Excuse my ignorance regarding video quality

ruggy1 · Post by **ruggy1** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:44 am

I have been using MF for several years now but have been increasingly perplexed by "video quality". I am in a PAL region where resolution is around 720x576. To me this indicates about 4000 pixels, or am I wrong. TV programs are brilliantly clear, but even my Canon DV camera cannot produce anywhere near as good a resolution as broadcast TV. I render DV video to maximum 9500K and 100% quality setting, but still not as good as TV. Can someone please point me in the direction of a tutorial or site that explains what I have to do to approach the quality of a TV broadcast? I
Many Thanks

keithm · Post by **keithm** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:46 am

In what way is the quality not as good? If you have jagged edges - it's an excepted problem with DV (you see it on live analog broadcasts on TV). If it's motion blurring you might have the field order the wrong way round, for pal you also need the latest microsoft dv codec (what os and version of direct X do you have).

ruggy1 · Post by **ruggy1** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:49 am

Thanks, but the field oder is correct and there are no jagged edges. What I am questioning is resolution. I have XP (SP2) the latest codecs and a high powered P4. TV has crisp resolution, my DV tapes are good quality but do not approach broadcast TV (PAL). I know i am doing everything correctly as far as MF is concerned. I have also used Nero VisionEpress and get the same resolution. I think I am missing some basic physics here. If a 3-CD camera is what is needed, then I would like to know why, as there are are only so many pixels to share around on a PAL screen!

keithm · Post by **keithm** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:07 pm

Well there are different quality DV cameras (with highter resolution CCD's), maybe it's that. But normal DV is usually very good. What's actually up with the images, do they look soft or fuzzy? Strangely a lack of noise in the picture can make an image look softer than one with a bit of noise. I found a recording made on my old Canon EX1Hi Hi8 camcorder and it did look more dynamic than the stuff i shoot on DV; you have to remember although it is to tape DV is heavily compressed (and in real time). But, the resolution (720x576) is the same as pal dvd.

Have you looked at reviews for the camcorder you use? I know some Sharp DV camcorders recieved terrible reviews for washed out pictures that were worse the VHS C!

ruggy1 · Post by **ruggy1** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:18 am

Thanks for the input. I also use Hi8 over DV sometimes, especially indoors. But I cannot understand how an 800K resolution from a DV camera looks worse than digital TV broadcasts from a satellite, where resolution is just 414K. They should at least both look the same. I must be really missing something here. Thanks.

maddrummer3301 · Post by **maddrummer3301** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:27 pm

The TV broadcasts are recorded on High Detail pro camera's.
Large CCD pickup's and use to be wide tape for the best
high-frequency response which hold's more data/detail/picture information.
Their expensive hardware along with superb electonic filtering and
enhancements results in high detail picture being transmitted.
That doesn't even cover the advanced optical system.

I've had similar problems with my canon camcorder. Outdoor's with
good lighting looks good. Indoor's is fair (lighting dependent).
The best picture from mine is using the Manual mode. The automatic
mode is using the image stabilizer which in turn affects the overall
depth of the picture. I guess you could sum that up as the focus maybe.
If you have manual focus try shutting off the image stabilizer and
locking the focus on the subject.

Some canon camcorders change the shutter speed depending on the
amount of light so in a dark room the shutter speed drops to let
more light in which affects the sharpness of moving objects.
If not on a tripod and your moving then the overall video is still
moving. (Especially if the camera man's been drinking).

All the manual features in a cam are hard to remember.

The bigger the CCD in the camcorder usually the better detail that's
captured. The new Sony Handycam's are using a 1/3 CCD. Very nice
video with those units.
Maybe yours is a 1/6 CCD.
Check out the specs of expensive cams and notice the size of the CCD's
they are using (including oversampling the CCD for a better picture).

I wish my canon had presets that I could select. If I find the correct
settings it's hard to remember the exact settings I used. Would be nice
to be able to recall a preset in the manual mode.
(That's what the presets on the dial's are for though).

You are not alone though. Many times I don't like the video I've taken
with the canon unit. It could be my fault though because the CCD is
a 1/3.5 CCD unit which is good for consumer.

Hope this helps,

MD

Greg · Post by **Greg** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:59 am

How does your rendered DVD compare to the original footage played from the camera connected directly to the TV? Without some really fancy footwork, you are not really going to get anything better than that. Also are you doing a single or multi pass compression?

Regards,
Greg

heinz-oz · Post by **heinz-oz** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:34 am

I use a 3 CCD Panasonic camcorder, GS 400, which gives me very nice pictures straight from the camera and also from the DVD's I produce out of my tapes. I also have an older Panasonic DV camcorder, the DA1, one of the first ones. It still produces a slightly clearer picture than the new GS 400 but does lack in color reproduction. The GS 400 uses 3 chips of 1/4.7 inch whereas the DA1 uses one chip of 1/3 inch. The 1/3 chip gives a clearer image than the 1/4.7 because there are more sensor pixels making up the image. It's a bit complex to explain. In addition to that there is also some processing going on to move the digital data captured by the chip to the tape. This also involves some 10 to 11% compression (DV AVI). The power of the processor used for that inside your camera is never clearly disclosed and many of the differences you get between different brands are due to that. The lens or rather the optical system plays a very big role also.
To cut a long story short, with Mini DV camcorders you will never achieve broadcast quality. Then again, you don't have to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars for the equipment either. Just go and have a look at some of the professional Mini DV camcorders, costing around A$8,000.- and more, as oposed to my prosumer camcorder GS400 costing less than half. You will see the difference in image quality right away, because these pro cameras use much larger chips and high end optics. The computer systems and software used to generate the final broadcast output would not run on your PC either, no matter what hardware you have.
AFAIC, my Mini DV camcorders give me a lot better quality than what analog VHS ever did and sure, it's not HD broadcast quality, but I don't have to have a team of technicians around me to keep it all happeneing either.

maddrummer3301 · Post by **maddrummer3301** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:09 am

>>The GS 400 uses 3 chips of 1/4.7 inch
That's 1 chip per color band correct?
Nice, I probably should have gotten or tried the Panasonic before the Canon but I'm still
learning the different shooting modes etc. No end to that I think. I would call the video
quality good.

I have used an expensive cam like you said. The electronics and higher quality CCD's is
no comparision to the consumer based models. Even up you transfer using the composite
connector the video is still excellent.

MD

ruggy1 · Post by **ruggy1** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:21 am

Thanks guys, it seems that money is the answer, but I still do not know why my TV resolution at 720x576 (410K) gets beter quality than my DV camera (800K) !!

keithm · Post by **keithm** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:51 am

ruggy1, you still haven't told us why you think it's better! In what way is the DV footage inferior, is it definition, contrast, noise levels, moving objects going blocky...

Try to explain what you think the differences are..

ruggy1 · Post by **ruggy1** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:04 am

Simply, clarity, or definition. I do not know how else to describe it. Fuzzy I suppose, but still watchable. I know it is as good as the DV camera can do - there is almost no difference between direct input from camera to TV and the DVD produced from MF4. I need to learn more about 'pixels' and bitrates I think. Thanks to you all.

keithm · Post by **keithm** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:22 am

What is the camera model? And how does the Hi8 stuff compare?

keithm · Post by **keithm** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:51 am

Another thought!

Have you got analog capture on your computer for the old Hi8? If so, try capturing DV footage via the analog system. I actually capture DV using an analog card as it allows me to tweak contrast, color and brightness before capture.