Uprezzing DVCPRO 50

B

brianluce

Carbonite Member
I read a post claiming uprezzed dvcpro50 on the hvx looks better than any HDV or even the hi rez formats the Hvx200 supports. Can anyone confirm this claim?
 
DVCPRO50 is much better than DV, but not as nice as DVCPRO-HD. Is it better than HDV? Good question, my guess is no. But I can confirm it's not better than the HD formats on the HVX200. Where'd you read this?
 
BenB said:
DVCPRO50 is much better than DV, but not as nice as DVCPRO-HD. Is it better than HDV? Good question, my guess is no. But I can confirm it's not better than the HD formats on the HVX200. Where'd you read this?
Click to expand...

You've seen dvcpro50 uprezzed?
 
I was curious about this as well. I have been really looking hard at the HVX (but equipped in a Zacuto package so it will be pricey), and the Panasonic SDX900 (which is DVCPro 50 with 2/3" chips). I was curious if the SDX900's 2/3" DVCPro 50 would uprez to DVCPro HD and look as good or better than the images from the HVX. Any feedback?
 
Last edited:
digitalinnovations said:
I was curious if the SDX900's 2/3" DVCPro 50 would uprez to HVCPro HD and look as good or better than the images from the HVX.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's possible.

Barry? And info?
 
I edit using Avid Xpress Pro. Through my own testing, using DV50 footage from the HVX200 in an HD project works but does not look nearly as good as HD footage from an HVX200. The footage can be mixed and might be acceptable for some cutaway shots, etc., but by and large is not acceptable to my eyes.

Regards,

Cre8tive
 
I dont agree... it is not as simple as DV50 vs DVCproHD, it we are talking HVX vs HVX, obviously you would want to shoot HD. It gets murky when you talk SDX900 vs HVX200. Also, "better" or "as good" is a subjective term. A 2/3" camera will give you a much cleaner image in general.

I have seen first hand some uprezzed SDX900 images that surpass what the HVX is capable of, this was PROJECTED, not inside an NLE. There are many uprezzing options, I am not just talking resizing, I am talking more advanced software or hardware options. Remember, the HVX sensor has only 540 lines, virtually the same as the SDX and the DV50 codec is WAY less compressed and MUCH cleaner than DVCproHD.

Bottom line for me, is that resolution is a factor in the best image but it is not THE factor. Color, noise, dynamic range, etc. are also factors. If a camera only beats out another in one of five categories...is it better? Not to me.

I defy anyone why saw "Smile" on the big screen to tell me what was SDX, what was Vari and what was F900... you just cant tell. You can read about it here:

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/news/news04_038.asp



ash =o)
 
So is the main issue 1/3" vs 2/3"? And when I say "better" or "as good as" I mean total image quality. I have really been struggling with this choice and would love some more info on the subject!
 
Ash summed it up nicely. In the HVX200, of course DVCProHD is going to look nicer than DVCPro50 uprezed. Any other comparisons though can't be made since you have different CCDs, lenses, and other parts that go into the various cameras. Pansonic themselves said at one point that the SDX900 would produce a better image than the HVX200 (this was before the HVX was released).

Personally, while I'd kill for a 2/3 CCD, the SDX is just too big and pricey for me.
 
Sorry, guys. I was commenting on uprezzed HVX SD compared to HVX HD. Obviously a better lens and larger CCD means so much.

Regards,

Cre8tive
 
brianluce said:
You've seen dvcpro50 uprezzed?
Click to expand...


i have it looks ok. it just looks like uprezzed high quality DV. the real benefit of DVCpro50 is the quality with which SD DVD will come out. no pixelated saturated colors, everything just looks smooth, and buttery.


DavidBeier said:
Ash summed it up nicely. In the HVX200, of course DVCProHD is going to look nicer than DVCPro50 uprezed. Any other comparisons though can't be made since you have different CCDs, lenses, and other parts that go into the various cameras. Pansonic themselves said at one point that the SDX900 would produce a better image than the HVX200 (this was before the HVX was released).

Personally, while I'd kill for a 2/3 CCD, the SDX is just too big and pricey for me.
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure they meant SDX900 SD 16:9 422, VS HVX SD 16:9 422.

Believe it or not the HVX is an HD a camera.... alot of people seem to beg to differ, but it is atleast, a good 720p camera, that has "ok" 1080.
 
Last edited:
TimurCivan said:
i have it looks ok. it just looks like uprezzed high quality DV. the real benefit of DVCpro50 is the quality with which SD DVD will come out. no pixelated saturated colors, everything just looks smooth, and buttery.




Im pretty sure they meant SDX900 SD 16:9 422, VS HVX SD 16:9 422.

Believe it or not the HVX is an HD a camera.... alot of people seem to beg to differ, but it is atleast, a good 720p camera, that has "ok" 1080.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and ask Jan yourself if you like as I believe she's the one who made the quote. And I don't recall it being about SD performance. She said simply that it produced a better image if I recall correctly. Now, that's of course an incredibly subjective statement. I personally have never seen SDX900 footage uprezzed. Does the gain in resolution the HVX200 offers outweigh what the SDX900 can offer? Things such as a theoretically higher lattitude, less noise, and better lenses. I don't know but I know some who swear that it produces a better image. Personally, I haven't really been able to tell the differences between DVX100 footage and SDX900 footage on my little old 27 inch TV.
 
i dunno ? I suppose the beter quality of the signal makes up for the resolution. But you know, the difference between 960X480P and 1280X720P isnt really all that high. so maybe, yea it can put out a "better" picture.
 
Well... I'd have to test 'em to know. The possibility certainly exists, depending on if the SDX uses the same spatial offset. I have no doubt that if Juan Pertierr was to tap into the SDX's 2/3" CCDs and use the spatial offset to make his own 1920x1080, that it would exceed what the HVX's 1/3" chips can do.

But taking the recorded DVCPRO50, and then trying to back-figure and up-rez that, vs. taking advantage of spatial offset sampling in the raw signal like the HVX does? I dunno. Might still be better, because of the lower noise signal and the presumably wider latitude and the shallower DOF. Or it might not. We'd have to test.

Fortunately this all becomes somewhat moot in a few months, as we'll have an HPX500 available at rental houses etc; that way you get 2/3" HD and variable frame rates all at once.
 
DVCpro50 - i love DVCpro50.
1170730283.jpg

720P UPREZ
1170730392.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top