<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Craig, I agree with most of your major points, but I think you need to add still digital cameras. Optics designed for film still cameras may show anomalies when used on digital still cameras. -->>>

You are right. I just meant the optical principles don't change. The light doesn't know whether it's being recorded in full motion or still!

Thanks for the claification.

Anhar - OK, we all get your point.
3CCD still beter than 1CCD still.
3CCD video better than 1CCD video.


Unfortunately it isn't that simple.
See, what is being compared here is DV format to HDV format:
DV compression to mpeg2ts compression, 480p to 720p, 16x9 to 4:3. 1chip vs 3 chip.
All of these factors add up to the final image.
Out of all of the deficientcies this camera has, colour is not one of them. As well neither is resolution, which you say, should be gobbled up by the lack of 3CCD's.
Many, and my self included, agree that the colour from the HD10 is more real world then the DVX100's. Add this to the 720p resolution and you have a hyper realistic image.

I would also like to point out that not all CCD's are equal. There are some 1CCD DV format cams that have very comparable or better picture than some 3 CCD cams. And out of all cam makers JVC is known to be one of the best for 1chip designs.

Ken

Optics and DV resolution imaging
 

Just one point on the optics issue:
One of the biggest jokes in the science of optics is selling video camera people lenses than have resolutions 5X what is needed for the format. It is pretty easy to make a lens that does a good job at 360 line pairs of resolution. But the Gucci effect really sells.
Wow, by camera has an XYZ lens, hey that means I'll be able to take better video with it! Rubbish!

The lens is not going to make much difference at 720 across.
Look at it this way, a $10 disposable camera with a plastic lens gets you way more resolution then *any* DV camera can record.

Yes, there are issues with how the focus ring works ( servo vs. manual ) and whatnot, but you don't need Gucci brand names with some kind of voo doo to make that work. Besides, the typical big names that Jap. cam makes use for 'lens endorsements' aren't very good at motor controlled lenses anyway. It's not there bag.
-Les

There's more to quality optics than resolution. Lens designers also consider contrast, sharpness, color saturation, and control of flare and other optical defects.

Are you saying that the MTF of the plastic lens on the disposable lens is higher than most video lenses? Reading your post one might get that impression.

That's kinda what I'm saying, the MTF on the $1 lens is more than enough to support a web cam image ( DV ).
Notice that I said "can record" above.
Sure, lens design is more than sharpness, and they are interrelated in a strong way. But consider that in video cams, people ( including myself ) use filters ( Tiffen ultra contrast, black fog, whatever ) for reducing the high contrast, since the film plane can't take the contrast anyway.
The Tiffen Ultracontrast is basically a dirty lens element.

-Les

>>>>>>>>The JVC wins this contest and doesn't need to be modified to do so.

- Was just wondering if anyone has addressed how the HD10 renders vertical lines. I have yet to see the camera draw any vertical line as a straight vertical line. Everytime I have seen a live demo of the cam, vertical lines are never straight - they are drawn out very squigly, at times looking almost like a vertical high frequency sine wave or even a slalom ski course. Anyone notice this at all?

Also, has anyone been able to tame the "star-cross filter effect" anamoly often seen with small hot spots in the frame?

Not to start a war or a negative discussion here, but I haven't seen these things happen at all with the DVX100. I pointed this out to a DP friend of mine at the DV Expo and his response was "Thank you, I'm glad that I am not the only one who's seeing these things!"

If these side-effects are to be expected with HDV, then I would much rather shoot with a 'full-on' DVCPRO50 or 'DVCPRO100' camera with a sweet lens. Hopefully, this will improve with future HDV camera models?

>>>>>>>> The lens is not going to make much difference at 720 across.

- This is incorrect. We have seen repeatedly that increasing the resolving power and rectilinear response of the glass does have a noticeable effect - such as raising the degree of sharpness in a very measurable, tangible way and also decreasing chromatic aberrations. Photographers will agree that "it is all in the glass".

- don

I think you're greatly mistaken, Les. When tests have been done on different lenses mounted on an XL1s different lenses have made a profound difference in image quality. The tests (both objective and subjective) done by American Cinematographer several years ago bare this out.

My own personal shooting experiences using different lenses confirm this. Using various cameras, 2/3 inch chip and 1/3 inch chip, show vastly different quality images with different lenses.

