Is DV OK for Beta SX footage? (DV vs. Uncompressed?)

Mike Barber · May 11th, 2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin Termini

Like it has been mentioned, Beta SX does indeed look better than DV.

At this point, it's academic for me as I would certainly be doing online in uncompressed 8-bit then out to Beta SX, but I am curious to know how or why Beta SX is alleged to look better than DV. I don't have the means to look at similar footage acquired with each, so I have nothing with which to do a comparison. But based on the technical numbers alone (of course, that doesn't account for everything) I am surprised as I would think the one with less compression and higher bit-rate would result in a better image!

Glenn Chan · May 11th, 2008, 01:51 PM

On paper, it might be a tossup.

DV is consumer... in other words, it's designed to be cheap. They aren't using the most efficient compression. The use of 4:1:1 color space is I believe a cost-saving measure (it should be possible to get more efficient compression with 4:2:2 and heavier DCT compression on the chroma).

SX I believe uses a 2-frame GOP (or something like that)... which makes its compression more efficient. (Though it also means you can't do insert editing on particular frames.)

I've not used betaSX so I don't know how it compares to DV.

2- The betaSX cameras are probably generally better than DV cameras.

Andy Tejral · May 11th, 2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Chan

DV is consumer...

2- The betaSX cameras are probably generally better than DV cameras.

God, I hate it when people do this.

B&H has this Sony DSR-450WSLP for $15K. That is a consumer product? Someone using one cannot produce good video? I don't think so. But if you want to continue this belief go for it.

Now, you did say 'probably' and 'generally' but you could put a DVCAM back on any professional standalone camera. And you could put a SX back on the same camera. Which is better? I don't know but please don't compare a K-Mart single chip to a broadcast 3-chip.

Glenn Chan · May 11th, 2008, 04:36 PM

Andy... what I was trying to say is that betaSX footage may look better for reasons that have nothing to do with the format itself, e.g. betaSX cameras are on average more expensive/better than miniDV cameras. So it might simply look better if most of the miniDV footage one has seen is from cheap/mediocre cameras.

2- The other point is that you just can't only compare bitrates and say compression A is better than compression B. e.g. if you look at different desktop MPEG-2 encoders, some do a better job than others at the same bitrate.

As far as whether beta SX is better than DV or vice versa, I wouldn't know because I've never compared the two.

William Hohauser · May 11th, 2008, 07:36 PM

As I stated, all of the BetaSX footage I've seen wasn't exceptional, not bad, but not exceptional to compared to DVCam or DV. The lowest quality came from a switched set-up. Probably composite video recorded into a BetaSX deck. The cameras were good cameras. Certainly a BetaSX camera will produce a quality image since there are no BetaSX cameras that are less then full size professional quality, no prosumer models, no low end pro 3 chip cameras like a PD-170.

However, remember that BetaSX was mainly designed for news gathering and the format was made for quick ingest into massive news servers. Sony never intended BetaSX to be used as a high quality creative production format. That what DigiBeta was designed for. All the BetaSX I've worked with came from news organizations and one non-profit institution that was sold a bill of goods by some A/V contractor.

Whether BetaSX is better then DV is mostly moot for new productions. DV is still here, BetaSX has been discontinued.

Bruce Rawlings · May 14th, 2008, 03:17 PM

I have material shot on the first DVCAM DSR set up with broadcast lenses and the shot was a rocky cliff full of detail it looks awful. Pictures of trees with lots of leaves look terrible. Visually similar shots produced on a DNW 9 look fine. I through out DVCAM at an early stage because of this - big mistake as every one uses it and does not care about the artifacts.

Shaun Roemich · May 15th, 2008, 09:43 AM

As someone who has shot both formats extensively, allow me to add this: BetaSX is not a fantastic production format but it IS 4:2:2 colour space compared with DVCam's 4:1:1. Even using dockable backs on the same camera you WILL see a difference on pro/broadcast level monitors.

DVCam is not at ALL a bad format but by capturing into a 4:1:1 colour space (DV/DVCam)from a 4:2:2 medium (BetaSX), you are discarding colour information that you cannot get back. Use DV capture for offline, sure. But I personally would use an uncompressed workflow for online.

