|
|
Posted by Pat Horridge on 10/25/86 11:48
"David McCall" <david--------@techshop.net> wrote in message
news:iQjdg.6109$oa3.3318@trnddc08...
>
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
> news:127b8mnq07t7sc4@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> <mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:1148558425.917828.229330@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>> 10 pounds in a 5 pound sack.
>>>> As they say on the right side of the Pond,
>>>> "You do the maths."
>>>
>>> As I said, I take it you've never actually shot HDV.
>>>
>>> Next, I presume, you'll be telling us that VHS is better than DVD
>>> because DVD is compressed and VHS isn't.
>>
>> Sorry, perhaps you don't understand what we mean
>> by the "bandwidth" of the recording medium.
> If compression is such an evil thing, I'm surprised that you don't
> shoot everything at 320 x 240 so as to be able to avoid using
> compression at all. DV is so heavily compressed that most
> professionals insisted that it wasn't anywhere near suitable for
> broadcast use. Well guess what, money talks. DV is being
> broadcast every day.
>
> So now DV is OK, but watch out for that HDV stuff. It isn't
> good enough for anything but home movies either.
>
> When people think MPEG-2 they immediately think we are
> talking the bandwidth available on DVDs. That has almost
> no bearing on HDV. HDV is recorded at the bandwidth of
> DV tape which is much higher than DVDs.
>
> MPEG-2 is a very flexible format. You can make every
> frame be an I frame and have quality as good as or better
> than DV depending on the available Bandwidth of the
> recording medium. If you tried to cram HD onto DV tape
> compressing each frame separately, as you do with DV,
> then the quality wouldn't be much to write home about,
> but HDV uses delta compression.
>
> By using delta compression the information can be spread
> across time. All other things being the same, this scheme
> gives you a lot more effective bandwidth.
>
> If you wave the camera around and zoom like so many people
> tend to do when shooting interlaced video, then it isn't going to
> look very good. The motion artifacts will be abundant. However,
> if you shoot taking the compression into account, I'll bet that
> HDV will look far superior on an HD display than DV would
> look scaled to the same resolution.
>
> David
We've already seen a reasonable amount of HDV shot stuff.
We have an Avid DS Nitris with HDCam deck. Digibetas etc.
We've been testing HDV via a Miranda box and looking at the results from the
DS on a Sony HD CRT screen.
Results can vary and taking into account the optics etc it can certainly out
perform SD DV by a mile.
It can however fall down spectacularly if the scene doesn't compress.
So care must be taken to use it for suitable work.
If the image has a lot of fine detail that is moving it can end up looking
far worse than SD would.
But for 99% of what I've seen it shoot (possibly more) it is far better the
SD DV.
You certainly notice it if you bring SD DV in and compare it to HDV.
It al depends on what you want the final output to be.
I'd have to consider carefully using HDV as a source if I needed an SD
deliverable.
It would give me an option for an HD deliverable as well but I'd have to
consider the type of material I'd be shooting.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|