Filters are one way of controlling contrast, as well as exposure and lighting techniques. But not all video users are looking to reduce image quality with various so-called enhancing filters. I think you need to take this into account in your sweeping generalizations related to DV and optical performance.

As for lenses, the requirements for a lens for a full HD camera (I'm talking the Panavision ones here, as they're the only ones I've used and know about) are greater than that of a 35mm camera. That's why Panavision came up with a whole new series of lenses for their HD cameras, because their 35mm lenses were not good enough...

I would then have to say that whatever lens you have on a DV camera, you'd need a better one on a 720p camera to do any justice to the resolution. Perhaps that's why the HD1 always has the sharpness set too high....

Graeme

Is their any objective basis for concluding that the JVC lens is inadequate?

Sharpness is one the areas that the two JVC differ. I personally believe that the shortcomings of the JVC are related to its shortage of pixel pounding DSP power. We know that it was a great challenge for JVC to put enough processing power into that size/weight/cost/power package at all. I would attribute the lack of user control and image quality issues to that fact rather than to the type of imager and lens though it's just speculation on my part.

I believe the simplest explanations are usually the right ones. With the JVC we have optics and an imager that aren't really that different, but they are coupled to a massive computer and compressor by DV standards. My wishlist for improvements would be double the processing power and improvements in manual control before a better lens and imager. That's not to say that lens and imager improvements wouldn't make a difference, of course, but I bet there's image quality left on the table simply due to DSP limitations.

I've still not seen any pictures or video from the HD10 to see how it's sharpness compared to the HD1.

More DSP power in any camera will help the picture, as well as having more pixels on the CCD than it needs for it's rated resolution.

What I don't get is why 18mbs for the MPEG2 stream on the HDV? It's on DV tape, which we know can cope with 25mbps, so why not use them all and squash some of those MPEG artifacts we're seeing? Why not record real 24p and save some more of those precious bits per second for the picture?

Also, can someone shoot some resolution charts with the HD10 and also some colour charts, so we can see truely what the colour on the camera looks like?

Graeme

I'm confident that the JVC only uses 80% of available DV tape bandwidth because they didn't have enough DSP power to generate the full 25Mbps steam. I believe JVC said that themselves.

I also believe the shortage of DSP power is the reason other manufacturers haven't pursued consumer HD cameras yet. They clearly didn't think it was possible.

When you realize the processing required to do HD and the MPixel/second read rates, you understand the decision to use 1CCD. 3CCD's at the desired resolution would be generating 100 MPixel/second of raw data. It's quite a leap to process that much data in the current size/heat/power package the JVC targeted. JVC's raw pixel rates are comparable to existing 3CCD DV cameras. It's processing requirement is greater because of the mpeg compression.

Eventually, silicon process technology will allow DSP's to provide the processing necessary and consumer 3CCD HD cameras will be possible. It remains to be seen whether engineers will take the 3CCD route or not (or how long before they do). Right now the problem is computing, not optics and CCD.

i didnt say that the camera(stills) and video camera are un related of course they use the same technology and are very related, BUT they are designed for different PURPOSES, thus excel in the area they where designed
Take this example :

a loud speaker and a microphone BOTH use the same technologies are very related yet you try using a loud speaker as a mirco phone and vise versa get the point

about the Nikon D2h it uses JFETS so whats your point?

"- Curious that the DVX at its pixel rates can't do HD. So much for the superiority of 3CCD."

do you some have an intimate knowledge of the DVX's DSP module, if JVC could use a DSP to pump out HD from a 1/3" 1CCD your saying that Pana couldnt not be able to use an DSP that is incapable to produce HD from 3CCD?


"- JVC video is garbage."
if you say so Craig thats not what i said i said Garbage in Grabage out *univeral law*

"- 3CCD cameras may eliminate the Bayer pattern, but not the color filtering. The prism has problems of its own."

so your saying the 1CCD has solved the filtering system?

"- The Nikon D100 uses an interline transfer CCD, and architecture DESIGNED for video cameras."

so why cant nikon just use an approprite DSP and record 30fps of 4K by 2k frames ?

"- There are very few aspects of imager design that restrict their use to still or video."

Oh apart from a DSP, if this is so , please please tell me why we are not recoding video with frame sizes that digital still cam produces?

