The difference in PQ between JVC GY-HMZ1 and GS-TD1 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 01-20-2013, 12:32 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Since GY-HMZ1 supports 24p and TD1 only interlaced (50i/60i) I suppose that picture quality of GY-HMZ1 (in 24p mode) should be better than of TD1 even for static subjects. Is it true? I suspect that due to different ways of obtaining interlaced vs. progressive picture and since with 24p version you can obtain more light. I am interested only in full-HD-per-eye (mp4) mode.

I could not find any evidence on the internet (at least no comparison) and I know that some of the members on this forum have both cameras. Did anyone made any comparison between both camcorders? I am just playing with my friend's TD1 and am considering buying HMZ1 if the picture quality (in 24p mode) would be slightly better than on TD1 version (interlaced). I have coupled Panasonics GH2 (with custom uP sychronizer), but HMZ1 would become handy for closer shots (I don't like using my half-mirror rig) or when travelling.
crunchy3d is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 01-26-2013, 09:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
I have both, but I haven't done any serious A/B comparisons. The TD1 is a great camcorder, especially in 34mbps mp4 mode. Still, now that I have it I much prefer to shoot with the HMZ1 at 24p. Editing and exporting 60i footage can be a royal pain. Blu-ray 3D supports 720/60i or 1080/24p, but not 1080/60i. AVCHD 2.0 might seem to offer a solution, but as a "standard" it's a mess right now. If your editing needs are very, very simple, the MediaBrowser software that ships with the JVC can create great looking discs, but if you plan to do serious editing, you'll make your life much easier by shooting with the HMZ1 and editing in Edius 6.5. Progressive footage compresses more cleanly than interlaced, and motion resolution should be better, too (with the typical low frame rate caveats, of course). If your goal is to end up with the highest quality 1920x1080/24p Blu-ray 3D disc, the HMZ1 is the better choice.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #3 of 31 Old 01-27-2013, 02:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wolfgang S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 1,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post

Since GY-HMZ1 supports 24p and TD1 only interlaced (50i/60i) I suppose that picture quality of GY-HMZ1 (in 24p mode) should be better than of TD1 even for static subjects. Is it true?

That is true. But we are not talking about more light, but we are talking about resolution. The interlaced video is degraded in quality due to interline flicker, that is something that cannot be avoided at all - not even for static footage.

For s3D the additional question is what will be the final format. If it is 1080 24p for profile 5 3D Blu-ray, you will loose additional quality due to the new calculation of every frame.

Kind regards,
Wolfgang
videotreffpunkt.com
Wolfgang S. is online now  
post #4 of 31 Old 01-27-2013, 05:17 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Progressive footage compresses more cleanly than interlaced, and motion resolution should be better, too (with the typical low frame rate caveats, of course). If your goal is to end up with the highest quality 1920x1080/24p Blu-ray 3D disc, the HMZ1 is the better choice.

Ahhh... I did not think about possibly cleaner picture due to compression of progressive footage against interlaced. Yes, this might be an additional advantage.
My intention is to end up with 24p Blu Ray or 24p full side-by-side video for projection with dual passive projectors (our club has 1920x1200 projectors). This is my format also with the footage obtained with pairs of GH1 or GH2. Some of my videos can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL9azB3Y1w9R2cv3r1gK5rg

My reasoning for better picture was the following:
- interlaced picture can be taken so as to make an average of two consecutive lines (e.g. lines 1 and 2, then 3 and 4, ...) in the first field and an average of two other consecutive lines (e.g. lines 2 and 3, then 4 and 5, ...) in the next field to form one frame. This must lead to lower resolution, but would preserve light.
- if the lines are taken directly from the sensor (without averaging lines), then the spatial resolution should not suffer too much except from deinterlacing procedure which slightly reduces the resolution. At the same time it reduces available light compared to 24p version. Why? In 60i footage, the shutter speed should be 1/60s or faster. On the other hand, in 24p mode we could, at least theoretically, use shutter speeds down to 1/25s if required (in low-light situations). This should bring more light and less noise.

