Clarification on 1080 on the AF100 and 1080 on the HVX

[Jim Brennan]

Sorry if I am beating the HVX/AF100 comparison to death, but I've been using the HVX a lot the past few years and have gotten quite used to it.

When I was doing a comparison of the cameras in FCP I noticed something that seemed odd. I Log and Transferred the AF100 footage first, and when I brought it into the timeline it asked me if I wanted to change the sequence settings to math the footage. I said yes and it looked great. Then I brought in the HVX footage, and all that looked great.

But when I went into the motion tab to adjust the size of the clips to do a split screen, I noticed that the AF100 footage was at 100%, which is what I would expect. But the HVX footage was at 150% to get the same frame size. Now I would guess that's about the percentage difference between 720 and 1080 footage (could be wrong about that), but both cameras were set at 1080/24. I typically shoot 720Pn on the HVX, but this time I changed it to 1080 to have the closest possible comparison.

This is neither a concern nor a complaint. It's just an observation. Anyone have an explanation?

 

[Mike@AF]

The HVX is DVCProHD, which has a resolution of 1280x1080 or 960x720, and non-square pixels. It's not true full HD. That might be the reason why.

 

[Kindredmachine]

Yep, that's why I never got the HVX200/HPX170 even thorugh it was really tempting. It's not true 1080p video. The AF-100 is.

 

[AwakenedFilms]

Yep, that's why I never got the HVX200/HPX170 even thorugh it was really tempting. It's not true 1080p video. The AF-100 is.

According to your calculation, high end varicams that shoot DVCPROHD or high end Sony cams that shoot HDCAM do not record *true* 1080p. Not sure I agree with your assessment. There are many things that are way more important to me than PAR: dynamic range, color rendition, codec sensitivity/smear, resolution...etc. I would put PAR last on my list of important factors in video acquisition.


Jason

 

[LoganMackay]

According to your calculation, high end varicams that shoot DVCPROHD or high end Sony cams that shoot HDCAM do not record *true* 1080p. Not sure I agree with your assessment. There are many things that are way more important to me than PAR: dynamic range, color rendition, sensitivity/smear. I would put PAR even below resolution on my list of important factors in video acquisition.


Jason

Well really, "true" 1080p is 1920x1080. That doesn't make the footage shot by the hvx200 bad, but it isn't full HD.

 

[dbwolfe]

the whole 'Full HD' term is such marketing hogwash. people act as if spatial resolution is the only resolution that matters. what about temporal and chroma resolution? 720p60 is more 'Full HD' than 1080i60/30p/24p in terms of temporal resolution, and the 4:2:2 chroma resolution of the HVX/HPX series could be considered higher chroma resolution than the 4:2:0 of some 1080p cams. and let's not even bring up the rolling shutter issue/debate. look at the picture the camera makes, that's what matters. only maybe 1080p60 4:4:4 should be called 'Full HD' and even that is up for serious debate depending on the codec and many other factors. 'Full HD'... what a joke. will the iPhone 5 shoot 1080? maybe. will I consider it 'Full HD' and stop filming with my HPX170 since it's not 'Full HD'? yeah right.

 

[Kindredmachine]

Nobody is saying footage that isn't shot in native 1920x1080 can't look beatiful or compete directly with full rastor 1080p video because of what was just mentioned with dynamic range, color rendition, etc... but true/full HD is pretty non negotiable... it's 1920x1080 progressive. Would you buy a $3,000 HDTV for your living room that said it was 1080p but only displayed in 1440x1080? I don't think you would nor would a store ssell it as a "true" 1080p TV set.

 

[Shooter]

THe phrase "true HD" becomes debateable in this thread.

Barry Greens HVX book opens early on with the statement of fact ...

"Its uniquely positioned for broadcast, since it records all six of the high-definition broadcast standards endorsed by the ATSC, and all formats endorsed by the EBU"

Later on ( p78, 79) he explained a lot more in' An overview of HI Def Video' ...and he went on to say

" It's important to note that both 720p and 1080i are considered full-fledged high definition television".



So why are some arbitrairly re inventing the definition and adding "true" to it?

 

[Kindredmachine]

THe phrase "true HD" becomes debateable in this thread.

Barry Greens HVX book opens early on with the statement of fact ...

"Its uniquely positioned for broadcast, since it records all six of the high-definition broadcast standards endorsed by the ATSC, and all formats endorsed by the EBU"

Later on ( p78, 79) he explained a lot more in' An overview of HI Def Video' ...and he went on to say

" It's important to note that both 720p and 1080i are considered full-fledged high definition television".



So why are some arbitrairly re inventing the definition and adding "true" to it?

Good point, then maybe I shouldn't say "true" HD but rather a full 1920x1080 rastor. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, it's still the reason why so many like the sharper look of the AF100 over others like the HPX170. but the bottom line as stated above, specs only go so far and don't necessarily make for great footage.

 

[Mike@AF]

The question was regarding pixel resolution, not chroma or other factors. Bottom line, DVCProHD is not true HD resolution. True HD resolution is 1920x1080(i or p) or 1280x720p. DVCProHD is neither. It's 1280x 1080i (or 1440x1080i in PAL) and 960x720p. That's not true HD or Full HD. "Full HD" is used to describe a resolution of 1920x1080.

Yes, there are other factors involved in the overall image quality and a Varicam may shoot an overall better image than some cameras that are true full HD resolution, but the discussion here was strictly about pixel resolution.