Better 1080 >720 or directly 720?

[someday]

I have to produce a showreel that i will post in my site and on DVDs for distribution to possible clients.
What is better? Shooting everything at 1080 (+20% apparent definition) then downsizing to 720p for internet and PAL for DVD, or shooting to 720p?
Thanks

[majormorgan]

I'd say shoot for 1080. Someone on the forums did a frame comparisson of the same subject shot in 1080p and 720p and when the image was processed in a certain way you could see the extra compression artifacts in 720p.

If you can shoot for 1080 and then down res in the export. That way you have options for scaling, re-positioning of frames if something wasn't perfect and also you have less compression artifacts per frame.

Also if you bear in mind that the internet delivery would be a codec like MP4 then you have two compressed codecs affecting your picture quality so for me personally I'd keep the original master at the highest possible quality - hence 1080p, which then can benefit from being downsized as it has more resolution and less compression per pixel.

Also you can then post some 1080 stills to accompany the 720 internet footage to show how it was even better looking footage.

Ready to be shot down....

Thanks,
Majormorgan.

[Barry_Green]

On an HVX200, 1080p always looks better than 720p. 720/60p looks better than 1080/60i. So it depends on whether you're shooting filmicly, or for the live look. For live, use 720. For filmic, use 1080.

[someday]

Thanks to all.
How could it be possible that 720 has more artifacts than 1080?
Shouldn't it be the contrary, as they both use 100Mb and 720 should have virtually twice the bandwidth per pixel?
What am i missing?

[Barry_Green]

Same bandwidth, 720 is half the frame size but twice as many frames so it nets out the same.

But 1080 on the HVX doesn't fully saturate the frame with detail; it delivers around 1400 x 810 of res. That leaves some room for the codec to actually reshuffle bits and apply a lower overall compression ratio. That results in cleaner images, less mosquito noise, less overall compression.

[someday]

Thank you very much!
I will always shoot at 1080 unles i need cranking and i will always shoot DVCpro50 SD

[lipslide]

Barry, does the same principle apply to PAL 1080 with it's higher initial res?

[walnutcrunch]

I had no idea about this 720p versus 1080p business. I somehow had the idea that the HVX200 had a true res of 720p and fakery to get 1080i or 1080p. That changes a lot of things about the workflow I'm establishing.

We were going to shoot everything in 720p because that's our display resolution and I thought the HVX handled 720p better. Interesting.

[Domis Entertainment]

This is very interesting! I have seen a few posts that have mentioned Shooting 1080/24pA isn't as great as 720/24pn.

so....it looks like we have the official opinion of Mr. Green....

1080/24pA = Film like look
720/24pn= good for live and cranking for film look.



I've had a lot of people tell me that 1080/24pa footage is bad for internet streaming/dvd compressing/still imaging/transfering to 35mm because it is still interlaced and not true 1080p. Is this true?....either way...thank god for people like Barry Green.

Barry..you are the man...i hope you get great pleasure out of all of your hardwork...please know that all of us HVX users owe you a debt of graditude! Thanks for everything!

[Antoine_Fabi]

Barry is right 100%.

and...

DVC Pro HD 720p is anamorphic 960X720.
DVC Pro HD 1080i (which can contain real 1080p) is 1280X1080

...so, if you shoot 1080 and downscale to native 720p square pixels, you'll approach the full horizontal res potential of non anamorphic 720p. which is 1280X720.

But for DVD, and long time recording (and over/under cranking) 720 is exellent.

[majormorgan]

Although remember that 50Hz 1080p [PAL camera] is actually 1440x1080 so you'll get an even better picture over the 60Hz one that is 1280x1080p.

Also both are anamorphic as 1080p is upscaled to 1920x1080, but you are right, as the 1080p picture covers a non anamorphic 720p image it will have the potential for a better picture.

Nice one.

Richard

[Antoine_Fabi]

Richard,

I wonder if we could use a PAL HVX 200 1440X1080 at 24 fps with sound...

would be nice...

Is it possible to modify the frame rate to exact 24 (23.98) fps

[TimurCivan]

I had no idea about this 720p versus 1080p business. I somehow had the idea that the HVX200 had a true res of 720p and fakery to get 1080i or 1080p. That changes a lot of things about the workflow I'm establishing.

We were going to shoot everything in 720p because that's our display resolution and I thought the HVX handled 720p better. Interesting.

nope. its a 1080P camera. 1080p looks superior to 720p.

[majormorgan]

Hiya Antoine,

24P isn't on the PAL version. I don't think you can even get close to it even with Barry's frame rate hack and if you did it wouldn't record sound.

If you want 24P on the 50HZ camera thenshoot 25p. When you come to output your project you can print it frame for frame in a 24FPS timebase which makes the film 4% or 1/25th longer than the 25 FPS version. The only thing you'll then need to do is to timestretch the audio to be 4% longer but use something that does it without altering the pitch.

A post house for outputting to film can take you through everything. They can even do the 25P to 24P and handle the sound timestretch but it may cost a little more.

Thanks !

Richard

[Barry_Green]

This is very interesting! I have seen a few posts that have mentioned Shooting 1080/24pA isn't as great as 720/24pn.
Yes, it is a pernicious myth that is proving extraordinarily difficult to stamp out. But any examination of the footage will show that HVX 1080p is better than HVX 720p.



1080/24pA = Film like look
720/24pn= good for live and cranking for film look.

Not quite. 1080/24pA for the film look, presuming that your editor can strip out advanced pulldown (Avid can't). And 720/24pN is not suitable for the "live" look; you'd want 720/60p for that.



I've had a lot of people tell me that 1080/24pa footage is bad for internet streaming/dvd compressing/still imaging/transfering to 35mm because it is still interlaced and not true 1080p. Is this true?
Of course not. The 1080p footage is better, so it's better for all purposes. But you have to strip out the pulldown. FCP can do it, EDIUS can do it, Raylight can do it, but Avid can't. So if you're on Avid, you may actually want to just stick with 720/24pN. But for all other editors you can get unquestionably better results by shooting 1080/24pA.

The only actual advantages to 720/24pN over 1080/24pA are:
1) it takes up a lot less recording space on your P2 cards, and
2) Avid can work with it.

If you don't need the extra recording space and would rather have the better recording quality, go 1080/24pA. (unless you're using Avid...)

(p.s. thank you for saying such nice things!)

[someday]

And again the HVX-200 is 1080p native so when it writes it to DVCPROHD (which is 1080i) the footage remains progressive, because both field of the interlaced codec display the same frame taken in the same moment. You won't see interlaced footage even if the codec is interlaced.

[Barry_Green]

In 1080 24p/25p/30p, that's true. In 1080/60i or 1080/50i you will of course see interlace artifacts.

[mostlyzoso]

i have been shooting 720pN. But after reading this i did some tests at 1080i/24pA. i'm not sure i see that much of a quality difference. Am i blind? I mean...there is a little difference, but not so much that i could see giving up the extra time on my p2 cards.

Also, i noticed at the top of this thread Barry mentioned 1080p with respect to the HVX. I thought there was no 1080p with this camera?

also mentioned are "filmic" versus "live" looks. I'm my tests i see no difference here either. both clips seem identical in movement and look. the only difference is one takes up more time on my card.......what gives?

thanks guys......this site is great!