DVCPro HD Deck Compression

Aaron Shaw · March 8th, 2005, 11:46 PM

Honestly I don't think it's that big of a deal. The sony cameras only utilize chips with 900 (roughly) vertical pixels. Due to pixel shift you get a 1440x1080 image that is then upsampled. So we're talking the same effective number of "real" pixels and people seem quite happy with the results from the Sony cams.

David Valencic · March 9th, 2005, 06:17 PM

When you're doing compositing work in 16x9 (720p) having those extra 320 pixels in horizontal resolution can make all the difference in the world when trying to track stuff or pull a difficult key. (Don't get me started on trying to pull a key from 4:2:0) Sure, for 99% of the people who are going to use these prosumer cameras, those 320 pixels are irrelivent, and the other 1% are more than likely able of recording the full pixel raster in some form (SDI to disk recorder or otherwise) But there's a few of us who want every last pixel out of our cameras recorded onto tape. I've been working with 16x9 footage from an SDX900 which is DVCPRO50, and i think that is a different problem because its still DV, and DV is 720x480. But HD formats are 16x9 and its a HUGE misrepresentation by the manufacturers that claim that these cameras are 1280x720 when they're really not without purchasing some very expensive gear. I'll have a look around NAB this year looking for reasonably priced solutions for recording full resolution to hard disk from HDV cameras and skipping the tape and MPEG2 compression all together.

Joe Carney · March 11th, 2005, 12:53 PM

David, it sounds like you will be a candidate for the new JVC 2/3 inch HDV camera coming out later this year. They are claiming to use true 1920x1080p chips, but will still squeeze the video into 4:3 anamorphic on tape(per HDV specs). Still, there will be no pixel shifting or tricks like that.

Sergio Perez · March 16th, 2005, 01:29 AM

I'm going to judge these cameras by what my eyes see, not by specs: FIlm still looks the best, for me. The dvx fotage looks better than sony's pd 170 in the color and dof department (but not as solid). Canon xl2 footage looks good, but lacks "personality" (yes, you can change things in post, but it just takes out the "magic"when you are filming/recording something). HDV z1 footage looks better then current sd Production Betacam and mini dv cameras -even with no interchangeble lenses, the oeverall better picture quality make clients happy (and there are workarounds for the lenses). HDX? JVC ProHD? I have to see it... (if the HDX can show LESS noise and the same color qualities than the dvx, than, being a dvx owner, a soft spot in my heart could decide my purchase... Even with JVC's interchangeable lens and hdv workflow- accepted by premiere, who doesn't acept dvcpro hd (I mainly use premiere for editing, with my powerbook equiped with fcp- but a lot slower...)

March 16th, 2005, 01:29 AM	#19
Sergio Perez Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Macau Posts: 331	I'm going to judge these cameras by what my eyes see, not by specs: FIlm still looks the best, for me. The dvx fotage looks better than sony's pd 170 in the color and dof department (but not as solid). Canon xl2 footage looks good, but lacks "personality" (yes, you can change things in post, but it just takes out the "magic"when you are filming/recording something). HDV z1 footage looks better then current sd Production Betacam and mini dv cameras -even with no interchangeble lenses, the oeverall better picture quality make clients happy (and there are workarounds for the lenses). HDX? JVC ProHD? I have to see it... (if the HDX can show LESS noise and the same color qualities than the dvx, than, being a dvx owner, a soft spot in my heart could decide my purchase... Even with JVC's interchangeable lens and hdv workflow- accepted by premiere, who doesn't acept dvcpro hd (I mainly use premiere for editing, with my powerbook equiped with fcp- but a lot slower...) __________________ If you don't believe in your film, no one else will.

March 8th, 2005, 11:46 PM	#16
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Honestly I don't think it's that big of a deal. The sony cameras only utilize chips with 900 (roughly) vertical pixels. Due to pixel shift you get a 1440x1080 image that is then upsampled. So we're talking the same effective number of "real" pixels and people seem quite happy with the results from the Sony cams.

March 9th, 2005, 06:17 PM	#17
David Valencic Tourist Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Cleveland OH Posts: 2	When you're doing compositing work in 16x9 (720p) having those extra 320 pixels in horizontal resolution can make all the difference in the world when trying to track stuff or pull a difficult key. (Don't get me started on trying to pull a key from 4:2:0) Sure, for 99% of the people who are going to use these prosumer cameras, those 320 pixels are irrelivent, and the other 1% are more than likely able of recording the full pixel raster in some form (SDI to disk recorder or otherwise) But there's a few of us who want every last pixel out of our cameras recorded onto tape. I've been working with 16x9 footage from an SDX900 which is DVCPRO50, and i think that is a different problem because its still DV, and DV is 720x480. But HD formats are 16x9 and its a HUGE misrepresentation by the manufacturers that claim that these cameras are 1280x720 when they're really not without purchasing some very expensive gear. I'll have a look around NAB this year looking for reasonably priced solutions for recording full resolution to hard disk from HDV cameras and skipping the tape and MPEG2 compression all together.

March 11th, 2005, 12:53 PM	#18
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	David, it sounds like you will be a candidate for the new JVC 2/3 inch HDV camera coming out later this year. They are claiming to use true 1920x1080p chips, but will still squeeze the video into 4:3 anamorphic on tape(per HDV specs). Still, there will be no pixel shifting or tricks like that.