Hdv Final Product

Ruben Senderey · September 22nd, 2004, 12:37 PM

Any news on HDVTR's
(i normaly edit on my MatroxDigisuite and
record to Dvcpro to keep the master, Rather then Dvd Master)

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · September 22nd, 2004, 11:39 PM

No,no.
Downsizing in RGB colorspace a source of 1440x1080 YUV 4:2:0 gives a 720x540 master with 4:4:4.
Anything different is wrong (sorry if I sound a little selfish :) )

Ruben Senderey · September 22nd, 2004, 11:54 PM

ok thanks for the info , i will keep a dvd....

Eric Bilodeau · September 23rd, 2004, 05:40 AM

I am not sure if you are right about this 4:4:4 because 1080 HDV is interlaced, not progressive. it is very difficult to transfer a 540 lines field onto a 240 lines field (of course a 270 lines should be easier since it is half of it) but 720 X 540 is a square pixel 4:3, not a DV or DVD 4:3. I do not know the technicalities of a 1080 to 480 downconversion but i guess it should involve a de-interlace / re-interlace process in order to keep the fields aligned thus a loss. I may be wrong on this.

Barry Green · September 23rd, 2004, 08:54 AM

Actually, that's quite interesting...

Throw away one field and you'll have a 1440 x 540 piece of footage that was captured all in one moment in time... effectively no different than "progressive scan". Sampled at 4:2:0 it would, after downsizing, effectively be 4:2:2.

Then chop it down again in half on the X axis, and you'd indeed have 720 x 540, this time (assuming color was preserved perfectly) 4:4:4.

Very interesting...

Eric Bilodeau · September 23rd, 2004, 09:45 AM

Yes, as 4:2:0 is 4:2:2 on one field and 4:0:0 on the other, if you get rid of the 4:0:0 field, you could have a "progressive" 4:4:4 but it would not be possible to have a 4:4:4 by keeping the interlace signal because of the 4:0:0 field. I wonder if there is a downconversion program or plugin that does that. I bet Graeme could write one... :)

Aaron Shaw · September 23rd, 2004, 11:52 AM

Now that would certainly be interesting.... I wonder how hard it would be to write a program like that for, say, After Effects.... I'll have to try writing something sometime.

Les Dit · September 23rd, 2004, 02:25 PM

If you throw away one field, you will probably have some extra artifacts in the video. Remember, the remaining lines are not going to magically also sample the scene of the missing lines. A troublesome test might be filming a screen door. What happens to the image that was falling on the even lines? Gone? Might make for some interesting moire flashing effects.
-Les

Eric Bilodeau · September 23rd, 2004, 05:04 PM

The downsizing will greatly minimise the artefacting, if it is still visible at all, after all, one field is 540 lines and the SD definition has 480, I doubt it will be necessary to fill the gap, just downsizing will do the trick.

Les Dit · September 23rd, 2004, 11:33 PM

Eric,
The artifacting could be huge amounts of strobing and wild looking patterns!
Example: ( assuming that the Sony actually resolves the separate fields with any resolution )
Imagine filming a house with a screen door in the background. As the camera moves, for a few frames the lines that make up the screen door all pretty much line up with the lines of the even field. For 100 lines.
Now the camera, due to it's motion, slowly tilts up, and makes the screen door material line up with the ODD lines. The the Even lines again, The odd, at a rate of several times a second.

No problem so far,viewed as is, the screen door looks like a dark grey shade, and does not exhibit anything too strange.
OK,
Now delete the EVEN field and play the video. Now there are frames that don't see much of the screen pattern at all. Those frames are white. pretty much ALL white ( the Odd field was the one that 'saw' the screen, they are gone)
The video will strobe like a mo-fo at a rate of several time a second. Frames alternate between white and grey. Strobing. Moire patterns.

Doesn't have to be a screen door. Could be a suit, a cloth pattern, etc.

This is basic sampling theory. You don't get good images when the samples are missing information in between. The solution would be to blur the taking lens a little, so the samples don't alias like I described. Bluring the video won't help at all, as the whole frame is white, bluring white is white.
Keyword: Aliasing.

Does this make sense?

-Les

Eric Bilodeau · September 24th, 2004, 05:32 AM

I see where you are going, it does make sense, interlace in 1080 is not the same as with 480, there is more than twice the number of lines but this problem could, as a matter of fact, indeed appear (de-interlacing is not like a progressive scan, no doubt...)

