SDX900 or SPX800 footage uprezzed to HD

E

eclaire

Active member
Didn't really see an appropriate Panasonic "catch all" forum for this question, so thought I'd post it here.

How does DVCPro 50 footage shot on either the SPX800 or SDX900 look when meticulously uprezzed and viewed at HD resolutions? I'm looking to invest in another camera and have been back and forth on the HPX500 more times than I can count. But the bottom line is that I just don't think I can justify a 20,000+ camera purchase at this time.

I am shooting my first narrative short in late summer and plan on screening it either via a large HD monitor or projector at a public gathering in the fall. I suppose I could just shoot it with my DVX100 and be done, but I fear what that will look like on a big screen. I also anticipate doing at least one other narrative piece in the next 16 months, so if I buy a new Panasonic cam, it will see ample duty for personal narrative projects (and I'm not a "renter" anyway).

Complicating matters is that the majority of my paying work is SD multi camera event stuff, especially dance recitals. Any camera I get has to multitask. Great low light performance is a must, which is why I've finally eliminated the HVX200 from consideration.

In addition to my DVX, I own a Sony DSR300 (which I'd like to dump in favor of one of the Panasonic 2/3" cams to enable multi camera shooting in 16:9/30P with better gamma and color matching.) I've noticed a number of used 900s and 800s coming up for sale at relatively attractive prices, and the 800, especially, is looking very intriguing. FIVE P2 slots and, of course, the great sensitivity, selective DOF, and improved dynamic range that comes with 2/3" CCDs. The fact that it records to P2 and not tape, with all the depreciation associated with tape heads and moving parts, makes it a sound choice as a used camera IMO. I suspect more and more used 800s will be showing up for sale as the HPX500 is a very similar camera at a great price but with HD capability.

I've spent quite a lot of time lately studying Andromeda grabs/clips. I would jump on Andromeda like there's no tomorrow if the work flow/portability weren't so bad and if it didn't require me to buy into the Mac platform to use it. But looking at Andromeda grabs and the SD grabs Barry Green posted way back comparing identical HVX setups in different recording modes (where the mild compression of DVCPro 50 kicked the crap out of DV and even down-rezzed DVCPro HD), I'm convinced that color sampling and compression (and the effect on dynamic range of both) are at least as important as resolution in terms of overall image quality.

So I'm back to the fact that really only one project in my immediate future would require/benefit from HD resolution. All would benefit from great low light and DVCPro 50 SD acquisition. If I knew that uprezzed DVCPro 50 footage would translate reasonably well to HD resolutions, I would definitely set my sights on a used SPX800.

Much appreciation to anyone that can shed any light on this dilemma. If anyone knows of links to clips or grabs of uprezzed footage from the 800 or 900, that would be ideal.
 
The uprez looks like the HPX500 footage. Keep in mind that the SDX is a discontinued camera and it actually costed more than the HPX camera head. Same is true for the 800.

But if you can find them to borrow. The footage will be great.

Best,

jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
The uprez looks like the HPX500 footage. Keep in mind that the SDX is a discontinued camera and it actually costed more than the HPX camera head. Same is true for the 800.

But if you can find them to borrow. The footage will be great.

Best,

jan
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, Jan.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that the uprezzed DVCPRO 50 footage shot on the 800 will look as good as footage shot natively in HD on the 500? I was under the impression that the chips were essentially the same in the two cameras with spatial offset providing the HD res. Thus I would expect the 500 to look somewhat better, or at least sharper, in HD. Are you indicating that there are other material differences in the imaging components that would account for the 800 holding its own uprezzed to HD versus the 500 in native HD?
 
It depends on how the up-rez is done. Film transfer uprezzing can look great; look around for some reports on the film Iraq In Fragments; most who saw it in the theater express disbelief that something that originated on a DVX100 could look so good when blown up.

