OK, is there a A/B compare of HD1 vs 3chip DV?

[Diu Hai]

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : I can't see how you arrived at either conclusion. The DVX didn't do HD at all and the JVC wasn't color corrected, so there's no evidence to support either of your claims. As for image quality, there's no doubt in my mind that the JVC looked better in both resolution and color than the DVX.

To answer your question, you can't compare two cameras "straight out of the camera" by heavily post-processing one but not the other. I think that's plain enough.

For all those that claim that the DVX resolution is as good as the JVC, consider the following:

All the detail in the DVX footage is contained with the DV format. If it is the equal of the JVC, that says that all the JVC's detail could be contained in the DV format even though it's in HD. The logical conclusion is that you could downconvert the JVC to DV resolution, then upconvert that DV footage back to HD without losing any detail. Let's see it.

Anyone with the proper equipment could confirm that this not the case without wasting time on it. The HD format has much higher bandwidth potential than DV, so the JVC must not be using any of that if the DVX fans here are correct. -->>>


as i said, one can get a better video by software tweaking as the other cant no matter what "heavily post-processing" you apply , you cant make a 1ccd to look like a 3ccd. that is the difference.
the color thing maybe subjective, but the advantage of 3ccd over 1ccd is pretty like common sense.

or you can show us your color correcting skill that makes the hd1 look like the dvx, post here, then you can call your 3ccd hd1, and be proud of it. we can then get rid of the expensive 3ccd and go for 1ccd.

[Heath McKnight]

Then again, we're debating HDV vs. DV. That's like comparing, say, a 3 CCD DV to a 3 CCD Digibeta...Maybe a bit extreme, yes, but it's essentially two different formats.

heath

[David Newman]

Seems like a dangerous thread to post opinions on. I have been staying away until now.

I don't think it matters how much processing you use to upconvert DV to HD, you can still favourably compare to HD source material to the up-res'd image. Using Barry's latest DVX100 to GR-HD1 comparison (the nice S-Spline version), I have high-lighted the obvious issues with both sources. In the end you can only get HD detail (not talking sharpness) if you start with an HD source.

See comparison:-
http://members.cts.com/crash/d/dan/temp/DVX100vsHD1.png

[Barry Green]

Whoa -- didn't mean to start so much trouble...

My point was, since the DVX was going to be upscaled (and in the first test I used Vegas) I thought it prudent to point out that much, much better upscaling software was available.

Remember, the original post included two clips: DVX and JVC at DV resolution, and DVX and JVC at HD resolution. I posted comparisons of down-rezzing as well as up-rezzing.

Remember, you CANNOT compare the two cameras straight off the tape, because they're very different formats! You've got to change one to match the other in order to compare them.

No other image manipulation was done: no color correction, no contrast, nothing. In one case, you have JVC downrezzed and compared to native DVX, in the other you have DVX uprezzed and compared to native JVC.

Obviously the JVC is going to hold an edge in resolution: you're talking about 864,000 pixels vs. 380,000 pixels! What's interesting here is that, using the proper software for resizing, you can get a much more comparable image from the DVX. The original clip I posted, where I used Vegas for the uprezzing, was simply unacceptable, very very soft. I think just about everyone would agree on this one point: the S-Spline up-rez is much more pleasing than the Vegas up-rez!

[Les Dit]

Diu,
You are following the sheep. 3ccd 3ccd 3ccd , that's old school buzz word stuff, the stuff people with a marginal grasp of the technology keep repeating like some kind of mantra.
Look, I can show you dozens of examples of a single ccd making a better image than a $100,000 3 chip camera.

Whaa Whaattt ? !!! ( my best Homer Simpson sound bite )

Yea, they are called digital still cameras. Oh my god!

So put aside the 3ccd issue, new things are happening.
3ccd in video cams is going to 'melt away', as readout rates and CCD tech gets cheaper-faster-better.
I'm not saying the JVC has the perfect single chip 720p implementation, but it's going in the right direction.
There are some mpeg2 issues on the JVC, sometimes I can see the flat areas quantize a bit, but on the whole, it's a refreshing image to look at because it *kinda* matches scanned film in detail.
Far less jaggies and other low res artifacts than DV footage.

Diu, did you see what effect the SAME PROCESSING does on some JVC footage? How did you come to the conclusion that " no matter what heavy processing" can't get the JVC looking better?
Look before you leap.
Did you test it?

