MPEG2 HD v.s. DV SD and Final DVD quality

[Brett_Erskine]

Okay we have all seen plently of frame grabs showing the FX1 v.s. this camera or that camera but no one has done the most impostant test of them all:

"How does the HDV format's image quality compare after forced back to SD when put to DVD?"

This is the TRUE REAL WORLD TEST. I used to think that you start with a higher rez HD master that when you down convert it to SD you are going to have a better quality still then if you simply shot it in SD in the first place. Well this is true for 35mm v.s. 16mm thats telecined but thats film to video (apples to oranges). According to well conducted tests it doesnt help in the video world (I'll see if I can dig up the article and frame grabs). HD downcoverted to SD will look the same as if originally shot in SD. Strange I know. I didnt believe it untill I saw it for my own eyes. Pixel for pixel its the same.

Now with that said we have a opportunity to test of the TRUE REAL WORLD benefits of shooting in the HDV format and showing it on DVD. How?

Simply lock off the camera on a tripod and shoot a shot in both HDV and DV modes on the camera.

Next (this is the part no one has done yet) burn both takes on to a NTSC DVD and post links to a frame grab from both formats from that DVD HERE.

Make sure the frame grabs are at full NTSC resolution and from the resulting DVD NOT the MiniDV tape.

This test will put to rest two issues. The concerns of the quality of the MPEG2 compression V.S. DV compression and prove for everyone if indeed we are getting more detail out of the FX1's HD signal than we would if we shoot with it in SD mode and finished to DVD. I suspect this test will be a eye opener for alot of people when considering if they should invest in the HDV format. I think you will find the frame grabs will reveal that we gain nothing when it comes to a increase in clarity for our DVD projects shooting on a HDV format. And in fact we loss something because the image is compressed even more than DV due to MPEG2. I'd love to be proven wrong because I'd hate to think that the miniDV HDV format is actually a step back in REAL WORLD quality than a step forward.

I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for even sugesting this idea but please can we just wait to see the proof in the frame grabs instead of any he said/she talk PLEASE! I think we owe it to ourselves to find out for sure. Any owners want to give this test a try?

[Shaw]

Hey Brett. I brought up a topic closely related to this a while back and got some interesting discussion.

Clearly you cannot have more resolution than a format is capable of handling. Thus HDV downconverted to DV will have DV resolution. What comes into play though is sharpness. Downconverting from more information can provide a sharper picture. How this works mathematically I haven't figured out yet. Still looking into that. This seems to give the impression of "increased res" while in reality it doesn't. Honestly though I think buying the FX1 to go out to a SD DVD is rather stupid. I'd much rather have the DVX! If I were going to go out to film I would definitely go HD but then I would go rent a camera rather than use an FX1.

[David Jimerson]

When you shoot something in SD, there's only exactly enough information to fill that 720x480 box. There's no leeway. You have what you have.

When you shoot in HD and dowrez, you've got a lot more information to work from, and though you discard a great deal of it, you can choose the BEST of the information to go into that 720x480 box.

That's the concept. The practice is a little more complicated.

[gzabetas]

" Well this is true for 35mm v.s. 16mm thats telecined but thats film to video (apples to oranges). According to well conducted tests it doesnt help in the video world "

I disagree. I think that is not that different, because you find that people would even use PAL (625 lines) to get those extra 100 lines.

And ultimately STAR WARS and HD was a higher video format at was downrezed to SD-DVD on our TV sets.

[Barry_Green]

but no one has done the most impostant test of them all:


Er, I have already done this test. This is, of course, the only test that truly matters, because a) obviously for high-def release the high-def camera is going to be superior, so why even discuss it? and b) almost everything we are likely to shoot on the new high-def cameras will be released on DVD, since there is no high-def DVD and there won't be any significant market penetration of high-def DVD for years to come... so standard-def DVD is it. Or it'll be broadcast at SD resolution over local cable companies or local TV stations... which is still standard-def.


I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for even sugesting this idea but please can we just wait to see the proof in the frame grabs instead of any he said/she talk PLEASE! I think we owe it to ourselves to find out for sure. Any owners want to give this test a try?
It's already coming. I've got hours of footage we're trying to compile into a meaningful side-by-side. I'm split-screening XL2/DVX/FX1 footage showing the EXACT SAME SETUPS, EXACT-SAME LIGHTING CONDITIONS, EXACT SAME CAMERA MOVEMENTS, etc... only difference is the cameras themselves.

And I'm giving the FX1 the benefit of the doubt by making the DVD source from the original HDV footage, not a DV down-rez, because by using DV down-rez, you convert the original 4:2:0 MPEG-2 down to 4:1:1 DV, and then again to 4:2:0 MPEG-2 for the DVD authoring. Whereas with what I'm doing, it goes from 4:2:0 MPEG-2 to 4:2:0 MPEG-2, no DV downconversion.

I've posted some screengrabs in various areas, but screen grabs are a nearly pointless way to evaluate video quality -- it's video, not stills, and so much of the experience relates to motion artifacts and motion handling and perceived resolution and blah blah blah. So people can ask for stills, but other than illustrating specific items (such as, see how much brighter this camera is than that one) it's not a good measure of examining video performance at all.

For a quick summary: in all the testing I've done, the FX1 looks a little softer, more muted, and with less latitude and less low-light performance than either the XL2 or DVX. But most of the footage is CineFrame 24 or CineFrame 30, not too much in 60i. I do have a new clip in 60i, which will show the FX1 off to its most advantage, but I haven't micro-analyzed that clip yet. The only place the FX1 really shows an advantage is in noise -- both it and the XL2 exhibit substantially less shadow noise than the DVX.

It is my contention that for DVD production, the DVX is still the king, especially if coring is set higher; the XL2 is very, very close to it, but with weaker low-light response, weaker sensitivity, and less overall latitude (but native 16:9 and less shadow noise) and the FX1 performs more like the XL2 but with a little less sensitivity and more vertical smear.

The FX1 should be used for high-def production. The other cameras do a better job for standard-def production, and for filmlike DVD footage the DVX and XL2 are significantly ahead.

[chi_red]

http://aftereffects.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=28667-0

according to Adobe Premiere Group Product Manager Richard Townhill:

"but I actually think, Charlie, that there might be a really good opportunity for people to actually distribute on wide screen SD [standard definition] DVD . It actually looks really good, because you're starting with such a high quality and high resolution image to begin with, that the result in DVD output, even though it might be in SD format, looks really sharp. "

[Shaw]

Sharp but I would disagree about high quality. Deinterlaced HDV at 25mbs is REALLY not high quality. We're talking scraping the bottom of the barrel here. This is a workable solution not a high quality one. High res does not equate to high quality per se.

[videoman69]

Hmmmm..

Still dont get it. My footage on my normal TV from the FX1 is far superior to my DVX or XL2 shots. I already authored 4 DVD's from Fx1 footage, and I have about 40 from the DVX. My Fx1 DVD's are superior in quality, sharpness, color, deeper blacks and NO NOISE at all over the DVX or my older cams. (Didnt do any DVD's from the Xl2 as I only had it a day)

I showed my DVD's and footage from both cams to 3 friends today and they all picked the FX1 DVD's as having a better picture quality. One guy said it looked much more professional.

I have still encountered NO vertical smear at all, and I wonder why. I can also shoot in complete darkness, bump up the gain and get a noise free picture. Amazing camera.

Using only cine 30, and film gamma my Fx1 produces the best looking video I have ever seen from any of my cameras. Plus, the cine 30 mode does not have the video look at all (when used with film gamma and softer detail levels)

I may produce a DVD of FX1 footage and dupe about 5-10 of them and send them out to some of you here so you can see the quality Im getting.

Again, I have the DVX, owned it for almost 7 months now. The FX1 I picke dup 2 weeks ago, and it has been getting daily use. I have not encountered one drawback with the FX1, I even love the on board audio, its very full sounding, and natural.

Oh yea, when I use the Fx1 in Standard DV mode, it is NOT as good as using it in HD mode and having the cam downconvert into FCP. In DV mode I get noise, and some artifacting. Looks like typical DV. HD downconverted from the cam to TV is so smooth, no jaggies, film like (in 30 mode) and rich deep blacks, with PERFECT color and WB every time.

I dont like that this cam is getting a bad rap from a lot of people who have not even used it extensively. Its well worth the $$.

[Aejaz]

Videoman, it is good to know that you are satisfied with your new camera. However I am sure most people on this board are eager to see what other users of the FX1 say about its perormance....specially in the context of the points raised by Barry Green.

Any other comments on FX1? any other users?

[David Jimerson]

I can also shoot in complete darkness, bump up the gain and get a noise free picture. Amazing camera.

OK, let's be clear about this. If you were really in "complete darkness," you'd get no picture at all from any camera.



I dont like that this cam is getting a bad rap from a lot of people who have not even used it extensively. Its well worth the $$.

We GET it. You LIKE it. But after only two weeks, you can't really say YOU'VE had "extensive" experience with it, either, and it doesn't sound like you're being all that scientific with it. Barry's doing "laboratory" testing with it, and I defer to his judgment on it.

But some of the stuff you've written about the DVX -- like the shifting white balance and the drifting focus -- makes me wonder what the heck you were doing with it, and similarly, what you're doing with the FX1 in comparison.

[TotalX]

Videoman69:

Since you made a Mpeg2 of the FX1, can you make a small WMV 9 file (10 seconds) of the DVX and FX1, and shoot it over to Barry?

[TotalX]

Also, I don't believe that using cineframe 30 does not give a video look even with gamma adjustments, especially compared to the DVX 24p.

To make that statement in front of video professionals is strange. Very strange.

[Thirsty]

I have the camera and have been more then happy with the cineframe 30 mode...(cineframe 24 not so good...still expermenting with that) At first I was ho-hum about the 30fps mode before I realized the default shutter rate was 1/30. When I switched it to 1/60 the picture movement was pretty smooth. In fact with cinetone on, and color level set to +2 I get something that looks better then super 16mm IMO.

I'd say the cineframe 30 mode is like the GS400's film mode on steroids.

[TotalX]

Can you link your results to the board? I have to see this to believe it.

[Barry_Green]

I just put the DVD stuff I'm doing under the proverbial microscope, both playing on a conventional TV and then also projecting on a 10' screen using component inputs, and standing like 2' away. There is no circumstance that I've found where the FX1 footage looks any sharper than the DVX footage, when rendered to DVD. Even in interlaced mode, they look (at best) the same, sharpness-wise, or at least within spitting distance of each other. On CF24 footage vs. progressive, the DVX holds quite an advantage, especially when the FX1 had Cinematone gamma on -- all the dark sections get so crushed down on the FX1 that you can't see any shadow detail vs. the DVX, which shows everything.

