Diffusion
 

I would be very curious if someone could conduct a simple test:

If the HD-100 could be pushed to create visible artifacting (shooting shimmering water for instance), then reshoot with a diffusion filter to see if the artifacting is minimized.

I'm not talking about masking the problem, but rather reducing the work that the compressor has to do.

Werner.... please jump in on this line of thinking.... Barry too?

If MPEG dislikes contrast and hard edges, it makes sense that diffusion and perhaps a pro mist to raise black levels would help.

Seems as though you could really cheat black levels up in the field, and correct in post. Much easier than dodging artifacts in post.

Speaking of black levels.... does HDV use 0 IRE or 7.5?

It's almost certain that yes, lower detail will lead to less artifacting. It's a little counterproductive though -- the whole point of shooting high-def is to get a sharper picture with more resolved detail...

I'd try to devise some test circumstance but I don't have an HD100 yet.

On a technical level I agree with you Barry, but from an artistic one, a very slight diffusion offers a nice look.

However, your comment has got me thinking about how HD may present different objectives.... but since the holy grail amongst most here is to mimic a "film" look, then skillful use of diffusion will most certainly be a common approach, or at least a solution that should be considered.

MPEG2 likes 'blurred' edges and smooth transitions (within one frame). this is the way to reduce artifacting, yes. but indeed, what's the point of shootin' hi-def, then?

higher resolution blur?
;)

I have been shooting with the camera with a reduced detail setting of minus 9 and together with 24 P and a compressed black setting it gives a great film like image.

Rob

What MPEG2 really has difficulty with is lots of randomly arranged hard edges (indeed as in water - with small waves - that has light reflecting on it, indeed). Someone posted some footage of gravel already (from the HD100) and it was handled very, very well (beyond my expectation). In that clip there is movement too, so that makes the performance even more impressive.

You have to remember, all in all, the bandwith (19 Mb/s) isn't that low - because it is MPEG2. The bandwith is about the same as the interframe, lower compression of DV (25 Mb/s). Seen the effectivity of the codec and the relativey high bandwith I won't expect too many problems for this resolution. 19 Mb/s or 25 Mb/s won't hold up anymore for 1920x1080 progressive or even 1440x1080 progressive. That's probably one of the reasons the HVX *HAS* to choose P2 (otherwise they would need some higher bandwith like JVC might be developing with the ProHD XE...

Ironically, I think, yes.... hi-res blur is precisely what you end up with.

It's a technique used in the 35mm and 16mm worlds, as well as SD video.

Tiffen makes a host of filters that achieve the goal, and I don't know a shooter that doesn't carry a bag of filters that diffuse, raise black levels, or both.

I realize now, how paradoxical it seems to be wondering how to defocus areas of a high def picture, but I can tell you that it has given very pleasing results for my film and SD work for years. I'm curious to see what affect it could have on HDV.

Using them or not using them is up to you, and it is indeed in the first place an artistic decision.

HDV would handle difficult situations better with these filters (the image is 'easier' to compress by MPEG2 standards)