HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[Deadzone]

I admit it. All this talk is getting me more and more confused. I am hoping somebody can set the record straight because I am looking to buy a new camera soon. This is what I have been reading so far:

1. Wait for HD because HD is the wave of the future and SD will soon be obsolete.

2. Get the SD now because there is no delivery system for HD DVDs yet.

Here is the deal. My ultimate goal is to shoot something in a format that can show well on a small movie screen or SD TV and looks like film. I saw two movies, one shot on the DVX-100A and one shot on an HD camera. From what I read on this site, you lose the HD resolution when you go down to SD. So since both movies were viewed on a DVD, I expected the footage to look the same. However, the DVX-100A footage still looked like video to me, but the HD footage looked indistinguishable from film. Even on shots with similar lighting setups, the HD footage looked much better. Are my eyes playing tricks on me? I understand lens and electronics also have something to do with it. But the HD just had more of a film quality to it. Now I see Sony releasing an HDV camera which I am guessing is somewhere between SD and HD. I assume, everything else being the same, that HD is suppose to be the best resolution, but how much better and at what point is it noticeable? So essentially my questions are:

1. What is the difference in resolution between SD, HDV, HD and 16mm film?

2. How do the resolutions change when down converting to an SD screen?

3. How much worse is SD compared to HDV compared to HD on a DVD format?

Depending on the answers, I will either either get the DVX-100A, the Sony Z1, or wait for the new Panasonic camera that may have HD technology. I know this is a loaded question, but any help would be appreciated.

[SergejIvanovits]

Buy a used DVX100(A) for max. 2000,-. Don't buy any new one.

[The_Video_Guy]

Depending on the answers, I will either either get the DVX-100A, the Sony Z1, or wait for the new Panasonic camera that may have HD technology. I know this is a loaded question, but any help would be appreciated.

I think the most important question you forgot to ask yourself is when do you require one... as in must have for the job. Responses you get will basically be driven by that question alone. If you can get the opportunity to use both try them before you buy. They both have strength and weaknesses. If you don't need to start the production tomorrow, wait for NAB. There is so much speculation about what is "around the corner" that unless you need it right at this moment, there would be no harm in waiting.

As far as technical questions vs all the formats, In my opinion it is what YOU are looking for that counts most here. People will say the DVX is the way to go cause it's 24P... other's say HD is the way of the future. I'm definately in favor of shooting with an HD source so if you feel like me that it's important for future sake to shoot HD, go the sony route if required now or wait till NAB to see if any other HD options reveal itself. If you think 24P is the only thing that gives the "film look" and you can't have anything else, than the Panasonic would be the cam for you. Test first on your own if you can... listen to others advice (like mine ;D ) second.

[SergejIvanovits]

It's funny how people from the video-world wants 24fps and grain, others from film-world wants higher framerate (48fps)and cleaner (less grain) picture. This filmlook hunting is just a wasting your time.

If you are a hobbyist, indy, whatever and wants SD video, buy a used camcorder like DVX , XL, PD and make what you want. Don't buy any new now! It's wasting your money. Don't wait for the new miracle HDX or whatever.

If you are making money with what you are doing and want cheap HD, buy a Z1 , do the job, do an other job etc.

If you have jobs all the time than order a HDX400.

This kind of "I want 2/3 chips, HD-24p, Iriscontroll on lens, you name it, and all for the same or a litle more than a Z1 just not going to happened. It is just to keep focus on Panasonic nothing else.

[MovieSwede]

Well not all in the filmworld want 48 fps, some sure but if you go that way you gonna destroy some of the moviemagic. 24 fps gives a very special feel.

And i dont want grain either. I usualy sit a bit back in the cinema to avoid seeing it.

What I like with film is that it has great res, wonderfull colors and overall a very pleasant look.

And of course i want my low budget movies to have as close as possible that look.

So for me Movielook aint wasting my time, its they way I want my movies to look.

[Policar]

What HD camera were you comparing the DVX with? That's VERY important.


If it has bigger CCDs (varicam, cinealta), it also has a greater dynamic range and DOF...those will help you get a "film look." IMO, dynamic range is what is most lacking with video.

Interestingly, I'm seeing more movies shot slightly overexposed with high contrast stock and ultra wide-angle lenses (meaning very deep DOF). Looks a lot like video! Just as a lot of videographers are going for film look, the "video look" is popular in many newer films.

[Barry_Green]

It is confusing, I don't blame you one bit. However, I'll do what I can to clear things up some.

1. Wait for HD because HD is the wave of the future and SD will soon be obsolete.
Some people are absolutely convinced that HD is the wave of the future. Some think that that future is a *long* way off. By the numbers, approximately 93% of US households have *no* high-definition sets, and approximately 100% of European households have no HD. So just how soon is this transition? And how much does it matter to you that it's not happening anytime soon? If you're shooting footage that you intend to be viable and marketable a decade from now, shooting in HD may make sense. If you're making something for release today (say, local TV commercials) then SD is an eminently viable medium. As far as "SD will soon be obsolete", I think SD has a good 5-7 years of market dominance left in it, and we'll see after that.

