Up Rezzing?

[James Steven Beverly]

I just very recently was able to get a camera I've had for a while, working again. It's a JVC GY-500. I thought I have ruined it several years ago so I boxed it up to send off to be repaired but never got around to repairing it. A friend of mine with experience in electronics took it a few days ago after lying dormant for 7 or 8 years and had it running in 2 days. (Imagine how stupid I felt) The images are beautiful for a camera I bought 9 years ago, and there are literally not 20 hours on it of course though, it's an SD format. I planned to use it for teasers and low end stuff but with the prevalence of HD, I wanted to look into uprezzing the images I shoot. I did some research and learned there of course can be problems with the procedure but most of the information was dated so I wanted to know first of all, what is the latest techniques for uprezzing and what problems to expect. I'm expecting that this camera will be used for DVDs but Bluray again are becoming more prevalent so I may want to learn this as a stop gap measure until I can afford a newer camera. Please share whatever you can on the subject. Thanks-Steve

[Keith Walters]

I just very recently was able to get a camera I've had for a while, working again. It's a JVC GY-500. I thought I have ruined it several years ago so I boxed it up to send off to be repaired but never got around to repairing it. A friend of mine with experience in electronics took it a few days ago after lying dormant for 7 or 8 years and had it running in 2 days. (Imagine how stupid I felt) The images are beautiful for a camera I bought 9 years ago, and there are literally not 20 hours on it of course though, it's an SD format. I planned to use it for teasers and low end stuff but with the prevalence of HD, I wanted to look into uprezzing the images I shoot. I did some research and learned there of course can be problems with the procedure but most of the information was dated so I wanted to know first of all, what is the latest techniques for uprezzing and what problems to expect. I'm expecting that this camera will be used for DVDs but Bluray again are becoming more prevalent so I may want to learn this as a stop gap measure until I can afford a newer camera. Please share whatever you can on the subject. Thanks-Steve

Since it's a MiniDV camera, as long as you have some means of playing back the tapes digitally (usually through a FireWire port) there should be no problem getting the images into a modern editing system.

 

Your biggest problem is it only shoots in 4:3 interlaced . While you certainly can crop to 16 x 9, you won't have too many lines left once you do that.

As far as Up Rezzing goes, technically that's B.S. You're far better off leaving the video in the format it was shot in, and leave any uprezzing to the end user. You're certainly not adding anything

 

I have actually modified some Saticon Tube 2/3" cameras to work in 16 x 9, and the picture quality on those has to be seen to believed, although you need to start with a good one.

[James Steven Beverly]

Huh, well, I guess I'll have to frame for Academy then until I can get something better. As I mentioned, the picture is really beautiful for what I paid for the camera so shooting something for "straight to video" should be fine. The JVC uses (as you probably already know) three 1/2in chips so I don't know if it could be modified or not, although I suspect the cost would be prohibitive. I think I've read somewhere that there is software that can convert interlaced to progressive but I'm not sure. I'm not really a video guy so much, I'm more of a film guy but for these low end, no budget, shoots, one must do what is necessary and unless I shoot 8mm or 16mm (and my 16mm camera is wild and consumer level so that's not really an option), I'll need to shoot on video. I DO have a friend who\s looking at picking up an HD camera but we'll have to see what happens. I'll probably just shoot the "Dollie" teaser on SD as is as my workflow is already geared to SD. I'm thinking of tying 4 computers together for a small render farm to make things quicker

[James Steven Beverly]

OH, and thanks for the information, BTW

[Keith Walters]

I doubt that the software could be modified to convert the CCDs to progressive scan. Basically they're built to emulate an interlace-scan tube camera, because that was what the industry has been using since 1941 and they had to fit into the existing infrastructure! Even when CCDs are designed to be switchable between Interlace and Progressive, you lose at least one stop sensitivity switching to progressive

 

I'll need to shoot on video. I DO have a friend who\s looking at picking up an HD camera but we'll have to see what happens. I'll probably just shoot the "Dollie" teaser on SD as is as my workflow is already geared to SD. I'm thinking of tying 4 computers together for a small render farm to make things quicker

MiniDV video is 25-30 megabits/second Motion JPEG. While it takes a lot of storage space compared to MPEG , the upside is that because you're basically editing a "slideshow" of individual frames, the rendering requirements are a lot less onerous, and even 10 year old PCs can do the job in a reasonable time. Modern Hard Drives and Flash Drives are so huge and fast that storage is not an issue any more. MiniDV uses only about 12GB/hour, which is bugger-all these days.

