How does SD DV footage looks on a HD tv?
 

One interesting question is "how does SD DV footage looks on a HD tv"? I'd like to know because I don't think millions of production companies, indie film makers, amateur film makers, or even consumers will change from DV to Hd from night to day. I'm sure that a lot of people are going to hang on to their DVs until something better and more accessible Hd solutions come along. I for once am very interested in hopping in the HD waggon, but so far I'm simply not satisfied enough (this a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the main question).

This question really has many answers. It kills me when a conversation is going on between folks comparing camera footage quality, one of them on a 36" CRT, and the second on a 60" HDTV. Guess what each of them are saying? HDTV's (AFAIK) uprez their input to whatever their native resolution, so SD looks better on them than the same sized analog projection/CRT TV.

Factor in all the different cams, widescreen modes (both camera and TV), progressive and interlaced footage, cheapo SD cams vs pro SD cams, and you have nearly infinite variables. SD can look very very good, or very very bad. You only have 720x480 to play with, and with NTSC interlaced it's more like 720x380 at best. Blow this up enough and you'll hate even the best cam's output.

The DVDs you watch are 720X480. Does they looks good for you on your HDTV set? If so, you know how theorically DV can look.

If the HDTV has a decent scaler it should look pretty good. But Dennis makes some very good points. If the DV camera doesn't have native 16:9 chips it may not look so good.

However, I have seen the extreme example of this in projecting 16:9 footage shot with my PDX-10 (which has high quality full resolution 16:9) on a 44 foot wide screen with a 10,000 lumen Barco SLM-R10 DLP projector which scaled the image to 1600x900. It looked surprisingly good. Same thing on a much smaller scale on my 22" Samsung LCD and 37" Panasonic plasma.

But on the low end of the spectrum, I watch regular analog cable on my 37" plasma and when things are letterboxed (like movies on TCM) I use the zoom function to fill the screen. The quality of these is often less than ideal - certainly worse than letterboxed DV - but it still looks acceptable since the TV smooths things out in scaling. It wouldn't fool you into thinking it's HD however.

But of course the average consumer doesn't have a very critical eye for the most part, and is probably just excited to have a big screen ;-)

SD footage looks fine on a good HDTV with decent line-doubling technology, until you compare it to HD footage played on the same display. Once you've seen the difference you'll understand why HD video production is inevitable, and that SD is destined to fade quietly into oblivion. This may be a gradual transition because people are used to being content with SD resolution, but eventually SD will seem as dated as black & white.

Of course. I totaly agree with you. But how far away is this reality? Is it really worth it to invest in cameras like the Fx1 with all its' flaws when such a reality is so far away? Recent studies show that even with the most optimist perspectives it'll take about 5 years for the US to have about 50 million people with HD TVs (that's very little)...not to mention the world. I mean, in 4 years will have cameras WAY better than the Fx1 for the same price. I think the new panasonic Hd will set the standards. The reason I'm asking all of this is because I'm between a ag-dvx100a or an Fx1 (same price). In my optinion I think the ag-dvx100 is all together a better camera with much more professional options and reliability. Actualy the only thing the Fx1 has over the ag-dvx100 series is the fact that it's HD...but at what cost? Crappy audio, way less professional controls, artifacts as heck, very dangerous tape dropps...And people won't even be able to tell it's HD right now because there's so few of them of have HD tv.

So why are you even considering the FX-1/Z1?

If it really is as bad as you profess - you have tried the camera's I'm assuming to be so ready to dismiss them so knowledgeably, then you know they aren't for you.

If you really are as conflicted as your post seems to betray... go and try a HDV camcorder - and if it truly doesn't come up to scratch compared to the DVX100, then get the DVX!!

Such big deals over something that should be so straight forward...

1. The FX1 is considered "consumer" by the manufacturer, their tech support, and their marketing channels.

2. How many tape drops have you experienced in your work with an FX1? With any HDV camera?

3. Crappy audio, huh? How much audio have you recorded with an FX 1 or other HDV camera? How much HDV audio have you worked with in order to qualify yourself to say it's "crappy?" If I recorded dialog on a Z1 or FX1, or A1u for that matter, and recorded the same audio at the same time on say...A DVX...are you suggesting you can hear the difference? If I blindfolded you, put you in a room with a pair of Hothouse 4's, you'd be able to tell me which was which?

4. "Less" professional controls? You mean the professional controls are lesser than others, or that it has FEWER than others?

If you're as predisposed as you seem to be against HDV, why bother looking at it? You're comparing a 12K system against a 3K system; doesn't this seem a little off-base to you? It sure does for me.

