1080/24p Is More Detailed Than 720 Mode

[Jim Arthurs]

Which is which? Left's 720p and Right's 1080p? Am I correct?

My question is this... how much advantage is there to using 1080 if folks have to study the images for a few seconds to come to a conclusion about which is which? Shouldn't 1080 be so much better that you instantly notice?

Or put another way, is the 1080 side 2.5x better? Because shooting 24fps, that's the bandwidth difference in using 40 mb/sec 720p 24n vrs 100 mb/sec 24p stored with 3:2 in 1080i.

Jim Arthurs

 

[limo991]

A little more resolution on luma and a little less aliasing on luma. A lot more resolution on chroma and a lot less aliasing on chroma. Other differences (blocking etc) are due to different exposure and quantisation of low levels due to DVCPROHD compression. Both were scaled to higher res (1920x1080) in order to have scaling loss on both and make a fair comparison.

Bottom line, 1080p is a lot better as it should theoretically be.

 

[kevinM]

My question is this... how much advantage is there to using 1080 if folks have to study the images for a few seconds to come to a conclusion about which is which? Shouldn't 1080 be so much better that you instantly notice?

Or put another way, is the 1080 side 2.5x better? Because shooting 24fps, that's the bandwidth difference in using 40 mb/sec 720p 24n vrs 100 mb/sec 24p stored with 3:2 in 1080i.

Jim Arthurs

I'm not sure what is being accomplished by scaling the 720 image to match the 1080 version but I dont think it makes for a valid comparison. To me there is a tremendous difference in the two resolution settings. Uprezzing in Photoshop introduces variables that have NOTHING to do with how the HVX handles images.

If you want to see the difference, look at the original Quicktime files or the stills that have not been altered in any way.

By the way, the original Quicktime clips have been moved to a server with more bandwidth so the downloads should be much faster. Here's the link. Sorry, no Windows media version. I have no way to do it.

http://homepage.mac.com/kphoto/hvx/HVXsamples.zip

It should take about 13 minutes to download them with a DSL connection.

Take a look at the unalterd clips and make your own decision. To me, the difference is obvious. Does it originate from the CCD in the HVX? Is it camera processing? I cant say, but the resolution is there in the end.

 

[PappasArts]

My question is this... how much advantage is there to using 1080 if folks have to study the images for a few seconds to come to a conclusion about which is which? Shouldn't 1080 be so much better that you instantly notice?
Jim Arthurs

JIM--- Bullseye! That's why I don't care anymore. If you have to do this to show something different, then it's maybe a 1 or 2% difference. There's nothing that can be done about it. His exposure was very different in both shots. That alone can affect many levels of the image.

( JIM WROTE: instantly notice )

YES!-- 1080P should be a minimum 30% better. . Do the math and at 30% you should have at least 180 more lines IMO. If the HVX is 600, then it should be at minimum of 780 resolving power when switched to the 1080p mode.....

Anyway, like I said I'm done with it. In my mind I look at the HVX200 as a 720P cam, and consider the 1080 just some gimmick feature and thrown in to make it have a larger feature list for marketing.

That's fine by me since the HVX200 still makes gorgeous images for a 720P camera at 6K. The HVX200 is a great camera never the less..



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

 

[Fernando Kurezyn Jr.]

EDIT: sorry, after reading all te rest of the posts.. i´m not concern any more..
i´m waiting for my HVX very happy!! =)

Not worried anymore about losing my job =P

Fernando

BTW: Thanks Barry, thanks Jarred:beer:

As Barlow Elton did at Sundance with his H1

1#. Shoot HDVtape at 24f on location.

2#. Back at Studio. Capture SDI out to 1,300 Kona card in DVCprohd100 in 1080.

3#. Apply Cinema tools in FCP. Now you have true 1080P 24fps....

ASk Barlow your self. Sounds quite simple.

Everyone who has compared SDI vs HDV of the same material reports a ever so slight difference. Canons Digic chip and HDV codec engine runs extremely clean. However this thread is not about how good or not the Canon is.

It is about Panasonic leading us on for almost 1 year about a MAJOR feature that no one offered. In the end it was all marketing about a FAUX 1080p as we have been told by very talented people at PlasterCity.

Thats badddddddddd marketing?

How, funny. Canon didn't promise a damn thing. They just said here you go it's called the XLH1 and it is what it is with no 1 year hype.... I respect that!

PAPPAS.... dude.. now im concern...

