XHA1 'LIVE' analog outs are 1080x1920 or 1080x1440?

Thomas Smet · June 12th, 2007, 11:58 AM

Well I can tell you that in terms of compression quality and artifacts that captuing live to ProRess will be better. In terms of detail I doubt you would notice any gain over HDV. HDV is digital and a analog component output slightly softens the video. So even if there was the full raster of 1920x1080 pixels getting converted to analog and output chances are any gain you would have had might be lost due to the softness of the analog conversion. SDI however would keep all the detail since it is still digital. To some people the analog vs digital thing isn't that big of a deal because component doesn't give you any artifacts and is very clean even though slightly softer.

I wouldn't really consider the advantage of the AJA IO to be extra detail but to get rid of any mpeg2 based artifacts in your footage and get better color detail.

Converting HDV to ProRess isn't going to gain you anything either. HDV is already HDV and converting it to another format isn't going to make it look better. Converting to ProRess or uncompressed isn't any different then FCP converting each frame on the fly to uncompressed when you edit HDV. The only thing that converting to ProRess will do for you is make the footage use less of the cpu during editing so you may get more realtime performance. Then again the ProRess material takes up much more bandwidth for the disk drives so chances are unless you have a raid setup you would only get one or two streams in realtime anyway.

The only time ProRess would be an advantage with HDV material is if you need to take it into a few other 3rd party programs to render. This makes sure you are not encoding multiple generations of mpeg2 of the same piece of video.

Lonnie Bell · June 13th, 2007, 06:09 AM

Thomas,
Thanks for taking the time. This was exactly what I was looking for. Now I know systematically how to go about my homework.

1. Compression artifacting is a big eye-soar for me, personally. But since I really like the imagery I've been able to view (even from a compressed upload) from this particular Canon line, the purchase of an A1 is a done deal (2 paychecks away).Then I'll see first hand if HDV/firewire is something I visually like. (And your explaination of no visual gains using a software cross conversion to ProRess from a firewire HDV ingest made perfect sense.)

2. If HDV is not to my liking, I'll explore uncompressed out the components of the A1 through a third party card into FCP6.

3. If the analog to digital softening of the image is an issue at this point, I'll ebay the A1, and move on to the G1 with HD-SDI, which we all know will work fine.

Thanks for helping me in my systematic approach. And thanks to the others for helping my mind wrap around this as well - I'll keep you posted of my findings if it will help others in their respective endeavors...

Lonnie

Kevin Amundson · June 13th, 2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jenkins

kevin, did you use the composite port in back or the BNC port on side?

I used the component port on the Back.

When I use the Video Terminal, I can get everthing on the cameras LCD to display on my monitor. But when I use the component out, I can't get the Aspest Ratio Guides to display on the monitor, even though everything else shows up.

My monitor is the 2407FP. Here are pistures with the Video Terminal, and the Component Out with the Display setting in "1:1" and "Aspect"

Why don't the Aspect Ratio Guides show up with the Component Out?

Lonnie Bell · June 13th, 2007, 10:47 AM

Hi Kevin,
thanks for your time too (man, I love this site - Chris you done did good!)

The max resolution with the Dell 2407 is 1920x1200 (i have one too) - this explains the top and bottom "matte" (or black space) on the "1:1" picture, so we are getting the 1080 vertical from the analog... (help me out engineers - my degree is biology)

now for the black on the sides obviously not getting the full 1920, but it sure seems bigger than 1440... close enough for me - sold! Kevin you rock!

Now as for your guide lines - I have no clue, but you could aim the camera at something better than a plain white wall for reference and mark your dell accordingly by referencing your camera's LCD (would not use a permanent marker or chisel for this :)

Kevin & Thomas you guys are champs today! Thank you all as well -
Lonnie

Richard Hunter · June 14th, 2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonnie Bell

now for the black on the sides obviously not getting the full 1920, but it sure seems bigger than 1440... close enough for me - sold! Kevin you rock!

Hi Lonnie. Please take a look at Nate Weaver's earlier post, because what you are saying is really very inaccurate (I'm trying to be polite here! :) ).

The width of the analogue component image on the LCD depends on 2 (or 3)factors. One is the timing of the D/A converters in the camera, i.e. where the active video starts in relation to the horizontal sync pulse. The second is the timing of the A/D converters in the monitor, i.e. where the line sampling starts in relation to the horizontal sync pulse. Either of these factors can cause a black border at the sides of the image. They can also cause the image to be cropped, for example if the monitor A/D starts sampling later than the start of the active video period produced by the camera you will miss the first few samples of each line.

