HD Production

[DVX100Shooter]

A question was raised to me at work this morning and I wanted to get another opinion on the answer. I was asked what is the purpose of shooting HD if most people don't have HD capable TV's in their households. They also asked what would the video look like on a regular TV be it a conventional 4:3 or 16:9 flat screen plasma or LCD that is NOT HD Capable.

For the second question I told them that I am guessing you could convert the footage to a format that will allow your project to be seen on ALL TV's.

Now when this new HVX comes out, will we have to get a HD Deck or will a normal MiniDV deck work?

 

[Ernest_Acosta]

Well for one, I'm assuming that most folks are looking to show their projects on a DLP projector or possible transferring to film or you can burn a HD dvd. The increased resolution of HD will bring the production value up a notch for film transfers. More HD tvs or HD ready tvs are being sold, although it is much slower than the government expected. It will take some time before the entire North American broadcasting network will be totally High Definition. A lot of cable channels do simultaneous broadcast in SD and HD. I think at this point, there is a lack of programming content in HD. That will change soon. I don't think you can display HD on a SD tv. On your last question the answer is "Yes" you will need an HD monitor.

 

[Glenn_Gipson]

Even when downcoverted to SD, HD is going to look better then SD. At least in theory. And HD will make your project's disitrbution options more promising, not only for a possible 35 mm film transfer, but also for the future HD market.

 

[mmm]

HD can be converted to SD and viewed on a standard television - but only at SD resolution obviously. There are many different ways to do this, some HD cameras have a downconversion built in.

Whether downconverted HD looks better than shooting SD is a tricky one. At the moment, it probably does, because HD cameras such as the Varicam and F900/F950 are just very good, EXPENSIVE cameras. However, if you were only going to SD, you may as well save your money and shoot on SD, as you will get more for you money and post production will also be far easier.

 

[Barry_Green]

Whether downconverted HD looks better than shooting SD is a tricky one. At the moment, it probably does, because HD cameras such as the Varicam and F900/F950 are just very good, EXPENSIVE cameras. However, if you were only going to SD, you may as well save your money and shoot on SD, as you will get more for you money and post production will also be far easier.

Test for yourself, tonight at 11:35 p.m. Put on The Jay Leno Show on NBC, then swap over to The David Letterman Show on CBS. One of them is shot in HD, the other in SD. Both use comparable production value, top-notch equipment, etc., and both are being broadcast to the same television, so the only real quantifiable difference would be that one show starts out in high-def and gets converted to SD, vs. the other that starts out in SD.

Do you see a difference?

 

[Barry_Green]

I was asked what is the purpose of shooting HD if most people don't have HD capable TV's in their households.

Depends. If the downconverted HD footage looks every bit as good as the SD-original footage would, then why not shoot on HD? You'll have future-proofing. But if the downconverted footage doesn't look as good as the native SD footage, you're going through the exercise to end up with lesser-quality footage. That's rarely a good idea.

One other thing about shooting HD is that you can zoom in on the footage when downconverting to SD, that's a side benefit.

They also asked what would the video look like on a regular TV be it a conventional 4:3 or 16:9 flat screen plasma or LCD that is NOT HD Capable.

Depends on how good the conversion is done. Top-quality HD, downconverted to SD, looks the same on an SDTV as top-quality SD broadcast on the same TV.

Now when this new HVX comes out, will we have to get a HD Deck or will a normal MiniDV deck work?

A miniDV deck will work for the HVX's miniDV tape. For HD, you don't need a deck at all. The HVX eliminates tape and uses solid-state memory cards. You can just plug those straight into your computer and edit off them (they appear to your computer as hard disks).

 

[mmm]

Test for yourself, tonight at 11:35 p.m. Put on The Jay Leno Show on NBC, then swap over to The David Letterman Show on CBS. One of them is shot in HD, the other in SD. Both use comparable production value, top-notch equipment, etc., and both are being broadcast to the same television, so the only real quantifiable difference would be that one show starts out in high-def and gets converted to SD, vs. the other that starts out in SD.

