The 1080p lies

[Blackberryroid]

I learned this the hard way. When a camera says it has "1080p", I was instantly impressed. I bought one, and I honestly expected Blu-ray quality out of it. The crisp details was the one I was really looking for. But when I took a video and projected it to my big screen, I was disgusted. Yes, it's 1080p but the details aren't in there. It isn't close to Blu-ray quality. It's like 480p but without the visible pixels.

If you have used Lightroom, the video looks like a de-noised picture. It's smooth, but the details! I can't see the glorious details!

It isn't out of focus, that's for sure.

 

[fitshaced]

I learned this the hard way. When a camera says it has "1080p", I was instantly impressed. I bought one, and I honestly expected Blu-ray quality out of it. The crisp details was the one I was really looking for. But when I took a video and projected it to my big screen, I was disgusted. Yes, it's 1080p but the details aren't in there. It isn't close to Blu-ray quality. It's like 480p but without the visible pixels.

If you have used Lightroom, the video looks like a de-noised picture. It's smooth, but the details! I can't see the glorious details!

It isn't out of focus, that's for sure.

But that's like buying a 40mp camera and expecting awesome pictures from it. The sensor of the camera is more important, as is the quality of the lens (and the holder device )

 

[Blackberryroid]

But that's like buying a 40mp camera and expecting awesome pictures from it. The sensor of the camera is more important, as is the quality of the lens (and the holder device )

I understand that Megapixels aren't all that great. I would love a 3 Megapixel camera as long as it has a full-frame sensor, A huge Aperture, a low (and high) ISO, and fast (and slow, 5 minute) shutter.

But being 40 MP, I would expect it to be clear even if I zoom up to 700%. 40 MP would be very misleading if it isn't clear.

 

[fitshaced]

I understand that Megapixels aren't all that great. I would love a 3 Megapixel camera as long as it has a full-frame sensor, A huge Aperture, a low (and high) ISO, and fast (and slow, 5 minute) shutter.

But being 40 MP, I would expect it to be clear even if I zoom up to 700%. 40 MP would be very misleading if it isn't clear.

But size has little to do with image quality.

 

[Blackberryroid]

But size has little to do with image quality.

I know it has nothing to do with depth of field, shutter and all those. I know all it has to do with is sharpness.

 

[fitshaced]

I know it has nothing to do with depth of field, shutter and all those. I know all it has to do with is sharpness.

Nope it doesn't. It only affects how big the image/video can be viewed at. For sharpness, you need to consider the lens you use.

 

[Chundles]

1080p at what bit rate and format?

 

[Blackberryroid]

1080p at what bit rate and format?

Bit rate? I forgot. Format is H.264

 

[kevinfulton.ca]

I learned this the hard way. When a camera says it has "1080p", I was instantly impressed. I bought one, and I honestly expected Blu-ray quality out of it. The crisp details was the one I was really looking for. But when I took a video and projected it to my big screen, I was disgusted. Yes, it's 1080p but the details aren't in there. It isn't close to Blu-ray quality. It's like 480p but without the visible pixels.

If you have used Lightroom, the video looks like a de-noised picture. It's smooth, but the details! I can't see the glorious details!

It isn't out of focus, that's for sure.

I'm not sure what you were expecting when you say "Blu-Ray quality". I certainly hope you were not looking for broadcast or movie quality. If so your expectations were way out of whack. To get even close to that quality you'd need complete control over your lighting, high quality lenses, and not to mention a unreal sensor and mastery of the art of cinematography. I'm also curious as to what camera you were using, because there are low to high quality cameras on the market that all claim 1080p. It is still a case of you get what you pay for with cameras. I fear that you may have just learned that specs are not everything the hard way. I'm hoping I'm wrong and that it's something to do with your output or compression. Good luck to you.

 

[Blackberryroid]

I'm not sure what you were expecting when you say "Blu-Ray quality". I certainly hope you were not looking for broadcast or movie quality. If so your expectations were way out of whack.

I wasn't talking about it's depth of field, or the look of the movie, I want the sharpness that is equal to the 1080p in Blu-Ray. I can't see it. All I see is 480p-like quality.

 

[Abstract]

How is this any different from comparing a 16 MP point-and-shoot vs a 16 MP DSLR in terms of photo image quality? You'd figure that if this is a silly comparison because the DSLR would win, then

In much the same way, I expect a proper video camera to shoot better video than a DSLR.

 

[kevinfulton.ca]

I wasn't talking about it's depth of field, or the look of the movie, I want the sharpness that is equal to the 1080p in Blu-Ray. I can't see it. All I see is 480p-like quality.

You don't think lens quality, proper lighting and a high quality sensor makes for better sharpness? That's odd since that's exactly what I got once I got once I learned photography. What model is your camera. Perhaps I can help?

