Resolution of Betacam SP

[Patrick]

In terms of the number of lines of horizontal resolution, I believe that MiniDv is somewhere in the region of 500 - 520 lines, right? What's the maximum number of lines that Betacam SP can resolve?

[Arriflex]

750-800

[flatwood]

750-800

I think its closer to 400 actually.

[audadvnc]

From Wikipedia: original Betacam was 300 line horizontal resolution.

In 1986 Betacam SP was developed, which increased horizontal resolution to 340 lines.

Pretty good for a $20,000 BVW deck and $10,000 camera. How much resolution can your $100 S8 camera get?

[Patrick]

Well this comes as a surprise to me, especially considering the statements held by various forum members here in the past that analogue Betacam has higher resolution than MiniDv. Still, I'm quite impressed by the resolution of the cameras that can record to Betacam - which sometimes boast 700 - 900 lines.

[MovieStuff]

You forget that, with analog video, it's all about bandwidth and not just numbers. Here is a good example:

Both standard VHS and standard 3/4 U-matic were rated at about 230 lines. But because the 3/4 U-matic used larger tape, it simply had more bandwidth for the chroma signal, which can make a huge difference in picture qualty. 1-inch type C used simple color-under composite to record with but the huge tape size and high tape speed made it the standard for years, until Beta-SP came along.

Similarly, SVHS was rated at about 400 lines. But 3/4-SP was rated at only about 385 lines. They both used the same type of Luminance/Chroma seperation (Y/C) but the 3/4-SP clearly looked better and revealed better detail than SVHS. This is because there was simply more bandwidth for the chroma information on the larger 3/4 inch tape. BetaSP had similar numbers to SVHS but, because BetaSP kept everything in the component domain (with RGB on seperate channels, so to speak), the final picture simply looked better than either SVHS or 3/4-SP, which only kept the luma and chroma seperate.

You really can't just judge a format by the numbers because it can be deceiving. I can't tell you how many people bought SVHS and were dissapointed by the final product.

Roger

[audadvnc]

I can't tell you how many people bought SVHS and were dissapointed by the final product.
Roger

Hear, hear. In the '90s, the studio I worked for spent $15,000 on SVHS decks, lousy copy quality, massive client complaints, and we finally went back to BetaSP.

[MovieStuff]

I can't tell you how many people bought SVHS and were dissapointed by the final product.
Roger

Hear, hear. In the '90s, the studio I worked for spent $15,000 on SVHS decks, lousy copy quality, massive client complaints, and we finally went back to BetaSP.

I had the pleasure of working on a few spots using Panasonic's version of BetaSP called M-II (or rather, BetaSP was Sony's version of M-II). It really blew doors off of BetaSP. I recently looked as some old M-II masters and, frankly, they looked about as good as digi-Beta to my old eyes. Too bad that Sony got the market share based mostly on their name because Panasonic really had a beautiful format with M-II (though M-I was a joke).

Roger

[flatwood]

.... the 3/4 U-matic used larger tape, it simply had more bandwidth for the chroma signal, which can make a huge difference....

The Sony 5800 series U-matic SP is what I learned to edit on using a Convergance controller. Ive still got the decks. You are so right, U-matic SP looks great, very smooth.

When mini-dv first came out we used to hire a guy with one of those early Sony m-DV cameras and I hated the way it looked. I always dumped it to the 5800 before loading it into the computer. Umatic has a nice, creamy colored look to it. Amazing that it was 230 (very wide) lines.

I'll lug those 5800s to the new digs in a few weeks. Just cant bring myself to let go.

[MovieStuff]

.... the 3/4 U-matic used larger tape, it simply had more bandwidth for the chroma signal, which can make a huge difference....

The Sony 5800 series U-matic SP is what I learned to edit on using a Convergance controller. Ive still got the decks. You are so right, U-matic SP looks great, very smooth.

When mini-dv first came out we used to hire a guy with one of those early Sony m-DV cameras and I hated the way it looked. I always dumped it to the 5800 before loading it into the computer. Umatic has a nice, creamy colored look to it. Amazing that it was 230 (very wide) lines.

Standard 3/4 U-Matic only had about 230 lines. But 3/4-SP had about 385 lines. Yes, it looked better than it had any right to.

I'll lug those 5800s to the new digs in a few weeks. Just cant bring myself to let go.

Lug is right. Also, your clients would have a heart attack if they ever looked inside the unit and saw the mile of tape that was pulled from the cart each time it loaded. Wonder it worked as well as it did. Very rugged format.

Roger

[flatwood]

..... But 3/4-SP had about 385 lines. Yes, it looked better than it had any right to....

That's right. I go back to Umatic but the SP format.... nice looking, fat signal.

You're right about the tape loading and the one spot where you always held your breath and prayed for the machine to load and sync up. Both my machines jammed in the end but once I get retired I might have time to get one working one out of it. Ive got a nice library of project masters on Umatic SP that Id like to try to exploit once I get time to start going through it.

Over 35 years of stuff most all on obsolete formats.

[mattias]

it's all about bandwidth and not just numbers

while i get your point, bandwith *is* a number, and one that's more accurate to determine resolution than any pixel count too.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

it's all about bandwidth and not just numbers

while i get your point, bandwith *is* a number, and one that's more accurate to determine resolution than any pixel count too.

Which is why I said it's all about bandwidth. :roll:

Good grief, even when we agree you make it seem like we don't! Obviously, everthing in the universe can be measured in numbers, including the frequency of times you correct people, seemingly for sport. :lol:

Roger

[mattias]

it's all about bandwidth and not just numbers

while i get your point, bandwith *is* a number, and one that's more accurate to determine resolution than any pixel count too.

Which is why I said it's all about bandwidth.

so it's all about *a* number and not numbers then? i'm a little confused but whatever. :-) what do you consider bandwith to be if not "just" a number? it's an entity like distance. four meters is four meters no matter by which means you travel it. by plane it's much faster but it's still four meters.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

while i get your point, bandwith *is* a number, and one that's more accurate to determine resolution than any pixel count too.

Which is why I said it's all about bandwidth.

so it's all about *a* number and not numbers then? i'm a little confused...

No you're not. Like everyone else, you understood exactly what I meant. You even said so. Unless you really think that, after a lifetime in analog video, I did not know bandwidth could be measured? :roll:

When I said it wasn't "just about numbers", I was referring to the resolutions people were throwing around to compare formats. That's why I said that, with analog video, "it's all about bandwidth and not just numbers" (i.e. the resolutions being discussed in context). But, then again, I'm am quite sure you already knew that. ;)

Roger