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

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=sony;num=1103104690;start=45#58 date=12/17/04 at 16:19:27]Fanboys?   ???[/quote]
John,

It's one thing to be enthusiastic about a product or brand, but fanboy rhetoric (on both sides of the issue) can take it to an unhealthy extreme.  It discourages dialog. Like many, I too was excited about the announcement of the FX1/Z1, but I'm not that blinded by product loyalty that it impacts my ability to make an informed decision.  Barry's recent camera grabs coupled with Sony's marketing fiasco regarding price, lack of 24p, MPEG2 issues and a confusing feature set has caused me to seriously reconsider buying the Z1 in February 05.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

FX1 and the Z1U has its place in the consumer and pro world. It can be used in same situation where standard miniDV was used but I mean it is just a misstake to compare the Sony FX1 with other SD-camcorders in a typical SD enviroment using typical SD-related software and hardware. As you mentioned, there is HDV and SD 24p or 25p.

To edit, down-convert and encode a ts2 to mpg2 just using Vegas has its limitations. But what do we want from a software for ~ $559,-. It is a very good NLE and made the life much easyer for many of us. But it is what it is. Nothing more. There is software mpg encoders for more then 3 times the prise of Vegas. Not to mention hardware encoders. This is the same for the down-converter in Vegas. It does an acceptable job but it isn't the best for this job. If you would like to down-convert HD or HDV to SD than Thomson, Tandberg, Snell & Wilcox and others have hardware to do this. I know it is an other prise class and we have to use what we got but than it is a litle bit not fair to make statments like it isn't sharp , it can not be used ... it is ..... etc. FX1 has its place in the home-video market and in low budget tv productions. Many high-end flat displays already come with very sophisticated signal processing systems. It means you can watch your 1080i down-converted to 720p at home. If you deliver footage to a broadcaster than they already has equipment to convert the video to what they need.

The film industry are using sopfisticated equipments and softwares to make these DVDs we are watching at home. And I guess we can be agre, the 35mm film is just a perfect media. They are using what it needs to make the DVD.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

I dig you Ranger and I was being a bit mischievious (sp?)

Am I the fan of the DVX100 ? Hell yes. Is there anything on the market yet that warrants me (personally) buying another camera? No.

When that times comes, whether it be Sony, Canon or Panasonic (something tells me it will be the PANI DVX2) I will upgrade.

One thing to be the fan and yet another to be myopic.

I see your point.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

There are certainly better tools out there than what I'm using, that's for sure. But I think that the method/path I described and attempted is probably pretty typical for a large percentage of users of this site, and of DVX/XL2/FX1 buyers in general. Most of them won't have access to dedicated MPEG encoders, etc... this is a community of filmmakers and event/wedding shooters and the like, who are making their living (or are dreaming about making their living) shooting films, commercials, videos, weddings, etc. And they're pretty much all using Vegas, FCP, or Avid on the desktop.

Yes you are correct -- there may be expensive tools out there that can do the job better, so this test cannot be viewed as absolutely conclusive for all circumstances, although I do think it's a reasonable approximation of what most desktop video producers are going to encounter. Certainly the last word hasn't been written yet (we're barely past the first paragraph!)
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

I love this site more so for the objectivity and knowledege of many!

I have posted once before and here is the dilema: We have preorder (2) HRV-Z1U, and one HVR-M10U. We have also preorder a AJA Kona-2 HD/SD capture card from Promax. Nedless to say we are very excited about entering the Video Production market.

I need guidence, that it's objective! Not biased! Though myself personally like to think I'm buying the latest and greatest, as business man I must be objective, otherwise I'm just building a house foundation of pure sand!

For what I've been reading, and a couple of presentations I have participated from AJA, and others vendors, I feel I'm making a good decision.

We want the best DVD quality bottom line, whether on film look, or regular video look! But the problem we encounter is most of our clients are people looking for the cream of the crop stuff! Thought I want the XL2, and feel it's a better built camera at this point, talking HD will surely bring a very effective marketing strategy no matter what!

