HDV 4:3 and 16:9 at DVinfo.net

Ken Hodson · August 6th, 2004, 11:23 PM

There is nothing wrong with native 4:3 as long as you can pull a full resolution 16:9 frame out of it. I would never consider this a deficiency at all.

Heath McKnight · August 7th, 2004, 08:22 AM

I agree and disagree:

Buying a camera with 16x9 is cheaper than buying an anamorphic lens adaptor.

hwm

Ken Hodson · August 7th, 2004, 08:31 AM

I thought you were talking about the CCD.
There is no way a HDV cam will be 4:3 aspect for output.

Heath McKnight · August 7th, 2004, 08:38 AM

I'm still half-awake, so I'm not entirely clear on what your saying.

The HD10 is native 16:9, the Sony HDV cam is RUMORED (I'm emphasizing this because it's just that for now) to be native 4:3.

hwm

Ken Hodson · August 7th, 2004, 09:15 AM

The HD10 is 4:3 CCD with a "true" 16:9 frame.

"the Sony HDV cam is RUMORED (I'm emphasizing this because it's just that for now) to be native 4:3"

Unless it's refering to the CCD, it's a bad rumor.

Heath McKnight · August 7th, 2004, 01:22 PM

I've gotten this from a great source. Also, you're off on the HD10:

On the official site, it says, in italics, native 16:9, all in the second paragraph. That doesn't work with the DV mode, though, and I believe the SD might not be native 16:9, either.

hwm

Ken Hodson · August 7th, 2004, 03:21 PM

When you take a snap shot with the HD10 it is 1280x960 (4:3) using the full CCD, but when you shoot video it crops it to 1280x720 (16:9) is this not correct?
When they are saying "native 16:9" they mean you are getting full 16:9 resolution, as opossed to a DVX100 that crops its 4:3 frame to give you less than the full 720x480.

Heath McKnight · August 7th, 2004, 03:31 PM

Ken,

have you used the HD10? It definitely goes to native 16:9 in HD mode, you can tell when flipping from DV to SD to HD.

heath

Ken Hodson · August 7th, 2004, 03:34 PM

Yes I own the camera. And it still uses a 4:3 CCD on which it shoots a NATIVE 16:9 frame :)

Heath McKnight · August 7th, 2004, 03:50 PM

I just put the camera on my fiancee and used all three modes. Staying as wide as possible, it appeared that she was getting further and further away and more and more things were appearing in the shot. But again, it looked like she was getting smaller, like I was zooming out.

I'm gonna have this part of the conversation sent over to the HD10/HD1 page for more discussion. :-)

h

Frederic Lumiere · August 7th, 2004, 05:47 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : Yes I own the camera. And it still uses a 4:3 CCD on which it shoots a NATIVE 16:9 frame :) -->>>

This is technically correct. Essentially, the CCD is 1280 X 960 (Highest resolution in still mode) and the resolution is cropped to achieve native 16:9 (1280 X 720).

This really isn't a big deal. The shape of the CCD is irrelevant as long as it acquires the image at a native 16:9 at HD resolution, and it does.

No pixel stretching occurs, unlike Varicam. ;)

Heath McKnight · August 7th, 2004, 10:55 PM

VariCam does WHAT?!

hwm

ps-THANKS Frederich!

Ken Hodson · August 7th, 2004, 11:05 PM

Yes thanks Frederich.
I guess my point wasn't clear enough?

PS- Frederich, there is a post on HDV-Cow called - Lumiere HD problemos: Your product is being bashed wrongfully. You might want check it out and set this straight.

Frederic Lumiere · August 8th, 2004, 09:26 AM

Heath,

The Varicam codec is sub HD resolution when transferred to the NLE: 960 X 720, compared to HDV which is truely 1280 X 720. The Varicam image is still superior to the HD10U image because of the camera, lense (and problematic MPEG compression), in my opinion, not the codec. DVCPRO HD is essentially multiple DV frames. When the new HDV generation cameras come out (A few surprises on the horizon...sooner than we think), HDV is going to give Varicam a serious run for its money. I'll bet that HDV is going to put DVCPRO HD out of business and Panasonic will have to adopt the format.

