24p. This stuttering doesn't appear when I watch the raw footage straight from my TD1 on my 3D displays.

I really enjoyed watching this exercise. Thanks again for doing it. Do you have more tests planned?

As you stated before, Joe, Vegas needs a 60I 3D Blu-Ray burn option.

I conducted many tests and will be uploading more ASAP. (if Vegas cooperates!)

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #184 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 08:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I am currently trying something quite interesting.
I am using the Vegas pan/crop tool to position the three 3D videos into precise alignment and quickly switching between them. It's a fascinating effect!

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #185 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 08:37 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 293 Post(s)
Liked: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

I am currently trying something quite interesting.
I am using the Vegas pan/crop tool to position the three 3D videos into precise alignment and quickly switching between them. It's a fascinating effect!

Look up multi cam function in Vegas. Not sure if it works with 3D but worth a quick study.

I'm on the road near Columbia, SC
Don Landis is online now  
post #186 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 10:00 AM
Member
 
JohnSchultz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Beverly Hills, CA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

Great feedback! Thanks....

The canon HF-M32s do not have a native progressive mode and thus were set to 60I.

My wife and I both preferred the Sony to the JVC even though we own two of the JVCs. We find the JVC image to be overly sharp and somewhat unnatural looking even in this video shot in sunlight. (simiiar to turning up the sharpness control on a TV)
This is especially evident in the lower light settings which hopefully I will be able to demonstrate soon.

Regarding 60i and the stuttering motion for people walking by: I observed this as well when doing 60i to 24p with Vegas. My solution was to use After Effects CS5 to perform 60i to 24p (round trip using Sony YUV, Matrox I-Frame HD, or Cineform- no conversion loss will be visible). Some folks report that the yadif plugin for Vegas also works well.

To fix the JVC footage: apply a small blur and/or blur followed by an unsharp mask (if available in your NLE). Film looks better than digital as there is no aliasing (which creates an artificial sharpening effect). Blurring will help remove aliasing, and unsharp masking can bring back up apparent sharpness by removing low frequency information (without adding back in aliasing).
Additionally, a slight increase in contrast and color saturation will help the JVC more closely match the Canon and Sony footage.

For low light noise- Neat Video is your friend.
JohnSchultz is offline  
post #187 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 11:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSchultz View Post

Regarding 60i and the stuttering motion for people walking by: I observed this as well when doing 60i to 24p with Vegas. My solution was to use After Effects CS5 to perform 60i to 24p (round trip using Sony YUV, Matrox I-Frame HD, or Cineform- no conversion loss will be visible). Some folks report that the yadif plugin for Vegas also works well.

To fix the JVC footage: apply a small blur and/or blur followed by an unsharp mask (if available in your NLE). Film looks better than digital as there is no aliasing (which creates an artificial sharpening effect). Blurring will help remove aliasing, and unsharp masking can bring back up apparent sharpness by removing low frequency information (without adding back in aliasing).
Additionally, a slight increase in contrast and color saturation will help the JVC more closely match the Canon and Sony footage.

For low light noise- Neat Video is your friend.

At Petri's suggestion, I've used Yadif to remove most of the objectionable stuttering from my JVC problem clips. Ones that I had considered unusable (like what we see of people close to the camera and moving laterally in Frank's videos) become quite acceptable. Good news. What still baffles me about the MVCtoAVI process, though, is that I don't see the stuttering (or at least not nearly as much of it) in the JVC mp4 (MVC) clips when I play them in Windows Media Player (which presumably is playing just the left eye view of the MVC pair). As soon as they're split, the stuttering appears (or is much worse) in that same left eye view. Any idea why that might be, John?

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #188 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSchultz View Post

... Additionally, a slight increase in contrast and color saturation will help the JVC more closely match the Canon and Sony footage. ...

This part of the test has me puzzled. The JVC image looks less saturated and less contrasty than the Sony. In previous clips that I've seen, the opposite seems to be the norm. I've never found the JVC wanting for color or contrast. Frank, you also say that you think the JVC looks overly sharp, but in this test that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll look forward to seeing the other footage. This test has been very interesting. I'm still hoping my friend gets the Sony this fall. I'd love to see how the Sony would perform at Shaw's Garden.

