Barry_Green
Moderator
I just completed a second round of testing, to see what formats TRULY look best when output to DVD.
I shot the exact same scene in 1080p, 720p, DVCPRO50, and DV on the HVX, and also DV on the DVX. Unlike the "spider" footage, this time I spent the time with the waveform and vectorscope and the color chart and TONI chart, trying to match the cameras as best I could.
I then extracted a single frame from each file using EDIUS Broadcast. I used EDIUS because it's one program that uses all codecs of the same brand (in my first "green monster" test I had to use Avid for the DV50 extraction, which may have colored the results somewhat). By using EDIUS for all the frame extractions I kept it as similar as I figured was possible, since all the codecs came from the same place and presumably will perform as comparably as possible.
I then dropped those single frames on the timeline in Vegas and rendered out a DVD Architect-compatible 24p widescreen DVD-compliant MPEG-2 file. These files could be dropped onto a DVD and played on any DVD player, and represent what footage would look like on a DVD.
Then I brought those DVD-compliant files back into the Vegas timeline and extracted a still frame from each, which is now shown below:
720p:
1080p:
HVX DVCPRO50:
HVX DV 16x9:
DVX DV 16x9 "squeeze":
Now, obviously these are a much better match than the "spider" footage; the DVX can come a lot closer to the HVX's stock look if you work it. You can't just set the DVX and HVX on the "same" settings and expect them to match, unfortunately. But if you take the time to calibrate them to each other, obviously you could get them close enough to intercut very well. These shots were shot using a daylight fluorescent and manual white balance.
Now, with all that said, the biggest quality difference is from DVX DV to HVX DV. The native 16x9 just looks a lot better than the "squeeze" 16x9. But, there's almost as big a jump in quality in going from DV up to DVCPRO50. I think DVCPRO50 looks a lot better than the DV version, especially around the big brown clam's eyes or the purple dragon's ears, and most especially on the green dragon's face.
Then we come to the high-def versions. Try as I might, I just can't convince myself that they look better than the DV50 version. DVCPRO50 appears to me to have made a better-looking DVD file than the downconverted high-def did. Now, it's awfully close, and not much to even worry about, but it does appear to be just a bit cleaner, just a bit sharper, and the color difference (especially on the blue dragon) is surprising.
However, by this point we're pretty much picking nits. I'd say that either of the HD versions does a fine job for DVD, and the advantages of DV50 for DVD, while present, aren't enough to fret over. If you're shooting something that will only ever appear on DVD (or standard-def broadcast) I'd say shoot DV50. If you think you'll want a high-def version at some point, shoot HD and downconvert for the DVD. DV50 will make for a better-looking DVD, but the advantage is SLIGHT, not enough to even really worry about. However, if you were thinking of downconverting in-camera to DV and then using those DV files to author your DVD, I'm confident in saying that shooting DVCPRO50 would result in significantly better-quality DVDs than using high-def source files in-camera dubbed down to DV.
I realize you probably can't see the differences in a series of stills like this; you really need to A/B them, so if you're the type that wants to obsess over the details, I've posted a Photoshop .PSD document that has each of the pictures on its own layer, so you can enable/disable layers and compare the photos directly. Download the ZIPped file here: http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/All-Formats-For-DVD.zip
For settings:
DETAIL LEVEL: +3
V DETAIL LEVEL: +2
DETAIL CORING: +5
CHROMA LEVEL: HVX +2, DVX +3
CHROMA PHASE: HVX 0, DVX -2
COLOR TEMP: 0
MASTER PED: HVX -5, DVX -8
A. IRIS LEVEL: HVX 0, DVX -2
GAMMA: CINELIKE-D
MATRIX: CINE-LIKE
SKIN TONE DTL: OFF
V DETAIL FREQ: THIN
I shot the exact same scene in 1080p, 720p, DVCPRO50, and DV on the HVX, and also DV on the DVX. Unlike the "spider" footage, this time I spent the time with the waveform and vectorscope and the color chart and TONI chart, trying to match the cameras as best I could.
I then extracted a single frame from each file using EDIUS Broadcast. I used EDIUS because it's one program that uses all codecs of the same brand (in my first "green monster" test I had to use Avid for the DV50 extraction, which may have colored the results somewhat). By using EDIUS for all the frame extractions I kept it as similar as I figured was possible, since all the codecs came from the same place and presumably will perform as comparably as possible.
I then dropped those single frames on the timeline in Vegas and rendered out a DVD Architect-compatible 24p widescreen DVD-compliant MPEG-2 file. These files could be dropped onto a DVD and played on any DVD player, and represent what footage would look like on a DVD.
Then I brought those DVD-compliant files back into the Vegas timeline and extracted a still frame from each, which is now shown below:
720p:
1080p:
HVX DVCPRO50:
HVX DV 16x9:
DVX DV 16x9 "squeeze":
Now, obviously these are a much better match than the "spider" footage; the DVX can come a lot closer to the HVX's stock look if you work it. You can't just set the DVX and HVX on the "same" settings and expect them to match, unfortunately. But if you take the time to calibrate them to each other, obviously you could get them close enough to intercut very well. These shots were shot using a daylight fluorescent and manual white balance.
Now, with all that said, the biggest quality difference is from DVX DV to HVX DV. The native 16x9 just looks a lot better than the "squeeze" 16x9. But, there's almost as big a jump in quality in going from DV up to DVCPRO50. I think DVCPRO50 looks a lot better than the DV version, especially around the big brown clam's eyes or the purple dragon's ears, and most especially on the green dragon's face.
Then we come to the high-def versions. Try as I might, I just can't convince myself that they look better than the DV50 version. DVCPRO50 appears to me to have made a better-looking DVD file than the downconverted high-def did. Now, it's awfully close, and not much to even worry about, but it does appear to be just a bit cleaner, just a bit sharper, and the color difference (especially on the blue dragon) is surprising.
However, by this point we're pretty much picking nits. I'd say that either of the HD versions does a fine job for DVD, and the advantages of DV50 for DVD, while present, aren't enough to fret over. If you're shooting something that will only ever appear on DVD (or standard-def broadcast) I'd say shoot DV50. If you think you'll want a high-def version at some point, shoot HD and downconvert for the DVD. DV50 will make for a better-looking DVD, but the advantage is SLIGHT, not enough to even really worry about. However, if you were thinking of downconverting in-camera to DV and then using those DV files to author your DVD, I'm confident in saying that shooting DVCPRO50 would result in significantly better-quality DVDs than using high-def source files in-camera dubbed down to DV.
I realize you probably can't see the differences in a series of stills like this; you really need to A/B them, so if you're the type that wants to obsess over the details, I've posted a Photoshop .PSD document that has each of the pictures on its own layer, so you can enable/disable layers and compare the photos directly. Download the ZIPped file here: http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/All-Formats-For-DVD.zip
For settings:
DETAIL LEVEL: +3
V DETAIL LEVEL: +2
DETAIL CORING: +5
CHROMA LEVEL: HVX +2, DVX +3
CHROMA PHASE: HVX 0, DVX -2
COLOR TEMP: 0
MASTER PED: HVX -5, DVX -8
A. IRIS LEVEL: HVX 0, DVX -2
GAMMA: CINELIKE-D
MATRIX: CINE-LIKE
SKIN TONE DTL: OFF
V DETAIL FREQ: THIN
Last edited:
