MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

B

Brett_Erskine

Active member
Okay we have all seen plently of frame grabs showing the FX1 v.s. this camera or that camera but no one has done the most impostant test of them all:

"How does the HDV format's image quality compare after forced back to SD when put to DVD?"

This is the TRUE REAL WORLD TEST. I used to think that you start with a higher rez HD master that when you down convert it to SD you are going to have a better quality still then if you simply shot it in SD in the first place. Well this is true for 35mm v.s. 16mm thats telecined but thats film to video (apples to oranges). According to well conducted tests it doesnt help in the video world (I'll see if I can dig up the article and frame grabs). HD downcoverted to SD will look the same as if originally shot in SD. Strange I know. I didnt believe it untill I saw it for my own eyes. Pixel for pixel its the same.

Now with that said we have a opportunity to test of the TRUE REAL WORLD benefits of shooting in the HDV format and showing it on DVD. How?

Simply lock off the camera on a tripod and shoot a shot in both HDV and DV modes on the camera.

Next (this is the part no one has done yet) burn both takes on to a NTSC DVD and post links to a frame grab from both formats from that DVD HERE.

Make sure the frame grabs are at full NTSC resolution and from the resulting DVD NOT the MiniDV tape.

This test will put to rest two issues. The concerns of the quality of the MPEG2 compression V.S. DV compression and prove for everyone if indeed we are getting more detail out of the FX1's HD signal than we would if we shoot with it in SD mode and finished to DVD. I suspect this test will be a eye opener for alot of people when considering if they should invest in the HDV format. I think you will find the frame grabs will reveal that we gain nothing when it comes to a increase in clarity for our DVD projects shooting on a HDV format. And in fact we loss something because the image is compressed even more than DV due to MPEG2. I'd love to be proven wrong because I'd hate to think that the miniDV HDV format is actually a step back in REAL WORLD quality than a step forward.

I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for even sugesting this idea but please can we just wait to see the proof in the frame grabs instead of any he said/she talk PLEASE! I think we owe it to ourselves to find out for sure. Any owners want to give this test a try?
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

Hey Brett. I brought up a topic closely related to this a while back and got some interesting discussion.

Clearly you cannot have more resolution than a format is capable of handling. Thus HDV downconverted to DV will have DV resolution. What comes into play though is sharpness. Downconverting from more information can provide a sharper picture. How this works mathematically I haven't figured out yet. Still looking into that. This seems to give the impression of "increased res" while in reality it doesn't. Honestly though I think buying the FX1 to go out to a SD DVD is rather stupid. I'd much rather have the DVX! If I were going to go out to film I would definitely go HD but then I would go rent a camera rather than use an FX1.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

When you shoot something in SD, there's only exactly enough information to fill that 720x480 box. There's no leeway. You have what you have.

When you shoot in HD and dowrez, you've got a lot more information to work from, and though you discard a great deal of it, you can choose the BEST of the information to go into that 720x480 box.

That's the concept. The practice is a little more complicated.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

" Well this is true for 35mm v.s. 16mm thats telecined but thats film to video (apples to oranges). According to well conducted tests it doesnt help in the video world "

I disagree. I think that is not that different, because you find that people would even use PAL (625 lines) to get those extra 100 lines.

And ultimately STAR WARS and HD was a higher video format at was downrezed to SD-DVD on our TV sets.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

but no one has done the most impostant test of them all:
Click to expand...

Er, I have already done this test. This is, of course, the only test that truly matters, because a) obviously for high-def release the high-def camera is going to be superior, so why even discuss it? and b) almost everything we are likely to shoot on the new high-def cameras will be released on DVD, since there is no high-def DVD and there won't be any significant market penetration of high-def DVD for years to come... so standard-def DVD is it. Or it'll be broadcast at SD resolution over local cable companies or local TV stations... which is still standard-def.

