re-sizing HDV images at DVinfo.net

Ali Rasheed · January 14th, 2005, 10:31 PM

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.

Shealan Forshaw · January 15th, 2005, 06:54 AM

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.

Steven Gotz · January 15th, 2005, 12:13 PM

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!

Joel Corral · January 15th, 2005, 08:46 PM

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

Peter Nolan · January 16th, 2005, 12:09 AM

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

Joel Corral · January 16th, 2005, 09:58 AM

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

Filip Kovcin · January 16th, 2005, 10:25 AM

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

filip

John Jay · January 16th, 2005, 01:33 PM

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

Steven Gotz · January 16th, 2005, 01:39 PM

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.

Mike Tiffee · January 16th, 2005, 03:00 PM

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.

Frank Aalbers · January 16th, 2005, 05:02 PM

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

Kyle Edwards · January 16th, 2005, 11:50 PM

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.

Joonas Kiviharju · January 17th, 2005, 01:48 AM

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.

Filip Kovcin · January 17th, 2005, 03:11 AM

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

Steven Gotz · January 17th, 2005, 10:11 AM

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.

January 14th, 2005, 10:31 PM	#1
Ali Rasheed Tourist Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Maldives Posts: 2	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.

January 16th, 2005, 10:25 AM	#7
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	to Peter Nolan show us some tiffs, not jpgs. it's hard to judge this way. filip

January 16th, 2005, 01:33 PM	#8
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	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 __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 15th, 2005, 06:54 AM	#2
Shealan Forshaw New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 21	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.

January 15th, 2005, 12:13 PM	#3
Steven Gotz Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Clermont, FL Posts: 1,520	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!

January 15th, 2005, 08:46 PM	#4
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	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

January 16th, 2005, 12:09 AM	#5
Peter Nolan Tourist Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Thaialnd Posts: 1	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

January 16th, 2005, 09:58 AM	#6
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	you can't really compare if you use jpg. you need to use like bmp.

January 16th, 2005, 01:39 PM	#9
Steven Gotz Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Clermont, FL Posts: 1,520	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.

January 16th, 2005, 03:00 PM	#10
Mike Tiffee Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 150	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.

January 16th, 2005, 05:02 PM	#11
Frank Aalbers Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Oakland,CA Posts: 135	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 14401080i upper filed first FX1 footage downresed to 720480i lower field first. You tell me ... quality difference is very obvious. I'll look into the footage Mike just posted Frank

January 16th, 2005, 11:50 PM	#12
Kyle Edwards Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI, NY Posts: 274	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.

January 17th, 2005, 01:48 AM	#13
Joonas Kiviharju Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 52	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.

January 17th, 2005, 03:11 AM	#14
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	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

January 17th, 2005, 10:11 AM	#15
Steven Gotz Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Clermont, FL Posts: 1,520	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.