HD fraud?

[Joshua05]

I was recently married and we paid quite a bit extra to have the wedding filmed in HD. However, I have a hunch that they filmed it in standard definition, then upconverted it before burning it to blu ray (I've seen quite a bit of HD and this doesn't quite seem as sharp).

Is there any way that I can tell from the end product (blu-ray disc) whether or not it was filmed in HD?

Any thoughts appreciated.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Ask them if you can have a copy of the source files. Make up some kind of excuse like you didn't see 'Aunt Edna' on their DVD and you'd like to have some footage of her. With the source files you'll be able to tell easily.

 

[Joshua05]

I had another idea to go through all of our pics from the day of the wedding... one of the pics I zoomed in on just enough to see the camera type which was the sony hdr fx1... so we're good.

Thanks for the input... you got me thinking outside the box.

 

[mmntech]

That camera shoots at 1440x1080, so that's why it doesn't look as good as true 1080p.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea it seems to be more like 1080i
but it still costs 5k
so it depends, how much did you really pay him, you got 5k camera worth of photography which isn't shabby, true hd production is expensive. some dslr can do it now but then sound is problem...cinema quality red cameras are tens of thousands. if you expected bluray quality....thats going to cost u a bundle.

 

[Joshua05]

how much did you really pay him

Let's just say it was enough to cover a good part of that camera... and its a company:
http://www.rthgroup.com/

 

[0roo0roo]

I dunno, you have no stills to show us so we cant judge. Its a 5k level camera and there is no studio lighting as its not a set. You just aren't going to get film level quality.

 

[Blurry]

As a part time filmmaker I have to say that unfortunately, any camera under $10k won't get you close to 720p resolution. We used to use Sony Z1s for shooting (pro version of the FX1) and while it said 1080i, based on tests, the actual effective resolution of these cams during motion were about 500 lines. The actual sensors on the camera were 3 CCDs recording at 960x1080, then electronically upscaled to 1440x1080, then finally in the MPEG 2 conversion, upscaled to 1920x1080.

So in reality, these prosumer camcorders offer near-HD resolution for shooting slow motion videos and DVD resolution for high-motion videos, all on a compressed color space.

Now if you're wondering how sharp the old DV cameras were....

 

[Modelworks]

HD doesn't = looks great, it is all in the processing. The popular thing is digital which is great for those of us still hanging on to film . The quality of a good film camera is hard to beat . HD ? bah, film has had HD for decades
You have to spend $20k+ for a digital movie camera to come close to a film camera in picture quality. For something with variable lighting like a wedding I would go film every time. Digital just has way too many problems with color noise when the lighting isn't perfect.

What you need in digital to equal film

 

[Blain]

I was recently married and we paid quite a bit extra to have the wedding filmed in HD. However, I have a hunch that they filmed it in standard definition, then upconverted it before burning it to blu ray (I've seen quite a bit of HD and this doesn't quite seem as sharp).

I dunno, you have no stills to show us so we cant judge. Its a 5k level camera and there is no studio lighting as its not a set. You just aren't going to get film level quality.

Exactly, what I was thinking.

 

[Davidh373]

Alright, here's what I have to ask.

1. How much did you pay them exactly?

2. How many cameras were there?

3. Does it really look bad, or just a lil' grainy?

If it does in fact shoot interlaced and it was de-interlaced properly you shouldn't be able to tell. My company shoots 1080i and de-interlaces all the time. It looks flawless in 1080p

4. If it does look grainy, was it dark during the grainy parts?

Sometimes if it is really dark and gain on the camera isn't set right or the camera doesn't have good gain settings that can effect it (with little the camera man nor the company can do aside from warn you to get a pro lighting package).

5. Did they charge for "HD" or "1080p HD"?

Technically HD resolutions are 480P, 720i, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. Normally 480p and 720i aren't used because they are a (sort of) "Grey Area" and don't look all that much improved from the average Tube TV/ Monitor resolutions.

6. Can you get us a few stills?

This is not going to achieve much, but it may give us some indication. If the lighting is dark enough, or it's kinda pixelated or something we'll be able to see indications of what (if anything) went wrong. I know I can normally spot differences in mistakes made in filming, post, or authoring.

My company notifies our clients of the exactly the type of equipment we use from camera to authoring software in our contracts. I'm not very familiar with how other companies contract their work, but it would seem like we were cheating the client if information was not given to them. Hell, then for all you know they could show up with cheap 720p home video cameras. If they were not completely upfront with you, shame on them.

 

[Davidh373]

You have to spend $20k+ for a digital movie camera to come close to a film camera in picture quality. For something with variable lighting like a wedding I would go film every time. Digital just has way too many problems with color noise when the lighting isn't perfect.

Digital is popular because it is quick and easy. Digital video allows for a more widespread market, and it's beginning to catch up with film. Not everyone has $15000 to spend on a video project, that's where digital workflow comes in.

Red Cameras are pretty great. We've been wanting some for a while now.

 

[Joshua05]

1. How much did you pay them exactly?

$1300 for everything: filming ceremony/reception plus editing

2. How many cameras were there?

One

3. Does it really look bad, or just a lil' grainy?

A little grainy

4. If it does look grainy, was it dark during the grainy parts?

No, it was an outdoor wedding, so the grass is more grainy than I'm used to. (Compared to BBC Planet Earth Blu Ray set) Also, during the darker parts of the wedding (reception), he mounted a bright diffused light on top of the camera.

5. Did they charge for "HD" or "1080p HD"?

Contract states "Videography - HD - Single Camera." However, we talked about 1080p in person... so we might as well said nothing at all.

6. Can you get us a few stills?

You bet... I'll post back later. The photographer got one shot of the camera they used as well.. I'll post that too.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

That camera shoots at 1440x1080, so that's why it doesn't look as good as true 1080p.

FYI
1.) 1440x1080 is one of 18-19 supported formats by ATSC, which FCC adopted
2.) 1440x1080 was around ad 4:3 HD a lot longer than you can imagine
3.) The human eye is more sensitive to vertical resolution (# of horizontal lines) than horizontal resolution (pixels on a line)

BTW, is half the HD broadcast content is in 1280x720 (e.g. ABC, ESPN, etc.) does this make 1440x1080 less than HD?

 

[Davidh373]

If it's a little grainy they could have had their bitrate down, which probably means they could fix it. I think you and I both think it's pretty ridiculous to compare something that cost $1300 to something like planet earth.

BTW, is half the HD broadcast content is in 1280x720 (e.g. ABC, ESPN, etc.) does this make 1440x1080 less than HD?

Because it isn't as clear. interlaced footage looks horrible on a non-interlaced medium. half of the picture is always missing.

 

[0roo0roo]

Yea abc broadcasts at 720p. It does not film at 720p. Its filmed on super 35mm film, well anything that is prime time viewing is atleast. Anything else would look cheap and tacky. And eventually the blurays of its shows will be a full 1080p as the source justifies it.

1440x1080 stuff is irrelevant trivia.