SDX900 or SPX800 footage uprezzed to HD

[eclaire]

Didn't really see an appropriate Panasonic "catch all" forum for this question, so thought I'd post it here.

How does DVCPro 50 footage shot on either the SPX800 or SDX900 look when meticulously uprezzed and viewed at HD resolutions? I'm looking to invest in another camera and have been back and forth on the HPX500 more times than I can count. But the bottom line is that I just don't think I can justify a 20,000+ camera purchase at this time.

I am shooting my first narrative short in late summer and plan on screening it either via a large HD monitor or projector at a public gathering in the fall. I suppose I could just shoot it with my DVX100 and be done, but I fear what that will look like on a big screen. I also anticipate doing at least one other narrative piece in the next 16 months, so if I buy a new Panasonic cam, it will see ample duty for personal narrative projects (and I'm not a "renter" anyway).

Complicating matters is that the majority of my paying work is SD multi camera event stuff, especially dance recitals. Any camera I get has to multitask. Great low light performance is a must, which is why I've finally eliminated the HVX200 from consideration.

In addition to my DVX, I own a Sony DSR300 (which I'd like to dump in favor of one of the Panasonic 2/3" cams to enable multi camera shooting in 16:9/30P with better gamma and color matching.) I've noticed a number of used 900s and 800s coming up for sale at relatively attractive prices, and the 800, especially, is looking very intriguing. FIVE P2 slots and, of course, the great sensitivity, selective DOF, and improved dynamic range that comes with 2/3" CCDs. The fact that it records to P2 and not tape, with all the depreciation associated with tape heads and moving parts, makes it a sound choice as a used camera IMO. I suspect more and more used 800s will be showing up for sale as the HPX500 is a very similar camera at a great price but with HD capability.

I've spent quite a lot of time lately studying Andromeda grabs/clips. I would jump on Andromeda like there's no tomorrow if the work flow/portability weren't so bad and if it didn't require me to buy into the Mac platform to use it. But looking at Andromeda grabs and the SD grabs Barry Green posted way back comparing identical HVX setups in different recording modes (where the mild compression of DVCPro 50 kicked the crap out of DV and even down-rezzed DVCPro HD), I'm convinced that color sampling and compression (and the effect on dynamic range of both) are at least as important as resolution in terms of overall image quality.

So I'm back to the fact that really only one project in my immediate future would require/benefit from HD resolution. All would benefit from great low light and DVCPro 50 SD acquisition. If I knew that uprezzed DVCPro 50 footage would translate reasonably well to HD resolutions, I would definitely set my sights on a used SPX800.

Much appreciation to anyone that can shed any light on this dilemma. If anyone knows of links to clips or grabs of uprezzed footage from the 800 or 900, that would be ideal.

[Jan_Crittenden]

The uprez looks like the HPX500 footage. Keep in mind that the SDX is a discontinued camera and it actually costed more than the HPX camera head. Same is true for the 800.

But if you can find them to borrow. The footage will be great.

Best,

jan

[eclaire]

The uprez looks like the HPX500 footage. Keep in mind that the SDX is a discontinued camera and it actually costed more than the HPX camera head. Same is true for the 800.

But if you can find them to borrow. The footage will be great.

Best,

jan

Thanks for the reply, Jan.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that the uprezzed DVCPRO 50 footage shot on the 800 will look as good as footage shot natively in HD on the 500? I was under the impression that the chips were essentially the same in the two cameras with spatial offset providing the HD res. Thus I would expect the 500 to look somewhat better, or at least sharper, in HD. Are you indicating that there are other material differences in the imaging components that would account for the 800 holding its own uprezzed to HD versus the 500 in native HD?

[eclaire]

Can anyone offer any additional thoughts on this?

[Barry_Green]

It depends on how the up-rez is done. Film transfer uprezzing can look great; look around for some reports on the film Iraq In Fragments; most who saw it in the theater express disbelief that something that originated on a DVX100 could look so good when blown up.

I would tend to say that HD from an HPX500 is likely to look noticeably sharper in fine detail than uprezzed SD from an SPX800. But the latitude, colorimetry, etc will all be the same (or even perhaps a little better from the SPX800, since it has so much more control over its image). With excellent uprezzing software I'm sure it'd be quite competitive to HPX500 footage.

[eclaire]

Thanks once again for your input, Barry. Much appreciated.:)

I'm off now to investigate uprezzing solutions.

[joeher133]

Barry,

What Uprezzing software do you recommend?

Thanks,

Joe

[Jan_Crittenden]

I would definitely take a look at the Red Giant Software, Instant HD. Does a really nice job and I actually think there is a review of several apps like this including this one in the archives.

Best,

Jan

[Antoine_Fabi]

I tend to agree with Barry,

I would say, instinctively, that you cannot recover any "TRUE" details that are above the recorded codec. ie, anything above 720 horizontal pixels and 480 V pixels will have to be extrapolated, and since there is infinity of possibilities in those lost details, will be kind of false. It can look good enough, but not "TRUE".

But there are other factors like contrast, gradients, color, DSP that IMHO are a little better from the SDX (SPX) than the HPX500.