 

[Blackberryroid]

You don't think lens quality, proper lighting and a high quality sensor makes for better sharpness? That's odd since that's exactly what I got once I got once I learned photography. What model is your camera. Perhaps I can help?

My camera is a Fujifilm HS20. I thought that the lens quality, and all other stuff would make a better DOF, and all the image properties, but not sharpness.

 

[MagicWok]

Resolution for video, is as bad as the public's perception that megapixels for photography is the barometer of quality. Just by seeing 1080p, doesn't mean it's good quality.

As we know, a 6.1 megapixel D40 will run rings around an 8 megapixel iPhone, for instance due to the size of the sensor, the quality of the lens etc even though the number is lower. Though I will have friends swear blind the iPhone will be better, because of more megapixels

Video is much the same. The bitrate counts more than the resolution, and with that the size and type of sensor used and also the lens. A high bit-rate 720p film shot from a good camcorder, will trump the 1080p from the iPhone 4S/5 everytime.

DSLR's are starting to come good with video. The D800, for instance, being used to shoot TV series and movies.

 

[bocomo]

My camera is a Fujifilm HS20. I thought that the lens quality, and all other stuff would make a better DOF, and all the image properties, but not sharpness.

That's where you are mistaken

 

[Edge100]

My camera is a Fujifilm HS20. I thought that the lens quality, and all other stuff would make a better DOF, and all the image properties, but not sharpness.

Wow. So wrong.

1080p means 1920x1080 pixels, progressive scan. That's it. It says absolutely nothing about image quality.

Resolution and sharpness are completely independent. And if you zoom to 700% on an image of ANY resolution, you're going to see extreme pixelation.

You've got a lot to learn, as evidenced by your last two threads.

 

[Policar]

My camera is a Fujifilm HS20. I thought that the lens quality, and all other stuff would make a better DOF, and all the image properties, but not sharpness.

Video on still cameras is rarely as good as one would hope. I thought you had a 5D Mark III when you first posted, because I had a similar experience with mine; as good as that camera's video is in other regards, it doesn't look that much sharper than SD. (It resolves around 700-800 lines of resolution, just better than 720p but still not close to the high end, but the perceived sharpness is poor.)

The least expensive cameras that will give you the much-vanuted film look and "full" 1080p resolution without aliasing are the FS100 and C100; the GH2 will come close with the hack but it has a smaller sensor and less latitude (still a great option if you can make it work) and people are really into the Black Magic Cinema camera, but I'm not sure if I can see its utility beyond as a studio camera. The aliasing, form factor, etc. worry me.

 

[nateo200]

But that's like buying a 40mp camera and expecting awesome pictures from it. The sensor of the camera is more important, as is the quality of the lens (and the holder device )

Eh this largely depends on lighting, ISO, oh and this thing called Cinematography which is pretty complex....If you buy a camera and expect it to do everything for you, your already doing it wrong.


The there are many 1080p cameras! For example! The Sony HDW-F900! This camera can produce a very good image despite being limited to 1080p, what it DOES have going for it is the people using it, the lens attached, its uncompressed RGB signal, etc. You've got to learn how to use the camera as a tool and not as a crutch. People get all excited over specs and think that those specs will mean everything...hardly everything...

 

[fitshaced]

Eh this largely depends on lighting, ISO, oh and this thing called Cinematography which is pretty complex....If you buy a camera and expect it to do everything for you, your already doing it wrong.


The there are many 1080p cameras! For example! The Sony HDW-F900! This camera can produce a very good image despite being limited to 1080p, what it DOES have going for it is the people using it, the lens attached, its uncompressed RGB signal, etc. You've got to learn how to use the camera as a tool and not as a crutch. People get all excited over specs and think that those specs will mean everything...hardly everything...

I think you quoted the wrong person

 

[Policar]

The there are many 1080p cameras! For example! The Sony HDW-F900! This camera can produce a very good image despite being limited to 1080p, what it DOES have going for it is the people using it, the lens attached, its uncompressed RGB signal, etc. You've got to learn how to use the camera as a tool and not as a crutch. People get all excited over specs and think that those specs will mean everything...hardly everything...

How does this relate to anything? In this case the specs on the cinealta are accurate and the specs on his camera aren't--one delivers crisp 1080p, as promised, and one doesn't. So how do operators, lenses, uncompressed data, etc. factor into that?

 

[kevinfulton.ca]

My camera is a Fujifilm HS20. I thought that the lens quality, and all other stuff would make a better DOF, and all the image properties, but not sharpness.