I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for even sugesting this idea but please can we just wait to see the proof in the frame grabs instead of any he said/she talk PLEASE! I think we owe it to ourselves to find out for sure. Any owners want to give this test a try?
Click to expand...
It's already coming. I've got hours of footage we're trying to compile into a meaningful side-by-side. I'm split-screening XL2/DVX/FX1 footage showing the EXACT SAME SETUPS, EXACT-SAME LIGHTING CONDITIONS, EXACT SAME CAMERA MOVEMENTS, etc... only difference is the cameras themselves.

And I'm giving the FX1 the benefit of the doubt by making the DVD source from the original HDV footage, not a DV down-rez, because by using DV down-rez, you convert the original 4:2:0 MPEG-2 down to 4:1:1 DV, and then again to 4:2:0 MPEG-2 for the DVD authoring. Whereas with what I'm doing, it goes from 4:2:0 MPEG-2 to 4:2:0 MPEG-2, no DV downconversion.

I've posted some screengrabs in various areas, but screen grabs are a nearly pointless way to evaluate video quality -- it's video, not stills, and so much of the experience relates to motion artifacts and motion handling and perceived resolution and blah blah blah. So people can ask for stills, but other than illustrating specific items (such as, see how much brighter this camera is than that one) it's not a good measure of examining video performance at all.

For a quick summary: in all the testing I've done, the FX1 looks a little softer, more muted, and with less latitude and less low-light performance than either the XL2 or DVX. But most of the footage is CineFrame 24 or CineFrame 30, not too much in 60i. I do have a new clip in 60i, which will show the FX1 off to its most advantage, but I haven't micro-analyzed that clip yet. The only place the FX1 really shows an advantage is in noise -- both it and the XL2 exhibit substantially less shadow noise than the DVX.

It is my contention that for DVD production, the DVX is still the king, especially if coring is set higher; the XL2 is very, very close to it, but with weaker low-light response, weaker sensitivity, and less overall latitude (but native 16:9 and less shadow noise) and the FX1 performs more like the XL2 but with a little less sensitivity and more vertical smear.

The FX1 should be used for high-def production. The other cameras do a better job for standard-def production, and for filmlike DVD footage the DVX and XL2 are significantly ahead.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

http://aftereffects.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=28667-0

according to Adobe Premiere Group Product Manager Richard Townhill:

"but I actually think, Charlie, that there might be a really good opportunity for people to actually distribute on wide screen SD [standard definition] DVD . It actually looks really good, because you're starting with such a high quality and high resolution image to begin with, that the result in DVD output, even though it might be in SD format, looks really sharp. "
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

Sharp but I would disagree about high quality. Deinterlaced HDV at 25mbs is REALLY not high quality. We're talking scraping the bottom of the barrel here. This is a workable solution not a high quality one. High res does not equate to high quality per se.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Hmmmm..

Still dont get it. My footage on my normal TV from the FX1 is far superior to my DVX or XL2 shots. I already authored 4 DVD's from Fx1 footage, and I have about 40 from the DVX. My Fx1 DVD's are superior in quality, sharpness, color, deeper blacks and NO NOISE at all over the DVX or my older cams. (Didnt do any DVD's from the Xl2 as I only had it a day)

I showed my DVD's and footage from both cams to 3 friends today and they all picked the FX1 DVD's as having a better picture quality. One guy said it looked much more professional.

I have still encountered NO vertical smear at all, and I wonder why. I can also shoot in complete darkness, bump up the gain and get a noise free picture. Amazing camera.

Using only cine 30, and film gamma my Fx1 produces the best looking video I have ever seen from any of my cameras. Plus, the cine 30 mode does not have the video look at all (when used with film gamma and softer detail levels)

I may produce a DVD of FX1 footage and dupe about 5-10 of them and send them out to some of you here so you can see the quality Im getting.

Again, I have the DVX, owned it for almost 7 months now. The FX1 I picke dup 2 weeks ago, and it has been getting daily use. I have not encountered one drawback with the FX1, I even love the on board audio, its very full sounding, and natural.

