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

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

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

I think (may be wrong) but to my eyes, the biggest difference between the DVX100 and the XL2 is the factory "0" (middle) sharpness setting.

i mean, If you raise the detail to +3 on the DVX, or lower the detail to -2 or -3 on the XL2, you'd probably be in the same ballpark, regarding sharpness. Sharpness and resolution are not the same, but it can be confusing. I remember doing the tests between "thin" and "mid" vdetail setting on the DVX100A. At first, i really thought that "mid" had more resolution. in fact, "Mid" and "Thin" had about the same vertical resolution (about 480 lines), but "Mid" had a certain amount of edge enhancement. "Thick" had less resolution (about 360 lines).

Anyway, 2 great cameras.

I like my DVX100A, and i'm sure i would like the XL2,  but i'm waiting for the next Panasonic camcorder. HD is the future, but i want 24p and  more lattitude than the FX1.

And i want a real working fast and easy "out of the box" shoot/edit solution.

thanks Barry and Jarred for these time consuming tests.
I really believe that they are unbiased. You took the time to write the strenghts and weaknesses of each camera in many different situations.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

This test and these grabs are leaving one very important thing out...downconversion quality.

In fact, using the methods and arguments in this thread, one could make the assumption that it would be even useless to shoot 35mm, if you were going to go to DV in the end. I think we can all agree that 35mm telecined on a modern telecine looks better than, say, a DVX, so where does that leave us?

Someone earlier mentioned the same thing, but then followed with "apples and oranges". In this instance, it isn't apples and oranges at all...35mm looks incredible even when transferred to puny 'lil NTSC because of the quality of the telecine, and it's ability to gracefully pull info out of the negative and into a video signal.

So since we can all agree that the FX1 captures more raw info, then the reason it doesn't look better in these tests is because of the downconversion. It's not a slight, and it's not finger pointing. It's just recognizing that there is another variable, and these tests are not conclusive. To assume all down-rezzing is equal would be a mistake.

The only thing I've really learned, without a doubt in this thread is not to downconvert in Vegas! (p.s. I have already downconverted in FCP also, and it looked about the same. I knew instantly that FCP was not the tool to use).
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

I think the most important conclusion for me is that I own a DVX100.

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

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

Barry and Jarred-
Thank you soooo much for putting in the time to do all these test. I started this thread with a piece of info, a theory and a statement and you proved them right without a shadow of a doubt.

I wish I had been wrong though.

I hate the idea that the industry is getting ready to adopt the miniDV HDV format as a whole and we will be faced with constantly reeducating our clients who want HD but doesnt understand the highly technical trade offs of doing HDV to DVD - right now. Its going to be years before MOST people have some form of a HD DVD set top player in their homes and up until that point some of us will be working with the HDV format that has more negative characteristics than positives. Damn that just plain sucks. I can only hope the next few HDV cameras fine tune their weaknesses in their codec, light sensitivity and offer better images on DVD then the current two options do. Not to mention you gotta have 24p! Perhaps internal hard drive recorders will come to save the day but then again MiniDV tape format is so heavly established right now so then again maybe not. Interesting time. We will see.

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

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

[quote author=Nate Weaver link=board=sony;num=1103104690;start=30#41 date=12/16/04 at 21:08:56]So since we can all agree that the FX1 captures more raw info[/quote]
In terms of pixel resolution, yes... in terms of color depth and latitude, no, I'm not so sure...

To assume all down-rezzing is equal would be a mistake.
Click to expand...
Oh, definitely agreed. When doing some up-rez tests I found that Premiere 6.0 was a woeful performer compared to Vegas, but that S-Spline Pro (now renamed PhotoZoom Pro) did far better than Vegas could.

The only thing I've really learned, without a doubt in this thread is not to downconvert in Vegas! (p.s. I have already downconverted in FCP also, and it looked about the same. I knew instantly that FCP was not the tool to use).
Click to expand...
I've also heard that FCP's up-rezzing was not up to snuff, but I haven't used it.

I chose Vegas as the downrez tool for a few reasons:
1) I had it. ;)
2) Douglas Spotted Eagle has said repeatedly that Vegas-downrezzed material looked much better than allowing the FX1 to downrez itself (convert HDV to firewire DV on the fly)
3) Doing the downrez in Vegas, vs. having the camera do it, let us avoid one compression cycle and two color-space conversions, which should benefit the FX1 footage
4) When set to "best" quality, Vegas uses Bicubic resampling, rather than "good" quality's bilinear (think I got that right...) so it should be a solid tool.

