Hybrid Video vs. HDV FULL HD

Psynema

Psynema

Well-known member
I see a lot of people knocking the GH1s mud or the fact many hybrids only do 720P...

Last nite I put some downloaded Vimeo footage of the Pentax K-7 SHOT IN 720P on the same timeline as HDV 1080P footage....even at 720 P...SHARPER....

Damn...I kind'a expected it would be close, but , not that HDV is anything great, but nice to know. I've been fearing getting a 720P hybrid since it's not 1080p...but when you compare to the Full HD some HDV cameras give you...it's competitive very much...

Anyone do 720 Lumix footage on a 1080p timeline with HDV footage at 1080P?
 
It's most likely because the sensor is a higher resolution. You're also getting square pixels in the codec.
 
This is the same thing I've been seeing with about 100 GH-1 downloads I currently have vs my HV20. 720p is absolutely sharper has more color and is more detailed than any of my HDV footage I've shot in the last couple of years.

I have not touched my HV20 in over the last month. I watched so many GH-1 720p videos that when someone fnally uploaded 1080p GH-1 videos I was blown away. So, for many folks I know that 720/60p will be enough. But I've seen some very cleanly shot 1080p video also. Another thing to consider is the MJPEG. It is also very very sharp (better than my HV20) and has not mud anywhere.
 
You have to be careful when you generalize "HDV". There are some really excellent HDV units out there and some not-so-great. So it's more a function of the individual camera rather than the format itself.

The 720p of the GH1 is sharper and more detailed than my 1920X1080 AVCHD Sony XR500. I'm not so sure of that when comparing it against my HDV Sony Z5. The Z5 has 3 larger chips than the single chip XR500. Two totally different formats and two totally different configurations.
 
Yeah...I mean the codecs on all the hybrids may scare off freelance studios via editing / conversion times and on paper, I've been snubbed for the 1536 by 1024 resolution of the Pentax K-7 which I'm gonna ' kerplunk on...

But my line of thinking was K-7 at 1536 by 1024 uprezzed with a sharpen filter should compete with HDV....

Last nite I saw 720P WITHOUT a sharpen filter does just fine and exceeds HDV at full HD...(I mean you'll of course see sharp HDV images because of the DEEP DOF, but what's in focus is soft compared to what's in focus on a hybrid, and the latitude is dreamy).

So I'm guessing it's safe to buy a Pentax K-7...LOL. Though I'm still torn and wouldn't mind a Mark 2 or GH1...K-7 seems to be a nice balance between the two.
 
Ken7 said:
You have to be careful when you generalize "HDV". There are some really excellent HDV units out there and some not-so-great. So it's more a function of the individual camera rather than the format itself.

The 720p of the GH1 is sharper and more detailed than my 1920X1080 AVCHD Sony XR500. I'm not so sure of that when comparing it against my HDV Sony Z5. The Z5 has 3 larger chips than the single chip XR500. Two totally different formats and two totally different configurations.
Click to expand...

Comoparing it to the 2/3 inch chip Sony Z7
 
HDV is only 1440 pixels wide and when shooting interlaced (which usually all HDV cameras do) you will only get half of the 1080 vertical lines when compared to true progressive.
So in the end it's basically 1440x540 against 1280x720. Now what's better?
 
That's not the case pailes. A display that properly deinterlaces will show the full 1440X1080. Even a display that doesn't properly deinterlace will still show the full 1440X1080 with static scenes or scenes that are largely static.

The test of good deinterlacing comes with motion. A plasma like my Pioneer Kuro will show the full 1440X1080 of HDV regardless of motion. Trust me, if you saw a good quality HDV cam displayed on a good large screen plasma, you'd see you're looking at resolution that goes well beyond 1440X540.

By the way, a fact that is not widely known is that about 95% of broadcast HDTV is static or nearly static in nature.
 
Psynema said:
Yeah...I mean the codecs on all the hybrids may scare off freelance studios via editing / conversion times and on paper, I've been snubbed for the 1536 by 1024 resolution of the Pentax K-7 which I'm gonna ' kerplunk on...

But my line of thinking was K-7 at 1536 by 1024 uprezzed with a sharpen filter should compete with HDV....
Click to expand...

Careful here, the 1536 x 1024 K-7 files are already uprezzed in-cam from 768x1024 using a sub-sampling scheme - I guess scaled down to 720 it will look fine but scaling up 1536x864 to 1920x1080 can start show off the tad fugly chroma bleed and MJPEG sharpening, especially if adding another round of sharpening.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/619116-post520.html

Considering that, the 30 fps only recording and no manual shutter or ISO makes it a lesser option than GH1 for video IMHO.