Now have you played a DVD, on an HD TV, such as Samsungs DLP HD TV's? No matter how hard I tried to up-convert the image, there was still a lot to be desired!

I don't think this will be the case with new Sony cameras! Now, given they might not be as good as the DVX, which in fact has a beautiful picture! But talking business sense, from a business man orientated perspective, HDV from sony will be an easy sell!!

We plan to buy a HD plasma monitor from Media West Group in Schaumburg IL, where we received a wonderful presentation, and we plan to present HDV footage and compare it to DV to our customers. This should give us an advantage over anyone on the market who is on DV!

Now we plan to up-convert to Uncompressed HD, and get the best quality when mixing: Photoshop, Motion, and After Effects. This should surely give us an advantage over other event videographers!

Please! I just wrote our business plan, not fact, nor opinion! I will like to hear from all the people on this forum who make objective arguments based on their experience, both in business and in the video/film industry.

P.S. When down converting footage: the image captured in the HDV cameras can also be cropped, and still give you full res on DVD, allowing you to manipulate video as you would a photo on photoshop. I'm I right?

Thanks! 8)
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Guys, come on.

I'm one of the biggest proponents on the DVX. 2 years ago, when everybody on 2-Pop was screaming that 24P was hype, I was posting finished music videos and showing them it wasn't. I even have some of my work on the Panasonic DVX demo DVD.

I was just trying to point out that the stills Barry posted should not be considered the last word on this. The FX1 obviously has lots of foibles and pitfalls, but I felt that the FX1 has more to offer on this matter of pure resolution going to SD.

I have my own DVX, and the FX1. I'll see if I can't post some of my own stuff if time permits...work life is very busy these days.

Also Barry, I saw in your Photoshop downres a hint of the "hidden res", but not to the degree I'm purporting. I'll look more later...

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

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

Quote from Ranger- the thread " Sony HDV ok"

What’s next from the "glass is half empty" choir?  
 
* The FX1/Z1 causes cancer in children?
* HDV will burn out your computer hard drive and processor?  
* Sony molests puppies and steals Social Security checks from your grandma?
* The compressed audio from the FX1 has been proven to cause permanent damage to your ear drums?

For each of the points you listed in your post, I could have easily made the same weak argument back in the mid/late 90's with the arrival of DV.  Same blather, just a different format.

Who are you trying convince more of the perceived eventual failure of HD(V) … other forum visitors or yourself?

Enjoy SD!



Armyboy:

You don't think I remember what you said on another thread? Jeez, fanboy?!?! Give me a break.
The onus is not on me to prove the capabilities of the FX1
(this is a DVX forum) but on the FX1 "fanboys".

Hell, you just said you don't even own the camera and you defended it like you did? Who took the debate the wrong way?

As I said in an earlier post, I would be the first one to buy the FX1 if the look and resolution was there. I am glad I didn't waste my money and relied on the expertise of the forum leaders here.

Thanks again Barry!!
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Nate has been around a long time, I remember Nate from the early days at 2-pop.

Nate, understand what I'm saying -- I know the FX1 slays in resolution in HD mode, but I cannot find any way to make that "stick" when downrezzed. If you do, please let me know -- I'd much rather be factual than be "proven right", if you know what I mean. That's why I documented my methodology, so that others could decipher and point out what I did wrong, if anything. From my perspective I believe I've done it about as well as it can be done with desktop tools.

jnolla: you have the right idea, but I think you're not necessarily going to be able to execute your plan yet. There's a missing component in your plan, which is: there is no HD delivery medium. There's no way you can give high-def imagery to your customers (unless it's a specific computer DVD-ROM playing a Windows Media 9 file). That's why this whole thread exists: because the delivery medium available to us is DVD, so we're trying to determine if the FX1 provides an advantage for DVD production.

