HD vs HDV vs 16mm

D

Deadzone

Active member
I admit it. All this talk is getting me more and more confused. I am hoping somebody can set the record straight because I am looking to buy a new camera soon. This is what I have been reading so far:

1. Wait for HD because HD is the wave of the future and SD will soon be obsolete.

2. Get the SD now because there is no delivery system for HD DVDs yet.

Here is the deal. My ultimate goal is to shoot something in a format that can show well on a small movie screen or SD TV and looks like film. I saw two movies, one shot on the DVX-100A and one shot on an HD camera. From what I read on this site, you lose the HD resolution when you go down to SD. So since both movies were viewed on a DVD, I expected the footage to look the same. However, the DVX-100A footage still looked like video to me, but the HD footage looked indistinguishable from film. Even on shots with similar lighting setups, the HD footage looked much better. Are my eyes playing tricks on me? I understand lens and electronics also have something to do with it. But the HD just had more of a film quality to it. Now I see Sony releasing an HDV camera which I am guessing is somewhere between SD and HD. I assume, everything else being the same, that HD is suppose to be the best resolution, but how much better and at what point is it noticeable? So essentially my questions are:

1. What is the difference in resolution between SD, HDV, HD and 16mm film?

2. How do the resolutions change when down converting to an SD screen?

3. How much worse is SD compared to HDV compared to HD on a DVD format?

Depending on the answers, I will either either get the DVX-100A, the Sony Z1, or wait for the new Panasonic camera that may have HD technology. I know this is a loaded question, but any help would be appreciated.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Deadzone link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#0 date=02/20/05 at 02:10:26]Depending on the answers, I will either either get the DVX-100A, the Sony Z1, or wait for the new Panasonic camera that may have HD technology. I know this is a loaded question, but any help would be appreciated.
[/quote]
I think the most important question you forgot to ask yourself is when do you require one... as in must have for the job. Responses you get will basically be driven by that question alone. If you can get the opportunity to use both try them before you buy. They both have strength and weaknesses. If you don't need to start the production tomorrow, wait for NAB. There is so much speculation about what is "around the corner" that unless you need it right at this moment, there would be no harm in waiting.

As far as technical questions vs all the formats, In my opinion it is what YOU are looking for that counts most here. People will say the DVX is the way to go cause it's 24P... other's say HD is the way of the future. I'm definately in favor of shooting with an HD source so if you feel like me that it's important for future sake to shoot HD, go the sony route if required now or wait till NAB to see if any other HD options reveal itself. If you think 24P is the only thing that gives the "film look" and you can't have anything else, than the Panasonic would be the cam for you. Test first on your own if you can... listen to others advice (like mine ;D ) second.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

It's funny how people from the video-world wants 24fps and grain, others from film-world wants higher framerate (48fps)and cleaner (less grain) picture. This filmlook hunting is just a wasting your time.

If you are a hobbyist, indy, whatever and wants SD video, buy a used camcorder like DVX , XL, PD and make what you want. Don't buy any new now! It's wasting your money. Don't wait for the new miracle HDX or whatever.

If you are making money with what you are doing and want cheap HD, buy a Z1 , do the job, do an other job etc.

If you have jobs all the time than order a HDX400.

This kind of "I want 2/3 chips, HD-24p, Iriscontroll on lens, you name it, and all for the same or a litle more than a Z1 just not going to happened. It is just to keep focus on Panasonic nothing else.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Well not all in the filmworld want 48 fps, some sure but if you go that way you gonna destroy some of the moviemagic. 24 fps gives a very special feel.

And i dont want grain either. I usualy sit a bit back in the cinema to avoid seeing it.

What I like with film is that it has great res, wonderfull colors and overall a very pleasant look.

And of course i want my low budget movies to have as close as possible that look.

So for me Movielook aint wasting my time, its they way I want my movies to look.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

What HD camera were you comparing the DVX with? That's VERY important.


