Quality of SD shot by an HDV Camera at DVinfo.net

Ken McGrath · November 20th, 2006, 08:44 PM

I have heard that SD video shot by an HDV camera is much better than SD video shot by an SD-only camera. Is this generally true, and if so, why? I now shoot only SD, and will eventually move up to HD/HDV, but I am wondering if I could vastly improve my SD quality now by shooting with an HDV camera. Thanks.

Don Blish · November 20th, 2006, 09:26 PM

My Sony HDR-HC1 (inexpensive?) can make DV recordings. But if you can edit the HDV, why would you do SD? I capture and edit in HDV2 (1080x1440 30i), make a Blu-Ray for myself and make down rezed DVDs for everyone else. I find I get stunning output, vastly better than my old consumer DV camera. I just am careful to output SD NTSC at 30 PROGRESSIVE or PAL 25P. If you don't, the output is so sharp that the interlace jaggies are "square edged" on fast pans. If HDV teaches you anything, it is to pan very slowly and really limit zooming.

Leo Pepingco · November 20th, 2006, 10:05 PM

About 99% of everyone I've talked to on the subject claim by basic theory and math of the technical aspect of HDV is that:

If you shoot HDV/HD, down convert on import and edit = Similar and often better/sharper images Due to the ability to get a lot of information/pixels and shot it into smaller, more manageable pixels etc. (if you get the analogy)

If you Shoot HDV/HD edit, then export to SD = Better/sharper quality hands down.

But then, I've yet to hear it from someone in the feild who can make a claim, and call it the word of the Mr video god... thing.

Chris Harris · November 20th, 2006, 10:14 PM

I have to shoot 4:3 SD on my HC-1 sometimes, and I'm always very impressed at how sharp it looks.

Justine Haupt · November 20th, 2006, 10:48 PM

While I don't have any first hand experience with this, I would think it's obvious that an HD camera would shoot better SD than an SD only camera.

To see this you only have to watch on an SD screen the highest definition source footage you can get -- just watch a movie. Anything you've seen on an SD TV that was shot on film appears to be sharper and have much higher resolution than an SD camera... I think everyone could agree on that. The resolution of film and SD video may be the same when you get to see it on the TV, but fine detail doesn't become "cluttered" from the film source, if you get what I'm trying to say, and that makes all the difference.

Kevin Shaw · November 20th, 2006, 10:51 PM

If you record to DV format on an HDV camera it won't necessarily look any better than a comparable quality DV camera, and in some cases it might be worse. (It partly depends what cameras you're comparing.) But in general HDV cameras shoot better *widescreen* DV footage than most DV cameras, which aren't typically designed to record good widescreen material.

In my case I consider the DV footage from my Sony FX1s to be at least as good or better than what I got from my Canon GL1/GL2, but then the FX1 is a technically better camera. And good HDV footage compared to DV on an HDTV is noticeably clearer, which is where HDV really shines.

Ken McGrath · November 21st, 2006, 12:01 PM

The reason I don't want to output HD is that most of the work I do right now involves shooting and selling DVDs for high school sports events, so there is the issue of customer demand and duplication. But, since I will certainly be transitioning to some format of HD over the next year or two, I am considering purchasing an HDV camera for my current SD work (as long as there would be a significant payoff in terms of video quality). From the posts above, it does seem like that is the case as long as I edit HD, and then downrez.

Bart Walczak · November 23rd, 2006, 06:02 AM

We've been using JVC HD100 in the SD mode alongside with Sony PD-150. The former has been a world of difference in terms of image quality - sharpness, colour, motion (we shot in 50p).

HD cameras give you usually more options for getting a look that you want to achieve, more control.

Ash Greyson · November 23rd, 2006, 12:19 PM

This is not universally true. The SDX900 will shoot better SD than any of the 1/3" CCD HDV cameras. Also not that the Canon XL2 has chips that are 960X480 and also uses pixel shift as well, it has a clean, crisp SD image as good as any of the HDV cameras for SD.

ash =o)

Leo Pepingco · November 23rd, 2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

This is not universally true. The SDX900 will shoot better SD than any of the 1/3" CCD HDV cameras.

Ash, thats a terrible comparrison. You are talking about 2/3" chips here AND a pro camera. the HDV cameras out now are half the size, have half the features, and half the price.

Stephen Armour · November 24th, 2006, 08:24 PM

Ha! I knew that'd get some attention!

We're in the process of "evaluating" the disadvantages and advantages of shooting/editing HDV vs SD. We've come to the following conclusion after RETURNING to SD from trying to do some test projects in HDV :

1. If you have a significant investment in good SD equipment (cameras, lens controllers, plugins/software, etc.) ...and....
2. If you don't have high-powered, dual/quad-core, Opteron beaters for editing :) ... and...
3. If you are outputting to standard DVD...and...
4. If you don't have blue-ray or equivalent storage for HDV projects...then

Stick with SD for now.

We decided that for the near future, the cost-benefit is NOT worth the change. However.....let me qualify that:

When we can afford to go TOTALLY to HD, we'll make the change and not look back! I love the quality, but the TCO is pretty high for many of us. There are LOTS of not-so-hidden costs, especially for those that sweat to buy what they have and need...

