SD vs down converted HD - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1

Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1
Pro and consumer versions of this Sony 3-CCD HDV camcorder.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 12th, 2009, 06:03 PM   #31
Trustee
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff View Post
... all standard definition wide screen 16:9 is anamorphic...
That's not correct. Wide screen was first achieved by cropping SD and putting black bars on the top and bottom. As they advanced they switched to anamorphic which used all of the vertical resolution by squeezing the image when filmed, then was expanded by the dvd player. This then was called "true" wide screen.
Pete Cofrancesco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2009, 11:33 PM   #32
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco View Post
That's not correct. Wide screen was first achieved by cropping SD and putting black bars on the top and bottom. As they advanced they switched to anamorphic which used all of the vertical resolution by squeezing the image when filmed, then was expanded by the dvd player. This then was called "true" wide screen.
I believe what Boyd is referring to is that all 16:9 SD DV is RECORDED as "anamorphic", which is a "new" take on the original filmic process of placing a "squeezing" lens on the camera and a "stretching" lens on the projector.

By this I mean that REGARDLESS of whether one has native 16:9 sensors or a centre crop of a 4:3 sensor is performed (lowering resolution), BOTH are recorded to tape the same way which is writing the information to a 720 x 480 frame size (ASSUMING NTSC) with a pixel aspect ratio conversion so that during play back, the 720 x 480 (which is NOT 16:9 if you do the math...) BECOMES 16:9.

Of course, Pete knows this and my dissertation is solely for the benefit of future readers.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2009, 11:34 PM   #33
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco View Post
Wide screen was first achieved by cropping SD and putting black bars on the top and bottom.
Actually, the process was to take a 16:9 shaped "bite" out of a 4:3 image and then stretch that vertically to fill 4:3 frame and record to tape.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2009, 03:23 AM   #34
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
Shaun's considered reply is correct but I have a small quibble about 'a centre crop of a 4:3 sensor is performed, lowering resolution.'

In fact the resolution isn't affected at all - a road sign is just as readable in the middle of a 4:3 frame as it is in a masked down 4:3 frame. On a 4:3 TV this is very clearly so - but if you then expand this cropped image vertically to fill a 16:9 TV it does appear to have less resolution. But the resolution is actually unchanged; sit further away and the sign is just as legible.

Pete's argument (anamorphic uses all of the vertical resolution) is not borne out in practice and the DVX100B clearly proves this. It's a 4:3 chipped camcorder that has the option of masking to produce 16:9 (whereupon the v'finder image is undistorted) or squeezing the image (then the v'finders show vertical expansion)

Both give the same end result on DVD - in resolution and aspect ratio.

tom.
Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2009, 09:33 AM   #35
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick View Post
In fact the resolution isn't affected at all - a road sign is just as readable in the middle of a 4:3 frame as it is in a masked down 4:3 frame.
Again, my bad for not being clearer: resolution of a 4:3 sensor cropped to 16:9 is reduced COMPARED TO a 16:9 native sensor in SD when viewing on a 16:9 display (NOT letterboxed in a 4:3 display).
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2009, 04:06 PM   #36
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 1,104
Another benefit to shooting in HD and converting to SD after editing is the ability to crop footage (zoom) to optimize framing and composition without losing SD definition. You can safely go in 20% without perceptible SD softening.
Jim Snow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 06:49 PM   #37
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Raeford, NC
Posts: 5
Re: SD vs down converted HD

I agree with Jim Snow about downloading HDV in HD, editing in HD, and converting as the last step.

What is still confusing to me is what method (workflow) of converting from HDV to SD is the best method before burning an SD DVD. I've tried exporting to Quicktime, then to Compressor/DVD Studio Pro. Have also used MPEG Streamclip and Toast.

The reason this is especially critical at this point in time is that I was hired to video tape series of fast paced soccer games. Just want to reduce the blur and get the best clarity to SD DVD.

Many thanks, everyone.

Leon
Leon Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 07:04 PM   #38
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Re: SD vs down converted HD

Hi Leon, you might want to check whichever editing forum we have that best suits your workflow (Vegas / Adobe / Final Cut etc.) because I think you'll find much more info there rather than this camera-specific board. Hope this helps,
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:15 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network