I will use either camera with a G35 35mm lens adapter...and I have to say I preffer the images produced by the Fx1 (WITH THE ADAPTER!). If I was to choose from both these cameras and was not going to use the adapter, I'd go for the ag-dvx100a in a heart beat. People seem to get offended by hearing this kind of thing and, unless you actualy work for one of these companies, I think it's ridiculous to react like this. Both of them are excelent cameras. Up to a certain point it's a personal matter of which type of image you're more into, that'll suit your work the best.

Check this article out, guys: http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

Raphael, neither Steve nor myself work for Sony, Panasonic, JVC, or Canon. But I find your unsubstantiated and negative comments on subject that I and others have had extensive experience with, as offensive.

Answer the questions, rather than ducking them. Otherwise, you've really got nothing to say.

Question "What experience have you had with HDV audio"?
Your answer "_____________________________________"

Question "What kind of lesser controls?"
Answer "______________________________"

If you haven't had experience with something, then that means all you're doing is reading. Reading is great when it's in the interest of research that leads to answers. Making statements with no substance or experience is counterproductive and meaningless, particularly when there are others that don't feel the way you do, and those people own the format you're knocking.
BTW, I have a DVX and a Z1, so I feel I'm pretty qualified on commenting on both.

If I posted in this forum it's exactly because I need to find out more about some particular technical details. I have exchanged e-mails with Barry Green and several DP and Directors (national geo, discovery, mtv, etc) who worked with both these cameras and the only conclusions I can make are based on what I've been told by highly talented recognized professionals. I have come here to hear some other opinions that would help me make a better choice. If I have offended anyone I'm sorry (even though I think getting offended over something like this is kind of over the top). I would very happy if you could put on the table your personal experience about the Dvx and the Z1/Fx1 (pros & cons). The article I posted was very instructive but it's nice to here from people who use these equipment on a daily basis.

P.S - My work consists mostly on comercials, music videos and narrative projects

Rather than consulting with these Emmy award winning professionals about the practicality of HDTV cameras why don't you take it to the next level and consult the Academy Award winning profesionals and ask them if they would shoot a big budget Hollywood Movie using a standard definition video camera. If you want to be the next George Lucas you will have to shoot high definition.

HD is a reality now and will be much more so next year when HD DVD players start shipping. Plus the shift toward widescreen displays is a problem for any camera which doesn't shoot true widescreen footage, which is most DV cameras. The FX1 is a fine camera with a few limitations, but then any camera in that price range is going to involve some compromises.

Perhaps you need to go about asking your questions without implying first hand knowledge. I doubt anyone would be offended if you had written "I've heard and read the reports of...", or "I don't have either of these cameras, but I've been informed by a professional source..."

The instant you made such a blanket statement that only has merit, if you had purchased one of the only FX-1/Z1 camcorders to have more than failed every quality control check, and still been let loose into the grasp of a not very capable purchaser.

Personally: I have no feelings as to whether you decide to go HDV or stay with DV. Couldn't care less.

I do care that you're throwing off hand lines blissfully unaware that other folks may read your second hand interpretation of a professional who has alerted you to the WHOLE HDV experience. All you seem to have heard are the negative things, which any professional asked to provide this sort of infomation would, because they have a responsibility to provide a balanced assessment to you. Yes some folks have reported drop-outs, some have solved them... and many haven't experienced them. If you come from the experience of a camera having every control humanly plausible for inclusion on a HD video camcorder, then the FX1/Z1 may not have every control to swoon over, but it's got more than most will manage to learn to use effectively in a week or two. And to say that DVD level audio (which is essentially the spec of the HDV audio) is substandard or poor... maybe to certain 'audio' professionals it would be, but then that's all they think of - most of those I've read comments from have no idea of workarounds or solutions that would give them far higher quality audio in post.

Your original question regarding SD on HDTV has been strayed from rather dramatically. Why do you need us to tell you something that you could check for yourself at any decent electronics store... SD on HDTV is NEVER going to look as good as HD on a HDTV regardless of scaler quality - period.

The fact of the matter is and what most people forget is that when a new technology is introduced, no matter how good the technology is, it takes time for people to accept the technology and at first they will reject it. HDTV is no exception to this basic rule of rejection even by the experts. I thought that it might be an exception because seeing is believing. Well seeing is not believing. To a naysayer if he sees a miracle of technology he will keep demanding more miracles and he will never be satisfied.

In Europe starting in 1936 Black and White television was introduced using the 405 line standard definition. It took about 50 years until 1986 before broadcasters would no longer support that format and declared it obsolete and everyone with the old 405 line standard definition televisions had to throw them away. In 1967 the PAL 575 line standard was introduced and by 2017 it will be obsolete.