On the other hand, de-interlacing 60i (50i) footage into 60p (50p) when using some higher-quality deinterlacer might be interesting as well - to obtained fluid-motion 3D or slow-motion effects.

I've made some experiments with friend's TD1 and have noticed that still 3D picture quality&sharpness is significantly lower than the one obtained by time-lapse option. I had auto-focus option and half-pressed the photo button before. Is it something common with TD1 or I've made a mistake somewhere?

By the way, I've ordered HMZ1U. :-)
crunchy3d is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 01-27-2013, 05:26 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfgang S. View Post

For s3D the additional question is what will be the final format. If it is 1080 24p for profile 5 3D Blu-ray, you will loose additional quality due to the new calculation of every frame.

Yes, I will use this format.

Since I do not own Edius 6.5 (I have Edius 6 and Neo 2, though), I am using Sony Vegas 12 and Sony Movie Studio 11. Some time ago, when test version of Edius 3D was released (about a year ago) I noticed that auto-align function of Edius 3D was very bad (at least when compared to Sony's products or StereoMovie Maker). Therefore I am now exclusively using Sony Vegas for editing. This also means that I'll have to transfer the footage to left and right files and combine them again in Vegas. It's a pity that Sony does not support JVC 3D MVC files natively.
crunchy3d is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 01-30-2013, 12:02 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yesterday I've made some preliminary tests with my new HMZ1U and I must admit that it's quite easier to edit progressive footage. During the day or under artificial light it's slightly noisy (when compared to GH2s), but still more than useful for nice footage.

I am quite surprised that the pictures are aligned very-well so I am not sure that I would need additional stereoscopic adjustments in Sony Vegas (this might significantly improve rendering speed). I always adjust stereoscopic window before starting shooting. In this case, the quality of the footage is maximum possible, since mostly it does not need any additional corrections. My default settings are also manual shutter speed (usually 1/48s) and Brightness (0) with gain up = OFF.

I also noticed different behaviour (slightly lower sharpness) in progressive 24p mode when selecting 1/40s or 1/20s shutter speed. Anybody else noticed that? If I go below 1/12s, the picture became worse (hard to explain).

By the way, does anybody know if it's possible to edit interlaced 3D footage in Sony Vegas 12 (or Sony Movie Studio 11)? Yesterday I wanted to make some comparison, but without deinterlacing it first, I did not manage to get any useful results when using stereo alignment function (it seems that Vegas does not take into account that it should rotate or vertically align only fields (separately) and not frames). Does anyone have experience with this?
crunchy3d is offline  
post #7 of 31 Old 01-30-2013, 01:23 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
I also noticed different behaviour (slightly lower sharpness) in progressive 24p mode when selecting 1/40s or 1/20s shutter speed. Anybody else noticed that? If I go below 1/12s, the picture became worse (hard to explain).

Actually, if you mean blurry pictures as "worse" at slower shutter speeds, that is normal behavior from an exposure to movement perspective. That is traditional photographic science and easy to explain.
Don Landis is online now  
post #8 of 31 Old 01-30-2013, 03:17 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No, I did not mean blurry. I know that picture becomes blurry at lower shutter speeds. The problem was some very weird noise where some white dots appear on darker lines (for example try to shoot some text on a paper while having the camera on a tripod and using manual focus). I have never seen anything similar before (on some other cameras when going to very slow shutter speeds).
crunchy3d is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 01-30-2013, 09:50 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 106
OK, I understand and apologies for underestimating your photo knowledge.

Never saw that sort of artifact either. Check with Joe Clark as he has much experience with that camcorder. You have some problem going on there.
Don Landis is online now  
post #10 of 31 Old 01-30-2013, 12:07 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks! I'll first try to check it again and make some footage and upload it on our server. Then I'll contact Joe Clark.
Otherwise, I am very satisfied with HMZ1U. In my humble opinion, for that price it's the best option. :-)
crunchy3d is offline  
post #11 of 31 Old 01-31-2013, 09:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
I can't say that I've ever noticed anything like what you're describing. When you get it uploaded, I'll be happy to take a look.

