This content has been marked as final. Show 25 replies
The problem is you're comparing to one of the best sub $5000 DV cameras ever built with the 100B. It's no surprise the Sony SD image looks worse.
Right now, things are in transition. People are using HDTVs with SD sources, and SD sources scaled up for HDTV may not look as good as they do on an SDTV. Meaning if you mix the standards, things may not be as good. Watch SD sources only on SD sets, and you're fine. Watch only HD sorces on your HD sets, and you're fine. Mix them up, maybe not so fine.
It get's even worse when you shoot in HD, scale it down for SD, and then have the client's player or TV try and scale it back up for HD. That's a lot of scaling for things to go wrong.
But there's little you can do about that while things are in transition.
If it were me, I'd produce using the DVX for any client who can't watch Blu-ray now. Charge a premium for those who can (because the investment for you into HD can be recouped) and only then use the Sony.
Thanks for the response Jim. Unfortunately, the DVX-100B is my camera, not the company's and I don't think my boss is willing to buy a second camera after investing around $5,000 in the Sony with filters, etc.
Well, then your boss is stuck with the lesser picture of the Sony.
(His fault for not going with the HVX200 :))
I've used the HVX200 before for a shoot that I did before coming to this company and was very pleased with the final results on DVD, but do you think it would do better SD than the DVX100? Wouldn't you still have the problem of quality-loss from down-converting?
I don't know how SD on both Panny's compare, but I would expect them to be close, maybe even a little better on the 200. This is probably a good source on info on that front.
Down conversion will always introduce "quality loss", as it's being converted to lower resolution and color space. Whether or not you can get downcovnerted HD to look as good as SD original is not my forte.
> Down conversion will always introduce "quality loss", as it's being converted to lower resolution and color space.
I'd say neither of those two things are particular issues. The differences in gamut between 601 and 709 is very small -- and the resizing will actually smooth this conversion a bit, so you'll have no "gaps" in the output histogram, even with 8 bit sources.
I have also been amazed by the amount of latitude I have for color correcting the HD original prior to downconverting.
The resizing will also serve as a form of noise reduction. If you find the result too soft, use a sharper resizing algorithm and/or sharpen the video prior to scaling it down (sharpening also works better on hte HD source, as the sharpening artifacts will be greatly reduced when scaled down also).
> Whether or not you can get downcovnerted HD to look as good as SD
You certainly can -- sometimes better. The only limiting factors are as follows:
2.) GOP / temporal compression
4.) Chroma subsampling
So, you need a good deinterlacer to do 1080i->480i (or 576i). 1080p or 720p is much easier to convert.
And you'll get better results from non-temporally compressed and/or higher bitrate originals.
Obviously a 4:4:4 original (like Red) will produce nicer results than 4:2:0 (like HDV). However, assuming you are converting directly to DVD MPEG2 or you're able to edit with lossless 4:2:2, you may actually improve color resolution by circumventing a 4:1:1 (DV NTSC) or 4:2:0 (DV PAL) intermediary stage.
I am shooting with the Canon XHA1's today; used to shoot with the XL1s's. I have to say that shooting SD on the new XHA1s looks as good or better than shooting SD with the old XL1s, with the exception of low light. The XHA1s seem Dependant on more light.
However; I am now starting to shoot everything in HDV on them and delivering both bluray and sd dvds. I find Dan's scripts that you will find in another thread to do an excellent job scaling interlaced hdv to sd. I would not use ppro alone to scale interlaced material. Dan has shown me the light.
But; I find if i shoot progressive hdv and scale it down in ppro; it looks pretty darn good.
So; my bottom line is; I shoot everything hdv now, if its interlaced use dan's scripts to scale down (if DVD needed) ; if progressive; scale down in ppro (if SD DVD needed); other wise export to bluray.
SD on an HVX 200 can be (or is) superior to that attained on the DVX if you shoot DVCPro50 (that is SD DIgiBeta quality 50mbps in a 4:2:2 space).
My take on shooting HD (or 35mm) and down converting is that the results are superior due the fact that more information is "captured/photographed" and in a higher color sampling space (eg 4:2:2 /4:2:1) so it is much better for editing, grading and down rezzing.
> Dan has shown me the light.
Thanks, Curt. I must admit, it has been a battle to convince PPro users that this is a real issue in PPro. Now, if only we could convince Adobe :)
> But; I find if i shoot progressive hdv and scale it down in ppro; it looks pretty darn good.
