RE: Varicam or HD

["Chasteen, Howard" <Howard.Chasteen(at)fotf.org>]

Title: Re: Varicam or HD

Hey I am not taking sides but do a side by side comparison shoot out with identical monitors and you can see the differences no matter what they say. Quality matters.

 

It is like saying that for "some" footage with certain motions in it 720P looks better than 1080P. What does that really mean? To me a sharper image is better but not to everyone. And what does "looks better" mean.

 

Ciao

Howard

---

From: owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Victor Wolansky
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:35 PM
To: DS(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: RE: Varicam or HD

Mmmm.. I'm not sure if I can ignore pixels count on a digital image.. that is like saying that a 300x300 4:4:4 image is better than a 1920x1080 4:2:2

 

I think I have to try it to have a better idea of what is really the best thing. This is only numbers :-)

 

---

From: owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM on behalf of Jef Huey
Sent: Mon 8/1/2005 2:15 PM
To: DS(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: Varicam or HD

Victor,

I agree - more pixels = more resolution. BUT ...

What we are also talking about in a discussion of 4:2:2 vs 3:1:1 is how
accurately each pixel describes the image in front of the camera.

In 4:2:2 there is a greater COLOR resolution in each pixel. More
subtlety. And that is the "key" (pun intended) to keying. Ignore number
of pixels on a line for the time being. That is picture size. Think
about the quality of the description that each pixel gives you when it
comes time to do a key.

Do you follow me there?

Jef




Victor Wolansky wrote:

