Somone showed me pics of downconverted dvpro HD to SD from a big gun camera. The result was a stunning amount of detail even in SD. Now HDV shows almost as much detail in HD, but when it's downconverted it doesnt look much different, or different at all to SD DV. Now I dont want to get into the argument of how downconverted HDV looks, that belongs on the other thread. But it seems to me the combination of mpeg2, a consumer lens and 1/3 chips don't allow downconverted HDV to be good as it could be, in that it does not preserve as much detail as the 1080 picture should even in SD.

I mean in HDV the detail is certainly there, but in SD it does not show that much an advantage. I think its the camera's fault, you really need a big lens, a big chip and better compression than mpeg2 as used in HDV.

Well, putting aside the issue of HD, take a look at the difference in a 2/3" SD camera vs our prosumer 1/3" cameras. It's very noticeable to me. But then you don't really expect a $4,000 camera to look as good as a pro camera where the lens alone costs three times that much, do you? :-)

I mean in HDV the detail is certainly there, but in SD it does not show that much an advantage. I think its the camera's fault, you really need a big lens, a big chip and better compression than mpeg2 as used in HDV.

Sorry, John, but you get a huge argument from me on this one. I don't know if it's your display, if it's your downconvert process, or something else, but the difference is crystal clear even with heavily compressed formats like MPEG 2 on the final output. I'll figure a way to get a file up on our website for you to look at that is shot as hdv, displayed as SD, and further, I did a zoom on the SD downconvert, and there is still a substantial difference. I do this sort of work every day, and whether I'm finishing in SD, or finishing in HD (which is rare) the difference is very clear and uncontestable.

Douglas, I take it you've seen the fine pattern pic I posted on the other discussion with HDV and DV split screened. That's what I am seeing and it's not just me.

I'd be pleased to see a frame grab of this quality you're talking about, but as I've said, take a look at the evidence, that's what I am seeing. It's nothing do with the monitor either.

Here it is, top 50% = dv, bottom 50% HDV downconverted.

http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/poore/hdv-dv%20testing.jpg

Screen grabs don't tell much of the story, especially when you're grabbing as jpgs, further corrupting the image.

http://www.vasst.com/streaming/HDV_downconvert.mpg tells a much better story, and although this is all done at SD, you can see more than one reason that shooting HDV and downconverting is better than shooting DV at any angle.

Thats really convincing douglas.

I know we had this discussions month ago, but still I don't get that good downconversions in Postproduction.

My workflow is: Capture from Z1 with Premiere Pro 1.5 (with the free hdv) or (even better) CapDVHS. Then immediately convert to TGAs.

In Aftereffects I use the right field order, scale it down and output progressive to DV AVI. But the result still doesn't look as good as the Camera-Downconversion of the Z1 or like your HDV_downconvert.mpg

How was that mpg done ?

Thanks!

Peter

The 1080i half/segment was captured as 1080i in Vegas, edited at 1080i, and rendered to 720 in Vegas.
The 480 half, was captured from the camera with the camera doing the downconvert, and then edited from there, always being SD. Both processes were done in Vegas.

I've got some better examples, just running out of time before leaving for a tradeshow, and keep having upload problems. We're at near capacity on our server with all the HDV and related clips up there...

I am still kind of new to this downconverting, why downconvert, why not wait ...edit native(fcp or avid) in hdv and then do a good downconvert? What is the best way ? how can you also possible compare them as you need a HD tv to see the one and an sd tv to see the other?

I think it would be best to capture and edit in HDV even though it may be slower. Then when you are finished you have more options.

1. You can export the project as HDV back to tape for a HD master.
2. You can down convert in software and make a DV master.
3. You can down convert in software and make a SD DVD.
4. Down converting in software will give you better chroma resolution.

If you capture and edit as DV and then in the future if your client wants a HD version you will have to edit the project all over again or make plans for doing a new edit by making an EDL.


One point as to why software down conversion is better than in camera down conversion or shooting native DV is the color space. When you shoot DV or down convert to DV you end up with 4:1:1(NTSC) or 4:2:0(PAL) color space. No matter what the BBC says software conversion will always give you better chroma detail because you are not throwing away chroma detail. When you use software to down convert you can end up close to 4:4:4. It isn't perfect but it is a lot closer than DV color space.