Well now your issues are becoming more obvious. First of all your expecting a point and shoot / Superzoom to you give you Blu-ray quality. That's simply not going to happen since they are primarily designed for photography. They are definitely not for video (regardless what Fuji says). If you want better video quality I'd suggest upgrading to a DSLR or camcorder. Even an entry level model from Canon or Nikon will do the trick. However, judging by your other posts you have already started looking into this. As somebody who has described himself as a cinematographer/photographer in your other posts (terms that I usually associate with professionals in their field) I'm surprised on your views on how lenses don't effect sharpness. I have yet to encounter a fellow photographer that would agree with such a statement (professional or otherwise). I strongly believe that the solution to your problem would involve the purchase of a new camera, lens, and some videography tutorials.

 

[nateo200]

I think you quoted the wrong person

Whoops! I meant to quote someone else....:O my bad.

How does this relate to anything? In this case the specs on the cinealta are accurate and the specs on his camera aren't--one delivers crisp 1080p, as promised, and one doesn't. So how do operators, lenses, uncompressed data, etc. factor into that?

Well operators, lens and uncompressed data all factor into providing better quality...the OP seams stuck on the resolution vs other factors. I just threw that in as an example of a solid 1080p camera that isn't "a lie" and what makes it produce a better image.

 

[Policar]

Well operators, lens and uncompressed data all factor into providing better quality...the OP seams stuck on the resolution vs other factors. I just threw that in as an example of a solid 1080p camera that isn't "a lie" and what makes it produce a better image.

But this has nothing to do with what he asked, and it's a totally arbitrary comparison. Bringing up the importance of operators and uncompressed RGB data (which no one uses anymore, anyway) is just kind of arbitrary and condescending. Plus it's not exactly hard to turn a camera on, focus, and hit record. Getting the proper resolution for a test shoot doesn't take a genius; the art of operating is getting aesthetic and technically good results consistently.... And even if you hooked up an HDSDI tap to the camera he bought somehow and had the best operators in the world it would still be too soft, so why imply that the onus is on him for not hiring a full crew?

Yes, the cinealta is one example of a 1080p camera that resolves close to the maximum theoretical resolution, but it's also 15 years old and $100,000. There are plenty of cheap consumer cameras that resolve similar amounts of resolution (not dSLRs, though, except maybe the 1DC) and can be operated by one person. Countless of them. Yours is just such a weird, vaguely condescending comment. Cool that you get to use the cinealta, but it doesn't factor into this discussion. Enjoy it and I'm glad you like you're crew--I'm sure it's very nice and they're very talented--but don't talk down to other users who can't afford the gear you've got.

 

[Blackberryroid]

Well now your issues are becoming more obvious. First of all your expecting a point and shoot / Superzoom to you give you Blu-ray quality. That's simply not going to happen since they are primarily designed for photography. They are definitely not for video (regardless what Fuji says). If you want better video quality I'd suggest upgrading to a DSLR or camcorder. Even an entry level model from Canon or Nikon will do the trick. However, judging by your other posts you have already started looking into this. As somebody who has described himself as a cinematographer/photographer in your other posts (terms that I usually associate with professionals in their field) I'm surprised on your views on how lenses don't effect sharpness. I have yet to encounter a fellow photographer that would agree with such a statement (professional or otherwise). I strongly believe that the solution to your problem would involve the purchase of a new camera, lens, and some videography tutorials.

I usually borrow other cameras, HS20 is not the camera I use 100% of the time.

I'd love to buy a DSLR, but they're far too expensive. And did I mention the cost of those shallow depth of field lenses? Yeah, it's mind bobbling.

 

[kevinfulton.ca]

I usually borrow other cameras, HS20 is not the camera I use 100% of the time.

I'd love to buy a DSLR, but they're far too expensive. And did I mention the cost of those shallow depth of field lenses? Yeah, it's mind bobbling.

Well, as I mentioned before, you get what you pay for. Quality cameras and lenses cost money. If you want good results you'll need to invest time and money to get the gear and develop your skills to get the results you're after. As a photographer / cinematographer you should know this. That being said you could get a good deal on a Canon T3i for around $500-$600. It has great video quality for the price, or at least far better then what you have. It usually comes with a decent kit lens as well. The nice thing about that set up is you'll have a good walk around until you're ready to invest in better lenses. Good luck to ya!

----------

I usually borrow other cameras, HS20 is not the camera I use 100% of the time.

I'd love to buy a DSLR, but they're far too expensive. And did I mention the cost of those shallow depth of field lenses? Yeah, it's mind bobbling.

Also, I'm fully aware of how much a quality lens cost. If you're willing to go without a zoom you can get good primes for $500-$1000 each in a variety of focal lengths. Right now I'm shooting with 24mm 2.8 IS USM, 50mm 1.4 USM, and, the ever trusty, 85mm 1.8 USM. I'm curious, which cameras do you usually borrow?