SD vs HD: Tables have turned

Mike Oveson · March 27th, 2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

that's not relevant to this discussion... we are debating the use of hdv cameras here and now, not years down the road.

Actually, the discussion is whether or not you can upsample SD footage to HD footage with current software offerings and create decent footage. I started this thread, and while it has matured to a rather detailed argument of HD/codec specs, it has gone far afoul of the original thread.

I have learned several things from this thread. One, upsampling footage to HD is ok at best. Two, never start a thread with the term HD in it unless you want a debate about HDV. And last, but not least, I have reaffirmed my decision not to switch to HDV. These are all my personal opinions and should not be taken as facts or as further fuel for the fire. I do appreciate the passion that both sides have taken in presenting their arguments, and if you wish to continue the debate please do so. I just thought I'd step in and remind everyone of what the original post was about.

Peter Jefferson · March 28th, 2006, 12:06 AM

"Actually, the discussion is whether or not you can upsample SD footage to HD footage with current software offerings and create decent footage. "

well if thats the case here, then the simple answer is yes.
Its very possible, its very plausible and its very real.

as for codecs, well one must remember that when disucssing this topic, delivery of said formats WILL dictate the way WE work as producers

Its all relative

Robert M Wright · March 28th, 2006, 05:01 AM

Mike Oveson - Did you get a chance to try Red Giant's InstandHD? What did you think of it? Do they indicate what type of technology they are using for resizing (spline, fractals, etc.)?

Mike Oveson · March 29th, 2006, 10:03 AM

Robert,

I did try out the demo and the results were rather favorable. Rendering speed is quick. I have seen some other apps that use spline methods to scale up the image. In comparison this had better results than those. Someone has mentioned that Final Cut Pro does better than InstantHD. I don't have FCP (Vegas user here) so I can't say on that. I did try upscaling some SD footage in Vegas. InstantHD did better, for sure. The demo puts a funky red/green dot watermark over the image but I'd be happy to post comparisons if anyone wants to see them.

Graeme Nattress · March 29th, 2006, 11:32 AM

I don't know what scaling Vegas uses, but I'm pretty sure FCP is just basic bicubic, and it looked no different to what InstantHD is doing. Indeed, now that they have examples on their site, they're deceptive as they're comparing their scaling to clearly deficient "nearest neighbour" scaling, which is so poor, nobody uses it any more.

Graeme

Mike Oveson · March 29th, 2006, 11:46 AM

I only see these examples (http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/instanthdexamples.html) on their site and they don't really seem to be comparing different methods of upsampling. Maybe I am missing something. I can see what you mean about a company choosing an inferior method to compare to in order to boost the superiority of its own product. The company I work for (and many others) use a similar tactic. They give you the MSRP price and then tell you their price to show you JUST how much you are saving. The MSRP price is usually inflated to begin with. Anyway, I just wondered if I was overlooking something on their site. Thanks Graeme.

Kevin Shaw · March 29th, 2006, 02:43 PM

Dan: you're missing most of my points in your rush to bash HDV, but that's okay. The fact is that HDV has already become the most widely used HD acquisition format ever, and is being used by many wedding and event videographers today to attract premium clients at a premium price. The HDV format is currently the most cost-effective way to produce decent HD footage and makes SD upsampling look like a poor choice by comparison, since in the long run it doesn't cost much more to shoot HDV than DV.

As far as why MPEG2 makes HD DVDs harder to bootleg, that's precisely because it doesn't fit as much on a disc. What the bootleggers will probably do with the MPEG2 HD DVDs is crunch them down to MPEG4 and cram them onto red-laser discs, but that will cost them time and money and allow the legitimate distributors to claim they offer "full quality HD."

I agree that event videographers may opt not to use MPEG2 for distribution of HD content for practical reasons, and I suppose in the long run that means MPEG4 cameras, editing and output could take over. But this works out better for HDV than if distribution moved in the higher bandwidth direction, hence my statement that MPEG4 distribution extends the life of HDV cameras. If customers started expecting high bandwidth HD output, then HDV cameras would definitely become endangered. Not likely given current trends.

As far as the "engineering pipeline" is concerned, I welcome any insight on the prospects for an HD camera which is higher quality, easier to edit from and more cost-effective than HDV. So far I don't see clear signs of such a camera materializing soon, although it is interesting to see what's happening with MPEG4 technology options. If we get a big surprise sometime soon that's okay by me.

