HD Production

[Barry_Green]

I do see Barry's point - but then the SDX900 isn't SD - it's ED, which is a much different animal than a 30 frame 60i device like the D30 575WSL et-cetera.
e

Not following you... everything the SDX shoots is SD. It shoots DVCPRO50 in 720x576x60i, totally NTSC-compatible. Everything it shoots is NTSC.

EDTV is a new, higher format encapsulated in the ATSC broadcast standards, sandwiched between SD and HD. But the SDX is completely SD -- 24p, 30p, or 60i, in 16:9 or 4:3, at 4:2:2 or 4:1:1, it's all NTSC...

The only EDTV camera out now, that I can think of, would be the JVC HD1/HD10/HD100, which can shoot 480/60p or 576/50p -- those would qualify as EDTV. Panasonic made a DVCPRO-P format for a while, which shot 480/60p, but I don't think those are on the market anymore...

 

[Barry_Green]

If the extra resolution of the HD camera does not translate to SD then why bother shooting HD.

For airing on HDTVs. Or for using the bigger area for a pan 'n' scan effect. Or for transferring to film.

And why does the extra "resolution" of film look better at SD.

It doesn't. It's not resolution that makes film look so much better. You answered it yourself when you said "I assume it's because film has better "other" properties, DOF & Dynamic range?" Plus, the film is being scanned by a "camera" (the millennium or spirit or other high-end telecine) which is far superior to most dedicated video cameras.

Why on earth would HD look worse?

Because to downconvert to SD, you have to face the issue of fitting all those pixels into a smaller array. Compromises must be made. Aliasing occurs. Recompression artifacts occur. You can't fit three pegs into two holes without there being some compromises. Plus, as Sumfun said, the HD cameras are going to have much tinier pixels, vs. the relatively huge pixels on the top-notch SD cameras. Bigger pixels = better video performance, in all ways, under all circumstances, except one: resolution. And since you'd be scaling your video down and throwing away the HD resolution anyway... it's not really a benefit in the first place.

But these benefits only apply if your intention is to downrez to SD. If you're staying in HD, obviously the HD camera is the wiser choice.

I am planning a feature shoot and am fighting for a Varicam. I hope to see my film in the theatre but I understand that the bulk of its dist will be on SD / DVD. Am I fighting for something that will not help? Should I shoot the 800?

If you want to be able to sell it, having originated on "real HD" will carry some weight with many distributors, especially foreign. If you want to transfer to film, HD will give you substantially better performance. If you were truly only ever aiming for DVD release, I'd say save the money and rent the SPX800 or SDX900 instead.

Is the biggest issue of quality viewed on SD a bigger part of the chip size of the aquisition camera, 1/3 vs 2/3? I really want shallow DOF and as importantly Dynamic range.

Most definitely. 2/3" chips will give you much better low light response, better dynamic range, and their longer lenses will give you substantially shallower DOF. You'll get the same DOF effect from an HD 2/3" camera or an SD 2/3" camera. Assuming the chips are of comparable technology, you should get a little better dynamic range and sensitivity from the SD 2/3" chips. 2/3" chips will give you significantly better performance than 1/3" chips.

Are you about to shatter my reality regarding my desire to shoot the Varicam?

Not at all. Just make sure you're using it for what it's designed for. The VariCam's two main advantages over the SDX are 1) high-def resolution, and 2) variable frame rates. If you're not using variable frame rates at all, and you're not finishing to a high-def master, then I do believe you'd be better off just shooting the SDX/SPX and saving some money on rental and post costs. But having a high-def master will give you some options that a standard-def master won't.

Either way, if you can swing any of those cameras, you'll be better off than a 1/3" shooter would be.

 

[jameswmulryan]

Future Proofing

Future Proofing

Barry:

What a fantastic analysis of the HD/SD dilemma.

Even if HD originated material degrades when presented in an SD format,
stations like Discovery and PBS want their material shot on HD for long term archival potential.

Degraded material seems to be a reality on all forms of current consumer viewed HD displays.

Any thoughts on originating on HD verses SD when going to Blue Ray?