I think the reason why the BBC doesn't see much of a change is because HDV and PAL use the same type of color space.

NTSC is actually pretty bad for DVD since mpeg2 uses 4:2:0. converting 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 can kind of leave you with a 4:1:0. Encoding SD DVD's with a 4:2:2 or better source will give you much better results. Even for PAL starting with 4:2:2 or better would give slightly better results. Even though both use 4:2:0 PAL and MPEG2 use a different line order for chroma samples so the chroma could get interpolated.

Down converting in camera can kill a lot of chroma detail as well as add regular DV compression artifacts. Using software conversion can give you a high quality uncompressed master.

thanks for the info...that makes a lot of things clear...
I have a few questions for you 1) how do you downconvert in the camera?
It does different formats but that can not be downconverting I think..Is there a setting to downconvert? I havnt found it...

Hey John,
I'm going to have to disagree with your original statement. Sounds like the samples of the down-converted dvcHDpro footage where done correctly, and that most of the HDV you've seen has not been done correctly. Here's a video I put together for 1gracing. They are the US importer for Noble.

http://www.1gracing.com/images/noble-m12.mov

Everything in that video was shot on an FX-1.
Now tell me, could that be done with a DVcam? Did the DVCproHD look better than that?

Any of the footage that was in slow motion already had it's resolution cut in half due to splitting the fields to get 60p frames. Yet even after that loss it still looks incredible!

So I guess my point is, it's not the camera's problem. It's the person using it that causes the difference.

My 2 c,
Eric James

David,

When you shoot HDV, but then set up the menu to export DV, that's downconverting. Read up on the menu settings.

Hi, I havnt been able to download anybody's video here, simply because I don't have the bandwidth to do it right now, but I'd love to see frame grabs, if anyone has bothered to do a scientific comparison, in the manner I have made an example of. I find it tough to tell the difference with anything in .mov format anyway, and what is it relative to? I am saying we need to see HDV/DV side by side to make an accurate comparison. I am not saying people are not apparently getting better quality, and there may indeed be ways to do it, for example as Douglas strongly advocates, if you use a strict workflow of Sony only products, then blammo, it all comes together. After this we have the opinion of some fellow called Eric James who feels in his considered opinion I have no idea how to operate a camera and that is enough reason to dispel the argument.

I have posted an example of a direct DV/HDV comparison, the HDV being downconverted in-camera, judge for yourselves or offer something similar to disprove it, not simply your favourite clip, you can't tell anything from this on its own.

I am currently testing the jvc GY-100, its a great little camera, the professional features and so on...but the MPEG conversion of HD makes the quality of the picture not much better then my old Xl1...When viewed side by side...

John,
You don't have to take it personally. If your not willing to look, then how can you make comments like that?

Here is a screen-grab in SD from the same thing. I don't have a version that was shot in DV, but take a look and tell me if you think any DV cam could capture this image as well:

http://www.expertmagic.com/dvinfo/nobleframegrab.jpg

All I was saying is that the difference between the DVCpro footage you saw and most people's HDV is what they do with the image once it's captured. Most people using prosumer HDV camera are not going to do nearly as good of a job as people shooting on pro equipment. Not because of the equipment, but because of WHO uses it.

A good example of this is the movie "28 days later". Many people with the same camera could never get anywhere close to how good it looked for DV. What's the difference? The person using it!

My 2 c,
Eric James

a bad example is the movie 'open water', very obvious dv and very ugly...
(Bad acting to) The thing is when its in the hands of professionals with time and money and a large crew, a lot of light almost all of the present day prosumercam's perform well...but the camera is also made for the civic news reporter and other lowcost fast made productions...HDV is not that much of an improvement over SD...

..HDV is not that much of an improvement over SD...

There is EVERY EVIDENCE that, WHEN PROPERLY HANDLED AND EDITED, HDV provides STUNNING IMPROVEMENT over excellent SD.

