re-sizing HDV images
 

It seems from the posts here that while the superior quality of the HDR FX1 is obvious on a HD display, there isn't that much of a difference on a standard monitor.

1)As with still images, has anyone tried resizing the HDV images to 720X576, and if so does it make them look any better than images originally shot in the SD mode?

2)Like many other digital filmmakers I too obviously want to upgrade to the affordable higher-res format, but what's the point if my customers don't own HD equipment to be able to view the difference?

Any thoughts or suggestions much appreciated.

HDV video, resized to DV size looks better than footages orginated on a DV camera imo. Somebody posted a clip of a guy on a mountain bike, converted to mpeg2 for a DVD and the clarity was amazing. Much better than any DVCAM footage I have converted to DVD from my PD150. I would say footage converted to DV res has more of a Betacam appearance to it.

I have not been able to test this theory adequately I guess. It seems to me to be about the same as an SD camcorder. I compared the footage I took with someone else's SD footage from a VX2100 and it looked virtually identical.

I suggest that the only reason to spend the extra money, and to carry a MUCH larger camcorder, is to shoot HDV in order to present HDV.

Don't be mislead. There are many people with HD equipment. And many of them would be happy to have a DVD player capable of playing T2 and Step into Liquid, alongside their wedding video. Since the DVD player is only $249, I imagine that most people with expensive HD equipment would be willing to buy it.

At worst, they might be leaning toward a Media Center PC. There are large groups of videophiles out there who want such things.

The real solution, no joke, and no offense meant to anyone, but the real solution will make itself clear as soon as the porno industry takes a stand. If they, even temporarily, decide on WM9 distributed on DVD-ROM, the sale of the AVel Linkplayer and Media Center PCs will take off like a shot!

no i disagree,

i have 2 HDR-FX1's and down convert all day long. and yes it looks better down converted than most other high end DV camera that includes most of the DSR's from Sony. the difference is i am mastering @ over 800 lines vs 525 lines which means i get amazing detail when the camera is in a wide shoot. and even more amazing when i am tight. and when you master to DVD from a better higher source results will be very solid. and the good side is i am ready with a HD version when "BluRay" takes off. and there a ton more benefits in post as well.
oh and you get native 16x9 ... when you shoot in 16x9 sqeeze mode with SD DV cameras you lose about 1/3 resolution. thats another plus of the HDR-FX1. :)

joel

Here ya go.

The first frame was shot in HD mode, captured by Aspect HD and then opened in Photoshop and deinterlaced and resized to 1080 x 576 and saved as a jpg.

The second frame was shot in DV mode captured in Premiere Pro and the opened in photoshop, resized to 1080 x 576 (to get the aspect ratio correct) and deinterlaced and saved as a jpg.

http://www.3-ads.com/FX1-samples/hdv.jpg

http://www.3-ads.com/FX1-samples/dv.jpg

you can't really compare if you use jpg. you need to use like bmp.

to Peter Nolan
 

show us some tiffs, not jpgs. it's hard to judge this way.

filip

I cannot re-up the bike footage but instead have some proscan coverted stills at 480p 540p 720p for your viewing pleasure

the link will expire so dont be slow

they are all bitmap in the zip file

go here

http://s27.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1...I384P2CZLY3YQR

I suppose the real trick is to shoot in HDV and capture as DV. Then shoot DV and capture as DV. Then borrow a VX2100 and shoot as DV and capture as DV.

Take one frame from each and compare.

I don't have a camcorder to compare with anymore, so someone else needs to do it.

These are TIFF files, uncompressed- not resized in any way except where noted.

I put them in order of quality in my opinion. I place 16x9 DV as higher quality than 4x3 DV because it will look better on a 16x9 set.

Full size HDV frame:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/HDV16x9.tif

HDV frame resized to 720x480 in photoshop:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/HDVtoDVphotoshop.tif

HDV to DV conversion via 1394:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/HDVtoDV1394.tif

16x9 native DV:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/DV16x9.tif

4x3 native DV:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/DV4x3.tif

I have no other DV camera to compare to, but in my opinion the photoshop resized image looks much better than the 16x9 native DV image... if you look at the stop sign, you'll notice the reds are handled much better.

Well ... It allso all depends what package you use to downsize. The kind if filters you have availabe.

Here is a test that I posted in another thread.

http://home.comcast.net/~chalbers/compare_short.mov

It's 1440*1080i upper filed first FX1 footage downresed to 720*480i lower field first.

You tell me ... quality difference is very obvious.

I'll look into the footage Mike just posted

Frank

http://img102.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img102&image=d030xs.png

http://img102.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img102&image=d049vm.png

I need to get my own hosting back, imageshack turned the BMPs into PNGs. Either way, you can still see the amount of detail in both.

Which one is which? One is straight DV (16:9) and the other is HDV resized.

