HVX SD Pictures

[Barry_Green]

Okay, here's a picture that was shot in every SD mode I could think of: I shot in in HVX200 4:3 DV, HVX200 16:9 DV, DVX100B 4:3 DV, DVX100B 16:9, 720p downconverted in-camera to DV, 1080p downconverted in camera to DV, and then in 16:9 DVCPRO50.

I then made a composite picture from all the 16:9 modes and blew it up 200% so you can see the detail and color sampling.
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/Composite.jpg

You can see that the HVX's 16x9 is notably sharper than the DVX's, look at the paragraphs on the card -- they're aliased on the 100B, but they look correct on the HVX picture. Downrezzed HD doesn't seem as sharp as the native image, and I didn't expect it to be, it shouldn't be.

But:

By my reckoning, DV50 slaps the others silly, sillier than a 3 stooges festival. It's not just color -- everything about the DV50 image just leaps off the screen. Even the black & white portion -- look how much more detail is in the card on the right, look at the color fidelity and clarity in his eye vs. the other modes. Forget shooting HD and downrezzing to DV; DV50 spanks more than a 1950's high-school dean punishing unruly students.

If you want to shoot standard-def on the HVX200, DV50 is far and away the best choice. It's phenomenal.

I'll post links to the originals, in two formats: uncompressed BMPs in raw 720x480 size, and then JPG's that have been aspect-ratio-corrected (well, the 16x9 ones have been, I didn't bother to aspect-ratio-correct the 4x3's).

These are the uncompressed, unresized clips:
DVX100B 16x9: http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/DVX100B-16x9.bmp
DVX100B 4x3: http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/DVX100B-4x3.bmp
HVX DV 16x9 http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-16x9.bmp
HVX DV 4x3 http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-4x3.bmp
HVX DV dubbed from 720p: http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-Dub-From-720p.bmp
HVX DV dubbed from 1080p: http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-Dub-From-1080p.bmp
HVX DVCPRO50: http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV50.bmp

These are aspect-ratio-converted JPG's:
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/DVX100B-16x9.jpg
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/DVX100B-4x3.jpg (http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/DVX100B-4x3.jpg)
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-16x9.jpg (http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-16x9.jpg)
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-4x3.jpg (http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-4x3.jpg)
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-Dub-From-720p.jpg (http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-Dub-From-720p.jpg)
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-Dub-From-1080p.jpg (http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-Dub-From-1080p.jpg)
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV50.jpg (http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV50.jpg)

[Luis Caffesse]

Thanks barry - those are great examples!
What surprises me is - is it just me or does the HVX DV footage look sharper than the downconverted HD ? Am I crazy?

While it's no big surprise that the DV50 looks much better (seeing as it's got half the compression) - it's great to see that represented in a side by side like this.
Numbers don't ever tell the whole story.


Thanks!
:thumbsup:

[Barry_Green]

You're not crazy (well, at least about that...) I've been trying to tell people for a couple of years now -- downconverting to DV is not going to give you a sharper picture (all other things being equal). It just doesn't. You can't magically create more res than the target format can deliver (i.e., you can't fit three pegs into one hole without making some compromises!) So I'm not surprised at all. If you were intending to shoot HD for downconversion, you may want to add some sharpening so that more detail will survive the downrez process. But if you're intending to shoot for DVD or SD release, DV50 is the mode to choose.

Man, I'm just looking at these pics in full res -- DV50 just kills. It's sooooooooo goood! It's sharper and punchier and richer and smoother. And these are all 100% identical settings -- the *only* thing that changed was the recording format. I mean, look at these pics!
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV-16x9.jpg
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HVX200-DV50.jpg

[Emanuel]

Well, thanks! Keep posting it, please. Specially, regarding this noise concern.

[Luis Caffesse]

I've been saying since day one that I didn't understand why more people weren't excited about the DV50 option - I guess it just gets overshadowed by HD in most conversations.

But, for 99% of the stuff I shoot right now, DV50 would be perfect.
(local commercials, corporate, etc).


As far as the HD downconversion - I'm not surprised that it doesn't look better than shooting DV - I just expected it to look exactly the same... but it almost looks softer to me (then again I'm tired...so who knows). That's what surprised me...that it might actually look even softer than DV already does.

[Emanuel]

And well...nice subject, as well. I like your humor!

[Barry_Green]

Well, thanks! Keep posting it, please. Specially, regarding this noise concern.
There is no noise concern. It's no noisier than a Canon XLH1 or a DVX100B. What more do you want me to do? I've shown exactly what noise the camera produces, I've shown you full-resolution clips that show absolutely positively what the noise is. I showed you a gray scale so you can see what noise occurs at what brightness levels from shadow to highlight. What more do you want? Did you see an objectionable amount of noise in the gray card shot? If so, this isn't the camera for you. If you didn't see too much noise in there, then forget worrying about noise, because that's the noise level the HVX has.

[Luis Caffesse]

And well...nice subject, as well. I like your humor!

