AVCHD vs. 3-chip

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

You have some very very obvious issues with Sony and that shows in most of your Sony related posts.

Well, this is a new one. Most of the time when I write a book on a product I'm accused of being paid by the manufacturer to promote their product. :) Now, I'm accused of being biased against a product I've spent a month working with.

Even more bizarre -- do you really think Sony would have sent me a V1 for testing 6 months before they shipped because they thought I was biased against Sony?

Would I have just finished working with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering about AVCHD if I had "very very obvious issues with Sony?"

Would I be working right now with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering on Sony EXMOR chips if I was issues with Sony.

And, as I said, would I be releasing a book on the new Sony's AVCHD camcorders later this week if I had "very very obvious issues" with the SR?

True -- my book goes way beyond being a "puff piece" for the Sony camcorder based upon a few days of playing with it. The book provides tactics for overcoming the SR's weak areas -- and yes it has weak areas that are quite visible to both the eye and by measurement. Likewise, the tactics I provide to improve image quality can both be seen and measured.

Really -- enough of this nonsense.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Dave Rosky

Tube preamplifiers, for example, have far worse performance than most high quality modern amplifiers from the point of view of lab measurements, yet there are still people who like the specific response even though it is technically less accurate and insist on using them.

Somewhere, it seems the idea has popped-up that I believe measures are to determine the BEST. Exactly the opposite -- it is to "characterize" a product using numbers the same way one would do with words. It's up to an individual to decide their PREFERENCES.

So, there's really no conflict between data and preferences. For example, once you know you prefer "tight bass" you know an amp's damping factor and a speaker's Q are very important to you.

Tubes are a wonderful topic! At first, folks believed the wonderful measurements of solid state amps. Yet, many found SS amps to create fatigue. That led to the discovery of cross-over distortion -- which could then be measured. Which led to designs that reduced this form of distortion. (Same issues with the first D/As used for making CDs.)

Tube amps, as you say, show how we can prefer a particular "coloration." But, you would NOT find them used in a recording studio for mixing soundtracks.

The "middle ground" is exactly where you get to when you both measure and audition. It's only when one starts to think they have Golden ears or eyes and demand that you must see what they see that balance gets lost.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Well, this is a new one. Most of the time when I write a book on a product I'm accused of being paid by the manufacturer to promote their product. :) Now, I'm accused of being biased against a product I've spent a month working with.

Even more bizarre -- do you really think Sony would have sent me a V1 for testing 6 months before they shipped because they thought I was biased against Sony?

Would I have just finished working with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering about AVCHD if I had "very very obvious issues with Sony?"

Would I be working right now with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering on Sony EXMOR chips if I was issues with Sony.

And, as I said, would I be releasing a book on the new Sony's AVCHD camcorders later this week if I had "very very obvious issues" with the SR?

True -- my book goes way beyond being a "puff piece" for the Sony camcorder based upon a few days of playing with it. The book provides tactics for overcoming the SR's weak areas -- and yes it has weak areas that are quite visible to both the eye and by measurement. Likewise, the tactics I provide to improve image quality can both be seen and measured.

Really -- enough of this nonsense.

Simply read a bunch of your posts and you can't come to any other conclusion and yes, I know about your books, you mention them quite often here...at least you're not shamelessly promoting them. ;)

Additionally, it serves no purpose to make statements that cam A has 'significantly less resolution' than cam B when it's simply not true. Proving the theory that graphs and charts don't show you everything, are my eyes on A/B tests with both cams. Those tests showed not only no 'significant' difference in REAL resolution in actual real world conditions (not apparent sharpness which I WILL give to the Canon), but also a broader color palette in the Sony. So as far as I'm concerned you can throw out all those nice charts because they don't translate in to the real world and that's where I shoot, not in a lab.

[Dave Rosky]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Tube amps, as you say, show how we can prefer a particular "coloration." But, you would NOT find them used in a recording studio for mixing soundtracks.

True enough, since the vast majority of music buyers don't want the coloration, and prefer the more accurate reproduction offered by modern recording technology.

Interestingly, there is one type of coloration that *is* sought after in production - the "film look". Both tube coloration and the "film look" are characteristics of early recording technology that people want to preserve even though both motion and audio reproduction can now be made much more faithfully to real life on modern equipment.

99.9% of the population has finally accepted the more accurate audio reproduction of CD's and solid state amplifiers over vinyl and tubes. I wonder if that will ever happen with cinema, or if we'll still be watching washed-out 24-fps movies 50 years from now.

[Robert Young]

Interesting article by Adam Wilt regarding measurable parameters such as resolution, versus "the eye of the beholder": i.e. what makes a "good" image.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...is_resolution/

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Dave Rosky

99.9% of the population has finally accepted the more accurate audio reproduction of CD's and solid state amplifiers over vinyl and tubes. I wonder if that will ever happen with cinema, or if we'll still be watching washed-out 24-fps movies 50 years from now.

I just read a review of a Rega turntable. Not sure I could tell the audio difference in sound but the old equipment sure looks great.

Right now we are waiting for 1080o50 and 1080p60. That may be the turning point for some.

[Ken Steadman]

Originally Posted by Dave Rosky

99.9% of the population has finally accepted the more accurate audio reproduction of CD's and solid state amplifiers over vinyl and tubes. I wonder if that will ever happen with cinema, or if we'll still be watching washed-out 24-fps movies 50 years from now.