I probably won't do it, but I've been looking on eBay for another Canon HF10. I'll probably just wait until next year's models arrive to make a change, but if I can pick up one cheap enough, it would be fun to play with a dual camera rig.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #189 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 03:08 PM
Member
 
JohnSchultz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Beverly Hills, CA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

At Petri's suggestion, I've used Yadif to remove most of the objectionable stuttering from my JVC problem clips. Ones that I had considered unusable (like what we see of people close to the camera and moving laterally in Frank's videos) become quite acceptable. Good news. What still baffles me about the MVCtoAVI process, though, is that I don't see the stuttering (or at least not nearly as much of it) in the JVC mp4 (MVC) clips when I play them in Windows Media Player (which presumably is playing just the left eye view of the MVC pair). As soon as they're split, the stuttering appears (or is much worse) in that same left eye view. Any idea why that might be, John?

Make sure the output is interlaced and the frame rate is preserved (29.97 or 59.94- usually 29.97 is correct if interlace is maintained). Try with Cineform and make sure interlace is preserved (one side effect I need to report to Cineform is the last line is green (bug)). Otherwise, the quality is excellent with Cineform (I'm using Low to save disk space; a 'Difference' test showed Low as good enough for my footage (can reprocess and rerender later if necessary (treat initial files like proxies)).

I tested Matrox I-Frame HD at 102Mbits- looked OK (interlaced, 29.97).
JohnSchultz is offline  
post #190 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 04:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSchultz View Post

Make sure the output is interlaced and the frame rate is preserved (29.97 or 59.94- usually 29.97 is correct if interlace is maintained). Try with Cineform and make sure interlace is preserved (one side effect I need to report to Cineform is the last line is green (bug)). Otherwise, the quality is excellent with Cineform (I'm using Low to save disk space; a 'Difference' test showed Low as good enough for my footage (can reprocess and rerender later if necessary (treat initial files like proxies)).

I tested Matrox I-Frame HD at 102Mbits- looked OK (interlaced, 29.97).

(Realized after I wrote this that it's more appropriate for an editing thread. Oh, well, it's easy enough to skip it. )

I've maintained interlace throughout the process. This is a quirk I can work around now, so it's no longer a top priority to figure out, but one of these days I'd like to know exactly what's going on.

Could you point me to the software you use to measure differences in file integrity? I have test clips that I can use to eyeball differences (fine details around tree leaves, motion clips), but the software you're describing is obviously more precise.

I've tried the Matrox I-Frame HD codec at different bitrates (again, thanks to Petri's suggestion) and it looks good at 100 mbps, but at 120 mbps I can see virtually no difference between it and Cineform at "High." And it's about 20% smaller. Since it saves time in post (if I don't have to do FirstLight corrections), I'm going to use it for my next project.

You've mentioned a couple of times about doing titles in Vegas after editing in PPro. Is that because of rendering time in Premiere if you do the titles there? I prefer Premiere's titler to Vegas (maybe it's a matter of my greater familiarity with Premiere, but I think it's more feature rich). If rendering time is not an issue for you, why not do the titles in Premiere, too?

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #191 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 04:46 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

This part of the test has me puzzled. The JVC image looks less saturated and less contrasty than the Sony. In previous clips that I've seen, the opposite seems to be the norm. I've never found the JVC wanting for color or contrast. Frank, you also say that you think the JVC looks overly sharp, but in this test that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll look forward to seeing the other footage. This test has been very interesting. I'm still hoping my friend gets the Sony this fall. I'd love to see how the Sony would perform at Shaw's Garden.

I probably won't do it, but I've been looking on eBay for another Canon HF10. I'll probably just wait until next year's models arrive to make a change, but if I can pick up one cheap enough, it would be fun to play with a dual camera rig.

Joe, I am having some odd problem with Vegas today.
The JVC track shows less contrast then it should and I don't know why?
I just rendered a new video and the JVC track is completely washed out. If I play the same track with Windows media player classic it looks fine. I am stumped at the moment.

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #192 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 05:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

Joe, I am having some odd problem with Vegas today.
The JVC track shows less contrast then it should and I don't know why?
I just rendered a new video and the JVC track is completely washed out. If I play the same track with Windows media player classic it looks fine. I am stumped at the moment.

If almost sounds like the old HDMI signal level bug that used to haunt me at every turn, but I've never experienced that sort of thing in Vegas. What I put in is what I get out in terms of contrast. It's just the JVC clips that are washing out, and not the others?

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #193 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 05:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

If almost sounds like the old HDMI signal level bug that used to haunt me at every turn, but I've never experienced that sort of thing in Vegas. What I put in is what I get out in terms of contrast. It's just the JVC clips that are washing out, and not the others?

Just the JVC.
This is first time I've seen it also.
Very, very strange. Something to do with Cineform maybe?

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #194 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 05:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

Just the JVC.
This is first time I've seen it also.
Very, very strange. Something to do with Cineform maybe?

All my Vegas Garden clips are Cineform intermediate files (HD-Encoder 2, "High" setting). I've never experienced that problem. Any other system changes lately? Sometimes the cause of a problem seems completely unrelated. Once, when someone stepped on a butterfly in China, my video started playing double time in Premiere.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #195 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 05:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

All my Vegas Garden clips are Cineform intermediate files (HD-Encoder 2, "High" setting). I've never experienced that problem. Any other system changes lately? Sometimes the cause of a problem seems completely unrelated. Once, when someone stepped on a butterfly in China, my video started playing double time in Premiere.

I did run a registry cleaner earlier. Hummmmm.

Here is the actual file in 1/2 res sbs .m2ts format.
test video with weird JVC low contrast

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #196 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 06:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

I did run a registry cleaner earlier. Hummmmm.

Here is the actual file in 1/2 res sbs .m2ts format.
test video with weird JVC low contrast

Very interesting approach to comparing the 3 systems. As for the washout problem, here's a thought - try a different codec in MVCtoAVI and see if the problem persists. (Split a file and render something short in Vegas as a quick test.) Could be that the registry cleaner whacked some file that was needed by Vegas for the codec you used when you split the JVC clips.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #197 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 06:30 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Very interesting approach to comparing the 3 systems. As for the washout problem, here's a thought - try a different codec in MVCtoAVI and see if the problem persists. (Split a file and render something short in Vegas as a quick test.) Could be that the registry cleaner whacked some file that was needed by Vegas for the codec you used when you split the JVC clips.

I loaded another copy of the JVC clips on another track and it's fine.
What does that tell you?

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #198 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 06:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

I loaded another copy of the JVC clips on another track and it's fine.
What does that tell you?

I was fishing for an "other side of the tracks" joke, but they were all lame.

Sounds like a Vegas bug to me.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #199 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 08:33 PM
Member
 
JohnSchultz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Beverly Hills, CA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Could you point me to the software you use to measure differences in file integrity? I have test clips that I can use to eyeball differences (fine details around tree leaves, motion clips), but the software you're describing is obviously more precise.

You can do the 'Difference' test with just about any NLE: Drop the original clip on track 1, and drop the transcoded clip on track 2, above. On the track 2 clip, under Opacity (PPro, for example), select "Difference". You can now scrub through the file and see any changes. Sometimes you can't see the changes at this point- that's good. To see more, select both tracks and right click and select 'Nest' (PPro). Add the 'Gamma Correction' Video Effect to the nested clip. Increase brightness to see the differences more clearly.

The difference test can get more technical using statistics- PSNR (related to mean squared error): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio

To compare visual differences, go back to the un-nested clips and rapidly toggle visibility of the top track. This test is good enough for most people- the difference test with gamma cranked up is helpful in understanding what kind of losses are occurring and peace of mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

You've mentioned a couple of times about doing titles in Vegas after editing in PPro. Is that because of rendering time in Premiere if you do the titles there? I prefer Premiere's titler to Vegas (maybe it's a matter of my greater familiarity with Premiere, but I think it's more feature rich). If rendering time is not an issue for you, why not do the titles in Premiere, too?

You can do titles in PPro (and AE). While PPro & AE titling capabilities are much stronger, for quick titles in 3D Vegas is sufficient. After contacting Cineform tech support for some Neo issues (all fixed after re-registering all the plugins), I found out the 3D Parallax Video Effect is for titles. Create the 2D title, drop it into the sequence, add the 3D Parallax Video Effect- and it is rendered in 3D, with the ability to adjust parallax. After the help from Cineform tech support, Neo is looking much better
JohnSchultz is offline  
post #200 of 1097 Old 07-26-2011, 08:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSchultz View Post

You can do the 'Difference' test with just about any NLE: Drop the original clip on track 1, and drop the transcoded clip on track 2, above. On the track 2 clip, under Opacity (PPro, for example), select "Difference". You can now scrub through the file and see any changes. Sometimes you can't see the changes at this point- that's good. To see more, select both tracks and right click and select 'Nest' (PPro). Add the 'Gamma Correction' Video Effect to the nested clip. Increase brightness to see the differences more clearly.

The difference test can get more technical using statistics- PSNR (related to mean squared error): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio

To compare visual differences, go back to the un-nested clips and rapidly toggle visibility of the top track. This test is good enough for most people- the difference test with gamma cranked up is helpful in understanding what kind of losses are occurring and peace of mind.