Just because HD is a new format doesn't mean it'll become entrenched and/or dominant. LaserDisc, S-VHS, Divx, SACD, DVD-Audio, MiniDisc, DCC, CD-I, DVD-RAM, Digital8, MicroMV... there are lots and lots of "new formats" that never went anywhere. HD is obviously well-entrenched in top-level professional production (high-end commercials, sitcom/movie-of-the-week and lower-budget feature films) but that doesn't mean it'll penetrate consumer households anytime soon. It may, or it may not -- that future remains to be realized.


2. Get the SD now because there is no delivery system for HD DVDs yet.
Well, the point there is, if you need to do work today, get something today. HD-DVDs are probably at least five years away from being prevalent in American households, so if you want to distribute high-def content... well, you can't. So you'll be distributing on SD DVDs. Now, whether you choose to acquire your images on high-def or not is up to you, but how you distribute them will be on SD DVD.


I saw two movies, one shot on the DVX-100A and one shot on an HD camera. From what I read on this site, you lose the HD resolution when you go down to SD. So since both movies were viewed on a DVD, I expected the footage to look the same. However, the DVX-100A footage still looked like video to me, but the HD footage looked indistinguishable from film. Even on shots with similar lighting setups, the HD footage looked much better. Are my eyes playing tricks on me?
Not necessarily. But what you're describing is an uncontrolled experiment with so many variables as to be completely unusable as a decision-making test. What was the HD camera? A VariCam? A CineAlta? An FX1? An HDW750? If it was shot on the CineAlta or VariCam, then not only would it benefit from the filmlike 24p, but also from the exceptional image controls offered on those cameras, the better dynamic range and image processing, and also the fact that if they're using a $100,000 camera, they're probably also doing a much better job with overall production value! Versus a production using a $3,000 camera -- they may have had substantially lower overall production value.

If it was an FX1, then I'd say the DVX shooters just plain must have screwed up -- there's no way an FX1 can look as filmlike as a DVX. If it was an HDW750, then I don't understand at all, because that's an interlaced HD camera which should just *scream* "video".

In competent hands, executing a filmlike workflow, the DVX can look flabbergastingly like film. Look at Matt McDermitt's work, or Disjecta's, or Bob Gundu's.


I assume, everything else being the same, that HD is suppose to be the best resolution, but how much better and at what point is it noticeable?
The point where it's noticeable is when you're displaying it on an HDTV. The FX1/Z1 are much, much sharper and higher-res than any SD camera, whether DVX or Digital Betacam.


1. What is the difference in resolution between SD, HDV, HD and 16mm film?
SD has about 350,000 pixels per frame. HD has two resolutions, one (720p) has about a million pixels per frame, the other (1080p) has about two million per frame. 1080i suffers from interlace field blending, and ends up with about 1.5 million discernible pixels per frame. HDV also has two resolutions, 1280x720 or 1440x1080. Determining resolution is a little more difficult because it uses an extremely lossy form of compression, so resolution depends on how much overall image detail there is in the scene. At its very best, HDV delivers almost a million pixels in progressive-scan, and about 1.1 million discernible pixels per frame in its interlaced mode.

16mm film is difficult to judge resolution with, because you also have to factor in grain, and the grain changes based on the speed of the filmstock. Using the most grain-free stocks, you can expect about 2 to 3 million pixels per frame, depending on whether you're talking about 16mm or Super16mm, and telecine'ing to HD or scanning to 2k files.


2. How do the resolutions change when down converting to an SD screen?
SD has traditionally been an analog format, without pixels, but I'll assume you're talking about digital broadcasting, which means DV/DVD/D1 resolution. They're all approximately 720x480. Scaling down a higher-resolution image to a lower-resolution image will result in some loss -- pixels will be blended together/averaged, etc. You will see an overall slight softening. People will tell you that starting with a higher-resolution source is better, but usually they're confusing the idea of starting with film, as vs. starting with a higher pixel count. If all things are equal, you'll get better results from NOT resizing than you will from resizing. Now, a VariCam picture downrezzed to SD is going to beat the pants off a DVX image native at SD any day of the week -- because the VariCam is a vastly superior camera, and the 2/3" chips, better lens, better DSP etc. all contribute to a much better starting picture, so it survives the downrez process with its goodness "intact". However, a VariCam picture downrezzed to SD is not going to beat the pants off an SDX900 picture. The SDX900 has most or all of the "goodness" of the VariCam, but because it is native SD, it doesn't have to go through the downrez process, so it doesn't get aliased/blended/softened.

Film is the ultimate source to start from, and it is the highest resolution. However, when film gets put on video it gets scanned at SD resolution, not downrezzed from a higher-rez scan, so it's a different process entirely.


3. How much worse is SD compared to HDV compared to HD on a DVD format?
You can only ask this question if all the cameras are equal, and they're not. There is no definitive way to answer this.

