How good will HD footage look on SD-DVD

D

db20

Active member
Hello:

How big of a difference are camcorders like the JVC gy-hd100a, HVX 200, Canon xl h1 from a camcorders like the DVX100 when both footage is burned into SD-DVD - would it be a gigantic difference? Would there be any difference in watching them on a big screen because of resolution? Would HD look a lot better the SD when transferred to film? Would HD look a lot better then SD if printed to a DV tape? I ask this because i am wondering how are people taking advantage of shooting in a HD format when HD-DVD's, Blue Ray have not quite arrived yet. Basically to notice a huge difference between SD camcorders, HD camcorders would you have to have a HD player, projector? Would shooting on a HD camcorder vs SD Camcorder look similar when burned to a SD-DVD because of the SD-DVD's limitations.

If someone could shed some light to on this subject i would be grateful.

Thanks
 
db20 said:
Hello:

How big of a difference are camcorders like the JVC gy-hd100a, HVX 200, Canon xl h1 from a camcorders like the DVX100 when both footage is burned into SD-DVD - would it be a gigantic difference?
Click to expand...

There will be a difference but how big is subjective. Higher resolution cameras are going to produce a cleaner image in SD. I've shot footage on the HVX200 in SD, 720p, and 1080i and the result is that the higher rez the origionation footage was, the cleaner the final image was. The difference wasn't huge but it was definatly there. More powerful cameras such as a VariCam or CineAlta would produce much more impressive results in SD.

Would there be any difference in watching them on a big screen because of resolution?
Click to expand...

Of course. The bigger you show something the more you are going to notice the resolution. If you're watching something on an ipod you may not be able to tell the difference between 35mm film and a DVX100A.

Would HD look a lot better the SD when transferred to film?
Click to expand...

Once again, OF COURSE. When you transfer to film you are going to be projecting at a huge size so, once again, the more resolution the better it'll look.

Would HD look a lot better then SD if printed to a DV tape?
Click to expand...

Not sure what exactly you mean here. Why would you want to print it to a DV tape? If you're recording on most min-DV, HDV, or DVC Pro cameras then you'll already be on a DV tape. If you're doing an HVX200, you'll be on P2. DV tape really isn't how most want to show it to an audience.

I ask this because i am wondering how are people taking advantage of shooting in a HD format when HD-DVD's, Blue Ray have not quite arrived yet. Basically to notice a huge difference between SD camcorders, HD camcorders would you have to have a HD player, projector? Would shooting on a HD camcorder vs SD Camcorder look similar when burned to a SD-DVD because of the SD-DVD's limitations.
Click to expand...

We really don't know if whether Blue Ray or HD-DVD will win out.

For film or anyone with an HD TV and an some way to play HD footage, there is no contest. The HD cameras will produce a much sharper image than the SD ones. For that matter, the HVX200 uses DVC ProHD which means twice the color information of mini-DV. This alone is simply heaven giving you MUCH better looking colors and making life so much easier in color correction.

For a SD DVD, the choice is harder. The difference is definatly there and I think noticible. I haven't done enough tests to see how much strong it is but it's there. Talk to some other people who have done tests using a DVX100 and an HVX200 to get a better idea. I went with the HVX200 because even though not many people have HD now it's more future proof. The extra resolution gives me more to work with and the extra color depth is heaven. It also has a sharper lense, P2 workflow (which I love), and variable frame rates. All this makes it not only a much better SD camera but a great HD one that will be around when you need HD. So yes, I think it's worth the extra cash to get an HD one over an SD one. Of course, I'm speaking of what you spoke of, HD ones like the HVX200 or HD100 and SD ones like the DVX100 and XL2. I've been told some of the really pricey SD cameras like the SDX900 will actually produce as good an SD image as many HD cameras but those run around 10k which is more than the HD cameras you are looking at.

Good luck.
 
If you're using an HVX, shooting in HD and downrezzing to DV isn't going to give you the best standard-def image.

With the HVX, all internal processing is done at 1920x1080. The chips are scanned into a 1920x1080 matrix, and all processing is done from that. In order to record standard-def, that 1920x1080 is downrezzed to 720x480 and recorded from there.

In other words, it's always doing an HD->SD downconvert.