We are about to buy a HVX... but my boss ask me really hard about Canon HDV...
and i told him that we are looking for Cinema Look and everything... so.. Canon was
not the option.. now i´m concern... what if i recommend the wrong camara??.. i mean.. these guys has BetaCam SP equipement... and they expect more from HVX..
and this FILMLOOK too offcourse.. but if CANON really deliver 1080p (film look) affter
POST (we would buy the KONA too) i think i should recommend CANON over HVX.. rigth?? what do you think?? do you have more information about that process?? (that Kona transfer, FCP and Cinema tools??) i have to be SURE, because we work
in Mexico and is kind of hard to change the equipament affter 3 months.. and then
the money issue... and.. you know.. MY JOB!! hahaha

Thanks

Fernando

 

[Fernando Kurezyn Jr.]

Now that Jarred's made his post, I can fill you in here:

The HVX was used to shoot pickup shots for the foreign theatrical release of Spielberg's five-time-Oscar-nominated "Munich."

THEATRICAL RELEASE.

The HVX200.

MUNICH.

I'm just sayin'...

Okay, I'll say it: to hell with "pixel counts" and "res charts" -- the HVX200 was used for pickup shots in an Oscar-nominated seventy-five-million-dollar Steven Spielberg film! And not just pickup shots, but compositing shots. Ten technicians used to working with 2K film scans worked on the footage, and they chose to shoot it on an HVX.

Barry...

do you know what they choose?.. 720pN or 1080p???

Thanks

 

[ullanta]

YES!-- 1080P should be a minimum 30% better. . Do the math and at 30% you should have at least 180 more lines IMO. If the HVX is 600, then it should be at minimum of 780 resolving power when switched to the 1080p mode.....

When I look at those pictures I don't see lines! It's mostly kinda curvy. Aren't they nice? What really don't you like about 'em, and what more exactly do you expect to see? Let's try and talk about images, not lines. Lines are pretty boring already.

 

[Fernando Kurezyn Jr.]

Same here. My wife was attracted to the sensitive artist type I used to be. Just waiting for my HVX.

heyyy!!! where did you found that kind of wifes??? i need some one like that!...

my phone: +52-2222-420041 lol

Fernando

 

[PappasArts]

It's not about lines. It's that those here that work with film and High-end HD know what a 1080p image looks like, and that's not doin it! The same as we know what a super 35 vs scope looks like or s16 vs 35 vs 65mm looks like.

1080 images scream with detail when compared to a 720 image; and it should since you can fit double the pixels of a 720P image into a 1080p. If those pixels are 90% real and not dupes made from an uprez you will have 50% more detail of that same shot.


That's why true 1080P is night and day from a 720P image.

When I have shot with a Panasonic AJHDC20A those 1080 images are stunning and more detailed then a Panasonic AJ-HDC27V can ever be, because it's capped at 720.

Whether you like lines, numbers or not, they play a roll in these High-End camera results, and are pretty close to the visual results attained when looking at the images...



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

When I look at those pictures I don't see lines! It's mostly kinda curvy. Aren't they nice? What really don't you like about 'em, and what more exactly do you expect to see? Let's try and talk about images, not lines. Lines are pretty boring already.

 

[PappasArts]

Fernando Kurezyn. I will get back to you on this, the problem is I get a many emails all day asking this, and on this forum.

I will say this, either camera you can't go wrong. I love them both. Just like parents and there children. There are different things you love about each one, however your love them all is infinite.

Of-course this is an analogy and no where one friggin bit do these cameras truly relate to the love a parents has for their children. Just an example to make a point.


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

EDIT: sorry, after reading all te rest of the posts.. i´m not concern any more..
i´m waiting for my HVX very happy!! =)

Not worried anymore about losing my job =P

Fernando

BTW: Thanks Barry, thanks Jarred:beer:





PAPPAS.... dude.. now im concern...

We are about to buy a HVX... but my boss ask me really hard about Canon HDV...
and i told him that we are looking for Cinema Look and everything... so.. Canon was
not the option.. now i´m concern... what if i recommend the wrong camara??.. i mean.. these guys has BetaCam SP equipement... and they expect more from HVX..
and this FILMLOOK too offcourse.. but if CANON really deliver 1080p (film look) affter
POST (we would buy the KONA too) i think i should recommend CANON over HVX.. rigth?? what do you think?? do you have more information about that process?? (that Kona transfer, FCP and Cinema tools??) i have to be SURE, because we work
in Mexico and is kind of hard to change the equipament affter 3 months.. and then
the money issue... and.. you know.. MY JOB!! hahaha

Thanks

Fernando

 

[kevinM]

It's not about lines. It's that those here that work with film and High-end HD know what a 1080p image looks like, and that's not doin it! The same as we know what a super 35 vs scope looks like or s16 vs 35 vs 65mm looks like.