It's a shame about the aspect ratio, because otherwise it's a perfectly serviceable camera system, which would hold up perfectly well for lower end applications.

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm taking my Panasonic DV outfit out tomorrow! Yay for squeezing revenue out of ancient gear!

 

Should've bought a DSR-500, really. Considerably more money, but a vastly better and longer-lived system. I really didn't have the money at the time.

 

P

[Chris Burke]

Why not Shoot with a 1.3x anamorphic element up front?

[James Steven Beverly]

That's a thought, depending on what the lens costs.

[Phil Rhodes]

I looked into this back when SD was still relevant. I believe there were a couple of solutions to it, but getting it at any sort of decent quality ended up costing more than the camera was worth. Then it's still interlaced. And it's still SD.

 

P

[David Mullen ASC]

If this is for narrative fiction work, I'd try to find a cheap DSLR that can do 24P HD -- it's bound to look more cinematic than an interlaced-scan SD camera and it would be 16x9 as well.

[Chris Burke]

Are there not software solutions to the interlacing? Honestly, I have seen digibeta 16:9 uprezzed and if I were not told so, I would have though it was HD. If this is for web and dvd, I would get a 1000 dollar anamorphic and leave it as SD. If you want to go kind of ghetto with all this, you could try capturing the video via a Blackmagic Intensity card and have it uprez for you. Not sure what he quality would be like, but another option.

[David Mullen ASC]

There's a quality difference between 16x9 Digibeta out of a professional Sony camcorder and 4x3 Mini-DV out of a prosumer camera, and 16x9 adaptors may help reduce the noise from the blow-up to 16x9 HD but they don't help with detail that much, you're cropping less but using something that reduces optical resolution so it's a bit of a wash, you just lose some of the "blow-up" look, enlarged noise, etc. 16x9 anamorphic DV just tends to look smoother, not sharper.

 

And for $1000 to get the anamorphic adaptor, you can probably get a DSLR that already shoots 24P 16x9 HD. If you are recording 60i NTSC Mini-DV, you don't really have 720 x 480 pixel resolution per frame to convert to 24P/1080. Not to mention, you won't have the depth of field of a 1/3" sensor if you use a DSLR.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

And for $1000 to get the anamorphic adaptor, you can probably get a DSLR that already shoots 24P 16x9 HD

 

Precisely.

[James Steven Beverly]

If this is for narrative fiction work, I'd try to find a cheap DSLR that can do 24P HD -- it's bound to look more cinematic than an interlaced-scan SD camera and it would be 16x9 as well.

Well, we're exploring that option as we speak, but unfortunately,As always, it will come down to cost. It's a good plan though. If I can make it happen, I'll take your advice and do so. I'll have to upgrade my editing software to HD, but hey, it had to happen eventually UNLESS there is some free software out there that can do HD editing :rolleyes:.....ANYONE? :D

[James Steven Beverly]

There's a quality difference between 16x9 Digibeta out of a professional Sony camcorder and 4x3 Mini-DV out of a prosumer camera, and 16x9 adaptors may help reduce the noise from the blow-up to 16x9 HD but they don't help with detail that much, you're cropping less but using something that reduces optical resolution so it's a bit of a wash, you just lose some of the "blow-up" look, enlarged noise, etc. 16x9 anamorphic DV just tends to look smoother, not sharper.

 

And for $1000 to get the anamorphic adaptor, you can probably get a DSLR that already shoots 24P 16x9 HD. If you are recording 60i NTSC Mini-DV, you don't really have 720 x 480 pixel resolution per frame to convert to 24P/1080. Not to mention, you won't have the depth of field of a 1/3" sensor if you use a DSLR.

I'm curious about this. The GY-500 has 3, 1/2 inch chips in them. They used them as a broadcast camera for some smaller television stations back in the day which was the reason I bought it in the first place. It was the cheapest broadcast camera I could afford. I'm wondering if that fact would make any difference to my situation as far as shooting either a narrative teaser or a narrative, no budget feature that I expect night go straight to DVD if I were able to sell it?

[James Steven Beverly]

Are there not software solutions to the interlacing? Honestly, I have seen digibeta 16:9 uprezzed and if I were not told so, I would have though it was HD. If this is for web and dvd, I would get a 1000 dollar anamorphic and leave it as SD. If you want to go kind of ghetto with all this, you could try capturing the video via a Blackmagic Intensity card and have it uprez for you. Not sure what he quality would be like, but another option.

