Downrezzing HVX for the cable company?

Slimothy

Slimothy

Veteran
Hello,
I'm among many others debating the pros/cons of switching to the HVX, but have a few questions.

-When I shoot w/ the dvx, how do I sustain the same quality when switching it over to my television or dvd?

I'm confused because I know that HD isn't that popular yet correct? So how do you get HD footage to play on a regular dvd player? Also-Is there a quality loss when transferring HD footage to a dvd (or better yet to a cable company for broadcasting?) I know they put feature films on dvds and the resolution of those are obviously as good as it gets. What is the process for that?

BTW: When I say HD, I'm referring to dvcPROhd

I'm seeing great clips from the HVX that I would love to be able to do for my projects but am wondering about the limitations of me shooting in this format. I know there have been lots of threads concerning this. I just haven't been able to get a thorough understanding as of yet.

Any help is much appreciated. Tim.
 
What NLE are you using? Simply edit in DVCPRO HD codec and then handle the downconvert however your NLE handles it. I can speak for FCP where it is as simple as dropping your DVCPRO HD sequence into a DV sequence and rendering.

Ned Soltz
 
Thanks everyone for your answers. But I'm still not totally understanding. I use Vegas right now, but I understand that I can't even edit DVCProHD in this NLE as of yet.

The question I have is: Alot of people talk of not getting the HVX yet because most people don't have HD tv's and DVD players yet. What's the difference if you can retain the same quality converting the DVCProHD footage to SD? Because then it wouldnt' matter if you have HD DVD players/televisions because you'd still have a much better image correct?
 
Slimothy,

Look at it this way:
With the HVX (compared to your DVX)

1. You're capturing MUCH more information of whatever your focused on.
2. You're also capturing and retaining MUCH more color information.
3. The Lens is sharper
4. The internal processing in the HVX produces better results than the DVX.


Just these 4 factors al much better looking picture.
When you (at the end of the editing process) downconvert to an mpeg file that file looks better because you started out with a MUCH better looking image in the first place.

This same argument has played out in the audio world where we capture at 48k 24bits (or higher) and end up with a CD that is only 44.1k 16bits. People record at the highest sample rate/bit debth as reasonably possible because the end result is a better sounding downconverted CD.
 
What's the difference if you can retain the same quality converting the DVCProHD footage to SD?
Click to expand...
You can't possibly maintain the same quality when downconverting to SD.

You can't put a million pixels into a 350,000-pixel frame and expect it all to be the same. SD is SD. HD is HD.

DVDs are SD.

If you shoot HD and output on a DVD, it will have been downrezzed to SD. It won't look like HD anymore.

Look at it this way -- if you project that DVD on a big screen, and then follow that by projecting your original high-def HVX footage on that same big screen, the HVX original footage is going to look way better.

An HVX is capable of, say, 5 gallons worth of "goodness". A DVD can only carry about a gallon and a half.

Shooting on an HVX and converting to DVD can make for a great-looking DVD, sure. But that DVD won't compare well at all to the original footage.
 
Barry_Green said:
You can't possibly maintain the same quality when downconverting to SD.

You can't put a million pixels into a 350,000-pixel frame and expect it all to be the same. SD is SD. HD is HD.

DVDs are SD.

If you shoot HD and output on a DVD, it will have been downrezzed to SD. It won't look like HD anymore.

Look at it this way -- if you project that DVD on a big screen, and then follow that by projecting your original high-def HVX footage on that same big screen, the HVX original footage is going to look way better.

An HVX is capable of, say, 5 gallons worth of "goodness". A DVD can only carry about a gallon and a half.

Shooting on an HVX and converting to DVD can make for a great-looking DVD, sure. But that DVD won't compare well at all to the original footage.
Click to expand...


If you only had a gallon and a half fish tank, and were trying to fill it, you would be very happy.


If you had a 5 gallon fishtank, you won't be as happy.


Barry is correct.

I have owned and still do own some great looking SD televisions.
DVD's look great on them, but the same DVD on my lawyers set, looks worse than anything I have ever seen. His set is so bad, that his only input for dvd, has to come in through coaxial. That is fed from a 1980's vcr, with rca inputs wherin the $30 dvd feeds it.

Point being:

A good set can make good footage great.
A bad set, can make bad or good footage worse.

The display medium makes a bigger difference.

If I have a 1 and a half gallon fishtank, it doesn't matter if I have 5 gallons of water, but it's better to be in that situation than the reverse.
 