The JVC is a real pleasure to use. The only significant problem I've had with it is a general over-saturation, especially with red. But it's easily tamable with color correction controls in Vegas or Edius. As for editing interlaced footage in Vegas, it's easy. Vegas does a very good job de-interlacing 1080/60i 3D footage to Blu-ray 3D at 1080p/24. If it didn't, a lot of hard work on my part would have been wasted. smile.gif I edit in Edius 6.5 and export the video to Vegas for rendering to Blu-ray 3D at 1080p/24. I find Edius' 3D controls quite good, but I try to avoid using them whenever possible by setting convergence for each shot. OTOH, the JVC's auto control does a really good job of keeping convergence manageable. When I start using the Steadicam rig this spring (and when I'm shooting with the JVC), I plan to use auto convergence most of the time for those shots.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #12 of 31 Old 02-01-2013, 05:05 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

As for editing interlaced footage in Vegas, it's easy. Vegas does a very good job de-interlacing 1080/60i 3D footage to Blu-ray 3D at 1080p/24. If it didn't, a lot of hard work on my part would have been wasted. smile.gif

I haven't tried Vegas deinterlacer, because I thought that it can't be so accurate like some other plugins developed for VirtualDub or AviSynth. For example, I am using MSU deinterlacer and it is really very good. I will upload some tests (maybe together with those "problems I mentioned before"). Does Vegas deinterlacer use motion compensation algorithms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

I find Edius' 3D controls quite good, but I try to avoid using them whenever possible by setting convergence for each shot. OTOH, the JVC's auto control does a really good job of keeping convergence manageable. When I start using the Steadicam rig this spring (and when I'm shooting with the JVC), I plan to use auto convergence most of the time for those shots.

Once, on purpose, I loaded "stereo" picture consisted of mono pictures (or videos?) where one of the picture (video?) was rotated for 1 degree. Auto-alignment in Edius resulted in alignment which did not rotate that picture, but just changed some other settings. At the same time Sony was OK. Of course, I was having test version of Edius 3D. Still don't know if Edius 6.5 is now better in this regard.
I am always using manual convergence, since I am never satisfied with auto convergence (in almost 100% cases auto convergence results in violation of stereo window on vertical edges - which is, in my opinion, intolerable).
crunchy3d is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 02-01-2013, 11:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post

I haven't tried Vegas deinterlacer, because I thought that it can't be so accurate like some other plugins developed for VirtualDub or AviSynth. For example, I am using MSU deinterlacer and it is really very good. I will upload some tests (maybe together with those "problems I mentioned before"). Does Vegas deinterlacer use motion compensation algorithms?
Once, on purpose, I loaded "stereo" picture consisted of mono pictures (or videos?) where one of the picture (video?) was rotated for 1 degree. Auto-alignment in Edius resulted in alignment which did not rotate that picture, but just changed some other settings. At the same time Sony was OK. Of course, I was having test version of Edius 3D. Still don't know if Edius 6.5 is now better in this regard.
I am always using manual convergence, since I am never satisfied with auto convergence (in almost 100% cases auto convergence results in violation of stereo window on vertical edges - which is, in my opinion, intolerable).

Earlier versions of Sony Vegas didn't de-interlace well at all for some of my footage, so I started using a plug-in. Version 11 improved that performance dramatically. I think it works well now. I haven't tried VirtualDub or AviSynth.