Everyone, let's try to keep the discussion civil, it could easily go south. As Nate pointed out, people were very emotional about the 24P thing, many proclaiming it was a gimmick, it didn't work, blah blah blah, and I think more than a few of them were worried that they were somehow obsolete. In the last two years I think it's been satisfactorily proven that 24P is the real deal. So let's not stick our heads in the sand, let's find out what the truth is. If the truth is that something new is better, then the sooner we get on that train, rather than whining about how the train is leaving us behind, the better off we'll be.

So, again: as near as I can tell, the FX1 is not delivering any benefit as compared to the DVX or XL2 for standard-def DVD production. And it does, for DVD production, represent a step backwards in a few ways (no 24P, no XLR's, etc). For HD production it is a big leap forward. For DVD production, I have been unable to determine *any* advantage yet. I believe this is significant, since DVD will be (IMHO) the preferred delivery medium for several years to come, and there will doubtless be many new camcorder innovations upon us before HD-DVD becomes a major factor in distribution, which gives SD producers plenty of time to sit back and evaluate.

If the FX1 represents a big leap forward for DVD production, that's a significant development. I haven't seen it. I'd like to see it if it exists. If someone else can demonstrate the improvement, that'd be great. Barring that, I've got tons of footage here, so if someone wants to describe a workflow that will reveal the benefit, I'd be glad to try it.
 
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=60#66 date=12/17/04 at 20:00:50]Armyboy:

You don't think I remember what you said on another thread? Jeez, fanboy?!?! Give me a break.
The onus is not on me to prove the capabilities of the FX1
(this is a DVX forum) but on the FX1 "fanboys".

Hell, you just said you don't even own the camera and you defended it like you did? Who took the debate the wrong way?
[/quote]
Armyboy?? Ha Ha Ha ... that's cool by me. Better that than some fanboy.

If you closely examine my posts you'll realize that I was not so much defending the FX1's performance as much as I was railing against all the unfair vitriol labeled against this camera. The FX1/Z1 and HDV is relatively new technology and as such has not been given sufficient time for adequate and thorough testing and extensive user feedback. I still remain hopeful that the Sony will have some redeeming factors to possibly justify a purchase, but that doesn’t mean I subordinate my good judgment out of some strange sense of product loyalty. There is a distinction between the two.

Oh, and as far as who has the “onus” of proving the capabilities of the FX1 … well, my response to that is neither side should have any onus placed upon them. Why can’t we as forum participants simply lay out the facts – pro or con – and let the chips fall as they may without all the brand zealotry? It’s just a video camera.

Exhibit A: A former Fanboy (RIP)
30743Ray-Charles-DVX.jpg


v/r
Armyboy
 
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=60#65 date=12/17/04 at 19:03:09]Guys, come on.

I'm one of the biggest proponents on the DVX. 2 years ago, when everybody on 2-Pop was screaming that 24P was hype, I was posting finished music videos and showing them it wasn't. I even have some of my work on the Panasonic DVX demo DVD.

I was just trying to point out that the stills Barry posted should not be considered the last word on this. The FX1 obviously has lots of foibles and pitfalls, but I felt that the FX1 has more to offer on this matter of pure resolution going to SD.
[/quote]
Nate, I'm with you brother. I too also considered many of the points you brought up, specifically whether the degradation in quality from HDV to SD was the result of the down conversion program (i.e. Vegas) or coming directly from limitations within the MPEG2 footage. I'm not sure what the right answer is.

Thanks for adding a fresh and different perspective to this discussion.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Hi Guys,
I think there are a few advantages of the FX1 that haven't been brought up here yet.
The first one is the ability to correct your your compositions. It's great to have all of that extra rez to play around with in post. Have you seen how the DVX looks when you want to zoom in even a little?
The second is the shelf life of your projects. I hate to say it but a day will come when anything Standard Definition is going to look like VHS does today. People are going to get used to HDTV quality.
Barry, thanks for all of your hard work.
Cheers,
Sam
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD qualit

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

Barry, one question about the methods used for the testing:

Why not set the aperture the same on all three cameras? It's hard to judge much when each has a different aperture setting. Did I just misunderstand how you did the test?

