DVD for distribution of HD shot feature?

R

RogerandOut

Active member
If you shot a feature in the next few months using the HVX in HD mode, and wanted to burn DVDs for distribution...what format would that be for those DVD copies?

Most people still have standard def TVs, what would a DVD of an HD shot movie look like on an SD TV?

Or would the compression format for the DVDs simply be MPEG like all DVDs currently?

I guess the advantage of burning DVDs for viewing on SD TVs from HD is the extra resolution and color of the HVX200?

And then having an HD master to eventually burn HD DVDs where there are enough people with HD-compatible TVs?
 
Another question: How many theaters in the US can currently project digitally from an HD format?

Same question for Canada, Europe, Singapore, and Japan.
 
If you shot a feature in the next few months using the HVX in HD mode, and wanted to burn DVDs for distribution...what format would that be for those DVD copies?
Click to expand...
If you're distributing DVDs, you have pretty much two choices:
1) standard DVD format, which is SD, 720x480, 4:2:0, MPEG-2 compression
2) Windows Media HD

In fact, you can combine the two and distribute both on the same DVD. Panasonic did that with the new HVX "countdown" DVD -- you can play it in a DVD player, or you can pop it in your computer and play the HD version.

If the person wants to play it on their TV, they get the standard-def version. If they play it on the computer, they get their choice of the SD or HD version.

Most people still have standard def TVs, what would a DVD of an HD shot movie look like on an SD TV?
Click to expand...
Like any other HD-shot movie on your TV.

Or would the compression format for the DVDs simply be MPEG like all DVDs currently?
Click to expand...
Yes. But you could add a WMHD version too.

I guess the advantage of burning DVDs for viewing on SD TVs from HD is the extra resolution and color of the HVX200?
Click to expand...
Not really, no. Resolution doesn't survive a downrez. You will get the benefit of lower noise, and of the ability to magnify/zoom-in, plus you'd get the benefit of having recorded more color in the first place, plus variable frame rates, etc. But resolution isn't the ticket; a DVD cannot have more resolution than a DVD is capable of (720x480) regardless of what source the image comes from.

How would you burn PAL DVDs for distribution in other countries?
Click to expand...
Well, you'd author your video as a PAL-compatible MPEG-2, and then author a PAL DVD. If you shot 24P, you could author your PAL video as 25P, you'd have to adjust the speed of your audio to match.

However, many PAL DVD players can handle NTSC DVDs, so it's not that much of a problem. And any PAL user could play an NTSC DVD in their computer, too.


How many theaters in the US can currently project digitally from an HD format?
Click to expand...
On a percentage basis? None. You'll hear about Landmark theaters having digital projectors, but there are 300 of them across the country. There's way more than 300 conventional screens just in my town alone. The market penetration of HD-based digital projection is probably somewhere on the order of 0.001%, but that's just a wild guess.

Let's ask Google, shall we? Aha! According to USA Today, there's about 36,700 screens in the US. About 100 are digital. So I was off -- the actual number is 0.0027%.
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P10354_0_6_0_C

Obviously that percentage is going to be a lot smaller in other countries.
 
>>>Not really, no. Resolution doesn't survive a downrez. You will get the benefit of lower noise, and of the ability to magnify/zoom-in, plus you'd get the benefit of having recorded more color in the first place, plus variable frame rates, etc. But resolution isn't the ticket; a DVD cannot have more resolution than a DVD is capable of (720x480) regardless of what source the image comes from.<<<<

It took me a while to wrap that around my head.

I come from a dslr still picture world... where downrezzing is always preferable, but Barry makes sense (unless someone else has a better argument).

I had a Sony FX1 for a couple of months... and always shot in Hidef mode, using the camera to downrez to DV mode. The picture quality was always soft and disappointing. I attributed it to DV's inherent flaws.

By chance I watched some footage from my ancient Sony DV cam... and that had a crisper picture.

I never even tried to shoot in regular DV mode... I was so conditioned to think that downrezzing was better.
 