-Les




<<<-- Originally posted by Diu Hai :
as i said, one can get a better video by software tweaking as the other cant no matter what "heavily post-processing" you apply , you cant make a 1ccd to look like a 3ccd. that is the difference.
the color thing maybe subjective, but the advantage of 3ccd over 1ccd is pretty like common sense.

or you can show us your color correcting skill that makes the hd1 look like the dvx, post here, then you can call your 3ccd hd1, and be proud of it. we can then get rid of the expensive 3ccd and go for 1ccd. -->>>

[Les Dit]

Barry: Please tell the forum that you used the 'graphic' preset on S-spline, AND THAT DOES INDEED DO MORE THAN A RESIZE.

Sorry for the caps, but it DOES AN UNSHARP MASK SHARPEN as well.
Maybe the caps will help people see that :)

If you leave off the sharpen, the effect is slim to none, over a bicubic upres.
That would be a more fair test.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Whoa -- didn't mean to start so much trouble...

No other image manipulation was done: no color correction, no contrast, nothing. In one case, you have JVC downrezzed and compared to native DVX, in the other you have DVX uprezzed and compared to native JVC.
-->>>

[David Newman]

Les & Barry,

As I just commented (see http://members.cts.com/crash/d/dan/temp/DVX100vsHD1.png), it really doesn't matter whether you do any post processing, it is still possible to tell whether a clip has been upconverted. S-SPline does allow a DV image to have equivalent sharpness, but not equivalent detail.

Stilll, it is a great technique if you need to mix SD material within an HD production. I have been doing slow motion experiments mixing 480p60 with 720p30, the 480p60 could do with some sharpening. Note: The slow motion still looks awesome.

The problem people are upset, thinking that this operation is cheating as a form of comparison. Maybe a fair test for those who question the technique is to upconvert them both 1920x1080 and compare them at that res. :)

[Les Dit]

David,
Yes, I saw your test pic snippets, they were good and to the point.

I like your "both to 1910 upres" idea as well, I think I mentioned that as well, in one of my rants!

-Les

[Craig Jones]

<<<-- Originally posted by David Newman : Les & Barry,

As I just commented (see http://members.cts.com/crash/d/dan/temp/DVX100vsHD1.png), it really doesn't matter whether you do any post processing, it is still possible to tell whether a clip has been upconverted. S-SPline does allow a DV image to have equivalent sharpness, but not equivalent detail.

Stilll, it is a great technique if you need to mix SD material within an HD production. I have been doing slow motion experiments mixing 480p60 with 720p30, the 480p60 could do with some sharpening. Note: The slow motion still looks awesome.

The problem people are upset, thinking that this operation is cheating as a form of comparison. Maybe a fair test for those who question the technique is to upconvert them both 1920x1080 and compare them at that res. :) -->>>

The hi-res test would be interesting.

David, good choice of sample area. Points 2 and 3 were what really bothered me.

Diu Hai, old prejudices die hard, especially when you use prejudice itself as proof. I'm not predicting the future of 1CCD vs. 3CCD, but they are just design decisions that engineers make. In the still world, resolution and color are king, yet engineers use 1CCD almost universally. Let the engineers do their job and judge the cameras rather than the specs.

What is it specifically about 3CCD that can't be duplicated with 1CCD? I wouldn't want to make the JVC look like the DVX in this test.

[Barry Green]

<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit : Barry: Please tell the forum that you used the 'graphic' preset on S-spline, AND THAT DOES INDEED DO MORE THAN A RESIZE.
-->>>

I used the "photo" preset. Whether it does other processes or not, I don't know. All I know is that it made an attractive, and fairly competitive, up-rez. Obviously not as detailed as the true HD of the JVC (as easily discerned on the diagonal lines) but not too shabby either.

[Diu Hai]

<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit : Diu,
You are following the sheep. 3ccd 3ccd 3ccd , that's old school buzz word stuff, the stuff people with a marginal grasp of the technology keep repeating like some kind of mantra.
Look, I can show you dozens of examples of a single ccd making a better image than a $100,000 3 chip camera.

Whaa Whaattt ? !!! ( my best Homer Simpson sound bite )

Yea, they are called digital still cameras. Oh my god!

So put aside the 3ccd issue, new things are happening.
3ccd in video cams is going to 'melt away', as readout rates and CCD tech gets cheaper-faster-better.
I'm not saying the JVC has the perfect single chip 720p implementation, but it's going in the right direction.
There are some mpeg2 issues on the JVC, sometimes I can see the flat areas quantize a bit, but on the whole, it's a refreshing image to look at because it *kinda* matches scanned film in detail.
Far less jaggies and other low res artifacts than DV footage.