The final release of Edius made significant improvements in a lot of areas, so if you can you should try it again. Playback performance, especially, is far better. Edius is smooth as silk compared to Vegas on my system (overclocked Intel i7 3930). In general, I also like Edius' auto convergence feature for my JVC footage. Plus, Grass Valley supports just about every kind of footage you throw at it, and they have no bias against JVC as Sony does. I didn't mind converting all my footage too much in the beginning, but now that I'm used to simply dropping any clip into the timeline, I won't go back. Using both Edius and Vegas together in my workflow is a lot better than splitting JVC files manually, re-pairing them in Vegas and then suffering through choppy playback when the timeline gets even a little bit more complicated.

You're perfectly right about the JVC's auto convergence feature causing edge violations. They're absolutely unavoidable if you don't set parallax manually. You're in good company when you describe this as "intolerable," but it's a philosophical position that not everyone shares. James Cameron puts it this way, "There is no screen." Quite simply, this sums it up for me in terms of how I "tolerate" edge violations. Most of the time (with a few obvious exceptions), they just don't bother me. My brain doesn't have a problem with them. If you count James Cameron and the producers of just about every Imax film (especially the earlier ones), and Martin Scorsese, you also find yourself in some pretty good company if you think edge violations are OK. In fact, Cameron argues that "the edge violation rule" should be broken as frequently as possible. He believes it's critical for 3D storytelling, at least the way he does it. I'm no expert in this area, but based on my limited experience, I agree. I've decided not to let edge violations determine whether a shot is usable or not. Some of my favorite shots are ones where the TD1 dynamically adjusted the parallax. If I try to "fix" it in post, the shots do become unusable, usually because of extreme background divergence. Many of my favorite 2D shooting techniques are lost to me if I let edge violations rule how I shoot 3D.

YMMV. biggrin.gif

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #14 of 31 Old 02-01-2013, 11:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wolfgang S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 1,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The deinterlacer in Vegas is still not as good as it could be - that is one reason why it makes still sense to use special applications like Tempgenc, for stepls like downsizing of HD-footage to SD-footage for a SD-DVD. What has been improved is the capability to render 1080 60i to 1080 24p, what is remarkable that this has become better - a lot of people are satisfied with that now, even if I for my part do still not like the rendering from 1080 50i to 1080 24p.

For edge violations at the left or right side you can use floating windows. At the bottom the are less critical. But I think we still have to be carefull here about the stress that we put in the video - not everybody has become s3D stress resistant like us, trained by sitting at the editing computer.

Kind regards,
Wolfgang
videotreffpunkt.com
Wolfgang S. is online now  
post #15 of 31 Old 02-02-2013, 11:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfgang S. View Post

The deinterlacer in Vegas is still not as good as it could be - that is one reason why it makes still sense to use special applications like Tempgenc, for stepls like downsizing of HD-footage to SD-footage for a SD-DVD. What has been improved is the capability to render 1080 60i to 1080 24p, what is remarkable that this has become better - a lot of people are satisfied with that now, even if I for my part do still not like the rendering from 1080 50i to 1080 24p.

For edge violations at the left or right side you can use floating windows. At the bottom the are less critical. But I think we still have to be carefull here about the stress that we put in the video - not everybody has become s3D stress resistant like us, trained by sitting at the editing computer.

Yes, if you're careful not to pan too fast, Vegas does a very respectable job of de-interlacing 60i to 24p now. At least that's my experience.

I have lots of shots with edge violations that floating windows won't fix. For instance, one thing I always liked to do when shooting 2D was use a tree or other plants to frame a distant object. It was a way of adding "dimension" to flat shots before real 3D. I still like to do that, even when shooting 3D. For instance, I place the camera so that I get part of the trunk of the tree, and an overhanging branch, to frame a bridge in the background. This works great in 2D, but depending on the distances, it can cause edge violations in 3D. If I'm close and I manually converge on the tree trunk, the bridge spacing (left/right views) in the background is too wide. I might not have a problem watching such a shot in 3D, but many people would. On a large screen, it might not be possible for some people to converge the bridge at all, and it would likely cause headaches in many. So, is that shot unusable? If you believe that edge violations shouldn't be allowed, yes. I'd have to frame the shot entirely differently, or not use it at all. However, the JVC's auto parallax control adjusts the 3D spacing so that the middle ground becomes the point of convergence for that shot. This reduces the left/right spacing of close and distant objects, but it creates an edge violation in which the tree trunk extends into space in front of the monitor, The edge of the screen bisects the trunk. The good thing is that neither the foreground object nor the background object is so widely spaced as to cause viewing discomfort.