Do you see a difference?

I'm afraid HD broadcasts only start in the UK next year

What I meant was when people say "but Episode II looks better than TV shows even in SD - is that because it was shoot on HD?" they are kinda getting the wrong end of the stick.

The resolution advantage of HD is lost in downconversion to SD, however, the latitude, hours of careful lighting and framing and other high quality aspects of the image are not.

 

[Simon Wyndham]

Mmm, ya know you can also light carefully and frame nicely in SD too!

 

[Barry_Green]

The resolution advantage of HD is lost in downconversion to SD, however, the latitude, hours of careful lighting and framing and other high quality aspects of the image are not.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that whole "global community" thing!

But I agree 100%. You're exactly right. And yes, the latitude does get carried forward -- and since the best SD cameras can have more latitude than the best HD cameras, that leads us back to SD delivering better-looking SD than HD-downrezzed-to-SD...

 

[Rocketeer]

I'm afraid HD broadcasts only start in the UK next year

What I meant was when people say "but Episode II looks better than TV shows even in SD - is that because it was shoot on HD?" they are kinda getting the wrong end of the stick.

The resolution advantage of HD is lost in downconversion to SD, however, the latitude, hours of careful lighting and framing and other high quality aspects of the image are not.

You might find this useful
http://www.primetv.com/hdfortv/hidefoverview/

 

[Erik Olson]

While modern post is largely lossless, garbage in - garbage out still applies. If it is shot on 35mm film and broadcast at NTSC 525i, it is still going to look better than a program lensed in SD or 24 frame ED.

HD has a good foothold already and market share is increasing more rapidly than many predicted. I just wrapped a thirteen episode HDTheater show for Discovery Networks which will be simulcast in SD on Discovery Channel. This was not a choice - it was a mandate.

Networks now require HD or film acquisition to assure product longevity and standards adhesion moving forward. While some might not see a difference on their 525i sets at home, the motivation for using HD today is one of simple pragmatism - the end product is forward compatible to the ever-expanding HD viewership.

e

 

[mgalvan]

While modern post is largely lossless, garbage in - garbage out still applies. If it is shot on 35mm film and broadcast at NTSC 525i, it is still going to look better than a program lensed in SD or 24 frame ED.

HD has a good foothold already and market share is increasing more rapidly than many predicted. I just wrapped a thirteen episode HDTheater show for Discovery Networks which will be simulcast in SD on Discovery Channel. This was not a choice - it was a mandate.

Networks now require HD or film acquisition to assure product longevity and standards adhesion moving forward. While some might not see a difference on their 525i sets at home, the motivation for using HD today is one of simple pragmatism - the end product is forward compatible to the ever-expanding HD viewership.

e

Yes, this is quite true ....

I work for CNN New York and we have recently upgraded most of the studio cameras with HD cameras. Pretty much all the programming that comes out of the New York Bureau (News hits, Paula Zahn Now, Anderson Cooper, etc) is shot in HD but downconverted to SD for broadcast.

 

[Sumfun]

Test for yourself, tonight at 11:35 p.m. Put on The Jay Leno Show on NBC, then swap over to The David Letterman Show on CBS. One of them is shot in HD, the other in SD. Both use comparable production value, top-notch equipment, etc., and both are being broadcast to the same television, so the only real quantifiable difference would be that one show starts out in high-def and gets converted to SD, vs. the other that starts out in SD.

Do you see a difference?

So which one is HD? I didn't have a chance to watch tonight, but I've never really noticed any difference before. I'll have to admit, though, that my TV isn't all that good.

 

[mmm]

Mmm, ya know you can also light carefully and frame nicely in SD too!

What I meant was when watching HD content in SD, it isn't the extra resolution that makes it look good... it is all the other quality aspects, like the trend that HD broadcasts are higher budget = better talent, more kit & time etc etc...

sorry having trouble expressing myself at the moment!

 

[Erik Olson]

mmm,

I respectfully disagree with the first part of your statement.

