How many MBs for 1 hour of Sony 1080i HDV?

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Fossil, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. Fossil

    Fossil Guest

    How many MBS does 1 hour of Hi-Def video take up when put through Final
    Cut Pro? Filmed with a Sony HDR-HC1.

    I'm trying to figure out how many hard drives to buy and how many GBs I
    will need for my project.

    TIA



    .................................................................
    Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
     
    Fossil, Jan 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Fossil

    mmaker Guest

    Don't know about FCP, but in native format it's 13GB an hour, just like
    DV.

    Mark
     
    mmaker, Jan 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Fossil

    Ty Ford Guest

    The HDR-HC1 is HDV. That's not HD.

    Ty Ford



    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
     
    Ty Ford, Jan 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Fossil

    mmaker Guest

    LOL. Yeah, and VHS isn't SD.

    Mark
     
    mmaker, Jan 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Fossil

    David McCall Guest

    Yeah, VHS is way less than SD :)

    David
     
    David McCall, Jan 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Fossil

    Specs Guest

    Hole and ass immediately spring to mind....
     
    Specs, Jan 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Fossil

    Ty Ford Guest

    Dude, looks to me like you're personally in my face. You only show your ass
    when you make comments like the one above. Know what I mean?

    There's a big difference between HDV and HD video. Try a swish pan or shoot a
    basketball game and find out for yourself.

    Ty Ford



    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
     
    Ty Ford, Jan 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Fossil

    David McCall Guest

    Are you are talking about the motion looking jumpy? If so;

    Have YOU tried a swish pan in other HD formats and liked the result?

    How about with film camera?

    As far as I know the only way to get anything that looks smooth
    with such a low frame rate is to:

    Pan fairly slow.

    Track a fast moving subject with the purpose of the pan being
    to keep the subject stable within the frame.

    Have any fast moving subjects move either towards or away from the camera.

    I have not played with HDV so you might be talking about blockyness
    and other image artifacts like you get with most heavily compressed
    formats, and the solution remains as above.

    David
     
    David McCall, Jan 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Fossil

    Ty Ford Guest

    Exactly. The misguided premise that HDV is as good as true HD, which surfaces
    here periodically is just plain wrong. That's my point.

    Ty Ford



    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
     
    Ty Ford, Jan 27, 2006
    #9
  10. Fossil

    mmaker Guest

    So you're saying that HDV is worse than broadcast HD, which uses about
    a 25% _LOWER_ bit-rate MPEG-2 compression? Because I've seen plenty of
    god-awful pixellated, artifacted 'swish pans' in broadcast HD.

    If the footage you shoot looks like crap on HDV -- and I've gone out of
    my way to try to force artifacting on HDV footage and never managed to
    create anything problematic in normal use -- then it's going to look
    like crap when broadcast even if you shot on IMAX.

    But, hey, if you want to carry on shooting on film or $100k HDCAMs so
    you can shoot swish pans which will look like crap when broadcast, go
    ahead. The rest of the world will shoot HDV, avoid swish pans, undercut
    your prices and not have the audience thinking their show is trash
    because your wonderful 'HDV is not HD' swish pans are pixellated to
    heck on their HDTV.

    Mark
     
    mmaker, Jan 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Fossil

    mmaker Guest

    What exactly is 'true HD'? Broadcast MPEG-2 HD? HDCAM? HDCAM-SR? DVCPRO
    HD? XDCAM HD? Raw uncompressed 4:4:4 10-bit 1920x1080 footage recorded
    straight to hard disk?

    What exactly makes one of those 'true HD' and another not? I'll be
    particularly impressed if your answer is 'broadcast HD is not HD'.

    Mark
     
    mmaker, Jan 27, 2006
    #11
  12. Fossil

    Specs Guest

    To my knowledge that assertion has NEVER been made on this group. How do
    you define TRUE HD? That phrase is utter nonsense anyway because there as
    so many variations of HD in use, all quite different, that defining "true
    HD" would be futile. I've never heard anyone describe SD formats as being
    "True SD" regardless of compression scheme used.

