DVCPro50 vs HDV vs 720: the meaning of HD

[ilchaco]

I'm shooting weddings and a customer ask for HD (without being to savvy about it). Other companies offer HDV as "HD" and HDV is comparable with DVCPRO50, right? So can I offer DVCpro50 as "HD"? Consider that the output for now will be on a SD dvd (widescreen or not). Or do I have to shoot in 720 or 1020 to truly be HD. The panasonic guys claim that the camera shoots in HD and the compressed to the desire setup. So in a way one is always shooting HD. So what is the difference to a consumer's eye if it is all going to crappy mpeg2 anyway?

all hail the mysteries of HD!

P.S. would it only make a difference if it was to be played in a)HDTV or B) HDTV with blue ray?

[esperman]

HDV is comparable with DVCPRO50, right? So can I offer DVCpro50 as "HD"?

No. Totally different formats and frame sizes.
I prefer DV50 to HDV, but DV50 is SD.
720p & 1080i & 1080p are HD.

[DavidBeier]

Here is it in a nutshell though someone like Barry should be able to give a much more technical explanation than I can.

HDV: This is a compression algorithum for encoding high def images onto a mini-DV tape. The resolution is typical 720p or 1080i but, in order to fit them onto such a small tape, it uses 4:2:0 color sampling and interframe encoding. 4:2:0 color sampling means that the color resolution/depth will be compressed to 25% or it's origional sampling. This means that you'll have less color information and less to work with in color correction. Interframe encoding means that groups of frames are compressed together and man frames are generated by the encorder. This not only leads to motion artifacts but can make editing HDV much more processor intensive since the computer has to tap into the DRAM to uncompress and access certain frames in a group.

DVC Pro50-This method, is a standard definition image, only in 480i (don't know if 480p as well). However, it uses 4:2:2 color sampling which means that the color information is only compressed by 50% and intraframe recording which means pure frames.

DVC ProHD-Similar to DVC Pro50 but with HD resolutions (720p, 1080i).

As you can guess, DVC ProHD is the best method of the bunch.

Now, your question is to what to shoot your footage on if you're distributing in SD.

In the few tests I've done, I've found that origionating in HD looks better. I'd suggest doing 720pN DVC ProHD. This will give you the highest resolution and color depth but will also save you space since 720pN only records the 24 frames you need (instead of 60 like DVC Pro50). Really there's no reason not to shoot this over DVCPro 50 (unless perhaps your computer can't handle HD).

Now, as for whether DVCPro 50 will be comparible to HDV in SD, that's a tough call (and one impossible to say with absolute certainty since the HVX200 doesn't shoot HDV). HDV will probably give you more detail even when down converted to SD. On the other hand, DVCPro50 will give you better colors (and more color detail) as well as better looking motion. Personally, on an SD project where the resolution difference won't be that great, I'd go for DVCPro50.

[peter orland]

[/quote] So what is the difference to a consumer's eye if it is all going to crappy mpeg2 anyway? [/quote]

Probably no difference at all.

There are so many flavours of HD ranging in price from a couple of thousand dollars to a couple of hundred thousand, they are not all going to look the same. And then that's not taking into account the most important variable, who is shooting and how good are they. Beautifully shot high end standard definition uprezzed to HD will blow away footage that is shot with a single chip HDV by an amateur. Which is the "real" HD, well the HDV is. Which would look better to your hypothetical client on their home television...?

[cinemakinoeye]

I don't suggest shooting DVCPRO 50 and calling it HD, it's got great color, but at the end of the day, it's still an SD format. Properly lit and exposed HDV can look very good, and in spite of all of the compromises, it can be called HD. A 480i format, in spite of a good 4:2:2 codec like DVCPRO 50, is not going to pass as HD under close examination. The resolution is not going to be there, especially interlaced SD vs. Progressive HD. Remember that one (of many) rules of good client relations is never give them what they ask for, give them what they want, and when they ask for HD, you have to find out, what is it that they really want.

[vidled]

...never give them what they ask for, give them what they want, and when they ask for HD, you have to find out, what is it that they really want.

Love that statement!
:thumbsup:

[cinemakinoeye]

So what is the difference to a consumer's eye if it is all going to crappy mpeg2 anyway?

All those gorgeous looking DVDs we rent are "crappy MPEG-2" and many (not all) look great. MPEG-2 is not so bad when you have bit budget for a decent data rate, for the most part, the quallity of MPEG-2 is highly dependent on the source material. Yes, it's a problematic format for aquisition, but for delivery, it's great. It's what we have to live with as long as consumers and clients are using DVD-Video.

[Jarek Zabczynski]

All those gorgeous looking DVDs we rent are "crappy MPEG-2" and many (not all) look great. MPEG-2 is not so bad when you have bit budget for a decent data rate, for the most part, the quallity of MPEG-2 is highly dependent on the source material. Yes, it's a problematic format for aquisition, but for delivery, it's great. It's what we have to live with as long as consumers and clients are using DVD-Video.

MPEG-2 for aquisition scares me. :(

[cinemakinoeye]

MPEG-2 for aquisition scares me
Be afraid, be very afraid... no, really, I think it depends on what you're shooting. An independent feature film with lots of color correction and effects work? No brainer, shoot DVCPRO HD or better. Event videography with lots of hours of footage, most will not be manioulated much? Sony's new XDCAM HD solution gives you pretty good looking images at the thirty-something bit rate. But no qualms about it, MPEG-2 is a "bit starved" format and I'd rather feast my eyes on something like DVCPRO HD.

[David Saraceno]

So what is the difference to a consumer's eye if it is all going to crappy mpeg2 anyway?

Obviously commercial DVDs, which in most cases, originate in film look better than mini DV NTSC DV.

The quality of what is compresses to m2v is essential.

We see huge differences between HDV encoded SD DVDs, and DVCProHD 720/24PN encoded to SD DVDs.

[Spartacus]

We see huge differences between HDV encoded SD DVDs, and DVCProHD 720/24PN encoded to SD DVDs.

well, what differences...?

[Illya Friedman]

Properly lit and exposed HDV can look very good.

Unless it's shot with JVC GR-HD1.

Sorry couldn't resist. I've never seen anything acceptable come from this HDV camera.

I.

[stabwound]

Now, your question is to what to shoot your footage on if you're distributing in SD.

In the few tests I've done, I've found that origionating in HD looks better. I'd suggest doing 720pN DVC ProHD. .


I found this to be the case too, having tested HVX HD vs HVX SD.

This might be contrary to what Barry Green suggested (in early posts which I may not be able to find), that shooting native SD for SD distribution is actually better than shooting HD for SD distribution.

But I'm delighted with the HD to SD picture quality, and not worry about shooting SD keeps the workflow simple.

[MovieSwede]

Well the interesting thing about the HVX is that it samples the frames as 1440*1080 at 60P then it makes an downconvert to the reccording format. So with th hvx you should be able to do the downconversion in post with as good results or even better. Because the HVX dont capture in SD.

But if you had 2 cams with the same lenses etc. But one had a 2/3 ccd 1080P and one hade a 2/3 ccd 480P. The 480P cam will give better 480P picture than the 1080P cam because of bigger sensors on the ccd (4 times as big)

But in the end its the subjective view that will matter. For some people a movie with interlace flicker will look sharper just because thats their opinion what sharp is. We all have so different opinion what a good picture is.