Do you think the Panasonic P2 2/3" version have the ability to switch from HD to SD data output, ie DVCPro and DV a la HVX200 and if so will this in camera processing equal the quality generated by high end decks and converters?

 

[Erik Olson]

Barry, I could be wrong here, but doesn't SMPTE define EDTV as any 480p signal? Progressive-scanning 480p cameras are ED, interlaced format 480i (525i) cameras are SD. Therefore, while the SDX900 is capable of 60i, it is a true EDTV (based on NTSC 525i baseline) progressive camera?

I might well be wrong, wrong, wrong on this, but I've always treated the 480p DVX as an EDTV device. Again, I've got the CA packages and Z1Us and our DVX100a that can be side-by-sided if someone wants to facilitate an NTSC SD comparison downrez. The packages go away at the end of the week - so I'll just shoot the three rigs simultaneous and hold the tapes (HDCam, HDV and DV) until someone steps up.

e

 

[adaml]

Barry,
First off, thanks for all your informative posts on this site. I'm curious though, given the advantages 2/3" chips have over 1/3", why you're attracted to these 1/3" cameras. Don't get me wrong, I'll be buying an HVX in a few months myself, but I wonder if I could afford to whether I'd move up.
Thanks,
Adam

 

[KnockOutFilms]

Hey Barry,

Thanks for such a detailed reply. That's awesome.

The one major issues I didn't realize was that larger pixels give you more range. I knew larger chips were associated with more range, but I didn't connect that it was because the pixels could then be larger.

.......

Either way, if you can swing any of those cameras, you'll be better off than a 1/3" shooter would be.

To complicate things a bit more...

I understand that the HVX will most likley have less range than any higher end 2/3" camera, i.e. 800/900 - varicam, but technically it will have the same amount of pixels as the Varicam, I assume the HVX would provide more space and resolution for post FX work, specifically green screen.

If I end up with an HVX I will lose the range and DOF, but I will gain 60p and resolution for post. DV falls apart terribly in post and is almost impossible for great key work.

Is this correct? Should the HVX resolution perform well in post? Almost as well as the DVCProHD from the Vari.

Thanks again for the input.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Sumfun]

Sorry for answering questions addressed to Barry, but I thought I'd just put in my 2 cents.

I'm curious though, given the advantages 2/3" chips have over 1/3", why you're attracted to these 1/3" cameras. Don't get me wrong, I'll be buying an HVX in a few months myself, but I wonder if I could afford to whether I'd move up.
Thanks,
Adam

One reason I'm attracted to the dvx is that it's only $3500. Compare that to $25k+ for an SDX900 without lens! For HVX, you'd have to compare that to Varicam, and it's an even bigger difference. If we had the money, I think everyone would move up. But you've got to do what you can within your budget constraints.

I understand that the HVX will most likley have less range than any higher end 2/3" camera, i.e. 800/900 - varicam, but technically it will have the same amount of pixels as the Varicam, I assume the HVX would provide more space and resolution for post FX work, specifically green screen.

If I end up with an HVX I will lose the range and DOF, but I will gain 60p and resolution for post. DV falls apart terribly in post and is almost impossible for great key work.

Is this correct? Should the HVX resolution perform well in post? Almost as well as the DVCProHD from the Vari.

We don't know that the HVX will have the same amount of pixels as the Varicam because Panny hasn't announced the CCD resolution yet. But if they are the same, then the performance in post will be the same because they are both DVCProHD. If you're doing color keying, then color resolution is probably more important to you. In DVCProHD, it's 4:2:2. You can get better with 4:4:4, but you'd have to spend a lot more money.

 

[Sumfun]

I might well be wrong, wrong, wrong on this, but I've always treated the 480p DVX as an EDTV device. Again, I've got the CA packages and Z1Us and our DVX100a that can be side-by-sided if someone wants to facilitate an NTSC SD comparison downrez. The packages go away at the end of the week - so I'll just shoot the three rigs simultaneous and hold the tapes (HDCam, HDV and DV) until someone steps up.

e

Thanks for shooting the side-by-side comparison. I think it would be interesting to see the results. I don't know how to down rez (and I use Premiere), otherwise I would help you. But please shoot some charts as well as some motion video. Also, please include some red and blue colors, because it would be interesting to see the color resolutions, too.