Remember Cameron's first rule of 3D - there is no screen. For him, the fact that the tree protrudes out of the monitor is not a problem. He says that the only time this is a concern is when you do the 3D gag in which an object moves straight out of the background and toward the viewers' eyes. Then, the edge violation calls attention to itself and shouldn't be used. Consider "Avatar." Cameron moves his cameras all over the place, in and around trees and bushes, through doorways in the labs, etc. Edge violations are everywhere in Avatar, and if you watch what happens in any given scene, you see that the way he shoots makes eliminating them all but impossible. Most Imax films pay no attention to this "rule," either. And look at many current 3D releases, including Scorsese's "Hugo" or "Open Season" (the animated film voiced by Debra Messing and Ashton Kutcher). Even in animation, where avoiding edge violations is easier, many filmmakers just don't do it.

Generally speaking, edge violations in the periphery of my vision (at the frame edges) don't bother me. They don't cause my brain to reject the 3D-ness of the shot. I've decided that trying to eliminate them is not worth the cost. For moving shots, it's clear to me that you either use them or you scale back motion so dramatically that you cripple yourself creatively. And if you make that exception for moving shots, it's easy to make it for many static shots, too. If it works for one type, and doesn't confuse your brain or your viewers', it's not a "rule" you have to follow. That's my take on it.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #16 of 31 Old 02-02-2013, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wolfgang S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 1,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Joe, my point is simple: if you like to put stress on the audience, then there is no need to care about edge violations. Then there is no need to care about the maximum disparity as defined by the average eye distance. Then you can run popouts without any limitations.

But if you care about the stereoscopic stress, then you will be more carefull.

To my opinion, there are two directions within s3D: the one that cares and the one that does not care really. I prefere to be on the more careful or conservative side. But that is up to everybodys own decision, up to everybodys own responsibility.

Kind regards,
Wolfgang
videotreffpunkt.com
Wolfgang S. is online now  
post #17 of 31 Old 02-02-2013, 02:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Wolfgang,

IMO, those are two very different things. One means caring about people's comfort and the other means caring about a rule. I don't think most edge violations cause any sort of physical or mental "stress" in the vast majority of viewers. I'd argue that most will not even be aware of them or care in the slightest that they "break the rule." Large amounts of divergence of objects within the stereo frame, however, will cause many viewers discomfort, whether or not they understand why they're getting headaches or eye fatigue. Allowing some edge violations in your productions allows you to frame your shots more freely and creatively. It's also likely to reduce maximum disparity and the chance that your viewers will experience eye strain. That means caring more about people and the creative process. If you mean to say that I care less about the rules, then I agree. The "rules" don't matter much to me. Rules are made to be broken, and as more and more people shoot 3D, the majority seem quite willing to change the rules. One new rule seems to be that edge violations are secondary to creative and effective storytelling. That's a rule I can get behind, and I choose not to worry about the old, more restrictive one.

I know this is a subject of fierce debate among those who create stereo images, both still and moving, so we're not going to resolve it here. I hope we can still be friends. biggrin.gif

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #18 of 31 Old 02-02-2013, 02:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
BTW, I'm not saying that I don't work hard to eliminate some edge violations. For medium shots and especially close ups, I often don't want them, so I crop and scale until they're gone, or I discard the shot. I don't know exactly where my "cutoff" point is for being comfortable with edge violations. I just "feel" whether it works for a given shot.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #19 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 01:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wolfgang S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 1,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
To my opinion, rules derive in most case experiences - means that people have learned something about s3D and came up with something what they named a "rule". I do not care so much about the rule, and sure they are not un-breakable. But I care about the experience behind those rules.