But how do you explain the good quality of material shot on a Varicam or F900 downresed to NTSC res of 720x480, delivered on a DVD and displayed on a SD tv/monitor? Theoretically it should look worse, or the equivalent of DV, but it doesnt, it looks way superior.
 
fiercecurry said:
But how do you explain the good quality of material shot on a Varicam or F900 downresed to NTSC res of 720x480, delivered on a DVD and displayed on a SD tv/monitor?
Click to expand...
I explain it by saying they used a $100,000 camera with a $50,000 lens, using 2/3" chips, higher color sampling, etc. As opposed to "DV", which typically means a $3,000 camera or less. A world of difference.

It's not the downrezzing that makes it look good -- it's everything else.

Had they used a comparable SD camera with a comparable lens, it would have looked every bit as good.
 
So with HVX200, if i shoot in DVCPROHD, and than downres for SD, at 720x486, than burn to DVD, it will look like it was shot with $3000 DV camera?

Just asking because, there still is no HD-DVD or Blu Ray players/burners, and mass adoption will not happen for a while. So....all your DVCPRO-HD footage that will end up on a 720x480 DVD, (the most common viewing/delivery method) will look like it was shot with a SD DV camera similiar..... to the DVX. Right?
 
fiercecurry said:
So with HVX200, if i shoot in DVCPROHD, and than downres for SD, at 720x486, than burn to DVD, it will look like it was shot with $3000 DV camera?

Just asking because, there still is no HD-DVD or Blu Ray players/burners, and mass adoption will not happen for a while. So....all your DVCPRO-HD footage that will end up on a 720x480 DVD, (the most common viewing/delivery method) will look like it was shot with a SD DV camera similiar..... to the DVX. Right?
Click to expand...
You're correct in that it's not going to look HD. However, bear in mind that the HVX does have features cameras like the DVX doesn't - DVCPROHD (and DVCPRO50, for that matter) record in 4:2:2 color space, which means you'll get twice the color resolution than that of your 4:1:1 DVX footage - and that *will* survive a downres process. The HVX also has a longer lens (albeit, just by a little), and that can translate into shallower depth of field for your shoot. That *will* survive the downres process. Things like latitude and noise in the picture are going to translate over to your SD copy. The HVX has variable framerates in 720 HD mode, and you can even preserve that shooting in a downres process - something that's definitely not possible on a DVX or "just another $3,000 DV camera." So, while you're correct in that you won't really see a gain in resolution when you put your HD material on a SD DVD, you can still make the picture look nicer than you ever were able to before, and that's really the point.
 
It'll look better than a DV camera, but not like a $150,000 camera. It'll look better than DV because the 4:2:2 color sampling will match better with the DVD's color sampling than DV does, and -- well, heck, it's a $6,000 camera, not a $3,000 camera; presumably that extra money's buying some quality -- better glass, better DSP, etc.

So yes, it certainly may look better. But no, it surely wouldn't look like it came from a $150,000 camera!

EDIT: too slow, Haakon beat me to it...
 
Thanks for all the info. So the DVX100A is just fine for making media intended for DVD distribution only. Until HD home viewing becomes more common.
 
Guys,

IF you get Final Cut Studio, you can make HD DVD's right now! You will be building on a regular DVD-r 4.5GB disk. So this will limit the length of the program.

DVD studio pro 4 will use HD h264 compression on a regular dvd-r/+

Now to play back I think the only way is to use apples DVD app on a dual G5 mac, until HD DVD units come out.. next year sometime.

The Big problem is the amount of compression time needed to make h264.. on my dual 2ghz G5 its about 20:1, so someone really needs to make a hardware compression engine to speed this up.
 
If you are 150% positive that your material will never be viewed in HD, and will only be distributed in SD DVD format then I would seriously consider shooting in DVCPro50 instead of DVCProHD.

You will get the same color sampling (4:2:2) with the benefit of nearly half as much compression.

If you needed the variable frame rates available only in 720P mode, you could always shoot those pieces in 720 and downconvert in post.