Yes the signal on the FX1 is cleaner with deeper blacks. And I don't know but I suspect that under a more controlled shooting environment, cranking up coring and lowering the master pedestal, it may be possible to get the DVX to match those attributes of the FX1. Even if not, the DVX is still two stops faster, with more latitude, and genuine 24fps movement instead of the fake CF24.

If I'm wrong, I'm glad to be proven wrong -- I don't like to continue being wrong. But I just don't see it. In HDV mode on a high-def monitor, yes the FX1 does a great job (on still shots, a less great job on moving shots, but it's still high-def). But when put on DVD... the tables shift, and the XL2/DVX just look every bit as good and usually better.

What are we doing different? I'm using Vegas to create the DVD files, going directly from the HDV .m2t source (captured by ConnectHD). Using the MainConcept DVD Architect Widescreen NTSC preset, and DVD Architect to author the DVD.

I think still shots are a fairly silly way to judge video performance, but I don't think re-encoding to WM9 is the best way to go either, and DVD's are meant to be seen on televisions anyway. So I'll pull out a few stills for comparison to show what I'm getting, and if you'd like to do the same, let's see if we can get to the bottom of this.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, you asked for a grab, here's a grab. This was shot in Grand Central Terminal in NYC at about 10:00 a.m. There's daylight streaming through some windows up high and there's some tungsten lighting in there as well. It was overall kind of dark.

This shot was in 60i mode, which should give the FX1 the most advantage it can have, and put the DVX and XL2 at the most disadvantage (they are both higher-res in progressive than in interlaced). Furthermore the DVX was hampered by having to be in squeeze mode, vs. the native 16:9 of the other two.

The DVX and FX1 had to be zoomed in a little bit to account for the not-as-wide-angle of the XL2. So the FX1 was wide-open aperture, as wide as we could get it, which at this zoom setting was f/1.8. The XL2 was also at f/1.8 and the DVX was at f/2.8.

This is an interlaced-mode grab so there are interlaced artifacts. This grab is taken from the DVD-compatible MPEG-2 file, just as Brett requested. No post-processing, no color correction, no gamma shift, no anything, not even studio-to-rgb correction. This is all three cameras taken directly from the firewire port (FX1 in full HDV mode), laid on the timeline, an identifying graphic added, and this is the output of the DVD MPEG-2 compression.

http://www.icexpo.com/DVX-FX1-XL2-GCT60i.jpg

Now, from my observation point, I don't see where the FX1 is "blowing away" the other cameras... in fact, you can see much more detail in the shadows, and much more detail overall in the DVX and XL2 shots. And I think that squeeze mode acquits itself rather well as compared to the native 16:9 of the others... although the XL2 does have an advantage in detail as can be read in the words on the sign.

I'll post more shots later.

[TotalX]

Enough said. People will see what they want to see.

I don't see a distinct advantage that the FX1 has over the other cameras. Until the other forum members -who rave about the FX1- step up to the plate and shows us something, I will settle with this.

Barry:

You just saved me about $5000 bucks. Thank you.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, here's another one. *This one is DVX/24P/Anamorphic/CineGamma, vs. FX1/HDV/CF24/CinemaTone Gamma, vs. XL2/24P/16:9/CineGamma.

Unfortunately the framing is not quite as good on the FX1, it's a little more zoomed-in, but still the differences are stark. *The DVX is displaying the characteristic soft-contrast look of CineGamma, which could be "punched up" to deliver more contrast by lowering the master pedestal, something we didn't do. *The FX1, on the other hand, is displaying the characteristic harsh-contrast/crushed-black look of CinemaTone Gamma. *In this shot, for color, the XL2 is much greener and maybe a little sharper. *The leaves on the tree were more accurately represented (color-wise) by the other cameras, but the grass and bushes looks vibrant and cleaner on the XL2 shot. *For detail it's no contest: the FX1 comes in last place. *Look at the detail in the tree trunk (even though the FX1's zoomed in more!) *Look at the lack of detail in the foreground bushes, the lack of detail in the splotchy grass at the base of the tree as compared to the cleanness of the XL2 or even the anamorphic softness of the DVX. *For fine tree branch detail it's pretty close, maybe a slight edge to the XL2, and the FX1 unfortunately doesn't have quite the same framing so it's harder to see and judge. *Much of the awfulness of the FX1's picture can be traced to the field-blending effects of CineFrame 24, but ... if you want filmlike footage, you're going to have to do something to it, whether CF24 or post-processing or something... again, for DVD footage, I think the DVX and XL2 are superior here. *And if you like the contrast & deeper blacks of the FX1, you can always change that in the menu settings (we didn't have a monitor with us and couldn't a/b the shots).

http://www.icexpo.com/DVX-FX1-XL2-CP24an.jpg

[Kenn_Christenson]

In the first set of pictures, I can see a difference (especially between the DVX & FX1) in the rendering of horizontal lines (the yellow sweater and the lines just above the arch.) *It would be interesting to see how the text on the reader-board looks on the FX1.

I'm not a zealous FX1 promoter, it just looks like the most promising, low cost, camera (so far) for film out, esp. 50i. :)

[Barry_Green]

(btw, these shots aren't to "prove my point", they're open for discussion -- if you see something I don't, some big advantage to one over the other, please point it out! These shots could easily be used to prove someone else's point of view just as easily as my own)

[David Jimerson]

Does the XL2 always have the black line at the top, like the original DVX has on the right side?

Interesting how the 24p from the XL2 still has a distinct “video” quality to it that even the CF24 seems to soften. And what’s up with the color rendering? Does the XL2 favor the greens like the DVX favors the reds?

This is very interesting to me

[Barry_Green]

All right, here's another one. *This time we shot with each camera towards its best advantage, so the DVX is 24P/thin/anamorphic, the FX1 is HDV/60i, and the XL2 is 24P/thin/16:9.

http://www.icexpo.com/DVX-FX1-XL2-tunnel.jpg

Now, in this shot, I'm not seeing a whole lot of detail difference between them -- other than the harsher contrast of the FX1 vs. the softer contrast of CineGamma, but the actual raw detail looks about the same. *The XL2 was unfortunately overexposed by about a half-stop (the DVX was at f/6.8, the other cameras at f/4.0, which puts the DVX a full 1.5 stops faster than the FX1 even when in progressive mode!) *The XL2 should probably have been at f/4.8, but without an A/B monitor it's hard to get all that completely accurate in the field.

Here the FX1 acquits itself well, but again, this is a still shot -- you have to keep in mind that while you're watching the DVD, the FX1 looks like a VIDEO camera (because of 60i) whereas the XL2 and FX1 in this shot look like movie cameras. *Very different look.

[Barry_Green]

Does the XL2 always have the black line at the top, like the original DVX has on the right side?
Looks like it...



Does the XL2 favor the greens like the DVX favors the reds?
In that one particular shot it shows, but again, I think the color rendering is one of the least important factors to focus on because all these cameras offer a rich palette of color customization options -- you can make any of them render color just about however you'd want.

[David Jimerson]

Well, I didn't mean it as a criticism (the greens). I just found it interesting that it would favor the middle color on the spectrum.

[Barry_Green]

It would be interesting to see how the text on the reader-board looks on the FX1.
Here's a DVD-version extraction:
http://www.icexpo.com/FX1GCTText.jpg

And, to give the HDV its props, here's the text as an extraction from the full raw HDV frame:
http://www.icexpo.com/HDVFullResGCT.jpg

[Barry_Green]

Well, I didn't mean it as a criticism (the greens). *I just found it interesting that it would favor the middle color on the spectrum.
Sorry, didn't mean to make you feel like that. *I was reacting to something else that people usually say, where they get hung up on "natural color reproduction", because like I say, any of these cameras can deliver such a wide variety of looks that you can get almost any look you want.

Now that I think about it though, you do raise quite an interesting point: usually the shift has been on the color temperature axis, with Canons/Panasonics looking warmer/redder and Sony's looking cooler/bluer. *But with the XL2 accentuating green, that's a totally different axis!

However, if we were to have used CineLike matrix, the greens on the DVX may have matched. *We were trying to use all the same settings wherever possible, the only variation was whether we used cinegamma/cinematone gamma or not... but if we'd tweaked with the master pedestal, or the XL2's black stretch, or any of those other wonderful toys, we could have made these comparison shots look very different. The settings we used made the DVX look the "flattest" it can be, what with the soft-contrast CineGamma, the neutral master pedestal and the low-saturation Normal color matrix. In B.Press Gamma with a -6 to -10 MP and CineLike color matrix, the DVX would be vibrant and punchy and sharp.

I guess in summary, for DVD they all look fine, and there's certainly no knockout blow for one over the others, but I do think the DVX provides the most information simply from the fact that it's 1.5 to 2.5 stops faster than the FX1 and 1 to 1.5 stops faster than the XL2. *It sees more in the dark, and sees deeper into the shadows. *And the FX1 loses resolution to get its film look, whereas the DVX and XL2 gain resolution to produce their film look. *That's why I say, for DVD production, the DVX is the best with the XL2 very close second, and the FX1 just isn't as suitable (unless your goal is to make 60i DVD's under bright lighting conditions, in which case it'll look about as good as the other two). *For HD interlaced production it's no contest, the FX1 delivers the goods. *But for DVD release... I'm not seeing any advantage to the FX1 (other than a lower-noise signal), and I'd hate to give up real manual lens control, 7 gamma curves, 4 color matrices, real audio support, true 24P, true SMPTE time code, and all the other things the DVX does, just to get... what, a more expensive camera with worse low-light performance and lower latitude? *Doesn't make sense for DVD production.

At least, that's my take, until someone proves otherwise.

[Antoine_Fabi]

day and night...really...

The biggest difference i see is that the DVX and the XL2 have much more lattitude.

[Kenn_Christenson]

(Wow, thanks for the extra work, Barry.) Actually, I was thinking about the readerboard on the right of the arch (you don't need to make another post.)

No doubt, each camera has its advantages. *It will be interesting to see if Sony rushed the FX1 and the Z1 through production to steal the thunder of another camera rumored to be unveiled at NAB. *:o

[xray]

quote
'but I do think the DVX provides the most information simply from the fact that it's 1.5 to 2.5 stops faster than the FX1 and 1 to 1.5 stops faster than the XL2. '

Thanks for the work Barry.
DVX is a stop faster then the XL2 but the latest has a bigger reach. That will cost you a stop, but you clearly can see the XL2 has more information in its image. Easy to give it a 'warmth' feeling too. And if we are talking about 'film' we talk at least about 16x9 ratio.