But resolution wise, i'd bet the HPX500 will just kill the SDX (SPX800) in pure and true resolution unless the HPX wasn't able to surpass 720X480 true resolution. And from what i've seen, there is no doubt in my mind that the HPX500 resolution clearly surpasses 720X480.

Some uprezzing softwares do a good job at thinning lines though, but can’t recreate what is NOT there.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Antoine,

The SPX800 is a 480 standard def camera and Barry was talking about uprezzing to HD. Should look great and it interesting how much "apparnet" resolution can be interpolated. The Codec of DVCPROHD, can be 1080 or 720 in HD and this can indeed be its native state of encoding. Keep in mind when looking at the CCD of the 500 it jsut like the 200 is an analog front end and the first capture of that signal coming off the chip set is at 1080P.

While I have not compared the same subject shot with a 500 and and 800/900 uprezzed, my guess is that they might be close with the 500 being the winner.

I hope this helps,

Jan

[joe 1008]

If this is true because of the qualitie of the DVCPRO50 codec I could shoot with cheap SD lenses on the 500 and then uprezz it with Instant HD in post! But come on Jan!!!
I just can´t imagine that it really would work that good....???

[Jan_Crittenden]

If this is true because of the qualitie of the DVCPRO50 codec I could shoot with cheap SD lenses on the 500 and then uprezz it with Instant HD in post! But come on Jan!!!
I just can´t imagine that it really would work that good....???

Well you can't cheat on the cheap lenses as those will look bad. Come on yourself. Let's assume that you are going to use the best that you can afford. A $3000 lens is garbage. You know it, I know it and your audience will too.

In video it has always been GIGO.

Best,

Jan

[joe 1008]

OK Jan, I was just kidding. But there is still the claim that uprezzing comes close to HD. So with a good second hand SD lens the 500 should do well as a DVXPRO 50 cam. Shouldn´t it?

[joe 1008]

err... DVCPRO50 of course...

[MLR]

SPX800 1000x568
http://runryder.com/rrtv.htm?v=/helicopter/rrTV-Photo/funflies/Circumgyration2007/rrCircum07-01.wmv

[Antoine_Fabi]

Looks like great SD, certainly not HD look to my eyes.

thanks

[joe 1008]

Nor does it for me look like HD. But there is a lot of qualitie loss because of the compression. I think with instant HD you could achiev at least very sharp and thin details, for example in the high voltage lines in the background. But I think I would prefer REAL HD, also.

One interesting detail: Watch the last three seconds of the clip: There is a guy wiht a fire extinguisher at his side. There is detail in his white shirt and also in the shadows - a lot of dynamic range has this camera though I think the image is one stop overexposed.

[MLR]

Can you point to an example of "instant HD" or "REAL HD" on the Internet? Thanks in advance. :)

[joe 1008]

With "REAL HD" I meant the DVCPRO HD codec, there is not such a software, sorry for the misunderstanding. For INSTANT HD check the red giant homepage or google the name and you will find some interesting examples, critiques etc...

[ifownlee41nite@mac.com]

With "REAL HD" I meant the DVCPRO HD codec, there is not such a software, sorry for the misunderstanding. For INSTANT HD check the red giant homepage or google the name and you will find some interesting examples, critiques etc...

Has Instant HD made upgrade for MAC Intel yet.

Thanks

[joe 1008]

yes, there is an upgrade: http://rgsupportzone.com/system_compatibility#ihd

[ifownlee41nite@mac.com]

Thanks

[VenezuelanD]

Eclaire,

At this point looking at your need for a camera I would have to say go with the HVX. I have used it extensively in the same manner you describe : live event videography from dance recitals to weddings as well as commercial work.

Yes the camera is less sensitive than the DVX100, however, with adecent on camera light it will work on most situations. I am currently using a VidLED and while having to gaff tape cut gels to diffuse/color correct (when needed) can be a PITA, its a great light for the money.

I suggest you rent out an HVX with an on camera light package and test it out. You mentioned you also own a DVX, why can't you shoot the low light videography with the DVX and use the HVX for the higher end projects?

It sounds like you are stuck between price points: looking for something more than the HVX while not able to afford the HPX, which also makes my wonder why you bring up the SDXs, arent those cameras more expensive than the HPX?

[Spartacus]

Complicating matters is that the majority of my paying work is SD multi camera event stuff, especially dance recitals.


So you need more than one camera, right?
Can you afford two 800s or 900s?
Or two 500s?
If so I will look into dance recital gigs :thumbsup:
Seriously, I´d get two HVXs, that´s two times DVCpro50 for your day job and 1080p for your first short (and the second HVX for offloading the P2 cards or multiangle dialogue or...)
And yeah, rent the HVX first to see if the low light performance suits your needs as suggested above.
..

[eclaire]

Thanks to VenezualanD and Spartacus for your input.

I already played with the HVX some weeks ago and came away thoroughly underwhelmed by its sensitivity. You can't even compare it to, say, my Sony DSR300 or the DVX at 0dB because the HVX is inherently noisier than both those cameras (especially the Sony) at the same gain setting. There are many times in shooting towards the back of a poorly/unevenly lit stage where I'm at wide open iris on my Sony. The HVX couldn't begin to handle that kind of situation (nevermind the more restricted lens zoom).

