4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4, and 'broadcast quality'

[chromeboy007]

Hello,

I have a general question regarding chroma sampling.

I guess to summarize how I'm feeling and what I'm thinking, I am not sure if I am able value the higher calibre cameras' 4:4:4 sampling capabilities. Obviously, when I watch high end broadcast television, I can see that their picture quality is better than my HPX170. The DR is wider, the colours are more accurate, the pixels are sharper if the TV is in HD.

I wonder if somebody can show me, with samples hopefully, the differences in quality between 4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4. I have done some readings online so I know what chroma sampling is on a theoretical level, but I cannot translate that knowledge to real world application.

I'm starting to be asked to do some low budget specialty cable TV commercials... so far been doing them on the HPX. I have been planning on investing in the Sony FS700 as I have yet really invested much into the interchangeable lens world other than playing around with a Canon 60D and the kit lens as backup and b-roll.

It sounds like an amateur question but are the FS100 and FS700 recorded onto SD cards 4:2:0? The advertising makes a point of saying you can HDMI/SDI output to 4:2:2, I guess thats their way of saying if you don't record onto external monitor you are only getting 4:2:0 LOL! Is 4:2:2 important for to achieve 'broadcast quality'?

I like the look I get from the HPX. I have been editing some EX1 footage shot by a very experienced shooter with my HPX170 footage and I have to say my HPX170 footage looks more 'natural', and the colours seem to be more accurate (though I think the lens is worse as in general I struggled with less light.) The EX1 is not 4:2:2 is it? B&H product info doesn't say.

If somebody can pack a bigger sensor, a nice fixed aperture zoom lens onto a 4:2:2 camera, there is little need for me to go for interchangeable lens cams.

Thanks

[Greyfus Wolf]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Colorcomp.jpg

[chromeboy007]

Cool Wolf thanks. I assume this is a 'all-other-factors-equal' test?

[Al MacLeod]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Colorcomp.jpg

Looking at the four frames I'd have to say 4:2:0 looks the best next to 4:4:4. That's a surprise...I always thought 4:2:2 was the next best to 4:4:4.

[Barry_Green]

Obviously, when I watch high end broadcast television, I can see that their picture quality is better than my HPX170.

But note, all broadcasts done in the USA and Canada are 4:2:0.

I wonder if somebody can show me, with samples hopefully, the differences in quality between 4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4. I have done some readings online so I know what chroma sampling is on a theoretical level, but I cannot translate that knowledge to real world application.

Here's my stab at it: http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/colorspace/

It sounds like an amateur question but are the FS100 and FS700 recorded onto SD cards 4:2:0?

Yes.

Is 4:2:2 important for to achieve 'broadcast quality'?

That depends on the broadcaster. Some will not accept 4:2:0 source material, and so FS100/FS700 users would have to use a NanoFlash or other 4:2:2 external recorder. But for a local cable station, I can't imagine that you'd have any problems at all with 4:2:0 source material.

I like the look I get from the HPX.

Then use it! It's a great camera, and you should have no trouble turning out local commercials with it, easily.

The EX1 is not 4:2:2 is it?

It is not. It records 4:2:0.

If somebody can pack a bigger sensor, a nice fixed aperture zoom lens onto a 4:2:2 camera, there is little need for me to go for interchangeable lens cams.

The HPX500 does that, and you can pick up one of those fairly cheap, although a fixed aperture fast zoom is going to cost some dough.

[Barry_Green]

I always thought 4:2:2 was the next best to 4:4:4.

It is. That's not really a subjective thing, I mean -- it's 960x1080 res vs. 960x540. 4:2:2 will always beat 4:2:0 or 4:1:1... if it's not obvious in that sample, look for others, but 4:2:2 is always sharper and more color-accurate than 4:2:0. In general, for live video purposes, 4:2:0 is adequate -- anything you've ever watched on HDTV broadcast or on blu-ray has all been 4:2:0, after all... but that doesn't mean 4:2:2's not better, because it is. Especially when you're dealing with computer work or grading rather than just the relatively vague human vision system. Computers will clearly see the difference between color edges much easier than our eyeballs do, and that makes chroma keying and effects work much simpler on the 4:2:2 system.

[chromeboy007]

Thanks Barry for answering my questions in such a to-the-point manner I'll definitely have to educate myself further in all of this.

Computers will clearly see the difference between color edges much easier than our eyeballs do, and that makes chroma keying and effects work much simpler on the 4:2:2 system.

Yes I love using my HPX for green screen work!

[Steve Eisen]

More than just the camera come into play. Lighting absolutely makes or breaks a picture image. It is necessary to proper monitor you video output from your camera to make sure you are getting the look you want.