Thanks so much guys for being patient! I just have one last question that keeps stumping me. When they put huge feature films on dvd, why do they look so damn good? Are those films actually taking a huge quality loss as well?
 
Slimothy said:
Thanks so much guys for being patient! I just have one last question that keeps stumping me. When they put huge feature films on dvd, why do they look so damn good? Are those films actually taking a huge quality loss as well?
Click to expand...

Because they vary the compression scene by scene to optimize the picture.
 
Slimothy said:
Hello,
I'm among many others debating the pros/cons of switching to the HVX, but have a few questions.

-When I shoot w/ the dvx, how do I sustain the same quality when switching it over to my television or dvd?

I'm confused because I know that HD isn't that popular yet correct? So how do you get HD footage to play on a regular dvd player? Also-Is there a quality loss when transferring HD footage to a dvd (or better yet to a cable company for broadcasting?) I know they put feature films on dvds and the resolution of those are obviously as good as it gets. What is the process for that?

BTW: When I say HD, I'm referring to dvcPROhd
Click to expand...


The conversion won't be HD, but if it was good to begin with, it can be good for SD sets as well. That is determined from your compression method. Some are better than others.

Slimothy said:
I'm seeing great clips from the HVX that I would love to be able to do for my projects but am wondering about the limitations of me shooting in this format. I know there have been lots of threads concerning this. I just haven't been able to get a thorough understanding as of yet.

Any help is much appreciated. Tim.
Click to expand...


I get beat up when I mention this, but the only limitations I strongly feel you need to be aware of are the realistic costs to do this as planned. This camera is expensive to operate as desired. If you can't afford double the cost of the camera, you may be hugely disapointed. If you are shooting DV now, and don't "need" it, a smarter NOW option may be a good 2/3 chip camera for the same money. It would cost the entry price of the camera, and the majority of your edit package can cross over as well as your media...if it's dv.

If you did the 2/3 option today, you could get lots of mileage in the next 5 years, by then, HD will have many more options, the cost and workflow will be less costly.

For me, I knew that my girlfriend will take my money if I don't spend it, so I spent it. :) I am not looking back. I wanted HD, I didn't need it. I got caught in the hype, and the waiting game to be the first on the block to have one. I got caught in the buy 2 P2 cards, and trying to download to a laptop. I got caught in the pc vs mac debate(s). I had to do lots of research till it took up most of my time and damaged a few relationships. I got the P2 store and got mad cause it didn't have it's own power supply, which only mattered because my 3 batteries were about dead on a shoot, and I could not charge them because the charger was powering the P2 store. I ended up using an old dvx battery on the p2 store, and charged the batteries.

The P2 store then stopped transfering from the 8 gig p2 card about 2/3rds through because the battery voltage dropped below the needed sustaining voltage (even though the p2 store meter read 2/3 full charge).

This locked up the device, and since I did not have the manual, I didn't know how to clear it to take more cards. Luckily for me, the remaining footage fit on the 2 p2 cards.

I didn't get the firestore because it has problems.

I got another $1270 8 gig P2 card instead.
I still feel this was a great investment. 3 cards makes everything so nice.

Somewhere before all this, I had to get an editing package and computer.
Your current computer won't be enough, regardless of what you already have.


I really wouldn't change much. The HVX200 is the greatest camera for what it does. The cost just keeps others in my market at bay a little longer, and allows me to edit faster and less time "capturing".

Around here, everyone has a DVX100 or Pd150.

When you tell them you have an hvx200, it's like you slept with miss america, and they witnessed it.

Everyone else quits boasting.



In all seriousness,
Nothing else compares.
It speeds everything up....if you spent enough money.
It's HD.
And if you don't know how to do something with the camera, Barry knows the answer, so just ask him.

You can't get that support ANYWHERE!

With the HVX200, if you can't do it, you either didn't spend enough money, or you didn't ask Barry.
 
Slimothy said:
When they put huge feature films on dvd, why do they look so damn good?
Click to expand...
First and foremost, because the source footage looks fantastic. Garbage-in, garbage-out, and accordingly, great source footage will lead to better output footage.

Second, they don't author those DVDs on desktop computers, they use high-powered sophisticated hardware-based MPEG encoders that extract everything they can from the source image.

But the net result is a standard-def product that still won't compare to the original.
 
Thanks so much to both of you.

I was already really considering a higher end SD cam, I'm really eyeing the SDX900. Any thoughts on some others that are really good and relatively affordable? I'm thinking about renting and seeing how I like it. Anything I should look out for? How much should I expect to pay for the body w/ decent glass (used).

Thanks again. TIm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top