You can compare SD to HDV because we have roughly comparable cameras -- an XL2 vs. a Z1, for example. And the XL2 will produce a sharper, cleaner, better-low-light, better-dynamic-range, better-motion, overall better-looking picture on DVD than the Z1 will. However, neither camera can hold a candle to a "real" HD camera like the CineAlta or the VariCam, either of which will thoroughly spank the others when it comes to DVD.

So then you have to compare a top-of-the-line SD camera, like the SDX900, against the HD cameras. And in that comparison (which I haven't run, by the way) it is my contention that the SDX900 will hold a small advantage, when it comes to final DVD release, over the CineAlta and VariCam.

Of course, for HD release, the CineAlta and VariCam will spank the SDX900, just like the FX1/Z1 will spank the XL2.

[SergejIvanovits]

Well not all in the filmworld want 48 fps, some sure but if you go that way you gonna destroy some of the moviemagic. 24 fps gives a very special feel. Well, the 24fps is a compromiss. Film isn't 24fps because it is the best way to capture movement. It is because it is something your eyes can accept and the cost of film production can accept.

Some part of a cell animations has to be transfered frame by frame 24fps. An animation on film is only 12(x2) frames but because the movement in the animation wants more detail in the movement they are using 24fps.

Film in production isn't always 24fps. It can be more or less but it is 24fps in the projector. Your camcorder is 25p->50i in production and allways 50i if you play it. You can't do anything with it but in film production they are using more or less frames if they need it.

The funny is that the "new" 48fps has more resolution and are using less film to make the same film than a 35mm. Does it going to be a new film industry standard soon? I don't think so. I would need a common investment all over the world I guess.


What I like with film is that it has great res, wonderfull colors and overall a very pleasant look.. I don't like most of the pan movement in films.


So for me Movielook aint wasting my time, its they way I want my movies to look.Your movielook is your movielook. There is so many different look that I can't tell. Yours is one of the many.

[SergejIvanovits]

Some think that that future is a *long* way off. *By the numbers, approximately 93% of US households have *no* high-definition sets, and approximately 100% of European households have no HD. *So just how soon is this transition? *
I just heard that some of the scandinavien countries has only 16:9 broadcast from 2005 and the new setts they are selling in shops are HD ready.

In Norway only in desember they have sold more Hd-ready equipment than SD during 2004. I have a frend runing an import company in Norway. Norway stops all analogue broadcast from 2008/2009.

[Deadzone]

Wow Barry! That was a very complete and informative answer. Thanks.

I think the HD camera used was a Varicam to shoot the movie that looked like film. Definitely out of my price range. I guess the big question is whether Panasonic will release an HD cam under $10,000 which is still within my striking price (barely).

So if I understand correctly, even if panasonic comes out with a new HD cam it will not look better on DVD compared to a DVX-100A because the CCD size and lens will probably be the same. The only difference will be if it is put on HD DVD. But would shooting on an HD format be better if I later decided to transfer the movie to film for showing in a theater setting?

No matter what, I definitely want to get a camera that has the 24p frame rate. I am really curious about the Sony Z1 and how its 24p stacks up against the Panasonic 100A. Also, the Z1 is suppose to have native 16:9 chips. However, I will wait for NAB as I HOPE the newest Panasonic will blow the Z1 out of the water.

[scharky]

I have films from 10 years ago that I shot on super 8. *are these outdated? *I have old cartoons on super 8 that I found on ebay? *are these outdated. *All of this HD is going to make everything shot on SD outdated and look like crap is a bunch of BS that the camera manufactures are telling you so you keep buying their products. *Well let me ask you, does it look like crap now?
The bottom line, if you shoot a good film, it doesn't matter what it was shot on, it will always look good. *IF there is enough information in the image to get the point across that this is a fantastic film, then it is not going to be outdated.

My advise, don't wait to get a camera. *Get a camera now and shoot your film. *IT will not look outdated in 5 years. *People seriously won't even care about you film in 5 years. *If you can only make one good film then that is a problem. *After you make this film, go out and buy a new camera, make another film. *Or use the same camera, it doesn't matter.

That brings me to another thing. *These people that are selling their services because of their brand new HD camera. *If you are selling your services by your equipment, then you are a good salesman, not a good film maker/ event videographer. *People are going to watch weddings of a good videographer in 10 years and say, wow, that is a good video, not, boy i sure wish this was shot in HD so I could see a little more detail in the boquet. *Get over yourselves people. *If you really think that your equipment is making you better, then you will only ever be as good as your equipment. *If you really think that the next biggest and greatest camera is going to make your film better, then your film is only as good as your camera. *If you think your camera is the latest and greatest because some DP that shoots a television show says it is, then be proud of your camera, and put it on a shrine and worship it. *That is truely all that is going on in these forums. *I don't care whether it is Panasonic, Canon, Sony, JVC or whatever. *Stop doing tests! *Stop shooting resolution charts. go out and shoot something. *Who cares if it is 24p, 1080i, cineframe, cinegamma, stretched, widescreen 16:9, 1.85:1, SQUARE, hi res, low res, whatever. *Over my years of filmaking I have found out one very important thing. *The onlyone that cares what equipmnet you used to shoot your film is YOU! *People don't care. *People who see your film don't go, hey! is that full resolution widescreen? *is that 24p? *Was that shot with a DVX? *was that shot with new HDV camera? *NOBODY CARES EXCEPT YOU!!! *so get over it. *Buy your camera, make the next award winning film. *But don't let anybody sell you on the hype of the next best thing. *DOn't worship your camera. *Abuse it. *Throw it around. *Get it dirty. *USE YOUR CAMERA.

