Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: HDV v DV

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default HDV v DV

    A very simple demonstration of the extra resoloution that HDV gives you.

    The original picture was aobut 3000 x 2000 pixels. The picture was imported to vegas, a small clip rendered and a still taken from that video.

    This was done twice - first as a standard res DV project, and then as a 1080p HDV project.

    Stills and crops were then scaled to same final pixel size.

    Arguably this shows only a small difference and goes to show that DV need not be too humble just yet, especially when you considor that the way I did this test will show HDV at it's best as the image was static.

    The world has gone HDV but this test shows that DV is still just as good as it ever was... Dont be a pixel whore.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Mark W; 11-22-2008 at 11:08 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Devon
    Posts
    349

    Default

    I'd call that an own goal Mark, or should I say in view of recent impressions of me that you've shot yourself in the foot !

    You reckon this:




    Is a 'small difference' to this?:





    Should have gone to Specsavers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    well - the definition of small is perhaps subjective and realted to ones own pedant IQ - lols.

    Lets just say that the differnce isnt supported by the hype - not by a long way. Perchance differences in lens / block / back end processing could effect picture res similalrly.

    Most people watch films, not pixels and like i said DV is as good as it ever was.

    I am going to put the cat amongst em soon with a mega romp with various cameras of differing pedigrees.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Devon
    Posts
    349

    Default

    I think the true reality for me is that I'm now able to exceed the 'quality' I was getting from a PD150, at a quarter of the price. Sure, I've not got the controls, but for my use those controls are not a real requirement yet.

    A lot depends on the intended end 'product'. If it's destined to be shared on the net, then the advantages may be marginal, but the fact remains that my 600 camera give the same results as 2000 DVCAM cameras when it ends up like this, apart from the control thing. In addition the images I now get with HDV are far more easiliy manipulated than before, as HDV by definition (no pun intended) carries far more information, as we can see from your examples above, arguably twice as sharp, that means twice the tonal graduations too in my book.

    Ulltimately though, as you indicate, a lot of this is dependent on what it's being viewed on. With contrast ratios now in the millions decent viewing is attainable, my first HD TV was 600:1, my current one 3000:1, but 1,000,000:1 is now out there. Even on my 600:1 TV, which is now used as a monitor for the comp, the fact remains that for my own pleasure, HDV renders of vids now knock the best from my PD150 into a cocked hat, even if they are only rendered on to DVD. So for me, that one single step is a giant leap, that can not be knocked with any substantial objection imho.

    It's a pity that my HV20's turned out to be such a disapointment, as they gave bit more control, and was perhaps an even better image again, but I just knew they weren't going to last with what I do with them.

    I think the main thing for regular video makers to get a grip on though, is that the 'quality' of the film is dependent more on the classics of lighting, scene, framing, camera control and subject. Just like in the stills world, a better camera will not take better images, it just allows the user to do so if he has the skills.

    I jump down people's necks every time I hear 'yeah, just got a new camera, 10 squillion megapixel, takes an awesome picture!!'

    Just pointless if it's a picture of crap.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Consett UK
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hi people
    1st post, so be gentle on me.

    The pictures above, taken on their own, do seem to show a relatively small difference between the two formats. And I agree with the point from Jerry that the extra detail isn't the be-all-and-end-all for the merits of movies made with HDV. I would be the first to show my respect to film-makers that have got excellently made movies from the most basic, and cheap, tired old formats.

    But I am just about to take delivery of a Sony HVR-Z5 to replace my trusty VX2100. The reason for the change is so I can do 16:9 movies, and not have a widescreen movie that looks like a posh VHS picture; the resolution being axed by the camera wasting about 25% of its CCD's.

    And also being in a typical non-commercial film society, and watching DV movies,then HDV, then DV again etc, the difference on the big screen (well it's 7 foot width) is pretty impressive, if your eyes can appraise to a general public level.

    So from my perspective, DV (4:3) is dead, long live the HDV's!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Melton, Melbourne, Victroria, Australia
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy from Consett View Post
    Hi people
    1st post, so be gentle on me.

    The pictures above, taken on their own, do seem to show a relatively small difference between the two formats. And I agree with the point from Jerry that the extra detail isn't the be-all-and-end-all for the merits of movies made with HDV. I would be the first to show my respect to film-makers that have got excellently made movies from the most basic, and cheap, tired old formats.

    But I am just about to take delivery of a Sony HVR-Z5 to replace my trusty VX2100. The reason for the change is so I can do 16:9 movies, and not have a wide-screen movie that looks like a posh VHS picture; the resolution being axed by the camera wasting about 25% of its CCDs.

    And also being in a typical non-commercial film society, and watching DV movies,then HDV, then DV again etc, the difference on the big screen (well it's 7 foot width) is pretty impressive, if your eyes can appraise to a general public level.
    I own a lowly mid range high definition Plasma TV, and well I have to agree with you on that, standard definition video really stands out as an eye sore on it, I therefore prefer to watch all my standard definition videos on my old 40" plasma that is not a high definition one..

    So from my perspective, DV (4:3) is dead, long live the HDV's!
    Here, Here!

    Cheers!

    Peter J schoen..

  7. Default

    Forget the picture quality I am most alarmed by the subject matter. Where was this? What was about to happen? Are you ok?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Stoney Stanton
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Would love an HDV cam, still seem pretty pricey though...

  9. #9

    Default

    Surely, what we are seeing in the comments posted is a rudimentary shaping of a philosophy held by all? HDV trounces DV, we can see that in the science and the technology, but the formats are only mediums of the ideas we all shape in our minds in regard to our own individual creativity. The camera, the computer and the software are all tools which we use to manipulate the mediums of our ideas of creativity.

    In the last analysis, the end product of our expense in money, time, and effort - the images and sounds of our ideas - is what is most important to us, we seek to present them onto a screen or canvas for the pleasure of an audience...and ultimately, ourselves. We should never lose sight of this simple percept.

    It matters not if you're a pro, an enthusiast, or a simple point and shooter, the concept of creativity ascends or descends on your own personal outlook...but it is always a statement of one's expression. The more serious we about our creativity, the more quality we want to infuse into the presentation of our images and sounds...and that means investing in equipment with higher exponential technology.

    Currently, however, there is a higher-technological bottleneck holding back our creativity, and that is the necessary computing power required to run the editing software in order to manipulate the images and sounds captured or to be added into a representation of the ideas we held in the first place. We can argue about pixel count all we want, but until this bottleneck is sorted, nothing is going forward...especially not our creativity. This is where 'high-definition' falters. Not in the camera, not in the software, but in computing power. It is the computer itself, the tool of manipulation of our ideas of creativity, which is holding back the domestic HD market.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysiumfire View Post
    It is the computer itself, the tool of manipulation of our ideas of creativity, which is holding back the domestic HD market.
    I agree. In the 90s I spent nearly 5k on a high end consumer camera and edit set up and it was frustratingly slow and counter intuitive. Fourteen years on image gathering is still way ahead of image processing, except for professional systems and budgets.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •