[Civuck]

Am I the only one who believes that HD Video looks dramatically better than HD film? To my eye, film based stuff (eg. most TV shows) looks only marginally better than DVDs however video broadcasts (live productions, sports, PBS demo loops) seem to show off HD much more.


Is this a result of live video simply having more resolution than most film based content is being transferred with or is there something else?


And finally, a bit off topic, but I have a RPTV and therefore I have had to get used to the slightly blurred extreme edges of the image (vs. closer to the centre). But I'm wondering if it's possible some HD camera lenses also introduce a bit of "blur" into the image at the edges.

 

[scowl]

You may just be seeing the difference between 24 frames per second (film) and 30 or 60 frames per second (video). Take a look at CBS's "Joan of Arcadia" on Fridays. That show is produced entirely on HD video but it's 24 fps, just like film. Does it look better to you than shows done on film? I think it's hard to tell the difference although it's hard to judge because JoA isn't a dazzling show.


Also live events usually have plenty flat even light which helps anything look good. Dramas often use film at the limits of its exposure range with shadows and bright lighting in the same shots. HD cameras don't handle these kinds of shots as well as film (yet) so HD video is mostly used in good lighting conditions that film looks good in too.

 

[Don S]

Quote:

Am I the only one who believes that HD Video looks dramatically better than HD film? To my eye, film based stuff (eg. most TV shows) looks only marginally better than DVDs however video broadcasts (live productions, sports, PBS demo loops) seem to show off HD much more

Definitely, without question.

 

[Ken H]

Quote:

Originally posted by Don S Definitely, without question.

This is a matter of opinion, and has been discussed here for years. Do a search in the archives for film, video and you'll find dozens of topics.

 

[ThumperBoy]

You risk the wrath of mmost!

 

[Ken H]

Quote:

Originally posted by ThumperBoy You risk the wrath of mmost!

And rightfully so!

 

[Thomas Desmond]

Video and film based HD certainly do have a different look, and many people seem to have a strong preference.


But my observation is that HD looks far better than DVD quality, and this is apparent to me whether the material in question is from film of video. While they may look different, they both blow away the quality of DVDs.

 

[PVR]

Random comments:


HD video does tend to look sharper, more crisp, and more "you are there".


Many who work in film production have said that they still prefer film because of many reasons including:

#1: Better response in very low light situations

#2: A whole industry that knows how to light for film

#3: Better ways to "set the mood" in the film. Sometimes you don't always want that "you are there" look, but perhaps something more gloomy, or antique looking (for instance).


Although 24fps looks a bit more "jumpy" on high motion, it does provide a benefit in that the ATSC encoders are less likely to "pixilate" the image.

1080i 30fps is more likely to run out of "bits" encoding to

 

[shah8]

Okay, I have been meaning to ask this question...


How many of you have really paid attention to the various productions in HDVid?


I mean, it's pretty apparent to me, no matter how people say they love Leno, that it's the worst straight-up HDVid around. Compare it to CBS productions like Grammies. Or compare it to PBS, in which it seems like much of their production staff doesn't know how to shoot under certain lights, but is very crisp as well. I have been most impressed by HDNet and NHK productions. Both are extremely crisp. NHKHD seems to have better colors, and they seem to suffer much less from red chroma bugs than anywhere else. DiscoveryHD is fairly uneven at times. Some are very sharp. Some are bitstarved, and others have that dull look bad NBC drama shows have, when shown in HD.


Just yakkin'...think this is kinda of an interesting topic...

 

[Don S]

Quote:

Originally posted by PVR Random comments: HD video does tend to look sharper, more crisp, and more "you are there". Many who work in film production have said that they still prefer film because of many reasons including: #1: Better response in very low light situations #2: A whole industry that knows how to light for film #3: Better ways to "set the mood" in the film. Sometimes you don't always want that "you are there" look, but perhaps something more gloomy, or antique looking (for instance).

I agree completely with this, and probably should have originally said "in my opinion ...". The original poster mentioned he thought "video broadcasts (live productions, sports, PBS demo loops) seem to show off HD much more." In my opinion, this is definitely true, and in my case no contest. Live sports, etc definitely evoke the WOW factor much more for myself and friends than a HD movie or weekly eposidic show. However, I do not in any way think that video is a better choice for movies or episodic programming. I simply agree with Civuck in that the live events show off HD much more profoundly.