A possible third factor is how the monitor scales the sampled video data and maps it to the LCD panel. This could also leave a black border.

Anyway, the point is that none of these factors is directly related to the number of sensors in the camera's CCD block, so you can't tell from these pictures whether the source was 1440 or 1920 or whatever.

Richard

Lonnie Bell · June 14th, 2007, 10:16 PM

Richard,
thanks for being polite, but not necessary... I'll take lumps all day to get to the bottom of things.

However, we know the fact is they are 1080 x1440 - not trying to figure that part out... trying to figure out if prior to being spewed out the analog component if they are "boosted", manipulated, hit with a magic stick, so to be anything that may resemble 1920 horizontally. Others have chimed in that even if it's a pure 1080x1440 signal that i probably couldn't tell the difference, but i thought before i plunked down cash, i'd like to know more...

What i've found out: nobody seems to know for sure. The image looks acceptably widescreen-ish. And analog signals can't be measured in pixel resolution.

So, my game plan still applies. Keep you posted...

Thanks all,
Lonnie

Lonnie Bell · June 15th, 2007, 05:52 AM

...And I have such great respect for the people of this site, I wanted to make sure my replies are met with my intended thoughtfulness - especially to you engineers or signal savvy guys who must be squirming in their chairs reading my ignorance...

So, sincere thanks. My forte is more the creative side (writing/directing/acting/editing), but since I am also the operator/purchaser of my own gear, I'm learning as I go (and hopefully always will).

Thanks for your patience,
Lonnie

Chris Hurd · June 15th, 2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonnie Bell

... we know the fact is they are 1080 x1440 - not trying to figure that part out... trying to figure out if prior to being spewed out the analog component if they are "boosted", manipulated, hit with a magic stick, so to be anything that may resemble 1920 horizontally.

Well you have to understand that it already resembles 1920 horizontally to begin with. See the second paragraph and accompanying diagram from my article Canon XL H1 Image Sensors, DSP and Frame Rates -- obviously written for the XL H1 but it also applies to the XH series camcorders as well.

Basically, 1440 anamorphic equals 1920 square.

There's no "loss of resolution" associated with this method (1440 anamorphic equals 1920 square) thanks to the Pixel Shift process in the horizontal axis. And that's pretty much all there is to it.

Now the real question is, what can you do with this information. What *difference* does any of this stuff make. And the answer is it hardly makes any difference at all and there really isn't very much you can do with this information. It boils down to understanding two things:

1. Any HDTV monitor will properly scale this 1440 anamorphic signal to 1920 square, automatically. There's nothing you need to do.

2. When editing 1080i HDV, make sure to set the Pixel Aspect Ratio of your video editing software to 1:1.333.

Quote:

these are PRE-purchase questions before I plunk down 7k on camera and IO HD - that would be a large investment for a test and then only to be possibly disappointed...

There is a large body of anecdotal evidence presented here on this site from a wide variety of actual XH A1 owners which clearly shows that *they* have not been disappointed... and who is to say that their standards of quality aren't more stringent than yours. In other words, if the output was disappointing, don't you think you would have read statements to that effect already? And yet there are hardly any negative reports about that.

Even if you were disappointed, that $7k is not "lost," you could easily recover 100% of it.

Just curious, what kind of HDTV do you have in the house right now? A computer monitor will not be sufficient for reviewing HDV originated video, nor will an HDTV with a resolution of 1280x720.

Lonnie Bell · June 15th, 2007, 10:16 AM

Chris,
Thanks for your firm opinions - I do find the value in them...

To answer your other question: Oddly enough, I don't watch TV and don't own one, accept to monitor my SD DVDs via SD monitors and LCDs. My world right now is SD: Sony PVM Production Monitor, 8045q field monitor, nebtek pan70 on camera mount, and 2 Dells LCDs, and two 40inch Tvs who sole purpose are two see how the real world will see my SD work (no cable, no satelite, no American Idol)... and I'm now finally making the slow transition to HD...

Where yes, I'll finally breakdown and get an HDTV, but I was waiting for my HD equipment workflow to justify it (ie. HD: disk burners/readers, camera, monitors, etc...)