So if you record HD with the intention of downconverting to SD, you're going to be giving up some detail, because the 1920x1080 will first be downconverted to 960x720 (for 720p), and then compressed, and then recorded, and then to make your SD version that will need to be uncompressed, expanded back up to 1280x720, downrezzed to 720x480, recompressed and recorded.

Which is a whole lot of convolution when you could have just gone 1920x1080 in-camera straight to downconversion straight to 720x480 recording. Which will give you a sharper image than having recorded to an intermediate format in the first place.

Now, this all assumes you're going to DVCPRO50, for its 4:2:2 color and mild compression. If you're going to DV the results are less desirable.

There are two potential benefits from recording high-def and then downconverting to standard-def, in that the high-def version means you'll have high-def source footage, which means you could some day make a high-def version of your program. That's nothing to sneeze at.

The other thing is that if you downconvert the recorded high-def, you'll come close to getting 4:4:4 color in a standard-def version. That's irrelevant for DVD, in that DVD will convert it to 4:2:0 (throwing away 75% of the color res), but if you're doing something where you need that extra color info, HD->SD can do that. But you'll have to go through the intermediary compression stage (and any potential mosquito artifacts or quantizing errors or anything else that might crop up).

That's why I say it's cleaner to just shoot DV50 in the first place, if you want to end up on SD. You get all the supposed benefits of oversampling/downrezzing anyway, but without the intermediary downrez/compression stage.
 
I've heard some complaints about the noise from 1/3" HD sensors creating problems during MPEG-2 compression - I don't know if this is definitely true or not, but it does support the idea of shooting SD for SD and HD for HD. If in challenging low light situations, the camera with the better low light performance woudl be the better idea, no?
 
i haven't shot anything to DVCPRO 50 yet, i'm very interested to see the results for DVD out.

what's the compression ratio for DVCPRO 50?
 
MikeCurtis said:
I've heard some complaints about the noise from 1/3" HD sensors creating problems during MPEG-2 compression - I don't know if this is definitely true or not, but it does support the idea of shooting SD for SD and HD for HD. If in challenging low light situations, the camera with the better low light performance woudl be the better idea, no?
Click to expand...

I just made a SD DVD using Compressor in Final Cut and then DVD Studio Pro. The footage was originally shot on the HVX at 720/24pN.

There is a scene in a very dark movie theater. It looks great. No noise problems.
 
my 720pn footage looks great after burning to SD-DVD. It blows away the DVX. The color corrections are much better and the overall tonal range seems higher. And it is much sharper looking. I don't have any noise problems either. Some banding from the MPEG2 compression but I get that on store bought movies. It has more to do with videos 100:1 range vs Films 1000:1 linear vs. log formats.

Based on Barry's theory one would shoot 16mm instead of 35mm for DVD destination when shooting film. I really don't agree. I think the more info you have going into a compression the better the image. Garbage in Garbage out. But what the hell do I know?
 
I'll tell what looks FABULOUS.

Burning HD DVD with red laser out of DVD SP 4 and playing it on a Toshiba A1 HD DVD player tethered to a Samsung HiDef LCD using the HDMI feed.

Absolutely gorgeous.

It's hard to see a difference between this and a component feed out of the HVX.
 
holditnowfilms said:
Based on Barry's theory one would shoot 16mm instead of 35mm for DVD destination when shooting film. I really don't agree. I think the more info you have going into a compression the better the image. Garbage in Garbage out. But what the hell do I know?
Click to expand...

Try re-reading what I wrote. What I said was SPECIFICALLY aimed at the HVX, and specifically because of how the downrezzing works in-camera.

If you believe that the more info you have going into the compression results in a better image, then surely you'd agree that a 1920x1080 source being compressed at 3.3:1 is going to give you a better image than a 1920x1080 source that's been downrezzed and compressed to 960x720, which is then further downrezzed and compressed to 720x480, right?

Anyway, it's simple enough to test. Try testing it, you'll see there's a difference.
 
Barry,
In camera downrezzing is not the best result if you wanne go SD.
But Barry, shooting HD, editing in HDtimeline, copy HD timeline in SD timeline will get better result than shooting DV50 isn't it ?
 
dolph2000 said:
But Barry, shooting HD, editing in HDtimeline, copy HD timeline in SD timeline will get better result than shooting DV50 isn't it ?
Click to expand...
Test for yourself and see. In my experience it's just a whole lot more convenient, and every bit as good, to shoot DV50 in the first place. DV50 is recorded as downconverted HD in-camera, but it's a downconversion from the original 1920x1080 image, not from the compressed/prefiltered recorded HD.

