chalbers
11-12-2004, 10:11 PM
Hello !
I found some footage of the FX1 online and did a test with it.
Normally if you convert DV 60i footage to DV 24p you loose sharpness because you blend interlace lines.
So I thought, HDV gives a much higher res, but the problem is, it's ONLY in 60i ! And I WANT 24p.
If you convert that to 24p with blending interlace lines, you loose sharpness in HDV, but it's probably not noticable if converted to DV.
So I did a test with the FX1 footage and first converted it down to DV 60i . Then I also converted it to DV 24p using interlace blend. The result is that both DV clips look exactly the same sharpwise quality !! The resulting 24p footage is EXCELLENT !!
Just take a look. It's DV anamorphic widescreen footage
http://home.comcast.net/~chalbers/flowers_60i.mov
http://home.comcast.net/~chalbers/flowers_24p.mov
Makes the FX1 more interesting to me then the XL2. Specially much cheaper ! True 16:9 and 24p !
The only bad part is. I do need CPU time to downconvert all HDV footage to DV first.
Frank
I found some footage of the FX1 online and did a test with it.
Normally if you convert DV 60i footage to DV 24p you loose sharpness because you blend interlace lines.
So I thought, HDV gives a much higher res, but the problem is, it's ONLY in 60i ! And I WANT 24p.
If you convert that to 24p with blending interlace lines, you loose sharpness in HDV, but it's probably not noticable if converted to DV.
So I did a test with the FX1 footage and first converted it down to DV 60i . Then I also converted it to DV 24p using interlace blend. The result is that both DV clips look exactly the same sharpwise quality !! The resulting 24p footage is EXCELLENT !!
Just take a look. It's DV anamorphic widescreen footage
http://home.comcast.net/~chalbers/flowers_60i.mov
http://home.comcast.net/~chalbers/flowers_24p.mov
Makes the FX1 more interesting to me then the XL2. Specially much cheaper ! True 16:9 and 24p !
The only bad part is. I do need CPU time to downconvert all HDV footage to DV first.
Frank