Ken,

I just realized after reading further down in the thread that I wrote almost the same thing you wrote. ;) Yes, your point was very clear.

Regarding the Cow forum, we chose not to participate in that forum anymore for reasons that aren't worth bringing up. I saw that post and I agree, it is poor. I'll just post our response here:

Lumiere HD currently supports the JVC HD resolution (1280 X 720). Support for SD resolution and other models (PD1) is coming but isn't a priority right now. It is Lumiere HD afterall not Lumiere SD. ;)

Technical support is provided via our forum at http://lumierehd.com/forums/ for owners of Lumiere HD. Current owners must register and enter their serial number in their profile to be given access to the Tech Support area (This is fully described in the email received after purchasing the software). The aiff audio issue described is a common problem which is easily fixable by removing spaces in the drive/folder name where the clips are stored.

The freeware mentioned in the post, MPEG Streamclip, won't allow you to do the following (which is offered with Lumiere HD):

- Capture from the camera/deck (Need another shareware: DVHSCap from Apple)
- Logging info for each clip > FCP (Coming in future release of Lumiere HD)
- Batch convert clips to codec of choice (huge time saver)
- XML FCP integration (Ready to edit in realtime, optimized online process)
- Encode HDV Transport Stream (Lumiere HD includes the Mainconcept encoder a $245 value)
- Print back to tape

I think the freeware mentioned is very good for what it does however. If all you need is to capture short clips from your HDV camera and edit it in FCP, I highly recommend it. But it isn't a complete solution for professional editors who value time saving. At $179, Lumiere HD pays for itself in the first hours of operation. It saved our production company 1.5 weeks of assistant editor's time on a 17 minute short film!

Lumiere HD provides everything you need to capture, log, optimize workflow, and send back to tape in full HD resolution. It will save professional editors hours of prep work and thousands of dollars in MPEG2 transport stream encoding (Other solution costs $5,000).

August 6th, 2004, 11:23 PM	#1
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	There is nothing wrong with native 4:3 as long as you can pull a full resolution 16:9 frame out of it. I would never consider this a deficiency at all. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 7th, 2004, 08:22 AM	#2
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I agree and disagree: Buying a camera with 16x9 is cheaper than buying an anamorphic lens adaptor. hwm __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 7th, 2004, 08:31 AM	#3
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	I thought you were talking about the CCD. There is no way a HDV cam will be 4:3 aspect for output. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 7th, 2004, 08:38 AM	#4
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I'm still half-awake, so I'm not entirely clear on what your saying. The HD10 is native 16:9, the Sony HDV cam is RUMORED (I'm emphasizing this because it's just that for now) to be native 4:3. hwm __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 7th, 2004, 09:15 AM	#5
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	The HD10 is 4:3 CCD with a "true" 16:9 frame. "the Sony HDV cam is RUMORED (I'm emphasizing this because it's just that for now) to be native 4:3" Unless it's refering to the CCD, it's a bad rumor. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 7th, 2004, 01:22 PM	#6
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I've gotten this from a great source. Also, you're off on the HD10: On the official site, it says, in italics, native 16:9, all in the second paragraph. That doesn't work with the DV mode, though, and I believe the SD might not be native 16:9, either. hwm __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 7th, 2004, 03:21 PM	#7
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	When you take a snap shot with the HD10 it is 1280x960 (4:3) using the full CCD, but when you shoot video it crops it to 1280x720 (16:9) is this not correct? When they are saying "native 16:9" they mean you are getting full 16:9 resolution, as opossed to a DVX100 that crops its 4:3 frame to give you less than the full 720x480. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 7th, 2004, 03:31 PM	#8
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Ken, have you used the HD10? It definitely goes to native 16:9 in HD mode, you can tell when flipping from DV to SD to HD. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 7th, 2004, 03:34 PM	#9
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Yes I own the camera. And it still uses a 4:3 CCD on which it shoots a NATIVE 16:9 frame :) __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 7th, 2004, 03:50 PM	#10
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I just put the camera on my fiancee and used all three modes. Staying as wide as possible, it appeared that she was getting further and further away and more and more things were appearing in the shot. But again, it looked like she was getting smaller, like I was zooming out. I'm gonna have this part of the conversation sent over to the HD10/HD1 page for more discussion. :-) h __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 7th, 2004, 05:47 PM	#11
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : Yes I own the camera. And it still uses a 4:3 CCD on which it shoots a NATIVE 16:9 frame :) -->>> This is technically correct. Essentially, the CCD is 1280 X 960 (Highest resolution in still mode) and the resolution is cropped to achieve native 16:9 (1280 X 720). This really isn't a big deal. The shape of the CCD is irrelevant as long as it acquires the image at a native 16:9 at HD resolution, and it does. No pixel stretching occurs, unlike Varicam. ;)