Sure, edge violations may put less stress on the audience then other errors - like a huge disparity that harms the fusion in the brain to a s3D picture. Or a huge difference in the height of L and R. But for sure an edge violation is an error since it breaks the s3D effect too - at the edges. The issue with that is, that people will react in a different way to different errors. Even without knowing what is wrong, some will react with headaches, others will not. The individual level, where somebody goes into discomfort, is very different.

From that side I tend to go into a more conservative approach, trying to minimize the stress elements where I can. And for sure it should not be in a way where we substitute one minor stress element (edge violation) with another one that is a no-go (disparity > 6.5 cm). In the end it is the combination of the settings we have to choose, to end up with a minor stress level - for example, shooting with parallel axis allows to reduce disparities. Floating windows will allow to correct some footage without increasing the disparity. Stayin without the minimum distance will allow us to keep disparties low, even in the near point or far point. That are elements that may help to minimize stress.

I am aware that it is a little bit borring if you move everything to a positive parallax. The objects look more away compared to a setting where you have also some negative parallax in the movie. A conservative editing uses that approach - conservative thta tries to minimize stress. Other editings accept a higher stress level. Whatever is better is a hard decision - and I am not sure if there can be a general answer to that. For sure, a production where >70% of the audience ends up with headache has done something wrong. smile.gif

I think that is no question of friends (we are friends) but more on what we will generate with our productions. I think it is also a question of responsibility we have here.

Kind regards,
Wolfgang
videotreffpunkt.com
Wolfgang S. is online now  
post #20 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 02:59 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post

Thanks! I'll first try to check it again and make some footage and upload it on our server. Then I'll contact Joe Clark.

OK! I've made it.
Here is the original footage taken in 24p mode with manual focus. White balance was off (forgot to set it).
The file is uploaded to WeTransfer and you can get it here:

http://we.tl/IXWohakHgA

Link on our server is here:
http://dsc.ijs.si/damir.vrancic/down_docum/Forums/AVS/

just download the file "54__0025_interlaced_60i.zip" by right-clicking it and selecting "Save Link As".

In the file you have to listen to the voice. E.g. 60 means that it's 1/60 s shutter speed. In did not want to add any title with shutter numbers, since I wanted to keep the file untouched.
As you can see, the sharpness drops below 1/48s shutter speed and there is a suspicious drop at 1/ 40 s and at 1/20 s. You can also notice those white dots on black lines I was talking about before at lower shutter speeds.

There is another interesting phenomenon I noticed before, but I thought that I've made a mistake. Interlaced footage seems to be sharper than progressive! At lest it seems so from my first experiments with star chart. I'll try to upload it later...
crunchy3d is offline  
post #21 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 04:00 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfgang S. View Post

To my opinion, rules derive in most case experiences - means that people have learned something about s3D and came up with something what they named a "rule". I do not care so much about the rule, and sure they are not un-breakable. But I care about the experience behind those rules.

I agree with that. Why else there might be "rules"? "Rules" are not here to restrict us, but to make 3D experience a pleasure. In Dutch stereoscopic club they have performed measurements with viewers discomfort and found out that even 1/30 of parallax "rule" causes some kind of discomfort for almost 50% of the audience (among "stereoscopists", the proportion was quite lower, of course). I am always very careful about my shots, since I know that I'll project them for more people, where majority of them are not PROs in 3D. I haven't made many great shots just because the closest subjects were too close for my stereoscopic equipment (and I'm not interested in 2D shots at all). On the other side, video is slightly more forgiving when it comes to edge violations, but if you want to be sure that everybody enjoys it as much as possible (up to the end of the show), try to reduce edge violations scenes to minimum. In cinema, where field of view is much higher than at home, it is easier to get away with edge violations. An home it's a little more problematic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfgang S. View Post

Sure, edge violations may put less stress on the audience then other errors - like a huge disparity that harms the fusion in the brain to a s3D picture. Or a huge difference in the height of L and R. But for sure an edge violation is an error since it breaks the s3D effect too - at the edges. The issue with that is, that people will react in a different way to different errors. Even without knowing what is wrong, some will react with headaches, others will not. The individual level, where somebody goes into discomfort, is very different.

