[PhilipL]

Hi

Originally Posted by 12harry

PhilipL are you saying there is a ND filter that's moved (in-out)?
- I really wonder about that, as the filter thickness will affect the light-path. I've seen fancy lenses with a permanent ND filter - this is a dark spot in the centre - so as the iris closes the ND is progressive, ( 3 concentric filter-factors) - really clever, as it means the lens is transmitting like f/64 but only mechanically set to f/11 - giving better definition and faster acting. I recall it was a f/1.2 c-mount zoom.

Yes, it is has been documented and is standard on most of these camcorders due to a limitation with the optics. The filter is gradually introduced and so is a variable ND filter, so while it looks like the f-stop is changing, it is isn't, the exposure is being adjusted by an internal ND filter.

If you look into the lens and adjust exposure you can see the ND filter, someone had watched and reported all the f-stops the ND filter was actually in use, if I come across it again I will post it.

Regards

Phil

[12harry]

Originally Posted by gaddster

excellent, thanks for the advice

FWIW I have what looks like the same kit, same supplier and about £8, as I recall.
Frankly, despite other comments I can't fault them . . . .however, the mauvie-one is pretty much unused and that goes for the others too - but you never know when they'll be essential kit. Optically and mechanically I can't fault them.

If you think of a factory making really expensive filters, machining the metal which is sent to finishers later - do you suppose you could tell the difference between say, the hundredth one and one 50,000 later? I suspect no-one could as they are made on computer-controlled machines and apart from loading the bin/emptying there is little human involvement.
The finishing is in a chemical bath and again I doubt there is much difference between the first and the 100-thousandth.
Next there is the optical glass: This is almost certainly made from sheet glass with colouring in, adjusted to be just right....here it's possible the expensive ones are 99.9% spot-on -OR- they are individually checked, which adds cost. Yet I suspect the individual glass discs are almost indistinguishable...

Now, suppose you have an Order for 100K filters - you must order excess glass and metal - so what do you do with the extra? Do you put it into stock, hoping for another order? (which is bound to have slightly different requirements) - or do you sell them to a Dealer who offers cash for anything you have? I suspect the second option is taken . . . which may explain why these cheap-filters are odd sizes - maybe over-production - it being pretty difficult to stop a machine that's fully loaded and you need to take a break for lunch - it just keeps going.... and the cost is minute, once the thing is set...so the over-production is a "cash-crop" - it may be Workers' doing it in lieu of "overtime" - I DO NOT KNOW..... but the filters tell a good story . . . . just wish they were more useful....

[pilsburypie]

Originally Posted by PhilipL

Hi



iA will adjust both the shutter and the iris as required. By default the camera will vary the shutter speed just as often or more so than the iris, this is to keep the iris to a setting that gets the best out of the optics. For example a chunk of the iris adjustment doesn't actually adjust the iris at all or alter depth of field as the iris adjustment includes the addition or removal of a neutral density filter. This allows the iris to be fixed at a sweet spot for the optics. In bright outdoor light the shutter will be anything from 1/100th to 1/500th a second.



Yes and no as it depends on the frame rate. If you are watching the video back at 50fps (either progressive or interlaced) then a higher shutter speed is preferable as this avoids motion blur. If however, and probably where you have the idea from, you are going to convert to or record at 25fps, then at that slow frame rate you need motion blur to help avoid the footage looking juddery. This is because the slow frame rate makes it easy for the illusion of motion from what is a series of still pictures to break in our brains, so the motion blur on movement helps keep the illusion going. From film they have the 180 degree rule, which means at 24fps you should use a shutter speed of 1/48th a second, so for 25fps, we get 1/50th of a second.

Providing you are watching back at 50fps, then really there isn't an upper limit on shutter speed to worry about.

In iA mode then intelligent contrast will usually be enabled, this can be enabled in manual mode as well. Also iA is likely upping the colour saturation a bit to make things more punchy, again you can add more colour saturation in manual mode.

Regards

Phil

How comes you are such an authority on this Phil? I must say you help me out again and again

I will be watching at my house at 1080 50p via PS3 but will also be burning SD DVD's for the rest of the family. I have always tended to do SD footage at 25fps progressive (just what I did on my old GS500 as I liked the look). Seeing as I have a mixture of final outputs which contradict eachother at the filming stage i.e. high shutter speed for my 1080 50p and 1/50 which is better for my SD 25p, would it make a difference if I rendered SD as interlaced? Would then my higher shutter rates be better blurred by the interlaced fields? Would the optimum shutter speed for SD still be 1/50?

I need to get a good balance between HD and SD.