It does, but it can still look better using my hd2sd() script. PPro CS3 still interprets the colorspace incorrectly and uses Bicubic resampling, which is not exactly state-of-the-art. It is also smart (and convenient) to use my script to apply noise reduction prior to conversion, as scaling it down will help hide any resulting artifacts (which should be minimal compared those it removes) and should result in a very clean and compressible video stream.
Yor workaround of shooting progressive may not be so bad after all: I have lately been thinking about the "tradeoff" here, and realizing that progressive SD content looks far better on interlaced screens than interlaced SD on progressive HDTV displays. Until Blu-Ray totally eclipses DVD, this will be something we'll all have to contend with.
>Until Blu-Ray totally eclipses DVD, this will be something we'll all have to contend with.
I am not shooting/delivering in HD yet, so things may change with customer demand. But my own goal once I do upgrade and start offering HD is if you want a DVD, I shoot in SD. If you want me to shoot in HD, you'll get only a Blu-ray. It just doesn't make sense to mix and match given the issues attendant with such.
I mean, if you're spending a couple grand or more on an HD set, another few hundred for Blu-ray isn't that ridiculous an idea. Using DVD with HDTV is the far worse idea, in my view.
But what about missy that wants to give a copy of the DVD to grandma who only last year bought a DVD player for the first time? And the only reason she did that is because her 9 year-old VCR died and when she went to Best Buy, they were sold out of VCRs.
Grandma then comes to Missy's house for a visit. (It's always good to invite the grandparents over for dinner and a movie.)
Your crazy, Jim -- If the client wants it: give it to them and bill them as you see fit. It will be quite a while before everybody has a Blu-Ray player and an HDTV. Hell, Jim, you and I are video professionals and we ain't got 'em yet.
The only "problems" with these conversions is that PPro (currently) has wretched deinterlacing, mediocre scaling, and incorrect handling of color matrices. This does not mean that it is impossible (or even difficult) to do by other means -- or that some day Adobe might get their act together and fix these problems.
>Hell, Jim, you and I are video professionals and we ain't got 'em yet.
But when I have one, I will have the other. It makes no sense to upgrade only half your viewing experience, especially now that Blu-ray is the de facto HD disk format.
Besides, for my purposes, I see no need to make more work for myself by offering a "future HD version" once clients get a Blu-ray player. It'll be difficult enough trying to upsell HD (at a premium, of course) for those who already have Blu-ray. Even more difficult for those who don't. So, if all they have is DVD, I shoot in SD and move on.
Again, that may change as the reality of working in HD sets in.
> Yor workaround of shooting progressive may not be so bad after all: I have lately been thinking about the "tradeoff" here, and realizing that progressive SD content looks far better on interlaced screens than interlaced SD on progressive HDTV displays. Until Blu-Ray totally eclipses DVD, this will be something we'll all have to contend with.
Yes; I did not notice so much of a problem on NTSC CRTs, but on my HDTV scaled down sd stuff looks really bad. So, for me shooting progressive is a good idea. It doesnt look so bad on CRT Sets and looks much better on HDTVs.
And, Ive stuck a big stick in the sand. No more 4:3 shooting for me.
> And, Ive stuck a big stick in the sand. No more 4:3 shooting for me.
Good for you! It's easy to crop to 4:3 is necessary, anyway.
In your case, I'd shoot and edit everything in 1080/30p or 720/30p and just knock off a 480/30p DVD when it's finished.
Curt -- see my post here
> In your case, I'd shoot and edit everything in 1080/30p or 720/30p and just knock off a 480/30p DVD when it's finished.
yep; thats my plan going fwd.
Dan, were can i find these scripts of yours. Thank you in advanced.
Hi Ann ---
Start here for my "basic" workflow for converting 1080i -> 480i (or 576i).
At the bottom of the page there is a link for the more "advanced" script (hd2sd) that will convert from just about any HD format to just about any SD format... (1080i or 1080p or 720p -> 480i or 480p, 60i <-> 50i, etc.)
Dan, thank you very much.
No problem, Ann... Let me know if you run into any snags. I have more scripts for just about every kind of standards conversion :)
>I have more scripts for just about every kind of standards conversion
I think I need one of these scripts Dan.
My friends (and clients) often mention my "low standards"
I did a 1 minute hdv to uncompressed avi with only VirtualDub with the filters and it took 30 minutes to do so. This seems very long? The footage looked good but was interlaced.
I've gotten 30:1 conversion ratios myself with various settings of Dan's scripts. Not much you can do by try faster settings (which of course will affect quality).