1080/24p Is More Detailed Than 720 Mode

My bandwidth limit on my .Mac account is about to run out so I had to pull the HVX files. Sorry, but I use the .Mac account for other things as well so I can't have it cut off.

There were 4.5 Gigs of file transfer from people downloading the files. I had no idea there would be such an interest.

If needed, I can repost them after the 15th of the month when my bandwidth limit resets.
 
Well, Pappas was completely right this time... THe 1080p not only holds more detail but the frame is much more solid and stands better the color correction.

This is the 720 with levels up. As you'll see the blocks make it barely unusable for heavy CC:



And this one is the 1080 with levels up:

 
Remember, the 720 one was slightly underexposed for the reason stated earlier in this thread. If the exposure would have been adjusted in the camera, I bet the blocks would go away.

Also, levels adjustment in Photoshop on still images isn't really the same as adjusting in an NLE on actual footage. The applications handle data in their own way.

Just goes to show that no single test can sadisfy every variable.
 
Hmmmm, I don't know: even in the bright places the 720 blocking is more noticeable... Although you're right: more testing in this area would be very desirable....

I was just thinking: weren't all the reported cases of heavy blocking in shadow areas only reported in 720p footage? I am thinking the old martial arts stuff here
 
My tests were done in FCP which is DVCproHD compatible as it gets right now.

If ""slightly underexposed """ causes that many blockies within the DVCproHD codec then you need to saty in 1080P for the highest level of quality for post work.

It makes sense though, 720/24 is 40mbs where as I think 1080/24 is getting 80mbs, that's double the data for 24 frames I think?????

Maybe Jan can comment on this 40mbs vs 80mbs etc.




kevinM said:
Remember, the 720 one was slightly underexposed for the reason stated earlier in this thread. If the exposure would have been adjusted in the camera, I bet the blocks would go away.

Also, levels adjustment in Photoshop on still images isn't really the same as adjusting in an NLE on actual footage. The applications handle data in their own way.

Just goes to show that no single test can sadisfy every variable.
Click to expand...
 
Rodrigo said:
lol, the magical words are "middle east"
Click to expand...
Did anyone see Munich? Grainy, noisy, HVX acceptable for sure...35mm or not!

BTW PappasArts, what's this? You change the thread's title and you are saying nothing? What's your respect for us, other dvxuser readers? Are you thinking that we are inside your mind?
 
Last edited:
SalaTar said:
The Munich argument is null .They were on the cheap for shots and got them. Spielberg is notorious for this.
They didn’t want to pay for higher quality for the shots ...end of story
Click to expand...

If Spielberg didn't want to pay for "high quality shots" in Munich, then why did he spend 75 million on it?

If he didn't want grainy shots in the equally grainy War of the Worlds, why'd he spend close to 150 million?

And if he wanted low quality shots, why did he employ Kaminski, one of the top cinematographers working today?

Spielberg wanted grainy, and so he got grainy by using fast stock. He wanted soft, so he (and Kaminski) used Schnieder classic soft and diffusion in front of and behind the lens. I thought both movies were beautiful, and both were very grainy. To say Spielberg is notorious for wanting "low quality" visuals is like saying Mozart is famous for wanting "low quality" music. To be fair, Spielberg does work quickly, but that doesn't make him any less of a perfectionist.

Grainy is fine for most purposes, and digital isn't even that grainy. The thing is, with digital, you can't choose if you want grainy or not. If you want that 100ISO look, you just can't get it.
 
Policar said:
If Spielberg didn't want to pay for "high quality shots" in Munich, then why did he spend 75 million on it?
Click to expand...

I think what SalaTar means is that he was on the cheap for the "fixes" for the Middle East friendly version of the film... why spend a great deal of money to do these alterations for a limited marketplace and return on investment? How much was his personal involvement at this point?

Shots for the major theatrical run... probably a different story and completely different needs that wouldn't be easy to meet without shooting film.

Jim Arthurs
 
Okay, one last comment on this whole 1080 vrs. 720 thing.

The majority of "improvement" of the 1080 material is only because of the codec differences between 720 and 1080. Pump an inexpensive webcam into DVCPRO HD in 720 and that same image into DVCPRO HD at 1080, and you'll see the same improvement in chroma and the size of blocking of one over the other.

The camera itself is only adding a bit of extra resolution to the 1080 party, and the difference in resolution between the two is just the hardware downsampling and the loss of the high frequency detail.

What good have all these tests and discussion on the 1080 issue been for me? I now know if I was doing CGI to match the HVX 1080, I could still render at 960 by 720 and just not knock the softness down as much as I would for matching for HVX 720 footage. If I rendered at 1280 by 1080, all that extra detail would be overkill and wasted rendering time.

Now, I'm going to "self-ban" myself until I have camera in hand, because there's nothing useful I can contribute until I can actively shoot and use the HVX. I thank everyone who has contributed footage to the community, and given their time for valuable discussion. Hopefully my camera will come in before end of month and then I'll be able to return to the board with personal observations and return the good will that others have shown.

Thanks and see you later!

Jim Arthurs
 
Jim Arthurs said:
the difference in resolution between the two is just the hardware downsampling and the loss of the high frequency detail.
Click to expand...

Why, that's exactly what Panasonic says! Finally we all agree!
 
Jim Arthurs said:
The majority of "improvement" of the 1080 material is only because of the codec differences between 720 and 1080.
Click to expand...
When hvx200 offers only 960x720 and 1280x1080, I hope the next model will also give 1280x720.
 
Wow,
this thread has gone full circle.

I'm sure the HVX will produce great footage.

There's been a lot of interesting info here. Regardless, I believe most users will stay with 720P with all of its frame rate formats.
 
Steve, I'm not so sure...despite the frame rate utility, why not the better possible rez instead lower rez. Storage wouldn't be a bigger problem rather any quality loss -- detail, sharpness, grain, etc...specially, after the FireStore or Cineporter availability...

BTW, what does Jim want to mean?
Jim Arthurs said:
the difference in resolution between the two is just the hardware downsampling and the loss of the high frequency detail.
Click to expand...
Regarding the first part, it's OK, but what does the second one mean?
 
I don't understand the first part:) There is no upsampling. Each format just uses a different sampling. 1080p does not go through 720p or anything like that. The second part makes sense but goes without saying. Higher resolution, higher sampling rate, more high frequency detail. Better higher frequency response and extra bandwidth is the only thing added by a higher resolution format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top