Yeah, what the hell is that thing, Barry?
:)

[Barry_Green]

As far as the HD downconversion - I'm not surprised that it doesn't look better than shooting DV - I just expected it to look exactly the same... but it almost looks softer to me (then again I'm tired...so who knows). That's what surprised me...that it might actually look even softer than DV already does.
Doesn't surprise me, I would expect that. It's a subsampled, compressed format that's then shrunk down to DV size and compressed again. I would expect native DV-res scanning off the chip to do a much better job than subsample/compress/resize/compress again.

In a regular production environment you probably wouldn't do it that way; you'd downrez in post but *not* recompress to DV. If you did that, you'd retain a lot of sharpness; it'd probably look better than the DV50 does. I'll have to import the file and try it.

[Kholi]

There is no noise concern. It's no noisier than a Canon XLH1 or a DVX100B. What more do you want me to do? I've shown exactly what noise the camera produces, I've shown you full-resolution clips that show absolutely positively what the noise is. What more do you want? Did you see an objectionable amount of noise in the gray card shot? If so, this isn't the camera for you. If you didn't see too much noise in there, then forget worrying about noise, because that's the noise level the HVX has.

What did I say in the other thread? Insatiable, I tell ya.

Thanks for posting this test, Barry... it gave me one more to do myself when I do my H1 Vs HVX this weekend... granted we can secure a damned HVX200 here in Santa Monica!!!

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, what the hell is that thing, Barry?
:)
Doesn't he rock? :thumbsup: That's the "Great Green Monster" from my favorite art gallery, The Bungled Jungle. www.bungledjungle.com (http://www.bungledjungle.com).

[Kholi]

In a regular production environment you probably wouldn't do it that way; you'd downrez in post but *not* recompress to DV. If you did that, you'd retain a lot of sharpness; it'd probably look better than the DV50 does. I'll have to import the file and try it.

How soon are you going to try this, instead? That'd be a good addition to this specific test.

[Barry_Green]

Tonight.

[Kholi]

Looks like I'm staying up past my bed time, then.

[Emanuel]

There is no noise concern. It's no noisier than a Canon XLH1 or a DVX100B. What more do you want me to do? I've shown exactly what noise the camera produces, I've shown you full-resolution clips that show absolutely positively what the noise is. What more do you want? Did you see an objectionable amount of noise in the gray card shot? If so, this isn't the camera for you. If you didn't see too much noise in there, then forget worrying about noise, because that's the noise level the HVX has.Unfortunately, I didn't see yet 'cause I'm on dial-up. Even the last ones that all those noise reports are related, I didn't see yet. Afterwards I can answer you properly. By now, my only request as you well know (and you well know as I'm grateful for your time regarding our previous PM exchange and our waiting for your time availability, so much appreciated considering your HVXbook schedule) it's a comparative between those noiseless settings (with and without) that you posted following Antoine's tip. But, as I said, 'cause I didn't see your recent footage post, I can't know if my previous request is already satisfied or not. But thanks anyway for your care that me and you, we both know that you have concerning ALL my requests. You are already a friend and our beloved HVX master. And you, as we, know it!

[Emanuel]

What did I say in the other thread? Insatiable, I tell ya.Yeah for sure! When we must have a decision with thousands of dollars involved (cams - more than one unit, several equipment, NLE's including and so on...) to buy NOT to rent for the next years...without the possibility to test it near our door...yeah, you're RIGHT!

[Kholi]

I'm renting to do my own tests. Then we'll buy two fo the winner.

[Barry_Green]

it's a comparative between those noiseless settings (with and without)
The clips I posted are with settings that would minimize noise, since that was what I was experimenting with at the time. The same settings work with the HVX as work with the DVX. I used the gray card to compare every gamma and every matrix and various detail and coring settings, and came up with my own level of settings that I intend to use with the camera. That's what's reflected in the clips that you haven't seen yet.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, here's the picture as shot in 1080p, and resized to standard-def but not recompressed:



Leaving it uncompressed definitely keeps the snap of the DV50 mode, and is sharper and better than the dubbed-to-DV version. Don't know if it gains anything over the DV50 version, but it's still way better than the downconverted-to-DV in-camera versions.
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/HD1080-resized-to-Uncompressed-SD.jpg

[Emanuel]

I'm renting to do my own tests. Then we'll buy two fo the winner.Good luck! To both!

BTW, as you can easily see, I'm trying to give us the best what I can have regarding your useful thread that we'd like, for sure, to answer our doubts. I can only speak for myself, of course. As well, for my partners & jobs that I have@my_office. But I appreciated your open thread and we beg your help. Unfortunately, we are far away from HVX availability in order to test it. As I said I must have a decision during next weeks for raising reasons, etc and it's not so interesting to decide without testing it. Unless, through yourselves but that's the way it is... Thanks for your superior understanding.

