|
|
Posted by Mike Kujbida on 11/21/06 22:14
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (21 Nov 2006 13:38:13 -0800) it happened "Mike Kujbida"
> <kujfam@xplornet.com> wrote in
> <1164145093.775293.55280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >The downconverted HD will look much better than straight SD because
> >you're starting with a higher quality to begin with.
>
> This is not correct, 'aliasing' will occur.
> For aliasing, in the simplest form, think how to put 10 dots on a line in 7.
>
>
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
>
> a b c d e f g
>
> Never quite fits now does it?
Sorry Jan but my own personal experience (as well as that of several
users on various Vegas forums) tells me otherwise.
I borrowed a friend's Z1 one day and did some test shoots of water
flowing down a stream into a pond. I locked the camera on a tripod and
shot in both SD & HDV. I then brought this footage into Vegas 3 ways,
SD, HDV & HDV downconverted. I also rendered the HDV footage to
SD,again in Vegas.
I then looked closely at all 4 shots on my reference monitor (JVC
TM-H150CGU - 750 line SD monitor). To my eyes, the downconverted HDV
(either way) looked better than the straight SD footage.
Mike
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|