Psynema said:
Comoparing it to the 2/3 inch chip Sony Z7
Click to expand...

Errr... Z7 has a 1/3" sensor, it's EX1 and 3 that have 2/3".

FWIW I had to shoot some quick clips on a Sony Z1E this winter mostly under a bright winter sun and that HDV footage don't hold a candle to how good the GH1 looks under much worse conditions. Z1E goes for $4,299.95 at Amazon...
 
Ken7 said:
That's not the case pailes. A display that properly deinterlaces will show the full 1440X1080. Even a display that doesn't properly deinterlace will still show the full 1440X1080 with static scenes or scenes that are largely static.
Click to expand...
I don't know what your footage looks like, but my scenes are neither static nor largely static ;)

The test of good deinterlacing comes with motion. A plasma like my Pioneer Kuro will show the full 1440X1080 of HDV regardless of motion. Trust me, if you saw a good quality HDV cam displayed on a good large screen plasma, you'd see you're looking at resolution that goes well beyond 1440X540.
Click to expand...
Depending on the de-interlacing algorithm it might go beyond 540 lines but it will never perfectly match progressive 1080 lines. And the de-interlacer might cause other artifacts as well.

Besides I'm only talking about the simple fact that one single interlaced video frame contains two progressive images at half the vertical resolution. With a proper algorithm that takes motion vectors into account one can almost surely upscale 720p to 1080p the same way one can de-interlace 1080i to 1080p because 720p pretty much holds as much information as 1080i.
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
FWIW I had to shoot some quick clips on a Sony Z1E this winter mostly under a bright winter sun and that HDV footage don't hold a candle to how good the GH1 looks under much worse conditions. Z1E goes for $4,299.95 at Amazon...
Click to expand...

Marti, I think that's due primarily to the larger GH1 chip with a much larger dynamic range. I don't think it's related so much to the formats. Put a chip the size of the GH1 in a Z5 or Z1, and it's a different story.

But yes, I'm always struck by the dynamic range of the GH1 and how much better it handles dynamic conditions as opposed to a dedicated cam like the Z5 with its smaller chips. However, with that said, the Z5 is still much easier to use for most video applications...especially where you're not trying to achieve that '24p' look.
 
pailes said:
I don't know what your footage looks like, but my scenes are neither static nor largely static ;)

Depending on the de-interlacing algorithm it might go beyond 540 lines but it will never perfectly match progressive 1080 lines. And the de-interlacer might cause other artifacts as well.

Besides I'm only talking about the simple fact that one single interlaced video frame contains two progressive images at half the vertical resolution. With a proper algorithm that takes motion vectors into account one can almost surely upscale 720p to 1080p the same way one can de-interlace 1080i to 1080p because 720p pretty much holds as much information as 1080i.
Click to expand...

I suggest you try to find a Pioneer Kuro and throw some quality HDV footage on it. You'll be shocked. And yes, tests do show you get the full 1080 with the Pioneer regardless of motion. There are no observable artifacts that are introduced, and in the end, that's what it's all about.

If we're talking about broadcast HD, 1080i carries FAR more information than 720p. The 1920X1080 requires far more bandwidth as opposed to 1280X720p. Watching 1080i broadcasts vs. 720p, the greater detail of 1080i is immediately obvious. Today's HDTVs have far better deinterlacers than those of just 2 years ago.
 
Marti was talking about the Sony EX1/EX3 HD camcorders, so it wasn't a 'typo' on his part. :)
 
Ken7 said:
I suggest you try to find a Pioneer Kuro and throw some quality HDV footage on it. You'll be shocked. And yes, tests do show you get the full 1080 with the Pioneer regardless of motion. There are no observable artifacts that are introduced, and in the end, that's what it's all about.
Click to expand...
I can only speak about various de-interlacing algorithms that are implemented in software and they all produce marginal results. I watch quite a lot of 1080i footage at work, with de-interlacing, I don't find it much better than 720p.

Watching 1080i broadcasts vs. 720p, the greater detail of 1080i is immediately obvious. Today's HDTVs have far better deinterlacers than those of just 2 years ago.
Click to expand...
I'm actually not convinced by your arguments but it's alright, you have your opinion and I have mine.

In my eyes interlaced video is totally stupid. I mean it's not like it's a clever way of representing video with a higher temporal resolution. Cameras just record interlaced video for the TV to de-interlace it. That's totally stupid ;)
Interlaced video will soon die anyway. It's just a matter of time 1080p/60 will get there and wipe it out forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top