Don't get me wrong even without using the same aperture it is pretty clear what cameras have the greatest latitude. I think you would need to point out what you were exposing for in the images though if you don't keep the aperture the same on all three cameras. That would help us tell more about the images.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

If you closely examine my posts you'll realize that I was not so much defending the FX1's performance as much as I was railing against all the unfair vitriol labeled against this camera.  The FX1/Z1 and HDV is relatively new technology and as such has not been given sufficient time for adequate and thorough testing and extensive user feedback.  I still remain hopeful that the Sony will have some redeeming factors to possibly justify a purchase, but that doesn’t mean I subordinate my good judgment out of some strange sense of product loyalty.  
Click to expand...
Ranger, I agree completely.  That's exactly the way I feel.

Why not set the aperture the same on all three cameras?
Click to expand...
Er, because that would have resulted in completely incorrect exposure on one or the others.  They're not in the same class as far as sensitivity.  We used the zebras to set basically proper exposure, and that meant very different apertures.  In the Grand Central Terminal shot, we couldn't get adequate exposure on the FX1 -- it was wide-open, that's as bright as the camera was capable of without resorting to gain.

The goal was to get proper exposure on each camera at 0db.  When you see a different aperture, that's a reflection of each camera's relative sensitivity. It's like of you were shooting with 400ASA film in one camera and 100ASA in the other -- setting the same aperture is just going to ruin one of the shots.
 
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, thanks for the time. i seriously considered the Z1 even without having any HD(V) output yet. but even if it would give a slight advantage when downrezzed (your results are very subjective to the viewer) that advantage is definitely not big enough to justify all the hassle that comes with HDV at the moment.
- upgrade PC - upgrade NLE - downconverting, cos their is no output option yet etc.

in 12-18 months many of us will use HDV (or something similar) and the good thing about Sony´s cams is the pricetag which forces the rest to stay "low" too. HDV will find its way to my studio once the consumer can watch it. for now i am able to convince the customers that there is no HDV in real life yet. once they can buy a HD-DVD player things will change. broadcasters will stay away for a while anyway (at least in europe). they show stuff in HD, but they cannot throw out all their millions of SD hardware (cams and editing) so they will also accept our SD stuff.

this thread shows that technology always loses against practicability IMO. using an FX1 for SD-DVD is simply not worth it, even IF (a big IF) you like the FX1 image a little (a small little) more.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

I think barry an jarred have only done some excellent and truely objective work to simply offer as purely objective information so that other would be consumers can educate themselves on some of the questions they may have before purchasing. he has not been biased or unfair, and has told it like it is.. we ALL want it to be the best cam ever.. ..for some it may be.. for others it will not. just because you may not like some of barry and jarreds info doesnt mean its biased and incorrect- and i havent seen a single indicator to even hint that it would be biased in the least.


this camera will make many people very happy, and to many others it is a waste of time.. it is one and the same.. joe wants to eat salad and i give him a fork.. yeah! joe is happy. sally wants to eat soup and i give her a fork.. oh no ! sally is sad.. same tool. good for joe .. not good for sally. joe cannot tell sally that its the right choice for her, and sally cannot tell joe that its not right for him.

i would encourage anyone to simply take information like barrys and jarreds and other credible and unbiased scources and make an educated purchasing descision. becuase simply wanting the camera to be either better or worse than what it really is, or capeable of more or less than what it really is... only changes your mind.. not the camera.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

If you closely examine my posts you'll realize that I was not so much defending the FX1's performance as much as I was railing against all the unfair vitriol labeled against this camera.  The FX1/Z1 and HDV is relatively new technology and as such has not been given sufficient time for adequate and thorough testing and extensive user feedback.  I still remain hopeful that the Sony will have some redeeming factors to possibly justify a purchase, but that doesn’t mean I subordinate my good judgment out of some strange sense of product loyalty.  There is a distinction between the two

The "unfair vitriol" that you so like to label - I would call it obeservation - my post did start with "Sony Camera OK" - was actually from 1st hand observations ( from the DV EXPO West) from forum members ( not the extensive tests from Barry) of the camera that eventually came true.

