Is HD really 4 times better than SD? at DVinfo.net

Thomas Quinn · May 11th, 2006, 01:15 PM

I bought a FX1 and a 23inch HD TV a couple of weeks ago I have been testing the pictures of HD & SD widescreen via the component lead from the camcorder to the TV and there is no way that HD is any more than maybe 15% better anyone any views
Thomas

Craig Terott · May 11th, 2006, 01:19 PM

You need to go see your optometrist.

John M. McCloskey · May 11th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Have you set your camera to shoot in manual mode and set up any PP settings? Are you shooting right out the box in auto?

Chris Barcellos · May 11th, 2006, 04:48 PM

I don't think it matters what you shot in, you should see much better resolution, unless:

1. Your 23 inch monitor is not really HDV-- Is it ED, or what is resolution ? I have component imput on my standard definition TV.

2. Are you using composite (single RCA) Lead out for video. You should be using the red, green, blue to the red, green, blue jack on the monitor. If you don't have that on your monitor, you are not going to get HD. I assume that is what you meant by component.

3. You are shooting in very low light, or are out of focus.

Thomas Quinn · May 11th, 2006, 05:25 PM

I am not knocking the FX1 I am just suggestihg that the Pr. Pb. Y. jacks are capable of giving a better picture than other connections.
Yes I am using the red green and blue jacks on my HD TV No I did not shoot out of the box or in low light I did use the S connections and yes the picture not near as clear but using component leads and a wide screen SD recording I can not notice the vast difference I had expected.
let me know after you have tested what I have described and if you dont agree a visit to the optometrist will be on the cards
Thomas

Craig Terott · May 11th, 2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

I don't think it matters what you shot in, you should see much better resolution, unless:

1. Your 23 inch monitor is not really HDV-- Is it ED, or what is resolution ? I have component imput on my standard definition TV.

This was an important question.

Ash Greyson · May 11th, 2006, 05:43 PM

What you are seeing is very normal. The smaller the set, the less the resolution matters. Most people are used to seeing crappy compressed analog SD and then being amazed at how good HD looks. Truth is (there is an article on the net somewhere) that good digital SD on sets smaller than 42" looks the same to most people from a normal viewing distance as HD. Going a step further, even on larger sets, say 65" at normal viewing distance most people cannot see much if any difference from 480p SD to 720p or 1080i HD... This is why HD-DVD is in real trouble... 480p WS is already good enough for most people

ash =o)

Chris Barcellos · May 11th, 2006, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

What you are seeing is very normal. The smaller the set, the less the resolution matters. Most people are used to seeing crappy compressed analog SD and then being amazed at how good HD looks. Truth is (there is an article on the net somewhere) that good digital SD on sets smaller than 42" looks the same to most people from a normal viewing distance as HD. Going a step further, even on larger sets, say 65" at normal viewing distance most people cannot see much if any difference from 480p SD to 720p or 1080i HD... This is why HD-DVD is in real trouble... 480p WS is already good enough for most people

ash =o)

Ash: I halfway agree. How much more clearly do you really want to see someone's face. Do we really need to see the pores?

Some of the "scenic" stuff is really great with HD, but I don't feel compelled to want to see Jimmy Kimmel's nose hairs.

Chris Barcellos · May 11th, 2006, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Quinn

I am not knocking the FX1 I am just suggestihg that the Pr. Pb. Y. jacks are capable of giving a better picture than other connections.
Yes I am using the red green and blue jacks on my HD TV No I did not shoot out of the box or in low light I did use the S connections and yes the picture not near as clear but using component leads and a wide screen SD recording I can not notice the vast difference I had expected.
let me know after you have tested what I have described and if you dont agree a visit to the optometrist will be on the cards
Thomas

S connections ??? What are you referring to ? If you are using Svideo connector, it is not much higher resolution than composite. Also, on the Component out selection, are you selected on 1080i/480i or just 480i. Should be former.

Also, still no reponse on what resolution of your 23" monitor is. I have a 17inch designated as HD, but discovered it not really that.