As well, my preference when working wih SX is to make sure I have exceedingly large handles (5+ seconds) on every clip to ensure I have included the keyframe in my capture, regardless of how much I may trim my edits or include dissolves. Try playing SX backward or frame by frame NOT from a keyframe and you'll see the format fall apart.

Mike Barber · May 15th, 2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

my preference when working wih SX is to make sure I have exceedingly large handles (5+ seconds) on every clip to ensure I have included the keyframe in my capture

That's a great tip, thanks!

I'm hoping to get a response to my bid by the end of the month.

Shaun Roemich · May 16th, 2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Barber

I'm hoping to get a response to my bid by the end of the month.

Bon chance, mon ami!

May 11th, 2008, 07:36 PM	#20
William Hohauser Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: New York City Posts: 2,650	As I stated, all of the BetaSX footage I've seen wasn't exceptional, not bad, but not exceptional to compared to DVCam or DV. The lowest quality came from a switched set-up. Probably composite video recorded into a BetaSX deck. The cameras were good cameras. Certainly a BetaSX camera will produce a quality image since there are no BetaSX cameras that are less then full size professional quality, no prosumer models, no low end pro 3 chip cameras like a PD-170. However, remember that BetaSX was mainly designed for news gathering and the format was made for quick ingest into massive news servers. Sony never intended BetaSX to be used as a high quality creative production format. That what DigiBeta was designed for. All the BetaSX I've worked with came from news organizations and one non-profit institution that was sold a bill of goods by some A/V contractor. Whether BetaSX is better then DV is mostly moot for new productions. DV is still here, BetaSX has been discontinued. __________________ William Hohauser - New York City Producer/Edit/Camera/Animation

May 15th, 2008, 09:43 AM	#22
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	As someone who has shot both formats extensively, allow me to add this: BetaSX is not a fantastic production format but it IS 4:2:2 colour space compared with DVCam's 4:1:1. Even using dockable backs on the same camera you WILL see a difference on pro/broadcast level monitors. DVCam is not at ALL a bad format but by capturing into a 4:1:1 colour space (DV/DVCam)from a 4:2:2 medium (BetaSX), you are discarding colour information that you cannot get back. Use DV capture for offline, sure. But I personally would use an uncompressed workflow for online. As well, my preference when working wih SX is to make sure I have exceedingly large handles (5+ seconds) on every clip to ensure I have included the keyframe in my capture, regardless of how much I may trim my edits or include dissolves. Try playing SX backward or frame by frame NOT from a keyframe and you'll see the format fall apart. __________________ Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/

May 11th, 2008, 01:51 PM	#17
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	On paper, it might be a tossup. DV is consumer... in other words, it's designed to be cheap. They aren't using the most efficient compression. The use of 4:1:1 color space is I believe a cost-saving measure (it should be possible to get more efficient compression with 4:2:2 and heavier DCT compression on the chroma). SX I believe uses a 2-frame GOP (or something like that)... which makes its compression more efficient. (Though it also means you can't do insert editing on particular frames.) I've not used betaSX so I don't know how it compares to DV. 2- The betaSX cameras are probably generally better than DV cameras.

May 11th, 2008, 04:36 PM	#19
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	Andy... what I was trying to say is that betaSX footage may look better for reasons that have nothing to do with the format itself, e.g. betaSX cameras are on average more expensive/better than miniDV cameras. So it might simply look better if most of the miniDV footage one has seen is from cheap/mediocre cameras. 2- The other point is that you just can't only compare bitrates and say compression A is better than compression B. e.g. if you look at different desktop MPEG-2 encoders, some do a better job than others at the same bitrate. As far as whether beta SX is better than DV or vice versa, I wouldn't know because I've never compared the two.

May 14th, 2008, 03:17 PM	#21
Bruce Rawlings Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Cardiff, Wales, UK Posts: 410	I have material shot on the first DVCAM DSR set up with broadcast lenses and the shot was a rocky cliff full of detail it looks awful. Pictures of trees with lots of leaves look terrible. Visually similar shots produced on a DNW 9 look fine. I through out DVCAM at an early stage because of this - big mistake as every one uses it and does not care about the artifacts.