View Full Version : HD pics Posted!!!
Stephen L. Minor
October 25th, 2003, 03:44 AM
I've read alot of questions on different boards about the quality of the footage from the HD10 compared to DV so I posted FRAMES from a clip. These are NOT photos they are full rez frames downconverted to dv resolution for comparison purposes.
I used only Vegas 4 to do the enhancements. I did them to show how the color is usable dispite it's flaws. The filters applied to the DV were NOT the same process as the HD. I also included one SD shot from the JVC to balance between HD and DV. Both were tweaked until I saw the image degrading or no longer improving.
The pixel ratio is 1.77 on both the HD and DV. The dv was shot anamorphic without any image cropping (full resolution). The DV footage was captured directly to the HDD with NO use of tape, this of course was not possible using the HD10.
IMO I feel the filters while less dramatic in some instances are profound in others. This was taken using NO lighting, both cams were in manuel mode, about the same settings, I shot the same 2:45 sequence in DV/HD/SD. These color adjustments may not be what some look for, or they may help others see potential. I'll update and post frame from the film I shot, which show various situations in a controled lighting environment.
October 25th, 2003, 09:15 AM
Thanks for posting those. Let's make this thread the central HD Pics location.
What camera did you use for the DV footage?
I propose that a great test would be to compare the XL1s or the Panasonic 24p DV with the HD10U as these are the best alternatives for the price range. All in progressive scan mode of course.
Also a thourough test should compare the same shots and I perhaps no color correction since the quality of color correction highly depends on the operator.
We should also leave the stills to their original resolution and if someone wants to watch them in the same size they can resize the stills.
Ideally, we'd have some outdoor shots and some indoor in studio with excellent lighting.
I would do it but I parted with my XL1.
Here's what I took last weekend with the HD10U.
October 25th, 2003, 06:59 PM
I agree with all of Fred's points. Down sampling to SD resolution is not the best way to compare stills. It is hard to notice the benefits of downsampling unless viewed as a movie.
"I'll update and post frame from the film I shot, which show various situations in a controled lighting environment."
That would be very interesting S. L. and thanks for posting those pics.
October 25th, 2003, 09:30 PM
I have to add that the DV capz you put up looks very bad. I don't think any ~$3000 DV cam can produce picture even close to being that bad.
Stephen L. Minor
October 25th, 2003, 10:21 PM
The DV cam was also a JVC (1 CCD) the raw footage has not been altered in anyway. I have compared the JVC dvl-550 to the canon XL1 and were not talking the difference between them that the HD has. Keep in mind that most people probably don't have XL1's and would like to see a variety. I began w/ nature footage because of the high color contrast and textures.
I started W/ a one chip compared to a one chip at the same resolution (if there was a standard HD player like DVD I would show both at HD rez) to keep as much "apples to apples" comparison as possible. As I said before these are not photos they are frame grabs. While not as impactful as in motion they do accurately represent the superiority of HDV. I intend to post 3 CCD footage soon, and full rez HD. Also I'll put some video clips up, but I'll most likely do that in WM or QT formats , as all can't play .m2t files.
The studio lit footage I have includes, int. club scene a stage spotlight, shopping mal, gyml, ext. park , car (a common scene) and some others. I post them in full rez also.
October 25th, 2003, 10:56 PM
And is the JVC HD footage in 30P mode? It's one thing to comapre a $700 DV cam to a $3000 camera, it's another thing to compare interlaced frame grab video to progressive.
Stephen L. Minor
October 26th, 2003, 02:35 AM
Yang, what are you asking? If you want to compare it to something else go right ahead. That's the point it's there.
October 26th, 2003, 08:10 AM
My point is that I believe it's a skewed comparison. Probably done unintentionally by you because you only had a sub-standard DV cam at hand, but nonetheless a point that needed to be raised. I assumed that you wanted to point out the advantage of shooting in HD and then down-rezing to SD?However, the examples I've put up from my DVX100 shows that the difference is not as polarized as you have made them out to be. (Granted that we compare similarly priced equipment)
Stephen L. Minor
October 27th, 2003, 07:22 PM
Yea those are good pics Yang. Now others can compare them to the pics of HD at the same rez. Thats the point.
I still see the HD10 as better down converted to DV rez, and at the HD 720 it will surely blow away any DV cam because it's JUST AS CLEAR at full rez as it looks at 480.