DIGITAL BETACAM or HDV

[Edwin Hernandez]

OK... let's forget about 24p, or even 30p. Let's go back to nice beautiful 60i video (which suddenly became under rated because of that "film look"). Can we compare the image of a $3,700 HDV against a big bucks DIGITAL BETACAM (which is the top of the SD cameras)?

I'm a big fan of the FILM LOOK in video, but certainly I like Rock Concert DVDs better when shot at 60i video, than shot on film or with a film look. I really feel I'm there when it looks like video.

So, back to my question: Can we compare the image of a $3,700 HDV against a big bucks DIGITAL BETACAM to get that million dollar 60i video look?

[Jeff Donald]

Which cameras are you proposing to test? it's pretty hard to compare images from from cameras that aren't even on the market yet.

[Edwin Hernandez]

Jeff: I'm not comparing cameras, just formats. We have all seen beautiful footage shot on Digital Betacam on National TV shows and news centers.
So I'd like to know if the formats can be compared in terms of overall image quality and format capabilities- not the bells and whistles of any specific digi beta model -

I am really interested in using the High Definition capabilities of the FX1 for delivering HD footage downconverted to SD, so I don't have to pay for big bucks cameras . It's a matter of emulating high end video (as any 60i digital betacam), taking advantage of the high resolution the FX1 delivers- Just like when someone shoot a TV spot on 35mm, transfer it to tape and then broadcast it on 4:3 television.

[Barry Green]

Again, you can't compare formats, because no HDV products are on the market yet.

JVC makes the HD1, which predates HDV and is grandfathered in to the standard, but even then you can't make the comparison you want to because the JVC's don't shoot in 60i.

It'll be a good six to eight weeks before anyone can speculate on an answer to your question, because by then some cameras might actually be on the market and we can then get ahold of some footage.

[Steve Crisdale]

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Again, you can't compare formats, because no HDV products are on the market yet.

JVC makes the HD1, which predates HDV and is grandfathered in to the standard, but even then you can't make the comparison you want to because the JVC's don't shoot in 60i.

It'll be a good six to eight weeks before anyone can speculate on an answer to your question, because by then some cameras might actually be on the market and we can then get ahold of some footage. -->>>

Please check the facts Barry!!!

The HD1/HD10s were manufactured to meet the HDV standard, not the other way around - which is what you're implying. BTW, 720p 30fps is analogous to 1080i 60fps.

And Edwin: why (unless you're being paid to down-convert) would you want to defeat the whole reason for shooting in HD? If you want SD, get a camera that does SD well. If you haven't seen 1080i HD to know what it can do, go to an electronics store and check out FTA HD. The Sony FX1 should give you the same quality of video......

[Edwin Hernandez]

"And Edwin: why (unless you're being paid to down-convert) would you want to defeat the whole reason for shooting in HD? If you want SD, get a camera that does SD well. "

STEVE: I'm not trying to defeat anything. Actually, in my country I was one of the first persons to ever get close to an HDCAM while I studied in the US. And still my collegues downhere are not convinced about going HD. I'm the first person to show some interest in this camera according to a major SONY distributor in Panama.

The answer to your last comment is simply M-O-N-E-Y. I want to know how close can you get to the image delivered by an expensive camera, with a $3,700 camera. My market makes me work with low budgets in most cases.

I believe that the FX-1 is a great camera and if it can achieve what I suspect this might be not only an XL-2, DVX100A, PD170 killer, but maybe even a DVCPRO50 or Digital Betacam Killer (in terms of plain image quality, not considering good chroma-key, image controls, and those other stuff that make those cameras cost a lot of money). But again, I'm not really avid in the deep technical aspects.

Ok, I understand that maybe I'll have to ask this question 1 or 2 months later to see what happens.

[Barry Green]

Please check the facts Barry!!!

The HD1/HD10s were manufactured to meet the HDV standard, not the other way around - which is what you're implying.

Consider the facts checked.

The JVC was introduced on February 3, 2003.
(press release: http://www.jvc.com/pressbox2003/v_0.html)

HDV, as a format, was announced on September 30, 2003.
(press release: http://www.hdv-info.org/page2.htm)

The JVC predates the HDV standard, there was no such thing as HDV when the JVC was introduced. The JVC was on the market for almost FOUR MONTHS before HDV was even proposed, and it was another four months before HDV was announced.

The HDV standard "grandfathered in" the JVC design, by making HDV backwards-compatible with the format that JVC pioneered.