[Emanuel]

The clips I posted are with settings that would minimize noise, since that was what I was experimenting with at the time. The same settings work with the HVX as work with the DVX. I used the gray card to compare every gamma and every matrix and various detail and coring settings, and came up with my own level of settings that I intend to use with the camera. That's what's reflected in the clips that you haven't seen yet.Thanks again my friend for your care!

[Lenilenapi]

That is stunning Barry.
Makes me feel great that I already laid out the cash on this thing.
I always thought that the DV50 would be a great use for this camera, but I never imagined that much of a difference.
The great thing about DV50 is that editing workflow and its load on people's systems will be so much easier than getting involved in HD and it will satisfy a great many producers needs.

Thanks again for all your untiring and meticulous efforts.
Saving the rest of us alot of time.

[Kholi]

Good luck! To both!

BTW, as you can easily see, I'm trying to give us the best what I can have regarding your useful thread that we'd like, for sure, to answer our doubts. I can only speak for myself, of course. As well, for my partners & jobs that I have@my_office. But I appreciated your open thread and we beg your help. Unfortunately, we are far away from HVX availability in order to test it. As I said I must have a decision during next weeks for raising reasons, etc and it's not so interesting to decide without testing it. Unless, through yourselves but that's the way it is... Thanks for your superior understanding.

Sorry about that. Didnt realize you weren't in US.

I'll do what I can to help with my tests as well.

In regards of the SD pictures--

The final test looks as good or better than the DVCpro50... So maybe down-rezzing isn't such a bad idea?

What's your take on it, Barry?

And while I'm at it-- Does the XLH1 shoot in a similar mode? DVCpro50 or anything like that? That might be a downer for our workflow. I'd rather distribute my work through DVD at the moment, and it seems like downrezzing might just be an extra process that could get tedious?

[Emanuel]

Sorry about that. Didnt realize you weren't in US.It's not a problem but thanks anyway for your concern so much appreciated. :)

[Barry_Green]

The final test looks as good or better than the DVCpro50... So maybe down-rezzing isn't such a bad idea? What's your take on it, Barry?
I agree that it looks just as good, and maybe even a bit better. That's what I meant by the separate process of downrezzing to uncompressed and staying there. If you recompress it again, that's just asking too much.

So to be clear and people understand: the initial pictures up there were done by the camera shooting HD to the card, and then executing the in-camera dub to DV tape, then I imported the DV pictures. That's the process that's too much to ask.

The last pic was from HD downconverted but not recompressed. What I was demonstrating was that if you were going to end up in DV anyway, the downrezzing doesn't help you any.


And while I'm at it-- Does the XLH1 shoot in a similar mode? DVCpro50 or anything like that?
No. It has regular DV, and it has HDV, but there's no 4:2:2 possible (unless of course you use SDI output).

[Kholi]

I agree that it looks just as good, and maybe even a bit better. That's what I meant by the separate process of downrezzing to uncompressed and staying there. If you recompress it again, that's just asking too much.

So to be clear and people understand: the initial pictures up there were done by the camera shooting HD to the card, and then executing the in-camera dub to DV tape, then I imported the DV pictures. That's the process that's too much to ask.

The last pic was from HD downconverted but not recompressed. What I was demonstrating was that if you were going to end up in DV anyway, the downrezzing doesn't help you any.


No. It has regular DV, and it has HDV, but there's no 4:2:2 possible (unless of course you use SDI output).

Alright. So I can look forward to NOT looking forward to no other DV output from the Canon.

I'll go look more into this SDI output option from the Canon. Thanks for the testing.

This is the kind of info that should be circulating as well. What the HVX offers as far as SD, a medium that most of us would be using initially, anyway.

[Lenilenapi]

What do you mean by downconverting but not recompressing?
Where is this done in the process and does it leave you with an ordinary DV file that you can edit in FCP as DV?
That sounds very useful as well.
Does that look appreciably better than the DVPro50?

[Kholi]

He just did the tests. Find the DVCpro50 bitmap and compare it with the one a few posts up. It's just barely, if at all, better... but not a process that you'd want to go through it seems. You'd have to think that you'd be applying this technique to footage and not just stills.

DVCpro50 looks great, though.

[Barry_Green]

What I meant was, if you downconvert in-camera, it will finish the process by recompressing to DV and writing it to the tape. That downrez and recompress process is what's causing the softness shown in the DV-from-HD-Dub shots up above.

If you bring in the HD footage and just downrez it, it can look beautiful -- but what can you do with it? Eventually it'll have to be compressed to something (whether DV, or WMV9, or something like that). Compressing to DV throws away the "goodness" that it had. DV50 seems to preserve just about all of it, as far as standard-def goes: you get all the goodness, all the sharpness, and you can use it -- you can dub it to DigiBeta, or whatever.

Downrezzing without compressing to an output format is an intellectual exercise, but doesn't really have any applicability in real world production output. I'd still say that if you were aiming for SD distribution, and didn't need an HD master of your product, shoot DV50. It's gorgeous, better than I was hoping for! :) If you do need an HD master, then go ahead and shoot HD, but do your own downconversion in post; don't let the camera do it. Unless you're editing in DV, in which case it's six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other.

