Live Hd Vs Filmed Hd

BUDDMAC · 03-01-2007, 03:17 PM

Can someone explain to me why live broadcasts (even when recorded) come across with much more clarity and detail than filmed programming?

Thanks for the help.

thepackfan · 03-01-2007, 04:21 PM

My understanding is that film needs to be converted to digital, the conversion quality has a lot to do with the quality of the converted content Also, film is a bit softer an sometimes this can be perceived as a better image. However, I agree that a quality digital recording looks a lot better on my set.

litzdog911 · 03-01-2007, 05:38 PM

Guess I don't fully agree with your statement .... I've seen poor quality "Live" HD video, and awesome filmed/recorded video, so I don't think it's always true that live broadcasts are better than filmed.

rminsk · 03-01-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thepackfan

My understanding is that film needs to be converted to digital, the conversion quality has a lot to do with the quality of the converted content Also, film is a bit softer an sometimes this can be perceived as a better image.

Film stock has higher resolution than a HDTV camera. What you may be noticing is the common HDTV cameras do not use a 35mm sensor. This means you will have a different depth of field. Some DPs have used depth of field adapters on older cameras but that does soften the image.

thepackfan · 03-01-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by litzdog911

Guess I don't fully agree with your statement .... I've seen poor quality "Live" HD video, and awesome filmed/recorded video, so I don't think it's always true that live broadcasts are better than filmed.

I agree that it can go either way. I was just stating in my opinion, shows like the Tonight Show have excellent clarity. Those films that look great, have been converted using a high bit rate conversion, not always the norm. Also, we are talking on a DTV HD forum, and the compression that they use for most of their movies will soften the picture.

dspilatro · 03-01-2007, 07:11 PM

Also, "live" feeds are 60i (60 images per second). Most films and episodic TV shows are shot mostly on film (or HD) @ 24 frames per second. More information looks clearer.

newsposter · 03-01-2007, 07:41 PM

this isnt commenting on HD per se however if you have ever seen the 'behind the scenes footage' of shows as they are being done, you will notice they look more 'live' then the regular show. I guess one could say 'raw and unfinished' as well.

I'd always assumed, and this thread seems to indicate, that they do indeed soften/darken etc a finished product.

dspilatro · 03-01-2007, 07:45 PM

No, it's really as simple as 60 images per second vs 24 images per second. A live football game gives you much more information than a filmed (NFL Films) version.

BUDDMAC · 03-01-2007, 09:23 PM

Thanks to all for the comments. Quite helpful.

cheer · 03-01-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dspilatro

No, it's really as simple as 60 images per second vs 24 images per second. A live football game gives you much more information than a filmed (NFL Films) version.

Yeah, but what people often refer to as "clarity" is really the starkness associated with video (the depth of field, as mentioned above).

It's not really clarity IMO, and a properly-transferred HD film looks stunning beyond belief to me.

TyroneShoes · 03-02-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rminsk

Film stock has higher resolution than a HDTV camera. What you may be noticing is the common HDTV cameras do not use a 35mm sensor. This means you will have a different depth of field. Some DPs have used depth of field adapters on older cameras but that does soften the image.

The smaller sensor (and correspondingly greater depth of field) is but one of many reasons why film looks different than video, but an important one. The transfer characteristics, gamma, etc., also play important roles.

While film may have a higher resolution than an HD camera, the generational effect of a film camera>film>HD telecine>processing for broadcast can also contribute, as can the imager resolution of the telecine camera and the lens abberations of both optical processes, those imperfections chained together for all film broadcast on TV.

IOW, all film seen as HD on television also goes through a stage of being recorded optically in a process nearly identical to how HD video is shot live or to a storage medium. So stated simply, live HD is recorded directly into a video camera, while film is recorded on film stock and later reimaged using a video camera, making its quality dependent on the limitations of both processes while live HD PQ is only dependent on the limitations of the camera and the later processing.

That said, the differences seen program to program are due much more to individual production techniques and artistic choices than they are to inherent limitations of film over video or vice versa. This is why, as litzdog says, video can look better than film, but so can film look better than video.