Is buying an SD camera at this point a sin?

Phil Bambridge · February 1st, 2009, 02:45 PM

Do you have a link (if DVMag is content is online)? I'm really surprised if this is true, unless they used a poor quality scaling algorithm. I could believe they'd match.

Since the sensor is 4:3, and the normal video uses all of that sensor, you're using a smaller part of the sensor to capture 16:9, and everything that happens after that point isn't going to put detail back in that was missing.

I'm not saying they're not right, but I require convincing :)

This is assuming that when you say "in camera 16:9" you're talking about the stretch mode, where the video is vertically stretched, rather than the 16:9 letterbox.

Oh, this is the link I was looking for re the anamorphic:
DVX100 lens comparisons

Marco Leavitt · February 1st, 2009, 04:12 PM

I don't blame you for being skeptical as it makes no sense, but it is definitely true. Just tried to find that article in the DVmag archive, but after revamping their site I can't seem to do a search past 2007. They printed side by side pictures of a resolution chart, one with the Panasonic adapter, one with the in-camera stretch, and one cropped and stretched in post. I did save a copy of that, and here it is.

Adapter is on the left, in-camera is middle, and post is right.

I can't remember their explanation. To my eyes, the in-camera stretch has more detail and definitely less stair stepping.

David Heath · February 1st, 2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Leavitt

.... using the incamera 16:9 in progressive mode is far superior to doing a crop and stretch in post. It's not quite native 16:9 but it's close. The benefit apparently only exists if you are shooting progressive.

Interesting, and it makes sense. The advice has long been that if you want both 4:3 and 16:9 it's far better to derive via cropping the 4:3 from 16:9 than vice versa. The reason is that it only involves simple horizontal rescaling, going 4:3 to 16:9 via cropping is far more complicated because of interlace.

In progressive mode, that vertical crop if done early enough in the chain should indeed be a simple rescale. (And try to do it in post and you're likely to have the interlace factor to deal with - DV will record it as psf.)

Sam Clayton · February 2nd, 2009, 07:18 AM

So it seems that the anamorphic is unlikely to be worth spending hundreds of pounds on if the end result is barely distinguishable from stretching?

In that article comparing anamorphic to stretching they use vegas to crop and stretch. I only have premier elements. Does anyone know if elements stretching is as good?

Just to clarify, if I shoot in squeezed progressive mode I will get better results than stretching in post anyway?

Sam

Marco Leavitt · February 2nd, 2009, 07:41 AM

"I shoot in squeezed progressive mode I will get better results than stretching in post anyway?"

Yes. But I wouldn't say that the adapter isn't worth the money. I'd say the quality is much better than the in-camera stretch.

Tom Hardwick · February 2nd, 2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Clayton

What do you think? Is that widescreen adaptor any use on a HD camera or do they all shoot proper widescreen anyway?

Sam - an anamorphic lens is simply a cylindrically ground rather than a spherically ground wide-angle adapter, so it gives you a mild wide-angle increase in the horizontal axis only. All HD cameras by definition are 16:9, but of course there's nothing to stop you using the A lens on an HD cam and shooting even wider - though you'll have to make sure your display device can stretch the footage by another 1.33x.

I would say that as the Panny A lens is so dear you'd be better off putting the money into an HDV cam (or the 151 SD card cam). The A lens will distort your v'finders too, making composition more difficult.

tom.

Sam Clayton · February 2nd, 2009, 10:30 AM

Thanks for explaining that for me Tom.

I'l stick to the squeeze mode until I can afford to upgrade to HD then I think.

Phil Bambridge · February 2nd, 2009, 07:38 PM

I can believe, all things being equal, that yes, take interlacing out of the picture, and things will be easier. And a single direction stretch will be easier to achieve. Of course, what's best is going to have a lot to do with the sensor dimensions, the layout of the pixels, etc.

No question that the middle image is better by far than the one on the right.

I may try to shoot my own, nothing like doing it yourself. I don't have a res chart, and I'm not sure a normal office laser printer is good enough to reproduce one at the requisite clarity...I wonder?

Scaling algorithms are going to be different between NLEs, so I think it would be great to see a shootout between the big and small names in the field, to see who does it best- having seen what Avid can do using FluidMotion to do timestretching, there is scope for clever maths to outperform sillicon (in terms of quality, if not outright speed).

Regarding the anamorphic from Panasonic- correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it screws directly on and precludes using any other filters, which could be a limitation too far for some people.

Robert Martens · February 2nd, 2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Clayton

Just to clarify, if I shoot in squeezed progressive mode I will get better results than stretching in post anyway?

Well, now, it depends on how you go about it; if you stick to using the same software and settings used in that DV article, it would seem so, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. Incidentally, I have all my DV mags going back to 2003, does anyone know which issue had that article? I could look up the info in question.