Sincerly
A very fed up
Scharky

[Deadzone]

Above Barry wrote: Look at Matt McDermitt's work, or Disjecta's, or Bob Gundu's.

Is there a website I can go to that shows their work? I would definitely like to see a sample.

[Dan_Lahav]

wow, Scharky, that post seriously rocked.

[scharky]

You know Dan, it has just gotten to the point where I am sick of coming to these forums to read how everybody has the best camera in the world, and if your not using it then you suck. In the past I have been guilty of the same. I have loved my DVX since I started using it, but recently I have started to broaden my horizons again. I am working on a short where roughly one third of it was shot stop motion with a digital SLR. I am on my way back to working as an artist, not a technition. I am getting my degree in photography, not engineering. I don't care if companies tell me that their camera is the best, I will use the tools that I need to to get the job done. Does this mean I will never buy a new camera? absolutly not, but I can sure as hell tell you that I am going to be in charge of what I want my film to look like. I don' care if others tell me it's not Hi enough resolution, or it doesn't look enough like film. To each his own I guess.

[MovieSwede]

I just heard that some of the scandinavien countries has only 16:9 broadcast from 2005 and the new setts they are selling in shops are HD ready.

In Norway only in desember they have sold more Hd-ready equipment than SD during 2004. I have a frend runing an import company in Norway. Norway stops all analogue broadcast from 2008/2009.




Well because i live in an Scandinavian country I think i can give some input.

Sure they sold a lot of plasma and lcd sets, it even got to elected christmas gift of the year (2004) And its true that its HDTV ready. What 90% of all the sets ive seen they are at 848*480 in res. They cant even use all the res a PAL DVD is giving them. People dont really have a clue what they buying here. If it stand "HDTV comp" on the box they think its fine.

[Dan_Lahav]

Scharky- I couldnt agree with you more.

[geffy]

What HD camera were you comparing the DVX with? *That's VERY important.


If it has bigger CCDs (varicam, cinealta), it also has a greater dynamic range and DOF...those will help you get a "film look." *IMO, dynamic range is what is most lacking with video.

Interestingly, I'm seeing more movies shot slightly overexposed with high contrast stock and ultra wide-angle lenses (meaning very deep DOF). *Looks a lot like video! *Just as a lot of videographers are going for film look, the "video look" is popular in many newer films.
which films!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kidster]

Sharky in principal I agree with everything you have said. Give an average guy a CineAlta, Varicam or hell even a Panavision 35mm and you will get average work. In short, I like your view on spending your time working and learning your craft, instead of using valuable production time researching what's the best camera to buy. However it sure is fun to have the latest and greatest tools..or perhaps toys!

[scharky]

Kidster
It sure is, and that is the allure of all these cool new gadgets and gizmos. *It is the same with everything that is new and shiney. *And I'm not saying that you can't make great work with these new cameras. but the focus of this forum has switched to helping others with camera questions to gloating about how cool their new toy is, and how much better it is than your old toy. I remember having similar conversations when I was 10 years old on the school playground. ;)

[SimonMW]

Scharky, you have hit the nail on the head. I too am completely fed up of all the forums that worship the latest toy and try to make anyone that doesn't use or have it feel inferior.

One guy was on at me on the Sony forums a while back because I told him that HD wouldn't make him a better filmmaker. He said "yes, but my film has a better chance of being uprezzed to film".

Firstlly, if he couldn't make a DS video that could afford to have a film transfer why does he think that HD will make it any easier? Last time I looked HD film transfers were MORE thant SD ones!

He just couldn't understand that if he couldn't make any money with his SD productions now that HD wouldn't suddenly start making him money.

Perhaps one reason that companies like Sony are still releasing brand new full size SD cameras this year is because consumers will fall for the marketing, but higher end professionals will not.

[SergejIvanovits]

Give an average guy ..... a Panavision 35mm and you will get average work.
Did you know that Panavision 35mm sucks in low light? And all these filmcameras are useless in low light?

[johnnyspacecommand]

Does a Panasonic 35mm really suck in low light?? :P *Is that what all those 200's and 50's, C-stands, and flags are for??

I am not going to pretend to know a whole lot about film stocks, but I think it is ridiculously obvious to experienced DP's why that is. The ASA number, and something about film stock called "opacity" and "transmittance/absorbance". A more sensitive film stock will "stretch blacks" while a less sensitive film stock tends to crush them, giving that filmy look.

Did you know that miniDV cameras suck in high light? *And all these video cameras are useless in high light? *:P

I agree that we should all be going out there in the world and pursuing our passions at artistic expression with the tools at hand. *Everything will follow naturally if we are genuine in our message and delivery...