This would be a problem to deal with, the ideal would be some sort of intelligent de-interlacing, re-aligning the field when possible but then you would not get a 4:4:4 end downconversion because you would use the 4:0:0 lines to create the false progressive image.

Bill Piedra · January 10th, 2005, 02:27 PM

I think that perhaps some of us might be forgetting some of the most basic laws of technology -- the most notable I can think of is MOORE'S LAW.

Printing was invented in the 1400's. It took 500 years to reach the masses. Only the rich could afford books up until 300 years ago.

It was a full 100 years between the time the telephone & airplane were invented and most of the people of the world actually saw or used one. Today they are ordinary and ubiquitous.

Television and radio took less than 50 years to proliferate around the world.

It only took less than 25 years for that to happen to VCR's and Microprocessors.

It took less than 15 years for that to happen to things like DVD players and cell phones.

Who on the planet earth is not aware of an airplane? In the more undeveloped regions of the world cellular telephones are more widely used than landlines.

How old is High Definition Television? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the United States, but the entire planet earth. There is ENORMOUS opportunity in HDTV.

The content does not exist today - SOMEBODY has to make it.

It costs 20 times more to produce the mechanical device of videotape than it does the digital device of an HDTV broadcast. You could put a movie theater in Africa where it was impossible before -- for 1/1000 the cost - and earn 500 times the profit.

That's the nature of technology. That IS Moore's law. That's why HDTV is important - and HDV is especially important because it removes this technology from the hands of the 'lumbering giants' of Hollywood and television networks, and places it back in the hands of the ordinary tinkerers that actually create and invent things, until the barons and corporations can turn it into an effect and efficient business.

The opportunity that this shift in technology creates is enormous. I theoretically could have more power on my desktop than the entire television industry had in 1950.

Toke Lahti · January 10th, 2005, 04:54 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Piedra: The content does not exist today - SOMEBODY has to make it. -->>>

Well, all film originated material is hd, so there is a lot of hd around...

Simon Wyndham · January 10th, 2005, 05:39 PM

Bill, forget technology. All I hear is technical specifications. Please for the love of God, if you guys who own an FX1 think it's so damn great, then please go out and MAKE something!

I haven't seen one single example of a finished production with an FX1. All I see is test footage and resolution charts.

The important thing is the talent behind the camera, and while a lot of people think they are somehow going to be the next Speilberg or Zhang Yimou because they have an FX1, I'm afraid they won't.

Now will somebody please make a damn cool music video, or short film using the FX1 for us all to see and give us a report on the pro's and cons of using the camera in a real world situation. Note that this doesn't mean taking it on a news job and showing it to the techie guys and telling us that they thought it looked cool.

Remember, if people were that concerned with resolution, 28 Days Later wouldn't have been as successful as it was. Neither would Blair Witch, or Deep Water.

And lastly, Japan. Japan has had high def since the 80's when it started in analogue form. Odd then that no company in Japan made a high def consumer cam before now. Often Japan does have high tech gadgets that the rest of the world never sees.

The FX1 will be great for film fesitvals. But people need to stop making utterly ridiculous comments such as SD is dead etc. No it's not, and won't be for a long time. I had to laugh when I saw one guy on this thread mention someone he knows who "still" has SD clients!

"Still"?! I dunno where you come from, but less than 7% of homes in the US had HDTV's. Even less in the rest of the world. DVD took 6 years to get to the point that it has. The fastest take up ever. Yet some people still buy videos.

With an HD-DVD system you are asking more then 90% of the population who have just gotten used to the idea of DVD's to upgrade their ENTIRE home entertainment system! You think that's gonna happen any time soon?

There seems to be the assumption by lots of people here that the general populace buys something like DVD because it is better. In a lot of cases people buy something new because their old equipment just broke so they want to buy something new that will last, or they are forced to because there is nothing else available. Even if an HD-DVD player became available tomorrow, you'd still have to pursuade 90% of the US to upgrade their TV's etc. And then you'd have to work on the rest of the world.

The guy I mentioned earlier probably "still" has SD clients because his clients perhaps actually want to be able to view the final product!

Someone mentioned DVHS. Any figures for the takeup of this technology in homes? How are you going to record FX1 footage to DVHS?

Bill Piedra · January 10th, 2005, 06:11 PM

I agree. That's the point. I see the purpose of the edge of camera's like the FX1 and the HD10 as tools to let film makers to make films.

The HUGE benefit that I see is that it's going to allow some film makers to make films to create media that is going to make something that is going to be VERY high demand in the near future.

That is my hope hope.

There is an adage - writers write.