I can't speak for the DVX, never having used one, but shooting 60i on my VX2000 I've achieved rather pleasant results with a motion compensated bob deinterlacing script and Lanczos4Resize by way of Avisynth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDMp7O9TbsE The original XviD AVI is a little better looking, if you're interested: http://www.sendspace.com/file/p5bvco I offered up the potentially intimidating instructions in this DVI thread for you adventurous types.

The deinterlacing script is the slow part of the procedure I used, and if you were already dealing with progressive material you'd be able to tear through even the more demanding Avisynth resizers in no time. However long it takes, though, that's the beauty of doing it in post; you're not limited to whatever scaling technology the manufacturers could afford to stick in a sub four thousand dollar camera, and that would also run in real time.

Sam Clayton · February 3rd, 2009, 11:47 AM

Thanks for the info.

Sorry I got carried away and forgot the link! Ive edited but here is is as well:

Procedure for uprezzing 4x3 letterbox to 16x9 - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

It sounds quite a simple process but good results!

Dave Simmons · February 4th, 2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Stakes

Marco, I must admit that in my years of shooting, I have never heard it said better than that! I hate to admit it, but you are 100% right. You should write a book (if you haven't yet).

JS

....That just made my day guys !! Looks like I might just be getting a Sony DCRHC52
Handycam for my birthday ! They seem good for the money although I'll need to hook up firewire apparently - no big deal . Here's hoping I might be able to do good things.

February 1st, 2009, 04:12 PM	#17
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I don't blame you for being skeptical as it makes no sense, but it is definitely true. Just tried to find that article in the DVmag archive, but after revamping their site I can't seem to do a search past 2007. They printed side by side pictures of a resolution chart, one with the Panasonic adapter, one with the in-camera stretch, and one cropped and stretched in post. I did save a copy of that, and here it is. Adapter is on the left, in-camera is middle, and post is right. I can't remember their explanation. To my eyes, the in-camera stretch has more detail and definitely less stair stepping. Attached Images

February 1st, 2009, 02:45 PM	#16
Phil Bambridge Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Bristol, England Posts: 78	Do you have a link (if DVMag is content is online)? I'm really surprised if this is true, unless they used a poor quality scaling algorithm. I could believe they'd match. Since the sensor is 4:3, and the normal video uses all of that sensor, you're using a smaller part of the sensor to capture 16:9, and everything that happens after that point isn't going to put detail back in that was missing. I'm not saying they're not right, but I require convincing :) This is assuming that when you say "in camera 16:9" you're talking about the stretch mode, where the video is vertically stretched, rather than the 16:9 letterbox. Oh, this is the link I was looking for re the anamorphic: DVX100 lens comparisons

February 2nd, 2009, 07:18 AM	#19
Sam Clayton New Boot Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester England Posts: 8	So it seems that the anamorphic is unlikely to be worth spending hundreds of pounds on if the end result is barely distinguishable from stretching? In that article comparing anamorphic to stretching they use vegas to crop and stretch. I only have premier elements. Does anyone know if elements stretching is as good? Just to clarify, if I shoot in squeezed progressive mode I will get better results than stretching in post anyway? Sam

February 2nd, 2009, 07:41 AM	#20
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	"I shoot in squeezed progressive mode I will get better results than stretching in post anyway?" Yes. But I wouldn't say that the adapter isn't worth the money. I'd say the quality is much better than the in-camera stretch.

February 2nd, 2009, 10:30 AM	#22
Sam Clayton New Boot Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester England Posts: 8	Thanks for explaining that for me Tom. I'l stick to the squeeze mode until I can afford to upgrade to HD then I think.

February 2nd, 2009, 07:38 PM	#23
Phil Bambridge Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Bristol, England Posts: 78	I can believe, all things being equal, that yes, take interlacing out of the picture, and things will be easier. And a single direction stretch will be easier to achieve. Of course, what's best is going to have a lot to do with the sensor dimensions, the layout of the pixels, etc. No question that the middle image is better by far than the one on the right. I may try to shoot my own, nothing like doing it yourself. I don't have a res chart, and I'm not sure a normal office laser printer is good enough to reproduce one at the requisite clarity...I wonder? Scaling algorithms are going to be different between NLEs, so I think it would be great to see a shootout between the big and small names in the field, to see who does it best- having seen what Avid can do using FluidMotion to do timestretching, there is scope for clever maths to outperform sillicon (in terms of quality, if not outright speed). Regarding the anamorphic from Panasonic- correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it screws directly on and precludes using any other filters, which could be a limitation too far for some people.

February 3rd, 2009, 11:47 AM	#25
Sam Clayton New Boot Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester England Posts: 8	Thanks for the info. Sorry I got carried away and forgot the link! Ive edited but here is is as well: Procedure for uprezzing 4x3 letterbox to 16x9 - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking It sounds quite a simple process but good results!