Posted by doc on 05/28/06 03:37

when we ran a test on HDV to compare it to SD miniDV that was our conclusion
too . . the image/picture quality actually looked no better at all and in
low light looked worse, however the latter could have been the result of the
camera, wherein the sony z1 just didn't seem to handle the low light very
well in our opinion.

drd

"Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
news:e5234i$4j5$1@news01.intel.com...
> "Toby" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote...
>>> "jho" wrote ...
>>>> I'm making a 30 sec. commercial and want to achieve a high quality
>>>> commercial with a limited budget ($2000). Does anyone know if DVCPRO50
>>>> comes anywhere near 35mm or another format that is inexpensive and high
>>>> quality?
>>>
>>> No NTSC (or PAL) television format recorded by ANY method
>>> comes anywhere near close to the native resolution of 35mm film.
>>> NTSC, for example, uses 345600 pixels (720x480) whereas 35mm
>>> film is regularly scanned at "2K" (2048 x 1556) or "4K" (4096 x 3112)
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
>>>
>>> OTOH, don't see how you could shoot either 35mm or DVCpro50
>>> on a $2K budget.
>>
>> Richard, how about using a prosumer HDV, such as the Sony Z1 in HD mode?
>> I've only ever shot with it in SD mode, but I've heard good things about
>> its HDV capabilities, apart from motion artifacts in MPEG2. Still no
>> match for 35, but probably higher resolution than any SD format. Anybody
>> out there used HDV?
>
> I thought you said you were shooting "a commercial"?
> Are you producing in a widescreen format? You didn't
> mention it before.
>
> Else, IMHO "HDV" is actually lower quality than regular "DV"
> because it is more highly compressed to fit all that much more
> video into the same tape bandwidth. HDV is at the opposite
> end of the spectrum from 35mm film with DV somewhere in
> the middle.
>
> If you are shooting something for release on an SD TV channel,
> you'd be better off using the best mini-DV camera you can find.
>

[Back to original message]