... oops .. you're right ... I meant the GL2 ....

.I came across this excellent thread on this topic by a bunch of pro's and they can't seem to answer definitively either ....

http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/HD-To-SD_Better_Than_SD.htm



"... But bear in mind that some HD systems throw away so much original data that you may not be getting much more actual original data than you would with an SD original. This is certainly the case in PAL…AND this reduction of original data may leave you with LESS original data in some areas, think about the colour..."

" ...It was pretty clear the HD originated footage was sharper and just had a better look to it for this project. Color sampling issues were harder to judge since this wasn't a side by side comparison. I assumed that just the superior lenses on the HD camera would make for a better image...."

Your question is just a little confusing. You want widescreen 16:9 SD footage and you want it to be displayed on an HDTV? Will you be playing it from a DVD? Is HD broadcast not a possibility? If you can play full resolution HDV back then the A1 will dominate the GL2 on an HDTV. I'll assume this isn't the case.

I have not evaluated the the A1 or the GL2, so take this how you will. I own an FX1 and until recently, a VX2000, so the situation is similar to what you are looking at. For 16x9 on an HDTV, I believe the the native 16x9 video from the A1 will be superior to the native 4:3 footage from the GL2. I also believe you will have a little more flexibility in post with the HDV footage because can "Pan and scan" around a 720 x 480 sized window in the 1440 x 1080 sized original. So you can add a pan or zoom in post and still have clear SD footage. You will also achieve a higher quality converting HDV to 24p than DV to 24p if the need should ever arise.

HDV is a little harder and slower to work with than native DV. You will want to convert to an intermediary like Cineform before editing for best performance. You will also need to render at "Best" when rendering HDV to SD to maintain quality. If you render to "uncompressed" SD then you will have a 4:4:4 or at least a 4:2:2 SD master copy in addition to an HDV master. Which one it is is not exactly clear. This will add a lot to your render time over rendering native SD DV video. If you have the time then I think it would be worth it and would likely prduce superior results.

My FX1always produced superior 16x9 SD footage than my VX2000. Even 4x3 footage was very similar, although it took more time to do it with the HDV video than the DV video.

So I think the A1 would produce overall superior 16x9 video and I would choose it over the GL2. I'll throw in the standard disclaimer that you should try to test both before buying, yada, yada, yada....

"...Your question is just a little confusing..."

You don't know the half of it ... keeping up with with the flood of technical specs coming daily from hardware and software vendors and reading the conflicting opinions from experts is enough to drive you to Windows Movie Maker ... anyway, the question was "comparing native SD from a GL2 (in its un-native 16:9 mode) to the in-camera downconversion of the A1U HD native 16:9 camera to SD which will end up on a widescreen TV" ... forget HDTV .. just widescreen ... at first glance, it seems that the Canon picture will have less resolution and be "softer" than the HD Sony BUT ... and it's a big BUT ... is that difference that much to put up with the hassle of manipulating the HD stream and expensive intermediary codecs and humongous storage space required ...? ... in other words, if the story is good and the lighting and colour is good on the GL2, will it really make a big difference seen on a widescreen broadcast...?

in other words, if the story is good and the lighting and colour is good on the GL2, will it really make a big difference seen on a widescreen broadcast...?

It will in a couple of years when HD is what everybody else will be using and requiring for broadcast.
Another thing, if both are around the same price and you know that HD is where things are going, why buy a gl2? As for the intermediary format, you can use the cineform codec that comes with Vegas 6 for no additional cost (but none of that should matter if you are using the in camera downconversion).

j razz

OK, that makes sense ... you're right, I'm going to SD in the Sony anyway ... here's an observation: it's better when someone just tells you what to do rather than figure it out yourself ... thanks ...

Well, you certainly hit the nail on the head with your last few questions. Keep the following in mind. You can down convert HDV to SD straight from the A1on the fly in real time. You lose the advantages of starting with HDV that I mentioned before. But, you do keep the advantage of working with native 16x9 DV footage over native 4x3 footage.

Is the difference drastic or subtle? My FX1 widescreen 16x9 video was much better than the letterboxed 4x3 from my VX2000 when displayed on a widesceen TV. Have you ever watched a letterboxed 4x3 dvd that was not "enhanced for 16x9 TVs" , "anamorphically enhanced" , or "16x9 widescreen"? Can you tell a difference between those?

I personally would still go for the A1. But it is just a matter of preference. It sounds like you will have control of the lighting, so low light shouldn't be a factor. I think the extra resolution of the A1would allow for a sharper picture in SD, but the GL2 is a very fine DV camera.

I did not want to make the using HDV thing out to be really that hard - its really not. Vegas already comes with the Cineform codec buit in, so it doesn't cost extra. Storage space is cheap ($100 for a 300 GB HD). I believe the time disadvantage for rendering usually doesn't outweigh the advantages of using HDV footage for SD renders.