"- The Nikon D2h processes in excess of 32Mpixels/second. The DVX does at most 10Mp/s per CCD and the JVC does 30Mp/s. Still cameras have no problem keeping up with video speeds."

and what does the end result? a few still frames not video, hmm...

the DVX's DSP is its bottle neck its format is now way gonna compete with HD granted, but MPEG2 to record HD content c'mon it aint good enough, i've gotta go i'll finish this later

There are 5 megapixel digital still cameras which are better than the current CineAlta, which I think is 2 megapixels, right?

heath

ps-Let's stay cool, everyone!

Anhar,

A fundamental assertion of yours was:
You dismissed analogies with digital still cameras because, as you say:
It's clear that the digital still arguments don't support your claims. Ultimately, the only difference between still and video that you (or anyone else) can come up with is the issue of high-res/low framerate versus low-res/high framerate. None if this matters when it comes to generating the best possible image in a frame. That's what it's all about for video or still. There are technical considerations (such as interline transfer CCD's, pixel rates, DSP power, etc.) which I've attempted to address. Other differences between video and still---lens zoom ratios, ergonomics, storage devices---are driven by user needs, not fundamental technical differences. It is the optimization of the entire product that differentiates video and still, not some imaginary internal technical incompatibility. It is possible for a single device to do exceptional video and still but it's unlikely that the resultant tradeoffs would make the product attractive to buyers.

3CCD and 1CCD are two different approaches to achieving color out of monochrome sensors. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. In the JVC case, it wasn't realistic to process 100MP/s using available size, weight, and power so 1CCD was the only choice. That's not proof that 3CCD is better but it's certainly proof that 1CCD is better in this specific case. Time will tell how popular 3CCD wil be in consumer HD cameras but it is out of reach today.

I suggest again that you read JVC's discussion of how its 1CCD design works. It is my belief that 3CCD's big quality advantage comes from it's reduced dependency on antialiasing rather than the improved raw color bandwidth that's commonly believed. The greatly reduced antialiasing means that the image can be inherently sharper. I also believe that 3CCD camera manufacturers intentionally crank up saturation since it plays to the buyer's belief that 3CCD designs provide "more color". I would be happy to hear other's opinions on this. After reading the JVC 1CCD paper, everyone should understand that the JVC design produces more color bandwidth than the format can use. In practical experience, it is not color but image sharpness that has been the big issue. That does not surprise me at all.

I don't see how you think 3CCDs need more DSP power to process the info. Surely, to extra colour information from 3CCD is going to be a lot easier than from a 1 chipper where you actaully have to do a fair bit of processing.

Also, surely the greatest use of DSP power in the JVC is to produce an MPEG based data stream rather than a DV one. Inter-frame encoding taking more processing power than Intra-Frame encoding.

Graeme

You have 3 times the raw data rate with 3CCD assuming the same resolution sensors. You don't have to do the demosiac but you do have to have data paths and hardware to process three sets of data streams rather than one. I have no idea how data from 3 independent channels gets processed into a single, compressed stream, but if you discard the extra data up front there wouldn't be a color advantage. If you carry the extra data through the process you clearly have more signal processing.

In any event, I agree that the mpeg encoding is what took a lot of DSP power. It's not just DSP, though. There is size, heat and power consumption to worry about. Each CCD and its associated ADC's and data paths consumes power. I think it was power, heat, and DSP that drove the issue as much as cost.

I have a PDX10, which has 3 CCDs, each of which is >1mega pixel. It uses the extra pixels to provide a better quality image by subsampling, and proper 16x9. Also, through posts on this forum, we've found that it also has a superb digital zoom as it uses all those extra pixels for greater resolution. From this example, I don't see that the CCD's or their DSP is the issue here. It's most likely to be the MPEG 2 processing that is eating the battery and processing. MPEG2 has come a long way, but 18mbps doesn't cut it for high def.

I guess we'll only find out what the HDV format is capable of when it gets used in a professional camera, rather than the JVC.

Graeme

Don - "I would much rather shoot with a 'full-on' DVCPRO50 or 'DVCPRO100' camera with a sweet lens."