The resolving, latitude and color rendering capabilities of HD and 35mm make SD broadcasts look better than anything you could accomplish with equal production values in SD or 24-frame ED. In an all-things-equal 24-frame shootout between a CineAlta 900 and a DVX100a, the downrezzed HD will look heaps better in the end.

e

 

[Barry_Green]

overland, I agree and totally disagree.

Comparing a CineAlta against a DVX is obviously a skewed comparison, and if that's the comparison, then I totally agree -- the downrezzed CineAlta should smoke the DVX.

But if you keep things equal, that's where I disagree with your conclusions. Compare a CineAlta against an SDX900, and I'd go on record as saying I'd bet that the SDX is going to deliver the better-looking final SD product.

Keep the product technologies comparable (the finest 2/3" SD camera against the finest 2/3" HD camera, the best SD video lens against an at-least-as-good HD lens, etc) and the same production values between the two, and the SD camera will produce a better-looking SD product than downrezzed HD-to-SD will. Or, at least so I assert.

 

[KnockOutFilms]

..

But if you keep things equal, that's where I disagree with your conclusions. Compare a CineAlta against an SDX900, and I'd go on record as saying I'd bet that the SDX is going to deliver the better-looking final SD product.

Keep the product technologies comparable (the finest 2/3" SD camera against the finest 2/3" HD camera, the best SD video lens against an at-least-as-good HD lens, etc) and the same production values between the two, and the SD camera will produce a better-looking SD product than downrezzed HD-to-SD will. Or, at least so I assert.

Okay, this totally confuses the crap out of me. Please help. . seriously

How can the above statement be true. (I am truly asking. . not being argumentative at all)

If the extra resolution of the HD camera does not translate to SD then why bother shooting HD. And why does the extra "resolution" of film look better at SD. I assume it's because film has better "other" properties, DOF & Dynamic range?

Why on earth would HD look worse?

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?

What about the higher res of HD for doing post FX work? Is this better than the SD from the 800 or 900 (pany)?

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.

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

Cheers,
Chris

 

[mmm]

mmm,

I In an all-things-equal 24-frame shootout between a CineAlta 900 and a DVX100a, the downrezzed HD will look heaps better in the end.

e

No that is exactly what I mean! People tend to compare HD to any old SD, DV, Beta SP instead of the top of the line equivalent Digibeta or DVCPRO50. Of course a Cinealta will look better than a DVX... I agree with want Barry said (although I wouldn't bet on it because I haven't seen a direct comparison personally).

There is the odd program on British TV downconverted from HD (the BBC are futureproofing) and from what I have seen, it looks the same as SD originated footage. A side-by-side may reveal one had the upper hand, but I reckon it would be pretty tight. Barry's arguement makes sense that a decent 2/3" SD camera has bigger pixels = better performance - but I won't judge without seeing it myself.

 

[Erik Olson]

I'm only set to side-by-side a CineAlta 900, Z1U and DVX100a this week - if a Vegas user can batch them for a comparison, I'll roll the footage and we can settle this once and for all. I don't have a 35mm rig on this show, so we'll just have to leave that for another discussion.

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

 

[Sumfun]

Okay, this totally confuses the crap out of me. Please help. . seriously

How can the above statement be true. (I am truly asking. . not being argumentative at all)

If the extra resolution of the HD camera does not translate to SD then why bother shooting HD. And why does the extra "resolution" of film look better at SD. I assume it's because film has better "other" properties, DOF & Dynamic range?

Why on earth would HD look worse?

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?

What about the higher res of HD for doing post FX work? Is this better than the SD from the 800 or 900 (pany)?

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.

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

Cheers,
Chris

Varicam, Cine Alta and SDX900 all have 2/3 inch chips. But the pixels on the SDX are larger because there's fewer of them on the same size chips. Larger pixels lead to better low light performance and dynamic range. So it's possible that the SDX video may be the best when all 3 cameras are compared in SD.

If you think your film may be in theatres, then the extra resolution of HD will definitely come in handy. I'm sure you won't have any quality problems with the downrezzed video either.