What are you going to be using it for? That may help us a little too. Will it be something like the 48 Hour Film Project or will it air on Broadcast TV? If you need to do any chromakeying then use HDV over DV every time.

" ... What are you going to be using it for? ..."

I've been a square pixel pusher for over ten years converting video for the web for my clients ... now they want me to film baby boomer rock'n roll sequences on location in places like laudramats and bowling alleys and such ... at first I said NO, I'm too old for that because it means running around and doing stuff other than editing ... but I broke down and said YES when they said I could dance off-stage with the dancing babes .... all of a sudden I gotta talk to lighting designers and musicians and dancing talent and all kinds of other strange people ... the stuff will be broadcast on local TV, painted on DVD's and squirted over the web .... five minute finished clips ... each clip shot in ten to 15 second dance routines with five couples and assembled and sync'd to a music bed in post ..... the music production I'll enjoy ... the rest will be a nightmare ...

Here's a quote from the aforementioned link that sums up my thoughts:

"...Think of it as the equivalent of over sampling in the audio world. In a perfect camera (be it SD or HD) the MTF would be a perfect rectilinear curve from DC to the limit of the given system bandwidth. In the real world, this is, of course, not obtainable. However, since a HD camera has a higher pixel count (sampling rate, if you will, in our audio analogy) and greater bandwidth than a SD camera, it produces a flatter MTF curve in the spectrum of interest in SD and less aliasing. (There are also some colorimetry and dynamic range considerations as well.)..."

Or look at it this way--an SD video produced from a 35mm movie will look better than if produced from a 16mm movie, even though 16mm film has adequate "resolution." It's because the MTF of the 35mm print remains at a very high level even at the SD resolution limit, and the overall MTF is the combination of all the MTF curves for each step of the process. So shoot in HDV, all things otherwise equal.

This question has been discussed frequently and you can search this forum for long discussions. Perhaps have a look at the extensive information at
http://www.vasst.com/?v=HDV/hdvportalnew.htm

" .... This question has been discussed frequently ..."

I know and I've read them all and more. But for every opinion, there's a counter-opinion and it's difficult sifting through the posts and trying to figure out which way to go. I realize that this is the nature of the beast and it's great to get notice of new products and services through these discussions but when it comes down to opening your wallet for a major purchase, you hope to draw feedback from users who aren't selling something or who don't have an ax to grind. Please be patient with us. In any case, my question has been answered satisfactorily through this particular thread. I have yet to regret a decision I made through the advice on this forum.

The Sony A1 not only does HDV, but it does SD in true 16:9. The GL2 is/was a wonderful camera for it's time, but I really think that that time has passed.

Just curious, why do you want to use the A1 in SD mode (if you go that route)?

I've been a proponent of the XM2=GL2 for the past 4 years. I'm waiting for Mr Canon to produce an equivalent high definition option within the same market. Presently there is only the 5X priced option. Me? Not!

Grazie

Grazie, you're in a different situation. You have an XM2 and that is giving you want you need now. Should an elephant step on your present camera would you go and buy a new XM2 or would you think that this is an opportunity for getting into future-proofing?

edit: The XM2 is a great camera and I had thought of getting one in making my move into video. This was encouraged by a friend using one for corporate video work. However I waited to see what HDV offered and decided that was a better way to go (despite the "don't buy first models"). Recently my friend was embarking on a bigger project that required 16:9 and was toying with getting a Z1 for it; then decided that the XM2 would suffice. I offered him a number of reasons for this being a false economy (including that the resale value of the XM2 is dropping), he bought the Z1 (despite being a Canon fan) and is now delighted with the camera and its capabilities.

Yeah, kinda Serena . .and I will look out for those Ellies in Wembley!!

I think I might just buy another 2nd-hand XM2, if I needed consistency with my existing.

Note to self: Read Ins Policy: Am I covered for marauding elephants?


. .. g

" ... why do you want to use the A1 in SD mode? ..."

Good question ... at first, I didn't want to get caught up in the format war bullsh!t and the problems of conversion, storage and delivery of HD ... the clips I'm shooting have to be delivered well before these problems get solved ... but after reading the posts here and elsewhere, it makes more sense to shoot in HD, convert to SD in Vegas and keep the original for later ... but then you get into the debate of which is the better method of conversion ... in-camera or Vegas ... and I've read a ton of differing opinions on that one .... so, if the client doesn't care about HD for now, then there's no point in going through the HD hassle ... if he decides down the road he wants HD then I'll re-shoot in HD and charge him again ... I love capitalism ... it makes me a whole person ...

No, there isn't any debate. You edit in HD and render to SD in Vegas. Check out the comparisons that Spot has provided. Also if you have shot in HDV you don't need to reshoot when the client wants higher definition. If you think HDV is a hassle, then that confirms that you've been talking to the wrong people.

Grazie -- I did say NEW xm2. I knew you'd take the 2nd hand XM2 option. One wouldn't want to change to HDV in mid-project (Wembly--elephants vs lions soccer?).