So would most anyone. But I think going from $3000 to $12,000 is a price differance keeps that keeps this option unrealistic.
Also, in regards to the wavey vertical lines you mentioned, can you refer me to an example or explain more. You are the first who has mentioned this and it has me puzzled and concerned.
Ken

I don't know how the PDX10 processes the pixels coming from its CCD's, but I doubt it carries a full 1MP from each each sensor all the way through the process. It's possible the subsampling is done "on-chip". i.e. through prgrammable circuitry that connects the CCD to the ADC. I doubt any more data is processed than necessary. These devices are light on power.

Future cameras should always be capable of better than current ones.

Both clips, up-rezzed from the camera original up to 1920 x 1080. The DVX clip is 1920 x 1080 x 24P, the JVC clip is 1920 x 1080 x 30P.

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/DVX-1080.mpg

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/JVC-1080.mpg

The new DVX 1080i clip looks better than the old 720p clip. Shouldn't it look worse?
Ken.

The new DXV clip looks very soft to me. It also suffers from a motion artifacting due to the scale -- you can tell the subject is moving in a lower resolution space. This is clearly more detail in the JVC footage, as I converted them both to CFHD AVIs and found the bit-rate climbed 20% for the JVC over the DVX footage -- this is a quick and dirty non-subjective experiment that messures detail.

Keep in mind that the JVC was 30P, the DVX was 24P. That alone should account for the 20% increase in size.

I've got more clips finally, which I'll be posting later. I've been following this argument back and forth because I find it interesting, plus by posting the clips I pretty much started it. I think people have taken it on tangents that I never expected, which is always fascinating.

The original purpose of posting the up-rezzed clips was to see how the cameras compared at comparable resolutions (both by up-rezzing and downrezzing). But a lot of discussion veered off on color rendition, and how some people liked the DVX colors so much more, whereas others think they're super-saturated unrealistic, and that the JVC has the more accurate color rendition.

For the record, the DVX clip shows the color that was in the scene much more accurately. It was hyper-saturated, with lots of purple and blue gel light thrown in. But the argument about color is completely specious and should be put to rest: the DVX can deliver any kind of color you like. If you don't like what you're seeing, keep in mind that the DVX gives you control over detail level, chroma level, chroma phase, color temp, master pedestal, gamma curve, skin tone detail, adjustable color matrices, and the DVX100A gives you even more control. You can dial in exactly what color you want, so color rendition should never be used as an argument against the DVX, only against the JVC, since with the JVC you get what you get whether you like it or not.

After extensive use of both these cameras, and especially after discovering just what S-Spline Pro is capable of, I have come to the following extreme analogy to describe what the choice is like (to me, others will disagree):

Let's say you have two doors to choose from. Behind door number one, you will be given an expert hour-long Swedish massage by a gorgeous and talented masseuse, after which you will be handed $80,000 in universal currency that can be spent anywhere in the world.

Or, behind door number two, you will be given $100,000 in Sears gift certificates, good only in Sears stores in Kansas.

That's how I see it. Using the DVX is luxurious. Using S-Spline Pro to up-rez, you'll get about 80% of the picture that the JVC is capable of. However, you'll be able to use that picture anywhere: you can transfer to film and show it in any theater in the world, you can broadcast it on HDTV, you could use the SD signal on NTSC tv or easily convert it to PAL and have a worldwide broadcast. By comparison, using the JVC is relatively torturous - no picture controls, no true manual controls, no remote jack, no ND filters, no monitoring of HD as you record, no focus marks, and on and on. You'll end up with a picture with higher resolution, yes. But it can only be used in a very few certain areas. It cannot be transferred to film, it cannot be transferred to PAL, it can only be theatrically projected in areas that have digital projectors (probably less than 1/100 of 1% of the theaters in the world), it can only be received in its full HD glory by about 1% of the US population (those that have both HD TV's and an HD delivery system, meaning an HD tuner, HD cable service, or a DVHS deck).

A less controversial analogy would be this: the JVC is like using a 35mm Cameflex to shoot 35mm Ektachrome color reversal film. The DVX is akin to shooting Super16 Vision 2 color negative, using an Arri SRIII. It's actually a fairly accurate analogy because blowing up S16 to 35mm requires about a 3x optical magnification, about the same as SD to 720P HD. And using today's digital intermediate technology is equivalent to using S-Spline Pro. S16 negative will give you exceptional control over the image, whereas 35mm will unquestionably have higher resolution, but the Ektachrome will have much narrower latitude, etc.