So the HVX is definitely ruled out. With a used SD lens, I could get a new, 5-year warrantied 500 and 4 16 GB P2 cards for around $15,000. I'd thus be equipped to shoot great SD, even in low light, in DVCPro50 mode. In addition, this camera would offer HD-SDI and native DVCPro HD recording so that when/if I buy or rent an HD lens, I'm shooting HD with the same camera and with the option of uncompressed streaming output.

A USED SPX 800 is ruled in, possibly, because it would obviously be very sensitive and give me all the other great benefits of 2/3" CCDs and because I expect the price on used units to have to compete value for value against the above costs of a new HPX 500 with P2 and used SD lens. I've been following the ebay listings of SPX800s for weeks now. One company has multiple units listed without lens with a starting bid in the mid 6K region. Another has seven used units with a starting bid on each of $7,500 WITH lens. There has not been a single bid on any of these cameras in all these weeks. That tells me it's a buyer's market and that, when the time comes, I'll probably be able to get a great deal on one of those cameras. I've no doubt that the HPX500 is a factor in driving the price and demand for used SPX800s.

I'm still juggling a number of factors on my next camera purchase, including whether I should just film the short next month with my DVX and not buy anything until next year. (I'm very interested to see what the RED mini will spec out to as well as seeing if ReelStream will end up making a DVX version of Hydra available for us poor disenfranchised PC folks.) I have made up my mind that I'm not going to go much over $15K for any camera not named RED. If I'm going to plunk down $20K on an HPX500 with cheapest HD lens, I might as well add another 5-7K and launch into another stratosphere of image acquisition.

[robbo]

"If I'm going to plunk down $20K on an HPX500 with cheapest HD lens, I might as well add another 5-7K and launch into another stratosphere of image acquisition."

There you have it !
Succinct and to the point. In the proverbial nutshell.

Same decisions here, eclaire ... right now I'm just making do with all my old gear and renting if I have to.
I still haven't made a decision on Red and will likely see how it all pans out a few months after they start shipping.

[Patrick Forestell]

Anyone know what compression scheme/method he used for the mini chopter video ? Thanks

[pranic]

I have both the SDX900 and HVX200, and can mix the footage very easily out of both cameras. I shoot mostly sports documentaries, and the variable frame rates of the HVX is a very welcome feature. Unfortunately, I have found that using it as the primary camera has some deficiencies -- most notably my need for more range on the zoom lens, and the difficulty of focusing when in a run 'n gun situation where you can't have an external monitor.

My SDX had been sitting on the sidelines lately, but I've been using it recently to shoot some local news coverage of curling in Seattle, and love the camera.

I had an HD project shot on the HVX, and found that I needed some footage from Colorado that I had shot a couple years ago on the SDX. I was somewhat skeptical that the two sources would mix well, but the DVCPRO50 and DVCPROHD looked like they were shot with the same camera.

I would like to sell my SDX body, because I like shooting tapeless, and because I could use the Firestore and P2 with the HPX500, too, and could really use the variable frame rates and the longer zoom.

Not trying to stray too far off-topic -- If anyone is interested in my SDX (250h on the drums), I'd be open to offers.

-- Andrew

[zcream]

On the topic of uprezzing., I wonder whats better InstantHD or the Algosuite package from Algolith - its discontinued, but maybe I can get a license still for sale..
Jan, Did Panasonic compare InstantHD with other competitors i.e. Algosuite before deciding to bundle it with their camcorders ?
The reviews that I have seen for Algosuite indicate that it is much better than InstantHD..

[zcream]

Some comparisons
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/dv_to_hdv_12272007/
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/red_giant_instant/

Should I bug algolith for a license sale or should I go with Instant HD ?

[crow]

We owned an SDX900 before buying our HPX500, and we had HD edit capability long before we bought the 500. I had plenty of SDX900 footage shot 16:9 anamorphic, and ingested some through our BlackMagic Multibridge. The Multibridge has a hardware converter to and from 1080x1920. I brought the footage in as 1080x1920 16:9.

I have to say that the uprezzed footage viewed on a 1080native 42 inch LCD was pretty soft compared to footage we have since shot with the HPX500.

I also have to say that the SDX900 was the best Standard def camera I have ever worked with, and I had the pleasure of shooting with it for 4 years. We shot spots with the 900 that seasoned pros thought were shot on film.

We have had the 500 for about 3 months now, and we are very pleased with our footage.

Here is a link to a spot shot on the 500 that I have posted in this forum before.

http://www.4shared.com/file/39375160/1e1f5378/Cox_60.html?dirPwdVerified=e3102043

(This sharing site will show a small version. Below the movie there will be some text that says "Loading file info. Please wait..." Wait til it loads, and a "Download" link will appear, allowing you to download the full 720 file.)



The uprez test I did with the 900 convinced my company to move to the 500.


We don't release finished work in HD yet, as none of our local stations have any interned HD infrastructure. All of our work is released SD letterboxed or full frame.

-scott