[Kholi]

What I meant was, if you downconvert in-camera, it will finish the process by recompressing to DV and writing it to the tape. That downrez and recompress process is what's causing the softness shown in the DV-from-HD-Dub shots up above.

If you bring in the HD footage and just downrez it, it can look beautiful -- but what can you do with it? Eventually it'll have to be compressed to something (whether DV, or WMV9, or something like that). Compressing to DV throws away the "goodness" that it had. DV50 seems to preserve just about all of it, as far as standard-def goes: you get all the goodness, all the sharpness, and you can use it -- you can dub it to DigiBeta, or whatever.

Downrezzing without compressing to an output format is an intellectual exercise, but doesn't really have any applicability in real world production output. I'd still say that if you were aiming for SD distribution, and didn't need an HD master of your product, shoot DV50. It's gorgeous, better than I was hoping for! :) If you do need an HD master, then go ahead and shoot HD, but do your own downconversion in post; don't let the camera do it. Unless you're editing in DV, in which case it's six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other.


And as far as downcoverting in post (off-topic), is there a thread you can point me to on how to do this? I want this to be part of my testing this weekend. I plan to actually burn an HVX DVD and a XLH1 DVD to check out on a few different screens.

[Haakon]

The clips I posted are with settings that would minimize noise, since that was what I was experimenting with at the time. I used the gray card to compare every gamma and every matrix and various detail and coring settings, and came up with my own level of settings that I intend to use with the camera.
Thanks for the testing, Barry. These are the kinds of examples I've been waiting for, and really show how the different modes of the camera compare and relate to each other. The newer footage I've been seeing from the camera lately looks really promising; I'm very happy about that.

The only thing that is still somewhat worrysome to me is that you've mentioned how changing things like the gamma, detail, and/or coring settings can really help to reduce noise in the picture (which is something a lot of people have been concerned about), but what I loved SO much about my DVX was the amazing color it outputted and rich, cinematic feel that it displayed (thanks largely to its unique gamma controls). I understand that I can "dial out" a fair share of the noise on the HVX by switching away from the cine-like gammas and reducing the detail, but is that not in effect also taking away the best things about the camera that DVX users have come to know and love so much - the beautiful color and sharpness of the images it produces?

Believe me, I'd love for you to clarify the issue so I can understand better, but even in posts like the one I've quoted, it seems that you've traded those benefits for the "optimal lowest noise" settings... and in a lot of ways that defeats the purpose (or at the least, gives up something really important for the sake of fixing something else). I realize that in most situations you can't have your cake and eat it too, but I don't want to give up the beautiful colors I'm used to on my DVX just to get a picture out of the HVX with acceptable levels of noise. Is there a solution (besides only shooting scenes that are flooded with light)?

[ahusain]

thanks for putting up those shots barry! not trying to start a flame war...

if all these shots are identically illuminated, then it seems that the dvx100b wins in the latitude department. it's the flattest looking shot! the dvxpro50 picture looks like it has the worst latitude. am i missing something? i love the sharp red channel but i can almost get that look using magic bullet's dv artifact corrector...

i feel like it's hubris to say this (especially considering all the experience and wisdom of the people on this thread), but the only pics i've seen from somethign other than the dvx100 under $10k that has the same "wow" factor that the dvx100 did at its introduction is this:

http://forum.reel-stream.com/viewtopic.php?t=338

of course it seems they're not shipping to the public yet. and the workflow is kinda nasty. but they're putting up a good fight (although probably a very biased one)... for example: http://forum.reel-stream.com/viewtopic.php?t=341

anyway the original point of this post was to ask about the dynamic range of the hvx vx. dvx. if the rest of this looks like a flame, then please just ignore it! :) barry what do you thikn of the dynamic range of dvx vs. hvx in sd?

thanks!

[BillP]

Hey Barry,
What iris settings were the cameras on when you did those?

I'm curious as to how much more light the HVX needed compared to the DVX.

Hope you remember.
Thanks.

-BillP

EDIT: Doh! Guy above kind of beat me to it.

[Barry_Green]

HVX requires 1 stop more light than DVX.

Haven't tested for comparative latitude.

As far as the noise & settings, I'm so tired of the "noise" thing that I developed a mostly noise-free recipe. There are many, many, many settings, and you can really dial it in just about however you'd want.
I realize that in most situations you can't have your cake and eat it too, but I don't want to give up the beautiful colors I'm used to on my DVX just to get a picture out of the HVX with acceptable levels of noise
Depends on what you find acceptable. Did you find the DVX100B acceptable? Then you'll be fine with the HVX. If you like the look of a DVX in cinegamma with cinematrix etc., then you'll be fine with the HVX in those settings.

[Stevet]

Barry,
Thanks for the excellent post on DV and DVCPRO50 differences.