OH....BTW......I don't think there'll ever be a good substitute for good lenses on the front and these little HDV are lacking in that dept. Pretty hard to compare little HDV cams recording SD, with high quality lensed SD cams.

______________________
Stephen Richard Armour
ABE-Brazil

Ash Greyson · November 24th, 2006, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo Pepingco

Ash, thats a terrible comparrison. You are talking about 2/3" chips here AND a pro camera. the HDV cameras out now are half the size, have half the features, and half the price.

Not terrible at all... you would be SHOCKED how many people that think HD universally looks better than SD. Truth is, they have only ever seen crappy SD cameras.

ash =o)

Eugene Kim · November 25th, 2006, 02:23 AM

Hi Ash, any opinions on how the XL2 fitted with your old LetusXL 35mm adapter would fair against say an A1 or other HDV type camera stock?

This is assuming that you uprezzed the XL2/LetusXL footage using something like InstantHD? I'm sure the A1 would have the edge in terms of strictly crispness, et. all; but I'd hope that the XL2 shot progressive then converted might be comparable enough to get by for the time being.

I'm currently debating swapping over to the A1 or just keeping my XL2 and buying the LetusXL, while I look for a used H1 to upgrade to in the next few months or what not.

I'm specifically looking to use the LetusXL/XL2/InstantHD triad for a feature-length film my friend has coming up for San Diego/San Francisco in mid-December/January. I would like to upgrade to the A1 right now, but then I'd need to get a new production monitor, motion/jib/dolly shots, et. all, etc., and I'd rather just stick with what I have for right now if this trio could get close to something like what an A1 might produce...the whole turnover thing, just got to many other things on my mind right now to want to go through that given the proximity.

Thanks for any opinions.

Alister Chapman · November 25th, 2006, 12:15 PM

In my opinion the Sony Z1, FX1 and Canon XLH1 all beat the XL2 and PD170 hands down for SD... with one exception... low light. Most HD camcorders require more light than SD camcorders. The HDV cams have much cleaner pictures. The lenses on the HDV cameras have to be better quality to cope with HD and this translates to a good improvement in SD performance.

Stephen.. why do you belive you need Blu-ray etc for HDV storage? The data rates and file sizes are excatly the same as for DV. Also you don't need a mega PC to edit HDV. A correctly configured dual core PC with 2 gig of ram, a core duo laptop or macbook will all handle HDV without issue. These are all pretty standard spec machines these days.

Seun Osewa · November 25th, 2006, 01:05 PM

I have a 512mb PC ... and it's definitely not dual-core.

November 20th, 2006, 08:44 PM	#1
Ken McGrath Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Woodbridge, VA Posts: 57	Quality of SD shot by an HDV Camera I have heard that SD video shot by an HDV camera is much better than SD video shot by an SD-only camera. Is this generally true, and if so, why? I now shoot only SD, and will eventually move up to HD/HDV, but I am wondering if I could vastly improve my SD quality now by shooting with an HDV camera. Thanks.

November 20th, 2006, 09:26 PM	#2
Don Blish Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Portland OR Posts: 227	SD from HDV camera My Sony HDR-HC1 (inexpensive?) can make DV recordings. But if you can edit the HDV, why would you do SD? I capture and edit in HDV2 (1080x1440 30i), make a Blu-Ray for myself and make down rezed DVDs for everyone else. I find I get stunning output, vastly better than my old consumer DV camera. I just am careful to output SD NTSC at 30 PROGRESSIVE or PAL 25P. If you don't, the output is so sharp that the interlace jaggies are "square edged" on fast pans. If HDV teaches you anything, it is to pan very slowly and really limit zooming.

November 20th, 2006, 10:05 PM	#3
Leo Pepingco Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 275	About 99% of everyone I've talked to on the subject claim by basic theory and math of the technical aspect of HDV is that: If you shoot HDV/HD, down convert on import and edit = Similar and often better/sharper images Due to the ability to get a lot of information/pixels and shot it into smaller, more manageable pixels etc. (if you get the analogy) If you Shoot HDV/HD edit, then export to SD = Better/sharper quality hands down. But then, I've yet to hear it from someone in the feild who can make a claim, and call it the word of the Mr video god... thing. __________________ I told you to get an alabi

November 20th, 2006, 10:48 PM	#5
Justine Haupt Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 208	While I don't have any first hand experience with this, I would think it's obvious that an HD camera would shoot better SD than an SD only camera. To see this you only have to watch on an SD screen the highest definition source footage you can get -- just watch a movie. Anything you've seen on an SD TV that was shot on film appears to be sharper and have much higher resolution than an SD camera... I think everyone could agree on that. The resolution of film and SD video may be the same when you get to see it on the TV, but fine detail doesn't become "cluttered" from the film source, if you get what I'm trying to say, and that makes all the difference. __________________ ~Justine "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka)