I'd bet my HDR-FX1, that the d030xs is HDV resized, and the d049vm is an example of the greatness of DV packing! My guess is purely based on the differences in Mikes images. Those DV reds were always awful.
Oh, and if my information is correct PNG does a lossles compression, so these are full quality images.

Especially thanks to Mike. Your images are very clear and informative. I've been trying to color correct some footage that I've shot, and I've been very disappointed by artifacts that appear. But your images clearly show that this only due to improper resizing incamera, and DV packing. Native HDV (or some variable compression intermediate codec) seems to be the way to go with HDV. It's all looking good now.

kyle,

tell us which is which.

maybe i didn't read properly - my question is - HOW you resize it? with camera downconverter or with photoshop or similar program?

in my opinion d049vm.png is dv

filip

OK, I have decided which I like better. Now, how did you resize the HDV, and which is which.

I would prefer that d030x be the resized, but I will wait for the correct answer.

many thanks kyle...

49vm seems more contrasty so i'd go with the general consensus and say 30xs is the hi-def image...

but the quality change is so difficult to spot, which brings us back to the main issue here...

is the change in quality, when resized, enough to warrant an upgrade to hi-def?

d049vm.png is straight DV with no resize, while the d030x.png is HDV resized.

You can tell a difference, but it's very slight in these pictures. Once the weather clears up (maybe tomorrow) I'll do some motion scenes. One resized from HDV and another straight DV of the same scene.

Also the HDV was resized using the Lanczos filter.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ali Rasheed :

is the change in quality, when resized, enough to warrant an upgrade to hi-def? -->>>

No it's not. Upgrade to hi-def to shoot HD, not for better SD performance.

There are some blocky "artifacts" in 49 (particularly the left edge of the main figure). Are those a product of the compression for hosting, or are they present in the original DV?

Thanks for posting Kyle. It appears there is more of a difference than I expected. The question is still out there though. Which is better, resized HDV, or DV from a VX2100, or other really good SD camcorder?

I shot the 2 clips of the same scene, but now my computer is acting up. It refuses to see the Sony while it is in HDV mode. Very annoying. Hopefully soon there is a solution better than DVHS and cheaper than Aspect HD.

Once I get the footage on, I'll post the comparison.

Brad Bodily wrote:
"There are some blocky "artifacts" in 49 (particularly the left edge of the main figure). Are those a product of the compression for hosting, or are they present in the original DV?"


Yes, those blocks come from DV. I dare to say this even I haven't shot the footage. The web hosting has the files in PNG format, that in my information is lossles compression, so it doesn't affect the image in any way. NTSC DV is 4:1:1, so the luminance is sampled with full resolution, but color information isn't sampled that often. You can see that those blocks are all 4 pixels wide. This lack of color resolution is usually visible in the extreme reds. In fact, I've never seen it on another color. I've seen this behaviour many times on all DV cameras, as it's not a camera specific issue. It's there with DVX100A, XL2 and FX1 in DV mode.

One might wonder why isn't there those blocks in HDV as it is 4:2:0. Well, PAL DV is 4:2:0 too, and the blocks are there too in extreme reds. But HDV has much more resolution to start with, so you can't see the blocks when downsampled to SD resolution. Some said that it doesn't give you 4:4:4, but rather 4:2:2, but I don't know the details of this video color system so I can't confirm this is true. But, if you would re-encode HDV to DV the blocks would again be there as then it would be 4:1:1 or 4:2:0 with less resolution.

In my opinion there is a significant boost in SD quality when shooting HDV, atleast in still shots. (Motion is another thing, but in my experience it's handled pretty good too, so I wouldn't worry about it.) But it would require that you do your post processing in either uncompressed or atleast 4:2:2. And make a Digital betacam or DVCPRO master out of it. When you go to DV or DVD the quality boost would be lost.

Wow, some of the most obvious examples I've seen yet of the superiority of HDV down-rezzed vs. native DV. We have already seen this in practice for over a year with the HD10, but these posts really help drive the point forward.

Thanks guys, this confirms what the math already indicated, that starting with a higher resolution source and downconverting (with good software) should always yield better results than a low resolution original.

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Tiffee : These are TIFF files, uncompressed- not resized in any way except where noted.

I put them in order of quality in my opinion. I place 16x9 DV as higher quality than 4x3 DV because it will look better on a 16x9 set.

Full size HDV frame:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/HDV16x9.tif

HDV frame resized to 720x480 in photoshop:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/HDVtoDVphotoshop.tif

HDV to DV conversion via 1394:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/HDVtoDV1394.tif

16x9 native DV:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/DV16x9.tif

4x3 native DV:
http://www.miketiffee.com/hdv/DV4x3.tif

I have no other DV camera to compare to, but in my opinion the photoshop resized image looks much better than the 16x9 native DV image... if you look at the stop sign, you'll notice the reds are handled much better. -->>>

http://s17.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1ACGW6D10K13K16TFF0HYTG91D

It's encoded to MPG4 (xvid), but you can still tell the difference. Each clip is labeled and a side by side comprasion is included.