I bought a FX1 and a 23inch HD TV a couple of weeks ago I have been testing the pictures of HD & SD widescreen via the component lead from the camcorder to the TV and there is no way that HD is any more than maybe 15% better anyone any views
Thomas

You need to go see your optometrist.

Have you set your camera to shoot in manual mode and set up any PP settings? Are you shooting right out the box in auto?

I don't think it matters what you shot in, you should see much better resolution, unless:

1. Your 23 inch monitor is not really HDV-- Is it ED, or what is resolution ? I have component imput on my standard definition TV.

2. Are you using composite (single RCA) Lead out for video. You should be using the red, green, blue to the red, green, blue jack on the monitor. If you don't have that on your monitor, you are not going to get HD. I assume that is what you meant by component.

3. You are shooting in very low light, or are out of focus.

I am not knocking the FX1 I am just suggestihg that the Pr. Pb. Y. jacks are capable of giving a better picture than other connections.
Yes I am using the red green and blue jacks on my HD TV No I did not shoot out of the box or in low light I did use the S connections and yes the picture not near as clear but using component leads and a wide screen SD recording I can not notice the vast difference I had expected.
let me know after you have tested what I have described and if you dont agree a visit to the optometrist will be on the cards
Thomas

I don't think it matters what you shot in, you should see much better resolution, unless:

1. Your 23 inch monitor is not really HDV-- Is it ED, or what is resolution ? I have component imput on my standard definition TV.


This was an important question.

What you are seeing is very normal. The smaller the set, the less the resolution matters. Most people are used to seeing crappy compressed analog SD and then being amazed at how good HD looks. Truth is (there is an article on the net somewhere) that good digital SD on sets smaller than 42" looks the same to most people from a normal viewing distance as HD. Going a step further, even on larger sets, say 65" at normal viewing distance most people cannot see much if any difference from 480p SD to 720p or 1080i HD... This is why HD-DVD is in real trouble... 480p WS is already good enough for most people



ash =o)

What you are seeing is very normal. The smaller the set, the less the resolution matters. Most people are used to seeing crappy compressed analog SD and then being amazed at how good HD looks. Truth is (there is an article on the net somewhere) that good digital SD on sets smaller than 42" looks the same to most people from a normal viewing distance as HD. Going a step further, even on larger sets, say 65" at normal viewing distance most people cannot see much if any difference from 480p SD to 720p or 1080i HD... This is why HD-DVD is in real trouble... 480p WS is already good enough for most people



ash =o)


Ash: I halfway agree. How much more clearly do you really want to see someone's face. Do we really need to see the pores?

Some of the "scenic" stuff is really great with HD, but I don't feel compelled to want to see Jimmy Kimmel's nose hairs.

I am not knocking the FX1 I am just suggestihg that the Pr. Pb. Y. jacks are capable of giving a better picture than other connections.
Yes I am using the red green and blue jacks on my HD TV No I did not shoot out of the box or in low light I did use the S connections and yes the picture not near as clear but using component leads and a wide screen SD recording I can not notice the vast difference I had expected.
let me know after you have tested what I have described and if you dont agree a visit to the optometrist will be on the cards
Thomas

S connections ??? What are you referring to ? If you are using Svideo connector, it is not much higher resolution than composite. Also, on the Component out selection, are you selected on 1080i/480i or just 480i. Should be former.

Also, still no reponse on what resolution of your 23" monitor is. I have a 17inch designated as HD, but discovered it not really that.

S connections ??? What are you referring to ? If you are using Svideo connector, it is not much higher resolution than composite. Also, on the Component out selection, are you selected on 1080i/480i or just 480i. Should be former.
Also, still no reponse on what resolution of your 23" monitor is. I have a 17inch designated as HD, but discovered it not really that.

I think you know what I meant by S connections I know it is not much better than composit and yes Component is set at 1080i/480i


The monitor is a Samsung LCD TV LE23T5 resolution is given as 1380X768.
Thomas

1380X768


Now, I'm no expert, but I do know enough that I bought my own FX1... But, isnt that a resolution fit for JVC's 1280 x 720 resolution? I'm not sure that the FX1's 1920 x 1080 would have been done justice on that screen...

