I decided to shoot in 720p

HerzogisGod

HerzogisGod

Well-known member
after much back and forth between shooting my new project in 1080i or 720pn, Ive decided to go with the latter. It seems to make more economical sense. The image is gonna rock, it's still considered high-def, and i have all the frame rates available...And even I get lucky enough to find distribution (way down the road) 720pn will transfer well to 35.

Im shooting a feature (btw). Does anyone have any opinions about this format over 1080i? or vice versa? I havent shot anything yet, so Im still in the planning stages.


thanks
 
I shot a feature in 720pn with an M2 adapter this summer. The footage has a nice feel to it and has held up well even on a large screen. After seeing the results it would take a lot to convince me to shoot interlaced.
 
Gopher_Greene said:
I shot a feature in 720pn with an M2 adapter this summer. The footage has a nice feel to it and has held up well even on a large screen. After seeing the results it would take a lot to convince me to shoot interlaced.
Click to expand...

I assume we're talking abou tthe HVX here given that you mentioned PN mode.

So why would your options be 720P or 1080i?
You could have shot 1080p.

Personally I can understand shooting 720p in order to have the longer recording times you get in PN mode when shooting 24fps. But just to be clear, the HVX does shoot 1080P in both 30 and 24fps.
 
I knew I was going to be overcranking on two shots, so I wanted the aspect ration consistent. Still how is the 1080p split into an interlaced frame? I've never really heard any explination of that and was not confident enough that I wanted to put the entire feature at risk, when with my test shots 720p looked great and I had confidence in it.
 
hiya,

the aspect ratio would be the same with 720P and 1080P - they're both 16x9.

Its more the size that would be consistent.

The other factor if you aren't talking about saving space on P2 cards shooting 720PN or having variable frames rates is that the 1080P [over i] is less compressed compared to 720. People ask how and its simple. Both use 100 MBps but as 720 generally has double the frame rates of 1080p [apart from pn of course in 720] there's less compression needed per frame in 1080p even though the frame size is bigger.

The quality is great in 1080P.

The split is similar to the way the DVX does progressive shots over interlaced. It takes the even and odd lines and splits it into fields at camera encode. Your NLE will then take these fields and recombine them to make the progressive picture. Hence a 50i picture and 60i picture become 25p and 30p respectively.

Enjoy however you shoot!

Richard
 
I don't know why people think the HVX200 will shoot native 1080P?! It may give you the option in the settings, but all it's doing is uprezzing on the fly to 1080. In fact, my JVC 110U has more native resolution if you look at the specs (1280x720 vs HVX's 960x720) Shoot 720P and if you need to go to 1080P, get something like InstantHD which will uprez the shots in post much better. BTW, avoid 1080i totally. I much rather shoot progressive video and then take it to interlace for broadcast because my graphics, among other things, will hold up much better (and most HDTV's are now progressive.)

Matthew
 
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And, also, wrong. Almost completely 100% wrong except for the bit about avoiding 1080i internally, that part is spot on.
 
By avoiding 1080i and shooting 1080p you'll keep the full line res of the frame instead of being limited to half the line res per field. Essentially you get 50 half frames in 1080i [half in the sense one set has odd lines and the other half even lines.] Pardon my 50 numbers, I live in 50HZ Pal land so for 60 Hz or NTSC read 60.

1080P over i is a true progressive frame, just stored in i fields. When NLE's take the 1080P over i stream, the combine the fields back into the true 1080p picture.

Whereas if you try to make a 1080p picture from a 1080i shot [not 1080op over i], it has to interpolate the lost lines by working out the difference between the lines it has. Thats too simple for what some de-interlacing solutions do. The complicated ones do a much better job than that, but they don't beat capturing 1080p from the on set.

Ta

Richard
 
but the 1080p is coming from a 960x720 size senser.can it look good as a true 1920x1080 senser or even a 1280x720?

i understand it does pixelshifting but its not a native 1080 footage,am i right or wrong?

i think its a great way to get HD in a small budget but i dont think it can be compared to a native HD camera
 
Last edited:
All i know is when I shoot 1080P I get supercrisp pictures with great detail. More so than the 720P footage - I can see it. Its there. Even if the math isn't, the pixel shifting, whatever its called does a top notch job in 1080P.

In terms of native sensors and the what nots, it is a great way to get HD on a small budget, you are right. For me the HVX is more than that. Its an affordable varicam, that bypasses tape and lets me shoot and edit quickly with a multitude of options.

Its as rugged and dependable for me as DV, but its HD. For me HDV was never in the running. As much as the sensors are better, I can't forgive a format that's encoded the same way as a delivery format. GOP. Not here. Sure MPEG2 is fantastic, but its an end format. Compressed audio? What's that all about?

Here's a thread about HVX Vs JVC [I know its not the same camera you have Macville]: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50288

But its all personal preference. I prefer HVX. Others prefer, the JVCs, the CANON, the SONY's in HDV. You have to pick what works for you.

This thread started about HVX comparing 1080i and 720P. [If I'm wrong shoot me.] And the discovery that you could shoot 1080P on the HVX. 1080P format [regardless of if its native or not] gives a better picture quality over 720P. And at the heart of that is at the very least is because its not as compressed in the 100MBit stream as 720P. At best, which we can see, its because it has a higher resolution regardless of numbers. You can see it in the picture.

Enjoy whatever your camera!

Richard
 
Last edited:
john818 said:
but the 1080p is coming from a 960x720 size senser.can it look good as a true 1920x1080 senser or even a 1280x720?

i understand it does pixelshifting but its not a native 1080 footage,am i right or wrong?

i think its a great way to get HD in a small budget but i dont think it can be compared to a native HD camera
Click to expand...
It looks competitive with 1440x1080 and 1280x720 sensors. Doesn't quite match a 1920x1080 sensor though.

The point is: you cannot just count pixels, because the actual sensor count of each chip has little relevance to the final resolution of the image. There are three sensors there, not one. It has a grand total of 1.5 million pixels, and that's about as sharp an image as it can make -- which yields about a 1440 x 810 image.

The camera works internally at 1920x1080 and downresses to the recording format. 1080 footage is sharper than 720, unquestionably. So to say that you should shoot at 720 and up-res is just wrong.
 
Last edited:
if i Rec in Pal sd it's 720- 576 in 720p its 1280- 720 in 1080p is it true 1920-1080?
does premier cs3 make a project in 1920-1080 or only 1440- 1080????
what's the real resolution of the hvx that i can work with??? thanks for any replay
 
roxynik said:
if i Rec in Pal sd it's 720- 576 in 720p its 1280- 720 in 1080p is it true 1920-1080?
Click to expand...
Internally, yes. But the recording format pre-filters, so it records 720p at 960x720 and it records 1080 at 1440x1080.

what's the real resolution of the hvx that i can work with??? thanks for any replay
Click to expand...
1440 x 1080 at 50 fields per second or 25 frames per second. But that's "anamorphic", meaning that it needs to be unsqueezed to 1920x1080 for the proper aspect ratio.
 
"anamorphic" how can i unsqueez it??? doe i realy need to unsqueez it???
thanks Barry for your replay.
Regards Roxynik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top