ex questions re: autofocus, hd to sd quality

Dennis Schmitz · January 20th, 2008, 06:18 PM

no problem

Joel Klein · January 20th, 2008, 06:45 PM

enjoy and let me know your feedback

http://rapidshare.com/files/85303156...convert_SD.zip

Dennis Schmitz · January 20th, 2008, 06:47 PM

Thx, I will try to downconvert it, too.

Which resolution do you want to achieve?

Joel Klein · January 20th, 2008, 07:00 PM

normal SD 720x480 16:9

look at the white table plastic on the edge, and on the first legt child with the colorfull shirt, on his face and the efefct arround him.
it was all shot HQ 1920x1080 30p

as i'm doing more and more try's I found out my 20 dell to give better picture vs. my 24" 1920x1080 wide screen dell... also the vortex media looks worse on my 24"... this metter is going over my head, I can't decide my self...

Dennis Schmitz · January 20th, 2008, 07:05 PM

Your video has 853x480?

Joel Klein · January 20th, 2008, 07:07 PM

H.264 is full 1920x1080
The SD is 720x480

To me the SD looks like highly compressed jpeg artifact

Dennis Schmitz · January 20th, 2008, 07:08 PM

It's quite normal that Video looks worse the bigger the output is. ;)

Believe me, editing SD on a 26" NEC isn't nice :D

Dennis Schmitz · January 20th, 2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel Klein

H.264 is full 1920x1080
The SD is 720x480

To me the SD looks like highly compressed jpeg artifact

VLC told me wrong values due to the stretching from 4:3 to 16:9 aspect ratio.

Joel Klein · January 20th, 2008, 07:13 PM

Now let’s get back to the main question: don't you believe if I should use a DSR450 and output it to the same dell monitor, the image will look much CLEANER??? That terrible feeling makes me sick...

Dennis Schmitz · January 20th, 2008, 07:27 PM

I don't believe that it would look cleaner, I think it would look even worse.
From my personal experience I can tell you that my downconverted Canon XH-A1 output looks much better than any DV footage I've seen so far.

Dennis Schmitz · January 20th, 2008, 07:36 PM

I've did some tests with your material.
Either artifacts are gone and video looks blurred or there are more artifacts but overall a crispier image.

hmm

Joel Klein · January 20th, 2008, 07:53 PM

thats right "hmm....."

after all i'm not such a pro. and the ex1 is my first normal pro cam
the closer the image the better, the more dist. its worse...

any way my brain is dead for tonight, thanks for your help was a great time working with you, good night, will be back tomarow after school
regards!

Dave Allan · January 20th, 2008, 08:16 PM

We've noticed some issues with downcoverting from the f350 35mb hd to sd. So far, straight out of final cut, sd material (including our dsr 500) seems to look better that our 350 hd dropped to sd. That said our quality issues seem somewhat less with the z1. We've havn't done a lot of side by sides but my concern is the ex1 with cmos may have even more drawbacks when converting to sd.

Bob Grant · January 20th, 2008, 08:30 PM

One of the best ways to evaluate what's going on is to firstly take the camera out of the equation. Use generated media, charts, stills whatever, also try animating it, just panning around a high res still will do, easily done in any NLE. Now run that through your process and view it on the same monitor. You can learn a lot doing this.

Joel Klein · January 21st, 2008, 07:00 PM

bottem line. if your plan is sd than get a pd170 or dsr450

January 20th, 2008, 06:45 PM	#17
Joel Klein Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 51	enjoy and let me know your feedback http://rapidshare.com/files/85303156...convert_SD.zip __________________ Go for 16 gig Ram its worth!

January 20th, 2008, 07:00 PM	#19
Joel Klein Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 51	normal SD 720x480 16:9 look at the white table plastic on the edge, and on the first legt child with the colorfull shirt, on his face and the efefct arround him. it was all shot HQ 1920x1080 30p as i'm doing more and more try's I found out my 20 dell to give better picture vs. my 24" 1920x1080 wide screen dell... also the vortex media looks worse on my 24"... this metter is going over my head, I can't decide my self... __________________ Go for 16 gig Ram its worth!

January 20th, 2008, 07:07 PM	#21
Joel Klein Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 51	H.264 is full 1920x1080 The SD is 720x480 To me the SD looks like highly compressed jpeg artifact __________________ Go for 16 gig Ram its worth!

January 20th, 2008, 07:53 PM	#27
Joel Klein Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 51	thats right "hmm....." after all i'm not such a pro. and the ex1 is my first normal pro cam the closer the image the better, the more dist. its worse... any way my brain is dead for tonight, thanks for your help was a great time working with you, good night, will be back tomarow after school regards! __________________ Go for 16 gig Ram its worth!

January 21st, 2008, 07:00 PM	#30
Joel Klein Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 51	bottem line. if your plan is sd than get a pd170 or dsr450 __________________ Go for 16 gig Ram its worth!

January 20th, 2008, 06:18 PM	#16
Dennis Schmitz Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Viersen, Germany Posts: 120	no problem

January 20th, 2008, 06:47 PM	#18
Dennis Schmitz Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Viersen, Germany Posts: 120	Thx, I will try to downconvert it, too. Which resolution do you want to achieve?

January 20th, 2008, 07:05 PM	#20
Dennis Schmitz Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Viersen, Germany Posts: 120	Your video has 853x480?

January 20th, 2008, 07:08 PM	#22
Dennis Schmitz Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Viersen, Germany Posts: 120	It's quite normal that Video looks worse the bigger the output is. ;) Believe me, editing SD on a 26" NEC isn't nice :D

January 20th, 2008, 07:13 PM	#24
Joel Klein Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 51	Now let’s get back to the main question: don't you believe if I should use a DSR450 and output it to the same dell monitor, the image will look much CLEANER??? That terrible feeling makes me sick...

January 20th, 2008, 07:27 PM	#25
Dennis Schmitz Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Viersen, Germany Posts: 120	I don't believe that it would look cleaner, I think it would look even worse. From my personal experience I can tell you that my downconverted Canon XH-A1 output looks much better than any DV footage I've seen so far.

January 20th, 2008, 07:36 PM	#26
Dennis Schmitz Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Viersen, Germany Posts: 120	I've did some tests with your material. Either artifacts are gone and video looks blurred or there are more artifacts but overall a crispier image. hmm

January 20th, 2008, 08:16 PM	#28
Dave Allan New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: vancouver canada Posts: 8	We've noticed some issues with downcoverting from the f350 35mb hd to sd. So far, straight out of final cut, sd material (including our dsr 500) seems to look better that our 350 hd dropped to sd. That said our quality issues seem somewhat less with the z1. We've havn't done a lot of side by sides but my concern is the ex1 with cmos may have even more drawbacks when converting to sd.

January 20th, 2008, 08:30 PM	#29
Bob Grant Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,570	One of the best ways to evaluate what's going on is to firstly take the camera out of the equation. Use generated media, charts, stills whatever, also try animating it, just panning around a high res still will do, easily done in any NLE. Now run that through your process and view it on the same monitor. You can learn a lot doing this.