Wow, thats a really insightful statement Dave.
You have me me wondering if 25 years from now will we still use film as the benchmark to compare our work to.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Robert Young

Interesting article by Adam Wilt regarding measurable parameters such as resolution, versus "the eye of the beholder": i.e. what makes a "good" image.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...is_resolution/

Good article and very true. There are far more important aspects to picture quality than 25-50 lines of resolution that may or may not even be seen. A picture with greater dynamic range coupled with better, more accurate colors will win in most eyes.

[Ron Evans]

Interesting points. For me all my hobby projects are theatre based. So shadow detail and low noise are high on the list of needs( since most of the stage is nearly always black!!!). Next is very large depth of field so that the whole stage is in focus at least for the full stage fixed camera. Highlight detail would be next as there is always high contrast. Trying to accomplish this with mainly consumer cameras is the challenge of the hobby. Currently cams are FX1 with SR11 and SR7. The SR11 seems to have both lower noise and more dynamic range than the FX1 and more than the SR7. I would love to get a more manual version of the SR11 with bigger lens etc. The FX1 wins at the moment because I can control gain separately and thus manage depth of field better. SR11 has to be used for longer shots to ensure depth of field. Just hope Sony brings one to compete with the upcoming Panasonic in the fall.

Ron Evans

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Good article and very true. There are far more important aspects to picture quality than 25-50 lines of resolution that may or may not even be seen.

Clearly resolution isn't all that matters, but the difference between SD and HD is a little more than 25-50 lines of resolution: for a Canon XL2 versus an XL-H1 it's more like 250-300 lines, and even the HV20/HV30 probably come close to that. And while the full benefit may not be visible on a cheap 720p display viewed from across a large living room, it should be noticeable on a 1080p display seen from a normal seating distance.

For the original poster, consider getting a small camera like the HV30 to test for yourself and use as a companion to the XL2 on widsescreen SD shoots, then trade the XL2 for an XL-H1 when you're ready to go all HD. I'd recommend HDV cameras (rather than AVCHD) for backwards compatibility with DV and more functional HD editing options...AVCHD is "bleeding edge" technology which will take a while yet to become practical.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Clearly resolution isn't all that matters, but the difference between SD and HD is a little more than 25-50 lines of resolution: for a Canon XL2 versus an XL-H1 it's more like 250-300 lines, and even the HV20/HV30 probably come close to that. And while the full benefit may not be visible on a cheap 720p display viewed from across a large living room, it should be noticeable on a 1080p display seen from a normal seating distance.

Kevin, my comments were based on comparisons between two HD cams, not an SD vs. an HD cam. Specifically I was comparing a Canon HF10 to a Sony SR12. I'm well aware of the huge differences in resolution between SD and HD. :)

[Kevin Shaw]

My mistake, sorry. Too many things going on in this thread...

[Steve Mullen]

Adam's article was accurate, but projections of smaller screen size may be partially due to folks buying LCDs for their bedrooms. And, the fact that 60-72" HDTVs are still very expensive.

As the ability to make really large panels at the under $3,000 point I suspect that these screen sizes will be bought given the average seating distance is 8-9 feet. In fact, in Mac Mansions I suspect it is more like 12-15 feet.

Once one gets to 72" resolution plays a far bigger role than it does at 40" -- which is really tiny. You need to meet the SMPTE or THX requirements for field-of-view.

But, why pit resolution against anything. This is strawman argument. No reason not to go for the maximum resolution with the minimum aliasing PLUS everything else.

PS: the softness of the Varicam footage in Planet Earth is painful to watch.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

\But, why pit resolution against anything. This is strawman argument. No reason not to go for the maximum resolution with the minimum aliasing PLUS everything else.

PS: the softness of the Varicam footage in Planet Earth is painful to watch.

There is no reason in an ideal world. However in the consumer cam world we have only the choices we have and that forces us to make a choice. There is no one consumer cam that has the best resolution, color, gamma etc. So one makes choices and one determines if it makes sense to gain an extra small margin of resolution that probably won't even be seen for an increase in quality in other picture parameters.

I do agree with you about Planet Earth. I'm always amazed at how many people hold this series up as the 'definitive' show-off material for a new HDTV. There are many many scenes that are just plain 'soft' as you put it. There are so many other nature specials that have had much more impressive footage. I actually think the issue of softness also applies to the "Sunrise Earth" series. There are some beautifully composed shots in this series, but so many are on the soft side. It also seems to me that they are using a number of editing tools to alter color which IMO should be left alone. But each to his own I guess.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Once one gets to 72" resolution plays a far bigger role than it does at 40" -- which is really tiny.

We have a 42" 1080p display in our living room, and while it's a little on the small side it looks fine at our main viewing distance of ~11 feet. According to Carlton Bale's chart I shouldn't see any difference between 480p and HD at this distance on this TV, but I just did some tests and the difference is visible. At 480p fine detail looks blurry and sharp edges look dull; at higher resolutions the image is noticeably clearer. The benefit of 1080p over 720p is negligible on this setup, so maybe that's where larger displays will make a difference.

Getting back to the original question in this discussion, most HD cameras will produce a visibly clearer image than an XL2, but that doesn't mean a consumer model is an adequate replacement. As I said earlier, get the consumer model to mess around and then think about trading the XL2 for an XL-H1 (or Sony EX3, JVC HD250, etc).