HD on DVD vs SD on DVD

A

ASchear

Well-known member
I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of something recorded on an HMC150 / other HD camera versus a DVX100b in terms of the quality on a DVD. I am talking to a client about filming her wedding and I have a DVX100b. She wants the final product delivered on DVD and has another offer to have it shot in HD. I realize that DVD inherently is SD, but I would rather show her an example of HD vs the DVX on DVD to show that the DVX is perfectly capable.

Also, if a professional with wedding experience is willing to work for $300 on HD, is it safe to assume it's a one camera package? I was told this is what I'm competing with for the gig.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I haven't done a comparison like that, but it would be interesting.

You could go to a stock video site like Pond5.com and purchase two similar clips -- one in HD and one from a DVX. Then burn your own DVD and see for yourself.
 
The DVX is perfectly capable, but HD downconverted to SD is better. If done correctly.

One of the reasons it's better is because HD downconverted to, say, SD uncompressed will have pretty close to 4:4:4 color. That's going to be a better base to draw from when rendering out for DVD.

Also, the noise in an HD image is much, much smaller, proportionally, to the image than it is in SD, and when it's downconverted, it is often diminished considerably. The same goes for any aliasing (though edge-enhancement artifacts can end up looking worse).

With an HD image, you're simply starting with more information. More is better.
 
I've never done a side by side test, but I have absolutely noticed a difference since I made the switch to HD, even downconverted. I'm afraid those pixels do count.
 
David Jimerson said:
The DVX is perfectly capable, but HD downconverted to SD is better. If done correctly.

One of the reasons it's better is because HD downconverted to, say, SD uncompressed will have pretty close to 4:4:4 color. That's going to be a better base to draw from when rendering out for DVD.

Also, the noise in an HD image is much, much smaller, proportionally, to the image than it is in SD, and when it's downconverted, it is often diminished considerably. The same goes for any aliasing (though edge-enhancement artifacts can end up looking worse).

With an HD image, you're simply starting with more information. More is better.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree that HD downconverted would still have some inherent IQ over just SD. But I don't think it would get wider range of color.... 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 color will not become 4:4:4 just because it's been downrezzed to SD...
 
Imo, the difference isn't much. Other posters are correct, but its not very extream. If the down convert is done wrong it will def be less quality. I shoot in dvc pro 50 a lot (yes i know the dvx 100 cant) and the difference between dvcpro 50 and hd on the final product isnt much. What will make a difference is using dual layer dvds. Depending on the length of the shoot using dual layer should allow you to make a higher bit rate less compressed DVD. IMO this will make more of a differance then shooting in hd or not. Maybe you can offer this to the customer if the other company isn't. Lastly if you want to remain competitive, you could rent an hd camera. I rent 170's and 200a's if your interested.
 
natums said:
I would tend to agree that HD downconverted would still have some inherent IQ over just SD. But I don't think it would get wider range of color.... 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 color will not become 4:4:4 just because it's been downrezzed to SD...
Click to expand...

It gets to be pretty close. There's a LOT more color information in an HD image than there is in a DV image. That all gets poured into the smaller frame.
 
So your competition has quoted $300.00 for a wedding shot on HD? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. I have shot weddings, on SD, and the only way that I would do it for that little money is to only shoot the ceremony, with one camera and then hand them the raw footage as they got into the limo to go to the reception. That is if they were friends, and could not afford any thing else. AND, to do it for $300.00, I had better be invited to the reception, and would expect an open bar. There are a lot of cameras out there that are "HD" and I doubt that, if your competition is quoting wedding prices like that, they are using a very high quality HD camera. I would also guarantee that is for one camera. While yes, technically HD down converted to DVD may give better image quality, I have my doubts that the folks you are competing against will be able to deliver a higher quality video. If you are well versed in the use of DVX, and can use it to make the outstanding images we know that it can make, you may want to bring up that you should not be hired for what your camera can do, but what you can do with your camera. If not, then I would not sweat losing this gig.
 
I'm curious as to how that works... I'm not arguing it but just confused on the technical aspect on how that works... Sorry for going on a tangent, but I feel it it kind of relevant.

the color range for each pixel does not increase, and each pixel of HD footage that is 8-bit has the same color range as SD 8-bit footage. Does it have something to do with the encoding process being 10 or 12-bit and therefore as it derezzes it will mix and make use the large palet for the new file type? I don't see how that could in reality create more color though since 1080p to 480p is less than half the pixels, so 4 pixels combine to make 1 roughly. Those 4 pixels could be all slightly different shades and then when mixed to SD it may be a new shade that was possible in 8-bit, but it will have less real range since it is already 3 other shades that the HD file had. Sorry if that isn't very clear...
 
There isn't more information necessarily. That's just a simple way of trying to look at it.

The truth of the matter is that DV footage from the DVX is for sure not as good a quality as the DVCPROHD of the HVX200/HPX170 or even the AVCHD of the HMC or AF100. The codec is well, bad. And it can be seen on a DVD render, or most any render for that matter.

But the truth is as well that the DVX puts out fine images for DVD acquisition. Especially if you know how to use the camera. DVD is still the standard. It's what people want. But if they want their wedding in HD, tell them to get their makeup done professionally too while they are at it. Groomsmen too. :D
 
300 bucks for a wedding? That's not even worth it. When you factor in 2 cams (most likely), tape expense, cost of dvds, travel expense, archiving expense, editing time and the time you'll be there that is a pretty bad deal.
 
It's going to be just the ceremony, and it's a one camera deal. They want it edited (not sure how much editing I'll have to do) by a week later. It's my first wedding, so I didn't have any work to show the client, so (you guys are gonna hate me), I agreed to do it for $150. This is more for my reel than anything else though, to show people that I'm capable of shooting. In the future, I do imagine that I'd be able to charge more. And, looking at other prices in the market, $300 is a really competitive, but realistic price for a > 1 hour ceremony and edit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top