Barry Green and a few others have discussed the (potential/probable) quality hit you may take when down-rezing to SD from HD for DVD/SD deployment. However, are the other advantages, and I realize some of these features are currently pure speculation, worth the hit?
- 4:2:2 (this is relative and specific to possible HDX capabilities, not HD in general of course)
- 16:9 (“native” and/or some “XL2-ish / DVX squeeze” trick)
- Composite/Effects in post in HD may (obviously) offer advantages over SD rez in that world.
- Is there an advantage in fundamental processing such as color correction in HD rez regardless of the fact that it’s going to be down-rezed?
Again, I know this must remain somewhat hypothetical and/or “in theory” until any real-world work can be done with the “HDX” but I guess the general question is still valid: higher rez processing advantage regardless of final target (SD).
Results 1 to 10 of 18
02-21-2005 08:47 AM
02-21-2005 10:04 AM
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Montreal, Canada
Compared to native 4:1:1 DV, I would speculate that down-converting 4:2:2 DVCProHD footage would yeild superior results for DVD deployment. *I would not say the same for the highly compressed 4:2:0 HDV though.
02-21-2005 10:27 AM
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
Depends on what you're comparing it to. *Are you comparing it to DigiBeta/DVCPRO50, or to DV/DVCAM? *If comparing to DV/DVCAM, then yes the 4:2:2 would potentially be a large advantage. *Transcoding 4:2:2 to DVD's 4:2:0 should, in theory, look better than transcoding DV's 4:1:1 to DVD's 4:2:0.
4:2:2 will also give you much cleaner chroma keys.
Shooting on HD will also provide the oft-mentioned "future-proofing"...
The "advantage" of 16:9 depends on what you're going to do with the footage. *If intended for European distribution, 16:9 is of great importance. *If intended for US distribution on the airwaves, 16:9 is of little relevance now, but will grow in importance as consumers adopt more and more 16:9 televisions. *I do believe consumers prefer 16:9, and there will come a time (although we don't know how soon) when US broadcasters may start broadcasting a 16:9 signal over the airwaves... right now all broadcasts are SD 4:3 (except for the few HD broadcasts to the few HD sets out there).
More resolution is always better, yes... as long as it doesn't hurt you in the end. *The downrezzing process costs a little. *It's not a big loss. *It's not like there's a night-and-day difference between native 720x480 and resized 720p down to 720x480... it's just a little softer.
I think people don't understand what I've been saying: it's not that the HD camera will make a lousy DVD, because it'll make a DVD with sharpness roughly the same as the native SD camera. *It just won't make a BETTER DVD. *It'll be, at best, about the same as a native SD camera of comparable technology would deliver.
And the same ain't bad. *It's not a drawback.
It's just not "better" -- lots of people are promoting the myth that FX1 footage "blows away" DVX/XL2 footage on DVD, and it's just patently false (or they didn't know how to use the DVX/XL2 so they had lesser-quality footage to begin with).
A properly configured, properly executed HD shoot will yield excellent results on DVD. *All things being equal, a comparable SD camera will likely do a slightly better job than the comparable HD camera would have, due to issues such as light sensitivity, latitude, and the HD->SD resizing aliasing/softening. *But if the cameras are truly comparable, the differences will be fairly minor. (and you'll always have that HD original footage to make an HD version with too).
02-21-2005 10:59 PM
How would it compare to a PAL version of the DVX. The PAL already is 4:2:0 so it should has some advantage there? (When going for DVD)
02-21-2005 11:20 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
And that, my friend, is a good question. One that I can't speculate on. I mean, you'd think the PAL DVX would make a better-looking PAL DVD than an NTSC DVX would make of an NTSC DVD... but how do you compare 'em?
When the HDX comes out, we'll have to find a way to run some comparisons.
02-22-2005 01:58 AM
[quote author=MovieSwede link=board=HDV;num=1109004429;start=0#3 date=02/21/05 at 22:59:47]
How would it compare to a PAL version of the DVX. The PAL already is 4:2:0 so it should has some advantage there? (When going for DVD)[/quote]
4:2:0 is not an advantage to 4:1:1.