Thomas Quinn · May 12th, 2006, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

S connections ??? What are you referring to ? If you are using Svideo connector, it is not much higher resolution than composite. Also, on the Component out selection, are you selected on 1080i/480i or just 480i. Should be former.
Also, still no reponse on what resolution of your 23" monitor is. I have a 17inch designated as HD, but discovered it not really that.

I think you know what I meant by S connections I know it is not much better than composit and yes Component is set at 1080i/480i

The monitor is a Samsung LCD TV LE23T5 resolution is given as 1380X768.
Thomas

Leo Pepingco · May 12th, 2006, 03:25 AM

1380X768

Now, I'm no expert, but I do know enough that I bought my own FX1... But, isnt that a resolution fit for JVC's 1280 x 720 resolution? I'm not sure that the FX1's 1920 x 1080 would have been done justice on that screen...

I'm curious, cause I'm not that clued up on all this, but to me, the numbers dont add up and I think that its one of the causes why you think HD isnt that great...

What i do know is the basic rule that HD is best viewd big.... Anything smaller than the 1080 standard will always look like DV to me... But that last bit is my opinion

Bob Grant · May 12th, 2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Quinn

I think you know what I meant by S connections I know it is not much better than composit and yes Component is set at 1080i/480i

The monitor is a Samsung LCD TV LE23T5 resolution is given as 1380X768.
Thomas

Quite regardless of what res the monitor is the S-Video output from the camera is only standard definition so of course it's not going to look much better!
Going straight from the camera to an LCD you have to use component to get a High Definition feed.
However your monitor is not capable of displaying the full resolution of the 1080i signal from the camera so to some extent your image is at the mercy of the downscaling in the monitor, from what I've seen on some quite expensive monitors it can be pretty bad.

Leo Pepingco · May 12th, 2006, 04:28 AM

that pretty much confirms my theory.... ah the perils of self teaching... lol

Tomas Chinchilla · May 12th, 2006, 07:16 AM

The issue here is the TV Set size!

I have 2 23" sets and an upconverted image and an HD movie look similar, but you should still be able to see the difference.

Now, when I plug it in my 55 or above then you really see the difference.

I also noticed that when I connect my camcorder to the TV's I don't get as better resolution than when I actually play an HD DVD thru it, I'll explain:

1. I capture the same footage that I was playing directly from my camcorder to the TV as a test and create an HDDVD in DVD Studio Pro 4.

2. Stick it in my Toshiba HDDVD player and the quality it's much better! (????)

3. Or, I can stick the M2T on the Avel Link player (JVC) and still get that same HD quality (For sale by the way!)

Does the sony FX1 really output the full quality straight out ogf the component port?

Kevin Shaw · May 12th, 2006, 07:45 AM

Your 23" HDTV is the limiting factor here. When I plug my FX1 into a 53" rear-projection HDTV there's an obvious difference in image quality compared to SD video, and everyone who's seen this has commented on how good it looks. Or try viewing your HDV footage on a large computer monitor and compare to SD on the same setup; the difference should be quite apparent.

Is HD four times better than SD? Maybe not, but it's definitely better when viewed at full quality. As to whether we "need" this level of detail, I haven't met anyone yet who doesn't like the extra clarity HD offers. And by the way, most DV cameras aren't designed to produce good widescreen video, so that's reason enough to shoot HD even for SD delivery.

May 11th, 2006, 01:15 PM	#1
Thomas Quinn Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Co Tyrone Ireland Posts: 60	Is HD really 4 times better than SD? I bought a FX1 and a 23inch HD TV a couple of weeks ago I have been testing the pictures of HD & SD widescreen via the component lead from the camcorder to the TV and there is no way that HD is any more than maybe 15% better anyone any views Thomas

May 11th, 2006, 04:48 PM	#4
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	I don't think it matters what you shot in, you should see much better resolution, unless: 1. Your 23 inch monitor is not really HDV-- Is it ED, or what is resolution ? I have component imput on my standard definition TV. 2. Are you using composite (single RCA) Lead out for video. You should be using the red, green, blue to the red, green, blue jack on the monitor. If you don't have that on your monitor, you are not going to get HD. I assume that is what you meant by component. 3. You are shooting in very low light, or are out of focus. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

May 11th, 2006, 01:19 PM	#2
Craig Terott Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Glendale, AZ Posts: 691	You need to go see your optometrist.