I would tend to say that HD from an HPX500 is likely to look noticeably sharper in fine detail than uprezzed SD from an SPX800. But the latitude, colorimetry, etc will all be the same (or even perhaps a little better from the SPX800, since it has so much more control over its image). With excellent uprezzing software I'm sure it'd be quite competitive to HPX500 footage.
 
Thanks once again for your input, Barry. Much appreciated.:)

I'm off now to investigate uprezzing solutions.
 
I would definitely take a look at the Red Giant Software, Instant HD. Does a really nice job and I actually think there is a review of several apps like this including this one in the archives.

Best,

Jan
 
I tend to agree with Barry,

I would say, instinctively, that you cannot recover any "TRUE" details that are above the recorded codec. ie, anything above 720 horizontal pixels and 480 V pixels will have to be extrapolated, and since there is infinity of possibilities in those lost details, will be kind of false. It can look good enough, but not "TRUE".

But there are other factors like contrast, gradients, color, DSP that IMHO are a little better from the SDX (SPX) than the HPX500.

But resolution wise, i'd bet the HPX500 will just kill the SDX (SPX800) in pure and true resolution unless the HPX wasn't able to surpass 720X480 true resolution. And from what i've seen, there is no doubt in my mind that the HPX500 resolution clearly surpasses 720X480.

Some uprezzing softwares do a good job at thinning lines though, but can’t recreate what is NOT there.
 
Last edited:
Antoine,

The SPX800 is a 480 standard def camera and Barry was talking about uprezzing to HD. Should look great and it interesting how much "apparnet" resolution can be interpolated. The Codec of DVCPROHD, can be 1080 or 720 in HD and this can indeed be its native state of encoding. Keep in mind when looking at the CCD of the 500 it jsut like the 200 is an analog front end and the first capture of that signal coming off the chip set is at 1080P.

While I have not compared the same subject shot with a 500 and and 800/900 uprezzed, my guess is that they might be close with the 500 being the winner.

I hope this helps,

Jan
 
If this is true because of the qualitie of the DVCPRO50 codec I could shoot with cheap SD lenses on the 500 and then uprezz it with Instant HD in post! But come on Jan!!!
I just can´t imagine that it really would work that good....???
 
joe 1008 said:
If this is true because of the qualitie of the DVCPRO50 codec I could shoot with cheap SD lenses on the 500 and then uprezz it with Instant HD in post! But come on Jan!!!
I just can´t imagine that it really would work that good....???
Click to expand...

Well you can't cheat on the cheap lenses as those will look bad. Come on yourself. Let's assume that you are going to use the best that you can afford. A $3000 lens is garbage. You know it, I know it and your audience will too.

In video it has always been GIGO.

Best,

Jan
 
OK Jan, I was just kidding. But there is still the claim that uprezzing comes close to HD. So with a good second hand SD lens the 500 should do well as a DVXPRO 50 cam. Shouldn´t it?
 
Nor does it for me look like HD. But there is a lot of qualitie loss because of the compression. I think with instant HD you could achiev at least very sharp and thin details, for example in the high voltage lines in the background. But I think I would prefer REAL HD, also.

One interesting detail: Watch the last three seconds of the clip: There is a guy wiht a fire extinguisher at his side. There is detail in his white shirt and also in the shadows - a lot of dynamic range has this camera though I think the image is one stop overexposed.
 
Can you point to an example of "instant HD" or "REAL HD" on the Internet? Thanks in advance. :)
 
With "REAL HD" I meant the DVCPRO HD codec, there is not such a software, sorry for the misunderstanding. For INSTANT HD check the red giant homepage or google the name and you will find some interesting examples, critiques etc...
 
joe 1008 said:
With "REAL HD" I meant the DVCPRO HD codec, there is not such a software, sorry for the misunderstanding. For INSTANT HD check the red giant homepage or google the name and you will find some interesting examples, critiques etc...
Click to expand...

Has Instant HD made upgrade for MAC Intel yet.

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