November 24th, 2006, 08:24 PM	#11
Stephen Armour Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Natal, RN, Brasil Posts: 900	Well-produced DV still has some advantages... Ha! I knew that'd get some attention! We're in the process of "evaluating" the disadvantages and advantages of shooting/editing HDV vs SD. We've come to the following conclusion after RETURNING to SD from trying to do some test projects in HDV : 1. If you have a significant investment in good SD equipment (cameras, lens controllers, plugins/software, etc.) ...and.... 2. If you don't have high-powered, dual/quad-core, Opteron beaters for editing :) ... and... 3. If you are outputting to standard DVD...and... 4. If you don't have blue-ray or equivalent storage for HDV projects...then Stick with SD for now. We decided that for the near future, the cost-benefit is NOT worth the change. However.....let me qualify that: When we can afford to go TOTALLY to HD, we'll make the change and not look back! I love the quality, but the TCO is pretty high for many of us. There are LOTS of not-so-hidden costs, especially for those that sweat to buy what they have and need... OH....BTW......I don't think there'll ever be a good substitute for good lenses on the front and these little HDV are lacking in that dept. Pretty hard to compare little HDV cams recording SD, with high quality lensed SD cams. ______________________ Stephen Richard Armour ABE-Brazil

November 20th, 2006, 10:14 PM	#4
Chris Harris Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 487	I have to shoot 4:3 SD on my HC-1 sometimes, and I'm always very impressed at how sharp it looks.

November 20th, 2006, 10:51 PM	#6
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	If you record to DV format on an HDV camera it won't necessarily look any better than a comparable quality DV camera, and in some cases it might be worse. (It partly depends what cameras you're comparing.) But in general HDV cameras shoot better widescreen DV footage than most DV cameras, which aren't typically designed to record good widescreen material. In my case I consider the DV footage from my Sony FX1s to be at least as good or better than what I got from my Canon GL1/GL2, but then the FX1 is a technically better camera. And good HDV footage compared to DV on an HDTV is noticeably clearer, which is where HDV really shines.

November 21st, 2006, 12:01 PM	#7
Ken McGrath Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Woodbridge, VA Posts: 57	The reason I don't want to output HD is that most of the work I do right now involves shooting and selling DVDs for high school sports events, so there is the issue of customer demand and duplication. But, since I will certainly be transitioning to some format of HD over the next year or two, I am considering purchasing an HDV camera for my current SD work (as long as there would be a significant payoff in terms of video quality). From the posts above, it does seem like that is the case as long as I edit HD, and then downrez.

November 23rd, 2006, 06:02 AM	#8
Bart Walczak Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Warsaw/Poland Posts: 716	We've been using JVC HD100 in the SD mode alongside with Sony PD-150. The former has been a world of difference in terms of image quality - sharpness, colour, motion (we shot in 50p). HD cameras give you usually more options for getting a look that you want to achieve, more control.

November 23rd, 2006, 12:19 PM	#9
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	This is not universally true. The SDX900 will shoot better SD than any of the 1/3" CCD HDV cameras. Also not that the Canon XL2 has chips that are 960X480 and also uses pixel shift as well, it has a clean, crisp SD image as good as any of the HDV cameras for SD. ash =o)

November 25th, 2006, 02:23 AM	#13
Eugene Kim Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 166	Hi Ash, any opinions on how the XL2 fitted with your old LetusXL 35mm adapter would fair against say an A1 or other HDV type camera stock? This is assuming that you uprezzed the XL2/LetusXL footage using something like InstantHD? I'm sure the A1 would have the edge in terms of strictly crispness, et. all; but I'd hope that the XL2 shot progressive then converted might be comparable enough to get by for the time being. I'm currently debating swapping over to the A1 or just keeping my XL2 and buying the LetusXL, while I look for a used H1 to upgrade to in the next few months or what not. I'm specifically looking to use the LetusXL/XL2/InstantHD triad for a feature-length film my friend has coming up for San Diego/San Francisco in mid-December/January. I would like to upgrade to the A1 right now, but then I'd need to get a new production monitor, motion/jib/dolly shots, et. all, etc., and I'd rather just stick with what I have for right now if this trio could get close to something like what an A1 might produce...the whole turnover thing, just got to many other things on my mind right now to want to go through that given the proximity. Thanks for any opinions.

November 25th, 2006, 12:15 PM	#14
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	In my opinion the Sony Z1, FX1 and Canon XLH1 all beat the XL2 and PD170 hands down for SD... with one exception... low light. Most HD camcorders require more light than SD camcorders. The HDV cams have much cleaner pictures. The lenses on the HDV cameras have to be better quality to cope with HD and this translates to a good improvement in SD performance. Stephen.. why do you belive you need Blu-ray etc for HDV storage? The data rates and file sizes are excatly the same as for DV. Also you don't need a mega PC to edit HDV. A correctly configured dual core PC with 2 gig of ram, a core duo laptop or macbook will all handle HDV without issue. These are all pretty standard spec machines these days. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

November 25th, 2006, 01:05 PM	#15
Seun Osewa Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West Africa Posts: 255	I have a 512mb PC ... and it's definitely not dual-core.