There's no doubt the HD capabilites have created quite the stir that put the DVCPRO50 in its shadows.

I was very excited when I heard about DVCPRO50 with the HVX200.

This now confirms it!

Anyone even consider an SD solution would be crazy not to think about the HVX200!

Just look at the examples Barry posted! Wow, what a difference.

This also confirms I won't be downsampling and compressing to DV within the HVX.

Barry, your downsample from 1080 to 480 no re-compression looked great.
Is it possible to try this same test with 720P. With all the frame rate abilites of 720, I believe a lot of users will downsample from 720 to 480 for SD stuff.
Thanks, Steve

[Lenilenapi]

One more question on the downrezzing Barry,

I assume you did the downrez on a computer.
Is there a workflo where you could shoot HD and eventually convert to SD either before or after editing and keep some of that quality.

I assume that many producers will be unsure whetehr they really need HD or not, but will want to protect themselves by shooting HD even if they deliver in SD or would prefer to downrezz and edit in SD (saving the HD files for future).
Is this an option or will they always end up with the crappy looking recompressed SD in your test.

Exactly where did you do the downrez.
Is that available in FCP?
(I know you're not a Mac guy)

[Ralph Oshiro]

Great tests, Barry! I guess I have the same question. Since many of us won't be able to resist acquiring our footage in HD, many of us will be "stuck" with HD masters, even though the majority of our near-future distribution will be standard-def DVDs. What then, would be the optimum recommended workflow for HD-acquired footage that eventually needed to be distributed on SD DVD?

Also, remember, my friend has that Teranex digital converter seen here:

http://www.rezfactor.com/

I guess the "downconvert/recompress" would optimally come from a converter such as the Teranex Xantus? If you didn't have the Teranex, what would be the next best method in your opinion?

Or would you just need an "industrial-strength," Sonic Solutions-level DVD authoring platform to do the MPEG-2 encoding directly from the HD master (or DVCPRO-HD/HDCAM tape)? Or is there an HD premastering application even on the market yet?

[Antoine_Fabi]

Oh...man...

the poor man...i mean...the dentist...

It is obvious the HVX's has a much better image than the DVX100B.
I presently use a 100B because i'm waiting for my HVX...
...and the 100B is very good, i like it much much better than the A.

The HVX shines.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Well, as a side note . . .

Barry's tests are now making me rethink SD acquisition . . . if I'm only producing for SD DVD, maybe I should reconsider the 2/3" DSR450 SD camera again (yeah, yeah, I know, it's only 25Mbps, 4:1:1 DV). The PDW-F330 1/2" XDCAM HD is nice for only $20K with glass, but the DSR is 2/3" and only $14,999 with glass, bricks, charger, and a bag. The great thing about that is that I keep my regular ole' DV workflow.

[Rodrigo]

LOL NBC... you gotta stop WONDERING

[Maurice Jolly]

Well, as a side note . . .

Barry's tests are now making me rethink SD acquisition . . . if I'm only producing for SD DVD, maybe I should reconsider the 2/3" DSR450 SD camera again (yeah, yeah, I know, it's only 25Mbps, 4:1:1 DV). The PDW-F330 1/2" XDCAM HD is nice for only $20K with glass, but the DSR is 2/3" and only $14,999 with glass, bricks, charger, and a bag. The great thing about that is that I keep my regular ole' DV workflow.

nbc,
read what i wrote to answer another question about sd in the hvx here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.php?p=412007&postcount=5

i've been saying for a long time now that if you don't need hd, especially if you're
going to dvd that dvcpro50 can't be beat. the picture and workflow ease are just sick.

[Spiff_2]

Yup - the shooting 1080P and down-rezzing to 480P without any re-compression should definitely produce a better result that shooting DVCPRO-50 native. Down-rezzing from 720P should not produce much significant benefit though.

The 1080P down-rez should be very nearly 720x480 4:4:4 as opposed to the DVCPRO-50 4:2:2. If there's a discrepancy in terms of sharpness, the solution is to apply a sharpening filter to the down-converted footage, as bi-cubic interpolation is NOT a mathematically perfect procedure as it acts like a bit of a low-pass filter.

-Spiff

[Barry_Green]

I assume you did the downrez on a computer.
Yes, using a PhotoShop knockoff because Photoshop has decided to stop working.


Is there a workflo where you could shoot HD and eventually convert to SD either before or after editing and keep some of that quality.
Well, yes, depends on how you intend to deliver the footage. If you can edit uncompressed you could keep the downrezzed version's quality, but when you go to deliver it you'll take another hit depending on how good your delivery format is. If it's DVD or DV, you're going to throw away half the color resolution.

The only thing we really learned here is that you don't want to downrez to DV as an intermediate; that's just one step too many!


Is that available in FCP?
(I know you're not a Mac guy)
FCP 4.5 and earlier had a relatively poor downrezzing algorithm; apparently it is *much* improved in FCP5.