For some reason, this takes me back to a person I know who had this shirt that read "Fame Whore". *The weird thing was that this person wasn't delivering the message in an ironic way, but was delivering the message that they really were going to do and say anything to get famous. *Are they famous today? *No.
*

[scharky]

Did you know that Panavision 35mm sucks in low light? And all these filmcameras are useless in low light?



Huh? you seem to have missed the point.
Besides, the camera being a panavision has nothing to do with it "sucking" in low light. Film cameras are nothing more than box with a motor and a hole in it. You attatch a lens and you put in some film and you shoot your movie. The camera has no light preference. IT depends on what kind of film you use.
and again this comes down to the type of film maker you are. Any camera will suck with low light. Cameras are not meant to take picutures with no light. If you want a scene to be dark, compensate with your lighting.

[SergejIvanovits]

Huh? you seem to have missed the point. *


I did not missed nothing. It was sarcasm. How a camcorder works in low light, on the streets at night without any light setup etc, was always a major discussion on any forum. *

[scharky]

Gotcha serge ;)
next time give us a little wink or smile or something. Sometiems it is hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic. :)

[Policar]

Geffy, I'm not saying Hollywood wants to make movies look like video, but that some movies emulate the "video look" to give a documentary/high-tech feel.

Examples:
Mystic River: Over-exposed, but with rich blacks. Drab lighting, primarily a deep DOF.
Three Kings: Looks a lot like reversal stock. Whites blown out to give the feeling of news footage.
Infernal Affairs (just saw it): Dark blacks and tons of blown highlights. A lot of it was shot with ultra-wide angle lenses (barrel distortion all over the place). Looks a lot like high definition video in places due to the deep DOF and limited dynamic range, but looks really good.

[Barry_Green]

I just heard that some of the scandinavien countries has only 16:9 broadcast from 2005
Yes, but 16:9 is not HD. 16:9's been around a long time, and as I understand it the British broadcasters are requiring new programs in 16:9. Not high-def, of course, but 16:9.


and the new setts they are selling in shops are HD ready.
Certainly many of them are. It's tough to find a 42" TV or larger that *isn't* high-def-ready. But what does high-def-ready mean? Someone on the Cow posted about how he'd just gotten his high-def plasma TV, and that they're easily available. So I looked up the specs. It was 864x480. As in, standard-def. Yes it could take an HD signal, but it would down-rez it to standard-def.

The EBU hasn't even issued its directive on what type of broadcast format would be suitable for Europe. So unless you're subscribing to a satellite HD system or something like that, there shouldn't be much (if any) HD programming readily available in most of Europe.

Norway stops all analogue broadcast from 2008/2009.
Sure. But digital broadcasting does *not* mean high-def! That's one thing that really trips people up -- they think that DTV and HDTV are synonymous, and they're most definitely not. In America we're also supposed to stop broadcasting analog soon... but there is no requirement to go to high-def. Only to digital. Of the 18 formats of digital television endorsed by the ATSC, 12 of them are not high-def.

Consumers are confused -- they think 16x9 digital television = high-def. It doesn't. You can have 4:3 digital TV, or 16:9 digital TV, or high-def. They're different.

[Barry_Green]

I guess the big question is whether Panasonic will release an HD cam under $10,000 which is still within my striking price (barely).
That question's already been answered -- they have already said that they're going to produce exactly that.


So if I understand correctly, even if panasonic comes out with a new HD cam it will not look better on DVD compared to a DVX-100A because the CCD size and lens will probably be the same.
Well, that seems likely, but it remains to be seen. You can't discount the potential of some sort of technological breakthrough, or if they were to use CMOS sensors, or something like that. But yes, barring any such breakthrough, I would expect that the new high-def camera wouldn't be able to produce a better-looking DVD than the prevailing standard-def cameras, assuming that all other things are comparable.

(and of course we don't know what the CCD size will be, and we don't know what type of lens it will have, so all other things may indeed *not* be comparable. Gotta stay tuned until April 18 for that news.)


The only difference will be if it is put on HD DVD. But would shooting on an HD format be better if I later decided to transfer the movie to film for showing in a theater setting?
Almost unquestionably. I hedge it with "almost" only because we haven't seen it yet. What if it's high-def but it only delivers three stops of latitude? Or has a noisy, grainy picture? I don't think those will be the case, I think certainly the high-def cameras will produce a significantly better film transfer.


No matter what, I definitely want to get a camera that has the 24p frame rate. I am really curious about the Sony Z1 and how its 24p stacks up against the Panasonic 100A.
It doesn't. CF24 is a weird field-blending/field-dropping mishmash that produces variable-resolution frames and uneven motion rendering. Whereas with the DVX, its 24p renders motion absolutely identically to how film renders motion.