1080 images scream with detail when compared to a 720 image; and it should since you can fit double the pixels of a 720P image into a 1080p. If those pixels are 90% real and not dupes made from an uprez you will have 50% more detail of that same shot.


That's why true 1080P is night and day from a 720P image.

When I have shot with a Panasonic AJHDC20A those 1080 images are stunning and more detailed then a Panasonic AJ-HDC27V can ever be, because it's capped at 720.

Whether you like lines, numbers or not, they play a roll in these High-End camera results, and are pretty close to the visual results attained when looking at the images...

I'm wondering if you are looking at the images I posted or the side by side comparison that Jim did where the 720 image was uprezzed.

Here are the links again:

http://homepage.mac.com/kphoto/hvx/960x720a.png
http://homepage.mac.com/kphoto/hvx/960x720b.png
http://homepage.mac.com/kphoto/hvx/1280x720a.png
http://homepage.mac.com/kphoto/hvx/1280x720b.png
http://homepage.mac.com/kphoto/hvx/1280x1080a.png
http://homepage.mac.com/kphoto/hvx/1920x1080b.png

and the original Quicktime clips on a faster connection:

http://homepage.mac.com/kphoto/hvx/HVXsamples.zip

Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing or vise-versa, but the 1080 not only has more pixels but more detail as well. Look at the fabric texture and the type.

The exposure difference by the way is due to the difference in sensitivity between the 1080 and 720 settings. I didn't adjust the iris because I didn't want to introduce any of the lens/iris variables that affect resolving abilities. (Already discussed in another thread.)

The sensitivity variation may also be saying something about the way the image is acquired from the CCD. More pixels involved = more sensitivity? Only Panasonic knows and they aren't talking.

To me the 1080 image is screaming. Not as loudly as a high end camera, but for the price I'm not going to complain.

 

[Jim Arthurs]

A little more resolution on luma and a little less aliasing on luma. A lot more resolution on chroma and a lot less aliasing on chroma.

-Edit-

Bottom line, 1080p is a lot better as it should theoretically be.

Thanks for doing that Limo... I see that the chroma has less artifacting and is more "solid" feeling. Good test! Now we just need some better test images, ie recorded exposure identical and exact solid framing between resolutions. I'm not sure how much of the chroma issue is because of the color balancing needed on the 720 to match the 1080?

Based on your results I look forward to testing identical greenscreen subjects in 720p and 1080p. This would be a real world reason for using 1080 over 720, if the tests show matte creation to be more accurate.

But, I would hesitate to say that 1080p is a lot better than 720p. At the end of the day, we'll all have to agree to disagree about this issue and move on to having fun with the HVX in whatever resolution or format you enjoy using.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

 

[Jim Arthurs]

You know guys, I could see a case for shooting 1080 if handled in post this way...

-Shoot 1080, transfer to full raster 1280 by 720 Cineform or similar codec for editing.

This way you get that little bitty bit of extra rez and chroma goodness from the 1080 recording, and combine that with the ease of editing 720... After all, we know the measurable rez of HVX 1080 doesn't exceed 720 vert and 1280 horizontal, so all we're doing is stripping the bloat from the wasted potential of the 1080 original.

Jim Arthurs

 

[SalaTar]

Jim the cineform codec helps slightly,
but .....

 

[PappasArts]

-------------------------I'M SOLD ON YOUR TESTS, I AGREE-----------------------

Hi Kevin, I took your files over to my DVCproHD work station. I can confirm the 1080P is more detailed.


The files you supplied us do confirm a lot more than that. The 720 can not be graded anywhere near the 1080p files. just can't. The blockies are bad in the 720. In the 1080p nearly no existent when pushing these files hard.

Good work and thanks for doing these tests. Later I'm going to go by the lab and run a few prints off.

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

I'm wondering if you are looking at the images I posted or the side by side comparison that Jim did where the 720 image was uprezzed./QUOTE]

 

[ullanta]

Pappas - you're like a peak meter! Maybe you should try to be more like a VU meter...

 

[filmmaker1977]

Conclusion: After all 1080p is really higher than 720p; quite enough at big screen?

 

[Barry_Green]

Conclusion: After all 1080p is really higher than 720p; quite enough at big screen?

Good enough for HVX footage to be intercut into the middle-east theatrical film prints of "Munich"...

 

[limo991]

The interesting thing is exposure is a lot more important than mode or resolution in any case. Compressed formats do not like low exposures and chroma dies first.

 

[Rodrigo]

lol, the magical words are "middle east"