Jump to content


Photo

DSR-450WS "real" life


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Peter J DeCrescenzo

Peter J DeCrescenzo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 620 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR, USA www.peterdv.com Blog: http://herefortheweather.wordpress.com/

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:24 AM

Apparently the frame grabs I previously uploaded were not as useful as I'd hoped because they were made using my PDX10 camcorder to grab images from my DSR-450WS camcorder via Firewire. This resulted in images which were reduced to 640 x 480 and crudely compressed to JPEG.

The following images were grabbed by Final Cut Pro (version 3.0.4; yes, I know it's old, but I'm not an editor) via Firewire and they appear to be better quality.

The lens was focussed on the "S" in the "Sony" cassette box logo.

The little hand-written sign within the image indicates the cam's current settings. In all cases the cam was set to 0db gain, no ND, and white balanced (once) for the 100-watt bulb lighting the scene.

60i with the factory default settings:
60i_frame.jpg

30p with the factory default settings:
30p_frame.jpg

30p with a "film look" setting (film gamma, detail level reduced, etc.):
30p_film_frame.jpg

30p with a film look and "B&W":
30p_bw_film_frame.jpg

24p with the factory default settings:
24p_frame.jpg

24p with a film look:
24p_film_frame.jpg

24p with a film look and B&W:
24p_bw_film_frame.jpg

I hope these images are more helpful than my previous attempts.

Comments & questions welcome.

All the best,

- Peter DeCrescenzo
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11943 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 September 2005 - 07:48 AM

Hi,

Interesting. I assume this is in 16:9 mode?

The film setting seems pretty subtle. I might consider backing off the saturation a little, but otherwise it's pretty much the sort of competent image you'd expect from a Sony broadcast camera.

What lightsource is promoting those little highlights at the top of the markers? It's a dulling-spray moment!

Phil
  • 0

#3 Peter J DeCrescenzo

Peter J DeCrescenzo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 620 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR, USA www.peterdv.com Blog: http://herefortheweather.wordpress.com/

Posted 04 September 2005 - 11:18 AM

Hi Phil: Yes, the cam was in its native 16:9 mode.

The "lighting" (if I can call it that) was a bare 100-watt lightbulb positioned directly above the lens, hence the highlight reflections. The cam makes a pretty good-looking image, considering.

My apologies for the crude setup, but I wanted to get these "correct" images out ASAP to dispell the misinformation of the previous images.

As an aside, just for grins I enlarged a couple of these new images to 1920 x 1080. Of course, they exhibit all the limitations I'd expect: The ones which stand out are DV's 8-bit colordepth & artifacts and my current entry-level SD len's deficiencies. It makes me very curious to see what results would be possible using my cam's SDI "uncompressed" output and a broadcast quality SD or HD lens. I can see that something like AJA's IO-LD or the Bonsai unit might be a cool tool to have -- and the need for a good lens can't be overemphasized.

- Peter
  • 0

#4 Alvin Pingol

Alvin Pingol
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Student
  • California

Posted 05 September 2005 - 02:16 AM

A definite step up from the PDX10 grabs! :-p

Are you sure your aperture was f/2.8 for both the interlaced and progressive frames? It really looks like you're getting a bit shallower DOF on the progressive frame (easy to see when looking at the spiral phone cord). I like the look of the "film" setting, though it is not an extreme difference between that and the standard setting. It seems you are gaining a little in the highlights, as seen on the hotspots on the telephone, which is good.

I love Altoids, too...
  • 0

#5 Peter J DeCrescenzo

Peter J DeCrescenzo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 620 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR, USA www.peterdv.com Blog: http://herefortheweather.wordpress.com/

Posted 05 September 2005 - 02:54 AM

Hi Alvin: Yes, the iris is opened-up a bit in the progressive shots, but the markings on the lens indicated just slightly to the "F1.8 side" of F2.8 -- and the camera's displayed "2.8" on the viewfinder -- so I wrote F2.8 on the little paper sign. As expected, progressive mode decreases sensitivity. The difference in this particular case seemed to be about 1/2 f-stop or so, and was in-between the markings on the lens barrel.

The particular "film" settings I used are just one of many possible combinations. The cam allows a wide variety of settings. The ones I used here are fairly conservative, and the difference between the default look and the film looks is easier to see on an NTSC monitor compared to a computer monitor.

All the best,

- Peter
  • 0

#6 Simon Wyndham

Simon Wyndham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • UK

Posted 05 September 2005 - 04:47 AM

The FLM gamma settings give you around a stop extra to play with in the highlights.

As for enlargements it might be worth downloading the trial for Magic Bullet, use its deartifacter plugin, then use Algolith to upres.
  • 0


Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Opal

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

CineLab

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC