DIY Home Telecine: HD or SD??

[christoph]

roger,
i'm prolly beating a dead horse here, and i understand what you mean with the average joe thinking of HD as "better", but since i deal with these things daily i have difficulties comparing HDV (a tape format or codec) with HD (a general term).

it's like saying "DV is not as good as PAL"..
just doesnt make sense to me ;)
++ christoph ++

[MovieStuff]

roger,
i'm prolly beating a dead horse here, and i understand what you mean with the average joe thinking of HD as "better", but since i deal with these things daily i have difficulties comparing HDV (a tape format or codec) with HD (a general term).

it's like saying "DV is not as good as PAL"..
just doesnt make sense to me ;)
++ christoph ++

Agreed. I am way past the technical issues you've been discussing and am commenting on communication about the format. When someone talks about low budget efforts and says, "This is HDV we're talking about and not HD", you no doubt understand what that means, even if it is a technically flawed statement. It is unlikely they really meant they were shooting with a Cinealta onto HDV tape, wouldn't you agree? Therefore correcting them doesn't really make the issue clearer because, in the end, they are still talking about a qualitative difference in the final image. It is like someone saying they shot the news on "Beta". Is is really necessary to ask them if they meant "Betacam" or "Betamax"? The context of the discussion certainly makes it pretty clear what they are talking about.

While the average Joe may think that HDV is different from HD, that perceived difference is promoted by the industry since, as it has been noted, HDV is most often associated with prosumer camcorders while HD is associated with Cinealtas, etc. "HD" may be a general term but, like it or not, "HDV" is also becoming a general term that is associated with lower end results than top end HD. It is like people that shoot 35mm grouping 16mm and S16mm into the same basket. Nevermind that S16 outperforms 16mm or that 16mm, S16mm and 35mm are all definitions of the general term "film". The prejudice against 16mm in any form obviously exists and people that work exclusively in 35mm would be quick to point out the difference if you suggested that 35mm and 16mm were really just the same thing because they were both "film". I see the same thing happening in HD, where those working in high end HD -perhaps a bit sensitive because they aren't working with actual film- seek to set themselves apart from botton-dwellers that are merely working with "HDV".

How many times do we hear someone in the media say something like "While we were filming this interview....". You know they meant video, even if video and film couldn't possibly be more different mediums.

Roger

[mattias]

But, supporting that explanation by pointing out that HDV could technically carry the maximum resolution of a 1080P camera if a 1080P camera were fed into an HDV deck

hey, you're making the same mistake again. hdv cameras also capture 1440x1080 pixels, exactly the same as hdcam and *more* than dvcpro hd. and yes, there *are* already today professional cameras that record in the hdv format. so in short i do get your point, but it's based on the wrong assumptions, thus you won't get me to agree with it. ;-)

/matt

[MovieStuff]

so in short i do get your point

Just as you would also understand when someone says, "This is HDV we're talking about and not HD." See my previous post. ;)

It will be interesting to see how high end HD producers that currently slam HDV as a prosumer format backpeddle when HDV starts being used more for high end productions. Shades of the late Nestor Almendros trying to get Hollywood to recognize Super-16 as a viable format.

Roger

[mattias]

It will be interesting to see how high end HD producers that currently slam HDV as a prosumer format backpeddle when HDV starts being used more for high end productions.

indeed. but you still haven't defined hd, nor high end hd. and as a matter of fact i would *not* understand what somebody meant if they said "hd, not hdv". there's a huge difference between the panavised cinealta recording 4:4:4 to disk and the varicam recording 720p to dvcpro, both being used for "high end", "professional" feature film production. which of them would you assume?

/matt

[MovieStuff]

It will be interesting to see how high end HD producers that currently slam HDV as a prosumer format backpeddle when HDV starts being used more for high end productions.

indeed. but you still haven't defined hd, nor high end hd. and as a matter of fact i would *not* understand what somebody meant if they said "hd, not hdv".

You maintain that you don't really understand unless someone gives you more information about a specific format but, certainly, you don't think that people on this forum are talking about 35mm when they say they shot some "film" this past weekend, do you? As such, you would understand the meaning "This is HDV, not HD" if it were in the context of a low budget effort, since the term "HDV" was being offered as a qualitative difference within a specific context; just as you would understand that shooting "Beta" at someone's birthday party did not mean "Betacam".

Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You can't be smart enough to understand all the parameters of the HD formats and yet not be intuitive enough to understand when someone is talking about HDV prosumer equipment within an amateur venue.

there's a huge difference between the panavised cinealta recording 4:4:4 to disk and the varicam recording 720p to dvcpro, both being used for "high end", "professional" feature film production. which of them would you assume?

Well, if by that you mean which would I assume if they only said they were shooting a feature in "HD"? I wouldn't know which to presume they used. But even with my limited experience in HD, I wouldn't assume they were talking shooting with a Sony FX1 in HDV and neither would you. ;)

Roger

[Evan Kubota]

certainly, you don't think that people on this forum are talking about 35mm when they say they shot some "film" this past weekend, do you? As such, you would understand the meaning "This is HDV, not HD"

This argument is ridiculous. Roger, I think you need to recognize that some specificity is a good thing - HDV *is* a high definition format. Someone saying "oh, this is 16mm, not film" is absurd. Obviously 35mm is taken as the standard in professional feature productions, but 16mm is film also, much as HDV is an HD format.

[MovieStuff]

I think you need to recognize that some specificity is a good thing

Of course it is a good thing, when needed. But acting like one doesn't understand when one really does hardly furthers any discussion in a productive manner.

Roger

[audadvnc]

A couple days ago I was discussing
HD telecine with a Mpls film lab
operator (Del at Delden). He pointed
out that "HD" is a very flexible
set of formats that is vague by
design; the broadcast material passed
off as "HD" by the cable and satellite
companies is not the same as that
playing in the video showrooms.
Best Buy and the other retailers are
installing high band equipment to show
HD at its best; your new 50" plasma
will never look as good at home with
broadcast source because the b'casters
are running lower bandwidth signals to
free up more channels.

[MovieStuff]

Okay, let me preface what follows by this statement:

I understand that "HDV" is a specific format within a larger concept called "HD". I understand that "HD" is not a specific format and could encompass anything higher than standard definition video. I also understand that "HDV" does not have to represent consumer/prosumer grade level of HD and that there are systems that could produce maximum level HD quality in the HDV format.

Having said all that, I have contacts in the broadcast industry and, through them, was able to connect with people in acquisitions/development for ABC, NBC, CBS as well as the Discovery channel. I suggested to them that I had projects in development or finished that I wanted to submit to them. They asked what format my projects were in. I told them "HDV". To a person, they all rejected it with one variation or another of the following reply: "Sorry. We don't accept HDV. Only HD." I am quite sure that, had I initially said I worked in "HD", the conversation would have continued beyond that point. As it stood, none of my attempts to explain that "HDV" was "HD" mattered. End of conversation.

Now, after re-reading my previous posts, I suppose it appears I was lobbying to adopt "HDV" as a defacto defintion for prosumer grade HD. That was not my intention at all, however, I am just the reporter telling you what I see. I am very much appreciative to Mattias, Christoph, David and anyone else that helped explain the HD formats but the fact is the industry does promote the distinction I am talking about between HDV and HD, even if it is based on a flawed interpretation of the technical facts.

Now I'm a bit annoyed because I was considering a real project proposal in HDV and my gut instinct told me not to even mention the term "HDV" but to simply do my project in HDV and then submit it to them in whatever HD format they required without saying anything. Now I'm tainted goods simply by association with the term "HDV".

So here's the deal:

When someone says they are shooting a theatrical feature on film, the industry assumption is they are not talking about 16mm.

When someone says they have broadcast footage on Beta, the industry assumption is they are not talking about Betamax.

When someone says they were "filming" a news segment, the industry assumption is they were really using video tape and not film at all.

When someone says they are working on a broadcast/theatrical feature on HD, the industry assumption is they are not using HDV.

Perhaps this will change in the future but that's the way it is right now from where I sit.

Roger

[christoph]

roger,

you sum up an important point..
in fact its the same problem as a lot of people had in the beginning with DV. if 15 years ago, you went to a TV station and said you had this documentary shot on DV they'd often say, that this is not broadcast quality, and you'd need at least Beta SP or better.

what a lot of clever people did was just shoot in DV anyway, did some advanced color correction and mastered to DigiBeta and nobody would notice. ironically, these days footage from a high-end DV camera looks better than a BetaSP camera 10 years ago.

exactly the same will happen with HDV, once the cameras step up a bit (1/2" ccd and better lens) and postproduction workflows get more advanced.. i bet you i can sell a programm that is well shot on a XDCAM (which essentially uses HDV only sony was clever enough to market it different) as a HDCAM master to discovery channel (that is, if i had any intentions to do that ;).