    In our own tests we have blown several of the misconceptions of HDV
    including the ability to pull a key, the ability to accurately track
    features or even survive the post production process at all. In fact
    earlier this week we had some HDV footage shot by a DoP friend of ours and
    put it through our matchmoving software . We produced a rock solid camera
    track without any difficulty at all. Another misconception blown apart.

    I question your motivation to keep posting "HDV is not real HD" when you
    offer no evidence to the contrary. I have never used HDV professionally but
    have seen enough to know it is a valid format just like DV was before it.
    What surfaces on this group periodically by a select few, including Ty Ford,
    is nothing more than eliteist snobbery reminiscent of the day that DV was
    introduced. If you don't like it TY don't use it. Just stop posting
    ingorant groundless rubbish you are a stuck record.

    Get over yourselves HDV has the ability to produce absolutely stunning
    images in the right hands.
     
    Specs, Jan 27, 2006
    #12
  13. Fossil

    Ty Ford Guest

    Again, Spec, or whatever you name is. You delight us all by contradicting
    yourself in your above statement.

    I am honored that you wish to lable me, but, if anything, I prefer technocrat
    to elitist snob. I think anyone who knows me would agree.

    I go back to the top and point out that apparently you and I do agree. HDV is
    not as good as HD. In a recent article I wrote about post production
    facilities, it was revealed that Discovery has a 20% limit on HDV shot
    content. I'm not sure how they police that. I'm sure for some slow or no pan
    shots it's passable. The point is, folks other than me can see the difference
    and know why.

    I think part of the problem is the letters themselves. HDV and HD just get
    sort of smeared together, especially by those who don't know the difference.
    I hear it ALL THE TIME when talking to video folks, semi pro and pro. It's
    sort of like lumping all betacam, (analog, SP and digital) into the same
    category.

    I never said HDV was crap. I said it wasn't HD. When someone makes that
    mistake, here, or elsewhere, I will point it out. It's not rubbish, it's not
    ignorant and it's not groundless. It's technical specs.

    Regards,

    Ty Ford


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
     
    Ty Ford, Jan 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Fossil

    Ty Ford Guest

    Exactly!

    Thanks or playing.

    Regards,

    Ty Ford

    PS: Are you talking about HD broadcasts on the air or over cable?

    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
     
    Ty Ford, Jan 28, 2006
    #14
  15. Fossil

    David McCall Guest

    So, Can we assume that any compressed High Resolution
    format should never be considered to be High Definition?
    OK, I'll buy that, but none of the manufacturers will, because
    it is all compressed, unless you are sucking the raw data
    onto a hard drive array. Isn't that correct.

    Sony's high end offerings are not compressed very much,
    but Panasonic's offerings DVCam-100HD and DVCam-50HD
    ARE heavily compressed. Do any of these count? I'd have
    to look it up, or you can, but I think you will find that there are
    few formats that actually that actually meet or exceed the spec
    for HD all of the way from the chips to the tape (or P2 card).

    So, how much under spec, or how much compression, is allowed
    to be actually referred to as an HD format. How about those DLP
    and plasma displays are any of them actually capable of presenting
    1080i at full resolution. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a
    true HD display in the store.

    Do you have any numbers to offer that would help us find that
    elusive line between HD and everything else?

    To me, they are all just digital formats of varying resolution and quality.
    Sure, an HDV camera is far inferior to a Cinealta, but it is superior
    to what you get on cable or sat TV that the marketing people call HD.

    I agree that this sounds like the elitist crap that was going around
    when DV first came out. It was considered unbroadcastable.
    However, an awful lot of crap produced on 3/4" tape (another
    consumer format :) was suitable for airing. I'd say DV is superior
    to 3/4" Umatic in almost every way, so how could they say that?
    If people can get away with bumping DV to 35mm and calling it
    film, I think this argument will be mute within the next year or so.

    Crapy resolution or not, I always liked 1" type C.

    David
     
    David McCall, Jan 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Fossil

    Specs Guest

    Exactly how did I contradict myself?
    Internet nobody writes article about something he doesn't understand shokka!
    Ty, there are hundreds of nonentities like yourself massaging their egos by
    writing articles about subjects they know f*ck all about. When was the last
    time you produced, shot or edited a contemporary programme for national
    broadcast?

