DIY Home Telecine: HD or SD??

[gianni1]

All these multimedia buzzwords just made my eyes spin around their sockets. I felt like an idiot, unable to keep up with the Knowitalls in these technology vendors races. The only way out was to spend hours and hours researching the products, to know more than the sales clerks who care only to promote this weeks product or sales target.

For example, just keeping up with the monthly advances in one field, like mobile phone, credit card, financial products is close to impossible. Digital cameras, Video products, and stuff like computer hardware and software, also suffer this.

One day at a graduate seminar hosted by some tech guru-junkies, they clued me into the term which helped me to saw the light. The top business schools train MBA's to shift products using a marketing system called 'Consumer Obsfuscation' AKA 'Confusion Marketing' Now, I don't care what anything is called, as long as it does the job I expected it to do when I purchased it. In the case of HD video, it ought to perform and look a lot better than my Sony Ruvi's, Digital 8's and Canon XM1.

Gianni 8)

[christoph]

But it was my understanding that the resolution or total picture size was different between HD and HDV. No? Surely what George Lucas uses in shooting Star Wars isn't the same limited resolution that you get from HDV, is it?

well, yes and no...

basically HD is everything that has higher resolution than SD.. however, since manufacturers need to agree with common standards (even if they hate to) you can distinguish between those HD formats:

- 720p
- 1080i
- 1080p

and each of those can be played at different framerates, namely 24p, 25p, 30p, 50i and 60i.

now, the theoretical signal of those are:

- 1280 x 720 pixels
- 1920 x 1080 pixels

however, most storage solutions have to compress the image to be efficient, and one of the tricks is horizontal compression, so DVCPRO HD 1080p for example is only 1280x1080, and HDV is only 1440x1080.. the cinealta that lucas used on starwars is HDCAM which has the same pixel count as HDV (ie. 1440x1080), 3:1:1 color sampling and quite a bit of compression, however it is save to assume that for all critical shots he recorded the HD-SDI out to either HDCAM SR or direct to disk, both support the full 1920x1080 raster.

so in short, HDV *is* true HD, as s DVCPRO, or Blue-Ray, or HDCAM, none of them use full raster or color sampling or store the signal uncompressed.

as for the resolution of super8, you definitely get the feeling of more detail with higher than SD signals, but i'd argue that everything over 1K is nonsense... i'd also argue that a lot of the so called detail we have in transfer is either grain or chip noise.

++ c.

[filmamigo]

Don't forget, ATSC (which defines HD for us North Americans) also includes 480P.

So maybe they should add HDMI and Component Out to the Panasonic DVX100 and call it HD.

[RustyB]

We are in the process of working out our HDV prototype and I should have some samples to post in the weeks to come...

Roger

Roger, I now have an FX1, which I'm using in SD/4:3 mode with my WorkPrinterXP, but the lens on the FX1 doesn't seem to be long enough. Is there a modification that needs to be done, or do you think it's user error? I just can't seem to get the whole film frame with the camera.

Otherwise, I'll probably pickup a cheap camcorder with a 20x lens for transfers, or just buy the Sniper upgrade from you guys.

Thanks!




As far as doing Super8 transfers in HD, it's not a big priority for me. Heck, I downconvert all my videography gigs in-cam during capture, and edit as usual in DV. I've also had some horrible dropouts with the FX1. There's a good chance I'll be dumping the FX1 and getting a 16:9 24p XL2. The 60i FX1 looks great in HD, but it still looks like HD home video, IMHO, and all attempts at deinterlacing to 24p have gave very poor results for me. There are numerous problems with the camera, that have really turned me off to it, and I'm ready to unload it.

[drsanchez]

Rusty, how you been? I quit VU but lurk every once and again. Nothin really to see for me, but I'm curious how things shook out in the Members Only area.

[RustyB]

Rusty, how you been? I quit VU but lurk every once and again. Nothin really to see for me, but I'm curious how things shook out in the Members Only area.

The 'Members Only' section is top secret...I can't discuss it here. 8) j/k. It's just like a mix between the O.T. and Wedding/Event forums. It sucks, because everybody posts there, instead of the appropriate forums. I think people are too ashamed at posting questions on the public forum, as they don't want to look stupid, so they feel safer on the private forum. :lol:

Sucks not having you around, but there's not much new over there. It's not as fun without the trolls entertaining me. But, I hang out there all day, because I have no social life, and I like to make fun of all the wedding videographers posting clips edited to Kill Bill music. :lol:

[Scotness]

he other thing is that the pixel resolution far exceeds what super 8 can achieve. So the only thing that you would get better resolution on would be the grain in the film. And the aspect ratio exceeds super 8 as well.

Not quite because you get the effect of cumulative apparent resolution - ie as the grain is different in each frame what can't be resolved clearly in one frame can be in another - and the cumulative effect of these at 24 times a second is to increase the apparent resolution of the frame. So in that way it is important.

As far as compression schemes go - I've found colour correcting HDV harder to do - but then maybe that's me :lol:

Stuff shot on HDV and downconverted to normal DV looks better than normal DV becasue of the oversampling - only sometimes in underexposed areas it can still look like murky/dull DV and the resolution still isn't enough to get good detail in wide shots with fine leaves etc in the close background. A step up from DV though yes.

As for capturing Super 8 on it - it can't hurt I reckon, if the colour aspect is alright - and the 16:9 vs 4:3 is alright - you could always zoom in and extract a 16:9 image from the Super8

Scot

[MovieStuff]

so in short, HDV *is* true HD...

Thanks for the technical info. Good information.

However, to say that HDV is HD simply because they both use the same compression scheme and recording technique is like saying that 8mm is 70mm simply because they both use film. There is no denying that they do both use film but I don't think anyone pulling a feature budget together could show up on the set with a Nikon R10 after getting funding for a 70mm production. The investors aren't going to buy it. Likewise, if you heard someone say they were shooting a theatrical feature in HD, I don't think you envision them seriously showing up with a Sony FX1.

Thus, in the context of this discussion which is about super 8 telecined to video -an inherently low budget arena- HD and HDV really are not the same thing. Obviously, your technical explanation shows the common ground that HD and HDV share (which is good to know, BTW), but the individual terms HD and HDV have been adopted by the industry for a reason, which is to make a general distinction between what television and theatrical productions might be using. Within common usage, 70mm means larger, higher resolution than 8mm just as HD means larger, higher resolution than HDV. I don't think anyone really sees them as being the same thing, regardless of any common ground they might share in technology. More to the point, if you were having your film transferred to a higher res video format, I think that you would certainly point out whether you wanted HD or HDV. Why have to make that distinction if they are the same?

Roger

[mattias]

But it was my understanding that the resolution or total picture size was different between HD and HDV. No?

yes, no. :-)

Surely what George Lucas uses in shooting Star Wars isn't the same limited resolution that you get from HDV, is it?

why do you call it limited? hdv, xdcam hd, hdcam has the same resolution (1440x1080), while d5 has a bit more (1920x1080).

/matt

[mattias]

i don't understand what you're talking about.

indeed.

that wasn't meant as a piece of information. it meant: please elaborate.

/matt

[mattias]

However, to say that HDV is HD simply because they both use the same compression scheme and recording technique is like saying that 8mm is 70mm simply because they both use film.

no, it's more like saying that 200t and k40 are both super 8 films. the main thing that makes a cinealta image better than for example the z1's is optics and ccd size. hook up an hdv deck to the cinealta, record to both that and the built in hdcam, then play them back side by side. you won't see any difference*. the camera makes all the difference, not that recording format. which sony has realized and thus the new xdcam cinealta uses the hdv format for recording even though it's a professional hd camera.

Within common usage, 70mm means larger, higher resolution than 8mm just as HD means larger, higher resolution than HDV

which is exactly the problem. it's a bad idea to confuse cameras with recording formats. how would "common usage" classify the xdcam hd for example? sony calls it "xdcam hd, compatible with hdv", which to me is just silly.

/matt

* i'm not saying there isn't one. you'll likely to notice it a lot if you try keying and color correcting

[MovieStuff]

no, it's more like saying that 200t and k40 are both super 8 films.

You mean that 200t and k40 could both be super 8 but it isn't generally assumed that you are talking about super 8 when you simply say "200t".

I understand the point you are trying to make about the difference in cameras. But if you were having your film telecined to a higher def format, would you just say "put it on HDV" and hope for the best or would you be specific about whether you wanted HD or HDV? The two terms aren't something that you or I came up with. They are used in the industry for a reason. Why would there need to be a distinction if there is no difference?