Oh yea, when I use the Fx1 in Standard DV mode, it is NOT as good as using it in HD mode and having the cam downconvert into FCP. In DV mode I get noise, and some artifacting. Looks like typical DV. HD downconverted from the cam to TV is so smooth, no jaggies, film like (in 30 mode) and rich deep blacks, with PERFECT color and WB every time.

I dont like that this cam is getting a bad rap from a lot of people who have not even used it extensively. Its well worth the $$.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Videoman, it is good to know that you are satisfied with your new camera. However I am sure most people on this board are eager to see what other users of the FX1 say about its perormance....specially in the context of the points raised by Barry Green.

Any other comments on FX1? any other users?
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

[quote author=videoman69 link=board=sony;num=1103104690;start=0#7 date=12/15/04 at 21:25:53]I can also shoot in complete darkness, bump up the gain and get a noise free picture. Amazing camera.[/quote]

OK, let's be clear about this. If you were really in "complete darkness," you'd get no picture at all from any camera.


I dont like that this cam is getting a bad rap from a lot of people who have not even used it extensively. Its well worth the $$.
Click to expand...

We GET it. You LIKE it. But after only two weeks, you can't really say YOU'VE had "extensive" experience with it, either, and it doesn't sound like you're being all that scientific with it. Barry's doing "laboratory" testing with it, and I defer to his judgment on it.

But some of the stuff you've written about the DVX -- like the shifting white balance and the drifting focus -- makes me wonder what the heck you were doing with it, and similarly, what you're doing with the FX1 in comparison.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Videoman69:

Since you made a Mpeg2 of the FX1, can you make a small WMV 9 file (10 seconds) of the DVX and FX1, and shoot it over to Barry?
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Also, I don't believe that using cineframe 30 does not give a video look even with gamma adjustments, especially compared to the DVX 24p.

To make that statement in front of video professionals is strange. Very strange.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

I have the camera and have been more then happy with the cineframe 30 mode...(cineframe 24 not so good...still expermenting with that) At first I was ho-hum about the 30fps mode before I realized the default shutter rate was 1/30. When I switched it to 1/60 the picture movement was pretty smooth. In fact with cinetone on, and color level set to +2 I get something that looks better then super 16mm IMO.

I'd say the cineframe 30 mode is like the GS400's film mode on steroids.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Can you link your results to the board? I have to see this to believe it.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

I just put the DVD stuff I'm doing under the proverbial microscope, both playing on a conventional TV and then also projecting on a 10' screen using component inputs, and standing like 2' away. There is no circumstance that I've found where the FX1 footage looks any sharper than the DVX footage, when rendered to DVD. Even in interlaced mode, they look (at best) the same, sharpness-wise, or at least within spitting distance of each other. On CF24 footage vs. progressive, the DVX holds quite an advantage, especially when the FX1 had Cinematone gamma on -- all the dark sections get so crushed down on the FX1 that you can't see any shadow detail vs. the DVX, which shows everything.

Yes the signal on the FX1 is cleaner with deeper blacks. And I don't know but I suspect that under a more controlled shooting environment, cranking up coring and lowering the master pedestal, it may be possible to get the DVX to match those attributes of the FX1. Even if not, the DVX is still two stops faster, with more latitude, and genuine 24fps movement instead of the fake CF24.

If I'm wrong, I'm glad to be proven wrong -- I don't like to continue being wrong. But I just don't see it. In HDV mode on a high-def monitor, yes the FX1 does a great job (on still shots, a less great job on moving shots, but it's still high-def). But when put on DVD... the tables shift, and the XL2/DVX just look every bit as good and usually better.

What are we doing different? I'm using Vegas to create the DVD files, going directly from the HDV .m2t source (captured by ConnectHD). Using the MainConcept DVD Architect Widescreen NTSC preset, and DVD Architect to author the DVD.

I think still shots are a fairly silly way to judge video performance, but I don't think re-encoding to WM9 is the best way to go either, and DVD's are meant to be seen on televisions anyway. So I'll pull out a few stills for comparison to show what I'm getting, and if you'd like to do the same, let's see if we can get to the bottom of this.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Okay, you asked for a grab, here's a grab. This was shot in Grand Central Terminal in NYC at about 10:00 a.m. There's daylight streaming through some windows up high and there's some tungsten lighting in there as well. It was overall kind of dark.