    You say I contradicted myself well I'd take a good look at what you wrote in
    the para. above. If HDV was as shit as you maintain then Discovery would
    have no problem spotting it would they. As you say its not HD so it would
    jump out the screen as such.
    Its not the letters its people like you TY that are the problem.
    Once again you fail to define what HD actually is? Stop writing articles
    for womens magazines and define HD. What's stopping you. Define your datum
    point and thus prove HDV is not HD it is after all technical specs. Should
    be simple for a man of your intellect.

    Simply define what you believe HD to be (resolution, format, colour res, bit
    rate etc) and put this discourse to bed.....
     
    Specs, Jan 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Compression has nothing to do with determining whether something is HD or
    not. The amount of pixels which are being recorded, and shown in the end,
    determine this: 1920x1080 or 1440x720, 24, 25, 30 or 60 fps interlaced or
    progressive.
    That's right. Some recorders squeeze the data down to 1440 pixels
    horizontal to make it smaller to be able to record it, but blow it up to
    1920 again. This is compression, and has nothing to do with determining
    whether it is HD or not.
    HDV means HD on mini-DV. HD heavily compressed to fit in a datarate which
    can be recorded on a mini-DV tape. It is compressed, but still HD.
    Hmmm, don't forget that in the mean time the uprezzing software has been
    improved tremendously. The top software can double the amount of lines via
    clever mathematics, and by that alone make it look like a higher
    resolution. Recording this on film now, will look much better than what it
    did 8 years ago.

    cheers

    -martin-
     
    Martin Heffels, Jan 29, 2006
    #17
  18. Fossil

    Smarty Guest

    Martin,

    I fail to understand how uprezzing / clever mathematics can increase the
    resolution of a lower data rate / lower resolution signal. Doubling the
    number of lines doesn't truly "resolve" any more detail, and the inherent
    resolution of the originally sampled signal at the sampling rate it was
    captured is the highest "resolution" achievable. Schemes developed by Yves
    Faroudja and others (like DCD) can reduce jaggies or other artifacts, but
    this is not in any way an increase in resolution.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, Jan 29, 2006
    #18
  19. Companies like Du-Art in the US have developed proprietary software which
    they use to double the vertical resolution (I should have said that), to
    make a SD-based image look better when blown-up to 35mm. What it does is
    that it recreates the intermediate lines, based on the pixelsof the lines
    next to it. Of course this is not really going back to what it was (which
    is impossible after throwing away a lot of the information), but a pretty
    good approach, and makes a blow-up to 35mm look much better (from 500+
    lines to 1000+ lines)

    cheers

    -martin-
     
    Martin Heffels, Jan 29, 2006
    #19
  20. Fossil

    Smarty Guest

    Exactly! I think the industry use of the word "resolution" is unfortunate in
    the semantic sense however, because it inaccurately conveys the impression
    that the ability to resolve more information is achieved. To astronomers,
    physicists, or optometrists, the resolving power of the eye to see more
    detail is not benefited by such ("double the vertical resolution") methods.
    When interpolation or other smoothing and filtering is done to create the
    impression of an improved picture, the "apparent" resolution is, at best, a
    visual deception, taking advantage of perceptual (as opposed to physical)
    phenomena. Frank used the phrase "display/presentation frame size" in a
    another recent HDV thread to refer to the specification which actually ***
    is**** being (in this case) doubled, and you really have an equal or
    ***lesser*** resolution image being represented in a display/presentation
    frame which has twice the number of vertical lines.

    I tend to bristle at this marketing confusion a bit since there are numerous
    (successful) attempts to sell "up-converted" or "up-rezzed" DVD players,
    projectors, etc. which make claims to improving resolution, turning SD into
    HD, etc. None of them achieves an increase in resolution! They increase the
    frame size, implying that their resolution is increasing, but it isn't.

    All of them ultimately cannot and do not increase the resolution, no more
    than taking an mp3 audio signal and "up-converting it" to a higher bit rate.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, Jan 29, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.