Ken Hon
Forum Replies Created
-
Shannon,
If you choose D1 720×486 in after effects you will be fine, it knows how to handle video so no worry.
-
Shannon,
Here is a relatively simple explanation. Standard Definition TV is 4:3 which works out to an aspect ratio of 1.333. If you look at computer video it is generally listed as being 640×480 (which divides out to 1.333) or the 720×540 (which also divides out to 1.333 or 4:3). This is because most computer applications use square pixels, especially true for photoshop etc. Used to be that way for AVI files etc. till they wised up and started using D1 720×486. Where does that number come from as it divides out the 1.148148? Well, D1 or TV pixels are not square. If you either divide 540 by .9 (aspect of D1 pixles) or multiply 486 by 1.1111 (the reciprical of 0.9) or multipy 1.148148 by .9 (you get 1.3333 magically) you will see how these translate. So in order to get the right aspect ratio from something created in a square pixel program you need to make it 720×540, this is especially true when doing menus for DVDs also. Then it won’t get squished when brought onto a D1 timeline.
Aloha,
Ken
-
Aloha Ron,
I sincerely apologize, it never crossed my mind that my comment would be taken the way it was. It was just a lame thermodynamics pun spun off Peter’s reply. Sorry about that.
Ken
-
I think the blood boiling point is directly proportional to the partial pressure of vaporware!
-
Fast $$$ maybe?
-
Aloha Graeme,
If what Sony says is true, then I’ll sleep a lot easier. We do all our transfers for stock at Point360 in Hollywood and they’ve got all the latest conversion gear. We’ve had a few transfers done for Discovery etc. and they seemed to be happy, but we’ve never seen the results as we don’t have anything that can playback HDCAM. Not too hopeful about getting an HDV copy out of Point360 until someone makes a HDV deck with HDSDI.
Aloha,
Ken
-
Aloha Graeme,
The following is totally non-scientific, but has some bearing on the conversation. I’ve read several people saying up-rezzing 4:2:2 SD footage might result in better pictures than a Z1 produces. We have a D9 DY90U camera (nearly identical to DVCPRO50) and an FX-1. Of course the D9 camera is interlaced, but so is the FX1. Playing both of these cameras on a Dell 24″ 1920×1080 mode monitor, there is absolutely no comparison.
The D9 image is very fuzzy and looks just like a low resolution image blown up several times. The FX-1 image is so clean (even reds) that there is no way that I think you could ever convert the D9 image to anything close to the FX-1 image (this also pains me because we have a heck of a lot of stock footage shot on the D9 camera).
While the FX-1 certainly has motion problems for us, even those shots look much better than comparable shots blown up from the D9 camera. A 480p image will probably blow up better, but I don’t think it will approach even the Sony. The new JVC and Panasonic entries appear to be much better, but only time will tell.
We will probably have a real of the D9 stuff upconverted at the place we vault our footage, but I don’t hold out much hope. We’re selling the D9 gear and moving on, probably to the new Panasonic if they figure out a hard drive capture solution so we can do long form shooting.
-
Chris,
The terms have been around forever in computer stuff. People who do a lot of processing related stuff tend to describe that in bits as this is the level where an image is recorded or manipulated (think mpeg streams, color depth etc). Average users just moving stuff around talk more in bytes, as in chunks of data moved from here to there (think sustained data rates from drives). I’m sure there is a better computer history behind the usage of the terms, but programmers are bit-intensive guys because that is the unit they manipulate.
Aloha,
Ken
-
I’m not too familiar with DVCPRO tapes either, so I don’t know if they have a more robust tape for the big cartridges. Our D9 camera has the same 8 head configuration as the DVCPRO 50 but writes to a big tape cartridge. Anyway, it doesn’t really matter as they aren’t going to stuff a 16 head drum in this little camera anyway. I do hope that the rumors about being able to write directly to a hard drive are true. That would be a good stop gap until some other devices start using hi speed memory cards. Maybe portable HD Movie players could use these instead of a hard drive so you can load movies by swapping cards. They would also work nicely in Palm Pilots etc. We need some app that requires really fast memory cards to drive the price down.
-
Aloha Roman,
I guess that’s good news (no chroma shift due to colorspace changes) and bad news you need to post in uncompressed to keep from causing banding. I’m hoping that maybe Avid’s codec might be able to handle this. Too bad for cheap guys like me that Sony is keeping their HDCAM codec to themselves, though maybe it has these problems too.
Ken