I'm curious, cause I'm not that clued up on all this, but to me, the numbers dont add up and I think that its one of the causes why you think HD isnt that great...

What i do know is the basic rule that HD is best viewd big.... Anything smaller than the 1080 standard will always look like DV to me... But that last bit is my opinion

I think you know what I meant by S connections I know it is not much better than composit and yes Component is set at 1080i/480i


The monitor is a Samsung LCD TV LE23T5 resolution is given as 1380X768.
Thomas
Quite regardless of what res the monitor is the S-Video output from the camera is only standard definition so of course it's not going to look much better!
Going straight from the camera to an LCD you have to use component to get a High Definition feed.
However your monitor is not capable of displaying the full resolution of the 1080i signal from the camera so to some extent your image is at the mercy of the downscaling in the monitor, from what I've seen on some quite expensive monitors it can be pretty bad.

that pretty much confirms my theory.... ah the perils of self teaching... lol

The issue here is the TV Set size!

I have 2 23" sets and an upconverted image and an HD movie look similar, but you should still be able to see the difference.

Now, when I plug it in my 55 or above then you really see the difference.

I also noticed that when I connect my camcorder to the TV's I don't get as better resolution than when I actually play an HD DVD thru it, I'll explain:

1. I capture the same footage that I was playing directly from my camcorder to the TV as a test and create an HDDVD in DVD Studio Pro 4.

2. Stick it in my Toshiba HDDVD player and the quality it's much better! (????)

3. Or, I can stick the M2T on the Avel Link player (JVC) and still get that same HD quality (For sale by the way!)

Does the sony FX1 really output the full quality straight out ogf the component port?

Your 23" HDTV is the limiting factor here. When I plug my FX1 into a 53" rear-projection HDTV there's an obvious difference in image quality compared to SD video, and everyone who's seen this has commented on how good it looks. Or try viewing your HDV footage on a large computer monitor and compare to SD on the same setup; the difference should be quite apparent.

Is HD four times better than SD? Maybe not, but it's definitely better when viewed at full quality. As to whether we "need" this level of detail, I haven't met anyone yet who doesn't like the extra clarity HD offers. And by the way, most DV cameras aren't designed to produce good widescreen video, so that's reason enough to shoot HD even for SD delivery.

Even if you use the component output, the resolution you'll see will be about 60% because this camera has it's maximum definition strength vertically, much more than horizontally.

About the screen size I agree partially because there are two factors:
1. The display resolution and quality
2. The watching distance vs the screen size.

With my 23" 16/10 wide Apple Cinema monitor I can judge even between the best of the best HD material BUT to see the full definition I have to watch at a distance of a horizontal screen size maximum. So to see (and enjoy) the full definition of HD we should buy larger displays or watch from a shorter distance.

Now I don't think that HDV is close to HD (like HDCAM) but it's far from SD and it's at least satisfying.

How much more clearly do you really want to see someone's face. Do we really need to see the pores?
Would you wear slightly blurred glasses to smooth out reality?
Take a look at these two clips, you might change your opinion...
I hope you can watch at full res. (for the first one use VLC media player)

http://demod.dvico.com/hdtv/hdtv_demo.tp

http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/4/5/245bfb85-5394-4361-ba8c-c5b9906734cc/The_Rules_of_Attraction_1080.exe

.

I have a Sony wega 30' hdtv. The day that my Fx1 arrived, I shot some outdoor footage, and palyed it back via component cables through the Sony.
The picture, detail and clarity was amazing!
Bruce S. Yarock

I agree that it is the size of the set. I have 17", 32" and 60" HDTVs and even on the 32" the HDV is not hugely better than uprezzed SD. But on the 60" set, the difference becomes quite noticeable.

Would you wear slightly blurred glasses to smooth out reality?
Take a look at these two clips, you might change your opinion...
I hope you can watch at full res. (for the first one use VLC media player)

http://demod.dvico.com/hdtv/hdtv_demo.tp

http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/4/5/245bfb85-5394-4361-ba8c-c5b9906734cc/The_Rules_of_Attraction_1080.exe

.