You'd expect that a constant-speed object, traveling across a constant-frame-rate capture system, would show a constant deviation between frames (i.e., think of a car moving across the frame -- at exactly 24fps, it should move approximately the same number of pixels on each and every frame). And on a 24P camera like the DVX, it does. But in CF24, it exhibits an odd herky-jerky movement, and examining the footage frame-by-frame reveals why: the CF24 simulation doesn't divide the motion up evenly. For two frames' worth of travel, it'll allocate about 1/3 of the motion to one frame, and 2/3 to the other. So whereas on the DVX the car might move 30 pixels each frame (or 60 pixels over the course of two frames), on the Z1 it'll move about 40 pixels on the first frame, and about 80 on the second. Then 40/80/40/80 repeated. It's nothing like "real" 24P.

Furthermore, CF24 exhibits unstable motion artifacting even on still shots. We shot resolution charts and were horrified to see a crawling/flickering/pulsing pattern in the fine line detail. So, again, frame-by-frame measuring, we found out that CF24 works in a pattern of five frames (as all 2:3 pulldown sequences do) and the resolution varies between those frames! On frames one and two, CF24 resolves about 475 lines. On frames three and four, it resolves about 425 lines. And on frame five, it resolves 575 lines! So you have this constant pulsing/twitter that shows up on all thin vertical line objects, even when the camera is stationary.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: CF24 is unusable as a film simulation. If you want a "video effect", you can use it, but if you want something to look like 24fps film, CF24 is *not* it.


Also, the Z1 is suppose to have native 16:9 chips. However, I will wait for NAB as I HOPE the newest Panasonic will blow the Z1 out of the water. *
The Z1 does have native 16:9 chips. I can almost guarantee that the new Panasonic will as well, as all ATSC HD formats are native 16:9.

The main difference will be that the Z1 is exclusively interlaced, whereas we expect (haven't been promised, but we all expect) that the Panasonic will have progressive-scan chips. May have interlaced as well (like the DVX does) but it should most definitely have pro-scan.

[Loki]

I figured I would post this in this thread rather than add to the mounting topics here..

anyone else seen this camera:
http://www.dalsa.com/dc/design/dc_design.asp

I was supposed to go and actually see the camera in action.. but through some crummy communication. But my friends, and several of my teachers went to see it. My teachers being DP's were blown away by it.. even the hardcore film nuts.. they said the image quality produced rivaled 35mm.

The guys were given a demo of footage shot on either camera, then shown blowups of each. Apparently the digital format was much cleaner and much more detailed than the 35mm..

This camera looks incredible.

[Deadzone]

That Dalsa camera looks impressive, but at $3000.00 a day way out of my price range.

Thanks to Barry again for the info. I assume Sony's Z1 uses the CF24 technology. By the sounds of it, I will pass on that camera. I didn't know it was official that Panasonic announced the new camera as HD. That's great to hear. If they put in a 16:9 native chip to boot, I will be sold. Got to wait until April 18 though :'(

[Barry_Green]

It will be HD, and it will be 16:9. The Z1 uses CF24, it also features CF25 and CF30 as well as 50i and 60i.

[SergejIvanovits]

Certainly many of them are. *It's tough to find a 42" TV or larger that *isn't* high-def-ready.
Yes, big tv doesn't have to be HDTV but HD-ready it means an equipment to be able to use 1080i and 720p hd-sygnal. The HDTV can have different resolution but its signal processing converts the incomming signal to what resolution the equipment is using. As my frend said, they can use the HD-ready sign only if the sett can handel 1080i/720p HD.

But I mean we have to separet the production from the broadcasting. If we are saying the sony's 1080i is too early on the market because the customers hasn't got the right tv-sett at home to be able to watch 1080i, than how can they watch the next comming dvcpro-hd at home. And how could they watched a tv-serie made with 35mm film. So the prduction is one thing and the broadcasting is an other. [/quote]
*

The EBU hasn't even issued its directive on what type of broadcast format would be suitable for Europe. It does not too much metter for the consumer because the setts they are selling now are duall system. It has 1080i/720p -> convert to its resolution. If I'm not wrong the early hd-sets downconverts 720p to 480i and not to 1080i.

[David Jimerson]

If I'm not wrong the early hd-sets downconverts 720p to 480i and not to 1080i.


My set is from 2001. It converts 720p to 1080i.

[Michael_Bott]

Late in the day - but thanks for your first post in this thread, Scharky. Nicely said.

[Tzedekh]

If it has bigger CCDs (varicam, cinealta), it also has a greater dynamic range and DOF...

Not to be a stickler, but bigger CCDs will yield, all other things being equal, a shallower DOF, which is indeed more characterisic of film than of video.

[Neil Rowe]

..im sure thats what he meant.. people generally use "DOF" as shorthand for "shallow DOF" . even though its an oxymoron.

[Policar]

I meant "great" as in "super!"

Just kidding, but yeah...I'm lazy. Of course I meant shallower.

[magicdavek]

. . . *Buy your camera, make the next award winning film. *But don't let anybody sell you on the hype of the next best thing. *Don't worship your camera. *Abuse it. *Throw it around. *Get it dirty. *USE YOUR CAMERA.