[Shaw]

more information at what point? The XL2 initially captures more yes, but then it is scaled down, on the fly at which point there is just as much data as any other DV camera.

Barry, thanks for these! Very interesting!

[Barry_Green]

(Wow, thanks for the extra work, Barry.) Actually, I was thinking about the readerboard on the right of the arch (you don't need to make another post.)
Oh, duh -- sorry, didn't get that, but now I know what you mean. Unfortunately, I don't really have that shot without motion. The way the three cameras were set up, the FX1 was on the right, the DVX in the center and the XL2 on the left. So the way the parallax works, the FX1 is pointed more to the left, whereas the DVX gets the sign straight on, and the XL2 is pointing to its right, so it gets more of the sign. (the framing was meant to be on a person about 10' away from the cameras). So I can show you a still of that sign from the FX1's perspective but only as the camera is panning, which means it's totally illegible due to the interlace issue.

I do have a shot where we quit panning but it's not framed the same way, but here's an HDV extraction of that board:
http://www.icexpo.com/FX1GCTText2.jpg

and here's a DVD version of that frame:
http://www.icexpo.com/FX1GCTText2DVD.jpg

[Kenn_Christenson]

(Wow, again!) Thanks for all your efforts to help us understand the differences between these cameras. :)

[LoveHD]

If I would make a test like this I would try to get the best out of each camcorder. I guess you can make a much better picture with your DVX and others using fx1 and xl2 deliver a much better picture.

Think I make a test with a Millennium XL2 Panaflex in my kitchen. The result wouldn't be any good because my kitchenlight isn't good enough to make a test like this.

[David Jimerson]

If I would make a test like this I would try to get the best out of each camcorder. I guess you can make a much better picture with your DVX and others using fx1 and xl2 deliver a much better picture.

Think I make a test with a Millennium XL2 Panaflex in my kitchen. The result wouldn't be any good because my kitchenlight isn't good enough to make a test like this.


Are you saying Barry didn't try to do this?

[Barry_Green]

We set out to capture what we could get with these cameras, but it was extremely difficult to keep all the variables straight. For this shot we wanted a low-light shot, with a lot of motion. That's exactly what this place delivered. We also did brightly lit shots, still lifes, all sorts of things. We intended to do a set-up living-room headshot type of thing, but just ran out of time.

Jarred knows the XL2 inside and out, and I spent a lot of time with the FX1 to become completely informed about it, read through the manual twice, and used it off and on for a week before going out for this test. And Jarred and I both know a thing or two about the DVX. The goal wasn't to make any camera stand out or play to the camera's strengths, it was to put them in a variety of environments and see how they responded.

Hey, we did what we could. Anyone else who wants to do a comparison test is certainly welcome to, and I'd love to see those results as well.

[dakotapod]

Most open minded people are fully aware that the tests are not only unbiased but done by two knowledgeable and highly skilled folks.

Thanks to both Barry and Jarred for taking the time to do this for everyone and sharing the knowledge needed to pull it off! :D :D :D - Few people could or even would do such a thing and it pisses me off when anyone accuses either of them of being single minded or biased. >:(

Again, THANX!

[Barry_Green]

Hey, thanks for saying so, and I hope it's of some value to people. There's a long article that goes with it, I'm waiting for Jarred to piece together the millions of pictures and screen shots that we took. I only really posted these shots because people kept asking, and the full article/review is close but isn't done yet.

One reason we decided to do this shootout together was because of the overwhelming amount of work involved -- it really helped to have two heads rather than one, even if we spent most of the time butting them against each other (which meant I had to stand on something, usually... that dude's tall!) ;D

[Ranger]

Outstanding stuff Barry! *Thanks for all your efforts. *Rather than the mindless fanboy "scraping the bottom of the barrel" type comments, your observations and feedback are consistently well thought out (with supporting examples) and without bias. *Each camera brings with it its own set of advantages and disadvantages, as such, one must choose what features is important to them and select the camera that best fits their needs. *Your input allows us buyers more ammunition at our disposal to make an informed decision. Looking forward to viewing the final product that you and Jarred are working on.

Mahalo!

Paul

[J.R. Hudson]

Thank you Barry and Jarred for this information and I think it was a good idea to use these cameras at their most nuetral settings. Great job.

I love my DVX. :D

[xray]

more information at what point? The XL2 initially captures more yes, but then it is scaled down, on the fly at which point there is just as much data as any other DV camera.

More detail more sharpness. A better lens or an highres basicsignal (lower noise) gives you better end result. Try this out with photoshop,scaling down a high res optical scan (600 dpi--> 75 dpi) compared with a low res 75dpi scan. In the process of throwing things away software can take a look at a neighbour pixel, the CLUT or another scheme to render new information.

It is in basic what a compression scheme does (DYUV) when it compresses data, and it looks at lumi differences and the same principle with the interframe comparing technique.

[Antoine_Fabi]

I think (may be wrong) but to my eyes, the biggest difference between the DVX100 and the XL2 is the factory "0" (middle) sharpness setting.

i mean, If you raise the detail to +3 on the DVX, or lower the detail to -2 or -3 on the XL2, you'd probably be in the same ballpark, regarding sharpness. Sharpness and resolution are not the same, but it can be confusing. I remember doing the tests between "thin" and "mid" vdetail setting on the DVX100A. At first, i really thought that "mid" had more resolution. in fact, "Mid" and "Thin" had about the same vertical resolution (about 480 lines), but "Mid" had a certain amount of edge enhancement. "Thick" had less resolution (about 360 lines).

Anyway, 2 great cameras.

I like my DVX100A, and i'm sure i would like the XL2, *but i'm waiting for the next Panasonic camcorder. HD is the future, but i want 24p and *more lattitude than the FX1.

And i want a real working fast and easy "out of the box" shoot/edit solution.

thanks Barry and Jarred for these time consuming tests.
I really believe that they are unbiased. You took the time to write the strenghts and weaknesses of each camera in many different situations.

[nateweaver]

This test and these grabs are leaving one very important thing out...downconversion quality.

In fact, using the methods and arguments in this thread, one could make the assumption that it would be even useless to shoot 35mm, if you were going to go to DV in the end. I think we can all agree that 35mm telecined on a modern telecine looks better than, say, a DVX, so where does that leave us?

Someone earlier mentioned the same thing, but then followed with "apples and oranges". In this instance, it isn't apples and oranges at all...35mm looks incredible even when transferred to puny 'lil NTSC because of the quality of the telecine, and it's ability to gracefully pull info out of the negative and into a video signal.

So since we can all agree that the FX1 captures more raw info, then the reason it doesn't look better in these tests is because of the downconversion. It's not a slight, and it's not finger pointing. It's just recognizing that there is another variable, and these tests are not conclusive. To assume all down-rezzing is equal would be a mistake.

The only thing I've really learned, without a doubt in this thread is not to downconvert in Vegas! (p.s. I have already downconverted in FCP also, and it looked about the same. I knew instantly that FCP was not the tool to use).

[J.R. Hudson]

I think the most important conclusion for me is that I own a DVX100.

:D

[Brett_Erskine]

Barry and Jarred-
Thank you soooo much for putting in the time to do all these test. I started this thread with a piece of info, a theory and a statement and you proved them right without a shadow of a doubt.

I wish I had been wrong though.

I hate the idea that the industry is getting ready to adopt the miniDV HDV format as a whole and we will be faced with constantly reeducating our clients who want HD but doesnt understand the highly technical trade offs of doing HDV to DVD - right now. Its going to be years before MOST people have some form of a HD DVD set top player in their homes and up until that point some of us will be working with the HDV format that has more negative characteristics than positives. Damn that just plain sucks. I can only hope the next few HDV cameras fine tune their weaknesses in their codec, light sensitivity and offer better images on DVD then the current two options do. Not to mention you gotta have 24p! Perhaps internal hard drive recorders will come to save the day but then again MiniDV tape format is so heavly established right now so then again maybe not. Interesting time. We will see.

-Brett Erskine

[Barry_Green]

So since we can all agree that the FX1 captures more raw info
In terms of pixel resolution, yes... in terms of color depth and latitude, no, I'm not so sure...


To assume all down-rezzing is equal would be a mistake.
Oh, definitely agreed. When doing some up-rez tests I found that Premiere 6.0 was a woeful performer compared to Vegas, but that S-Spline Pro (now renamed PhotoZoom Pro) did far better than Vegas could.


The only thing I've really learned, without a doubt in this thread is not to downconvert in Vegas! (p.s. I have already downconverted in FCP also, and it looked about the same. I knew instantly that FCP was not the tool to use).
I've also heard that FCP's up-rezzing was not up to snuff, but I haven't used it.

I chose Vegas as the downrez tool for a few reasons:
1) I had it. ;)
2) Douglas Spotted Eagle has said repeatedly that Vegas-downrezzed material looked much better than allowing the FX1 to downrez itself (convert HDV to firewire DV on the fly)
3) Doing the downrez in Vegas, vs. having the camera do it, let us avoid one compression cycle and two color-space conversions, which should benefit the FX1 footage
4) When set to "best" quality, Vegas uses Bicubic resampling, rather than "good" quality's bilinear (think I got that right...) so it should be a solid tool.

There may be other programs that could do a better job of it, that's always a possibility. I felt Vegas was a solid choice though, but hey, if I'm wrong in that, I'd like to try the alternatives and see what else we could get.

[nateweaver]

So I'm at a loss to explain why the easily available downres tools don't do such a good job, but all my experience in using better formats tells me that the FX1 CAN produce surperior results.

I mean, I know this because I can watch the NTSC output of the FX1 on my 32" Trinitron at home and CLEARLY see detail that I know would have been lost on the DVX.

The trick will be to make that res stick through a downconversion.

Here's another test you could try:

Record the FX1 NTSC output to DV, and then do the same side by side.

[Shaw]

I'm still not sure I agree with superior results. Sharper, yes. But as I said before there are many, many, factors which go into a quality image. Sharpness is just one of them. I'm not saying the FX1 sucks or cannot produce a good image. I just think that for SD DVD I would much rather have the better color and lower compression to work.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, for comparison, here are a couple of photos for those interested.