You can do titles in PPro (and AE). While PPro & AE titling capabilities are much stronger, for quick titles in 3D Vegas is sufficient. After contacting Cineform tech support for some Neo issues (all fixed after re-registering all the plugins), I found out the 3D Parallax Video Effect is for titles. Create the 2D title, drop it into the sequence, add the 3D Parallax Video Effect- and it is rendered in 3D, with the ability to adjust parallax. After the help from Cineform tech support, Neo is looking much better

Thanks, John. For my Shaw's Garden video, I did all my titles in Premiere. I have a couple that still need work. To finish one, I'm going to keyframe the parallax effect, so that the title can recede into the distance more realistically. The Premiere numbering convention for parallax control bears little resemblance to the one used in Vegas.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #201 of 1097 Old 07-27-2011, 08:34 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I am just about to the breaking point with Sony Vegas Pro 10e.
I've spent hours trying to clean my system to stabilize it and am getting nowhere.
Already removed many programs that I actually used in the hope that it would help. Ran register cleaner numerous times, removed Vegas and reinstalled and have wasted way too much time.
Sony, I give up you win!

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #202 of 1097 Old 07-27-2011, 08:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Frank,
Off subject questions can you provide a thread link the contains the following info.
Which make/model of 3D TVs can display multiple 3D windows and what 3D format(s) vsn you use with them?
When using multiple 3D windows is there any problem with syncing the glases to all of the windwos concurenty or can you only sync to one window at a time?

Walford
walford is offline  
post #203 of 1097 Old 07-27-2011, 09:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

Frank,
Off subject questions can you provide a thread link the contains the following info.
Which make/model of 3D TVs can display multiple 3D windows and what 3D format(s) vsn you use with them?
When using multiple 3D windows is there any problem with syncing the glases to all of the windwos concurenty or can you only sync to one window at a time?

Walford

Trying to take my mind off my Vegas problems are you?
I've written about this many times and I don't know where the links are any more then you do.
As far as the makes/models that support this.
My best guess plus what I know for certain is:
All Samsung televisions except for the new 2011 plasmas support all the 3D modes including checkerboard and line/column interlaced.
I believe all the LG 3D non passive televisions do also but I'm not sure.
I think their passives do in fact support line interleaved however.
All mitsubishi DLPs support checkerboard.
All of these sets will support multiple 3D windows at the same time.
Now back to my screaming fit.

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #204 of 1097 Old 07-27-2011, 09:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14


Definitely NOT OK!

Nothing quite like waiting hours only to see this.

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #205 of 1097 Old 07-27-2011, 02:34 PM
Member
 
JohnSchultz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Beverly Hills, CA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey Frank, that's always painful. 0x80010105 looks like a COM error (probably related to codecs (in Microsoft COM format DLLs) on your system. If Vegas processes video first, then audio, it could be related to audio codecs. Could also be a memory leak, out of memory/disk space error, or a pointer related bug (trashed/garbage pointer to a COM object that when called results in this type of error when called between processes (vs. an access violation when in-process (0x80000005)).

You might try the PPro CS5.5 demo with MVCtoAVI and Neo (together, less than the cost of a 3D camera; all have demo versions) and see if that workflow is more stable on your system (tradeoff is it takes up a lot more disk space and the extra work prepping the files (not too bad as everything can be batch processed). Once done, editing performance is much faster (faster than real-time) and on my system PPro renders at 6-10x faster than Vegas). On supported CUDA hardware, PPro is overall much faster than Vegas (if interactive and rendering performance is important).

You could also try just MVCtoAVI and Neo with Vegas: will edit much faster and might be more stable (the Vegas MVC code is new- could be a cause of stability issues).

Per Cineform tech support, a future tool from Cineform (Neo/HDLink, etc.) will support MVC directly (will be able to skip MVCtoAVI step).
JohnSchultz is offline  
post #206 of 1097 Old 07-27-2011, 04:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSchultz View Post

Hey Frank, that's always painful. 0x80010105 looks like a COM error (probably related to codecs (in Microsoft COM format DLLs) on your system. If Vegas processes video first, then audio, it could be related to audio codecs. Could also be a memory leak, out of memory/disk space error, or a pointer related bug (trashed/garbage pointer to a COM object that when called results in this type of error when called between processes (vs. an access violation when in-process (0x80000005)).