> Well what we can tell from the numbers is that seems that the HDCAM
> and VARICAM have the same horizontal color information, 480 pixels,
> but HDCAM have more luma information that VARICAM, 1440.
>
> What I can tell by my little research now is that if you can not
> digitize HDCAM SR, and want something better than HDCAM or VARICAM,
> then you can connect you HD-SDI output of the camera to a Deck like a
> D5, D6, or HDCAM-SR in which case I will have a full sampled 1920:960:960
>
> That is my understanding but I could not find yet information to
> confirm this. Any one knows?
>
> I don’t think we are comparing apples and oranges, it is an absolute
> thing, more pixels.. more information.. the keyer will have more info
> to do his job. If we compare format to format, VARICAM have more color
> info per pixel, but less total information per line, what can be the
> bad thing about having more horizontal luma information, I think that
> can’t be bad.
>
> Just my opinion.. I can be completely wrong…
>
> Victor Wolansky
>
> DS VFX Artist
>
> WEBsite <http://www.e3post.com/>
>
> Demo Reel <http://www.e3post.com/reels/victorreel.html>
>
> 815 Slaters Lane
>
> Alexandria. VA.
>
> 443-797-3507
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf
> Of swaffordt(at)bellsouth.net
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:42 AM
> To: DS(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: RE: Varicam or HD
>
> Jeff... great information, thanks... btw, your reel rocks!
>
> TBONE
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of
>
> Jef Huey
>
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 10:26 AM
>
> To: DS(at)Softimage.COM
>
> Subject: Re: Varicam or HD
>
> My gut instinct about this analysis is that it has its own flaws.
>
> It seems to be one of comparing apple and oranges.
>
> Alot of the numbers are base on totals per line. I think that is not
>
> valid when it comes to blue screen work. What matters there is color
>
> resolution of each Pixel, not the total for a line. The keyer must make
>
> decisions about what is "Green" and what is not. If color of each
>
> pixel is sampled at a higher resolution (4:2:2), then you will be
>
> better off. That is why 4:4:4 RGB keys are so desirable.
>
> At least that is how I am reading it and I definitely do NOT have a math
>
> head.
>
> Where did this info come from - Sony maybe ;) ?
>
> Jef
>
> Victor Wolansky wrote:
>
>>
>
>> *I found this searching on this topic, I think is very useful
>
>> information to share..*
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> * *
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> * *
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> *Riddle#2: Does the Varicam have more Color Space than the F900?
>
>> Is the Varicam better for green and blue screen matting?*
>
>>
>
>> What I'm discovering is a bit of an eye opener in terms of Color Space
>
>> and Image Sampling between the Sony CineAlta and the Panasonic Varicam.
>
>>
>
>> Have you heard the common misconception, prevalent across the
>
>> industry, that the Varicam records a 4:2:2 color space to tape? The
>
>> argument goes like this ...... while the Varicam has less resolution
>
>> in luma, it has more resolution in chroma compared to the Sony F900
>
>> CineAlta. So this means the colors are sharper, therefore the over all
>
>> image will tend to look relatively sharper as well, despite there
>
>> being less pixels in total compared to the F900. Consequently, this
>
>> helps the Varicam produce an image that looks just as sharp as the
>
>> F900. While the images are indeed amazingly similar, this reasoning is
>
>> bogus.
>
>>
>
>> And if this were true, then the Varicam might turn out to be the
>
>> better tool for doing green and blue screen work. On the face of
>
>> things, it might seem the Varicam will do a better job with pulling
>
>> mattes with double the color resolution. After all you are keying to a
>
>> color, and if the colors are sharper, then it should work better -
>
>> right? Again, this reasoning is bogus. The real story is a little more
>
>> involved, as I will try to explain.
>
>>
>
>> It is amazing how entrenched the misconception is that the Varicam has
>
>> approximately double the color space of the F900. But in a sense this
>
>> is true ..... it all depends on how you look at it! Lets start by
>
>> looking at precisely how each HD camcorder system processes and
>
>> records its images to tape. But in so doing, we can't lose sight of
>
>> the fact that the starting point for each camcorder is different. The
>
>> Sony CineAlta has approximately twice the number of pixels per CCD
>
>> compared to the Panasonic Varicam (2.2 megapixels for the F900 verses
>
>> 1 million pixels for the Varicam).
>
>>
>
>> The first step in both cases is pre-filtering in luma. Both systems
>
>> use the same reduction factor, namely 1.33^* (recurring). The F900
>
>> starts with 1920 pixels per line, and filters down to 1440 in luma
>
>> (1920 divided by 1.33 = 1440). The Varicam starts with 1280 pixels per
>
>> line, and filters down to 960 in luma (1280 divided by 1.33 = 960).
>
>> The original "1920", and the original "1280", are defined by their
>
>> respective format specifications.
>
>>
>
>> Next, chroma is sampled at 3:1:1 in the case of the Sony camcorder,
>
>> and at 4:2:2 in the case of the Varicam camcorder. So the CineAlta has
>
>> 1440 in luma and (1440/3)= 480 in chroma, while the Varicam has 960 in
>