CHeck with any "amateur" audience with decent equipment... or visit your optician ;-)

well you believe what you want to believe.Watching all the nice footage come out about these camera's doesn't mean a thing. You always see nice footage whenever there is a new camera. Real HD is an improvement over SD but as for HDV, I expected more...I think we ought to wait until Sony puts HDV in to their bigger models like they did with DVCAM. My Ikegami dv7 with professional lens will still blow away any of the new HDV prosumer cam's. But that is not the point...ofcourse it is an improvement over SD prosumer camera's ...but not a very big one...

well you believe what you want to believe.Watching all the nice footage come out about these camera's doesn't mean a thing. You always see nice footage whenever there is a new camera. Real HD is an improvement over SD but as for HDV, I expected more...I think we ought to wait until Sony puts HDV in to their bigger models like they did with DVCAM. My Ikegami dv7 with professional lens will still blow away any of the new HDV prosumer cam's. But that is not the point...ofcourse it is an improvement over SD prosumer camera's ...but not a very big one...

And you can watch your even better HD material on which currently available CONSUMER HDTV at it's full resolution?

Most people who watch HD - let alone HDV - will be doing so on equipment that provides... Oh My GOD!... no better than what the HDV spec provides for!! The whole HDV 'thing' has more to do with 16:9 HDTVs than with digital theatre or any other esoteric digital replacements for film... but there persists this whole mind set that HDV is an attempt to supplant film or high-end digital camera technology...

HDV is more about the broadcast level of HD images. For that, it does exactly what it was meant to do.

Besides: if you don't think it cuts the grade, you can avoid it - no-one will be distraught if you don't like HDV.

I agree with most of what you say..but I can watch a film on tv and it will still look beter then a film shot on digitalbetacam.. on tv.
The point I am trying to make is that detail in trees (leaves) and in generally in wide shots is not much better then SD prosumercams. But most annoying is the color range...I am not sure I am using the right english words here, The way the camera processes white is still very ugly to my taste...Don't tell me that is dv, because you are right but these camera's do much worse then the professional models...
so seeing the full resolution is not the point here...the conversion HDV makes with the mpeg2 decoding (I mean neccessary otherwise it would not fit on a dvtape) just is not as good as they are trying to sell to us....It is the same thing al over with DV. but it is simply not true. I hoped the quality of the camera (GY-100) itself would be enough to overcome the limitations of hdv, it does but no more then the sony does...
And to comment on your remark that nobody cares what I think of it...I would wish some people would have more of an open mind about the subject. This is supposed to be a forum where we discuss the for and con's of camera's and formats.

so seeing the full resolution is not the point here...the conversion HDV makes with the mpeg2 decoding (I mean neccessary otherwise it would not fit on a dvtape) just is not as good as they are trying to sell to us....It is the same thing al over with DV. but it is simply not true.
And to comment on your remark that nobody cares what I think of it...I would wish some people would have more of an open mind about the subject. This is supposed to be a forum where we discuss the for and con's of camera's and formats.

Along the lines of being open-minded, David, your statement above sounds like fact rather than opinion, and obviously you're entitled to your opinion. That said, everyone else that are doing well with the HDV format are entitled to theirs. I've now had the opportunity to work with HDV at virtually every level; 35mm out, HDCAM out, SD out, and done comparisons with GrassValley, Sony DB, Panny Varicam, and other cams as well. HDV holds it's own very nicely, and when you toss the price into the mix, HDV is currently the (by far) best value for the buck. (in my opinion)
How many hours of HDV have you actually produced that has allowed you to arrive at your opinion?

And to comment on your remark that nobody cares what I think of it...I would wish some people would have more of an open mind about the subject. This is supposed to be a forum where we discuss the for and con's of camera's and formats.

What I said was no-one will be distraught. And discussion of the format and cameras is something that is very important to an understanding and appreciation of a NEW, still largely exotic; and in many cases mis-understood video technological development.

I'm certainly not saying that HDV is God's gift to videography, but I am saying that HDV and it's MPEG2 ts structure is completely in line with the current HD video broadcast standards, which means that material from HDV camcorders can be viewed on HDTVs without recourse to any converters or pre-processing by simply plugging in the camera via the component connection, and hitting the play button.