If it has bigger CCDs (varicam, cinealta), it also has a greater dynamic range and DOF...those will help you get a "film look." IMO, dynamic range is what is most lacking with video.

Interestingly, I'm seeing more movies shot slightly overexposed with high contrast stock and ultra wide-angle lenses (meaning very deep DOF). Looks a lot like video! Just as a lot of videographers are going for film look, the "video look" is popular in many newer films.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

It is confusing, I don't blame you one bit. However, I'll do what I can to clear things up some.
[quote author=Deadzone link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#0 date=02/20/05 at 02:10:26]1. Wait for HD because HD is the wave of the future and SD will soon be obsolete.[/quote]
Some people are absolutely convinced that HD is the wave of the future. Some think that that future is a *long* way off. By the numbers, approximately 93% of US households have *no* high-definition sets, and approximately 100% of European households have no HD. So just how soon is this transition? And how much does it matter to you that it's not happening anytime soon? If you're shooting footage that you intend to be viable and marketable a decade from now, shooting in HD may make sense. If you're making something for release today (say, local TV commercials) then SD is an eminently viable medium. As far as "SD will soon be obsolete", I think SD has a good 5-7 years of market dominance left in it, and we'll see after that.

Just because HD is a new format doesn't mean it'll become entrenched and/or dominant. LaserDisc, S-VHS, Divx, SACD, DVD-Audio, MiniDisc, DCC, CD-I, DVD-RAM, Digital8, MicroMV... there are lots and lots of "new formats" that never went anywhere. HD is obviously well-entrenched in top-level professional production (high-end commercials, sitcom/movie-of-the-week and lower-budget feature films) but that doesn't mean it'll penetrate consumer households anytime soon. It may, or it may not -- that future remains to be realized.

2. Get the SD now because there is no delivery system for HD DVDs yet.
Click to expand...
Well, the point there is, if you need to do work today, get something today. HD-DVDs are probably at least five years away from being prevalent in American households, so if you want to distribute high-def content... well, you can't. So you'll be distributing on SD DVDs. Now, whether you choose to acquire your images on high-def or not is up to you, but how you distribute them will be on SD DVD.

I saw two movies, one shot on the DVX-100A and one shot on an HD camera. From what I read on this site, you lose the HD resolution when you go down to SD. So since both movies were viewed on a DVD, I expected the footage to look the same. However, the DVX-100A footage still looked like video to me, but the HD footage looked indistinguishable from film. Even on shots with similar lighting setups, the HD footage looked much better. Are my eyes playing tricks on me?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. But what you're describing is an uncontrolled experiment with so many variables as to be completely unusable as a decision-making test. What was the HD camera? A VariCam? A CineAlta? An FX1? An HDW750? If it was shot on the CineAlta or VariCam, then not only would it benefit from the filmlike 24p, but also from the exceptional image controls offered on those cameras, the better dynamic range and image processing, and also the fact that if they're using a $100,000 camera, they're probably also doing a much better job with overall production value! Versus a production using a $3,000 camera -- they may have had substantially lower overall production value.

If it was an FX1, then I'd say the DVX shooters just plain must have screwed up -- there's no way an FX1 can look as filmlike as a DVX. If it was an HDW750, then I don't understand at all, because that's an interlaced HD camera which should just *scream* "video".

In competent hands, executing a filmlike workflow, the DVX can look flabbergastingly like film. Look at Matt McDermitt's work, or Disjecta's, or Bob Gundu's.

I assume, everything else being the same, that HD is suppose to be the best resolution, but how much better and at what point is it noticeable?
Click to expand...
The point where it's noticeable is when you're displaying it on an HDTV. The FX1/Z1 are much, much sharper and higher-res than any SD camera, whether DVX or Digital Betacam.