Diu, did you see what effect the SAME PROCESSING does on some JVC footage? How did you come to the conclusion that " no matter what heavy processing" can't get the JVC looking better?
Look before you leap.
Did you test it?

-Les

-->>>

put the 3ccd's future blah blah aside for a moment.
just make your 1ccd look like 3ccd, or at least make the color of hd1 comparable to dvx.
oh and remmeber to post it here when your done

[Diu Hai]

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : <<<-- Originally posted by David Newman : Les & Barry,


Diu Hai, old prejudices die hard, especially when you use prejudice itself as proof. I'm not predicting the future of 1CCD vs. 3CCD, but they are just design decisions that engineers make. In the still world, resolution and color are king, yet engineers use 1CCD almost universally. Let the engineers do their job and judge the cameras rather than the specs.

What is it specifically about 3CCD that can't be duplicated with 1CCD? I wouldn't want to make the JVC look like the DVX in this test. -->>>


what we are arguing is that you said it was not fair because no tweak was done to the hd1, and that is why dvx blows hd1 away. and i asked you to do some tweak to the hd1 so that its color can be comparable to the dvx. if you can tweak hd1 to look like the 3ccd dvx, it wins, or it loses. its that simple.

[Patrick Bower]

My conclusion so far:

If you have optimum lighting, you can get stunningly detailed images with the JVC, which are unachievable by any DV camera, but it is technically difficult to get consistently good footage. There may be some issues with colour, but there is some disagreement about this.

It is much easier to get good video footage with the DVX, and, when this is up-rezzed to 1280x720 p using s-spline pro, it looks superficially like HD. Some people prefer the up-rezzed DVX to the native JVC 1280x720.

It is possible that, with image processing software, the subjective quality of the JVC HD footage could be improved further. (and probably the DVX too)

Fair?

Patrick

[Les Dit]

Diu,
Is the color the biggest issue for you?
Specify what elements of the DVX images were causing you to think the DVX 'blows away' the JVC.
Perhaps you don't care about extra detail?
Perhaps you would prefer to ignore that aspect, I don't know.

BTW, the s-spline 'photo' preset does an unsharp mask of radius 2.5, so yes, it *is* more than just upresing.

Also, it's not about 'wining' or 'losing', jeez, it's a tool, a camera. What is more important is what you use it for.
It's like the still photo consumers, many of them are constantly getting better lenses, bodies, accessories, in the vain hope that somehow it will help their photographs like like the ones they was in a book store of exhibit. It doesn't work that way.
But this is a technical forum, and it's fun to talk tech issues too.

I'll see if I can post a still from that JVC footage that looks very close to the undoctored DVX . I did an experiment before, and it turned out if I did a BLUR of 1.8 pixel radius on the JVC, it knocked out enough of the detail to make it look very similar. I saturated the color a bit to get you those candy coated colors the dvx makes.

Cheers,
-Les




<<<-- Originally posted by Diu Hai : <<<-- Originally posted by

what we are arguing is that you said it was not fair because no tweak was done to the hd1, and that is why dvx blows hd1 away. and i asked you to do some tweak to the hd1 so that its color can be comparable to the dvx. if you can tweak hd1 to look like the 3ccd dvx, it wins, or it loses. its that simple. -->>>

[Craig Jones]

<<<-- Originally posted by Diu Hai : <<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : <<<-- Originally posted by David Newman : Les & Barry,


Diu Hai, old prejudices die hard, especially when you use prejudice itself as proof. I'm not predicting the future of 1CCD vs. 3CCD, but they are just design decisions that engineers make. In the still world, resolution and color are king, yet engineers use 1CCD almost universally. Let the engineers do their job and judge the cameras rather than the specs.

What is it specifically about 3CCD that can't be duplicated with 1CCD? I wouldn't want to make the JVC look like the DVX in this test. -->>>


what we are arguing is that you said it was not fair because no tweak was done to the hd1, and that is why dvx blows hd1 away. and i asked you to do some tweak to the hd1 so that its color can be comparable to the dvx. if you can tweak hd1 to look like the 3ccd dvx, it wins, or it loses. its that simple. -->>>

I did not say that, because the DVX does not blow the JVC away. In fact, quite the opposite. You assert that the JVC's color cannot possibly be as good as the DVX simply because no one has has modified it to look the same. The JVC's color is better than the DVX in this clip as far as I'm concerned.

As far as your rules about who wins and who loses, it doesn't matter. You define what's good simply as whatever the DVX produces. As I said before, old prejudices dies hard. The JVC wins this contest and doesn't need to be modified to do so.