I looked closely at your statement and it doesn't look like you are taking a neutral stance. Some strange stance of being "on the other" side just for the sake of being there. We were all trying to share our obeservations and you came in with this strange angle of attack. I am sure if Barry said the FX1 was the bomb, I would be the first one with my credit card online.

But, I will drop it and do agree with some points  Ranger made:

Why can’t we as forum participants simply lay out the facts – pro or con – and let the chips fall as they may without all the brand zealotry?  It’s just a video camera.
 
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=60#65 date=12/17/04 at 19:03:09]Guys, come on.

I was just trying to point out that the stills Barry posted should not be considered the last word on this. The FX1 obviously has lots of foibles and pitfalls, but I felt that the FX1 has more to offer on this matter of pure resolution going to SD.

INW[/quote]


It is not the last word or meant as such. It all depends on who is on the other end of the camera - anyway. I would be interested to see your stills since no one has posted one - other than Barry.

For me, it saved me from buying the camera and waiting. I can use the HDV quality in my DVD videos, but if I can't tell the difference...then certainly my customers can not as well.
Or, unless someone comes up with another example.
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

[quote author=Neil R. link=board=sony;num=1103104690;start=60#74 date=12/18/04 at 07:11:08] I think barry an jarred have only done some excellent and truely objective work to simply offer as purely objective information so that other would be consumers can educate themselves on some of the questions they may have before purchasing. he has not been biased or unfair, and has told it like it is.. we ALL want it to be the best cam ever.. ..for some it may be.. for others it will not. just because you may not like some of barry and jarreds info doesnt mean its biased and incorrect- and i havent seen a single indicator to even hint that it would be biased in the least.


 this camera will make many people very happy, and to many others it is a waste of time.. it is one and the same..     joe wants to eat salad and i give him a fork.. yeah! joe is happy.   sally wants to eat soup and i give her a fork..   oh no ! sally is sad..    same tool.   good for joe .. not good for sally.      joe cannot tell sally that its  the right choice for her, and sally cannot tell joe that its not right for him.  

i would encourage anyone to simply take information like barrys and jarreds and other credible and unbiased scources and make an educated purchasing descision.  becuase simply wanting the camera to be either better or worse than what it really is, or capeable of more or less than what it really is... only changes your mind.. not the camera.[/quote]

What iof it's Chunky Brand Soup? :D
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

..cmon now, who really eats that stuff. .. chunky soup.. bah!
 
Re: MPEG2 HD v.s.  DV SD and Final DVD quality

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

Definitely not the last word.  Like I said in an earlier post, this is really only the opening paragraph.  It'll be a year or two before we'll really be able to get to the bottom of all ramifications and implications.  This is the opening of the discussion, not the conclusion of it.

Now, regarding the assertion that downrezzing from a higher-rez source to a lower-rez standard will produce superior results to using the native standard in the first place: I've been thinking about this, and I think I can demonstrate why it isn't true.

As longtime readers of my posts will recognize, I usually like to use the extreme to illustrate a point.  This doesn't reflect a real-world example, but by using an extreme example it can be illustrated why your real-world tests may not come out the way you thought they would.

Let's take a couple of givens: by the time the image is rendered in the frame, a DV image (or DVD image) will be a grid of pixels, 720 x 480.  An HDV image will be a grid of pixels 1440 x 1080.  For DVD release or for SD broadcast, one would have to down-rez that 1440 x 1080 down to 720 x 480.  Some are arguing that the downrezzed image should be superior to the native image, but my testing is showing it not to be the case.  Why?