1. What is the difference in resolution between SD, HDV, HD and 16mm film?
Click to expand...
SD has about 350,000 pixels per frame. HD has two resolutions, one (720p) has about a million pixels per frame, the other (1080p) has about two million per frame. 1080i suffers from interlace field blending, and ends up with about 1.5 million discernible pixels per frame. HDV also has two resolutions, 1280x720 or 1440x1080. Determining resolution is a little more difficult because it uses an extremely lossy form of compression, so resolution depends on how much overall image detail there is in the scene. At its very best, HDV delivers almost a million pixels in progressive-scan, and about 1.1 million discernible pixels per frame in its interlaced mode.

16mm film is difficult to judge resolution with, because you also have to factor in grain, and the grain changes based on the speed of the filmstock. Using the most grain-free stocks, you can expect about 2 to 3 million pixels per frame, depending on whether you're talking about 16mm or Super16mm, and telecine'ing to HD or scanning to 2k files.

2. How do the resolutions change when down converting to an SD screen?
Click to expand...
SD has traditionally been an analog format, without pixels, but I'll assume you're talking about digital broadcasting, which means DV/DVD/D1 resolution. They're all approximately 720x480. Scaling down a higher-resolution image to a lower-resolution image will result in some loss -- pixels will be blended together/averaged, etc. You will see an overall slight softening. People will tell you that starting with a higher-resolution source is better, but usually they're confusing the idea of starting with film, as vs. starting with a higher pixel count. If all things are equal, you'll get better results from NOT resizing than you will from resizing. Now, a VariCam picture downrezzed to SD is going to beat the pants off a DVX image native at SD any day of the week -- because the VariCam is a vastly superior camera, and the 2/3" chips, better lens, better DSP etc. all contribute to a much better starting picture, so it survives the downrez process with its goodness "intact". However, a VariCam picture downrezzed to SD is not going to beat the pants off an SDX900 picture. The SDX900 has most or all of the "goodness" of the VariCam, but because it is native SD, it doesn't have to go through the downrez process, so it doesn't get aliased/blended/softened.

Film is the ultimate source to start from, and it is the highest resolution. However, when film gets put on video it gets scanned at SD resolution, not downrezzed from a higher-rez scan, so it's a different process entirely.

3. How much worse is SD compared to HDV compared to HD on a DVD format?
Click to expand...
You can only ask this question if all the cameras are equal, and they're not. There is no definitive way to answer this.

You can compare SD to HDV because we have roughly comparable cameras -- an XL2 vs. a Z1, for example. And the XL2 will produce a sharper, cleaner, better-low-light, better-dynamic-range, better-motion, overall better-looking picture on DVD than the Z1 will. However, neither camera can hold a candle to a "real" HD camera like the CineAlta or the VariCam, either of which will thoroughly spank the others when it comes to DVD.

So then you have to compare a top-of-the-line SD camera, like the SDX900, against the HD cameras. And in that comparison (which I haven't run, by the way) it is my contention that the SDX900 will hold a small advantage, when it comes to final DVD release, over the CineAlta and VariCam.

Of course, for HD release, the CineAlta and VariCam will spank the SDX900, just like the FX1/Z1 will spank the XL2.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=MovieSwede link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#4 date=02/20/05 at 09:23:12]Well not all in the filmworld want 48 fps, some sure but if you go that way you gonna destroy some of the moviemagic. 24 fps gives a very special feel. [/quote] Well, the 24fps is a compromiss. Film isn't 24fps because it is the best way to capture movement. It is because it is something your eyes can accept and the cost of film production can accept.

Some part of a cell animations has to be transfered frame by frame 24fps. An animation on film is only 12(x2) frames but because the movement in the animation wants more detail in the movement they are using 24fps.

Film in production isn't always 24fps. It can be more or less but it is 24fps in the projector. Your camcorder is 25p->50i in production and allways 50i if you play it. You can't do anything with it but in film production they are using more or less frames if they need it.

The funny is that the "new" 48fps has more resolution and are using less film to make the same film than a 35mm. Does it going to be a new film industry standard soon? I don't think so. I would need a common investment all over the world I guess.