September 22nd, 2004, 12:37 PM	#16
Ruben Senderey Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: LAUDERHILL FLORIDA Posts: 47	Master hd Any news on HDVTR's (i normaly edit on my MatroxDigisuite and record to Dvcpro to keep the master, Rather then Dvd Master)

September 22nd, 2004, 11:54 PM	#18
Ruben Senderey Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: LAUDERHILL FLORIDA Posts: 47	dvd ok thanks for the info , i will keep a dvd....

September 23rd, 2004, 05:40 AM	#19
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	I am not sure if you are right about this 4:4:4 because 1080 HDV is interlaced, not progressive. it is very difficult to transfer a 540 lines field onto a 240 lines field (of course a 270 lines should be easier since it is half of it) but 720 X 540 is a square pixel 4:3, not a DV or DVD 4:3. I do not know the technicalities of a 1080 to 480 downconversion but i guess it should involve a de-interlace / re-interlace process in order to keep the fields aligned thus a loss. I may be wrong on this. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

September 23rd, 2004, 09:45 AM	#21
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Yes, as 4:2:0 is 4:2:2 on one field and 4:0:0 on the other, if you get rid of the 4:0:0 field, you could have a "progressive" 4:4:4 but it would not be possible to have a 4:4:4 by keeping the interlace signal because of the 4:0:0 field. I wonder if there is a downconversion program or plugin that does that. I bet Graeme could write one... :) __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

September 23rd, 2004, 02:25 PM	#23
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	throw away a field = artifacts. If you throw away one field, you will probably have some extra artifacts in the video. Remember, the remaining lines are not going to magically also sample the scene of the missing lines. A troublesome test might be filming a screen door. What happens to the image that was falling on the even lines? Gone? Might make for some interesting moire flashing effects. -Les

September 22nd, 2004, 11:39 PM	#17
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	No,no. Downsizing in RGB colorspace a source of 1440x1080 YUV 4:2:0 gives a 720x540 master with 4:4:4. Anything different is wrong (sorry if I sound a little selfish :) )

September 23rd, 2004, 08:54 AM	#20
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Actually, that's quite interesting... Throw away one field and you'll have a 1440 x 540 piece of footage that was captured all in one moment in time... effectively no different than "progressive scan". Sampled at 4:2:0 it would, after downsizing, effectively be 4:2:2. Then chop it down again in half on the X axis, and you'd indeed have 720 x 540, this time (assuming color was preserved perfectly) 4:4:4. Very interesting...

September 23rd, 2004, 11:52 AM	#22
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Now that would certainly be interesting.... I wonder how hard it would be to write a program like that for, say, After Effects.... I'll have to try writing something sometime.

September 23rd, 2004, 05:04 PM	#24
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	The downsizing will greatly minimise the artefacting, if it is still visible at all, after all, one field is 540 lines and the SD definition has 480, I doubt it will be necessary to fill the gap, just downsizing will do the trick. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

September 23rd, 2004, 11:33 PM	#25
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	Eric, The artifacting could be huge amounts of strobing and wild looking patterns! Example: ( assuming that the Sony actually resolves the separate fields with any resolution ) Imagine filming a house with a screen door in the background. As the camera moves, for a few frames the lines that make up the screen door all pretty much line up with the lines of the even field. For 100 lines. Now the camera, due to it's motion, slowly tilts up, and makes the screen door material line up with the ODD lines. The the Even lines again, The odd, at a rate of several times a second. No problem so far,viewed as is, the screen door looks like a dark grey shade, and does not exhibit anything too strange. OK, Now delete the EVEN field and play the video. Now there are frames that don't see much of the screen pattern at all. Those frames are white. pretty much ALL white ( the Odd field was the one that 'saw' the screen, they are gone) The video will strobe like a mo-fo at a rate of several time a second. Frames alternate between white and grey. Strobing. Moire patterns. Doesn't have to be a screen door. Could be a suit, a cloth pattern, etc. This is basic sampling theory. You don't get good images when the samples are missing information in between. The solution would be to blur the taking lens a little, so the samples don't alias like I described. Bluring the video won't help at all, as the whole frame is white, bluring white is white. Keyword: Aliasing. Does this make sense? -Les

September 24th, 2004, 05:32 AM	#26
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	I see where you are going, it does make sense, interlace in 1080 is not the same as with 480, there is more than twice the number of lines but this problem could, as a matter of fact, indeed appear (de-interlacing is not like a progressive scan, no doubt...) This would be a problem to deal with, the ideal would be some sort of intelligent de-interlacing, re-aligning the field when possible but then you would not get a 4:4:4 end downconversion because you would use the 4:0:0 lines to create the false progressive image. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