>> luma and (960/2) = 480 in chroma. Note that both systems now have
>
>> precisely the same number of pixels per line, namely 480, representing
>
>> color information!!!
>
>>
>
>> Just to be clear about the mathematics I used here, the divisors 3 and
>
>> 2 respectively, come from the how each camcorder subsamples its color
>
>> space. The CineAlta is 3:1:1, so it subsamples its chroma channels by
>
>> a factor of 3 in relation to its luma channel. Specifically, it
>
>> samples chroma at 1/3 (one third) that of the luma channel. So this is
>
>> why I divided by 3. The luma is sampled at 1440 /3 = 480 which is the
>
>> chroma sampling. Similarly, the Varicam is 4:2:2, so it subsamples its
>
>> chroma channels by a factor of 2 in relation to its luma channel.
>
>> Specifically, it samples chroma at 1/2 (one half) that of the luma
>
>> channel. So this is why I divided by 2. The luma is sampled at 960 /2
>
>> = 480 which is the chroma sampling.
>
>>
>
>> While both systems (coincidentally) have equal chroma resolution, the
>
>> Sony HDCAM has 50% more luma resolution. This is not surprising
>
>> considering it started out with twice the number of pixels in the
>
>> first place.
>
>>
>
>> Another way to look at this is as follows:
>
>>
>
>> HDCAM = 1440 in luma, and (1440 /3) = *480* in chroma = 1440:480:480 =
>
>> 3:1:1
>
>>
>
>> HD Varicam = 960 in luma, and (960 /2) = *480* in chroma = 960:480:480
>
>> = 4:2:2
>
>>
>
>> In an absolute sense, the CineAlta and the Varicam have identical
>
>> color space i.e. *480* pixels per line!!!
>
>>
>
>> But relatively speaking, the Varicam samples a slightly lower
>
>> resolution image at a slightly higher rate for its colors.
>
>> "A-little-more-of-a-little-less" means there is no net gain in terms
>
>> of color space compared to the CineAlta. However, the CineAlta has a
>
>> comparative advantage in terms of resolution in luma (or the black and
>
>> white component of the image) by a factor of a half i.e. 50% more
>
>> resolution in luma. Or 1440 pixels compared to 960 pixels
>
>> (mathematically speaking: 960 x 50% = 480, then 480 + 960 = 1440) (or
>
>> 960 x 150% = 1440) (or 1440/150% = 960) etc.
>
>>
>
>> Sony's 3:1:1 exactly equals Panasonic's 4:2:2 in terms of color space
>
>> in an absolute sense. But in respect to the Varicam's own inherent
>
>> line resolution, it has twice the rate of color sampling compared to
>
>> the CineAlta. This leads to the conundrum that it is true to say the
>
>> CineAlta and the Varicam have identical color space, but at the same
>
>> time, it is also true to say the Varicam has twice the color space of
>
>> the CineAlta. This is of course is contradictory.
>
>>
>
>> The truth of the matter can only be resolved when you look at the
>
>> total number of pixels per line that are sampled for color information.
>
>>
>
>> **3:1:1 color sampling of 50% more line resolution = 4:2:2 color
>
>> sampling of 50% less line resolution.**
>
>>
>
>> To complete the story, both camcorders sample at 10 bit, pre-filter,
>
>> compress, and record to tape at 8 bit. In other words, both systems
>
>> work in a very similar way, and indeed, they both produce very similar
>
>> looking images.
>
>>
>
>> Many people believe that the Varicam performs better for green and
>
>> blue screen matting processes, compared to the Sony F900. I think the
>
>> reality is that they are about the same in their blue and green-screen
>
>> matting capabilities.
>
>>
>
>> Just as an aside, the Sony HDCAM (D-11) compression scheme is based
>
>> upon a 1440 x 1080 image format and 3:1:1 chroma subsampling, as
>
>> described above. Downsampling is required upon compression, and
>
>> upsampling is required upon decompression. The downsampling inherent
>
>> in HDCAM compression of 1080i or 1080p means that luma sample aspect
>
>> ratio is effectively 4/3 (and chroma subsampling is equivalent to
>
>> 4:1:1) relative to the original 1920x1080 image array. So luma is
>
>> multiplied by 4/3 or 1.33^* (recurring) i.e. 1440 multiplied by 1.33^*
>
>> = 1920. Hence it is 3:1:1 color space in respect to 1440 x 1080, but
>
>> really only 4:1:1 color space in respect to the originally captured
>
>> 1920 x 1080, and also the 1920 x 1080 produced after decompression of
>
>> the signal and upsampling. In some ways it is hokus pokus with numbers
>
>> to say HDCAM is 3:1:1, as 4:1:1 is perhaps more accurate in its
>
>> practical application. Same with the Varicam, it is 4:2:2 color space
>
>> in respect to 960 x 720. This leaves us with the somewhat awkward
>
>> ratio of 4:1.5:1.5, which is the color space in respect to the
>
>> originally captured 1280 x 720, and also the 1280 x 720 produced after
>
>> decompression of the signal and upsampling.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Victor Wolansky
>
>>
>
>> DS VFX Artist
>
>>
>
>> WEBsite <http://www.e3post.com/>
>
>>
>
>> Demo Reel <http://www.e3post.com/reels/victorreel.html>
>
>>
>
>> 815 Slaters Lane
>
>>
>
>> Alexandria. VA.
>
>>
>
>> 443-797-3507
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
> ---
>
> Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
>
> subscribe ds
>
> Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body:
>
> unsubscribe ds
>
> ---
>
> Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body: subscribe ds
>
> Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body: unsubscribe ds
>

---
Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body: subscribe ds
Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body: unsubscribe ds