HD10 vs. Varicam! It starts Friday! And need help...

Eric Bilodeau · November 11th, 2003, 02:39 PM

HD suffers less than SD from upconversions because there is more informations to work with but an upconversion is an upconversion, you have to "create" more definition, thus filling gaps with virtual information.

Graeme Nattress · November 11th, 2003, 02:45 PM

There's a natural viewing size for all film or video. If you screen 16mm too large it looks bad, just as if you screen 35mm and try to get it to fill an IMAX screen, the Imax will make the 35mm look blurry in comparison.

All that moving to a higher resolution DV->HDV->HD->whatever gets you is the ability to view the image larger without it looking bad. It does not however mean that just because you can't blow your DV or HDV up too much that they're inherently blurry - you've just blown them up too much, or you're not viewing them for far enough away.

Heath McKnight · November 11th, 2003, 02:54 PM

There's a theatre near me that has Odyssey (like Imax) and they run 35 mm in there. Of course, it looks like watching a letterboxed movie on a 4:3 TV, but the movies look great! Probably not as large...

heath (777)

Frank Granovski · November 11th, 2003, 05:19 PM

Quote:

XL1 is a 3-chip camera, with the pixels offset, so it could have a full resolution of the DV format. If it does not has nothing to do with the chips.

Full playback resolution of miniDV 540 horizontal lines. The XL1 plays back 460 lines. Of, course it has almost everything to do with the chips. Please, get your facts straight, C.T.

Les Dit · November 11th, 2003, 07:11 PM

I'm willing to accept the argument that when viewed too big, DV will look blury. Right on. It basically translates to line pairs per mm on the viewing screen. Also the distance of the screen from the observer.
But ultimately it's all about matching closer to the human visual system. That can resolve way more than any video system, in observed line pairs per mm of what you are looking at. So the closer you come to that, the 'better' the image will look.
The JVC is more pleasing to look at for lay people because it is another step towards what our everyday vision lets us see.
Put more bluntly, the JVC holds up much better resolution wise than the DV. Soon DV quality will only be accepted for streaming online quality.
As far as edge enhancing , it's not magic. You can't bring out high frequency detail that wasn't there beforehand by sharpening frames. You can only enhance ( exaggerate ) details that are there to start. The blonde girls hair strands for example. The edges of the hairs were a bit over defined, but the individual hairs are there. The DV version has no such single hair detail, and you can't sharpen it to see them again.
I challenge anyone to try, at 1280 size, to bring back the detail.
But I think I'm flogging a dead horse, I think most technical people understand that.
-Les

November 11th, 2003, 02:39 PM	#61
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	HD suffers less than SD from upconversions because there is more informations to work with but an upconversion is an upconversion, you have to "create" more definition, thus filling gaps with virtual information. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

November 11th, 2003, 02:45 PM	#62
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	There's a natural viewing size for all film or video. If you screen 16mm too large it looks bad, just as if you screen 35mm and try to get it to fill an IMAX screen, the Imax will make the 35mm look blurry in comparison. All that moving to a higher resolution DV->HDV->HD->whatever gets you is the ability to view the image larger without it looking bad. It does not however mean that just because you can't blow your DV or HDV up too much that they're inherently blurry - you've just blown them up too much, or you're not viewing them for far enough away. __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

November 11th, 2003, 02:54 PM	#63
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	There's a theatre near me that has Odyssey (like Imax) and they run 35 mm in there. Of course, it looks like watching a letterboxed movie on a 4:3 TV, but the movies look great! Probably not as large... heath (777) __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 11th, 2003, 07:11 PM	#65
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	I'm willing to accept the argument that when viewed too big, DV will look blury. Right on. It basically translates to line pairs per mm on the viewing screen. Also the distance of the screen from the observer. But ultimately it's all about matching closer to the human visual system. That can resolve way more than any video system, in observed line pairs per mm of what you are looking at. So the closer you come to that, the 'better' the image will look. The JVC is more pleasing to look at for lay people because it is another step towards what our everyday vision lets us see. Put more bluntly, the JVC holds up much better resolution wise than the DV. Soon DV quality will only be accepted for streaming online quality. As far as edge enhancing , it's not magic. You can't bring out high frequency detail that wasn't there beforehand by sharpening frames. You can only enhance ( exaggerate ) details that are there to start. The blonde girls hair strands for example. The edges of the hairs were a bit over defined, but the individual hairs are there. The DV version has no such single hair detail, and you can't sharpen it to see them again. I challenge anyone to try, at 1280 size, to bring back the detail. But I think I'm flogging a dead horse, I think most technical people understand that. -Les