HD Monitors I'm looking at for field and studio are Panny's 17", their new 7inch on camera lcd, and nebtek's customized Marshall, and now I understand Nebtek is introducing their own line in July... (some of these monitors may seem like overkill for an A1, but I would like to future proof some of my HD purchases toward bigger/better HD as best I can)... And the great cost of the A1 allows me some clams left over to splurge on other necessities...

So, I'm definitely not the first one into the HDV pool, but now that the waters have been tested, and I can finally afford to back my homework with purchases, I'm here to do what this forum was designed to do - educate myself - and thanks for providing a safe place to so!

Sincerely,
Lonnie

Lonnie Bell · June 15th, 2007, 10:22 AM

Chris,
p.s. thanks for directing me to the info on anamorphic pixels and my future nle settings and thoughts - will prove to be invaluable... also lends itself to other questions I need to start probing answers to right now!

Thanks again,
Lonnie

Chris Hurd · June 15th, 2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonnie Bell

Thanks for your firm opinions - I do find the value in them.

Hmm... thanks, but nothing in my post above is what I would call an opinion.

However, I will offer my opinion to you now if you're entertaining them. A proper HDTV should be your first step -- your very first link in the chain, before making a camera purchase. Without it, you'll be in no position to accurately judge any issues whatsoever of quality, resolution, etc.

Besides being a necessary item to have for reviewing your HD material, any decent 1080p HDTV will readily reveal just how utterly meaningless it is to dwell on counting pixels.

In my opinion, a crucial step is made in this entire learning process when a person stops mulling over pixels and resolution and technical specs and gets on with the *creative* process. Analysis Paralysis is a deadly disease. But that's just my opinion. Hope this helps,

Lonnie Bell · June 15th, 2007, 07:52 PM

Chris,
my former word choice of "opinion" was poor.

But, and an HDTV has moved it's way up the chain - probably purchase it with the A1.

A BIG thanks for your valuable time,
Lonnie

Amr Toukhy · October 20th, 2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Amundson

I used the component port on the Back.

When I use the Video Terminal, I can get everthing on the cameras LCD to display on my monitor. But when I use the component out, I can't get the Aspest Ratio Guides to display on the monitor, even though everything else shows up.

My monitor is the 2407FP. Here are pistures with the Video Terminal, and the Component Out with the Display setting in "1:1" and "Aspect"

Why don't the Aspect Ratio Guides show up with the Component Out?

How sharp is the image, can you determine focus, is there any option to flip the image and use 35mm adapter and check focus too !!!
thanks

Mikko Lopponen · October 21st, 2007, 03:02 AM

Kevin, that's just a problem with your lcd. If you plug anything into the component in of the Dell you will see the same result.

June 13th, 2007, 06:09 AM	#32
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	Thomas, Thanks for taking the time. This was exactly what I was looking for. Now I know systematically how to go about my homework. 1. Compression artifacting is a big eye-soar for me, personally. But since I really like the imagery I've been able to view (even from a compressed upload) from this particular Canon line, the purchase of an A1 is a done deal (2 paychecks away).Then I'll see first hand if HDV/firewire is something I visually like. (And your explaination of no visual gains using a software cross conversion to ProRess from a firewire HDV ingest made perfect sense.) 2. If HDV is not to my liking, I'll explore uncompressed out the components of the A1 through a third party card into FCP6. 3. If the analog to digital softening of the image is an issue at this point, I'll ebay the A1, and move on to the G1 with HD-SDI, which we all know will work fine. Thanks for helping me in my systematic approach. And thanks to the others for helping my mind wrap around this as well - I'll keep you posted of my findings if it will help others in their respective endeavors... Lonnie __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

June 13th, 2007, 10:47 AM	#34
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	Hi Kevin, thanks for your time too (man, I love this site - Chris you done did good!) The max resolution with the Dell 2407 is 1920x1200 (i have one too) - this explains the top and bottom "matte" (or black space) on the "1:1" picture, so we are getting the 1080 vertical from the analog... (help me out engineers - my degree is biology) now for the black on the sides obviously not getting the full 1920, but it sure seems bigger than 1440... close enough for me - sold! Kevin you rock! Now as for your guide lines - I have no clue, but you could aim the camera at something better than a plain white wall for reference and mark your dell accordingly by referencing your camera's LCD (would not use a permanent marker or chisel for this :) Kevin & Thomas you guys are champs today! Thank you all as well - Lonnie __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