Roger

[mattias]

But if you were having your film telecined to a higher def format, would you just say "put it on HDV" and hope for the best or would you be specific about whether you wanted HD or HDV?

there's no such distinction, you must have misunderstood. hd is a concept, hdv is a tape format. if i request hdv i'll get hdv, no confusion there. if i ask for hd however i'd have to hope for the best since there's hdcam, hdv, d5, xdcam, dvcpro hd and more. all hd, all the same resolution, just different tapes with different advantages, and disadvantages.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

But if you were having your film telecined to a higher def format, would you just say "put it on HDV" and hope for the best or would you be specific about whether you wanted HD or HDV?

there's no such distinction, you must have misunderstood. hd is a concept, hdv is a tape format.

Interesting way to put it but, still, I don't know anyone that thinks HD and HDV conotate the same expected quality.

if i request hdv i'll get hdv, no confusion there. if i ask for hd however i'd have to hope for the best since there's hdcam, hdv, d5, xdcam, dvcpro hd and more. all hd, all the same resolution, just different tapes with different advantages, and disadvantages.

Hmmm. You include HDV along with DVCpro and HDcam and say they all have the same resolution but you previously said that the resolution was dependent on the camera being used. I'm not taking a position but simply trying to understand why the industry seems to operate under a distinction that you say doesn't exist. I mean, conceptually, HD is generally seen as theatrical quality resolution while HDV is generally seen as lower than that; broadcast grade, so to speak. You don't see it that way?

Roger

Roger

[filmamigo]

Interesting way to put it but, still, I don't know anyone that thinks HD and HDV conotate the same expected quality.

if i request hdv i'll get hdv, no confusion there. if i ask for hd however i'd have to hope for the best since there's hdcam, hdv, d5, xdcam, dvcpro hd and more. all hd, all the same resolution, just different tapes with different advantages, and disadvantages.

Hmmm. You include HDV along with DVCpro and HDcam and say they all have the same resolution but you previously said that the resolution was dependent on the camera being used. I'm not taking a position but simply trying to understand why the industry seems to operate under a distinction that you say doesn't exist. I mean, conceptually, HD is generally seen as theatrical quality resolution while HDV is generally seen as lower than that; broadcast grade, so to speak. You don't see it that way?

HDV was conceived by the manufacturers as a consumer HD tape format. Like MiniDV, it was adopted into pro/semipro use because of it's price, convenience and relatively high quality.

HD isn't a format. Like Mattias said, it's an "ideal". It's a big tent, under which there are many formats (including HDV). Just like how SD isn't a format.

You can't buy an "SD" camera. SD is a broad description of video that roughly fits the definitions of NTSC or PAL broadcast. When you have a telecine done, you don't request an SD transfer. If you did, they could give you Betamax, 3/4" Umatic, D1, DigiBeta, PixelVision, or 10-bit Uncompressed on hard disk drive. If you did ask for an SD transfer, I hope the operator would ask you what format you would like it in.

"HD" in North America only means video that essentially conforms to the ATSC broadcast standards (heir to the NTSC). Generally, that means video with a vertical resolution of either 720 lines or 1080 lines. The finer points (horizontal resolutions, progressive vs interlace, frame rates of 24, 30, 60) are largely left up to the different formats.

Under the "HD" (ATSC) tent are many actual formats -- from consumer to professional. HDV, AVCHD, DVCPRO HD, HDCAM, D5, HDCAM SR. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are all truly "HD".

As far as suitability to theatrical release or broadcast -- that really is a stickier question that has little to do with quality. Take, for example, the edicts of the Discovery Channel - who require HD but specifically forbid producers to acquire their HD material using HDV formats or the Panasonic HVX200 (with DVCPRO HD).

So yes, there are barriers to using HDV in the professional world, but it isn't because HDV "isn't HD". It's because the cameras don't have at least 2/3" chips, the lenses often are poorer quality, and because the compression used is fairly lossy, especially colour.

These are the same distinctions that a broadcaster might use to discriminate between SD shot on a Sony VX1000 MiniDV camcorder, and SD shot on a Sony DVW700 DigiBeta camera. They both make 720x480 SD video, and under the right conditions I bet you couldn't tell them apart.