[pilsburypie]

So the ND filter is there to keep the apperture at it's sweetspot...... what is this "f" sweetspot then?

[PhilipL]

Hi

Originally Posted by pilsburypie

I need to get a good balance between HD and SD.

Yes you can always make an SD 50i interlaced DVD from HD footage which should look smooth, although it might not have the clean look of 25p.

The only way to get a good balance between HD 50p and SD 25p is to compromise one or the other really.

So the ND filter is there to keep the apperture at it's sweetspot...... what is this "f" sweetspot then?

There is a post here explaining the f stop and ND filter relationship. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...ml#post1702232

Regards

Phil

[12harry]

ND filter discussion - looks like a lot of hot air to me - how exactly is this "variable" ND fileter to be engineered into the optics?
Do posters imagine - another servo?, so even more mechanical noise and whilst I accept small optics want to limit their apertures, this is really for pure mechanical reasons. Camcorder optics can be poor (as the Sensor will be the weaker link).

For a DSLR I don't recall any built-in auto-variable ND filters ever being advertised.

On an earlier reply I suggested how a decent lens I own, can be stopped down to f/64 whilst only mechanically set to f11, this is a far-better arrangement since the iris-mechanicals are already needed - why make it more complicated?

Any suggestion of a Variable ND filter is bound to cause all manner of optical effects.

Pana-Canon, Sony et al have ND filters in their Pro-camcorders; but these are chosen in steps - not by arbitary variable-effect, under some DoF computer-control as suggested in that Linked Discussion..... 1702232 (Post#635).


IMHO, anyone wanting a ND filter needs to know why and to use it sparingly.

[Luc32]

Originally Posted by PhilipL

Hi



Yes you can always make an SD 50i interlaced DVD from HD footage which should look smooth, although it might not have the clean look of 25p.

The only way to get a good balance between HD 50p and SD 25p is to compromise one or the other really.
Phil

may i ask, what is your method of converting from 1080/50p to a presentable 576/25p? i use premiere, i wonder what the quality is like if i just export to PAL SD. hm.

[pilsburypie]

I use Vegas so may be slightly different for you. I initially had an issue when converting to SD 25p of the footage looking blurred. This was down to the program just blending 2 frames thus making 25fps. I had to under sample the footage by 0.5 which in effect discards every other frame making it 25fps.

I then just selected a SD template and rendered. This produced pretty decent results but I have been trying the interlaced method and am as yet undecided what is best.

[PhilipL]

Hi

Originally Posted by Luc32

may i ask, what is your method of converting from 1080/50p to a presentable 576/25p? i use premiere, i wonder what the quality is like if i just export to PAL SD. hm.

As per pilsburypie using Sony Vegas. Different packages will want to do different things, some will blend 2 frames, some will drop one, and some you can influence like Sony Vegas.

Best Regards

Phil

[zboy]

Hello,
recently obtained HDC TM900 camera...very enjoyable but quick question.
I have no luck recording to BD-R with the HD writer 3.0 software. Specifically with playback. I can successfully create std def discs, avchd discs and paly back on blu ray player. I seem to burn blu rays ok, after recording on the 1080/60P setting(I know that according to specs, it gets converted to avchd anyways). Prior to burning it states that the bd-r is not bmdv format and to conform to standards, formats disk with udf2.6 standards, ...it then burns, but when I go to play on 2 diff blu ray players (on a all region, other samsung only 1-2 yrs old), it says disk cant play...blu ray does play on computer , and I see file burned. Any one else have this issue? Many thanks.
and sorry if not posted in appropriate thread.. cheers

[pilsburypie]

Not sure if I totally follow, but blu-ray doesn't support 1080 50/60p. Are you saying the editor is converting to 50i for example? 1080 50i is blu-ray max I think.

[zboy]

Hello,
thanks for reply...correct, but according to manual, any file recorded in 1080 60p/50p mode, when making blu ray , automatically get converted to 1080i format. That is fine, but again, the blu ray dvds made arent playing on various blu ray players...I wonder , because they are only 2-3 yrs old. Also if I choose,,the second highest quality setting 1080i, it can burn to dual layered dvds fine (avchd dvds, get about 40-50mins on one dvd), however they seem to say that recording in 1080p (twice as much data), then converted to 1080i onto bluray will give highest quality...etc, just wondering what possiblities of problems I am having (eg, incompatible blu ray players with udf2.6 format, bad media, etc)...thanks for any ideas
cheers
scott

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by pilsburypie

Not sure if I totally follow, but blu-ray doesn't support 1080 50/60p. Are you saying the editor is converting to 50i for example? 1080 50i is blu-ray max I think.

