John Carreon Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 What's the quality difference between Digibeta and HD? Resolution and stuff like that... Try not to use too much techno babble cuz I'm dumb Thanks... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Digibeta is SD, HD is well, HD. Digibeta has like 520,000 (Or so) pixels. F900 HD has 2.2 Million. Digibeta has a fairly high comporession, (Some) HD has a Lower compression rate. HD is just HD, and SD is just SD (Digbeta.). :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Mastrogiacomo Posted January 25, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 25, 2005 Digibeta is SD, HD is well, HD. Digibeta has like 520,000 (Or so) pixels. F900 HD has 2.2 Million. Digibeta has a fairly high comporession, (Some) HD has a Lower compression rate. HD is just HD, and SD is just SD (Digbeta.). :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Digibeta has a fairly high comporession," Digibeta is only compressed about 2.3 to 1. To me, that's fairly low considering HDCAM is much higher. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Achterberg Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 "Digibeta has a fairly high comporession," Digibeta is only compressed about 2.3 to 1. To me, that's fairly low considering HDCAM is much higher. :) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wouldnt complain either, I'd be happy with Digibeta. Im getting sick of the DVcam stuff. I am ready to grow up maybe? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 (edited) Digibeta is only compressed about 2.3 to 1. To me, that's fairly low considering HDCAM is much higher. Not really, It depends on what kind of HD your recoding too. If your recording to HDCAM SR @ 880MBPS, then it's a much lower compression ratio than Digibeta. It just depends on what you record the HD signal too. P.S) I did say "Some" HD has a lower compression rate also, not ALL HD. Edited January 25, 2005 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Neary Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Digibeta is pretty. HD is prettier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Mastrogiacomo Posted January 25, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 25, 2005 Not really, It depends on what kind of HD your recoding too. If your recording to HDCAM SR @ 880MBPS, then it's a much lower compression ratio than Digibeta. It just depends on what you record the HD signal too. P.S) I did say "Some" HD has a lower compression rate also, not ALL HD. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> HDCAM SR has the following compression ratios: In 4:2:2 recording the compression ratio 2.7/1 In 4:4:4 recording the compression ratio is 4.2/1 Both are higher than DigiBeta. But I will say HDCAM SR at 4:4:4 looks fantastic!! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 (edited) So, Digibeta has a rate higher than 880MBPS? Thats news to me. I thought it had a rate just a tad higher than DVC-Pro 50? Guess I was WAY wronge. What is the rate of Digibeta? Edited January 25, 2005 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 25, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 25, 2005 So, Digibeta has a rate higher than 880MBPS? Thats news to me. I thought it had a rate just a tad higher than DVC-Pro 50? Guess I was WAY wronge. What is the rate of Digibeta? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're confusing data rates with compression ratios. Digi-Beta has a fairly low compression ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Oppps, Darn it. Oh well, goes to show what I know huh? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 25, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 25, 2005 Hi, The operative point here is that HDCAM has about four times as much info to begin with, so it has to compress it more to get it onto essentially the same tape as digibeta. However, you know there might actually be a case for contending that HDCAM is less compressed as a representation of reality because there's more information in it - Landon's mistake is easy to make, because it seems slightly insane that we're calling a format with a higher data rate "more compressed!" Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Phil makes an interesting point, and one worth bearing in mind when trying to get an overview. Every video format leverages its assets (some more successfully than others no doubt, but..) -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Still, by its nature, HD should look better than Digibeta in general. Because Digibeta is SD and HD is, well, HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I have actually seen these two formats blown up and compared, digibeta wasn't as sharp, but it was suprisingly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted January 26, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 26, 2005 I have actually seen these two formats blown up and compared, digibeta wasn't as sharp, but it was suprisingly good. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I wonder just how close BetaCam SP is to Digi-BetaCam, because BetaCam SP is a LOT less expensive to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 26, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 26, 2005 And I wonder just how close BetaCam SP is to Digi-BetaCam, because BetaCam SP is a LOT less expensive to use. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The trouble with any analog tape format is generational loss, and since almost everything that gets put onto a videotape is copied at some point, it's a real issue. Just working on my reel, I can tell you that any dubs I make from a digi-beta tape that I got from a production look better than the dubs I make from any beta-sp tapes I got. So lately I've been insisting on either a DVCAM or a Digi-Beta copy, not Beta-SP. The only reason to use Beta-SP is if you have access to a Beta-SP camcorder for cheap because that will probably produce a better picture than a consumer DV camera, more because of the differences in cameras than the recording formats. But if your'e talking about mastering anything to tape, pick a digital format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now