May 11th, 2006, 01:26 PM	#3
John M. McCloskey Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: West Point, MS Posts: 313	Have you set your camera to shoot in manual mode and set up any PP settings? Are you shooting right out the box in auto?

May 11th, 2006, 05:25 PM	#5
Thomas Quinn Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Co Tyrone Ireland Posts: 60	I am not knocking the FX1 I am just suggestihg that the Pr. Pb. Y. jacks are capable of giving a better picture than other connections. Yes I am using the red green and blue jacks on my HD TV No I did not shoot out of the box or in low light I did use the S connections and yes the picture not near as clear but using component leads and a wide screen SD recording I can not notice the vast difference I had expected. let me know after you have tested what I have described and if you dont agree a visit to the optometrist will be on the cards Thomas

May 11th, 2006, 05:43 PM	#7
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	What you are seeing is very normal. The smaller the set, the less the resolution matters. Most people are used to seeing crappy compressed analog SD and then being amazed at how good HD looks. Truth is (there is an article on the net somewhere) that good digital SD on sets smaller than 42" looks the same to most people from a normal viewing distance as HD. Going a step further, even on larger sets, say 65" at normal viewing distance most people cannot see much if any difference from 480p SD to 720p or 1080i HD... This is why HD-DVD is in real trouble... 480p WS is already good enough for most people ash =o)

May 12th, 2006, 03:25 AM	#11
Leo Pepingco Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 275	1380X768 Now, I'm no expert, but I do know enough that I bought my own FX1... But, isnt that a resolution fit for JVC's 1280 x 720 resolution? I'm not sure that the FX1's 1920 x 1080 would have been done justice on that screen... I'm curious, cause I'm not that clued up on all this, but to me, the numbers dont add up and I think that its one of the causes why you think HD isnt that great... What i do know is the basic rule that HD is best viewd big.... Anything smaller than the 1080 standard will always look like DV to me... But that last bit is my opinion

May 12th, 2006, 04:28 AM	#13
Leo Pepingco Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 275	that pretty much confirms my theory.... ah the perils of self teaching... lol

May 12th, 2006, 07:16 AM	#14
Tomas Chinchilla Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 212 Images: 8	The issue here is the TV Set size! I have 2 23" sets and an upconverted image and an HD movie look similar, but you should still be able to see the difference. Now, when I plug it in my 55 or above then you really see the difference. I also noticed that when I connect my camcorder to the TV's I don't get as better resolution than when I actually play an HD DVD thru it, I'll explain: 1. I capture the same footage that I was playing directly from my camcorder to the TV as a test and create an HDDVD in DVD Studio Pro 4. 2. Stick it in my Toshiba HDDVD player and the quality it's much better! (????) 3. Or, I can stick the M2T on the Avel Link player (JVC) and still get that same HD quality (For sale by the way!) Does the sony FX1 really output the full quality straight out ogf the component port?

May 12th, 2006, 07:45 AM	#15
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Your 23" HDTV is the limiting factor here. When I plug my FX1 into a 53" rear-projection HDTV there's an obvious difference in image quality compared to SD video, and everyone who's seen this has commented on how good it looks. Or try viewing your HDV footage on a large computer monitor and compare to SD on the same setup; the difference should be quite apparent. Is HD four times better than SD? Maybe not, but it's definitely better when viewed at full quality. As to whether we "need" this level of detail, I haven't met anyone yet who doesn't like the extra clarity HD offers. And by the way, most DV cameras aren't designed to produce good widescreen video, so that's reason enough to shoot HD even for SD delivery.