Sincerly
A very fed up
Scharky

Scharky,

I agree wholeheartedly with your soapbox post earlier (only the end is quoted here). I would like to add two reactions. First, clearly you are not talking about shooting your next project on a Canon ZR40. There are some minimal limits involved in what you are saying. Second, your post was such a relief to me. I, for the life of me, cannot get geared up for this HD thing. I've been reading all about the new Panasonic camera coming out soon with interest, but without any application. My goal is to distribute on DVD and never converted to 35mm for a movie theater. I do weddings, commercials, training films, and am working on a pilot for a broadcast TV show. I have yet to figure a use for HD - at least not for years to come. Barry's post also reassured me. My next step up would be a 2/3" SD 24p camera like the SDX900, not an HD camera (although the SDX is out of my range). So for now, and for quite a while in the future my DVX100A is where it is at (I've even considered purchasing another one!).

(By the way, I'd love for Panasonic to train their 1/2" 3CCD DVC200 to do 24p. That would be a huge boost to us little guys and an upward path from the DVX100 for the next 5-7 years while SD will remain the dominant medium - Jan, are you listening?)

[Pascal_Parvex]

So if I understand correctly, even if panasonic comes out with a new HD cam it will not look better on DVD compared to a DVX-100A because the CCD size and lens will probably be the same.


Well, that seems likely, but it remains to be seen.

As far as I read into optics, the same lens should be no problem. As a shot in the blue, I would say the lens on the DVX resolves about 10 Million 'pixels', so this won't be a limit for the near future. They just have to make sure that the lens of the HDX whatever is about three feet long to get a shallow depth of field. Yes, I am reading your book. :)

And a standard resolution DVD should look significantly better when the film was shot in a higher resolution. Just watch any 35mm film on DVD, it looks way better than video on the same resolution, as there was more information available for every pixel of the 'low' resolution MPEG2 offers.

[Policar]

I wouldn't go that far. I doubt the DVX's lens resolves anything close to 10 million pixels. At its sharpest aperture, I'm sure it resolves more than the DV format requires, but it focuses into a smaller 1/3'' area. Panavision advertises the sharpness of their HD lenses because it's hard to make an HD lens that's as sharp as a 35mm lens because of the smaller sensor. Also, the XL1's 16X zoom lens was said to be too soft to resolve the full resolution offered by the XL2. 10 million pixels is a LOT.

Furthermore, the lens wouldn't have to be THAT big to offer such shallow DOF. A 200mm lens (which offers tons of DOF) is hardly three feet long. With a 1/3'' sensor, you'd need to extremely far from the subject just to get an extreme close up, and space would be compacted so much that everything would appear flat and claustrophobic.

And while DVDs from film out do indeed have more information to work from than mini-DV, but they are also color corrected, sharpened, noise-reduced, etc. very carefully. Furthermore, the "more information" they have is mostly in the form of extended dynamic range offered by film. Also, Hollywood movies have an average budget of 50 million dollars, and that helps anything look good. I doubt a DVD would resolve any more resolution than the DVX. But 35mm to video offers way more dynamic range.

A DVD from a high definition camera, assuming everything else was the same a the DVX (and I actually expect the new camera to have worse low light performance, but hopefully better gain circuitry and thus less noise) would look only nominally better. An HD-DVD, blu ray disk, or film out, would look much better.

I still think dynamic range is more important than resolution, though. I'd take an sdx900 over whatever the HDX turns out to be. Those 2/3'' chips and excellent lenses do a lot more in the way of quality imagery than some extra resolution, although that helps, too, obviously.

[Pascal_Parvex]

I wouldn't go that far. *I doubt the DVX's lens resolves anything close to 10 million pixels. *At its sharpest aperture, I'm sure it resolves more than the DV format requires, but it focuses into a smaller 1/3'' area. *Panavision advertises the sharpness of their HD lenses because it's hard to make an HD lens that's as sharp as a 35mm lens because of the smaller sensor. *Also, the XL1's 16X zoom lens was said to be too soft to resolve the full resolution offered by the XL2. *10 million pixels is a LOT.

I was also thinking of digital still cameras. Take the Canon S-30/40/45/50/60/70 series. Those are small, handy, pocket cameras, with tiny objectives, maybe a twentieth of the volume of the DVX-Lens. A lot of people stated, that 3 or 4 Megapixels would be the very most such a tiny lens could resolve. But now, just have a look at the reviews of the S 70 with its over 7 Megapixel sensor. The (same?) tiny zoom lens is still resolving more resolution. Sure, the corners are soft, but somewhere near seven Million pixels resolution from that tiny thing! So the 'huge' DVX lens should have _a lot_ of reserves in resolving details.

[Barry_Green]

And a standard resolution DVD should look significantly better when the film was shot in a higher resolution. Just watch any 35mm film on DVD, it looks way better than video on the same resolution, as there was more information available for every pixel of the 'low' resolution MPEG2 offers.
I know people say this, but I think it's based in faulty logic. *It's like someone saying "coats and shoes kill plants." *I mean, of course coats and shoes don't kill plants, so if we say "why do you think coats and shoes kill plants?", they'd respond by saying "I put my plants in the closet for a week. *When I came back, they were dead. *There were only coats and shoes in the closet, ergo, coats and shoes kill plants."