BTW, 720p 30fps is analogous to 1080i 60fps.

How do you figure that 720/30p is analagous to 1080/60i? 720/30P gets motion updated 30 times per second, and delivers 920,000 pixels per frame, and looks somewhat filmish. 1080/60i delivers 60 motion samples per second and looks like video, and delivers 1.5 million pixels per frame. 720/30P uses a data stream of 19mbps, whereas 1080/60i uses 25mbps. There really isn't anything similar between the two.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I think Jeff hit the nail on the head. How can you "compare" anything to a camera that isn't on the market yet? But aside from this small detail, the digital betacam lenses alone might cost over $10,000 and they cameras have 2/3" chips. I hold out great hope for the FX-1, but it clearly isn't going to have either of these things.

[David Slingerland]

Sony released topend HD with HDSR, followed by HDCAM and last HDDV.
Digital betacam is suposed to be replaced by HDCAM. They have a model out now selling for less then DIGITAL BETACAM. Obvious they want everybody shooting Digital betacam to make the switch to HD...

[Heath McKnight]

HDV=720p30

HDV2 (Sony FX1)=1080i60

heath

[Giroud Francois]

no it is wrong:

HDV is HDV, there is no HDV2.
In HDV you can find several format.
one is HD1 720p30 and HD2 1080i60.
unfortunatly, numbers just doesn't compare.
1080i60 is in fact a real picture of 1440x540 interlaced
while 720p30 is a 1280x720 progressive.

You see the resolution are not so different, while the 1080i60 gives probably a smoother motion than the 720p, that many find "jerky". As the attention these days is more turned to cine-like picture, the 720p should have more success, thus the disappointment of many to discover there is no progressive mode on the SONY.
The good news is you still can deinterlace or transform the 1080i into 30p hi-res or 60p "low hi-res".

[Heath McKnight]

Sorry, it is actually true. Sony calls 1080i60 HDV 2.

heath

[Edwin Hernandez]

Giroud:

I think "24p or progressive scan" is way too over rated. I can't argue that is nice to have a video look somehow like film, but people sometimes forget that a "frame rate" is not what really makes a good "film look" out of video.

To start with, film has more resolution than video, so 1080i is the right step toward that direction over 720p. A good DP can make video look more like film by applying filters, controlled lighting, shutter angles, camera angles, etc.
So, only then you can say you have a video look more like film.

No progressive scan on the FX1? So what! We all know that it can be deinterlaced if a film transfer is required and also, remember there's the playback option of "CINEFRAME 24" in case you need that frame rate look if the final output is not film (in most cases).

In my opinion, it must be better to record at 60 fields per second, because there is much more data recorded than 24p. Also, the so called 24p cameras are really recording at 30 frames per second (except for the advanced mode). If the DVX100 would really record in 24p, then why it can be played on any DV deck that runs at 60 fields per second? The only difference is that they are applying the pulldown while recording, and the FX1 do it during play back. So honestly, the 60i approach gives more options since the data can always be modified... not the case in the XL2 or the DVX100a.

Do the math 1080 - 720 = that's 360 more lines of resolution. So, in order to get 1080 lines, you'd have to multiply 720 lines times 1.5. The same relationship between 480 lines and 720 lines. So, 1080 is way over 720, as 720 is way over 480.

I think it is clear why SONY went 1080i.

[Heath McKnight]

Interlaced=easier transfer to 24p.

hwm

[Giroud Francois]

quote:
>> In my opinion, it must be better to record at 60 fields per second, because there is much more data recorded than 24p. <<

This is not obvious the "more data" is better when you talk about signals that get compressed, because more data requires more compression, and then less good final output.

>>Do the math 1080 - 720 = that's 360 more lines of resolution.<<

This either is not so simple as you can not freeze an interlaced picture to get all the pixels. If you take only one frame you will get only 1440x540 for 1080i. At frame comparison, 1080i has less pixel than 720p vertically.If it doesn't matter for the eyes that can "add" two frames, it could when editing, so many people consider that interlacing is a bad solution when looking for picture quality. Progressive give you a real resolution you can count on.
The solution could be to deinterlace 1080i to 1080p with half the frame rate, but again deinterlacing creates artifact that are not always nice.
This is a matter too if you look at display technology. Most of HD displays goes up to 720 pixel height, but no screen gives 1080. So when displaying your movie you will get definitely something interpolated from what sent to display and what really displayed.
With 1280x720, each pixel is mapped correctly.
Obviously the best format would be 720p60.