[Barry_Green]

if I'm only producing for SD DVD, maybe I should reconsider the 2/3" DSR450 SD camera again (yeah, yeah, I know, it's only 25Mbps, 4:1:1 DV).
Don't do it... ;) Look at the DV50 pic against the DV pic. That's the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:1:1. The DSR450 is 4:1:1. You won't ever get 4:2:2 quality out of it. If you really, really want to go SD 2/3", get an SPX800. That way you'll get 2/3" but you'll also get 4:2:2. Or wait for the Red, where you'll get all that and high-def too.

The great thing about that is that I keep my regular ole' DV workflow.
Yes, but you give up the 4:2:2 which is making the DV50 shine. Tread carefully, grasshopper -- nothing you saw up there had anything to do with 2/3", that was all just 4:2:2... :laugh:

[Antoine_Fabi]

FCP 4.5 and earlier had a relatively poor downrezzing algorithm; apparently it is *much* improved in FCP5.

Absolutely true.

I could not use FCP 4.5 for good downrezzing, it looked bad.

FCP 5 scaling algorithm is great ! sharp, but smooth and natural.

I made some tests:

720p to 480p DVCPro50, then to DVD = looks great.
1080 to 480p DVCPro50, then to DVD = looks great too.

Like Barry said, AVOID DV 25 ( 4:1:1 ) !!!! There a huge loss.
But if you go directly from 720p ( or 1080 i ) to DVD, or from 720p ( or 1080i) to DVCPro50 480p to DVD. They'll both look good.

[mochouinard]

There is no noise concern. It's no noisier than a Canon XLH1 or a DVX100B. What more do you want me to do? I've shown exactly what noise the camera produces, I've shown you full-resolution clips that show absolutely positively what the noise is. I showed you a gray scale so you can see what noise occurs at what brightness levels from shadow to highlight. What more do you want? Did you see an objectionable amount of noise in the gray card shot? If so, this isn't the camera for you. If you didn't see too much noise in there, then forget worrying about noise, because that's the noise level the HVX has.

I donno, it NBCShooter or something that keep complaining about noise, croma noise or something. I personally think I will be very happy compare to my cheapo 1 CCD Sony Digital8 camera. And if you say it compare to XL H1 noise that I am even more happy, since it was the other camera in my viewfinder. Thanks for all this

[Ralph Oshiro]

I donno, it NBCShooter or something that keep complaining about noise, croma noise or something. I personally think I will be very happy compare to my cheapo 1 CCD Sony Digital8 camera. And if you say it compare to XL H1 noise that I am even more happy, since it was the other camera in my viewfinder. Thanks for all thisIt's, "chroma noise," or "color" noise, mochouinard. As opposed to, "luma noise," or monochromatic noise. Try this . . . take a light and put a deep blue gel on it and shine it on a white wall. Photograph it with your video camera. Ingest the footage and lay it down to a MPEG-2 DVD or VHS tape. Play back the DVD or VHS tape on a normal CRT television. See the dancing grainy stuff all over the the area which is bathed in blue light? That's chroma noise.

[BobDiaz]

Barry, WOW, a picture is worth 1,000 words! Your photos say several thousand words...

One good look at the monster's red eyes and the problems with 4:1:1 become very clear.

To me it seems that IF the HVX-200 only supported DV and DVCPRO50, it would be one heck of a great camera. Everything else beyond that only makes it that much nicer.


Bob Diaz

[insanityfw]

Thanks Barry, as usual. I was waiting to see some of this for an upcoming projecta and I am truly a happy man.

PS-I want a tshirt that just says, BARRY GREEN in big letters. Nobody else has to understand it, but I'd feel just a bit smarter and more confident when I wore it. :)

[FatDaddy]

I'd get one of those. Maybe "Barry" in green and "Green" in red.

nice...

[Barry_Green]

Only if I get a shirt that says "Bob Diaz" on it. Bob's my new favorite poster -- he's like The Professor on Gilligan's island; that cat knows everything! :)

[sponester]

Could someone explain the down conversion process in fcp 5.
Are you starting a new sequence setting and rescaling or is there a media manager setting to do the conversion. Just curious on the exact workflow.

btw. from the beginning my intentions with the HVX was to shoot dv50. I've worked with the sdx900 many times and it is beautiful if you get your settings dialed in to your taste.

My goal is to shoot docs and commercials with this camera and I shouldn't need HD for those, but if something comes up for an hd channel. Great I have the opportunity but will probably rent a varicam or f900.

[Alvise Tedesco]

If you bring in the HD footage and just downrez it, it can look beautiful -- but what can you do with it? Eventually it'll have to be compressed to something (whether DV, or WMV9, or something like that). Compressing to DV throws away the "goodness" that it had. DV50 seems to preserve just about all of it, as far as standard-def goes: you get all the goodness, all the sharpness, and you can use it -- you can dub it to DigiBeta, or whatever.