Even slight difference in height can cause problems on larger screens, even though on monitors it looks OK.
Individual levels of discomfort are really very different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfgang S. View Post

I am aware that it is a little bit borring if you move everything to a positive parallax. The objects look more away compared to a setting where you have also some negative parallax in the movie. A conservative editing uses that approach - conservative thta tries to minimize stress.

I don't agree that it's boring if you move everything to positive parallax. For me it's more beautiful 3D experince, since it's true, like watching through some real window into 3D space. Edge violations always break the "magic" since I can see that something is wrong and I cannot fuse some parts of the picture. It always tells me: "this is fake". If you want negative parallax, just find the closest subjects which protrude from the centre, upper or lower part of the frame (don't exaggerate with upper and lower ones...) and do not touch the verticals. This always worked nice with my shots.

By the way, haven't we started a discussion which is not related to the thread title?
crunchy3d is offline  
post #22 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 05:33 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post

There is another interesting phenomenon I noticed before, but I thought that I've made a mistake. Interlaced footage seems to be sharper than progressive! At lest it seems so from my first experiments with star chart. I'll try to upload it later...

Yes, even further tests show the same phenomenon. I've uploaded the difference between 24p and 60i modes (4 pictures - left and right for each mode). It really seems that sharpness is noticeably better in 60i mode (although the left part of the right picture is somehow softer in 60i mode):

http://we.tl/orqgYiILXZ

The pictures were taken from video files (50th frame in both cases).

And sorry for stereoscopic window. I haven't set it at all. The star chart was only 45 cm from the lenses.

The link on our server is here:
http://dsc.ijs.si/damir.vrancic/down_docum/Forums/AVS/

just download the file "JVC_PRO_Test_Pic01.zip" by right-clicking it and selecting "Save Link As".
crunchy3d is offline  
post #23 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 05:48 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have noticed that in 24p mode, "CINEMA" is ON. Can it produce softer picture?
The first tests with CINEMA = OFF show slight improvement, but 60i is still sharper. Does anyone have some more experience in that?
crunchy3d is offline  
post #24 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 06:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wolfgang S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 1,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post

I don't agree that it's boring if you move everything to positive parallax. For me it's more beautiful 3D experince, since it's true, like watching through some real window into 3D space. Edge violations always break the "magic" since I can see that something is wrong and I cannot fuse some parts of the picture. It always tells me: "this is fake". If you want negative parallax, just find the closest subjects which protrude from the centre, upper or lower part of the frame (don't exaggerate with upper and lower ones...) and do not touch the verticals. This always worked nice with my shots.

Sure, moving everything behind the zero plane will generate a "more perfect" windows, where you look into the garden - and everything is perfect. Beside one small issue: the objects appears in more distance. That is something that takes you a little bit more "out of the happening" - what seems to be more an issue at smaller screens at home. That is what I meant with "a little bit more borring". I also tend to move everything toward positiv parallax, in my videos.

Kind regards,
Wolfgang
videotreffpunkt.com
Wolfgang S. is online now  
post #25 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 10:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
The "friends" comment was a joke. If I let philosophical differences get in the way, I'd lose half my "political" friends. biggrin.gif

Philosophically, we obviously have some differences of opinion, but in practice I doubt we're that far apart in how we approach 3D. I tend to push most things back behind the screen plane, too. It's just that I've decided to go ahead and use some of those early shots I did before I even knew what edge violations were. And when faced with the question of whether to take a shot or not because of an edge violation, it won't bother me to get that shot. When I can avoid them, I do. When I start doing a lot more Steadicam work this spring, I suspect I'll feel even more inclined not to worry about such things. The more you move the camera, the more edge violations are going to happen.