To each his own, use whatever tool you prefer. For my purposes, and I'm sure for many others, the JVC's increase in resolution is just not worth the compromises, but for many of you that may not be an issue. At least by posting these clips, you now have more of a basis for comparison to base your choice on.

Once the next generation of HDV cameras arrive I expect that my position on this comparison may take a 180-degree turn. An HDV PD170 or XL2 or DV5000U should (should) smoke the DVX in all measurable ways, not just in resolution.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Keep in mind that the JVC was 30P, the DVX was 24P. That alone should account for the 20% increase in size.
-->>>

I had already taken that into account (remember I do this for a living -- video compression technologies.) The total data size increase was 40%. Only 20% was due to increased detail in the JVC footage, the other 20% like you suggest is the different between 30p and 24p.

While the luxury vs. abuse argument certain has a ring of truth to it, the universal currency vs. Sears gift certificate argument does not. You're suggesting that the JVC footage can be used for virtually nothing while the DVX can be used for everything. That's preposterous. The DVX offers 24 frame progressive but is otherwise just an anolog TV format. It's HD (as if it offered HD) is not competitive with the JVC. Both formats can be transcoded to other formats with varying degrees of success. The DVX is just as far from the universal camera as the JVC is (neither comes close, in other words).

Being a software developer, I'd much rather take on the task of downconverting 30 frame to 24 than upconverting NTSC to HD. One increases resolution while the other decreases it. It may be true that no good software exists for that conversion but that's not proof that it can't be done. I note that the software used in the comparison is not specifically made for video processing. Still frame upscaling is something people have needed for a while so it's no surprise it can be done. Doesn't deal with motion artifacts though.

I have no doubt that future HDV cameras will be better than existing ones but that's not what this argument is really about. People don't like that the camera is from JVC and are eager to declare that imaginary cameras from preferred manufacturers will "smoke the DVX in all measurable ways, not just in resolution." I'm sure that future cameras from JVC will as well. So what? Hiistory may show the HD1 to be the worst HD camera ever, but that changes nothing today.

The JVC is a pioneering camera in an upcoming format. You may choose to use it with all its present shortcomings or you may not. When HD cameras become easy enough for even Sony to build, everyone will offer one. Until then, DV resolution is still inferior.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Newman :
I had already taken that into account (remember I do this for a living -- video compression technologies.) The total data size increase was 40%. Only 20% was due to increased detail in the JVC footage, the other 20% like you suggest is the different between 30p and 24p. -->>>

Doh! You're absolutely right, of course. Thanks for your restraint in your gentle correction!

No question the JVC is much more detailed than the DVX, I have always given it its props for that.

Dealing with temporal changes (in this case 30p to 24p or 25p for PAL) is a few orders of complexity harder than changing the resolution of the picture. This is because in the temporal resolution of all video formats are low - ranging from 24 to 60 depending, whereas video resolutions start at an order of magnitude higher at 480 lines, and go upwards from there. A basic bit of number theory will show why a good standards conversion is hard, and why motion estimation is widely used technique.

From this, it can be seen that 24p is perhaps the most universal format there is, whereas 30p is the least universal format. 24p converts to NTSC (60i via 3:2 pulldown) and film, and PAL (by speeding up 4%) all with most excellent quality. No magic motion estimate is needed because the numbers divide out nice.

To convert 30p to NTSC (60i) is fine, but to convert to PAL will require some compromises to quality, as will a conversion to 24p. It's not a straight conversion and losses will occur.

What we really seeing is that resolution isn't everything. I personally prefer the look of the Panavision HD cameras, even though they have less resolution than compared to film. I personally prefer the look of a top end DV camera to the HD1, which looks like high resolution VHS to me. Sure it has more resolution than DV, but I want quality, not quantity! I'd rather have 480 good looking lines than 720 bad looking ones. But that's my personal choice. As soon as 720 good looking lines are affordably available, then that will be my new preference.

Remember a low end DV camera will have a higher resolution than a high end Beta SP camera, but the BetaSP camera will produce a better picture, lack of resolution not withstanding.

Yeah, and it's all hard when you have nothing to do it with, too. I'm not sure what "orders of complexity" are or what number theory you are talking about. Are you suggesting that smooth variable speed is an impossible task? Surely interpolating frames is not orders of magnitude more difficult that recovering detail that's gone and lost forever.

