DIGITAL BETACAM or HDV

[Barry Green]

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Sorry, it is actually true. Sony calls 1080i60 HDV 2.

heath -->>>

Where do you find that info? In the press release for the FX1 they call it an "HDV" camcorder. And the logo on the side of it just says "HDV". I can't find any reference to "HDV 2" on Sony's site...

[Heath McKnight]

I'll have to do a search, but someone here mentioned it.

UPDATED!

HDV2 doesn't exist, after all. I did a search here and saw the CTO of Cineform and HDV Editing co-wrangler David Newman confirmed it does NOT exist.

heath

[Edwin Hernandez]

"If you take only one frame you will get only 1440x540 for 1080i. At frame comparison, 1080i has less pixel than 720p vertically."

Giroud: You have a very good point there. But most people doesn't freeze frames or do editing at all. They just care about a great image quality when they play the video. It is true that maybe the interlaced approach could be harder to edit (so to speak) when compared to a progressive full frame. But we have edited interlaced video for years with no real problems. Maybe I think that your statement applies very well for editors and perhaps for film transfers, but I think that general audiences will perceive better image definition if the video is 1080i than 720p. Of course, I know that maybe they will appreciate the "film look" that a progressive scan delivers.

About the amount of data vs. the amount of compression... I don't feel there's a problem at all. The best source will lead to better results, when downcoverted. That's why people shoot TV commercials and MTV music videos on film, even though those spots will never be shown on a movie theatre, but on interlaced television.

Greetings,
EDWIN

[Giroud Francois]

if you quote me, that means you read me a t least.
but you have skipped the second part about display.
Knowing that most "HD" display should give you at best 720 pixel
vertically and 1280 horizontally, what do you expect from an interlaced 1080 signal on such screens?
frankly, i am more confident in a 1 to 1 display that render every pixel where it should be than to a device that will rescale all the stuff, God knows how.

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> the digital betacam lenses alone might cost over $10,000 and
> they cameras have 2/3" chips. I hold out great hope for the FX-
> 1, but it clearly isn't going to have either of these things.

And because it is not, it will have neither the differential focus capability nor the low-light sensitivity of the betacams. It most likely will even be less sensitive to light than the PD170.

[Edwin Hernandez]

Giroud:

About the displays... Well, maybe you know about it more than I do, so I can't argue anything. Although I have seen Panasonic HD tv sets that claim to be 1080i (with a big logo sticker). But, I really can't talk about those TV sets because they may claim that in terms of advertising and not technically. Just as "16:9" in consumer cameras that is just a letterboxed 3:4 image. So, that's why I skipped that part - not enough info on my side!

But, if those are really 1080i tv, then... things may be different.

About re-scaling... It has to be seen, because Episode II was shot on Hi Definition and it looked better on SD TV screens than on film. I'd like to see that on an HD-DVD on an HD-TV set.

Let's see what happens when the camera comes out.

[Ken Hodson]

Edwin - I went HDV for the same reasons as you are thinking. People are championing them for the leap to HD. Myself I realize that SD will rule the roost for a while longer. DVD distro is king. Downsampling does bring out the best in my HD10. You are on the right track in my opinion, especially if you do colour correction and compositing and full rez then downsample as your very last step.

[Edwin Hernandez]

KEN: Finally, someone who understands my needs!!! By the way, what is DVD distro?
-EDWIN

[Jeff Donald]

I think he means DVD distribution.

[Peter Moore]

"a "frame rate" is not what really makes a good "film look" out of video."

Perhaps it is not a sufficient condition to make a film look by itself, but it is necessary.

[Edwin Hernandez]

Peter: I agree with you.

But people talk so much about the famous 24p, as if it is a magic wand to make good video. 24p doesn't mean good video by itself. Just the other day, I saw some footage on the DVX100 that looked soooo good, that I thought... hey, why be a pioneer with the Sony FX1? Let's keep with the 100A! But then, I remembered that I have seen other footage with the 100A that's not as good. And then I decided to stick to my pioneer approach.

So, I think we are all fighting about setups and systems instead of techniques to make video (SD or HDV, 24p or 60i) as good as it can get.

[Heath McKnight]

The funny thing is 30 fps is better than 24 fps, but hey, 24p looks great! We use DVX100As at the film school I work at.

heath