You might try the PPro CS5.5 demo with MVCtoAVI and Neo (together, less than the cost of a 3D camera; all have demo versions) and see if that workflow is more stable on your system (tradeoff is it takes up a lot more disk space and the extra work prepping the files (not too bad as everything can be batch processed). Once done, editing performance is much faster (faster than real-time) and on my system PPro renders at 6-10x faster than Vegas). On supported CUDA hardware, PPro is overall much faster than Vegas (if interactive and rendering performance is important).

You could also try just MVCtoAVI and Neo with Vegas: will edit much faster and might be more stable (the Vegas MVC code is new- could be a cause of stability issues).

Per Cineform tech support, a future tool from Cineform (Neo/HDLink, etc.) will support MVC directly (will be able to skip MVCtoAVI step).

Thanks for the information.
Still trouble shooting....
I've had NEO3D and Adobe Premiere CS5 for some time but haven't used them lately.
If this keeps up I'll be switching soon, that's for sure.

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #207 of 1097 Old 07-27-2011, 05:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

Thanks for the information.
Still trouble shooting....
I've had NEO3D and Adobe Premiere CS5 for some time but haven't used them lately.
If this keeps up I'll be switching soon, that's for sure.

I've been missing Premiere so much the last few weeks. Recently, Petri posted that the Matrox codecs were available for free download (to be used as an alternative to Cineform). Last night, I went back to Premiere to check out the workflow with Matrox MPEG2 I-Frame HD clips.

I used MVCtoAVI to convert the JVC mp4 files at 120mbps (indistinguishable to my eye from Cineform High, but using only 80% of the bitrate). I kept the audio in the right track for compatibility with Vegas down the line. I dragged the clips into the Premiere timeline, with left on the top and right on the bottom. I then grouped the left/right clips (Ctrl-G). That way, when I trim I keep things in perfect sync. Since Premiere doesn't have to deal with the second track of video for realtime playback, it's just like editing any other HD project - that is, it's smooth as butter. I was even doing the test on my C: drive.

With this workflow, I doubt I'll have the realtime rendering performance John is getting with his 12 core and Quadro 5000, but I plan to upgrade my CPU (presently a Core i7 920) to boost rendering speeds. I'm going to wait to see what sort of performance I get from my GeForce 460 before I think about a Quadro video card. I've done the CUDA hack with the GeForce cards in both my systems. HD editing is a breeze, with several HD streams and multiple titles playing in realtime on my existing Core i5 system (only 4 cores, no hyperthreading). I'll still have to go through Vegas to render to 3D Blu-ray, but I'm going to use this workflow for my next project and see how it goes.

It felt so good last night to see my the timeline play without any hiccups.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #208 of 1097 Old 07-27-2011, 07:23 PM
Member
 
JohnSchultz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Beverly Hills, CA
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

With this workflow, I doubt I'll have the realtime rendering performance John is getting with his 12 core and Quadro 5000, but I plan to upgrade my CPU (presently a Core i7 920) to boost rendering speeds.

You should get real-time performance on your GTX 460. It's only slightly slower than the Quadro 5000 (something like 115Gflops vs 113Gflops). From earlier testing for PPro editing, a GTX 285 is about as fast as the Quadro 5000 for interactive as well as final GPU assisted rendering. The GTX480 and up are faster.

For final CPU-based rendering, yeah- cores, RAM, & clock speed...
JohnSchultz is offline  
post #209 of 1097 Old 07-28-2011, 09:02 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dept. of Offense
Posts: 5,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I did manage to successfully produce another ISO from my tests.
It's uploading and will take another six hours or so.
Meanwhile I'm going for a test shoot on my boat with my grand daughter and her new husband.
Will be carrying my latest equipment consisting of a custom two Canon rig with dual KS-4 gyro stabilizers mounted orthogonally to each other.
It in turn will be mounted to my GlideCam 4000 which is supported by my VariZoom. Good thing I don't have to also pilot my boat.

Did IQ's suddenly drop sharply while I was away?
I enjoy 3D in spite of HDMI 1.4!
Full screen only 3D doesn't cut it!
Frank is offline  
post #210 of 1097 Old 07-28-2011, 10:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post
I did manage to successfully produce another ISO from my tests.
It's uploading and will take another six hours or so.
Meanwhile I'm going for a test shoot on my boat with my grand daughter and her new husband.
Will be carrying my latest equipment consisting of a custom two Canon rig with dual KS-4 gyro stabilizers mounted orthogonally to each other.
It in turn will be mounted to my GlideCam 4000 which is supported by my VariZoom. Good thing I don't have to also pilot my boat.
Gotta see pictures of that rig!!

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
Reply 3D Source Components

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