The first is a still extracted from the Vegas downrez process: it's full-rez 720x480, downrezzed from the HDV source at "best" quality, exported to an uncompressed movie, copied and pasted into photoshop (no DV compression involved, just full downrez quality).

http://www.icexpo.com/ResizedInVegas.jpg

The second is that same frame, extracted from the original source, a full-resolution FX1 1440x1080 picture that was copied and pasted into a new PhotoShop document, then resized bicubic in Photoshop.

http://www.icexpo.com/ResizedInPhotoShop.jpg

This should let us judge the quality of Vegas' resizing, independent of any other factor, at least in comparison to PhotoShop's resizing.

To my eyes, Vegas did a pretty good job, way way better than Premiere 6.0 would have done. But the picture is a tiny bit softer with a little less contrast. All the important detail seems to be there though, (can't understand why the contrast would be softer... the black level looks lifted a little.) there's certainly not enough difference that one could point to Vegas and say "that's the problem, use a different re-sizer and the results would be night and day".

For those who don't want to bother downloading and scrutinizing both pictures, here's a small extraction blown up to 300% to compare:
http://www.icexpo.com/PSvsV.JPG

[Barry_Green]

Here's another test you could try:

Record the FX1 NTSC output to DV, and then do the same side by side.
Let me make sure I understand what you're asking -- are you saying to hook the FX1's S-video output to a DV device, and record that? *That would seem a quite compromised way to go...

I do have some HDV footage with DV proxies that were recorded on DV Rack (res charts and things like that, recorded on tape in HDV but output by firewire in DV format, so the camera itself did the down-rezzing). *I could dig up some of that and try a Vegas-vs.-camera-itself test. *Should help verify about Spotted Eagle's assertion that Vegas does a better job than the camera itself (which, frankly, I would suspect to be true, as the camera has to do it in real-time vs. Vegas taking all the time it needs). *But, "should" and "is" don't always meet, so I can try that to see whether the camera itself does a better job (at least on a res chart) than Vegas/post does.

[nateweaver]

Let me make sure I understand what you're asking -- are you saying to hook the FX1's S-video output to a DV device, and record that? That would seem a quite compromised way to go...



I agree. I just know that in the NTSC output of the FX1, I see much more detail than the DVX. In fact, I liken the output of the FX1 to the SDX-900...without the finesse in the latitude, etc.

I mean, opinions like mine are just that, opinions, but it's not like I had to stare at it for days before I reached that conclusion. It seemed pretty obvious for me.

[Bukkake]

I'm still not sure I agree with superior results. *Sharper, yes. *But as I said before there are many, many, factors which go into a quality image. *Sharpness is just one of them. *I'm not saying the FX1 sucks or cannot produce a good image. *I just think that for SD DVD I would much rather have the better color and lower compression to work.

Under the same ideal shooting conditions, FX1 HDV footage downrezzed will look superior to even my DSR500 footage. Where the FX1 fails is in capturing the richness of color and latitude of my DSR500, but in general, the FX1 footage excels in every way, including sharpness and clarity.

To difference was immediately noticeable. Downrezzed FX1 footage beats the pants off of the DVX or XL2. I can't say the same for FX1 DV footage is a straight comparison. DVX100 has way too much of a noisy picture in the blacks. I think Panasonic may have set an internal gain-up to account for a less than stellar CCD in low light conditions.

The FX1 has SuperHAD CCDs, same technology in the DSR500, so under low light, it has virtually no noise, so that makes it possible to gain up to +18dB with very little noticeable noise. I used the original DVX100 and gaining up in 60i produced so much noise, I believe Panasonic used some sort of temporal blurring algorithm to reduce the noise. Either way, it made night time footage blurry, and I think perhaps the DVX100a has those same issues.

[Shaw]

Hence the reason I said I would rather have the DVX for _color_ and compression ;)

That and progressive is so much nicer to work with (and looks better than converted 60i)

It's all a matter of what you need it for really. For cinematic type stuff going straight to DVD _I_ would use the DVX. Others are free to choose as they will :) I just need the color and latitude of the DVX not the sharpness of the FX1.

[Barry_Green]

Nate and others, can you please demonstrate some of this? *I know that theoretically it would be nice to believe that, but in practice, showing side-by-sides in all sorts of shooting conditions, it just isn't so...

I have yet to see a frame, an indication, anything anywhere under any circumstances to support a claim like "Downrezzed FX1 footage beats the pants off of the DVX or XL2". *Could you please demonstrate this? *A lot of people are saying it, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support it, and I spent a lot of time trying to prove whether it did or didn't, and the results are posted here for the world to see. *If I'm dead wrong I'd sure like to know about it.

Regarding DV-versus-Vegas, I couldn't find the charts, but I found another shot where we recorded in HDV on the tape and downrezzed DV through firewire to DV Rack. *Here are the pictures:
http://www.icexpo.com/FX1-HDV-to-DV-by-Vegas.jpg
http://www.icexpo.com/FX1-HDV-to-DV-by-camera.jpg

To my eyes they look pretty close, but I'd have to give the nod to Vegas. *Look at the gray patch on the soccer ball in the middle of the shot -- Vegas is much more accurate in its representation, the FX1 smeared the detail in its shot (note, I'm looking at the original raw uncompression, whereas you'll be looking at JPG's, but it should be a valid comparison anyway). *Overall the detail looks about the same, but there's some more mosquito noise on the FX1-downrez vs. the Vegas downrez, especially around the bells on the monkey's face.

I don't know what to tell ya, it sure looks to me like Vegas is doing a good job of resizing to SD, better than the camera would itself and nearly as good as PhotoShop. *I think the results of these tests are are fairly accurate, and downrezzed FX1 footage is, at best, comparable to (if not slightly softer than) native XL2 and DVX footage. *There is no sharpness advantage that survives the downrez process.

[Kenn_Christenson]

I'm more concerned about the FX1's ability (or inability) to record fast motion without loosing resolution or adding compression blocks.

I know this is out of Barry's experimental range, but I wonder if the 50i version renders motion any better than the 60i.

Guess we'll have to wait until some of our European or Australian friends upload some fast moving footage.

[J.R. Hudson]

Bukkake

Change your Username please.

Thank you

[TotalX]

Not one FX1 advocate has displayed their examples. If they can not, then please don't waste time debating.

We want to see examples, not talk.

Thanks Barry for your examples.

[Barry_Green]

Let's be clear -- I don't mind finding out that I'm wrong if I am. I'd much rather have the truth be out there than worry about whether it makes me look like a fool -- Jarred's seen me in person, he *knows* I look like a fool already.

I've seen FX1 footage on a large-screen 1080i monitor, and it's *very* impressive for HD footage at a $3700 price point. But the point of this thread is for rendering DVD's. I have been unable to find any combination of settings/shots/circumstances that shows the FX1 as having an advantage when it comes to standard-def DVD release, or observed any circumstances where the FX1 looks better on a standard-def TV than an XL2 or DVX. What am I missing?

[Ranger]

Not one FX1 advocate has displayed their examples. If they can not, then please don't waste time debating.

We want to see examples, not talk.

SpecialK,

I haven't seen you post any examples, but yet that hasn't stopped you from "debating". Healthy and provocative discussion should be encouraged, not stifled by the fanboys (regardless of which camera/format they favor).

[J.R. Hudson]

Fanboys? ???

[Barry_Green]

Ranger's point is taken, "fanboy" is a term used to describe someone who sees-no-evil, hears-no-evil, speaks-no-evil about their chosen product, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Another term we've used for it in the past is "brand bigot".

[Ranger]

Fanboys? * ???
John,

It's one thing to be enthusiastic about a product or brand, but fanboy rhetoric (on both sides of the issue) can take it to an unhealthy extreme. *It discourages dialog. Like many, I too was excited about the announcement of the FX1/Z1, but I'm not that blinded by product loyalty that it impacts my ability to make an informed decision. *Barry's recent camera grabs coupled with Sony's marketing fiasco regarding price, lack of 24p, MPEG2 issues and a confusing feature set has caused me to seriously reconsider buying the Z1 in February 05.

[LoveHD]

FX1 and the Z1U has its place in the consumer and pro world. It can be used in same situation where standard miniDV was used but I mean it is just a misstake to compare the Sony FX1 with other SD-camcorders in a typical SD enviroment using typical SD-related software and hardware. As you mentioned, there is HDV and SD 24p or 25p.

To edit, down-convert and encode a ts2 to mpg2 just using Vegas has its limitations. But what do we want from a software for ~ $559,-. It is a very good NLE and made the life much easyer for many of us. But it is what it is. Nothing more. There is software mpg encoders for more then 3 times the prise of Vegas. Not to mention hardware encoders. This is the same for the down-converter in Vegas. It does an acceptable job but it isn't the best for this job. If you would like to down-convert HD or HDV to SD than Thomson, Tandberg, Snell & Wilcox and others have hardware to do this. I know it is an other prise class and we have to use what we got but than it is a litle bit not fair to make statments like it isn't sharp , it can not be used ... it is ..... etc. FX1 has its place in the home-video market and in low budget tv productions. Many high-end flat displays already come with very sophisticated signal processing systems. It means you can watch your 1080i down-converted to 720p at home. If you deliver footage to a broadcaster than they already has equipment to convert the video to what they need.

The film industry are using sopfisticated equipments and softwares to make these DVDs we are watching at home. And I guess we can be agre, the 35mm film is just a perfect media. They are using what it needs to make the DVD.

[J.R. Hudson]

I dig you Ranger and I was being a bit mischievious (sp?)

Am I the fan of the DVX100 ? Hell yes. Is there anything on the market yet that warrants me (personally) buying another camera? No.

When that times comes, whether it be Sony, Canon or Panasonic (something tells me it will be the PANI DVX2) I will upgrade.

One thing to be the fan and yet another to be myopic.

I see your point.

[Barry_Green]

There are certainly better tools out there than what I'm using, that's for sure. But I think that the method/path I described and attempted is probably pretty typical for a large percentage of users of this site, and of DVX/XL2/FX1 buyers in general. Most of them won't have access to dedicated MPEG encoders, etc... this is a community of filmmakers and event/wedding shooters and the like, who are making their living (or are dreaming about making their living) shooting films, commercials, videos, weddings, etc. And they're pretty much all using Vegas, FCP, or Avid on the desktop.

Yes you are correct -- there may be expensive tools out there that can do the job better, so this test cannot be viewed as absolutely conclusive for all circumstances, although I do think it's a reasonable approximation of what most desktop video producers are going to encounter. Certainly the last word hasn't been written yet (we're barely past the first paragraph!)

[jnolla]

I love this site more so for the objectivity and knowledege of many!