Yep

Maximum resolution supported progressive format on blu-ray is 1920 x 1080 - 1080p24.

1080i60 is OK

[zboy]

again,
thanks for quick reply...I agree with what you are saying, but the appeal of the HD writer ae 3.0 software, is it is simple and dummy proof (good for me)...so basically, when I film at the 1080 50p setting, the editor AUTOMATICALLY converts to 1080i/30p for blu ray dvds...it even says that prior to burning on screen, because, again, 50/60p isnt supported by bluray players...BUT, when I do this, they dont play on blu ray players, just wondering if anyone else had this problem...because again, when I take that 1080 50/60p footage and make an avchd disc / 1080i disc on dual layered or standard dvds , it plays fine, just obviously cant get as much data onto it. More annoying than anything else, because even when I try to make blurays on the 1080 i /30p setting , cant get the bluray to work...any ideas...I obviously can try sony vegas, which I have but havent used yet,but the problem is , it is much slower...

thanks and pardon my redundancies

regards

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by zboy

again,
thanks for quick reply...I agree with what you are saying, but the appeal of the HD writer ae 3.0 software, is it is simple and dummy proof (good for me)...so basically, when I film at the 1080 50p setting, the editor AUTOMATICALLY converts to 1080i/30p for blu ray dvds...it even says that prior to burning on screen, because, again, 50/60p isnt supported by bluray players...BUT, when I do this, they dont play on blu ray players, just wondering if anyone else had this problem...because again, when I take that 1080 50/60p footage and make an avchd disc / 1080i disc on dual layered or standard dvds , it plays fine, just obviously cant get as much data onto it. More annoying than anything else, because even when I try to make blurays on the 1080 i /30p setting , cant get the bluray to work...any ideas...I obviously can try sony vegas, which I have but havent used yet,but the problem is , it is much slower...

thanks and pardon my redundancies

regards

Can we get something clarified, does your camcorder record 1080p50 or 1080p60 ?

If the former then the AVCHD disc needs to be 1080i at 50 fields/sec, 25 frames/second. (PAL countries standards)

If the latter then the AVCHD disc needs to be 1080i at 60 fields/second 30 frames/second (actually 29.97 frames/second). (NTSC countries standards).

Trying to change 50p footage to 29.97 frames/second or 60p footage to 25 frames/second will produce poor results.

[zboy]

It is an ntsc camera, so it records at 1080/60p...however the "conversion" is automatic, eg, I pick burn blu ray, then the screen says all 1080/60p footage automatically converts to 1080i , there are no options...just dissappointed at inability of this software to produce a readable/playable 1080i avchd disc on bd-r media...

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by zboy

It is an ntsc camera, so it records at 1080/60p...however the "conversion" is automatic, eg, I pick burn blu ray, then the screen says all 1080/60p footage automatically converts to 1080i , there are no options...just dissappointed at inability of this software to produce a readable/playable 1080i avchd disc on bd-r media...

Have you tried outputting a 1080i file (you can check the quality by using a media player like Splash Lite) then burning to AVCHD using the tsmuxer/imgburn route ?. You won't get menus etc just the actual video content.

[Kevo]

IMHO, I don't think it's worth recording in 1080 50/60p (yet). Just not well supported and just not worth the hassle and overhead. It's fin eif it's just you watching it on a capable media player, but for anyone else?

Stick to 60i and have an easier life!

[PhilipL]

Hi

Originally Posted by Kevo

IMHO, I don't think it's worth recording in 1080 50/60p (yet). Just not well supported and just not worth the hassle and overhead. It's fin eif it's just you watching it on a capable media player, but for anyone else?

Stick to 60i and have an easier life!

You can easily convert it to interlaced though for compatibility in the meantime, and another option is 720/50p which looks really good keeping the lovely progressiveness of the original but compatible with Blu-ray.

I find 50p so much better, even after being converted. The easier to compressive progressive footage partnered with a higher bit-rate and no interlacing artefacts makes it perfect for acquisition.

50i yes if you are making short lived video for YouTube etc, but for precious memories isn't it worth capturing at the very best quality for the future?

Regards

Phil

[orfeas76]

Hello, I have TM700 but I suppose the same applies here...

I just ruined the folder tree inside the SD card.
So I transferred manually the files to my PC.
Is there a way for AEwriter to import files from an HDD instead of SDcard ???
I really like AEwriter because it renames properly the files and it can cut-join files renderlessly...

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by orfeas76

Hello, I have TM700 but I suppose the same applies here...