Okay, think about it this way.  Let's take the ultimate example of DV resolution.  Let's pretend that you shot a checkerboard pattern, and you lined up and framed the shot so exactly perfectly that the frame in the camera ended up being a pixel-for-pixel checkerboard pattern.  The frame in the camera would look like this:
DVCheckerboard.JPG


(note this represents a small extraction of the full 720x480 frame).  Every other pixel would be black, every other pixel would be white.

Now, let's assume we shot the identical same frame on the HDV camera.  Seeing as the HDV camera has 1440 horizontal, or exactly twice as much horizontal pixels for the same perceived physical measurement in space, you would expect (and indeed get) an alternating series of two black pixels, then two white pixels.  It'd look something like this:
HDVCheckerboard.JPG


(note we're being generous to the HDV camera for the sake of example here: because it has 1440 vs. 720 per line, it would indeed be exactly a 2:1 ratio on the horizontal.  But because it's 1080 vertical vs. 480, it would *not* be exactly 2:1 on the vertical.  Which means the downrez will be even less accurate in practice than in theory, but for our theory here we'll pretend it's 960 and call it "close enough").

Now, to downrez to standard-def, the HDV frame will have to be sampled and converted, from 1440 x 1080 (or 960 in our example) down to 720 x 480.  What does it look like when you downrez 1440x960 down to 720x480?

HDVDownrezCheckerboard.JPG


(That's the results from a PhotoShop downrez.)  Looks pretty good, right?  But... are the edges softer? Has there been a loss of detail? Let’s zoom in and see how crisp and sharp the edges are:
HDVDownrezMagnified.JPG


They're not.  There's rounding errors.  There's averaging that goes on.  There's approximation.

That's the way downrezzing works.  You don't get the checkerboard, you get an approximation of pixel averaging, trying to keep all the data from all the pixels and making every pixel "count" towards the end goal.  The only way you could get an accurate checkerboard pattern would be if your resize used a simple pixel decimation technique, throwing away 50% of the horizontal and 50% of the vertical pixels (which would only work for a strict checkerboard pattern, and wouldn't work so well on other types of images).  Then you have to factor in that decimation wouldn't account for the 1080 to 480 conversion -- you *have* to have some pixel-averaging system going on.  And when pixels are averaged together, detail is lost.  Guaranteed.

Let's put it to another type of test, taking into account the difference between 1080 and 960: I made a 1440x1080 grid, filled with a checkerboard pattern of pixels 2x2.  Then downrezzed that to 720x480.  Here's a blowup of what PhotoShop actually delivers, taking into account the difference in height that results because 480 is not half of 1080:
HDVRealDownrez.JPG


Now, the counter-argument goes, why does SDX900 footage look so much better on DVD than DVX footage?  Obviously because the SDX, a much superior camera, can do a much more accurate representation to its frame than the DVX can.  The real question would be, using the same glass, would a CineAlta do a better job on DVD than an SDX900 would?  Would a $100,000 HDCAM camera deliver a better final image on DVD than a $25,000 camera?  Using the same glass?

My assertion, based on this study and these theories, is that no, it would not.  The SDX would make a better looking final image on DVD than the CineAlta would, because the SDX would use the same glass but would deliver a final 720x480 frame that would be more accurate than a downrezzed 1440x1080 frame from the CineAlta (HDCAM is imaged at 1920x1080 but recorded to tape as 1440x1080).

A CineAlta would probably make a better-looking DVD image than a DVX would, because the camera head is so much better that it would probably survive the downrez process better than native DVX.  But the SDX is such a better camera head than the DVX that I propose that it would deliver a better-looking DVD image than downrezzed CineAlta.

And so it is with the DVX/FX1.  The FX1 appears to be a comparable camera head, comparable lens etc. to the DVX... certainly in DV mode the FX1 is no better than the DVX.  So downrezzing FX1 footage does not hold up as well as DVX or XL2 footage.

That's my theory, anyway.  Mouth is now wide open, my foot positioned right in front, waiting for to be shoved in by someone proving this theory wrong...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top