Maybe my brain works differently, because most of the time edge violations don't make me feel like objects are being cut by the screen frame. My brain "puts them" where they belong. Then again, I'm one of the lucky ones. I can deal with tremendous disparity that would give some people migraines. I've never had a headache because of 3D, even anaglyph, which causes me the most physical "distress" of any type of 3D I've seen.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #26 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 10:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
I have to run now, but I'll take a look at the videos later.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #27 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 10:53 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 106
I have been composing more projects lately with 2D stills shot with my NEX 5n. Here I prefer to add the 3D effect and push the still shot back behind the screen frame as that looks more natural to me than up in front. When I do this it keeps the s3D mind frame flowing for me especially if I also add a bit of movement to the still, by panning or zoom. If I leave the still photo static and at the screen, it is jarring to the video story with video clips.

I guess it looks more natural behind the screen plane because distant scenery always tends toward flatness anyway. If I sit the still 2D shot in front up close, the flatness of it is jarring.
Don Landis is online now  
post #28 of 31 Old 02-03-2013, 10:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post

OK! I've made it.
Here is the original footage taken in 24p mode with manual focus. White balance was off (forgot to set it).
The file is uploaded to WeTransfer and you can get it here:

http://we.tl/IXWohakHgA

Afterwards I'll upload it to our server and will give a link within this post.

In the file you have to listen to the voice. E.g. 60 means that it's 1/60 s shutter speed. In did not want to add any title with shutter numbers, since I wanted to keep the file untouched.
As you can see, the sharpness drops below 1/48s shutter speed and there is a suspicious drop at 1/ 40 s and at 1/20 s. You can also notice those white dots on black lines I was talking about before at lower shutter speeds.

There is another interesting phenomenon I noticed before, but I thought that I've made a mistake. Interlaced footage seems to be sharper than progressive! At lest it seems so from my first experiments with star chart. I'll try to upload it later...

I'm not sure what's going on technically, but I think the white dots are a result of the camera's auto exposure system causing mpeg artifacting. In some situations, I've noticed that fine details, even in static images, distort from frame to frame. It looks to me like the camera is trying to adjust for proper exposure, and the lower the shutter speed the less able it is to accurately capture details. I've never shot test patterns, but I've seen this sort of thing happen with real world footage.

Your 60i shots do appear sharper than 24p. How were the patterns lit, and did you have all the camera settings on manual? What did you use to capture the stills from the video?

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #29 of 31 Old 02-04-2013, 03:27 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I used manual focus , manual shutter speed and manual gain. Only iris was on auto.
I am not sure that auto exposure was kicking in. I've noticed it on all the shots with lower exposure if you have some harder contrast scenes (e.g. text). Quite strange.

Stills from the video were captured by VirtualDub (in both cases). Both tests were lit by the natural light, which was changed sligntly (not significantly).

By the way, the download directory on our server is here:
http://dsc.ijs.si/damir.vrancic/down_docum/Forums/AVS/
crunchy3d is offline  
post #30 of 31 Old 02-04-2013, 01:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 99
I wish the original Blu-ray 3D spec had included 1080/60i. There's no doubt in my mind that it looks better on all my displays than 1080/24p that's been converted from 60i. As Wolfgang notes, the conversion software has to create 24 entirely new frames every second. 60i looks cleaner and has smoother motion. Of course, the Blu-ray spec does not include 1080/60i, so if you want your productions to be able to play on any Blu-ray 3D player, you have to convert to 1080/24p or 720/60p (in NTSC land, of course). Either way, you lose something in the translation. That's one of the reasons that shooting at 24p makes life so much easier. Since I'm not shooting Nascar or horse racing, it works well for me. I just wish the software wouldn't insist on re-sampling to a lower bit rate, too. Is it too much to ask to maintain the original quality of the footage? Apparently, it is, because that's what you're forced to do with JVC footage shot at the highest bit rate.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
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