I just ruined the folder tree inside the SD card.
So I transferred manually the files to my PC.
Is there a way for AEwriter to import files from an HDD instead of SDcard ???
I really like AEwriter because it renames properly the files and it can cut-join files renderlessly...

It's a while since I used it but as I remember you can add a PC folder to which you have copied the files and it will treat it just like the sd card.

[orfeas76]

Unfortunately it only shows Removable and Optical Disks in the source menu...
I also tried to copy the files to the folder that other files lie in the PC (i.e. my videos/HD writer) but it didn't recognize the files

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by orfeas76

Unfortunately it only shows Removable and Optical Disks in the source menu...
I also tried to copy the files to the folder that other files lie in the PC (i.e. my videos/HD writer) but it didn't recognize the files

Try copying the stream folder to a usb drive and use that instead of the camcorder card.

[PhilipL]

Hi

Originally Posted by 12harry

ND filter discussion - looks like a lot of hot air to me - how exactly is this "variable" ND fileter to be engineered into the optics?
Do posters imagine - another servo?, so even more mechanical noise and whilst I accept small optics want to limit their apertures, this is really for pure mechanical reasons. Camcorder optics can be poor (as the Sensor will be the weaker link).

For a DSLR I don't recall any built-in auto-variable ND filters ever being advertised.

On an earlier reply I suggested how a decent lens I own, can be stopped down to f/64 whilst only mechanically set to f11, this is a far-better arrangement since the iris-mechanicals are already needed - why make it more complicated?

Any suggestion of a Variable ND filter is bound to cause all manner of optical effects.

Pana-Canon, Sony et al have ND filters in their Pro-camcorders; but these are chosen in steps - not by arbitary variable-effect, under some DoF computer-control as suggested in that Linked Discussion..... 1702232 (Post#635).


IMHO, anyone wanting a ND filter needs to know why and to use it sparingly.

I'm not sure what your point is or why you find it hard to believe. These camcorders do have an ND filter that is lowered into the light path gradually in place of the iris, you can see it yourself if you look into the lens with a reasonable light behind you. This is to maintain the sweet spot for the optics which is a problem when using these tiny HD sensors and compact zoom lenses. SLRs have much larger sensors and better less compact optics so the issue doesn't arise, and cheap compact cameras simply don't have good enough optics to start with to worry about ND filters to keep the sweet spot.

It also has the benefit of controlling light without affecting the depth of field which is important for video in 'autoexposure' situations, as the shifting change of field might otherwise cause the auto-focus to lose focus lock and hunt again just for a slight change in exposure.

Professional cameras have an ND filter for more traditional reasons, i.e. giving more control over depth of field, they don't need the ND filter for keeping the iris in the sweet spot as they generally have better optics and larger sensors and are used in manual mode for focus and exposure. So on professional cameras you can switch in a couple of ND filters ad-hoc.

More references here:

http://www.dvforums.com/pressflow/no...omment-1381128

Regards

Phil

[12harry]

What I'm about is the notion that ND is as you say "lowered into the light path gradually in place of the iris - - " It seems bizzare! You are telling me that one half of the video lens is transmitting a different amount of light to the other half (since this ND material...must be "lowered...." on a radial path ). ..
- Why do that when a perfectly good alternative exists - namely, alter the gain of the sensor?


((I read that Nikon's most recent DSLR has an enormous upper ISO speed-rating (so Pro's can take shots in bad light at matches) AND has enabled a rating as low as 50ASA, generally reckoned to be ultra fine-grain in Silver-tech days. So it is evident that Sensors can have great latitude in their sensitivity - indeed my own NEX5 does - as it appears to "correct" exposure, should I set a manual (non-Sony) lens with the wrong iris-setting.))

(I read the "linked Comments*, thankyou) - Unfortunately I don't have access to a modest camcorder to look into it (as you suggested, thanks), so my stance is purely from my belief that such a scheme is 1) quite unnecessary, 2) Fraught with defects, 3)expensive - - - - when the sensor can be eased back to accommodate any excessively bright image the iris cannot control...at zero cost since it's already performing that duty when the ISO is changed in SetUp.


I await my looking-into this further.....

*I do wonder though if the scheme "might" be to introduce one or more ND filters which are either clear, or Dark - so no in-between position exists? This at least would increase the range of the Iris function in that it stops bright light reaching the sensor. . . . . This "might be" a protection scheme so that any Aperture Priority can be over-ridden quickly if pointing the camera at (say, the Sun), which would have permanent consequences . . . . . BUT it would seem odd (to me), that a consumer camcorder comes with this complicated feature when proper-kit doesn't bother.

