Cine Alta Like? at DVinfo.net

Edwin Hernandez · May 26th, 2005, 10:58 PM

I read in this forum that someone who went to NAB considered the image to be "very CineAlta like", and that someone who has been working editing a project shot on Cinealta said the same. Although they agreed that the CineAlta was superior.

My question is: Has anyone seen the footage and tell me how much truth there is in this? Please forget about the technical and mathematical issues, I would really like to talk about perception.

I've been asked to quote a 20 min. documentary on film (16mm) or video (24p SD). I'd really like to consider using HD as an alternative and I'd love to consider using the HD100 for the project since it would cost less than renting and hiring a CineAlta in the United States along with a DP or cameraman and bring them down to Panama. And of course, I would keep the camera.

But before I ruin a production just to keep a camera, is there a way to downconvert 24P PROHD in a way that it would look good in SD? Not as the mediocre downconversion of the Sony HDV?

-EDWIN

Tommy James · May 26th, 2005, 11:17 PM

So why do you want to downconvert to standard definition ? In a global economy countries that dont accept the technology of high definition because they can't afford it will never remain competitive and will always be backward. Developing countries like the Phillipines distribute their movies in high definition because they want to rival Japan as an economic super power. They broadcast worldwide in high definition over the internet.

Radek Svoboda · May 27th, 2005, 12:47 AM

Until someone does some testing, have to go by specs and those 720p against 1080p and 19 Mbps against 170 Mbps. Better comparison would against Varicam, which is 720p but should be better.

Radek

Radek Svoboda · May 27th, 2005, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy James

Developing countries like the Phillipines distribute their movies in high definition because they want to rival Japan as an economic super power. They broadcast worldwide in high definition over the internet.

Tell me when they rival Japan. I thought they broadcast HD worldwide over their satellite network. :-)

Edwin Hernandez · May 27th, 2005, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy James

So why do you want to downconvert to standard definition ?

Tommy: It is true that this country is far from broadcasting HD and my final output is going to be SD, but consider that they are interested in 16mm or 24P video. So, they don't want to look "interlaced".

I know that the 24P has a very good perceived image (close to 16mm). Because of the higher resolution, it seems kind of obvious that a 24P HDV 720P must render a better looking image than the XL2 and the DVX100A... (after all these are "enhanced definition cameras" and look way better than traditional SD DV cameras) - but for me this is just speculation since I have never seen the footage from the HD100.

Jacques Mersereau · May 27th, 2005, 09:04 AM

I was at NAB and saw the output from the HD100. As you may know,
ALL Manufacturers do "what it takes" to make sure their demos look good.
I would not expect JVC to show poor footage. Sony, from what I heard (rumor),
showed footage from their HDV cam's analog COMPONENT output and NOT
true HDV output from tape.

BUT, that said, the JVC LOOKED GREAT! In addition, IF they come out with
the 100e model, you will have uncompressed SD and HD, though you'll
have to rent a deck to record either of those high bandwidth signals to tape.

Steven White · May 27th, 2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

is there a way to downconvert 24P PROHD in a way that it would look good in SD? Not as the mediocre downconversion of the Sony HDV?

Most of the difficulty in down-converting the Sony HDV (which does not yield "mediocre" results by any standard) comes from dealing with the interlaced fields. Progressive down-converting is a no-brainer, and should be very easy to do on the any progressive HD source - be it the JVC GY-HD100 or the Sony cameras in the Cineframe modes.

-Steve

Radek Svoboda · May 27th, 2005, 01:26 PM

Guys, you're forgetting something. For film out you be upconverting to 1080p. Now which camera will upconvert better to be seen. Probably JVC which probably also has better lens, we don't know for sure. In either case it will be close.

Radek

Steven White · May 27th, 2005, 02:28 PM

Why would you upconvert to 1080p? That step would instantly reduce the quality of the possible film transfer... it would make more sense to simply adapt the machine that does 1080p-to-film to do 720p-to-film.

How exactly to digital-to-film transfers work, and how possible would this be?

-Steve

Tommy James · May 28th, 2005, 05:43 AM

Again if Panama is incapable of broadcasting in high definition then it is incapable of broadcasting in digital standard definition and can only broadcast in analog.

Radek Svoboda · May 28th, 2005, 11:52 AM

The machines are 2K or 4K. 2K close to 1080p. You have to upconvert to 2K before optical transfer. You don't transfer 1080i/p or 720p directly.

Radek

May 26th, 2005, 10:58 PM	#1
Edwin Hernandez Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Panama City, Panama Posts: 162	Cine Alta Like? I read in this forum that someone who went to NAB considered the image to be "very CineAlta like", and that someone who has been working editing a project shot on Cinealta said the same. Although they agreed that the CineAlta was superior. My question is: Has anyone seen the footage and tell me how much truth there is in this? Please forget about the technical and mathematical issues, I would really like to talk about perception. I've been asked to quote a 20 min. documentary on film (16mm) or video (24p SD). I'd really like to consider using HD as an alternative and I'd love to consider using the HD100 for the project since it would cost less than renting and hiring a CineAlta in the United States along with a DP or cameraman and bring them down to Panama. And of course, I would keep the camera. But before I ruin a production just to keep a camera, is there a way to downconvert 24P PROHD in a way that it would look good in SD? Not as the mediocre downconversion of the Sony HDV? -EDWIN

May 27th, 2005, 09:04 AM	#6
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	I was at NAB and saw the output from the HD100. As you may know, ALL Manufacturers do "what it takes" to make sure their demos look good. I would not expect JVC to show poor footage. Sony, from what I heard (rumor), showed footage from their HDV cam's analog COMPONENT output and NOT true HDV output from tape. BUT, that said, the JVC LOOKED GREAT! In addition, IF they come out with the 100e model, you will have uncompressed SD and HD, though you'll have to rent a deck to record either of those high bandwidth signals to tape. __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager

May 26th, 2005, 11:17 PM	#2
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	So why do you want to downconvert to standard definition ? In a global economy countries that dont accept the technology of high definition because they can't afford it will never remain competitive and will always be backward. Developing countries like the Phillipines distribute their movies in high definition because they want to rival Japan as an economic super power. They broadcast worldwide in high definition over the internet.

May 27th, 2005, 12:47 AM	#3
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	Until someone does some testing, have to go by specs and those 720p against 1080p and 19 Mbps against 170 Mbps. Better comparison would against Varicam, which is 720p but should be better. Radek

May 27th, 2005, 01:26 PM	#8
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	Guys, you're forgetting something. For film out you be upconverting to 1080p. Now which camera will upconvert better to be seen. Probably JVC which probably also has better lens, we don't know for sure. In either case it will be close. Radek

May 27th, 2005, 02:28 PM	#9
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	Why would you upconvert to 1080p? That step would instantly reduce the quality of the possible film transfer... it would make more sense to simply adapt the machine that does 1080p-to-film to do 720p-to-film. How exactly to digital-to-film transfers work, and how possible would this be? -Steve

May 28th, 2005, 05:43 AM	#10
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Again if Panama is incapable of broadcasting in high definition then it is incapable of broadcasting in digital standard definition and can only broadcast in analog.

May 28th, 2005, 11:52 AM	#11
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	The machines are 2K or 4K. 2K close to 1080p. You have to upconvert to 2K before optical transfer. You don't transfer 1080i/p or 720p directly. Radek