[quote author=MovieSwede link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#4 date=02/20/05 at 09:23:12]What I like with film is that it has great res, wonderfull colors and overall a very pleasant look..[/quote] I don't like most of the pan movement in films.

[quote author=MovieSwede link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#4 date=02/20/05 at 09:23:12]So for me Movielook aint wasting my time, its they way I want my movies to look.[/quote]Your movielook is your movielook. There is so many different look that I can't tell. Yours is one of the many.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#6 date=02/20/05 at 10:28:48]Some think that that future is a *long* way off.  By the numbers, approximately 93% of US households have *no* high-definition sets, and approximately 100% of European households have no HD.  So just how soon is this transition?  [/quote]
I just heard that some of the scandinavien countries has only 16:9 broadcast from 2005 and the new setts they are selling in shops are HD ready.

In Norway only in desember they have sold more Hd-ready equipment than SD during 2004. I have a frend runing an import company in Norway. Norway stops all analogue broadcast from 2008/2009.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Wow Barry! That was a very complete and informative answer. Thanks.

I think the HD camera used was a Varicam to shoot the movie that looked like film. Definitely out of my price range. I guess the big question is whether Panasonic will release an HD cam under $10,000 which is still within my striking price (barely).

So if I understand correctly, even if panasonic comes out with a new HD cam it will not look better on DVD compared to a DVX-100A because the CCD size and lens will probably be the same. The only difference will be if it is put on HD DVD. But would shooting on an HD format be better if I later decided to transfer the movie to film for showing in a theater setting?

No matter what, I definitely want to get a camera that has the 24p frame rate. I am really curious about the Sony Z1 and how its 24p stacks up against the Panasonic 100A. Also, the Z1 is suppose to have native 16:9 chips. However, I will wait for NAB as I HOPE the newest Panasonic will blow the Z1 out of the water.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

I have films from 10 years ago that I shot on super 8.  are these outdated?  I have old cartoons on super 8 that I found on ebay?  are these outdated.  All of this HD is going to make everything shot on SD outdated and look like crap is a bunch of BS that the camera manufactures are telling you so you keep buying their products.  Well let me ask you, does it look like crap now?
The bottom line, if you shoot a good film, it doesn't matter what it was shot on, it will always look good.  IF there is enough information in the image to get the point across that this is a fantastic film, then it is not going to be outdated.

My advise, don't wait to get a camera.  Get a camera now and shoot your film.  IT will not look outdated in 5 years.  People seriously won't even care about you film in 5 years.  If you can only make one good film then that is a problem.  After you make this film, go out and buy a new camera, make another film.  Or use the same camera, it doesn't matter.

That brings me to another thing.  These people that are selling their services because of their brand new HD camera.  If you are selling your services by your equipment, then you are a good salesman, not a good film maker/ event videographer.  People are going to watch weddings of a good videographer in 10 years and say, wow, that is a good video, not, boy i sure wish this was shot in HD so I could see a little more detail in the boquet.  Get over yourselves people.  If you really think that your equipment is making you better, then you will only ever be as good as your equipment.  If you really think that the next biggest and greatest camera is going to make your film better, then your film is only as good as your camera.  If you think your camera is the latest and greatest because some DP that shoots a television show says it is, then be proud of your camera, and put it on a shrine and worship it.  That is truely all that is going on in these forums.  I don't care whether it is Panasonic, Canon, Sony, JVC or whatever.  Stop doing tests!  Stop shooting resolution charts. go out and shoot something.  Who cares if it is 24p, 1080i, cineframe, cinegamma, stretched, widescreen 16:9, 1.85:1, SQUARE, hi res, low res, whatever.  Over my years of filmaking I have found out one very important thing.  The onlyone that cares what equipmnet you used to shoot your film is YOU!  People don't care.  People who see your film don't go, hey! is that full resolution widescreen?  is that 24p?  Was that shot with a DVX?  was that shot with new HDV camera?  NOBODY CARES EXCEPT YOU!!!  so get over it.  Buy your camera, make the next award winning film.  But don't let anybody sell you on the hype of the next best thing.  DOn't worship your camera.  Abuse it.  Throw it around.  Get it dirty.  USE YOUR CAMERA.

