dSLR Analogies

[redindian]

When someone says:
Hey, how much megapixel is ur D70, my minolta P&S is 8MP..
Nikon D1 sucks as it has only 2MP...
"I have a 4megapixel camera - I should buy the new 8megapixel camera to take better pictures"
I always answer "more mega pixels is not everything, unless you intend to blow up more than 12x18 you dont need more pixels - Instead invest in good glass"

As we know, the camera sensor, glass, picture processing algorithm, shutter lag, exposure accuracy, accurate WB, lack of CA/Pincusion/Barrel Distortion/Flare (lens), pleasing bokeh (lens), light sensitivity, dynamic range.... all play a important factors in determining the quality of the image. no no... i didnt mention the usual - you need "skills" or "story"- been long enuf in forums to offer a bait like that :)
--------------------
So, extending this logic to Videocams...

So when the same person asks me why am I so excited by the HVX -
I answer "Its HD, it has more resolution"

The look on their face is you just said more megapixels is nothing, yet you are going ga-ga over more megapixels....

I find myself falling prey to MORE RESOLUTION == BETTER QUALITY. 1080 has more pixels than 720 so it should be good? (Yes, if we are doing keying or greenscreening....).

is HD craze equivalent to the consumer megapixel craze?

[redindian]

Next, Is 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 applicable only to motion formats? Is a JPG 4:2:2 or 4:2:0?

Can we equate (to illustrate)
JPG = HDV
TIFF = DVCPRO HD

or am I mixing up compression with formats...

[Sirius_Doggy]

One advantage to the "more megapixel" debate is when you get to the point where you are shooting with FULL FRAME sensors like the Canon 5D or MarkII 1Ds. Then a 20mm lens is really a 20mm lens. On my 20D that 20mm lens is really a 32mm lens.......

[BobDiaz]

Hey, how much megapixel is ur D70, my minolta P&S is 8MP..
Nikon D1 sucks as it has only 2MP...
"I have a 4megapixel camera - I should buy the new 8megapixel camera to take better pictures"I always answer "more mega pixels is not everything, unless you intend to blow up more than 12x18 you dont need more pixels - Instead invest in good glass"

As we know, the camera sensor, glass, picture processing algorithm, shutter lag, exposure accuracy, accurate WB, lack of CA/Pincusion/Barrel Distortion/Flare (lens), pleasing bokeh (lens), light sensitivity, dynamic range.... all play a important factors in determining the quality of the image. no no... i didnt mention the usual - you need "skills" or "story"- been long enuf in forums to offer a bait like that :)
--------------------
So, extending this logic to Videocams...
((Some Parts Cut Out To Save Space))
is HD craze equivalent to the consumer megapixel craze?


In many ways, your correct, the image is more than just resolution. Contrast, image noise, dyanmic range, ... all make a part of a good image. Our USA Analog TV System was the best that 1940s/1950s had to offer. IF screens were limited to 19", who needs high resolution, BUT around 34" (or larger) the lack of resolution starts to show at normal viewing distances (like 9 feet). Another issue is that (insert bad word here) interlace creates problems with a still frame and slow motion.

Switching to 720P allows us to put a progressive image on a display up to 50" with full detail. (I believe that most people can't see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 50" or smaller screen at around 9 feet viewing distance.)

What about the really big screens, like 60" and larger? 720P might be OK, but others feel that the 1080 resolution is needed.

Bob Diaz

[Sean Michael]

This is an interesting comparison. Resolution in dSLRs has long since produced a 'film equivalent' image in terms of resolution. Digital video is just catching up.

I have one 1080i-capable HDTV in my house, but it's a big one: a 60-inch Sony Grand Wega. I do notice a difference between 1080i and 720p, and prefer viewing the 1080. The average casual viewer (say, my parents) probably couldn't tell much difference. On a small screen, the difference would be especially minor. But on the large screen, all other things being equal, resolution is a factor.

HOWEVER, we often watch "uprezzed" DVDs that are not true HD. If the movie is good, the DVDs are totally compelling, and the amount of resolution doesn't enter my mind. Story is king.

I've noticed that aspect ratio affects my perception of the program in question. On my 16:9 TV, I want to view 16:9 content. I often shoot in letterbox mode on my DVX, and have been pleasantly surprised with the results on my 60" TV. Even the SD DVX, with compromised resolution of letterbox mode, is capable of producing a fantastic image.

So to address the original question, are we falling for the 'more pixels is better' line of thinking? Yes and no. The difference with digital video is that the new generation is finally delivering resolution that's roughly equivalent to film. This happened in digital SLRs a while back. 99% of consumers will have no need for more than 5 megapixels EVER. OTOH, filmmakers will want a HD 24p digital video option that's the rough equivalent of film.

Sometimes I think the real explosion over the next 5 years will not be in HD--it will be in low cost 3CCD SD cameras "for the masses," the coming tidal wave of vlogs, and low-resolution shows shot for iPod, cell phone, and Internet distribution.