Cool videos. As I said in the post you responded to, I half away agree with Ash... obviously, if I bought an HDV camera, I see the benefits. My comment was a bit fecitious.

To properly view 480i/p, you'll need around a 27 inch TV. To properly view 720p, you'll need around a 45 to 50 inch HDTV. To properly view 1080i/p, you'll need a 60 to 70 inch HDTV.

Yes, HD does offer significant image quality over SD.

DV has 345,600 pixels, colorspace is 4:1:1.

720p HDV has 921,600 pixels, colorspace is 4:2:0.

1080i HDV has 1,555,200 pixels, colorspace is 4:2:0.

Visit:

www.hdvinfo.net

http://vasst.com/?v=HDV/hdv-FAQnew.htm

for more.

hwm

Heath, you'll have to fix up that VASST link you pointed to as there are quite a few errors, especially in the answer to the first question.

ALL the formats are YCbCr colour space. 4:1:1 etc is a chroma sub-sampling notation, not a colour space!

Counting pixels != resolution. Interlaced video has approximately only 70% of the vertical resolution of an equivalent progressive format.

The size of the TV is irrelevent - it's viewing distance and pixel pitch, and resolution that makes the difference. I have no problem viewing HD 1080p on a 23" display.....

Graeme

DV has 345,600 pixels, colorspace is 4:1:1.
Being slightly pedantic, NTSC DV has 345,600pixels.
PAL DV has 414,720 pixels.

But your point is a good one.

At the higher end of the TV size, it does begin to matter.

Once you get over about a 60" HDTV, you can begin to tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Of course, the price difference is dramatic, much more dramatic than the difference in the image if you ask me.

However, in a smaller TV than 60", I believe it would be a waste of money to go 1080 instead of 720.

I have been shopping with my FX1 in hand, and it is a prety tough call. I have the money, but the room in the new house does not support a big enough TV to matter.

Stu, you're right (and not the least bit pedantic)! DV NTSC (720 x 480i) has x pixels, DV PAL (720 x 576i) has more and better color sampling, too.

Remember everyone, NTSC and PAL are a thing of the past. It's now just HDV 720p30 or 25, or 1080i60 or 50. The dimensions are the same between the 25 and 30 and 50 and 60, as is color sampling (709).

heath

Yes, all HD is REC 709 colour space. That helps a lot, as does common frame sizes. Frame rates are what differs around the world, and it's such a shame they couldn't have standardized on 25 & 50, given PAL dominates the world's television :-)

For DV, PAL is 4:2:0 and NTSC is 4:1:1 and both are equally bad, in that for every 4 luma samples, there is 1 chroma sample for Cb and 1 for Cr. However, 4:2:0 is terrible to work with on interlaced video whereas 4:1:1 is not. PAL, as broadcast has limited vertical chroma resolution though, so 4:2:0 was chosen to be a better match to that aspect of PAL video. Strangely, PAL DVCPro is 4:1:1, probably because 4:2:0 is so terrible on interlace.

Graeme

Graeme,

You rock, man. I wish I had half your brains!

heath

I wish I had half my brains too. Most of my better forum posts are produced by a small shell script I wrote some time back. It's amazing how clever a little computer program can make you look.

:-)

Anyway, it's not clever at all to remember millions of useless facts about video....

Graeme

I bought a FX1 and a 23inch HD TV a couple of weeks ago I have been testing the pictures of HD & SD widescreen via the component lead from the camcorder to the TV and there is no way that HD is any more than maybe 15% better anyone any views
Thomas
Something's wrong.

I have an HVR-A1 and an HC1, both of them connected through a component (red, green, blue) lead to a 42". Not only look much better than SD DV, they also make DVDs look bad. The same is true on my calibrated 21 inch edit monitors.

It's not a subtle difference. The DVD player is also connected through RGB, and outputs progressive. It is the best output I have seen from a DVD player, ever. Yet the HD cams smoke it.

Even the recordings from the cams, rendered out as 720p WMV and played back from the computer look much better than DVDs.

Nothing wrong--just high quality video not compressed down to SD.

heath