I have posted once before and here is the dilema: We have preorder (2) HRV-Z1U, and one HVR-M10U. We have also preorder a AJA Kona-2 HD/SD capture card from Promax. Nedless to say we are very excited about entering the Video Production market.

I need guidence, that it's objective! Not biased! Though myself personally like to think I'm buying the latest and greatest, as business man I must be objective, otherwise I'm just building a house foundation of pure sand!

For what I've been reading, and a couple of presentations I have participated from AJA, and others vendors, I feel I'm making a good decision.

We want the best DVD quality bottom line, whether on film look, or regular video look! But the problem we encounter is most of our clients are people looking for the cream of the crop stuff! Thought I want the XL2, and feel it's a better built camera at this point, talking HD will surely bring a very effective marketing strategy no matter what!

Now have you played a DVD, on an HD TV, such as Samsungs DLP HD TV's? No matter how hard I tried to up-convert the image, there was still a lot to be desired!

I don't think this will be the case with new Sony cameras! Now, given they might not be as good as the DVX, which in fact has a beautiful picture! But talking business sense, from a business man orientated perspective, HDV from sony will be an easy sell!!

We plan to buy a HD plasma monitor from Media West Group in Schaumburg IL, where we received a wonderful presentation, and we plan to present HDV footage and compare it to DV to our customers. This should give us an advantage over anyone on the market who is on DV!

Now we plan to up-convert to Uncompressed HD, and get the best quality when mixing: Photoshop, Motion, and After Effects. This should surely give us an advantage over other event videographers!

Please! I just wrote our business plan, not fact, nor opinion! I will like to hear from all the people on this forum who make objective arguments based on their experience, both in business and in the video/film industry.

P.S. When down converting footage: the image captured in the HDV cameras can also be cropped, and still give you full res on DVD, allowing you to manipulate video as you would a photo on photoshop. I'm I right?

Thanks! 8)

[nateweaver]

Guys, come on.

I'm one of the biggest proponents on the DVX. 2 years ago, when everybody on 2-Pop was screaming that 24P was hype, I was posting finished music videos and showing them it wasn't. I even have some of my work on the Panasonic DVX demo DVD.

I was just trying to point out that the stills Barry posted should not be considered the last word on this. The FX1 obviously has lots of foibles and pitfalls, but I felt that the FX1 has more to offer on this matter of pure resolution going to SD.

I have my own DVX, and the FX1. I'll see if I can't post some of my own stuff if time permits...work life is very busy these days.

Also Barry, I saw in your Photoshop downres a hint of the "hidden res", but not to the degree I'm purporting. I'll look more later...

Best,
NW

[TotalX]

Quote from Ranger- the thread " Sony HDV ok"

What’s next from the "glass is half empty" choir? *
*
* The FX1/Z1 causes cancer in children?
* HDV will burn out your computer hard drive and processor? *
* Sony molests puppies and steals Social Security checks from your grandma?
* The compressed audio from the FX1 has been proven to cause permanent damage to your ear drums?

For each of the points you listed in your post, I could have easily made the same weak argument back in the mid/late 90's with the arrival of DV. *Same blather, just a different format.

Who are you trying convince more of the perceived eventual failure of HD(V) … other forum visitors or yourself?

Enjoy SD!



Armyboy:

You don't think I remember what you said on another thread? Jeez, fanboy?!?! Give me a break.
The onus is not on me to prove the capabilities of the FX1
(this is a DVX forum) but on the FX1 "fanboys".

Hell, you just said you don't even own the camera and you defended it like you did? Who took the debate the wrong way?

As I said in an earlier post, I would be the first one to buy the FX1 if the look and resolution was there. I am glad I didn't waste my money and relied on the expertise of the forum leaders here.

Thanks again Barry!!

[Barry_Green]

Nate has been around a long time, I remember Nate from the early days at 2-pop.

Nate, understand what I'm saying -- I know the FX1 slays in resolution in HD mode, but I cannot find any way to make that "stick" when downrezzed. If you do, please let me know -- I'd much rather be factual than be "proven right", if you know what I mean. That's why I documented my methodology, so that others could decipher and point out what I did wrong, if anything. From my perspective I believe I've done it about as well as it can be done with desktop tools.

jnolla: you have the right idea, but I think you're not necessarily going to be able to execute your plan yet. There's a missing component in your plan, which is: there is no HD delivery medium. There's no way you can give high-def imagery to your customers (unless it's a specific computer DVD-ROM playing a Windows Media 9 file). That's why this whole thread exists: because the delivery medium available to us is DVD, so we're trying to determine if the FX1 provides an advantage for DVD production.

Everyone, let's try to keep the discussion civil, it could easily go south. As Nate pointed out, people were very emotional about the 24P thing, many proclaiming it was a gimmick, it didn't work, blah blah blah, and I think more than a few of them were worried that they were somehow obsolete. In the last two years I think it's been satisfactorily proven that 24P is the real deal. So let's not stick our heads in the sand, let's find out what the truth is. If the truth is that something new is better, then the sooner we get on that train, rather than whining about how the train is leaving us behind, the better off we'll be.

So, again: as near as I can tell, the FX1 is not delivering any benefit as compared to the DVX or XL2 for standard-def DVD production. And it does, for DVD production, represent a step backwards in a few ways (no 24P, no XLR's, etc). For HD production it is a big leap forward. For DVD production, I have been unable to determine *any* advantage yet. I believe this is significant, since DVD will be (IMHO) the preferred delivery medium for several years to come, and there will doubtless be many new camcorder innovations upon us before HD-DVD becomes a major factor in distribution, which gives SD producers plenty of time to sit back and evaluate.

If the FX1 represents a big leap forward for DVD production, that's a significant development. I haven't seen it. I'd like to see it if it exists. If someone else can demonstrate the improvement, that'd be great. Barring that, I've got tons of footage here, so if someone wants to describe a workflow that will reveal the benefit, I'd be glad to try it.

[Ranger]

Armyboy:

You don't think I remember what you said on another thread? Jeez, fanboy?!?! Give me a break.
The onus is not on me to prove the capabilities of the FX1
(this is a DVX forum) but on the FX1 "fanboys".

Hell, you just said you don't even own the camera and you defended it like you did? Who took the debate the wrong way?

Armyboy?? Ha Ha Ha ... that's cool by me. Better that than some fanboy.

If you closely examine my posts you'll realize that I was not so much defending the FX1's performance as much as I was railing against all the unfair vitriol labeled against this camera. The FX1/Z1 and HDV is relatively new technology and as such has not been given sufficient time for adequate and thorough testing and extensive user feedback. I still remain hopeful that the Sony will have some redeeming factors to possibly justify a purchase, but that doesn’t mean I subordinate my good judgment out of some strange sense of product loyalty. There is a distinction between the two.

Oh, and as far as who has the “onus” of proving the capabilities of the FX1 … well, my response to that is neither side should have any onus placed upon them. Why can’t we as forum participants simply lay out the facts – pro or con – and let the chips fall as they may without all the brand zealotry? It’s just a video camera.

Exhibit A: A former Fanboy (RIP)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/data//500/30743Ray-Charles-DVX.jpg

v/r
Armyboy

[Ranger]

Guys, come on.

I'm one of the biggest proponents on the DVX. 2 years ago, when everybody on 2-Pop was screaming that 24P was hype, I was posting finished music videos and showing them it wasn't. I even have some of my work on the Panasonic DVX demo DVD.

I was just trying to point out that the stills Barry posted should not be considered the last word on this. The FX1 obviously has lots of foibles and pitfalls, but I felt that the FX1 has more to offer on this matter of pure resolution going to SD.

Nate, I'm with you brother. I too also considered many of the points you brought up, specifically whether the degradation in quality from HDV to SD was the result of the down conversion program (i.e. Vegas) or coming directly from limitations within the MPEG2 footage. I'm not sure what the right answer is.

Thanks for adding a fresh and different perspective to this discussion.

[SamEdwards]

Hi Guys,
I think there are a few advantages of the FX1 that haven't been brought up here yet.
The first one is the ability to correct your your compositions. It's great to have all of that extra rez to play around with in post. Have you seen how the DVX looks when you want to zoom in even a little?
The second is the shelf life of your projects. I hate to say it but a day will come when anything Standard Definition is going to look like VHS does today. People are going to get used to HDTV quality.
Barry, thanks for all of your hard work.
Cheers,
Sam

[Shaw]

Barry, one question about the methods used for the testing:

Why not set the aperture the same on all three cameras? It's hard to judge much when each has a different aperture setting. Did I just misunderstand how you did the test?

Don't get me wrong even without using the same aperture it is pretty clear what cameras have the greatest latitude. I think you would need to point out what you were exposing for in the images though if you don't keep the aperture the same on all three cameras. That would help us tell more about the images.

[Barry_Green]

If you closely examine my posts you'll realize that I was not so much defending the FX1's performance as much as I was railing against all the unfair vitriol labeled against this camera. *The FX1/Z1 and HDV is relatively new technology and as such has not been given sufficient time for adequate and thorough testing and extensive user feedback. *I still remain hopeful that the Sony will have some redeeming factors to possibly justify a purchase, but that doesn’t mean I subordinate my good judgment out of some strange sense of product loyalty. *
Ranger, I agree completely. *That's exactly the way I feel.


Why not set the aperture the same on all three cameras?
Er, because that would have resulted in completely incorrect exposure on one or the others. *They're not in the same class as far as sensitivity. *We used the zebras to set basically proper exposure, and that meant very different apertures. *In the Grand Central Terminal shot, we couldn't get adequate exposure on the FX1 -- it was wide-open, that's as bright as the camera was capable of without resorting to gain.

The goal was to get proper exposure on each camera at 0db. *When you see a different aperture, that's a reflection of each camera's relative sensitivity. It's like of you were shooting with 400ASA film in one camera and 100ASA in the other -- setting the same aperture is just going to ruin one of the shots.

[alpi69]

barry and jarred, thanks for the time. i seriously considered the Z1 even without having any HD(V) output yet. but even if it would give a slight advantage when downrezzed (your results are very subjective to the viewer) that advantage is definitely not big enough to justify all the hassle that comes with HDV at the moment.
- upgrade PC - upgrade NLE - downconverting, cos their is no output option yet etc.

in 12-18 months many of us will use HDV (or something similar) and the good thing about Sony´s cams is the pricetag which forces the rest to stay "low" too. HDV will find its way to my studio once the consumer can watch it. for now i am able to convince the customers that there is no HDV in real life yet. once they can buy a HD-DVD player things will change. broadcasters will stay away for a while anyway (at least in europe). they show stuff in HD, but they cannot throw out all their millions of SD hardware (cams and editing) so they will also accept our SD stuff.

this thread shows that technology always loses against practicability IMO. using an FX1 for SD-DVD is simply not worth it, even IF (a big IF) you like the FX1 image a little (a small little) more.