June 14th, 2007, 10:16 PM	#36
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	Richard, thanks for being polite, but not necessary... I'll take lumps all day to get to the bottom of things. However, we know the fact is they are 1080 x1440 - not trying to figure that part out... trying to figure out if prior to being spewed out the analog component if they are "boosted", manipulated, hit with a magic stick, so to be anything that may resemble 1920 horizontally. Others have chimed in that even if it's a pure 1080x1440 signal that i probably couldn't tell the difference, but i thought before i plunked down cash, i'd like to know more... What i've found out: nobody seems to know for sure. The image looks acceptably widescreen-ish. And analog signals can't be measured in pixel resolution. So, my game plan still applies. Keep you posted... Thanks all, Lonnie __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

June 15th, 2007, 05:52 AM	#37
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	...And I have such great respect for the people of this site, I wanted to make sure my replies are met with my intended thoughtfulness - especially to you engineers or signal savvy guys who must be squirming in their chairs reading my ignorance... So, sincere thanks. My forte is more the creative side (writing/directing/acting/editing), but since I am also the operator/purchaser of my own gear, I'm learning as I go (and hopefully always will). Thanks for your patience, Lonnie __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

June 15th, 2007, 10:16 AM	#39
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	Chris, Thanks for your firm opinions - I do find the value in them... To answer your other question: Oddly enough, I don't watch TV and don't own one, accept to monitor my SD DVDs via SD monitors and LCDs. My world right now is SD: Sony PVM Production Monitor, 8045q field monitor, nebtek pan70 on camera mount, and 2 Dells LCDs, and two 40inch Tvs who sole purpose are two see how the real world will see my SD work (no cable, no satelite, no American Idol)... and I'm now finally making the slow transition to HD... Where yes, I'll finally breakdown and get an HDTV, but I was waiting for my HD equipment workflow to justify it (ie. HD: disk burners/readers, camera, monitors, etc...) HD Monitors I'm looking at for field and studio are Panny's 17", their new 7inch on camera lcd, and nebtek's customized Marshall, and now I understand Nebtek is introducing their own line in July... (some of these monitors may seem like overkill for an A1, but I would like to future proof some of my HD purchases toward bigger/better HD as best I can)... And the great cost of the A1 allows me some clams left over to splurge on other necessities... So, I'm definitely not the first one into the HDV pool, but now that the waters have been tested, and I can finally afford to back my homework with purchases, I'm here to do what this forum was designed to do - educate myself - and thanks for providing a safe place to so! Sincerely, Lonnie __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

June 12th, 2007, 11:58 AM	#31
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Well I can tell you that in terms of compression quality and artifacts that captuing live to ProRess will be better. In terms of detail I doubt you would notice any gain over HDV. HDV is digital and a analog component output slightly softens the video. So even if there was the full raster of 1920x1080 pixels getting converted to analog and output chances are any gain you would have had might be lost due to the softness of the analog conversion. SDI however would keep all the detail since it is still digital. To some people the analog vs digital thing isn't that big of a deal because component doesn't give you any artifacts and is very clean even though slightly softer. I wouldn't really consider the advantage of the AJA IO to be extra detail but to get rid of any mpeg2 based artifacts in your footage and get better color detail. Converting HDV to ProRess isn't going to gain you anything either. HDV is already HDV and converting it to another format isn't going to make it look better. Converting to ProRess or uncompressed isn't any different then FCP converting each frame on the fly to uncompressed when you edit HDV. The only thing that converting to ProRess will do for you is make the footage use less of the cpu during editing so you may get more realtime performance. Then again the ProRess material takes up much more bandwidth for the disk drives so chances are unless you have a raid setup you would only get one or two streams in realtime anyway. The only time ProRess would be an advantage with HDV material is if you need to take it into a few other 3rd party programs to render. This makes sure you are not encoding multiple generations of mpeg2 of the same piece of video.

June 15th, 2007, 10:22 AM	#40
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	Chris, p.s. thanks for directing me to the info on anamorphic pixels and my future nle settings and thoughts - will prove to be invaluable... also lends itself to other questions I need to start probing answers to right now! Thanks again, Lonnie __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

June 15th, 2007, 07:52 PM	#42
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	Chris, my former word choice of "opinion" was poor. But, and an HDTV has moved it's way up the chain - probably purchase it with the A1. A BIG thanks for your valuable time, Lonnie __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

October 21st, 2007, 03:02 AM	#44
Mikko Lopponen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 393	Kevin, that's just a problem with your lcd. If you plug anything into the component in of the Dell you will see the same result.