++ christoph ++

[Scotness]

So here's the deal:

When someone says they are shooting a theatrical feature on film, the industry assumption is they are not talking about 16mm.

When someone says they have broadcast footage on Beta, the industry assumption is they are not talking about Betamax.

When someone says they were "filming" a news segment, the industry assumption is they were really using video tape and not film at all.

When someone says they are working on a broadcast/theatrical feature on HD, the industry assumption is they are not using HDV.

Perhaps this will change in the future but that's the way it is right now from where I sit.

Roger

All that's true and as for:

Now I'm a bit annoyed because I was considering a real project proposal in HDV and my gut instinct told me not to even mention the term "HDV" but to simply do my project in HDV and then submit it to them in whatever HD format they required without saying anything. Now I'm tainted goods simply by association with the term "HDV".

I'd just shoot it in HDV and submit it in HD as you said - they probably would have forgotten you metioning HDV by the time they see it, and if they do remember they'll probably sit in the viewing room with you and comment on how much better it looks now that you did it in HD!

Scot

[audadvnc]

In my experience of getting programming out
to video stations, their concern is not so much
the origination format as the distribution
format. If the station says "no DV,
DigiBeta only" that may merely mean that they
aren't using DV decks. Video is video,
from whatever source or workflow
(film, computer generation, DV, HD, etc)
and if your offering is interesting and
looks good enough they'll take it. Just don't tell 'em
that you shot it on grampa's S8 camera.

[Patrick]

Oh my gosh - I just had a revelation - a camera that records to laserdisc! An impossibility i know but the thought just entered my head for some strange reason.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Oh my gosh - I just had a revelation - a camera that records to laserdisc! An impossibility i know but the thought just entered my head for some strange reason.

? You know there are crappy cameras that record to those small DVDs?


Back on topic: Jukkas Al Dente had very high quality indeed, makes me wonder what it would look like on HD? After a proper HD scan.

I think transfering old home movies from 8mm to HD is overkill (and would need black bars on the sides due to the wrong aspect ration). Remember old home movies are very seldom perfect in quality, slightly off focus, slightly more grain, not perfectly exposed and so on. I think scratches and grain would be much more apparent in a HD scan and the imagequality itself would not gain so much in quality (if any) that it would be anything to hunt for. In my humble opinion.

And 8mm films that are "normal" in quality and shot with lesser cameras (not high end Super8 cameras) might have little to gain if transferred to HD instead of SD, sure, maybe they can gain a little in quality but I don´t think there is much to gain. (maybe I have seen too much old movies that are low in quality?)

Going to the outer edge of what is possible in terms of resolution and compression (that would be uncompressed) seems weird if you are shooting 8mm film to begin with. I mean why are you shooting 8mm? To get the best possible quality you can? Shoot 16mm instead, if you are going to go "ultra-HD uncompressed freakkadoo".

Isn´t the point (or one of the points) when shooting 8mm that it should be cheap? Or almost cheap? Well, at least not as expensive as 16mm or 35mm. ;)

If you are going to have a HD scan, maybe even going to use uncompressed HD, how big is the cost for 8mm film in the whole production budget? How much more expensive would it be to go 16mm instead? Wouldn´t it make more sense to throw in those extra bucks and get it shot with 16mm, if you are hunting the edge of quality anyway?

We had a discussion about resolution and such in a swedish filmforum not long ago, a guy was building his own HD scanner. It sounded as if he was almost finished and he wrote that anyone can build a DIY scanner that gave much better quality than any "so called professional scanner".

He even challanged me and asked if I could deliver 1400x1200 (or whatever it was). I answered of course not. Even if my scanner did output such a resolution I wouldn´t offer it. I have no interest in delivering a resolution and files that nobody can handle (remember 99.9% of my clients are amateurs, some need my help when copying AVI files from DVDs to their harddrives...). It then turned out that he hadn´t even figured out the filmtransport in his scanner yet...

Sure, it would be cool if it worked and he could deliver high quality HD files, but I think too many are thinking "hey, I can take high quality still images, now I have a filmscanner". It takes more than still images for it to be a good filmscanner.

If hunting for resolution and HD, ask yourself why? Why not SD? Is the quality from SD not enough? Why not shoot 16mm instead, if you are hunting for quality?