As for the lack of dynamic range in the HDV clips that you have viewed to date... I'll assume it's the JVC GY100 you refer to, and I'll also assume that it's the sample clips you viewed, rather than material you've shot with it yourself. I hope that you have had a chance to use the GY100 and that your assessment is therefore an accurate and educated one; in which case my decision to avoid the new JVC camera after my experiences with it's HDV predecessor will seem warranted.

I'm pleased that you haven't outlayed any funds on a camera that uses a format that obviously doesn't measure up to your expectations. Hopefully a manufacturer will one day manufacture a camcorder that will satisfy your requirements.

Douglas spotted eagle wrote:
"I'm pleased that you haven't outlayed any funds on a camera that uses a format that obviously doesn't measure up to your expectations. Hopefully a manufacturer will one day manufacture a camcorder that will satisfy your requirements."

Oh but they have...it just doesn't cost 5000 euro...
No seriously I am currently testing the new JVC and its a great little camera for 5000 euro and wouldnt hesitate for a sec If I had the money to buy one. It has a real lens and lots of very professional features. The lack of dynamic range I find a problem but you can work around it. The HD modes still keep me busy and I have so far not been able to put any material on my computer because FCP5 doesnt recognize the jvc version of hdv. I would like to look at the full resolution and compare it to some sony clips I have but so far no go.

Douglas spotted eagle wrote:
"I'm pleased that you haven't outlayed any funds on a camera that uses a format that obviously doesn't measure up to your expectations. Hopefully a manufacturer will one day manufacture a camcorder that will satisfy your requirements."

Oh but they have...it just doesn't cost 5000 euro...
No seriously I am currently testing the new JVC and its a great little camera for 5000 euro and wouldnt hesitate for a sec If I had the money to buy one. It has a real lens and lots of very professional features. The lack of dynamic range I find a problem but you can work around it. The HD modes still keep me busy and I have so far not been able to put any material on my computer because FCP5 doesnt recognize the jvc version of hdv. I would like to look at the full resolution and compare it to some sony clips I have but so far no go.

David,
I'm not so sure that Douglas will be as appreciative of having my comments ascribed to him by you. I; however am most flattered that you think I am he!!

As for the inability to download clips from the NEW JVC cam directly into FCP5... I'd be pretty certain (despite my having PC's rather than Macs) that you'll need a 3rd party capture application.

The JVC implimentation of HDV in the GY-100 from all accounts that I've seen will present no difficulties for import into any of the more recent NLEs, so any inability you are having in capturing the video from the camera are due to expectation about it's connectivity that are not yet realizable.

I'd suggest that you get a hold of Lumiere HD, as well as looking in the HDV EDITING SOLUTIONS threads of this forum for Macintosh/FCP related HDV editing solutions. New hardware can sometimes present connection difficulties for those assuming that there will be 'Plug and Play' capacity in said devices.

I'm also somewhat surprised to find out that your original, rather non-complimentary comments regarding HDV and it's MPEG2 implimentation, cannot have been based upon direct appraisal of the 720p m2t stream from the camera, on a suitably configured HD capable viewing device.

I look forward to hearing your opinion once you have been able to overcome the problems which you have encountered. A little research into their solution will provide you with the opportunity to view the HDV stream correctly; which it appears you have been unable to do up to this point in time.

your right Steve, you wrote that...I am getting messages from several Threads and mixed them up. As for your comments about viewing the HD material: I have not been able to view them on an NLE, I however have seen the material on a very good multipurpose monitor of JVC.
My plan for the next few days with the camera is as follows:
I wish to use the NLE to directly compare material to shots of the sonyHD. As I no longer have the camera...I also want to find out what happens to the material if I downconvert it to dv in an NLE. Is it any better then doing a downconvert in the camera self? I would love to see the raw feed but that requires a special videocard I do not have. I can so far only see dv-clips.(FCP is a no go and I am going to check up on AVID)
There is an issue with bad pixels, on another thread people are looking in to that.
maybe you yourself have some ideas or things you would like to know about the camera?

When and if I get proper findings I will let you all know.