Posted by Jan Panteltje on 11/21/06 22:33

On a sunny day (21 Nov 2006 14:14:07 -0800) it happened "Mike Kujbida"
<kujfam@xplornet.com> wrote in
<1164147247.491244.232250@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>
>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

Well I cannot argue with [anybodies] experience.
Maybe there are other factors at work, but the theory stands.

[Back to original message]