I figured there should be software out there that could do that as well. I haven't done any research on it yet though.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

UNLESS there is some free software out there that can do HD editing :rolleyes:.....ANYONE? :D

 

Hmmm... As far as I know, the free version of Lightworks does allow you to edit HD footage using the Avid DNxHD codec. You wouldn't be able to import (or export) AAF files though, but OMF will do the trick...

 

Although if you can afford it, the "Pro" version only costs around $50 a year, and does allow AAF imp/exp + offers many more options for your final export's format...

 

If I had to go with a free software, I'd probably give this one a try.

 

If you're fast, you can also download a free 30-day trial version of the latest Edius software, which is a good alternative.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Keith Walters]

There's a quality difference between 16x9 Digibeta out of a professional Sony camcorder and 4x3 Mini-DV out of a prosumer camera, and 16x9 adaptors may help reduce the noise from the blow-up to 16x9 HD but they don't help with detail that much, you're cropping less but using something that reduces optical resolution so it's a bit of a wash, you just lose some of the "blow-up" look, enlarged noise, etc. 16x9 anamorphic DV just tends to look smoother, not sharper.

 

And for $1000 to get the anamorphic adaptor, you can probably get a DSLR that already shoots 24P 16x9 HD. If you are recording 60i NTSC Mini-DV, you don't really have 720 x 480 pixel resolution per frame to convert to 24P/1080. Not to mention, you won't have the depth of field of a 1/3" sensor if you use a DSLR.

Exactly so. The GY-500 was designed for a specific application: It was a (relatively) cheap ENG camera, meant to be able to be pulled out of its case, plonked on a shoulder, switched on and focussed, all in one movement if necessary.

It produced 4:3 interlaced images, because for all practical purposes, that’s all there was at the time, and it had to slot as seamlessly as possible into the existing, still largely analog, NTSC/PAL infrastructure.

Manufacturers always try to talk up suggestions of other possible applications for their wares, but really it’s a case of “It is what it is…”

The only advantage it would have over a cheap DSLR is that it comes with an electronically matched Zoom lens, designed for moving picture work, but it’s not going to give you particularly fantastic quality.

It’s really the same story with most digital technologies these days; you’ve simply got to forget about what it cost when it was new. I’ve got some old catalogues from around 25 years ago, which feature things like 30 Megabyte Hard Discs for around 5,000 1980s Dollars!

[Keith Walters]

Are there not software solutions to the interlacing? Honestly, I have seen digibeta 16:9 uprezzed and if I were not told so, I would have though it was HD.

There are, and they can do quite a reasonable job, but there's no substitute for the real thing.

Interlacing is a 1930s technology long regarded as the best possible compromise for displaying images on CRT type monitors.

Unfortunately you can't simply blend the two interlaced fields into a single frame for display on a modern TV (LCD or Plasma) that effectively doesn't have scanning (or a frame rate).

Well, you can, but only if the fields were derived from the same original image, as happens with scanned film or video from a progressive scan camera, converted in Post to Interlaced Scan.

But for any source that actually produces 60 (or 50) separate fields per second, if it's not displayed on a CRT screen, most people have no idea of the enormous amount of signal processing needed to produce an acceptable image.

If you download a copy of the freeware video editor Avidemux, you can see this first hand, because unlike most editing programs it does zero de-interlacing of the source footage. Simply open any interlaced-source video clip and compare it with something from a non-interlaced source, and you'll immediately see what I'm talking about!

By the way, Avidemux has a lot going for it for a piece of freeware.

It only does simple cuts editing, but if you use it in the "GOP only" editing mode, it can do your renders at thousands of frames per second, because its directly copying the digital files. It's magic for whipping the commercials out of digitally recorded TV shows, and it's so fast it's well worth spending a few minutes "pre-editing" :D

Also, because it simply cuts and pastes video data streams, it will work with just about any video format, SD or HD, even low resolution video from cellphones etc. You can't do "colorist" type operations, but maybe you should try to get that right in the first place, you know, like we used to have to do in the "good old days"!

[James Steven Beverly]

 

Hmmm... As far as I know, the free version of Lightworks does allow you to edit HD footage using the Avid DNxHD codec. You wouldn't be able to import (or export) AAF files though, but OMF will do the trick...

 

Although if you can afford it, the "Pro" version only costs around $50 a year, and does allow AAF imp/exp + offers many more options for your final export's format...

 

If I had to go with a free software, I'd probably give this one a try.

 

If you're fast, you can also download a free 30-day trial version of the latest Edius software, which is a good alternative.

