|
|
Posted by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss on 08/14/07 06:00
> > first
> > DVD that I made, with shareware MPEG compression software--in short, it
> > looked like garbage.
>
> Since you categorically consider HD delivered to the home as being
"garbage"
> and "not HD", I see that your sentiment is way more pervasive than I
> originally thought. I will make no further attempt to defend HD systems of
> any type to you, HDV included, since your standards are considerably
higher
> than mine and perhaps of most other people. To my eyes, which are
admitedly
> older and not as acute perhaps as yours, HD is a vast improvement over
> standard definition, and only the poor choice of technique by the producer
> is at fault rather than the delivery technology itself. And yes, I would
> fully admit that an eventual "ultra HD" system with much higher resolution
> and bandwidth will eventually be introduced, thereby obsoleting whatever
> systems we now consider "high" resolution.
Frankly, I've been retired for about 22 years, and my eyes are not so great.
Thus, I don't see much difference in the clarity of HDV over DV, but what I
DO see are the bands of discreet color gradations, rather than smooth
gradients on frames containing blue sky, or solid color walls. I see sickly
"solarizing" effects on facial colors as well. There are just too many
things that keep catching my attention and preventing me from watching the
content of the material. I'm referring to the Sony V1U here, but now I'll
state that the broadcast HD content I see in big box stores selling HT
components is so much worse that it makes the Sony look pristine by
comparison. Much of it is just unwatchable. Indeed, the falt of the
broadcasters, who, in the wake of the Telecom Act of 1996 have been on an
all-out orgy of greed and monetary-only consideration. Quality of signal
goes down the drain: "--just put more channels and content on the
air--people won't notice the difference!"
> > I have both the Canon HV20 and two Sony V1Us. The former produces a soft
> > picture and the HDV has fewer artifacts. The Sony produces an almost
> > razor-sharp image, and things like individual blades of grass resolve
and
> > that just overloads the CODEC to the point where "shimmering" artifacts
> > appear as the camera pans across a football field, for example. This
> > happened in one of my outdoor shots with the V1U, whereas to a lesser
> > extent
> > with the HV20, as it didn't resolve individual blades of grass.
> > I think it's hard to pin the problem on the CODEC without using the same
> > CODEC to take the output from two different camera heads. One could
> > erroneously observe that Canon has a better CODEC, when in fact, it has
> > only
> > less work to do, due to the integration effect on the picture signal.
>
> Since the codec needs to be chosen to have adequate performance to encode
> whatever high frequency detail the sensor is capable of achieving, then
the
> codec performance ultimately determines whether artifacts are present or
> absent. My original point is not that one codec is better than another,
nor
> is it that a lesser resolution sensor demands a lesser codec. It is merely
> that the presence of visible artifacts is NOT inherent in HDV but rather
is
> a camera-specific defect, nominally a flaw in the codec performance.
There may be some factors that are specific to the HV20 that are responsible
for it's lack of distracting compression artifacts. But it is not the
softness of the picture, as I found out. Turning off Cinema mode gets rid of
the blur filtering and produces a very crisp picture, similar to the V1U. So
now I'm thinking it's the lower 24fps rate that may be making things easier
on the CODEC. So I'm planning to do some 24P testing on the V1U to make a
better comparison. I'll know more, after I complete some tests with
side-by-side cameras at 24P.
> > pro? At $103,000 for an HDW-F900? It seems most of what Sony offers
below
> > that is consumer quality.
> >
> HDV is a consumer format, and has only been adopted on occasion by
> professional users since it does indeed offer a level of performance and
> portability which allow it to be used succesfully in some professional
> applicatons. HDV cameras have improved dramatically in the few short years
> they have been on the market, and I personally find their picture quality
in
> most cases to be excellent, superior to standard DV by a wide margin. DV
has
> been around for over a decade, and I have no doubt that HDV cameras will
> also improve with time in the coming years as they also become less
> expensive, despite Sony's preferences to keep the markets stratified. The
> inherent strength of the HDV format has already showed itself, and will
> continue to survive with cameras using better encoders to reduce artifacts
> for those like yourself who see them everyplace.
Yes, HDV has to improve. But I will admit I do have my eye on XDCam EX, with
some hope for an acceptable and watchable HD picture.
> > I agree that is IS a waste, but we tend to enjoy debating the pros and
> > cons
> > of each formate, do we not? Lest we'd be elswhere than sitting at these
> > PCs
> > and typing messages back and forth on USEnet. :-)
> > Best Regards,
> >
> You are indeed correct Mark, and we all take perverse delight in dragging
> out our soap-boxes for round after round of pontification. I am most
> certainly guilty of this behaviour.
>
> My best regards to you as well Mark,
>
> Smarty
One thing about USEnet: it's the last bastion of true free speech. No
moderators to censor/suppress information. We can all make our cases here
and lay out the facts for everyone to judge for themselves.
Best regards,
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION FILM SCANNING DVD MASTERING AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
www.basspig.com The Bass Pig's Lair - 15,000 Watts of Driving Stereo!
Business sites at:
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|