[Neil Rowe]

I think barry an jarred have only done some excellent and truely objective work to simply offer as purely objective information so that other would be consumers can educate themselves on some of the questions they may have before purchasing. he has not been biased or unfair, and has told it like it is.. we ALL want it to be the best cam ever.. ..for some it may be.. for others it will not. just because you may not like some of barry and jarreds info doesnt mean its biased and incorrect- and i havent seen a single indicator to even hint that it would be biased in the least.


this camera will make many people very happy, and to many others it is a waste of time.. it is one and the same.. joe wants to eat salad and i give him a fork.. yeah! joe is happy. sally wants to eat soup and i give her a fork.. oh no ! sally is sad.. same tool. good for joe .. not good for sally. joe cannot tell sally that its the right choice for her, and sally cannot tell joe that its not right for him.

i would encourage anyone to simply take information like barrys and jarreds and other credible and unbiased scources and make an educated purchasing descision. becuase simply wanting the camera to be either better or worse than what it really is, or capeable of more or less than what it really is... only changes your mind.. not the camera.

[TotalX]

If you closely examine my posts you'll realize that I was not so much defending the FX1's performance as much as I was railing against all the unfair vitriol labeled against this camera. *The FX1/Z1 and HDV is relatively new technology and as such has not been given sufficient time for adequate and thorough testing and extensive user feedback. *I still remain hopeful that the Sony will have some redeeming factors to possibly justify a purchase, but that doesn’t mean I subordinate my good judgment out of some strange sense of product loyalty. *There is a distinction between the two

The "unfair vitriol" that you so like to label - I would call it obeservation - my post did start with "Sony Camera OK" - was actually from 1st hand observations ( from the DV EXPO West) from forum members ( not the extensive tests from Barry) of the camera that eventually came true.

I looked closely at your statement and it doesn't look like you are taking a neutral stance. Some strange stance of being "on the other" side just for the sake of being there. We were all trying to share our obeservations and you came in with this strange angle of attack. I am sure if Barry said the FX1 was the bomb, I would be the first one with my credit card online.

But, I will drop it and do agree with some points *Ranger made:

Why can’t we as forum participants simply lay out the facts – pro or con – and let the chips fall as they may without all the brand zealotry? *It’s just a video camera.

[TotalX]

Guys, come on.

I was just trying to point out that the stills Barry posted should not be considered the last word on this. The FX1 obviously has lots of foibles and pitfalls, but I felt that the FX1 has more to offer on this matter of pure resolution going to SD.

INW


It is not the last word or meant as such. It all depends on who is on the other end of the camera - anyway. I would be interested to see your stills since no one has posted one - other than Barry.

For me, it saved me from buying the camera and waiting. I can use the HDV quality in my DVD videos, but if I can't tell the difference...then certainly my customers can not as well.
Or, unless someone comes up with another example.

[J.R. Hudson]

I think barry an jarred have only done some excellent and truely objective work to simply offer as purely objective information so that other would be consumers can educate themselves on some of the questions they may have before purchasing. he has not been biased or unfair, and has told it like it is.. we ALL want it to be the best cam ever.. ..for some it may be.. for others it will not. just because you may not like some of barry and jarreds info doesnt mean its biased and incorrect- and i havent seen a single indicator to even hint that it would be biased in the least.


*this camera will make many people very happy, and to many others it is a waste of time.. it is one and the same.. * * joe wants to eat salad and i give him a fork.. yeah! joe is happy. * sally wants to eat soup and i give her a fork.. * oh no ! sally is sad.. * *same tool. * good for joe .. not good for sally. * * *joe cannot tell sally that its *the right choice for her, and sally cannot tell joe that its not right for him. *

i would encourage anyone to simply take information like barrys and jarreds and other credible and unbiased scources and make an educated purchasing descision. *becuase simply wanting the camera to be either better or worse than what it really is, or capeable of more or less than what it really is... only changes your mind.. not the camera.

What iof it's Chunky Brand Soup? :D

[Neil Rowe]

..cmon now, who really eats that stuff. .. chunky soup.. bah!

[Barry_Green]

Definitely not the last word. *Like I said in an earlier post, this is really only the opening paragraph. *It'll be a year or two before we'll really be able to get to the bottom of all ramifications and implications. *This is the opening of the discussion, not the conclusion of it.

Now, regarding the assertion that downrezzing from a higher-rez source to a lower-rez standard will produce superior results to using the native standard in the first place: I've been thinking about this, and I think I can demonstrate why it isn't true.

As longtime readers of my posts will recognize, I usually like to use the extreme to illustrate a point. *This doesn't reflect a real-world example, but by using an extreme example it can be illustrated why your real-world tests may not come out the way you thought they would.

Let's take a couple of givens: by the time the image is rendered in the frame, a DV image (or DVD image) will be a grid of pixels, 720 x 480. *An HDV image will be a grid of pixels 1440 x 1080. *For DVD release or for SD broadcast, one would have to down-rez that 1440 x 1080 down to 720 x 480. *Some are arguing that the downrezzed image should be superior to the native image, but my testing is showing it not to be the case. *Why?

Okay, think about it this way. *Let's take the ultimate example of DV resolution. *Let's pretend that you shot a checkerboard pattern, and you lined up and framed the shot so exactly perfectly that the frame in the camera ended up being a pixel-for-pixel checkerboard pattern. *The frame in the camera would look like this:
http://www.icexpo.com/DVCheckerboard.JPG

(note this represents a small extraction of the full 720x480 frame). *Every other pixel would be black, every other pixel would be white.

Now, let's assume we shot the identical same frame on the HDV camera. *Seeing as the HDV camera has 1440 horizontal, or exactly twice as much horizontal pixels for the same perceived physical measurement in space, you would expect (and indeed get) an alternating series of two black pixels, then two white pixels. *It'd look something like this:
http://www.icexpo.com/HDVCheckerboard.JPG

(note we're being generous to the HDV camera for the sake of example here: because it has 1440 vs. 720 per line, it would indeed be exactly a 2:1 ratio on the horizontal. *But because it's 1080 vertical vs. 480, it would *not* be exactly 2:1 on the vertical. *Which means the downrez will be even less accurate in practice than in theory, but for our theory here we'll pretend it's 960 and call it "close enough").

Now, to downrez to standard-def, the HDV frame will have to be sampled and converted, from 1440 x 1080 (or 960 in our example) down to 720 x 480. *What does it look like when you downrez 1440x960 down to 720x480?

http://www.icexpo.com/HDVDownrezCheckerboard.JPG

(That's the results from a PhotoShop downrez.) *Looks pretty good, right? *But... are the edges softer? Has there been a loss of detail? Let’s zoom in and see how crisp and sharp the edges are:
http://www.icexpo.com/HDVDownrezMagnified.JPG

They're not. *There's rounding errors. *There's averaging that goes on. *There's approximation.

That's the way downrezzing works. *You don't get the checkerboard, you get an approximation of pixel averaging, trying to keep all the data from all the pixels and making every pixel "count" towards the end goal. *The only way you could get an accurate checkerboard pattern would be if your resize used a simple pixel decimation technique, throwing away 50% of the horizontal and 50% of the vertical pixels (which would only work for a strict checkerboard pattern, and wouldn't work so well on other types of images). *Then you have to factor in that decimation wouldn't account for the 1080 to 480 conversion -- you *have* to have some pixel-averaging system going on. *And when pixels are averaged together, detail is lost. *Guaranteed.

Let's put it to another type of test, taking into account the difference between 1080 and 960: I made a 1440x1080 grid, filled with a checkerboard pattern of pixels 2x2. *Then downrezzed that to 720x480. *Here's a blowup of what PhotoShop actually delivers, taking into account the difference in height that results because 480 is not half of 1080:
http://www.icexpo.com/HDVRealDownrez.JPG

Now, the counter-argument goes, why does SDX900 footage look so much better on DVD than DVX footage? *Obviously because the SDX, a much superior camera, can do a much more accurate representation to its frame than the DVX can. *The real question would be, using the same glass, would a CineAlta do a better job on DVD than an SDX900 would? *Would a $100,000 HDCAM camera deliver a better final image on DVD than a $25,000 camera? *Using the same glass?

My assertion, based on this study and these theories, is that no, it would not. *The SDX would make a better looking final image on DVD than the CineAlta would, because the SDX would use the same glass but would deliver a final 720x480 frame that would be more accurate than a downrezzed 1440x1080 frame from the CineAlta (HDCAM is imaged at 1920x1080 but recorded to tape as 1440x1080).

A CineAlta would probably make a better-looking DVD image than a DVX would, because the camera head is so much better that it would probably survive the downrez process better than native DVX. *But the SDX is such a better camera head than the DVX that I propose that it would deliver a better-looking DVD image than downrezzed CineAlta.

And so it is with the DVX/FX1. *The FX1 appears to be a comparable camera head, comparable lens etc. to the DVX... certainly in DV mode the FX1 is no better than the DVX. *So downrezzing FX1 footage does not hold up as well as DVX or XL2 footage.

That's my theory, anyway. *Mouth is now wide open, my foot positioned right in front, waiting for to be shoved in by someone proving this theory wrong...

[nateweaver]

So maybe the answer is that there's a very good looking analog downres going on when I view the NTSC output of the FX1, but there's no good way I'll be able to make that happen in a computer.

Like I said, hopefully I'll be able to make it happen soon and compare to the DVX.

Office moves suck.

[Brett_Erskine]

Barry I agree. I USED to think that starting with a higher resolution image would make for a better down converted image but it doesnt always. Heres why I USED to believed that and perhaps why many others do as well:

1)If we are talking about a digital captured image (video camera) then they reason why CineAlta footage looks better than DVX footage after the down convert is because of many factors but by far the largest is the quality of that CCD and what ratio it compresses the image by. 4:4:4, 4:2:2, etc. We can see the huge difference by looking at uncompressed frame grabs out of a DVX via the www.Reel-Stream.com system. When uncompressed our CCD deliver images that are still SD but have a incredibly larger latitude range than before and you know thoughs jagged edges on high contrast shapes that we hate....GONE. The improvement is so dramatic you would think that your arent working with merely SD images anymore when in fact they still are...just in their pure/highest quality form.

