dvcpro50 wow

Johny

Well-known member
It's hard to believe dvpro50 is a standard definition mode cause it looks just like high definition. It's so sharp, I know people are not going to want close-ups with it. There is no hiding a wrinkle or any other minute imperfection with it. It is truely amazing. I'm wondering why anyone would want to bother with hd mode when you can get this close with this. What a camera!
 
Ironically, you would be saving space shooting 720 24PN over DVCPRO50. Outside regular DV/DVCAM, 720 24PN is the lightest (in terms of disk space) format you can shoot on the HVX, and that's why I always shoot 720 24PN, even if the project will never see HD distribution.
 
Prodigy, I would think so. I have never tried it. but I would think so. ANd the more important question is at what point do you downconvert... I would assume that if you postpone downconverting to the last minute in post, then you will achieve the maximum amount of benefit.
 
Welcome aboard... I have taken a TON of flack for saying that upconverted SDX900 (SD 16:9 DVCpro) actually looks better than native HD from the HVX. The DVCpro codec is terrific, what you are noticing is not more resolution per se but as far as I can tell... there is more chroma resolution, or less chroma noise, etc.

I always loved the SDX but when I saw it cut with Vari after an uprezz is just re-affirmed for me how great that codec is and how resolution isnt everything...




ash =o)
 
AshG, you misunderstood, or I did....

The discussion was shooting dvcpro50. Some said they shoot 720 24pn because it takes less room on p2 card, then they downres to SD in post. I said that the native dvcpro50 SD looks better than the 720 24pn downres to SD. I would think, and still bet on the native 720p to look better than dvcpro50.

We may be speaking the same language or we may not be... :)

But you are right about the codec being great! The codec of the dvcpro50 does give it an edge on other higher resolutions, but I wouldn't go as far to say equal to HD. I see where you are coming from though.
 
Yes, DVCPro50 looks fantastic but considering that it actually takes more space in 24p (2.5 minutes per gig over 2 minutes), and 720p will offer me more resolution for stablizing, variable frame rates, and an HD master; I'll always shoot 720p. For 60i yes, DVCPro will over twice the space but seriously, how many of us are shooting 60i? The truth is that even for documentary stuff and anything else non-narrative, consumers tend to prefer 24p.

As for the SDX900, I don't know how it compares to the HVX200 but I will agree that resolution isn't everthing. The better low light performance is certainly a plus and I'd kill for some more lattitude.
 
Sorry I confused you guys... my point was that the codec is terrific for acquisition. I dont think for a second that DV50 from the HVX will look as good for HD as DVCproHD. My point of reference was the DV50 from the SDX which, even though it is only 480P, looks better than native HVX at 1080P even when all you do is resize it in FCP. I saw the documentary SMILE about Brian Wilson and they cut in SDX900 footage with Vari and Cinealta and you could not tell, even the engineers on the project were stunned how well it looked.



ash =o)
 
I love the SDX900! The large imager, with its great low light performance and shallower depth of field and the DVCPro50 codec makes for a pretty stunning package.

Here is a link to a short shot on the SDX900 for any interested. Even with the compression for the web, its virtues are pretty obvious (file is a little over 57 MB, so suggest saving it and not trying to stream directly).

http://www.museelectronics.com/feedback.wmv
 
Last edited:
I saw the documentary SMILE about Brian Wilson and they cut in SDX900 footage with Vari and Cinealta and you could not tell, even the engineers on the project were stunned how well it looked.

You saw this projected? I'd be very curious to take a look at such a thing as this is a bold claim for a 16k SD camera.
 
Back
Top