BTW, did you mention earlier that you would have an SDX900, too?

 

[Erik Olson]

I don't have the SDX900 on this shoot. Does Premier handle HDCam or HDV? I think we'll need some Vegas or FCPHD on this one.

e

 

[Sumfun]

Premiere doesn't support HDCam, but version 1.5.1 supports HDV. Unfortunately, I'm using version 1.5 because I don't need HDV support.

 

[mmm]

I don't have the SDX900 on this shoot. Does Premier handle HDCam or HDV? I think we'll need some Vegas or FCPHD on this one.

e

I would be very interested in the results of that test, but have no way to ingest the footage....and I am in PAL land which doesn't help either!

 

[Barry_Green]

Even if HD originated material degrades when presented in an SD format, stations like Discovery and PBS want their material shot on HD for long term archival potential.

Degraded material seems to be a reality on all forms of current consumer viewed HD displays.

Most definitely. The nastiest degradation of the footage occurs when it's broadcast! An HDCAM master can look dramatically superior to an HD broadcast of that same footage! :thumbsup:

Discovery and PBS are also two of the few networks who are actually broadcasting native HD content, so it makes sense that they would want native HD masters. And hey, let's face it -- if you could have your master on HD, or on SD -- who would prefer an SD master? Provided, of course, that the HD looks better than the SD actually would, and provided it serves your purposes. There's still plenty of work to be done, and plenty of money to be made, in SD. No doubt a proper HD master of your program will retain more value longer than an SD master would.

Consider your market when making the choice, and the realities of your production budget, etc. Will shooting HD bring more value to your product and your ability to sell it? If your market is PBS or Discovery, then the answer is an obvious "yes". If your market is direct distribution to end users through DVD, the answer is "no". If your market is the theater, the answer is probably "yes, with the caveat that the odds are so thoroughly against filmmakers ever getting inside the theater..."

If all other things are equal, HD is definitely better to originate on. It just gives you more options. But if going HD means that you don't have enough budget to finish your project properly, then it's probably a bad choice. The world is still SD, by and large... of the 300 Digital Cable channels we can get here in Vegas, I think 9 are HD, which means 291 are SD. Make the very best project you can, and put your dollars where they will make your project the most marketable -- if that's in cast and crew and lighting, that may outweigh the advantages of going in HD. But if HD is just a little bump up in your budget, it could very well prove to be worth it.

Any thoughts on originating on HD verses SD when going to Blue Ray?

My main thought is -- we've probably got a good three to five years before blu-ray or HD-DVD is a prevalent mass-distribution system. It took DVDs 7 years to penetrate half of American households. There may be some appetite among early adopters, but for the short-term foreseeable future, DVD is going to remain the thoroughly dominant delivery medium for home users.

In fact, even if blu-ray DVD players were more prevalent, it may make more sense (based on a customer base perspective) to consider distributing your high-def content on a regular DVD on WMV9-HD. There are a whole lot more people out there with computers with WMV and 720p-or-better displays, than there are with HDTVs and blu-ray players! If you're trying to create an HD product that has mass-market appeal, you may be better off considering that route.

Do you think the Panasonic P2 2/3" version have the ability to switch from HD to SD data output, ie DVCPro and DV a la HVX200 and if so will this in camera processing equal the quality generated by high end decks and converters?

Total speculation, as we know nothing about the 2/3" camera. I however would expect it to be a 2/3" HVX, offering both 1080 and 720, and yes downconversion. But I don't know whether the downconversion would be comparable to dedicated converters -- it would seem unlikely; a dedicated tool can focus all its energy on that specific task, vs. a camera which has so many other requirements asked of it.

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry, I could be wrong here, but doesn't SMPTE define EDTV as any 480p signal? Progressive-scanning 480p cameras are ED, interlaced format 480i (525i) cameras are SD. Therefore, while the SDX900 is capable of 60i, it is a true EDTV (based on NTSC 525i baseline) progressive camera?