See Adam Wilt's article on this very subject. You will need to sign in for this article but it costs nothing but the time to sign in. http://www.dv.com/news/news_item.jht...uestid=1204502
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Panasonic System Communications Corporation
Partner Sales Manager, NY and NJ
02-22-2005 02:28 AM
barry why do you think 16:9 is of more importance in the european broadcast world? most networks tell me to stay 4:3, because if you look at all their programmes they are 4:3 unless it is a feature or highquality series (super16) or a nature programme.
i think 16:9 has the same problems here as it has with you. when people see it they like it but the majority uses 4:3 TV-sets still.*****
02-22-2005 04:42 AM
Speaking for the UK, most things are shot 16:9. The BBC shoots all of their productions in 16:9 and protects for 14:9.
So digital transmissions in the UK are in 16:9. If you watch analogue broadcasts on the BBC channels all broadcasts are in 14:9 so 4:3 sets will see only small letterbox borders.
I don't know what ITV's policy is but their news is mainly in 4:3 as they still use BetaSP. This is quite irritating if you happen to own a digibox and a 16:9 set. Unlike the US the penetration of 16:9 sets in the UK is very high, and to my knowledge are outselling 4:3 sets.
02-22-2005 07:09 AM
Thanks for the replies and the link (that’s a very good and straight forward article btw). It seems difficult to go wrong if the current (speculative) specifications stay intact for the HDX.
- I know that some folks up-rez (quite a bit actually) SD footage in order to ease and achieve better quality post effects. The bottom line seems to be higher rez is always better i.e. backing down on resolution is better than artificially creating higher resolution.
- 4:2:2 is a better platform (certainly in theory at least, until someone officially finds a pitfall due to a conversion issue or something) to work from than 4:2:0 or 4:1:1.
- Cranking up your workflow tools (FCP, etc) to HD capabilities is a minimal hit.
- <Shameless marketing DVD credit> “Mastered from an HD source”. Even though HD saturation is currently pretty low, “HD” is a pretty hot consumer term. Even if you're painfully aware of the reality of what that really means (or doesn't mean) it's currently compelling to consumers.
- Resale value of current SD products when a HD/DVD delivery system becomes available. That goes for everyone from indie filmmakers to musicians to wedding/event videographers. When the HD/DVD medium becomes available, even if it’s 3 years from now, you’ve got resale value from getting in the loop now and it’s native resolution rather than up-rezzed. (of course you may need to create a digital storage warehouse but it’ll potentially be worth it. The wedding guys will have to worry about the divorce rate however *).
- As difficult as it’s been (and currently is and will be moving forward for a long while in my opinion) for a new standard to come together and deploy, you’re probably covered regarding HD at least from a native resolution aspect for 10-15 years.
Obviously most of that is pure opinion and it depends on the individual and what they have/need but I’m officially psyched.
- We have CD/DVD release parties coming up 3 quarter where we’ll bring our own (rented) projection device. Obviously HD will be cool.
- European markets have always been more receptive to us (we’ve historically sold 3 times more European units than domestic).
- As cheesy as it may sound it’s a fact, “HD” is probably more of a marketing term currently than reality but it is what it is: “Shot in HD”, “Mastered from HD”, blah, blah, blah.
- We’ll have resale value in the future, even if it’s 10% resale to current SD clients it’s worth the upgrade now.
And to hopefully head-off any “It’s not the camera, it’s the ability of the artist” rebuttals, I totally agree, the latest-and-greatest only makes sense if it makes sense for you, it’s not going to suddenly revolutionize your own abilities. However, if it’s the right tool for your targets and Panasonic is getting ready to pull off another DVX100-like SD market “coup d’etat” for the emerging prosumer HD camera market, I’ll take 2 HDXs.
Thanks again everyone.
02-22-2005 07:22 AMI’ll take 2 HDVs.__________________________@isaacbrody