Agreed that low-light concerns are an issue for current HDV cameras for event work, but depending on your needs that's not necessarily as bad as some people make it out to be. I did some tests recently and was able to make processed low-light footage from a Sony FX1 look about as bright as unprocessed footage from a DVX100, so with a little care it can be used in dim settings. I definitely look forward though to better low-light HD cameras in the future, and will consider buying one someday when they're available at a reasonable price. Again, I don't see clear signs of such a camera materializing soon, but would welcome an unexpected surprise.

March 29th, 2006, 11:32 AM	#35
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	I don't know what scaling Vegas uses, but I'm pretty sure FCP is just basic bicubic, and it looked no different to what InstantHD is doing. Indeed, now that they have examples on their site, they're deceptive as they're comparing their scaling to clearly deficient "nearest neighbour" scaling, which is so poor, nobody uses it any more. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

March 28th, 2006, 12:06 AM	#32
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	"Actually, the discussion is whether or not you can upsample SD footage to HD footage with current software offerings and create decent footage. " well if thats the case here, then the simple answer is yes. Its very possible, its very plausible and its very real. as for codecs, well one must remember that when disucssing this topic, delivery of said formats WILL dictate the way WE work as producers Its all relative

March 28th, 2006, 05:01 AM	#33
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	Mike Oveson - Did you get a chance to try Red Giant's InstandHD? What did you think of it? Do they indicate what type of technology they are using for resizing (spline, fractals, etc.)?

March 29th, 2006, 10:03 AM	#34
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	Robert, I did try out the demo and the results were rather favorable. Rendering speed is quick. I have seen some other apps that use spline methods to scale up the image. In comparison this had better results than those. Someone has mentioned that Final Cut Pro does better than InstantHD. I don't have FCP (Vegas user here) so I can't say on that. I did try upscaling some SD footage in Vegas. InstantHD did better, for sure. The demo puts a funky red/green dot watermark over the image but I'd be happy to post comparisons if anyone wants to see them.

March 29th, 2006, 11:46 AM	#36
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	I only see these examples (http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/instanthdexamples.html) on their site and they don't really seem to be comparing different methods of upsampling. Maybe I am missing something. I can see what you mean about a company choosing an inferior method to compare to in order to boost the superiority of its own product. The company I work for (and many others) use a similar tactic. They give you the MSRP price and then tell you their price to show you JUST how much you are saving. The MSRP price is usually inflated to begin with. Anyway, I just wondered if I was overlooking something on their site. Thanks Graeme.

March 29th, 2006, 02:43 PM	#37
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Dan: you're missing most of my points in your rush to bash HDV, but that's okay. The fact is that HDV has already become the most widely used HD acquisition format ever, and is being used by many wedding and event videographers today to attract premium clients at a premium price. The HDV format is currently the most cost-effective way to produce decent HD footage and makes SD upsampling look like a poor choice by comparison, since in the long run it doesn't cost much more to shoot HDV than DV. As far as why MPEG2 makes HD DVDs harder to bootleg, that's precisely because it doesn't fit as much on a disc. What the bootleggers will probably do with the MPEG2 HD DVDs is crunch them down to MPEG4 and cram them onto red-laser discs, but that will cost them time and money and allow the legitimate distributors to claim they offer "full quality HD." I agree that event videographers may opt not to use MPEG2 for distribution of HD content for practical reasons, and I suppose in the long run that means MPEG4 cameras, editing and output could take over. But this works out better for HDV than if distribution moved in the higher bandwidth direction, hence my statement that MPEG4 distribution extends the life of HDV cameras. If customers started expecting high bandwidth HD output, then HDV cameras would definitely become endangered. Not likely given current trends. As far as the "engineering pipeline" is concerned, I welcome any insight on the prospects for an HD camera which is higher quality, easier to edit from and more cost-effective than HDV. So far I don't see clear signs of such a camera materializing soon, although it is interesting to see what's happening with MPEG4 technology options. If we get a big surprise sometime soon that's okay by me. Agreed that low-light concerns are an issue for current HDV cameras for event work, but depending on your needs that's not necessarily as bad as some people make it out to be. I did some tests recently and was able to make processed low-light footage from a Sony FX1 look about as bright as unprocessed footage from a DVX100, so with a little care it can be used in dim settings. I definitely look forward though to better low-light HD cameras in the future, and will consider buying one someday when they're available at a reasonable price. Again, I don't see clear signs of such a camera materializing soon, but would welcome an unexpected surprise.