Viewing Non HD Video on an HD monitor

Alessandro Machi · September 16, 2004

I recently viewed a betacam sp production that had been transferred to DVD, on an HD monitor. It was basically a 4X3 image with borders on the sides instead of the top and bottom.

I LOVED IT!

I thought I was going to have to jettison my analog stuff for HD (which I can't afford anyway), but there is no reason to do so, other than eventually parts won't be available to service my cameras.

What I liked about the borders on the left and right side of the TV is they help keep one's eye on the video by acting as a "barrier" between the television screen and the surrounding environment.

I guess this is just an "emperor's got no clothes" kind sentiment. If you can afford HD great, but if your production is going to be made anyway, BetaCam SP or DVCam or practically any 3 chip ENG camera is actually quite good, the key is to view it from a DVD instead of VHS when looking at it on an HD monitor.

Don't panic and think you HAVE to spend all this money on HD gear that may become obsolete in two years, instead focus more on WHO will be viewing the end result and HOW they will be viewing the end result, especially if you work with people with no money!!!

HD does have a hipness and quality factor that is essential towards creating a new thing type of buzz, but in my opinion a good quality video camera passes muster when viewed as a DVD on an HD monitor.

Landon D. Parks · September 17, 2004

Digital Betacam, Has a very good resolution. And it looks even better when the CCD is 16:9 and not 4:3. and still better when it has 24p. (I don't know of any Betacams with 24p)

But still, Betcam has like 520,000 pixels compared to the 2.2 Million on the Sony cameras.

Also the compression is higher.

However, if your just viewing it on a HD monitor, compression never seems to appear visible to me. And anything over DVCAM resolutiion will look "Good"... But HD will always look "Better" just because of the Added Resolution and Compression.

A good camera is the SDX-900.... DVC PRO 50... which has near betacam compression specs. And a lot of the higher end SD cameras have just as much "Filmlook" in camera effects as the HD cameras.

Just my $0.02

Alessandro Machi · September 17, 2004

Sony may have the 2 million pixels but the wider screen means they are spread out over a wider distance, no? Could that mean that the somewhat boxy betacam sp shape in the center of the HD screen is better than simply comparing specs since the two systems cover different acreage?

Phil Connolly · September 17, 2004

Alessandro,

Beta SP, pillerboxed 4:3 on a HD monitor would look pritty good and this is the best way to deal with the format from a quality point of view.

I have a 16:9 standard def tv and good 4:3 looks really sharp when viewed in this way.

The problem you will have is most viewers with 16:9 sets hate having black bars down the sides.

16:9 sets are very common in the UK, but 95% of the time most people when watching a 4:3 programme will use a stretch or zoom mode to fill the screen. 4:3 pillerboxing looks better, but most people prefer to fill the screen even if composition and quality is reduced.

SD is not dead yet, but in a HD world people are going to at least want 16:9 origination so they can fill their screens.

Sam Wells · September 17, 2004

If only Joe and Jo Anne Sixpack watched DVD's on a broadcast grade HD monitor !

-Sam

Alessandro Machi · September 20, 2004

But how do working cinemtographers feel about being squeezed into using HD only?

Is it happening and should it be happening?

Michael Nash · September 20, 2004

I'm not sure what your question means. Do you mean HD becoming the only post format for home delivery, or HD becoming the only shooting format?

As far as post and home delivery of content are concerned, I see it as a good thing. I mean, if you really want your image to contain less than 1080x1920 pixels or have a shape narrower than 16:9, the technology still exists to create that and display it on HD. Cinematographers have been doing the equivalent with standard 35mm film for projection for a long time -- shooting and blowing up DV, small guage film, and narrow aspect ratios within Academy 35mm dimensions. I don't see the issue with HD being any different.

I think the biggest issue right now would be televsion productions that are forced to frame for TWO aspect ratios at the same time (16:9 and 4:3), because not everyone has a 16:9/HDTV yet. When you look at it that way, it will be much simpler once everything for TV is 16:9. Then if you want to letterbox for 4:3 or 2.35:1 you still can, as long as your distributors go along with the idea!