I might well be wrong, wrong, wrong on this, but I've always treated the 480p DVX as an EDTV device.

You are correct, as am I. 480/24p, 480/30p, and 480/60p are all EDTV formats, and the DVX/XL2/SDX/SPX can all shoot two of those three.

For that matter, a 24P DVD could also be considered an EDTV device.

However, I still maintain that the SDX and DVX and XL2 are SDTV devices, because what they acutally record is an NTSC-compliant, standard-def signal. They're not generating an EDTV signal on their analog outputs, they're outputting an SDTV NTSC signal.

So there's a bit of gray area here. Certainly the DVX/XL2/SDX/SPX can generate a high-res-enough image to overdrive an SDTV display, and it can require an EDTV to fully resolve their picture. But I think the key distinction is that the cameras only output SDTV signals.

The DVD player, on the other hand, is actually capable of outputting an EDTV signal -- it can actually transmit an EDTV-compliant 480/24p signal.

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry,
First off, thanks for all your informative posts on this site. I'm curious though, given the advantages 2/3" chips have over 1/3", why you're attracted to these 1/3" cameras.

'Cause that's where all the fun is! :grin:

Seriously, the 2/3" cameras thoroughly outclass the 1/3" cameras. But they also cost six times as much, they're big and bulky, and they dictate a totally different mood and shooting style. I rent 'em when I need 'em, but there's something compelling about getting an idea, grabbing the camera and some lights out of the garage, and going out and shooting it. It's a different mindset than one you'd have with a 2/3" camera.

I came within a hair's breadth of picking up an SPX800 last year, but the buzz about the HVX caused me enough pause to wait and see, and obviously I'm glad I did -- HD for 1/2 to 1/3 the price is too interesting. And I will be first in line for the 2/3" P2 camera when it comes out! I think the SPX is a great camera, I like it better than the SDX, but the option of waiting a little while and getting full HD for not that much more is just too compelling...

Don't get me wrong, I'll be buying an HVX in a few months myself, but I wonder if I could afford to whether I'd move up.
Thanks,
Adam

The thing about the HVX is that there's no 2/3" camera that does what it does. There's a $100,000 camera that shoots 1080/24p, yes, but it doesn't shoot 720p. And there's a $70,000 camera that shoots 720p with variable frame rates, but it can't do 1080. And neither of them offer the enormous cost savings (yes I did just say "savings") of P2. The HVX is just totally revolutionary.

But when there's a 2/3" version, it will be better (assuming the features stay the same). It'll be better in low light, it'll offer shallower DOF, and it'll have a better S/N ratio. Of course, it'll cost six times as much, and the lens will cost twice as much as an HVX.

So there's about six thousand reasons (well, $5995 of them, anyway) why the 1/3" camera is so appealing! :thumbsup:

 

[Barry_Green]

I knew larger chips were associated with more range, but I didn't connect that it was because the pixels could then be larger.

For standard-def, with an equivalent pixel count on the chip, the larger chip lets the pixels be much larger. For high-def, the larger space lets you put more pixels on, but obviously they're necessarily smaller. So a 2/3" chip with 500,000 pixels has much larger pixels than an HD 2/3" chip with 2M pixels on it.

Don't have the physics in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that a 2/3" 2M chip has pixels that are at least as large, and probably larger, than a 1/3" SD camera.

I assume the HVX would provide more space and resolution for post FX work, specifically green screen.

You'll have twice the color sampling, so green screen keys should be much easier. However, be aware that the DVCPRO-HD format uses the same type of compression as DV, and it's even a little bit more compressed (per pixel) than DV is, so if you're not happy with DV recompression artifacts, you may not be thrilled with DVCPRO-HD recompression artifacts. It's still way, way less compressed than HDV, but DVCPRO-HD is from the same family as DV.

Is this correct? Should the HVX resolution perform well in post? Almost as well as the DVCProHD from the Vari.

The format is identical to what the VariCam uses. As to whether the optics and chips can put as high-resolution an image into that frame, that remains to be seen.

 

[jameswmulryan]

Barry:

Thank you again for your dedication. The DVX User Forum is a wonderful tool.