Basically my point is COMPRESSION is the main reason why we notice a increase in quality with these 100,000 HD cameras over our SD DVX cameras AFTER WE VIEW THE FOOTAGE ON DVD.

2)A SIMILAR but analog version of this point can be seen when we look at the superior format of 35mm after its been telecined. Most of that great latitude and res you get from 35mm survives the down res process to SD DVD. Also film is just physically different than digitally captured images when it comes to resolution. To prove this take 16mm. I think we can all agree that its higher resolution than what a SD DVD can provide. So if its better than DVD resolution then the first thought is that there is no advantage to shooting 35mm then if you just wanted to make a DVD in the end. One would think yes. But if you have ever seen 35mm and 16mm telecined you will noticed that the 16mm footage is softer than the 35mm even though both are much high res than the DVD.

Film res cant be directly compared to digital res. "Apples and oranges".

Damn I said all of this stuff in the post that started this thread. Someone throw me a frickin' bone here. ;)

[nateweaver]

Film res cant be directly compared to digital res. "Apples and oranges".


I disagree, especially when film is transferred to video on a telecine.

Having worked with film for years, I can CLEARLY see the difference between 16mm and 35mm telecine xfers. It's never guesswork for a film DP to identify which format was used.

In the end, getting the FX1 stuff to downconvert and hold the extra res may be more than it's worth with the tools we all have.

My 10+ years of film experience knows that the FX1 CAN look better than what we've seen...

[Barry_Green]

But film to video is a very different process, entirely and completely different than digitally downrezzing an existing digital source.

If you take the example of the old rank telecine, it was effectively a video camera, shooting an image of the reality that was presented to it, which is a 35mm film frame. *So the camera/CCD in the telecine was scanning/shooting an image that was pristine and clear, and so it did the best job it could with it.

To further complicate matters, the quality of SD you get from your film footage depends on how you transfer it. *A Spirit or a Millennium will do a lot better job than an old Rank will. *I've got Rank'd 16mm film footage shot at the same time and the same place as DVX footage, and the DVX looks "as good" or perhaps even "better", as relates to sharpness and clarity. *That may not have been the case had I had it transferred on a Millennium. *Which is the same argument as before: the SDX is comparable to the Millennium whereas the DVX would be the rough equivalent of the Rank, so obviously the SD image from the SDX will look better, just like the film transferred from the Millennium would look better.

Now, the test that would make this analagous to what we're exploring here would be: can you telecine film to SD resolution, and then telecine that same film on that same system at HD resolution, and then after you downrez that HD image to SD, will it look better on DVD than the SD telecine footage? *I suspect that it won't. *

[Brett_Erskine]

Nate Weaver-
Take another look at my post and you'll see that we actually agree with each other. You simply misread my post. I was indeed saying that you can tell the difference between 16mm and 35mm when telecined and finally put to DVD. In fact here. This is my quote you should have responded to:

"But if you have ever seen 35mm and 16mm telecined you will noticed that the 16mm footage is softer than the 35mm even though both are much high(er) res than the DVD."

Besides this isnt a issue about film. That was only used as one extreme example to better explain one of my points.

The effect of compression on this issue is what I was trying to throw around. I'd like to hear what people think of this issue. Do you agree or disagree?

[Anhar_Miah]

I was just wondering, and after reading some of these posts it has hit me that Barry has used Vegas (and he also mentioned that he let the FX1 do the hdv to DV on the fly) but anyhow, i do remember that when the JVC HD10 came out and Barry had done some side by side testing and upressed some DVX footage which did not hold up too well, however Barry then upressed it again (DVX) using S-spline pro (i think) and it did a much better job.

Beacsue of this i was wondering if maybe Vegas is not the best scaler/resampler to use?

I'm in no way saying Barry's test are wrong, but.. from what i've seen (CF25 s-video to my SD PAL TV it was very good, {now i would love to have some raw dvx DV files and run the same test for my self})

[Barry_Green]

I don't believe that Vegas is the be-all, end-all as far as scaling goes. *It is much better than Premiere 6.0, and it appears to do a better job than FCP (from what I have heard but not experienced) and it appears to do a better job than the camera itself does. *It seems to do a job pretty comparable to PhotoShop.

Yes, I found up-rezzing (which is a whole different story, by the way) in Vegas wasn't nearly as competitive as up-rezzing in S-Spline Pro. *(I also tried to up-rez DVX footage to 1440x1080 to compare against FX1, and so far the results have been not competitive). *S-Spline is designed to offer the best up-rezzing, and it does a great job, better than Vegas does. *For downrezzing, I don't know... again, I chose Vegas for the reasons listed above, including a) I had it, and b) Spot says it does wonders. *And it does appear to do almost as good as dedicated PhotoShop, which is saying something.

Next time I get ahold of an FX1 I'll re-capture some tiny clips and post the .m2t files so you guys can play with the same raw footage I've been working with, and see if you can deliver different results.

[xander76]

Barry,

I agree with your instinct that downrezing HD footage will result in lower quality footage than SD footage given the same camera quality, but I think there might be a slight error in your Photoshop experiment. After downrezing the first HD checkerboard frame, you got an SD checkerboard frame that you "zoomed in on" to determine if the downrez was soft or not. If the image was really a pixel-by-pixel checkerboard, though, you wouldn't be able to zoom in, and the downrez wouldn't have those thin lines of gray around the squares because the whole square would consist of just one pixel. Or am I missing something?

BTW, I bought a 42" Panasonic plasma EDTV two years ago after a reviewer I respect said that DVDs looked better on Panasonic's EDTV (which has 480 horizontal lines - exactly the same as DVDs) than they did on Panasonic's HDTV (with 720 lines).

[Anhar_Miah]

I just remembered something, i read some where that when donrezing HD to SD indeed you do get slight softing, however i think their remedy was to apply a slight softing filter to the HD video first before the downrez that apparently kept the sharpness.. apparently all the pro harware have all these filters built in.

Another trick is step resizing, donrez in 10% increments untill you get to your target rez, its an old photograhic (digital image) trick (so i've been told).

[Bukkake]

I dunno know about you guys but of all of Barry's side-by-side comparisons of the different cameras, I actually like the picture quality of the downrezzed FX1 footage. It looks more filmic than the others, although I know you will argue that the DVX100 and XL2 have 24P. True. But a fairer test would be comparing it to the PAL FX1 either de-interlacing the 50i or shooting CF25.

Back to the picture quality. If you ever step through a Hollywood DVD, you will notice the DVD picture, while cleaner, the edges also appear soft, yet somehow it still appears sharp. While the DVX and XL2 appear sharper than the FX1 footage, remember that downrezzing from HD to SD, you will naturally get a softer image, since any pre-filtering done in camera gets reduced once downrezzed. For instance, sharpening halos get reduced to 50%, noise and edge artifacts also get reduced, so while fx1 footage looks softer, it actually will look better than straight out of the cam SD footage.

The one thing I noticed about the DVX and XL2 footage, is that they appear sharpened, even if the settings were in the middle or turned-off, the image appears decidedly still very video-ish.

And regarding the low light capabilities of the cameras, the DVX is pretty noisy and its default settings may even have built-in gain, which I must surmise when looking at how damn noisy the picture is. A better comparison would be to shoot a low light scene so they appear similar on all the cameras, even if it means you need to shoot with gain-up on the FX1 to arrive at the same brightness level. Compare the final images and check for noise, sharpness and detail. What would it matter if the FX1 was using F1.6 with +12dB gain and the images came out sharp and noise-free than if the DVX100's image came out to the same brightness at f4.0 / No gain, but was riddled with noise?

Again, keeping what I said in mind, looking at the pictures, it's pretty clear to me the quality of the downrezzed FX1 looks a whole lot better than either DVX100 or XL2.

[ykkok]

But Barry,

I think your illustration for the HD CCD SD acquisition is incorrect.

For a typical 720:

WBWB
BWBW
WBWB

For HD, it shouldn't be:

WWBBWWBB
BBWWBBWW
WWBBWWBB
BBWWBBWW

But instead, it should be:

WBWBWBWB
BWBWBWBW
WBWBWBWB
BWBWBWBW

W = White Pixel
B = Black Pixel

I think, which this, it'll yield different result under photoshop.

Sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong.

[Barry_Green]

Well, no, I'm thinking that if you were imaging a checkerboard that was of such detail that the DV camera would get exactly one pixel per block, then the HD camera (which packs twice as many pixels on to each line, and twice as many lines into each frame) should render each black pixel as a block of four black pixels, and each white pixel as a block of four white pixels. The white and black squares on the checkerboard are the same physical size, but the HD camera has 4x as much resolution so it would render each block using 4 pixels.

Does that make sense?

[jpgentry]

I have a DVX100a, never seen our touched a FX1 or XL2. *That said...

In the first example (60i at the terminal) the Sony is too underexposed to be fair. *It should have some gain added. *The DVX exibits a high level of grain especially in the womans black coat. *The other two are far less grainy. *Winner in IMAGE QUALITY- Cannon (or possibly sony if gain was increased.)

In the second example (ice skating rink) the framing is too far off to be able to tell anything constructive here but I notice that the sony and DVX are very similar in color in these cinegamma settings and the Cannon's setting is much less attractive. *The Sony seems to have better contrast than the others and the blacks are not crushed but I would describe them as rich. *In this comparison we can only compare color becuase of the framing problems and I like the gamma settings of the DVX and Sony.

In the third example which to me is the kicker the Sony and Canon are simply on another page than the DVX. *The shadow in the tunnel on the DVX image is so grainy. *The sony shows again the rich color comparable to the DVX and the canon's color is not as attractive. *Again framing on each camera is slightly different with different levels of zoom. *I give the clear edge in this third comparison to the Canon and Sony with the edge to Sony overall for the nice color similar to the DVX.

Sorry my take is different than everyone else but I can assure you that it's not biased since if anything I would like to lean toward the DVX since I have it.

The next thing to compare are video clips so we can see these cameras move the frames to get the real test.

-Jonathan

P.S. If we're going to compare frame grabs the frames must be identical with the same shot and level of zoom or else it's a throw away. *The other thing is that if we are testing image clarity we should have no moving parts in the picture like leaves, people, etc... distant letters, tree trunks and buildings are good.

[jpgentry]

It looks to me like if you're going to use the DVX you better have proper lighting. *Has anyone found a way to remove the grain like we can do in digital photo images? *I see that as the biggest problem with the DVX not resolution, though it does appear to have slightly less resolution than the others based on the letters at the train terminal.

