MiniDV vs. Betacam SP for 16mm format

[Walter Graff]

It sounds like you are saying that DV can be made to look good, but that beta SP somehow is just inferior, even though if you've looked at an actual betacam sp component feed on a component monitor it looks quite striking.

 

Alessandro,

 

Graeme is a respected and more than qualified engineer. Your posts show your lack of practical knowledge of how video works. Cutting and pasting format specs is not the end all in determining what looks good to the eye. Please stop insulting Graeme and most of us who use this stuff and have for over twenty years. Your starting to show your lack of understanding of the topic at this point than having a discussion that has any validity. No offense but the BS has to stop here.

[David Mullen ASC]

Alessandro's enthusiasm for beta-SP over the years here has led me to believe he owns a beta-SP deck and he masters his projects to beta-SP, so to some extent, this explains his interest in wanting to keep the format from falling into obsolescence to digital formats.

 

As a camera/shooting format, beta-SP cameras, to my eye, still tend to outperform DV cameras, but this is mostly due to the difference in camera design (pro vs. consumer, 2/3" CCD vs. 1/3" CCD, etc.)

 

The main problem with analog tape formats, as everyone knows, is generational loss, which probably can be mitigated by never going more than one generation down from beta-SP in the chain.

 

Anyway, from a purely practical what-you-see-with-your-eyes level, I don't think there is a definite overall quality difference between DV25 and beta-SP, it's sort of a toss-up, but it really depends on the post chain planned. If you can avoid either DV25 or beta-SP, you're probably better off anyway.

 

Personally, if your footage going to be going in and out of your computer, it just makes sense to work in digital and avoid analog tape and conversions.

[Alessandro Machi]

more condescending and arrogant comments from Walter Graff personally attacking Alessandro, as all of your comments towards me seems to do...

 

I don't just rely my 20 years of experience, 15 with my own video editing studio, I also rely on well respected people in the industry, including someone who was consulted with when RED was just an idea on a chalkboard and who was actually asked more than once to come on board to help with it's design. Another was asked to shoot for the Reality TV show Survivor.

 

Rather than attempt to ridicule my experience, why not graciously acknowledge that what I have been saying all along, that the component signal path off of either digital or analog tape is better than firewire, and that this is something that Graeme just admitted for perhaps the first time ever. I'm not saying one has to do this component workflow generation after generation, I'm talking about the first time off of tape.

 

The component signal testing also means that the definitive DV versus betcam sp format test is easier to do today than ever before since both formats offer component outputs and transcoding cards that offer uncompressed codecs. I think the original test that Graeme did was to a certain point heroic in that he established that dv was a viable alternative to betacam sp. It's all the other stuff that is not a slam dunk that Grame presents as irrefuteable fact that I have problems with. Until both formats are tested via the component straight into an uncompressed NLE environment with the right type of software for testing purposes, Grame's test was important, but I believe it was a first step rather than the whole story.

 

Additionally, analyzing only one film image, and I think Grame picked a terrific image for a one shot fits all kind of test, is actually not enough. I think as a bare minimum, at least 4-6 images are required, a close-up, a medium shot, a wide shot, and then, a backlit contrasty wide shot (perhaps the most important of all the tests), a medium shot with strong contrast, and a close-up with strong contrast.

 

And finally, a whole nother set of tests would need to be done with video acquisition at both 30 frames per second and 24P. It's quite possible that DV shines moreso on 24 frame video, whether it was shot on 24P or 24 film frames per second, versus standard def shot at 30 frames per second.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you play a DV deck out via component, you get the correct chroma smoothing that say, the apple codec does not, and you get a superb image........ Graeme

[Walter Graff]

Enough already of this now useless discussion!

 

There are times when SDI has a slight advantage, and times when it is not necessary. If you ingest DV that will end up on DV then no need for SDI as it will offer nothing. When color space is important (chromakeying, uncompressed editing, mastering towards more color robust fomrats other than DV) then SDI offers and advantage. It's not as simple as one is better than the other but rather that you pick your method based on what type of work flow you need. Any experienced editor will tell you that.

 

As for beta vs DV most people will tell you beta looks better and they are right. The reason has to do with the fact that Beta is shot with 2/3 inch chips and most folks use prosumer 1/2 inch and1/3 inch chips with DV, so while the luminence bandwidth of the DV format helps you to think it's as good, the MTF of a camera that records tro Beta helps the older Beta format look more natural and pleasing to the eye.

[Robert Houllahan]

As a camera/shooting format, beta-SP cameras, to my eye, still tend to outperform DV cameras, but this is mostly due to the difference in camera design (pro vs. consumer, 2/3" CCD vs. 1/3" CCD, etc.)

 

The main problem with analog tape formats, as everyone knows, is generational loss, which probably can be mitigated by never going more than one generation down from beta-SP in the chain.

 

Anyway, from a purely practical what-you-see-with-your-eyes level, I don't think there is a definite overall quality difference between DV25 and beta-SP, it's sort of a toss-up, but it really depends on the post chain planned. If you can avoid either DV25 or beta-SP, you're probably better off anyway.

 

 

What Dave said, period :D ....I think Beta has a bit nicer color from a Telecine session, but it's a tossup.

 

I do know a few well respected ENG shooters with pretty extensive (early career) film experience and both of these guys work in NYC for hi-end news, etc. One's got a D600 and a Dsr-570 and the other has a D-35 with Beta and DvCam backs, the BetaSP is what's called for 90% of the time and esp. for national broadcast on air personalities on major news networks. Maybe that's what the producers are used to or maybe there's a possibly real perception that the beta is nicer on the "talent" I don't know more but that's what I have heard....

 

 

-Rob-

[Thomas James]

First of all I totally disagree that HDV is not a professional format. HDV is the identical 19.7 mbps bitrate to broadcast high definition so if HDV is not professional then neither is broadcast high definition television. That being said the reason why most people assume that HDV is overly compressed is because most HD cameras sold today offer this so call full HD 1080i recording complete with long 15 GOP encoding. Rather than improving picture quality this full HD 1080i format overloads the compression engine and offers worse picture quality. The truly professional HDV format is the 720p format with its short 6 GOP compression encoding which produces almost no artifacts if the framerate is limited to 24 or 30 frame per second. The proof is when you shoot 720p out of the side window of a car and the picture refuses to block up.

[David Mullen ASC]

You can't use the technical standards for distribution for the standard for origination. Otherwise we'd be saying that camera negative should actually be the quality of a release print from an IP/IN -- except that this camera negative will still have to go through the IP, IN, and release print generational loss.

 

And for years, all material for video distribution was only being mastered in standard def video, yet we didn't shoot everything meant for television broadcast in standard def video -- we used 35mm film for much of the quality dramatic programming. Why use something that resolves 4K resolution only for 480i broadcast? Because you can still see the quality difference even on an NTSC monitor.

 

Same goes from compression; you don't pick the compression rate of digital broadcast as the ideal compression rate of camera origination. Ideally, you want to add the heavy compression to the delivery format, not the origination format.

 

That said, DV and HDV are being used for professional productions all the time, so they are by default, professional formats. It's the same sort of vague area as the term "broadcast quality" -- if they decide to broadcast it, it must be broadcast quality!