If you intend to have an HD master, then yes your proposed workflow makes sense. If you're not ever going to use the HD master, there's a lot of reasons to consider just shooting DV50 instead.
 
Yeah you're right.
Only all that advantages of 720 are pretty handy. Focus assist, variable framesrates. So if the downrez quality wille be even with original DV50, I stay 720. Thanks
 
MikeCurtis said:
I've heard some complaints about the noise from 1/3" HD sensors creating problems during MPEG-2 compression - I don't know if this is definitely true or not, but it does support the idea of shooting SD for SD and HD for HD. If in challenging low light situations, the camera with the better low light performance woudl be the better idea, no?
Click to expand...

Regarding this and Barry's posts. This is something I've wondered about and, quite frankly, have never gotten a definitive or satisfactory answer. If I shoot with a DVX (or any SD cam) and make a SD DVD, will it look better than if I shoot with HVX (or any HD cam, these are just examples - don't get mad) downconvert and make a SD DVD? Forget about colorspace and DV50. I'm talking about detail loss and overall picture quality.

Does this have anything to do with the "ICONOCLASTS" shot with a Sony Z1 (running Saturdays on the Travel ch) and "LOVE SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL" (Canon XL H1 - Lifetime ch) looking so soft and lacking detail on my SD tv while "ALLWAYS SUNNY IN PHILLY" (Fx ch) and "JAMIE KENNEDY" (Mtv) both shot on DVXs look a lot sharper with more detail? Or is it just bad camera operators turning the sharpness all the way down? Thanks.
 
Can you explain to me that advantage? I thought focus assist was available in all of the HVX's modes. It merely doubles the size of the LCD/EVF display, and has nothing to do with what mode it is recording to.

Does the LCD display change its quality depending on the recording feature??? or is it just showing the raw image from before it gets convereted to whichever format?

****EDIT**** Never mind, I just checked on my HVX200 and indeed the focus assit feature does not work in any 480 mode. That is highly annoying.

John Trent:
To be honest, from my own personal experience, the HVX looks better in SD than the DVX. Now this was from watching finalized footage on both outputed to DV tapes and screened on a digital projector. My GUESS is that the lens for the HVX is a nicer lens ( I have no concrete evidence, nor do i feel like looking around the internet to look for this information at the moment to back it up, just going by feel so please feel free to correct me here) and hence some things just look much crisper and color looks richer on the footage shot by the HVX.

From what I recall this footage was shot on DVC 50 and then downconvereted to DV and output to DV tape for this particular screening.

My personal experience has been that I do notice a difference in the clarity and quality of the footage in SD. In this particular moment I was at screening for an honor show of the film school I graduated from, watching 6 hours of short films. One in particular caught my eye, having (to me) better quality than the equipment that particular film school has available to it (As far as digital goes, I knew right away it wasnt film, and yes, some students will shoot in film and end up with an edited master on DV-Cam)

So basically my answer is having watch lots of footage shot on 16mm and telecined to DV, DigiBeta, and BetaSP footage (which was just deck to deck transfereD) downsized to DV, and some (but not much) footage shot on the HVX and downsized to DV (through finalcut) I have to say I definetly see a difference.

As Barry has stated this doesnt have to do with the resoulution of the footage, but rather with the way the source handles all the other information (Resolution, like Hz in computers isnt the end all be all).

I can't say that I've seen enough stuff on DVD to compare and definetly give you an answer, but my gut instinct is to say if the Difference is there between native DV and other footage transfered to DV, the difference should still be discernable when going to MPEG-2. Granted you loose even more information, and thus theoritically the difference between the two would be less discernable.

Ok i hope I havent rambled too much or set off enourmous amounts of misinformation.

Goodnight
 
Last edited:
John Trent said:
Regarding this and Barry's posts. This is something I've wondered about and, quite frankly, have never gotten a definitive or satisfactory answer. If I shoot with a DVX (or any SD cam) and make a SD DVD, will it look better than if I shoot with HVX (or any HD cam, these are just examples - don't get mad) downconvert and make a SD DVD? Forget about colorspace and DV50. I'm talking about detail loss and overall picture quality.

