Hdv Final Product

[Steve Crisdale]

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Standard-def will be up-rezzed and broadcast over HD. It's done all the time. Much of the commercials you see on HDTV are likely uprezzed SDTV.

Some old sitcoms may be re-mastered from the film source. For some, the film source may not even exist anymore, or may have deteriorated. You'll see a lot of SD uprezzed still broadcast over HD channels. -->>>

Indeed it is....

The whole issue being discussed here, strikes me as indicative of the directions that the different parties involved have taken in becoming HDV practitioners, proponents and opponents. Some appear to be from traditional film based backgrounds, others hoping for an 'Indie' alternative - and not necessarily having much HD knowledge, while others (I place myself in this group) have travelled from an interest in HD video, HDTV, HT and digital broadcast.

Each group brings it's own pre-conceptions, viewed from it's own particular perspective of the value of HDV at this point in time.

I guess the bottom line is: if you find the whole HDV thing with the FX-1 or Z1 as your means to become involved is too daunting for you to cope with......Avoid HDV.

If you're not afraid and prepared to take a chance that you made the right choice going HDV.....then what's the problem?!!!

[Simon Wyndham]

The problem isn't with HDV par se.

The problem is people who are far too over enthusiastic with the format,

I'm sick of all this "SD is dead" nonsense. I make my living from video and I have a lot of money invested in the equipment so I'm rather tired of people trying to say that everything I have is now instantly worthless and that I won't be able to make any money unless I invest in HDV.

The other thing is regarding the rendering times. This has only been touched upon very lightly. It seems to be something the HDV proponents like to keep quiet about. Hardly anything I make doesn't have some kind of 'look' process applied to it. That's going to take time to render in HD.

The bottom line is this. If my clients start demanding HD I'll hire in some equipment (most likely a real HD camera), or if desperate the Z1. But until that time there is no way I'm taking in HDV propoganda about SD being dead and worthless now.

As Barry pointed out, there is still the uprezzing option. That's not as bad as it sounds either. The BBC uprezzed some of their programmes for Discovery, and they thought it was actually shot on HD! There are some killer uprezzers out there such as the Snell and Wilcox system, or Algolith. 1080 might be a stretch, but certainly uprezzing 16:9 PAL to 1280x720p is not going to be as huge a leap. And given that all HDTV sets you buy aren't even capable of displaying the full HD resolution (problems of luminance being one reason why I believe) it's not a huge problem.

[Simon Wyndham]

I've just found out something else that is very curious considering the availability of the FX1 and Z1.

Sony are apparently releasing a DSR400 to replace the 300 series.

Now this does beg the question as to why Sony would release a new SD camcorder such as that if the FX1 and Z1 were poised to take over that level of the market.

[Bill Piedra]

OK - sorry my mistake, bad assumption - but you know what I mean. Much of that type of stuff was not.

[Mike Tiffee]

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham : The problem isn't with HDV par se.


As Barry pointed out, there is still the uprezzing option. That's not as bad as it sounds either. The BBC uprezzed some of their programmes for Discovery, and they thought it was actually shot on HD! There are some killer uprezzers out there such as the Snell and Wilcox system, or Algolith. -->>>

When I do HD shows for ABC or ESPN and we have a pregame truck, or SD cameras, the SD video signal coming to us is the best quality available- uncompressed 601 SDI- we run that video through the very latest and expensive upconverters and the video looks horrible on the HD monitors, - very soft..especially when compared to HD signals.. Sometimes, in the situation of a SD camera being integrated into a HD show, the camera never ends up getting used because nobody can bear to put it on the air. Case in point- I did the rose parade for ABC this year, it was in HD. There are a number of networks and local affiliates there who also broadcast the parade- its a pretty big setup- lots of trucks and cameras.. ABC and KTLA were the only ones broadcasting in HD. We had 3 aerial sources to choose from- a blimp- which was a pool feed- a fixed wing plane with gyro cam- which was our plane, and KTLA's chopper. The blimp was 4:3 SD- never made air because it looked horrible.. the plane was 16x9 SD - also looked horrible, but we used it, but only very little, because we had to in certain situations- but mostly we used KTLA's chopper- which we had very little communication .. and was a big risk for us putting on the air with no control....the chopper was in HD- a new technology lets you do RF HD- via MPEG-2... The opening ceremony of the parade was a big Disney production, but HGTV was actually the pool feed which we had to take in SD. It looked so bad- it was a big stink at ABC as to how that entire thing ended up happening, since ABC is Disney and we should've been the pool feed in HD. Keep in mind, all these sources look great, fantastic, in SD.

[Chris Hurd]

<< why Sony would release a new SD camcorder such as that if the FX1 and Z1 were poised to take over that level of the market. >>

Hmmm... well, I don't think these HDV camcorders are going to take anything away from the DSR-300/400 level. After all, the FX1 and Z1 are one-piece handycams. They'll probably steal away a big part of the VX2100/PD170 niche, no doubt about that, but I can't see HDV affecting the massive existing infrastructure of professional shoulder-mount SD cameras such as the DSR-300 series and the like. Not for awhile yet, anyway. To me it makes perfect sense for Sony to introduce a DSR-400 series, considering that the previous model was up to 390.