[chrishull3]

Camcorders have built in ND filters DSLRS dont.

[PhilipL]

Hi

Originally Posted by 12harry

What I'm about is the notion that ND is as you say "lowered into the light path gradually in place of the iris - - " It seems bizzare! You are telling me that one half of the video lens is transmitting a different amount of light to the other half (since this ND material...must be "lowered...." on a radial path ). ..
- Why do that when a perfectly good alternative exists - namely, alter the gain of the sensor?


((I read that Nikon's most recent DSLR has an enormous upper ISO speed-rating (so Pro's can take shots in bad light at matches) AND has enabled a rating as low as 50ASA, generally reckoned to be ultra fine-grain in Silver-tech days. So it is evident that Sensors can have great latitude in their sensitivity - indeed my own NEX5 does - as it appears to "correct" exposure, should I set a manual (non-Sony) lens with the wrong iris-setting.))

(I read the "linked Comments*, thankyou) - Unfortunately I don't have access to a modest camcorder to look into it (as you suggested, thanks), so my stance is purely from my belief that such a scheme is 1) quite unnecessary, 2) Fraught with defects, 3)expensive - - - - when the sensor can be eased back to accommodate any excessively bright image the iris cannot control...at zero cost since it's already performing that duty when the ISO is changed in SetUp.


I await my looking-into this further.....

*I do wonder though if the scheme "might" be to introduce one or more ND filters which are either clear, or Dark - so no in-between position exists? This at least would increase the range of the Iris function in that it stops bright light reaching the sensor. . . . . This "might be" a protection scheme so that any Aperture Priority can be over-ridden quickly if pointing the camera at (say, the Sun), which would have permanent consequences . . . . . BUT it would seem odd (to me), that a consumer camcorder comes with this complicated feature when proper-kit doesn't bother.

It doesn't matter that it is gradually lowered into the light path as at that point in the path it is way out of focus. Don't forget the iris is just a very crude two bladed shutter with a V cut in them on the a lot of consumer camcorders and you don't see this making a difference either, although it can be made noticeable on bright out of focus objects as they take on the shape of the aperture which some people find objectionable. Decent cameras and SLRs will have multi-bladed apertures creating an almost perfect circular iris like our own eyes Diaphragm (optics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

when the sensor can be eased back to accommodate any excessively bright image the iris cannot control.

Which simply isn't the case, if it was we'd have done away with adjustable apertures altogether surely? You might be able to adjust the sensor gain on a cheap and cheerful camera phone and get away with it, but not on anything you want to capture a good quality image.

The sensors on HD camcorders are small, and the individual pixels on the sensor have a limit to the number of photons that can hit them. You can't turn down the sensor. Think of each pixel like a bucket, in the same way you can't magically make a bucket accept more water before it over-flows, the same applies to the pixels on the sensor. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the individual pixels the bigger the latitude for accepting more or less light.

This is why bigger sensors are better, but the problem with bigger sensors is they cover a bigger area and this in turn requires bigger more expensive lenses. This is why cameras with bigger sensors are almost always bigger form factor SLR cameras that take big expensive lenses and cost more money.

Regards

Phil

[orfeas76]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Try copying the stream folder to a usb drive and use that instead of the camcorder card.

I have no luck either way...
Isn't there any other program that can successfully rename files to their capture datecode ??

[V6HILUX]

Hi all reading.

I have a TM900 in Australia and I have a problem with the external mic input. What I record needs a Shotgun mic. I want to run a coax out the hole and ........ It's too complicated to explain.

Don't worry, I have done repairs on Surface Mount boards before and am capable of the micro surgury with a soldering iron reqired from what I could see where the internal mic jack is located.

I desperately need to remove the internal red plastic circular frame/bracket around the lens, but I cant even get all the external plastics off, even after removing about 20 screws.

Is anyone willing to help with a copy of the Service manual, please?

[PhilipL]

Hi

Originally Posted by V6HILUX

Hi all reading.

I have a TM900 in Australia and I have a problem with the external mic input. What I record needs a Shotgun mic. I want to run a coax out the hole and ........ It's too complicated to explain.

Don't worry, I have done repairs on Surface Mount boards before and am capable of the micro surgury with a soldering iron reqired from what I could see where the internal mic jack is located.

I desperately need to remove the internal red plastic circular frame/bracket around the lens, but I cant even get all the external plastics off, even after removing about 20 screws.

Is anyone willing to help with a copy of the Service manual, please?

Send me a PM with your email address and I'll send you a copy of the service manual.

Regards

Phil