 

[PVR]

I think the Leno show can look awesome, but many NBCs are re-encoding it at too low a rate due to multicasting. In that case it doesn't look so great.


Some examples of shows that seem very well done for HD Video:

PBS: Tracks Ahead

PBS: Desert Speaks

DSCHD: Great Canadian Rivers

DSCHD: (Lots of stuff)

HDnet: HDnet productions like World Report, Bikini Destinations, etc.

CBS: The HD Video clips from the 2002 "Its all here promo". Live Football.

NBC: Leno is probably as good as it gets. Lets see how State of the Union looks on Tuesday...

 

[Linux23]

i don't like the looks of HD Video.

 

[Woodrow]

I've only been viewing HD since March so I haven't seen much, and don't know much. Just from what I've seen, and in MY opinion, HDvideo is better. I realize there is much more to it than simply HDvideo vs. HDfilm, but for me it's always video when I go WOW. Most of the time I don't find out if it was video or film until I check this forum after the show is over.

 

[btokars]

This is a discussion that never seems to end. In 1985 my video production company bought two Betacam systems (the first generation, not SP). There was a lot of talk in our industry about the incredible look of the Betacam pictures vs 3/4-inch, and one-inch tape. And at the time, a lot of experimenting with lighting and image transfer techinques from Betacam to film. Even then, video looked "better" or film "looked" better depending on your personal observations. But I saw a lot of Betacam source material that was converted to 35mm film that looked as though it shot on film.


We seem to be havingthe same discussion now about HD. To me, video is always going to look crisper and more life-like than film. In some ways it's like the debate about CD audio vs the old LP records. Isn't it nice that some things never change?

 

[DP1]

As usual in this discussion it kind of depends what one is talking about. One cant necessarily say one or the other is "better" because they each have their purpose. But one can certainly draw the conclusion that HD video give more of a "wow" factor.


Part of that is simply because when it comes to like movies, there was already a relative wow factor by just moving up to widescreen progressive scan DVD playback compared to overly compressed P&S bs on the SD DBS/cable channels, or plain 'ol VHS movie watching.


But when it comes to the usual video based programming like nature or sports theres not been much inbetween (give or take a Fox football game or a few PBS WS SD programs). It's either fuzzy 4x3 Hockey games or 16x9 HD games. It's either a non inspiring 4x3 version of Smart Travels or a glorious 16x9 HD version.

 

[jckessler]

Also, people are very used to the film look just from going to the movies. The HD-Video look is distinct, and therefore provides a wow factor.


I do believe that frame rate is a big part of the wow factor. It would be nice to see some 60fps stuff on film for a better comparison.

 

[trbarry]

At least at the same frame rate I personally believe the wow factor will correspond pretty much with MTF, the Modulation Transfer Function. I believe this is something that can even be measured directly though I can't do it myself from where I sit. Though see my old Let's Measure Detail thread for a sort of poor man's equivalent measure.


By this measure 1080i HD video does indeed seem quite a bit more detailed than most telecined film HDTV I've seen.


But I'll put in the standard disclaimer here that detail alone does not necessarily mean greater value and of course there may be other shortcomings of video.


I happen to like the video look myself, except maybe for some depth of field and dynamic range issues.


- Tom

 

[tin ear]

Everytime I see HD video I think WOW.......WOW, that looks like crap!

 

[John Mason]

As usual, I'd vote for HD video, the 1080/60i flavor, and hope producers will adapt

dual-capture 24-fps and 1080/60i until 1080/60p production technology arrives.


A leading reason for the disparity in images, IMO, seems to be the losses during the telecine process. If the loss from telecine frequency response provided earlier is typical (40% depth of modulation at 28 MHz), the diminished detail of telecined HD is understandable.


Of course, there's always a fix just around the corner, such as telecine machines that scan at twice 1080's resolution for later downconversion and boosted frequency response. Whether such hardware is adapted by program sources, and boosted fidelity survives MPEG-2 compression down to ~17 Mbps or less (HD broadcast-video payload) remains to be seen. Also, that still wouldn't cure motion-artifact problems from 24-fps image capture. - John

 

[Cliff Olson]

Quote:

Originally posted by Linux23 i don't like the looks of HD Video.

Just curious. What don't you like?