[Simon Wyndham]

One thing I'm confused about is why SD looks great on an SD monitor, but not on an HD one.

I'm not denying that this is the case, I'm just wondering why.

For example, if I watch 16:9 SD footage on, say a 32 inch screen, why would it look horrible on a HD 32 inch screen? Surely the pixels are the same size for the footage being shown? Surely the noise levels in the footage are the same?

Mike, which upconverters were you using? Fact remains that the BBC managed it and have become very good at it. Perhaps the difference is that the BBC's footage is from very carefully lit and shot material whereas yours was from a live feed? I have been told that things such as wildlife uprez far better than studio drama.

[Simon Wyndham]

I should also add that the BBC was converting to 720p from PAL footage. So although the horizontal resolution is restricted, the leap in vertical resolution is about the same percentage difference between NTSC and PAL.

Though I wonder if there's any merit in upconverting using something like Algolith to 720 first, and then doing another conversion up to 1080?

People are going to say to me that I should just buy a camera, but uprezzing is a real issue. I bet there are a lot of people on these forums who have some nicely shot and lit footage from their DVX's in the past etc who might want to get a bit of extra mileage out of them.

[Kevin Dooley]

I'm not doubting the validity of your claims Simon (infact, if you go from 720x576 to 1280x720 you should be able to get decent uprezzing), but looking at 720x480(486) on a native 1080i monitor should look like crap. You're talking over 2.25 the amount of pixels--and even the best uprezzers are gonna have trouble making up that many extra pixels. If I was looking at a regular NTSC source on a 1080i preview monitor, I probably wouldn't ever choose it as a source either. A 32" NTSC monitor will display natively at 720x486, a native 1080i monitor...1920x1080...simple math.

Oh and Simon, I certainly not in the group that thinks SD is dead--SD will be around for a long time...my previous comments were merely pointing out that the HD revolution is finally here, and I think the next few years are going to completely change things.

[Mike Tiffee]

Actualy Kevin, going from 601SD to 1080i is 4.5 times the pixels! Don't forget about horizontal resolution.

I'm really not sure why SD video looks so bad on HDTV set.. on consumer sets, their upconverters are very basic, so feeding a SD signal into a HDTV looks even worse, IMHO.

When I say the SD video looks bad, you can see some artifacts in the upconversion and the picture is terribly soft.. much like uprezzing an image in photoshop. Now that I've been working so much with HD footage, I can't stand working on a SD truck- which is 601 uncompressed and looks fantastic- it's all about perspective.

I think people are so used to seeing people that you'll notice more upconversion artifacts and softness when viewing people. Wildlife and landscapes should provide the best subjective quality. Remember that a lot of wildlife footage is pretty simple images, a tight shot of a lion with the background blurred, etc. When you start showing footage of things people see everyday, I think the subjective quality is lower. Just my thoughts.

our up converter we used was either an Evertz or Snell & Wilcox.. don't remember.

[Kevin Shaw]

I look at it all this way: a year from now when high-definition DVD players are the high-profile status item at every electronics store in the U.S., anyone who's paying thousands of dollars for professional video services may start wondering if high definition production is an option. I'm almost sure this will be true for wedding videos, and to a lesser but still noticeable extent for everything else. I know if I was shelling out several grand for a wedding video today I'd want it to be recorded in HD, and I'm betting I can attract customers by pitching that angle to them.

It doesn't matter if/when "everyone" will convert to HDTV, only when the people who are paying for professional videography will want it. That's going to start happening by next year at the latest, and accelerate rapidly after that. Why pay good money to have a video done using 50-year-old technology, when for a few bucks more you can have it done using the technology for the next 50 years?

[Simon Wyndham]

Kevin, you make some good points. But some facts still remain. I think a year is a bit optimistic because although we might see some form of high definition DVD PLAYER, it is doubtful that we will see a high definition WRITER. Now, perhaps the writes will appear, but remember how much SD DVD writers cost when they first arrived.

The other problem is still with HDV and it's long GOP encoding. I'm sorry, but no matter which way anyone tries to sway this by saying they've never had a dropout yet etc, it is still a risk. These cameras are new too, so we haven't seen the effects of long term reliability.

Just imagine you are shooting someones wedding and the one time that you do have a dropout occurs during the most important part of the ceremony. It's a small risk, but a risk none the less. If it's one wedding, that's okay for you, you can just sort out something financially with them, but it doesn't do much for the bride and groom's emotions if it happened!

In fact I seem to recall there being a thread around here or on one of the other forums about some Japanese wedding videographers who had suffered from this exact problem and were now refusing to use the cameras for such events.

Here's where I stand;

- You are right to say that when HD players appear people will wonder about HD production for hire.

- You are right that if that is the case people would want things such as a wedding video to last a long time so HD would be a good option.

But here's where I disagree, HDV is NOT the solution. I have a feeling that some of the other manufacturers have something altogether more reliable just around the corner.

I also disagree about 50 year old technology. We don''t still use tube cameras ya know!

[Heath McKnight]

TNTHD is uprezzed SD, but HBO HD, which is the same as regular HBO, is true anamorphic HD. At least, it looks that way on my anamorphic HDTV.

heath

[Simon Wyndham]

Hehe, If it's anamorphic, it ain't HD ;-)

[Heath McKnight]

D'oh!

h