There may be other programs that could do a better job of it, that's always a possibility. I felt Vegas was a solid choice though, but hey, if I'm wrong in that, I'd like to try the alternatives and see what else we could get.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

So I'm at a loss to explain why the easily available downres tools don't do such a good job, but all my experience in using better formats tells me that the FX1 CAN produce surperior results.

I mean, I know this because I can watch the NTSC output of the FX1 on my 32" Trinitron at home and CLEARLY see detail that I know would have been lost on the DVX.

The trick will be to make that res stick through a downconversion.

Here's another test you could try:

Record the FX1 NTSC output to DV, and then do the same side by side.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

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

I'm still not sure I agree with superior results. Sharper, yes. But as I said before there are many, many, factors which go into a quality image. Sharpness is just one of them. I'm not saying the FX1 sucks or cannot produce a good image. I just think that for SD DVD I would much rather have the better color and lower compression to work.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Okay, for comparison, here are a couple of photos for those interested.

The first is a still extracted from the Vegas downrez process: it's full-rez 720x480, downrezzed from the HDV source at "best" quality, exported to an uncompressed movie, copied and pasted into photoshop (no DV compression involved, just full downrez quality).

http://www.icexpo.com/ResizedInVegas.jpg

The second is that same frame, extracted from the original source, a full-resolution FX1 1440x1080 picture that was copied and pasted into a new PhotoShop document, then resized bicubic in Photoshop.

http://www.icexpo.com/ResizedInPhotoShop.jpg

This should let us judge the quality of Vegas' resizing, independent of any other factor, at least in comparison to PhotoShop's resizing.

To my eyes, Vegas did a pretty good job, way way better than Premiere 6.0 would have done. But the picture is a tiny bit softer with a little less contrast. All the important detail seems to be there though, (can't understand why the contrast would be softer... the black level looks lifted a little.) there's certainly not enough difference that one could point to Vegas and say "that's the problem, use a different re-sizer and the results would be night and day".

For those who don't want to bother downloading and scrutinizing both pictures, here's a small extraction blown up to 300% to compare:
PSvsV.JPG
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

[quote author=Nate Weaver link=board=sony;num=1103104690;start=45#45 date=12/17/04 at 08:46:13]
Here's another test you could try:

Record the FX1 NTSC output to DV, and then do the same side by side.[/quote]
Let me make sure I understand what you're asking -- are you saying to hook the FX1's S-video output to a DV device, and record that?  That would seem a quite compromised way to go...

I do have some HDV footage with DV proxies that were recorded on DV Rack (res charts and things like that, recorded on tape in HDV but output by firewire in DV format, so the camera itself did the down-rezzing).  I could dig up some of that and try a Vegas-vs.-camera-itself test.  Should help verify about Spotted Eagle's assertion that Vegas does a better job than the camera itself (which, frankly, I would suspect to be true, as the camera has to do it in real-time vs. Vegas taking all the time it needs).  But, "should" and "is" don't always meet, so I can try that to see whether the camera itself does a better job (at least on a res chart) than Vegas/post does.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

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

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=sony;num=1103104690;start=45#48 date=12/17/04 at 09:45:42]
Let me make sure I understand what you're asking -- are you saying to hook the FX1's S-video output to a DV device, and record that? That would seem a quite compromised way to go...

[/quote]

I agree. I just know that in the NTSC output of the FX1, I see much more detail than the DVX. In fact, I liken the output of the FX1 to the SDX-900...without the finesse in the latitude, etc.

I mean, opinions like mine are just that, opinions, but it's not like I had to stare at it for days before I reached that conclusion. It seemed pretty obvious for me.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

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

[quote author=Shaw link=board=sony;num=1103104690;start=45#46 date=12/17/04 at 09:37:49]I'm still not sure I agree with superior results.  Sharper, yes.  But as I said before there are many, many, factors which go into a quality image.  Sharpness is just one of them.  I'm not saying the FX1 sucks or cannot produce a good image.  I just think that for SD DVD I would much rather have the better color and lower compression to work.[/quote]

Under the same ideal shooting conditions, FX1 HDV footage downrezzed will look superior to even my DSR500 footage. Where the FX1 fails is in capturing the richness of color and latitude of my DSR500, but in general, the FX1 footage excels in every way, including sharpness and clarity.