So,Barry, just because my english helps misunderstandings,
if I'm delivering SD to be broadcasted, better options are in this order:

1) Shoot DV50 Edit DV50 Print DV50 or DigiBeta
2) Shoot HD Edit DV50 Print DV50 or Digibeta
3) Shoot DV (DVX) Edit DV Print DV or whatever
4) Shoot HD Edit DV Print DV or whatever

Correct?
I was amazed a lot of people here were just seeing HD. 4:2:2 on a 1/3 cam that follows the DVX sounds good to me
Many thanks again
Alvise

[Alvise Tedesco]

If you bring in the HD footage and just downrez it, it can look beautiful -- but what can you do with it? Eventually it'll have to be compressed to something (whether DV, or WMV9, or something like that). Compressing to DV throws away the "goodness" that it had. DV50 seems to preserve just about all of it, as far as standard-def goes: you get all the goodness, all the sharpness, and you can use it -- you can dub it to DigiBeta, or whatever.

So,Barry, just because my english helps misunderstandings,
if I'm delivering SD to be broadcasted, better options are in this order:

1) Shoot DV50 Edit DV50 Print DV50 or DigiBeta
2) Shoot HD Edit DV50 Print DV50 or Digibeta
3) Shoot DV (DVX) Edit DV Print DV or whatever
4) Shoot HD Edit DV Print DV or whatever

Correct?
I was amazed a lot of people here were just seeing HD. 4:2:2 on a 1/3 cam that follows the DVX sounds good to me
Many thanks again
Alvise

[David G. Smith]

Wow, good job Barry. I had hoped that DV50 would be the shit.

However, I am worried... You have quit a few spanking analogies there... Is there something you want to tell us?

[Barry_Green]

if I'm delivering SD to be broadcasted, better options are in this order:

1) Shoot DV50 Edit DV50 Print DV50 or DigiBeta
2) Shoot HD Edit DV50 Print DV50 or Digibeta
3) Shoot DV (DVX) Edit DV Print DV or whatever
4) Shoot HD Edit DV Print DV or whatever

Correct?

If you're shooting for broadcast, I would say yes, shoot DV50, edit DV50, deliver on DV50 or DigiBeta.

In second place, I would shoot HD, edit HD, then downconvert to DV50 or DigiBeta (whichever your station requires).

In third place I would still shoot DV on the HVX before I'd shoot DV on the DVX, because of the 16:9 issue, the longer lens, the sharper lens, and the tapeless acquisition. But for 4:3 DV, they're very close, and the DVX is a whole lot cheaper. If you can't do DV50, then sure a DVX in DV 4:3 is probably just as good as an HVX in 4:3 DV. In 16:9 DV the HVX does hold a noticeable edge in sharpness.

As for option 4, I'd prefer to avoid that route; I think you'd get a better image shooting DV and editing DV than you would shooting HD and editing as DV.

[lpcvideo1]

Only if I get a shirt that says "Bob Diaz" on it. Bob's my new favorite poster -- he's like The Professor on Gilligan's island; that cat knows everything! :)

Hahahahaha! That's great! He's so the professor! (Gotta love Bob.)

(Bob, can you make an HVX out of Bamboo? I'll take one.)

Now, who's the Skipper and Mr. and Mrs. Howell?

[Taylor Moore]

Hahahahaha! That's great! He's so the professor! (Gotta love Bob.)

(Bob, can you make an HVX out of Bamboo? I'll take one.)

Now, who's the Skipper and Mr. and Mrs. Howell?

Jarred of course is the Skipper....not quite as portly, but with the same demenor;)

[Emanuel]

Only if I get a shirt that says "Bob Diaz" on it. Bob's my new favorite poster -- he's like The Professor on Gilligan's island; that cat knows everything! :):thumbup: since the first one...

[skettalee]

No bandwidth available!

[lpcvideo1]

Jarred of course is the Skipper....not quite as portly, but with the same demenor;)

The three hour cruise I signed up for was not what I was expecting. I can't get off this site! I'm stranded.

But just like G.I., some famous star seems to show up every now and again.

BTW, how'd Pookie get off the island?

[Brian Petersen]

The images don't seem to work? Out of bandwidth?

[Barry_Green]

Yes, just got the notification -- out of bandwidth. :(

[Ray Smithers]

Barry:

We would be happy to mirror these at www.RamGate.com just send me a set as an email attachment to ray.s@pigsfly.com

Ray

[Alex 3D]

I'd love to see these examples, but they're offline now. Any chance these can be made available again?

Thanks.

--Alex

[TimurCivan]

Thanks Barry, as usual. I was waiting to see some of this for an upcoming projecta and I am truly a happy man.

PS-I want a tshirt that just says, BARRY GREEN in big letters. Nobody else has to understand it, but I'd feel just a bit smarter and more confident when I wore it. :)

i made a tshirt that says ( in marker of course) "Because Barry Green says so."

Noone got it and kept asking who barry green was....