A reasonable conclusion, I guess, but certainly not based on all the facts!

Film is definitely high resolution, as is HD. *And film definitely looks great transferred to DVD, but that doesn't mean we can extrapolate forward and say that resizing HD down to SD will result in better-looking DVDs! *That logic can't follow because it's not based on all the facts.

Movies look so much better for all the reasons Policar said. *But not for the reason that there's more resolution. *You simply can't compare the resolution on film with the idea of resizing high def digital video down to standard def. *That's like comparing the coats and shoes to killing the plants, rather than attributing it to the lack of sunlight in the dark closet.

Film is high resolution, yes... but so is "reality", the reality that we point a camera at and shoot is "infinitely" high resolution, right? *So why is it that a Digital Betacam camera, when pointed at a high resolution source such as reality, delivers an image that looks so much better than a DV camera, even though they're the exact same resolution? *The answer is that resolution isn't even part of the equation, it's all due to the lens and the dynamic range and the compression employed and the better DSP and everything else... but they're both being resolved down to a 720x480 (or 486) image. *No difference at all in resolution, but huge difference in how they look.

So it is with film. *Film isn't a digital image that gets resized down. *When film is transferred to video for DVD, they scan the film using a telecine machine. *The telecine is, for all effects and purposes, a video camera, shooting the "reality" that is presented to it (which is the film image). *The video camera captures the film images, and resolves them at 720x480. *There's no resizing going on, no starting from a higher-def source etc.

Now, the better the telecine technology you use, the better the film transfer will work. *An old film chain is the lowest quality, a Rank is a step up, and something like a Spirit or Millennium will be more towards the top of the scale. *The better the machine you use, the better the quality you'll get -- BUT IT'S STILL ALL THE SAME RESOLUTION, 720x480. They don't scan at a higher resolution and then resize down.

Scaling a high-def image down in resolution is completely, thoroughly, and utterly unlike the process of transferring film to video. *It's as unlike it as saying that coats and shoes killed your plants, when in fact it was a lack of sunlight and water.

[Deadzone]

Here's one for you, Barry. What if a movie was shot on HD and transfered to film, then the film was telecined to DVD? The higher resolution of the HD would be utilitzed in the film transfer, and then the film image would not have to be resized down when going to DVD? I don't know if it would work, just wondering if it could work. Essentially, this would be a scenario for someone who shot a film on HD, put it to film for festivals, and got picked up for DVD distribution.

[Barry_Green]

Wouldn't make much difference. Transferring to film doesn't change anything inherent. As good as it looks, or as bad as it looks, will be your starting point -- the camera will have set that in stone.

Resizing doesn't necessarily make something look *bad*, it just doesn't make it look better than not-resizing does.

Let me put it this way -- a high-def 1/3" camera, like the Z1 for example, is never going to be able to match a standard-def 2/3" camera like the DSR570, when put on a standard-def medium like DVD.

A high-def VariCam or CineAlta will make a spectacular-looking DVD... but, speculating, they wouldn't necessarily make a better-looking DVD than a comparable standard-def camera. I think a very interesting test would be to pit an SDX900 against a VariCam or CineAlta, with the intention of making a DVD of the footage. I bet there's no discernable difference, or if there is, that the SDX900 would have a slight advantage on the final DVD.

[Pascal_Parvex]

I know what you want to say, Barry. I know the same story from digital still photography. If the resolution would be the only criteria, we all would just buy that supermarket camera for 199$, as it has the same 4 Megapixel sensor from Sony as the 699$ model from Canon.

The same applies to film cameras. We did not all throw away our DVX cameras to buy the new JVC HDV, right?

[reflex]

It doesn't. CF24 is a weird field-blending/field-dropping mishmash that produces variable-resolution frames and uneven motion rendering. Whereas with the DVX, its 24p renders motion absolutely identically to how film renders motion.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: CF24 is unusable as a film simulation. If you want a "video effect", you can use it, but if you want something to look like 24fps film, CF24 is *not* it.

While I totally agree with this, since it is completely true, I do want to remind people that I PERSONALY THINK CF24 mode doesn't look like complete crap. Just for the heck of it, heres some CF24 footage from spring time.

http://www.black-list.cc/miscvideos/outdoorsHD.wmv

right click and download please, dont just click the link. Its 98 mbs, I think it uploaded correctly so if anyone has a problem just let me know and i will reupload. This isn't to say CF24 is better or to bash any other camera; its just to show what little motion shots and heavy motion shots in CF24 really look like for comparison or reference. I posted it once before but i think i switched hosting packages and the file was lost.

again its 98mbs WMV only SORRY!! :( 1080p

[AshG]

I guess the bigger question is why are you refuting this argument almost a year and a half later? The question is moot now and there are several new cameras that render this thread obsolete...


ash =o)

[reflex]

eh , i'm sorry i just found it and read it all. I know it was older but figured what the heck...I can delete it if everyone wants...

[vtwinvideos]

Why else would there be a search button if you're not supposed to use it.