HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Policar link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=30#39 date=02/26/05 at 13:11:03]I wouldn't go that far.  I doubt the DVX's lens resolves anything close to 10 million pixels.  At its sharpest aperture, I'm sure it resolves more than the DV format requires, but it focuses into a smaller 1/3'' area.  Panavision advertises the sharpness of their HD lenses because it's hard to make an HD lens that's as sharp as a 35mm lens because of the smaller sensor.  Also, the XL1's 16X zoom lens was said to be too soft to resolve the full resolution offered by the XL2.  10 million pixels is a LOT.[/quote]

I was also thinking of digital still cameras. Take the Canon S-30/40/45/50/60/70 series. Those are small, handy, pocket cameras, with tiny objectives, maybe a twentieth of the volume of the DVX-Lens. A lot of people stated, that 3 or 4 Megapixels would be the very most such a tiny lens could resolve. But now, just have a look at the reviews of the S 70 with its over 7 Megapixel sensor. The (same?) tiny zoom lens is still resolving more resolution. Sure, the corners are soft, but somewhere near seven Million pixels resolution from that tiny thing! So the 'huge' DVX lens should have _a lot_ of reserves in resolving details.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Pascal Parvex link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=30#38 date=02/24/05 at 05:14:53]And a standard resolution DVD should look significantly better when the film was shot in a higher resolution. Just watch any 35mm film on DVD, it looks way better than video on the same resolution, as there was more information available for every pixel of the 'low' resolution MPEG2 offers.[/quote]
I know people say this, but I think it's based in faulty logic.  It's like someone saying "coats and shoes kill plants."  I mean, of course coats and shoes don't kill plants, so if we say "why do you think coats and shoes kill plants?", they'd respond by saying "I put my plants in the closet for a week.  When I came back, they were dead.  There were only coats and shoes in the closet, ergo, coats and shoes kill plants."

A reasonable conclusion, I guess, but certainly not based on all the facts!

Film is definitely high resolution, as is HD.  And film definitely looks great transferred to DVD, but that doesn't mean we can extrapolate forward and say that resizing HD down to SD will result in better-looking DVDs!  That logic can't follow because it's not based on all the facts.

Movies look so much better for all the reasons Policar said.  But not for the reason that there's more resolution.  You simply can't compare the resolution on film with the idea of resizing high def digital video down to standard def.  That's like comparing the coats and shoes to killing the plants, rather than attributing it to the lack of sunlight in the dark closet.

Film is high resolution, yes... but so is "reality", the reality that we point a camera at and shoot is "infinitely" high resolution, right?  So why is it that a Digital Betacam camera, when pointed at a high resolution source such as reality, delivers an image that looks so much better than a DV camera, even though they're the exact same resolution?  The answer is that resolution isn't even part of the equation, it's all due to the lens and the dynamic range and the compression employed and the better DSP and everything else... but they're both being resolved down to a 720x480 (or 486) image.  No difference at all in resolution, but huge difference in how they look.

So it is with film.  Film isn't a digital image that gets resized down.  When film is transferred to video for DVD, they scan the film using a telecine machine.  The telecine is, for all effects and purposes, a video camera, shooting the "reality" that is presented to it (which is the film image).  The video camera captures the film images, and resolves them at 720x480.  There's no resizing going on, no starting from a higher-def source etc.

Now, the better the telecine technology you use, the better the film transfer will work.  An old film chain is the lowest quality, a Rank is a step up, and something like a Spirit or Millennium will be more towards the top of the scale.  The better the machine you use, the better the quality you'll get -- BUT IT'S STILL ALL THE SAME RESOLUTION, 720x480. They don't scan at a higher resolution and then resize down.

Scaling a high-def image down in resolution is completely, thoroughly, and utterly unlike the process of transferring film to video.  It's as unlike it as saying that coats and shoes killed your plants, when in fact it was a lack of sunlight and water.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Here's one for you, Barry. What if a movie was shot on HD and transfered to film, then the film was telecined to DVD? The higher resolution of the HD would be utilitzed in the film transfer, and then the film image would not have to be resized down when going to DVD? I don't know if it would work, just wondering if it could work. Essentially, this would be a scenario for someone who shot a film on HD, put it to film for festivals, and got picked up for DVD distribution.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Wouldn't make much difference. Transferring to film doesn't change anything inherent. As good as it looks, or as bad as it looks, will be your starting point -- the camera will have set that in stone.

Resizing doesn't necessarily make something look *bad*, it just doesn't make it look better than not-resizing does.

Let me put it this way -- a high-def 1/3" camera, like the Z1 for example, is never going to be able to match a standard-def 2/3" camera like the DSR570, when put on a standard-def medium like DVD.

A high-def VariCam or CineAlta will make a spectacular-looking DVD... but, speculating, they wouldn't necessarily make a better-looking DVD than a comparable standard-def camera. I think a very interesting test would be to pit an SDX900 against a VariCam or CineAlta, with the intention of making a DVD of the footage. I bet there's no discernable difference, or if there is, that the SDX900 would have a slight advantage on the final DVD.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

I know what you want to say, Barry. I know the same story from digital still photography. If the resolution would be the only criteria, we all would just buy that supermarket camera for 199$, as it has the same 4 Megapixel sensor from Sony as the 699$ model from Canon.

The same applies to film cameras. We did not all throw away our DVX cameras to buy the new JVC HDV, right?
 
Barry_Green said:
It doesn't. CF24 is a weird field-blending/field-dropping mishmash that produces variable-resolution frames and uneven motion rendering. Whereas with the DVX, its 24p renders motion absolutely identically to how film renders motion.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: CF24 is unusable as a film simulation. If you want a "video effect", you can use it, but if you want something to look like 24fps film, CF24 is *not* it.
Click to expand...

While I totally agree with this, since it is completely true, I do want to remind people that I PERSONALY THINK CF24 mode doesn't look like complete crap. Just for the heck of it, heres some CF24 footage from spring time.

http://www.black-list.cc/miscvideos/outdoorsHD.wmv

right click and download please, dont just click the link. Its 98 mbs, I think it uploaded correctly so if anyone has a problem just let me know and i will reupload. This isn't to say CF24 is better or to bash any other camera; its just to show what little motion shots and heavy motion shots in CF24 really look like for comparison or reference. I posted it once before but i think i switched hosting packages and the file was lost.

again its 98mbs WMV only SORRY!! :( 1080p
 
I guess the bigger question is why are you refuting this argument almost a year and a half later? The question is moot now and there are several new cameras that render this thread obsolete...


ash =o)
 
eh , i'm sorry i just found it and read it all. I know it was older but figured what the heck...I can delete it if everyone wants...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top