January 10th, 2005, 02:27 PM	#27
Bill Piedra Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Manchester CT USA Posts: 109	I think that perhaps some of us might be forgetting some of the most basic laws of technology -- the most notable I can think of is MOORE'S LAW. Printing was invented in the 1400's. It took 500 years to reach the masses. Only the rich could afford books up until 300 years ago. It was a full 100 years between the time the telephone & airplane were invented and most of the people of the world actually saw or used one. Today they are ordinary and ubiquitous. Television and radio took less than 50 years to proliferate around the world. It only took less than 25 years for that to happen to VCR's and Microprocessors. It took less than 15 years for that to happen to things like DVD players and cell phones. Who on the planet earth is not aware of an airplane? In the more undeveloped regions of the world cellular telephones are more widely used than landlines. How old is High Definition Television? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the United States, but the entire planet earth. There is ENORMOUS opportunity in HDTV. The content does not exist today - SOMEBODY has to make it. It costs 20 times more to produce the mechanical device of videotape than it does the digital device of an HDTV broadcast. You could put a movie theater in Africa where it was impossible before -- for 1/1000 the cost - and earn 500 times the profit. That's the nature of technology. That IS Moore's law. That's why HDTV is important - and HDV is especially important because it removes this technology from the hands of the 'lumbering giants' of Hollywood and television networks, and places it back in the hands of the ordinary tinkerers that actually create and invent things, until the barons and corporations can turn it into an effect and efficient business. The opportunity that this shift in technology creates is enormous. I theoretically could have more power on my desktop than the entire television industry had in 1950.

January 10th, 2005, 04:54 PM	#28
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Piedra: The content does not exist today - SOMEBODY has to make it. -->>> Well, all film originated material is hd, so there is a lot of hd around...

January 10th, 2005, 05:39 PM	#29
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Bill, forget technology. All I hear is technical specifications. Please for the love of God, if you guys who own an FX1 think it's so damn great, then please go out and MAKE something! I haven't seen one single example of a finished production with an FX1. All I see is test footage and resolution charts. The important thing is the talent behind the camera, and while a lot of people think they are somehow going to be the next Speilberg or Zhang Yimou because they have an FX1, I'm afraid they won't. Now will somebody please make a damn cool music video, or short film using the FX1 for us all to see and give us a report on the pro's and cons of using the camera in a real world situation. Note that this doesn't mean taking it on a news job and showing it to the techie guys and telling us that they thought it looked cool. Remember, if people were that concerned with resolution, 28 Days Later wouldn't have been as successful as it was. Neither would Blair Witch, or Deep Water. And lastly, Japan. Japan has had high def since the 80's when it started in analogue form. Odd then that no company in Japan made a high def consumer cam before now. Often Japan does have high tech gadgets that the rest of the world never sees. The FX1 will be great for film fesitvals. But people need to stop making utterly ridiculous comments such as SD is dead etc. No it's not, and won't be for a long time. I had to laugh when I saw one guy on this thread mention someone he knows who "still" has SD clients! "Still"?! I dunno where you come from, but less than 7% of homes in the US had HDTV's. Even less in the rest of the world. DVD took 6 years to get to the point that it has. The fastest take up ever. Yet some people still buy videos. With an HD-DVD system you are asking more then 90% of the population who have just gotten used to the idea of DVD's to upgrade their ENTIRE home entertainment system! You think that's gonna happen any time soon? There seems to be the assumption by lots of people here that the general populace buys something like DVD because it is better. In a lot of cases people buy something new because their old equipment just broke so they want to buy something new that will last, or they are forced to because there is nothing else available. Even if an HD-DVD player became available tomorrow, you'd still have to pursuade 90% of the US to upgrade their TV's etc. And then you'd have to work on the rest of the world. The guy I mentioned earlier probably "still" has SD clients because his clients perhaps actually want to be able to view the final product! Someone mentioned DVHS. Any figures for the takeup of this technology in homes? How are you going to record FX1 footage to DVHS?

January 10th, 2005, 06:11 PM	#30
Bill Piedra Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Manchester CT USA Posts: 109	I agree. That's the point. I see the purpose of the edge of camera's like the FX1 and the HD10 as tools to let film makers to make films. The HUGE benefit that I see is that it's going to allow some film makers to make films to create media that is going to make something that is going to be VERY high demand in the near future. That is my hope hope. There is an adage - writers write.