Sincerly
A very fed up
Scharky
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Above Barry wrote: Look at Matt McDermitt's work, or Disjecta's, or Bob Gundu's.

Is there a website I can go to that shows their work? I would definitely like to see a sample.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

You know Dan, it has just gotten to the point where I am sick of coming to these forums to read how everybody has the best camera in the world, and if your not using it then you suck. In the past I have been guilty of the same. I have loved my DVX since I started using it, but recently I have started to broaden my horizons again. I am working on a short where roughly one third of it was shot stop motion with a digital SLR. I am on my way back to working as an artist, not a technition. I am getting my degree in photography, not engineering. I don't care if companies tell me that their camera is the best, I will use the tools that I need to to get the job done. Does this mean I will never buy a new camera? absolutly not, but I can sure as hell tell you that I am going to be in charge of what I want my film to look like. I don' care if others tell me it's not Hi enough resolution, or it doesn't look enough like film. To each his own I guess.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

I just heard that some of the scandinavien countries has only 16:9 broadcast from 2005 and the new setts they are selling in shops are HD ready.

In Norway only in desember they have sold more Hd-ready equipment than SD during 2004. I have a frend runing an import company in Norway. Norway stops all analogue broadcast from 2008/2009.
Click to expand...

Well because i live in an Scandinavian country I think i can give some input.

Sure they sold a lot of plasma and lcd sets, it even got to elected christmas gift of the year (2004) And its true that its HDTV ready. What 90% of all the sets ive seen they are at 848*480 in res. They cant even use all the res a PAL DVD is giving them. People dont really have a clue what they buying here. If it stand "HDTV comp" on the box they think its fine.
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

[quote author=Policar link=board=HDV;num=1108894227;start=0#5 date=02/20/05 at 09:44:38]What HD camera were you comparing the DVX with?  That's VERY important.


If it has bigger CCDs (varicam, cinealta), it also has a greater dynamic range and DOF...those will help you get a "film look."  IMO, dynamic range is what is most lacking with video.

Interestingly, I'm seeing more movies shot slightly overexposed with high contrast stock and ultra wide-angle lenses (meaning very deep DOF).  Looks a lot like video!  Just as a lot of videographers are going for film look, the "video look" is popular in many newer films.[/quote]
which films!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Sharky in principal I agree with everything you have said. Give an average guy a CineAlta, Varicam or hell even a Panavision 35mm and you will get average work. In short, I like your view on spending your time working and learning your craft, instead of using valuable production time researching what's the best camera to buy. However it sure is fun to have the latest and greatest tools..or perhaps toys!
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Kidster
It sure is, and that is the allure of all these cool new gadgets and gizmos.  It is the same with everything that is new and shiney.  And I'm not saying that you can't make great work with these new cameras. but the focus of this forum has switched to helping others with camera questions to gloating about how cool their new toy is, and how much better it is than your old toy. I remember having similar conversations when I was 10 years old on the school playground. ;)
 
Re: HD vs HDV vs 16mm

Scharky, you have hit the nail on the head. I too am completely fed up of all the forums that worship the latest toy and try to make anyone that doesn't use or have it feel inferior.

One guy was on at me on the Sony forums a while back because I told him that HD wouldn't make him a better filmmaker. He said "yes, but my film has a better chance of being uprezzed to film".

Firstlly, if he couldn't make a DS video that could afford to have a film transfer why does he think that HD will make it any easier? Last time I looked HD film transfers were MORE thant SD ones!

He just couldn't understand that if he couldn't make any money with his SD productions now that HD wouldn't suddenly start making him money.

Perhaps one reason that companies like Sony are still releasing brand new full size SD cameras this year is because consumers will fall for the marketing, but higher end professionals will not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top