I've got a box in my living room that does a great job of converting 60i into 60p (in fact, it's a quadrupler). Once upon a time I'm sure that was considered really hard as well. These days there are realtime devices that deinterlace, do reverse 3:2 pulldown, and arbitrarily scale video all with really high quality. That sounds like a lot of "orders of complexity". If 30p to 24p film conversion isn't done easily it's because there's little demand. I don't believe it's an impossible task. It doesn't concern me in any event, since I have no interest in output to film. This is a prosumer camcorder forum after all.

Apparently low resolution frames and low resolution time is the holy grail for some people, but I don't think 24 frame film conversion is the desire of all people and certainly not all those interested in the JVC. For those that seek low temporal and spatial resolution, enjoy your DVXes.

The difficulaty of 30p to 24p has nothing to do with demand, and everything to do with basic mathematics. It's certainly not an impossible task - who said it was? It's just that certain frame rate conversions produce better for results for equal effort, and some conversions produce poor results for a lot of effort and processing. Nobdy doubts that 24p to 60i NTSC produces pretty good result by 3:2 pulldown. It's a fairly mechanical and deterministic algorithm as you well know. The algorithm for 30p to 24p is neither deterministic nor simple as it necisitates motion estimation. Normal video runs at 60i, which gives any temporal processing twice as much information to go on, and a fairly simple algorithm to go to 24p, whereas 30p doesn't. It's a matter of numbers.

Why do you think PAL people put up with a 4% speed increase from film conversions? It's because the alternatives didn't used to exist (motion estimation is relatively new) and because of 24 and 25 being relatively prime, would necessitate every frame being processed, reducing the image quality. The numbers dictate the ease and quality of conversion.

30p to 60i is easy - it's a factor of 2 involved.

As for having nothing to do with it, I've written standards converters, so I certainly have both the practical and theoretical experience to know wether certain conversions are easy or hard, and the relative qualities of them.

As for people liking 24p, that's fine for them. Certainly 60i or 50i produces very nice smooth results for video, and for modern TV, 60p or 50p would produce superb results and resolution, but film is going to be around with us for a while, and we're pretty much stuck with it's 24p nature.

As for the resolution debate, it's pretty obvious that the JVC represents a trade off for resolution over quality - how else could it be the case on a camera that's the first of it's kind for the price it sells at? If you agree with that trade off, then the camera is for you, but I think the rest of us will either wait for less compromised cameras, or save up for the real HD gear that's available.

The JVC almost certainly represents a view of the future, but for most of us, the future isn't quite here yet.

Graeme

Black & White
 

This continuous battle between the DVX and the HD10 invariably hangs on one overly subjective issue: COLOR.

For those of us who may have no interest whatsoever in color rendition, how does this topic shift when the comparison is over black & white footage?

Has anyone posted and A/B comparison between these two capture tools displaying their output in either black and white mode, or where color is removed in post?

Such a comparison would surely remove the most subjective part of any A/B analysis, and would answer what is for me the key question: "Just how well does each camera serve as a replacement for film?

[Also, since the DVX100 is often compared against the HD10, and the HD10 is often compared against the Cinealtas and Varicams, the question is begged, does anyone dare compare the DVX100 against the Cinealtas or Varicams?]

Brian

Graeme,

I'm not suggesting that any arbitrary framerate conversion is as easy as things like 24p or 30p to 60i, what I'm saying is that it is not a more difficult problem than trying to upconvert DV to HD without artifacts.

The claim was that the DVX was useful for both film and HD because of 24p and upconversion, whereas the JVC couldn't be used for film because it did not offer 24p. My statement was simply that I'd rather try to solve the framerate conversion problem than the spatial artifacting problem. The difference apparently is that spatial upconversion tools are more readily available that 30p -> 24p conversion tools.

You may have theoretical and practical experience with these matters but you haven't offered any. Instead you've talked about "orders of complexity" and "number theory". I'd like to remind everyone that number theory is a branch of mathmatics that concerns itself with the nature of numbers and is, of course, irrelevant to the conversation. Please explain how arbitrary framerate conversion is "orders of complexity" harder than arbitrary spatial upscaling. My professional background is in electrical engineering, computer science, signal processing and firmware development. I may not have done this specifically, but I certainly understand what's involved.