[insanityfw]

OK, so now I'm thinking of a couple variations of Barry Green shirts and then how about a shirt that just says BOB and then a picture of Bobs mug in black and white like those Fidel Castro shirts.

thanks again for the tests.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

waiting for pics to go back online :)

[They are Them]

this is what i've been waiting to see from the HVX.........sooooo i hope the images are re-posted..........i'm dying here! haha

[Barry_Green]

Okay, so some people have had trouble understanding my last green-screen shots, thinking that the girl's hand MUST be moving even when it wasn't, thinking surely that motion must be accounting for the blockiness. So, I've been asked for still-life shots. Accordingly, I set up a sort of still-life. Absolutely no motion in these shots, and again all the usual elements apply: no changing of settings, no changing of lighting, no changing of anything whatsoever except the recording format. All shots were on the same camera, so this isn't any sort of camera vs. camera comparison, these were all shot on the same HVX200. The ONLY setting changed at all was the recording format.

These shots were all imported in the Mac and rendered out pixel-for-pixel, so they haven't had any aspect-ratio correction done to them. They'll all look tall & skinny, but the HD shot will look much skinnier than the others due to the 1.5:1 pixel-aspect-ratio, vs. 1.2:1 for the others.

First, DV:
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Turkey-DV25.JPG
(uncompressed version here: http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Turkey-DV25.png)

Now, DVCPRO50:
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Turkey-DV50.JPG
(uncompressed version here: http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Turkey-DV50.png)

Here's a blow-up to 400%
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Turkey-DV-DV50.JPG



Here's how HD compares to SD. The HD frame is 4x as large as the DV frame, so to make them comparable you'd have to double the width and double the height of the SD frame to get it approximately the same size (and even then it's not exact; the pixel aspect ratio and frame dimensions aren't EXACTLY double; you end up with 1440x960 vs. 1280x1080, but it's close enough to at least compare for informational purposes.)

I took the same shot in HD and displayed it at 100% size (1280 x 1080) and I also took that same shot in DV50 and zoomed in to 200%, to make it be about the same size. This is about what you'd get if you tried to view the two shots side-by-side on the same size display:

http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/Lemonade-DV50-DVHD.JPG

DVCPRO50 blows up very nicely, the additional color resolution holds up, but the detail just isn't there. The HD frame is much crisper of course. And obviously you could blow up the DV50 using bicubic resampling and get a fuzzier, smoother, more comparable shot, but at the end of the day the lens and chips just have a lot more to work with in the high-def version.

[penfever]

Seems like the aliasing on those ball things, in particular, is pretty much eliminated in 50. I'm glad somebody reminded me of this HVX feature - score one more point for Panasonic.

[Stevet]

Barry,
these examples are excellent to say the least.

They really lay out. "this is what you get".

Also, the 200% SD verses 100% HD test really shows the 1080 benefit !

[Mitch_Ives]

As far as the noise & settings, I'm so tired of the "noise" thing that I developed a mostly noise-free recipe.

I don't want to start any problems here, since I apparently missed all the noise discussions, but as DVX fan, I 'd like to ask a question:

The DVX (like all 1/3" cameras) tended to be noiser than many of us would like, even though it's the best small SD camera out there. So, since many of us don't have a 100B, only 100A's... what was the consensus among all of you of the noise level in the HVX versus the 100A we all know and love...

Oh, and thanks for the info on the HVX needing 1 more stop than the DVX... that's the kind of useful info we can all appreciate.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Thanks Barry!


I don't want to start any problems here, since I apparently missed all the noise discussions, but as DVX fan, I 'd like to ask a question:

The DVX (like all 1/3" cameras) tended to be noiser than many of us would like, even though it's the best small SD camera out there. So, since many of us don't have a 100B, only 100A's... what was the consensus among all of you of the noise level in the HVX versus the 100A we all know and love...

100A and B are comparible -- maybe there are new gamma settings, better head phone jack, and 16X9 monotoring -- but same chips, same lens.

If you want low noise use "normal" gamma (easy to add more S curve in post) never never use any gain. I didnt't see Barry's low noise formula -- if that's in a nother thread could someone please provide the link? Thanks.


Oh, and thanks for the info on the HVX needing 1 more stop than the DVX... that's the kind of useful info we can all appreciate.

... just like about everything Barrry says IMO ...

... as Ginsberg described Kerouac ... he's "sure is some fillin' station" :cheesy:

[They are Them]

here's a good ignorant question (i appologize) does the "dv50" pic, that looks amazing, is that recorded and spat out from the P2 cards? or tape?

be gentle

[Barry_Green]

Only DV can be recorded to the DV tape. You could record DV50 to an external tape deck, but not internal; internally DV50 only records to the cards.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

here's a really ignorant question

you mean a DV50 deck -- not via firewire (or anyother means) to like a single chopa little miniDV camera?

just wishfil thinking I'm sure.

[Barry_Green]

Of course. A miniDV camera can only record miniDV. If you want DV50 to tape you need a DV50 deck.