August 7th, 2004, 10:55 PM	#12
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	VariCam does WHAT?! hwm ps-THANKS Frederich! __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 7th, 2004, 11:05 PM	#13
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Yes thanks Frederich. I guess my point wasn't clear enough? PS- Frederich, there is a post on HDV-Cow called - Lumiere HD problemos: Your product is being bashed wrongfully. You might want check it out and set this straight. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 8th, 2004, 09:26 AM	#14
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Heath, The Varicam codec is sub HD resolution when transferred to the NLE: 960 X 720, compared to HDV which is truely 1280 X 720. The Varicam image is still superior to the HD10U image because of the camera, lense (and problematic MPEG compression), in my opinion, not the codec. DVCPRO HD is essentially multiple DV frames. When the new HDV generation cameras come out (A few surprises on the horizon...sooner than we think), HDV is going to give Varicam a serious run for its money. I'll bet that HDV is going to put DVCPRO HD out of business and Panasonic will have to adopt the format. Ken, I just realized after reading further down in the thread that I wrote almost the same thing you wrote. ;) Yes, your point was very clear. Regarding the Cow forum, we chose not to participate in that forum anymore for reasons that aren't worth bringing up. I saw that post and I agree, it is poor. I'll just post our response here: Lumiere HD currently supports the JVC HD resolution (1280 X 720). Support for SD resolution and other models (PD1) is coming but isn't a priority right now. It is Lumiere HD afterall not Lumiere SD. ;) Technical support is provided via our forum at http://lumierehd.com/forums/ for owners of Lumiere HD. Current owners must register and enter their serial number in their profile to be given access to the Tech Support area (This is fully described in the email received after purchasing the software). The aiff audio issue described is a common problem which is easily fixable by removing spaces in the drive/folder name where the clips are stored. The freeware mentioned in the post, MPEG Streamclip, won't allow you to do the following (which is offered with Lumiere HD): - Capture from the camera/deck (Need another shareware: DVHSCap from Apple) - Logging info for each clip > FCP (Coming in future release of Lumiere HD) - Batch convert clips to codec of choice (huge time saver) - XML FCP integration (Ready to edit in realtime, optimized online process) - Encode HDV Transport Stream (Lumiere HD includes the Mainconcept encoder a $245 value) - Print back to tape I think the freeware mentioned is very good for what it does however. If all you need is to capture short clips from your HDV camera and edit it in FCP, I highly recommend it. But it isn't a complete solution for professional editors who value time saving. At $179, Lumiere HD pays for itself in the first hours of operation. It saved our production company 1.5 weeks of assistant editor's time on a 17 minute short film! Lumiere HD provides everything you need to capture, log, optimize workflow, and send back to tape in full HD resolution. It will save professional editors hours of prep work and thousands of dollars in MPEG2 transport stream encoding (Other solution costs $5,000).