Hi Folks, Well I have been playing around a bit, and I have satisfied myself that PD9 does a pretty good job of producing in HD. Apart from some stuff taken of an ISO 12233 test chart, I have produced a pair of videos which you may find interesting. The ISO test chart proved to me that PD9 does indeed introduce a very slight softness in the image, but very slight and acceptable. The two videos are pretty much the same,
but compare PD9 with Adobe Premiere Pro, which costs a small fortune more than PD9. In my opinion there is virtually nothing between them. I guess they must use the same codecs, so perhaps it is not surprising. These two videos are only accessible to those who have the links below:
(Oh, BTW turn the sound off !!!)
Adobe PremPro
PD9 (Using Fast Video Rendering)
Unless you have a 20MB/s link, you should select the 1080p version then download them to view them. They are only just over a minute each but are 52.7MB and 47.9MB respectively.
Although most people here will already know: you have to shoot with either a very fast lens and/or
loads of light. The lens does not want to be working wide open, as the DOF will throw resolution out of the window. Note that in the TV studios, the presenters get very hot, that is because the lights have to be really bright in order to get a sharp image. It is the same for us, only worse, as we don't pay commercial prices for our pro-am equipment. In our cameras, the lens opens up wide and the ISO gets turned up, producing masses of noise.
denbigh
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at Aug 04. 2011 09:49
i7 980x; W7 Pro; 12GB; Nvidia GTX 285; 2x300G Velociraptors in Raid 0; 2x1.5TB Barracuda in Raid 1; 2TB WD Studio Ed.II (eSATA); NEC SpectraView Reference 2690 + MultiSync EA232