You've suggested that the HDV format will only be proven once someone other than JVC makes an HDV camera ("I guess we'll only find out what the HDV format is capable of when it gets used in a professional camera, rather than the JVC.") and also suggested that the JVC sharpness issues are due to an inadequate lens ("I would then have to say that whatever lens you have on a DV camera, you'd need a better one on a 720p camera to do any justice to the resolution. Perhaps that's why the HD1 always has the sharpness set too high...."). Perhaps you can be more objective regarding these conversion issues.

Some enthusiastic threads are around where people said they were going to post some such footage comparisons, but inevitably they never got that far. Just lots of eloquent rhetoric, touchy feely almost. Perhaps I exaggerate just a tad, but still, no images.
Well, I did notice that the www.pixelmonger.com guy did have a few resolution charts from the high end HD cameras, and he mentioned the HD10, but no image from that.
So here is what I am doing: I took the res pattern image :
http://www.pixelmonger.com/hd_assets/cam27V.jpg
from the Panasonic camera, and I re-rendered the right half of the charts res pattern so it's totally 'clean'. I then printed the chart on a 11"x17" high quality inkjet. So now I have a nice chart to try with my HD10. The chart to compare with is the original that I linked to above.
I don't think it will look as clean as the Panasonic, but it should be interesting.
-Les

"orders of complexity"
 

The "orders of complexity" for frame-rate conversion difficulty is pretty true, if you do it the absolute 'best' way.
The technique used by some of the better programs is based on optical flow. I dabbled in it a bit, and had my programmer friend port some code from an SGi to PC for doing it. Basically, optical flow is motion tracking , using a resolution pyramid. It tried to produce a flow vector field for all motion between frames, which then can be used to synthesize frames 'inbetween' any two real frames. That's how you make the new frames at the new sample rate ( 24 ). The process is computationally expensive, and prone to all kinds of errors when objects turn and reveal new information that wasn't there in the previous frame. I'm not sure about "orders of complexity" harder, but it is many many times harder than just spacial upresing problems. The code makes S-spline algorithms look easy.

But here is something interesting, I've looked at footage that was converted to 24p just within VEGAS's re-speed, and it didn't look objectionable to me at all. It looked very normal, and I tested some footage of some skaters with a lot of motion as well. Maybe it's much ado about nothing, I dunno.
-Les

"much ado about nothing" -- well worth trying, though!

I've seen 30p footage converted to film, and it was completely unwatchable, the motion artifacting was absolutely objectionable.

But that was a few years ago.

We could certainly give today's tools a try. When I do the next round of split-screen JVC/DVX footage (some outdoors material, plus some scenes from our "matrix" commercial) I'll also just give old Vegas a run at outputting a 30P file as 24P and see what it does...

I don't know about the specific alogrithm you describe, Les, but I'm familiar with the things that editing packages can do and know they are of varying quality. I've never specifically tried 24p conversion since it isn't of interest to me. It is clear that the problem is much more than simply interpolating pixels between frames.

On the spatial end, the upconverting Barry did exhibited motion artifacting as well. Not really fair since the tool wasn't made for motion, but still, full motion spatial upres'ing is a difficult problem, too, if you do it the "best" way (that being something much more motion-aware than S-spline Pro).

I think the issue is not just which one is harder but which one is more objectionable. Frankly I don't see the problems as all that different but I do believe there's a difference in sensitivity to the two problems. How would you eliminate spatial motion artifacts without using motion estimation?

David,

Thanks for your contributions, we really appreciate it. You take the second guessing out of a lot of things. How about a Final Cut Pro plug-in?

heath

Hi all,
I know I'm a bit late in this discussion... but since all links
to footage doesn't work anymore, can someone re-post
links to available HD10 footage?

I'm of the ones of think that 1CCD-HDV is better than 3CCD-DV also
in terms of color quality, I've developed some testing tools to validate this hypotesis but I cant do the test since I dont have the same Footage from both cameras... could some one provide it?


thanks
Alarik

I have an HD-10U. Any particular type of shot you would like to have?

Hi Robert,
thanks for replying.
If you can I'd like just few second of an exterior (a park would be great)
on a sunny day, someone walking and static background in 720P.

Thanks a lot
Alarik