[NewBee]

Barry,

Outdoors, the XL2 definitely seems to produce a more pleasing picture ( to my eye at least ). Is there anything that could be tweaked in camera on the DVX to improve the color? On the XL2, the grass is greener, the fall foliage doesn't look so red. To my eye ( that of an aspiring Nature Videographer ), the aesthetics of the XL2 are better ...

[Anhar_Miah]

oh, gosh have we opened a can of video worms here!,

lets just say they are all great video producing cams, with excellent tweakability.. and in the end the camera that is best for you is the one looks good to you (they are all about the same-ish)

DVX's stick with what you have if you staying SD
XL2'ers stick with what you have if your staying SD
FX1's stick with what you have, SD is good enough, and you have the HD option when it becomes viable(if not already)

Of course no two people will always percieve the same thing the same way.

[Barry_Green]

Oh, you can do just about anything you want to the color in the DVX, or any of these cameras really. There are so many options for color and contrast and detail in the DVX that you could write a book about 'em. The XL2 has almost as many options; the FX1 has the least, but still a tremendous amount.

You shouldn't judge any of these pictures on color or contrast simply because you can make the color look like anything you want it to. In the DVX I was able to simulate a dozen Magic Bullet looks IN-CAMERA; that's how extensive the image controls are.

[NewBee]

Totally, awesome ... Is it safe to assume you covered this in the DVX book? Damn, I still need to order tha bugga ...

Thanks !!

[Barry_Green]

The book covers all the menu settings, and the DVD shows them in action and what they do. And there's also a section on the DVD that demonstrates them emulating/simulating the Magic Bullet looks.

[NewBee]

Thanks Barry,

Apologies for my Silly/Uninformed "NewBie" statements and questions ;D I will get my Money Order in the mail to you tomorrow.

[Barry_Green]

There's nothing silly at all about what you're asking! And the only reason you can consider yourself "uninformed" is because you're new, like we all were/are. But welcome to the community!

[Jollo_Randi]

Thanks Barry for all the info...
I do have a question for you if your lurking around. Did you have any problems (i.e..police) while shooting inside Grand Central?? I've found it diffucult to get stock shots inside any
NY train station without someone coming up to me saying you can't shoot here. Thanks again for all the work!

[Barry_Green]

We had permission from the GCT's management. Yes the police came to check us out several times, but we had asked for and received permission and had insurance and everything, so it all went smoothly.

[jnolla]

How about downconversion with the AJA Kona2 Card? According to AJA's rep, you would get broadcast quality downconversion!

What difference does something like that make?

By the way, you guys at DVXuser, are awesome; great source of info! ::)

[Barry_Green]

I don't have access to that hardware, so I couldn't comment. I believe Jarred has more HD gear than I do, perhaps he has it and could run the test?

[ivan]

thanks a lot for that test barry and jarred!
this thread reminds me a bit of the pc vs. mac ones ;)
in my opinion its nice to have this hdv camcorders... like its nice to have hdv screens... i dont know how large the hd market is in the us.. but here in europe there´s still none...
the question is: who needs this?
i think the market for the fx1 is the private user who´s got a 42" plasma on his wall and wants his private videos to look better than with his dv cam...
for shure there are a lot of gadgetlovers who just need to have this thing, cause of its superiority by numbers... and there are the low budged film and video producers who want just the best quality/price/timeneed relation... if you need just sd output quality then why invest money in a hd system? there´s no need for an additional 5% sharpness... the content should be so interesting, that the ordinary viewer does not say: that picture quality is not the best that was possible... if they just invested some thousands of dollars and some more time, this would be graet... so its just usual...
for me there is no need for hd recording until there are enough hd screens for the playback... and then there will be good consumer hd cams.... hopefully with flash-storage

just my thoughts..

cheers

[jpgentry]

thanks a lot for that test barry and jarred!
this thread reminds me a bit of the pc vs. mac ones ;)
in my opinion its nice to have this hdv camcorders... like its nice to have hdv screens... i dont know how large the hd market is in the us.. but here in europe there´s still none...
the question is: who needs this?
i think the market for the fx1 is the private user who´s got a 42" plasma on his wall and wants his private videos to look better than with his dv cam...
for shure there are a lot of gadgetlovers who just need to have this thing, cause of its superiority by numbers... and there are the low budged film and video producers who want just the best quality/price/timeneed relation... if you need just sd output quality then why invest money in a hd system? there´s no need for an additional 5% sharpness... the content should be so interesting, that the ordinary viewer does not say: that picture quality is not the best that was possible... if they just invested some thousands of dollars and some more time, this would be graet... so its just usual...
for me there is no need for hd recording until there are enough hd screens for the playback... and then there will be good consumer hd cams.... hopefully with flash-storage

just my thoughts..

cheers

That's why the images that are displayed for the sony and the discussion of this thread are output to DVD. We have a practical comparison in a format everyone will use.

[Multi-Media]

I can speak from the experience of one who has made the transition from doing wide screen 35mm slide shows through 16mm... Betacam... Hi Def and finally to DV...
and probably most relevantly, for years of preparing graphics for both video and print. It's all about pixels... and interpolation.
If you start with film, you have, (as Carl Sagen would say).. "billions and billions of" pixels, so you can pick just which 720 wide you want from which section of the film image.
This is why I still like to scan "to exact pixels required" from film as opposed to working from digital stills.
When you are in the digital realm and change the size or format of the image you are going to "throw away" pixels... So, whether it is every fifth pixel or every third pixel that gets discarded when you resize there is still info and "smootheness" being taken away. Most importantly, you have no control over how the program interpolates re-sizing the image data... some are better than others but if I'm scanning an image from film and it is appearing 4 1/2 inches wide in a print piece that is going to press at 300 dpi, you better believe I am going to scan it to exactly 1350 pixels wide to retain 1:1 sharpness in the final print material.
Therefore with a DVD project... it makes sense to shoot at 30 frames progressive scan if that's where it is going to live.
Happy New Year everyone... cheers
Dale

[Barry_Green]

Agreed.

[Ralph Oshiro]

For HD interlaced production it's no contest, the FX1 delivers the goods. *But for DVD release... I'm not seeing any advantage to the FX1 (other than a lower-noise signal), and I'd hate to give up real manual lens control, 7 gamma curves, 4 color matrices, real audio support, true 24P, true SMPTE time code, and all the other things the DVX does, just to get... what, a more expensive camera with worse low-light performance and lower latitude?Hey, I know this is an old thread, but I'm rethinking some things here . . . LOWER NOISE is the ONLY reason I'm thinking of buying the FX right now as my low-cost, native-16:9, interim camera until the 1/2" Sony XDCAM-HD camera ships next year. IF I'm okay CF24 and its compromises, is the FX the camera for my current requirements (over the HD100)? The biggest reason I DON'T want to shoot anything with my DVX100 anymore is that it's just too damn noisy!

[Spiff_2]

Okay, I'm an FX1 user - I'm just going to point out what the real advantages of the FX1 are for DVD down-conversion, and de-bunk a few of the arguments.

The biggest advantage for FX1 down-conversion is the superior colour sampling. The argument that it's "4:2:0 MPEG-2 to 4:2:0 MPEG-2" is rather silly... It's really: 1440x1080 4:2:0 MPEG-2 to 720x480 4:2:0 MPEG-2. There is more than enough resolution for that 1440x1080 4:2:0 to yield 4:4:4 720x480 footage. If you do an uncompressed down-convert of FX1 material to SD, and play back that uncompressed file, you will be VERY impressed by the sharpness of it. Compressing 4:4:4 SD to 4:2:0 SD will yield an optimal 4:2:0 image. In comparison, the DV 4:1:1 signal is basically compressed to 4:1:0 - fully HALF the colour information that could be available is missing.

Secondly, with respect to Barry's checkerboard picture and the discussion of rounding errors. While this is true in a sense, these errors can be taken care of by applying a simple sharpening filter. For any down-conversion you have to take into account that the bicubic down-conversion isn't a perfectly correct algorithm. Using a sharpening filter is the same as using sharpening on an analog LCD monitor to line up the pixels "exactly". The net effect is a nearly perfectly correct signal. Here's an illustration using the files Barry posted. The top of the image is the original, the bottom is an "optimally" sharpened down-conversion.
http://s94963366.onlinehome.us/sharp-downconv.png
If you can, imagine this applied to all the chroma channels, and you can see how 4:4:4 SD from HDV is not so much a fantasy as you'd think.

I've got nothing for lattitude and gamma complaints - these are real limitations of the camera - but NOT the HDV format. 8-bit colour is 8-bit colour. HDV won't reduce the lattitude in any way. Also, you've got an extra 16 shades or so in the super-white and super black to play with if you process the colour space correctly.

-Spiff

[Anhar Miah]

Barry, Nate and others.

After alot of testing and fudging it has finally come apparent to me and I must now make it clear...


I concede, Barry IS correct NO RESOLUTION advantage can be gained from downresing (AND I was the most biggest opponent of this, i.e always held the view that downresing would give a better picture)

However after all the testing I have come to two conclusion (exlcuding the above)

(1) Downresing quality depends heavily on the hardware/software used to do it, ITS EXACTLY the reason the BBC use an expensive Snell & Wilcox UKON to do the downconversion because in their tests the Z1 in camera downconversion did not yeild any better results.

My methods are (if using Vegas) then applying a Sharping filter (i do this becasue its acts like a filter to perserve some detail with out being averaged off, I heard that the pro's call it low pass filter) OR another method is this;

Play back your m2t (@ 1024*768, or as close to the native res as possible) using your TV card and redcord that SD signal either in DV (via passthrough) or some other capture equipment, I dont now why but my hunch is that the scaler in the TV card (mines anyway, is really good, I did a A/B of a DVD and looked so much sharper {eyeball test no actuall measure})

(2) As Spiff_2 has mentioned earlier colour sampling, hes probaly exaplined it better than me, (after all my previous ranting at least I found I was not alone)

The benefits are, Keying, and CC, not do mention DVD encoding.


OK hope that helps

Barry You where right after all :laugh: , but I'm glad I found the hard way because some good come out of it !! :happy:

Anhar

[Anhar Miah]

Cool, just re-read your post (Spiff_2), I knew I wasn't mad ! your doing the "pre-Sharping" trick too, thats what I keep saying it acts like a low pass filter

[Spiff]

Well - technically that was a "post-sharpening" example - but it doesn't really matter if you do it before or after the down-conversion.

Cheers!
-Spiff

[Barry_Green]

Hey Anhar, thanks for going through the efforts and putting it to the test. If I'm wrong I like to know about it -- I care more about getting the facts right than I do about "being right"...