This shot was in 60i mode, which should give the FX1 the most advantage it can have, and put the DVX and XL2 at the most disadvantage (they are both higher-res in progressive than in interlaced). Furthermore the DVX was hampered by having to be in squeeze mode, vs. the native 16:9 of the other two.

The DVX and FX1 had to be zoomed in a little bit to account for the not-as-wide-angle of the XL2. So the FX1 was wide-open aperture, as wide as we could get it, which at this zoom setting was f/1.8. The XL2 was also at f/1.8 and the DVX was at f/2.8.

This is an interlaced-mode grab so there are interlaced artifacts. This grab is taken from the DVD-compatible MPEG-2 file, just as Brett requested. No post-processing, no color correction, no gamma shift, no anything, not even studio-to-rgb correction. This is all three cameras taken directly from the firewire port (FX1 in full HDV mode), laid on the timeline, an identifying graphic added, and this is the output of the DVD MPEG-2 compression.

DVX-FX1-XL2-GCT60i.jpg


Now, from my observation point, I don't see where the FX1 is "blowing away" the other cameras... in fact, you can see much more detail in the shadows, and much more detail overall in the DVX and XL2 shots. And I think that squeeze mode acquits itself rather well as compared to the native 16:9 of the others... although the XL2 does have an advantage in detail as can be read in the words on the sign.

I'll post more shots later.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Enough said. People will see what they want to see.

I don't see a distinct advantage that the FX1 has over the other cameras. Until the other forum members -who rave about the FX1- step up to the plate and shows us something, I will settle with this.

Barry:

You just saved me about $5000 bucks. Thank you.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Okay, here's another one.  This one is DVX/24P/Anamorphic/CineGamma, vs. FX1/HDV/CF24/CinemaTone Gamma, vs. XL2/24P/16:9/CineGamma.

Unfortunately the framing is not quite as good on the FX1, it's a little more zoomed-in, but still the differences are stark.  The DVX is displaying the characteristic soft-contrast look of CineGamma, which could be "punched up" to deliver more contrast by lowering the master pedestal, something we didn't do.  The FX1, on the other hand, is displaying the characteristic harsh-contrast/crushed-black look of CinemaTone Gamma.  In this shot, for color, the XL2 is much greener and maybe a little sharper.  The leaves on the tree were more accurately represented (color-wise) by the other cameras, but the grass and bushes looks vibrant and cleaner on the XL2 shot.  For detail it's no contest: the FX1 comes in last place.  Look at the detail in the tree trunk (even though the FX1's zoomed in more!)  Look at the lack of detail in the foreground bushes, the lack of detail in the splotchy grass at the base of the tree as compared to the cleanness of the XL2 or even the anamorphic softness of the DVX.  For fine tree branch detail it's pretty close, maybe a slight edge to the XL2, and the FX1 unfortunately doesn't have quite the same framing so it's harder to see and judge.  Much of the awfulness of the FX1's picture can be traced to the field-blending effects of CineFrame 24, but ... if you want filmlike footage, you're going to have to do something to it, whether CF24 or post-processing or something... again, for DVD footage, I think the DVX and XL2 are superior here.  And if you like the contrast & deeper blacks of the FX1, you can always change that in the menu settings (we didn't have a monitor with us and couldn't a/b the shots).

DVX-FX1-XL2-CP24an.jpg
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

In the first set of pictures, I can see a difference (especially between the DVX & FX1) in the rendering of horizontal lines (the yellow sweater and the lines just above the arch.)  It would be interesting to see how the text on the reader-board looks on the FX1.

I'm not a zealous FX1 promoter, it just looks like the most promising, low cost, camera (so far) for film out, esp. 50i. :)
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

(btw, these shots aren't to "prove my point", they're open for discussion -- if you see something I don't, some big advantage to one over the other, please point it out! These shots could easily be used to prove someone else's point of view just as easily as my own)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top