Does this have anything to do with the "ICONOCLASTS" shot with a Sony Z1 (running Saturdays on the Travel ch) and "LOVE SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL" (Canon XL H1 - Lifetime ch) looking so soft and lacking detail on my SD tv while "ALLWAYS SUNNY IN PHILLY" (Fx ch) and "JAMIE KENNEDY" (Mtv) both shot on DVXs look a lot sharper with more detail? Or is it just bad camera operators turning the sharpness all the way down? Thanks.
Click to expand...

HVX200 will look better in SD for the same reasons 35mm will look better in SD. Starting off with more resolution, better color depth, and a sharper lense (which the HVX200 does indeed have) is going to give you a better SD image.

As for the shows you mention, I don't know. Z1 isn't that great of a camera and I've hated every time I've used it so it doesn't suprise me if it looks like crap. The Canon XL H1, for all it's possible issues, is the sharpest under 10k camera around so it looking fuzzy is odd. My best guess is what you suggested. The camera operater probably lowered the detail level a lot to get rid of some of the razor sharp edges that come with HD. I've found this to be a case with ALOT of HD shot stuff I've seen (and with quite a bit of DVX, XL1,a nd XL2 stuff too). They're so concerned with avoiding the digital look that they'd rather have it look like bad film than good digital. The result is that they soften the detail a lot and often stick in a bunch of fake film grain. The result is that you get something looking like poorly shot 8mm.
 
I think you guys are missing Barry's point. He's so technical and has so much damn information in that einstein brain of his, it's hard to understand him sometimes. *smile* Here, lemme put it in 'regular folk' terms....

The HVX always "sees" 1920x1080....NO MATTER WHAT MODE YOU'RE IN. Always everyday everytime around the clock, that's what it is seeing...

SO....If you shoot in 720p HD mode, you'll go from 1920x1080 --->down to---> 960x720 --->down to --->720x480.

BUT...If you shoot in SD mode, you'll go from 1920x1080--->straight to--->720x480.

Basically the camera takes you there to begin with. It skips a step of compression. And we all know the camera will do it better then any NLE could. So if using the HVX200, then shooting Standard Definition will give you a better image to begin with. THIS IS ONLY VALID FOR THE HVX200 in 720p MODE. I think Barry would agree if shooting in 1080p mode, it's a toss up. Maybe even a tie. But tie goes to the runner because by doing in-camera you skip a step of rendering because the camera did it in real-time for you. *smile*
 
Shannon,

I was replying to the idea of shooting the HVX on miniDV mode and looking at an SD DVD, or shooting in 720p or 1080 and then compressing to mpeg2 directly. If your final output will be DV then I agree that you should just shoot in DV on the HVX, however, if the final image will require lots of post then shooting in DV50 or preferably in 1080 is the way to go, even if the final product will be exported to DV format, since you can do your color correction and keyframing in an HD timeline and then convert it to DV afterwards.

There was also a question about the difference between an HD-100 or HVX200's footage being shown on an SD-DVD vs an SD camera showing in an SD-DVD. That is what I was attempting to answer in my previous post, though I think i rambled a bit too much ( I can only claim being very tired last night)


I think the fear alot of people are having is that it wont look better. Without getting into the technical aspects of it though, the answer is most certainly that there is a difference between the two, how much is a matter of how trained your eye is, and more importantly, how trained your audiences eyes are to discern the difference in resolution.

Another thing people seem unsure about is the HVX's quality in SD mode. In short and to summarize what's been said in this thread and other threads the answer is: great quality.
 
Barry_Green said:
Try re-reading what I wrote. What I said was SPECIFICALLY aimed at the HVX, and specifically because of how the downrezzing works in-camera.

If you believe that the more info you have going into the compression results in a better image, then surely you'd agree that a 1920x1080 source being compressed at 3.3:1 is going to give you a better image than a 1920x1080 source that's been downrezzed and compressed to 960x720, which is then further downrezzed and compressed to 720x480, right?

Anyway, it's simple enough to test. Try testing it, you'll see there's a difference.
Click to expand...


Makes sense. Does this effect the color space? Do CC and FX adjustments work as well going this route or do you lose something in the in camera down rez. IE. does it work better if you don' t plan to do any post work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top