-
Just how good is the quality of the Kona 3 NTSC to HD upconvert?
Hi all:
Anyone actually try this yet? For instance, if I need to work a nice NTSC or HDV anamorphic clip into a HD project, is the up conversion acceptable quality? As compared to sending the NTSC material out and having it up converted from tape to tape through say, A Teranex or Snell & Wilcox box?
Debating between buying the Kona 3 or saving the money and just getting the LHe. Which would you go for if you just occasionally needed to integrate NTSC into HD projects?
Best,
Dan
Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs
-
12 Replies
-
Dan,
I have done side-by-side comparisons of the Kona2 upconversion against the Teranex Mini and the Teranex is better. Kona2 beats all the others, like FCP software conversion or Avid DS software conversion, but it still doesn’t have some of the things the Mini has, like processing that’s adjusted based on 2-3 detection. There’s also a Flexview mode in which the edges are stretched more than the center when upconverting 4×3 SD to 16×9 HD. I don’t know if the Kona3 is any better than the Kona2. I would think not.
Sincerely,
OliverOliver Peters
Post-Production & Interactive Media
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Aloha Oliver,
If I can ask, did you find the overall quality of the Kona and the Terranex comparable or was there a big step between them? For example is the difference between the Terranex and the Kona of the same magnitude that you implied exists between these two hardware converters and the software solutions?
I guess the last question I have is do you consider either the Teranex suitable for mixing with real HD footage? The reason I’m asking is that we have a lot of stock footage we would like to convert to HD if possible. We’re going with a Kona 3 (which does seem the same as the Kona 2) and are wondering if this conversion will be adequate or if we should have the conversion done at a post house with the full blown Teranex converter? The final use is for broadcast on Discovery, Nat Geo etc. The reason for the upconvert is that we film volcanoes and a lot of the stuff is unique and we can’t simply recapture it. I’d love your opinion on this.
Mahalo,
Ken
-
If you do the up-conversion externally you also have to take into account HOW you mange the up-converted output. HDCAM will degrade your material alot (3:1:1 color space compared to 4:2:2 of DigiBeta for starter). Going HDCAM SR is a great, but perhaps not so cheap (or easy) route.
But it would be interesting to hear how the Kona 2 (or 3) compares to dedicated conversion hardware. Also how big the difference is compared to a software up-conversion.
-
HDCAM also suffers from lower resolution than HDCAM SR (1440×1080 vs 1920×1080).
A filmscanning/post house here in Stockholm helped us with scaning and transfers of an edit shot on film, later to be edited in HD. They really felt strong about NOT going the HDCAM road. We finally went to HDCAM SR and then staright to hard drive 4:2:2 10-bit uncompressed.
-
[kenh] “For example is the difference between the Terranex and the Kona of the same magnitude that you implied exists between these two hardware converters and the software solutions?”
Ken,
The Kona and Teranex Mini were close. The software conversions (FCP and DS) were a distant third and fourth. When I asked casual observers to look at the Kona and Teranex conversion, they could see a difference. The Teranex was a bit crisper and there was a definite improvement with aliasing especially with material that had 2-3 pulldown (film). As far as I know, the Mini has the same basic processing at the full system, just not as much control, nor a lot of the restoration features. I think you’re always going to see a difference between SD and HD, but if your original is really film, the Mini will do a nice job with it, because it processes the frame progressively.
Sincerely,
OliverOliver Peters
Post-Production & Interactive Media
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Erik Lindahl] “If you do the up-conversion externally you also have to take into account HOW you mange the up-converted output. HDCAM will degrade your material alot (3:1:1 color space compared to 4:2:2 of DigiBeta for starter). Going HDCAM SR is a great, but perhaps not so cheap (or easy) route”
Erik,
You are confusing things. HDCAM is not 3:1:1, but rather 22:8:8 if you expect the numbers to actually mean something. 3:1:1 is simply expressing the same vaules as a ratio, not an absolute value and as such, would only be of value if you were talking about ratios in HD, not ratios in SD. The numbers 4:2:2 – when you are taking about SD digital video – are based on multiples of actual values, not only just as a ratio. Going from Digibeta to HDCAM or going from Digibeta to HDCAM-SR is going to be little or no visible difference.
Sincerely,
OliverOliver Peters
Post-Production & Interactive Media
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Erik Lindahl] “A filmscanning/post house here in Stockholm helped us with scaning and transfers of an edit shot on film, later to be edited in HD. They really felt strong about NOT going the HDCAM road. We finally went to HDCAM SR and then staright to hard drive 4:2:2 10-bit uncompressed.”
Erik,
I would agree here, as I’ve done film DI work on SR at 4:4:4. However, Ken is talking about upconverting existing SD to HD for US cable broadcast/transmission. SR is totally overkill for his requirements.
Sincerely,
OliverOliver Peters
Post-Production & Interactive Media
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “The Teranex was a bit crisper and there was a definite improvement with aliasing especially with material that had 2-3 pulldown (film).”
The big thing I see missing from the Kona up-convert is line-doubling. The full Teranex we use for our up-converts (via another production house) obviously adds line doubling as the image just turns out cleaner and crisper as you mention.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
https://www.biscardicreative.comDirector, “The Rough Cut”
https://www.theroughcutmovie.comNow Posting “Good Eats” in HD for the Food Network
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!” – Adam Savage, Mythbusters
-
But chroma sampling is just that – how many luma samples you have for each chroma sample. In the case of HDCAM, you have 3 luma sample to 1 chroma sample, hence 3:1:1. Chroma sampling is all about ratio, not absolute value! Calling “4:2:2” in HD as 22:11:11 went out with ark and it’s a notation that is no longer used. 22/8 != 3 either, so calling HDCAM 22:8:8 is not correct either.
[Oliver Peters] “Going from Digibeta to HDCAM or going from Digibeta to HDCAM-SR is going to be little or no visible difference.”
That’s correct.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Aloha Oliver and Walter,
Thank you both so much for your detailed replies, it’s been very helpful to me. And Oliver, you are correct in that we are converting SD video (mostly D9 and some DV). I actually just finished wiring a new Mac with a Kona 3 into our studio this weekend and was able to do a few test up conversions. The results are an improvement over SD, but are much “softer” than HD footage, so the next step is probably to do a test conversion with a Teranex. Thank you both again.
And Walter, I largely purchased the Kona board based upon reading your posts here. It is really a wonderful piece of equipment and I was particularly impressed at how easy the software is to figure out and use. Really nice! Thank you for your contributions here, they are really helpful.
Aloha,
Ken
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up