 

VERY COOL!! I'll check it out. Thanks!

 

[James Steven Beverly]

Exactly so. The GY-500 was designed for a specific application: It was a (relatively) cheap ENG camera, meant to be able to be pulled out of its case, plonked on a shoulder, switched on and focussed, all in one movement if necessary.

It produced 4:3 interlaced images, because for all practical purposes, that’s all there was at the time, and it had to slot as seamlessly as possible into the existing, still largely analog, NTSC/PAL infrastructure.

Manufacturers always try to talk up suggestions of other possible applications for their wares, but really it’s a case of “It is what it is…”

The only advantage it would have over a cheap DSLR is that it comes with an electronically matched Zoom lens, designed for moving picture work, but it’s not going to give you particularly fantastic quality.

It’s really the same story with most digital technologies these days; you’ve simply got to forget about what it cost when it was new. I’ve got some old catalogues from around 25 years ago, which feature things like 30 Megabyte Hard Discs for around 5,000 1980s Dollars!

Well, that's something, not much but at least something. IF push comes to shove, I'll use whatever tricks I can come up with to give it as cinematic a look as I can muster and hope it works. In the meantime, I'll keep exploring the HD option and see if this guy comes through for me. I'll just have to figure it out and decide the best course for my given circumstances, little else I can do, so I guess I'll live with it. I do appreciate all the advice though and if there are any other tips you all might want to impart to me, I'll be all too eager to listen.

[James Steven Beverly]

There are, and they can do quite a reasonable job, but there's no substitute for the real thing.

Interlacing is a 1930s technology long regarded as the best possible compromise for displaying images on CRT type monitors.

Unfortunately you can't simply blend the two interlaced fields into a single frame for display on a modern TV (LCD or Plasma) that effectively doesn't have scanning (or a frame rate).

Well, you can, but only if the fields were derived from the same original image, as happens with scanned film or video from a progressive scan camera, converted in Post to Interlaced Scan.

But for any source that actually produces 60 (or 50) separate fields per second, if it's not displayed on a CRT screen, most people have no idea of the enormous amount of signal processing needed to produce an acceptable image.

If you download a copy of the freeware video editor Avidemux, you can see this first hand, because unlike most editing programs it does zero de-interlacing of the source footage. Simply open any interlaced-source video clip and compare it with something from a non-interlaced source, and you'll immediately see what I'm talking about!

By the way, Avidemux has a lot going for it for a piece of freeware.

It only does simple cuts editing, but if you use it in the "GOP only" editing mode, it can do your renders at thousands of frames per second, because its directly copying the digital files. It's magic for whipping the commercials out of digitally recorded TV shows, and it's so fast it's well worth spending a few minutes "pre-editing" :D

Also, because it simply cuts and pastes video data streams, it will work with just about any video format, SD or HD, even low resolution video from cellphones etc. You can't do "colorist" type operations, but maybe you should try to get that right in the first place, you know, like we used to have to do in the "good old days"!

VERY interesting!!

[James Steven Beverly]

OK, WEIRD deal, I was just given a relatively new, VERY low hours, native 16:9 camera, a Samsung Sc-Dc 164 DVD camcorder....Now obviously this is a consumer camera. It's got a single TINY 1/4.5 CCD, It's MPEG-2 (though the newest versions are MPEG-4 so maybe the software can be updated),The resolution is terrible-0.7 MP (basically a late 90s digital still camera), it's got a image stabilizer, There are several manual setting like shutter speed and f stop. It also has a 33X optical zoom (and a 1200X digital zoom) and a mini-plug for an external mic, (I have the adapters for an XLR to mini-plug) It doesn't have a progressive mode probably because it's a DVD camera (or Memory Stick, Memory Stick Duo, Memory Stick PRO, Multi-Media Card, SD Memory Card, SDHC Memory Card which all can record some short motion footage). My question is (and I already know wat the answer is, but I got to ask) given that HD 16:9 aspect ration seems to be very important and cropping the image from SD 4:3 to 16:9, IS this good enough for shooting a DVD teaser to be shown on a computer screen? IF not, I can use the camera for a feature I wrote called "Thrill Kill" which was designed to use various cameras and formats so not a total loss and well worth keeping for that project if nothing else!.

[David Mullen ASC]

If you've got both cameras now, why not shoot a comparison test and finish them in 16x9 HD?

[James Steven Beverly]

Why not, I've got nothing to lose. Worst case scenario, they both look like crap, but at least that way though, I'll know what I've got. Thanks for the advice, David.