To difference was immediately noticeable. Downrezzed FX1 footage beats the pants off of the DVX or XL2. I can't say the same for FX1 DV footage is a straight comparison. DVX100 has way too much of a noisy picture in the blacks. I think Panasonic may have set an internal gain-up to account for a less than stellar CCD in low light conditions.

The FX1 has SuperHAD CCDs, same technology in the DSR500, so under low light, it has virtually no noise, so that makes it possible to gain up to +18dB with very little noticeable noise. I used the original DVX100 and gaining up in 60i produced so much noise, I believe Panasonic used some sort of temporal blurring algorithm to reduce the noise. Either way, it made night time footage blurry, and I think perhaps the DVX100a has those same issues.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

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

Hence the reason I said I would rather have the DVX for _color_ and compression ;)

That and progressive is so much nicer to work with (and looks better than converted 60i)

It's all a matter of what you need it for really. For cinematic type stuff going straight to DVD _I_ would use the DVX. Others are free to choose as they will :) I just need the color and latitude of the DVX not the sharpness of the FX1.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Nate and others, can you please demonstrate some of this?  I know that theoretically it would be nice to believe that, but in practice, showing side-by-sides in all sorts of shooting conditions, it just isn't so...

I have yet to see a frame, an indication, anything anywhere under any circumstances to support a claim like "Downrezzed FX1 footage beats the pants off of the DVX or XL2".  Could you please demonstrate this?  A lot of people are saying it, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support it, and I spent a lot of time trying to prove whether it did or didn't, and the results are posted here for the world to see.  If I'm dead wrong I'd sure like to know about it.

Regarding DV-versus-Vegas, I couldn't find the charts, but I found another shot where we recorded in HDV on the tape and downrezzed DV through firewire to DV Rack.  Here are the pictures:
http://www.icexpo.com/FX1-HDV-to-DV-by-Vegas.jpg
http://www.icexpo.com/FX1-HDV-to-DV-by-camera.jpg

To my eyes they look pretty close, but I'd have to give the nod to Vegas.  Look at the gray patch on the soccer ball in the middle of the shot -- Vegas is much more accurate in its representation, the FX1 smeared the detail in its shot (note, I'm looking at the original raw uncompression, whereas you'll be looking at JPG's, but it should be a valid comparison anyway).  Overall the detail looks about the same, but there's some more mosquito noise on the FX1-downrez vs. the Vegas downrez, especially around the bells on the monkey's face.

I don't know what to tell ya, it sure looks to me like Vegas is doing a good job of resizing to SD, better than the camera would itself and nearly as good as PhotoShop.  I think the results of these tests are are fairly accurate, and downrezzed FX1 footage is, at best, comparable to (if not slightly softer than) native XL2 and DVX footage.  There is no sharpness advantage that survives the downrez process.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

I'm more concerned about the FX1's ability (or inability) to record fast motion without loosing resolution or adding compression blocks.

I know this is out of Barry's experimental range, but I wonder if the 50i version renders motion any better than the 60i.

Guess we'll have to wait until some of our European or Australian friends upload some fast moving footage.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Bukkake

Change your Username please.

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

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

Not one FX1 advocate has displayed their examples. If they can not, then please don't waste time debating.

We want to see examples, not talk.

Thanks Barry for your examples.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Let's be clear -- I don't mind finding out that I'm wrong if I am. I'd much rather have the truth be out there than worry about whether it makes me look like a fool -- Jarred's seen me in person, he *knows* I look like a fool already.

I've seen FX1 footage on a large-screen 1080i monitor, and it's *very* impressive for HD footage at a $3700 price point. But the point of this thread is for rendering DVD's. I have been unable to find any combination of settings/shots/circumstances that shows the FX1 as having an advantage when it comes to standard-def DVD release, or observed any circumstances where the FX1 looks better on a standard-def TV than an XL2 or DVX. What am I missing?
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

[quote author=TotalX link=board=sony;num=1103104690;start=45#55 date=12/17/04 at 13:11:07]Not one FX1 advocate has displayed their examples. If they can not, then please don't waste time debating.

We want to see examples, not talk.
[/quote]
SpecialK,

I haven't seen you post any examples, but yet that hasn't stopped you from "debating". Healthy and provocative discussion should be encouraged, not stifled by the fanboys (regardless of which camera/format they favor).
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Ranger's point is taken, "fanboy" is a term used to describe someone who sees-no-evil, hears-no-evil, speaks-no-evil about their chosen product, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Another term we've used for it in the past is "brand bigot".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top