spatial quality loss - deinterlace vs compression

May 5, 2005

If I'm shooting something on video whose broadcast format will be progressive (or deinterlaced) PAL (16:9), which of the below is the better option for maximising spatial image quality?

Standard definition digibeta camera shooting interlaced 50i (as I understand there are no progressive digibeta cameras available - please correct me if I'm wrong). The footage would be deinterlaced in post using a high quality 'smart' deinterlacer that only deinterlaces moving parts of the image.

or HDV shot 25P progressive, then scaled down to standard definition PAL.

I guess it's between spatial quality loss from deinterlacing versus spatial quality loss from compression. Does anyone have experience/opinion on this one?

Incidentally, I'd probably want to use 35mm lens adapters, so the quality of the camera's lens shouldn't bias you!

Thanks if you can help.

Ben.

http://www.fink-base.com

Stephen Williams · May 5, 2005

(as I understand there are no progressive digibeta cameras available - please correct me if I'm wrong). Ben.
http://www.fink-base.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ben,

Sony have just released the DVW 970 DigiBeta. This can record progressive scan.

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich

www.stephenw.com

Stuart Brereton · May 5, 2005

Sony have just released the DVW 970 DigiBeta. This can record progressive scan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, according to Sony UK (who hadn't even heard of it when I first asked) there are no plans to make or market a PAL version.

Sony said they were too busy with the launch of HDV, and that was where their priorities were.

Shame. I would have thought there was a sizable market for a 25p DigiBeta.

Stephen Williams · May 5, 2005

Unfortunately, according to Sony UK (who hadn't even heard of it when I first asked) there are no plans to make or market a PAL version.
Sony said they were too busy with the launch of HDV, and that was where their priorities were.

Shame. I would have thought there was a sizable market for a 25p DigiBeta.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi,

That is sad news indeed! Hopefully by IBC that will have changed.

May 6, 2005

According to this press release from February, there will be a 25P PAL version, but not till July of this year (a bit too late for my needs)

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5586

(there's contact details for a Tony DiNome at the bottom of the article)

So sadly, my question still stands....which is best: deinterlaced Digibeta or progressive HDV?

Cheers,

Ben

Fink

http://www.fink-base.com

Stephen Williams · May 6, 2005

So sadly, my question still stands....which is best: deinterlaced Digibeta or progressive HDV?

Cheers,

Ben

Fink

http://www.fink-base.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi,

I would choose DigiBeta.

Stuart Brereton · May 8, 2005

According to this press release from February, there will be a 25P PAL version, but not till July of this year (a bit too late for my needs)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the same press release that Sony UK denied all knowledge of, although it does mention a 25p PAL standard....

Who knows? I hope they do make one for the PAL market.

May 11, 2005

Well, if its going to be scaled down to standard def PAL as you stated, then it won't matter a whole lot which way you go. But if its more of a film look you're after, then I'd certainly go with an HDV unit shooting at 25p or 24p, rather than shooting at a higher def in 50i and deinterlacing. If its more of a documentary thing then maybe go with the 50i unit. But really, on standard def they'll both look fine.

The only thing with HDV is to try and get your shots as close to perfect as you can so that you don't have to do a lot of color correction and other kinds editing in post other than just trimming. If you can keep from recompressing it as much as possible it looks really great from what I've seen of it. Obviously you'll have to recompress transitions, but otherwise, not recompressing will give you something that looks outstanding.