Just a thought.
DVCPro50 is an incredible option on the HVX which I think is being overshadowed a bit by people's desire to shoot HD.
 
Programs like Shake use special math for scaling footage up and down. I have done tests and the results really show. Programs like After Effects and Final Cut use a less advanced scaling.

This may help by only 20% but still it helps.

\V
 
This is exactly what I've been thinking about - if the downconversion process is done with care and a superior quality program (Shake is an excellent example), with some kind of unsharp mask effect added to preserve little detail, it should look considerably better than DV or even low-end DVCAM, shouldn't it?

Because I've seen dvd:s of professionally produced DigiBeta productions (and DVCAM) and I've seen dvd:s of F900 productions, with the exactly same production values. The difference can be seen.
 
RogerandOut said:
Thanks for all the info. So the DVX100A is just fine for making media intended for DVD distribution only.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. It makes great-looking DVDs.

Until HD home viewing becomes more common.
Click to expand...
Well, not necessarily -- home viewing is one thing, but what are they viewing it on? What we're waiting for is some sort of mass distribution media for home viewing of high-def content.

Right now the only installed base is to use a computer DVD player (encoding the content with something like Windows Media HD, or I believe Spot recommended a Nero encoder/player as well). But that limits people to playing content on their computers...
 
so, let me get some facts collected shortly:

Do I understand this correctly:
1) DVCPro50 can be recorded on DVD after MPEG2 conversion
2) DVCPro50 on DVD (as in 1) ) will look better than DV to DVD via MPEG2
3) because DVCPro50 compressed by MPEG2 will keep 4:2:2 and DV wouldn't
4) it needs same space on SD DVD for DVCPro50 converted to MPEG2 or DV converted to MPEG2 but DVCPro looks better...
5) DVCPro-HD will look worse for SD DVD than DVCPro50 does
6) DVCPro-HD can always be converted to a (still) nice SD image, if a customer wants SD of some HD footage
7) MPEG4 can not be recorded on a DVD, so a DVD can never be a playback medium for HD-footage
 
Not quite.

DVDs are always MPEG-2. That's all there is; if it plays back according to the DVD standard, it's 4:2:0 MPEG-2.

4:2:2 (from DVCPRO50) translates better to DVD's 4:2:0 than 4:1:1 does (from DV). So the final product will still be 4:2:0, but 4:2:2 makes better-looking 4:2:0 than 4:1:1 does.

Also, DVCPRO50 is much less compressed than DV, so it's a cleaner, sharper, higher-color-resolution source format than DV does.

Regarding 5), that remains to be seen. I wouldn't expect it to look better, but it may look comparable. Or it may look worse.

Regarding 7), that's not necessarily true, but it depends upon what your target player is. A set-top standalone DVD player won't have MPEG-4 support necessarily, although many of them probably will. However, if your target is computer DVD-ROM players, then yes you could put MPEG-4 on a DVD and distribute that.

Frankly, with all the hubbub about blu-ray and HD-DVD, it's kind of overlooked that you could use H.264 on a standard DVD and have two hours of high-def content on a regular DVD. It'd still mean adoption of a new base of DVD players (ones that are specifically H.264-compliant) but it's something to think about...
 
wow! That last paragraph just gives me half a dozen of new ideas and perspectives... Thanks Barry, by the way, for answering that clearly to my post. I just remember that the European HD1 channel (first HDTV channel in Europe) is transmitting with 18Mbps and in MPEG4 - so it sounds logic that 4,7 GB (DVD) is not that little as it looks like (the programm of HD1 looks amazing and is free of artefacts etc. - at least for average-bare eye...) - and just now I wonder whether HD1 is sending in H.264 and just calling it MPEG4... - might it be usual to call H.264 also MPEG4, even if it's a very "late" version of MPEG4? - In Europe, HDTV-channels declared "MPEG4" as their "standard" for transmission... could they probably more precisely mean H.264? - I never thought about that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top