Jump to content


Photo

4:4:4 vs 4:2:2


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Wes Shinn

Wes Shinn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 08 February 2006 - 10:45 AM

Besides the fact that you can scan a possible 4k vs 2k scan. Wouldnt 4:2:2 be the more cost effective way to shoot in HD? It would take some really smart eyes to know the difference between the 2.

Would just like to know anyone else thoughts towards the HDCAM SR format.
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2006 - 10:53 AM

Besides the fact that you can scan a possible 4k vs 2k scan. Wouldnt 4:2:2 be the more cost effective way to shoot in HD? It would take some really smart eyes to know the difference between the 2.

Would just like to know anyone else thoughts towards the HDCAM SR format.


Well, remember that regular HDCAM is 1440 x 1080, 8-bit, 3:1:1, and highly compressed, whereas HDCAM-SR is 1920 x 1080, 10-bit, 4:4:4, and mildly compressed. So the increase in quality isn't merely 4:4:4 versus 3:1:1.

There is a perception of a somewhat richer and more subtle color range in 4:4:4 versus 4:2:2, but it depends on the scene content. But the real advantage comes more in post when color-correcting and doing chroma key work. Less compression and better red & blue resolution can allow more extreme color-correction of the image with fewer artifacts popping up. HDCAM craps out quickly when trying to push the color around in post too far.
  • 0

#3 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 February 2006 - 11:30 AM

Besides the fact that you can scan a possible 4k vs 2k scan. Wouldnt 4:2:2 be the more cost effective way to shoot in HD? It would take some really smart eyes to know the difference between the 2.

Would just like to know anyone else thoughts towards the HDCAM SR format.


You can shoot 4:2:2 on HDCAM SR as well as 4:4:4. The advantage with 4:4:4 comes you to do green screen and other effects in post production. The eye mightn't be able to spot the difference, but when working at the pixel level with 4:2:2 you've got one luminance pixel, because the chroma has been sub sampled, the colour is on two pixels, this makes it more difficult to avoid getting a line on fine details when compositing.

HDCAM SR is also 10 bit as against the 8 bit HDCAM which is more more 3:1:1 than 4:2:2, so HDCAM SR is a big improvement on the older format, especially for big screen productions. Although productions without post production effects may very well decide to shoot 4:2:2 on the newer format. It's more a matter of the working out the requirements on each production and cost is one of the factors, but if it's effects heavy 4:4:4 makes sense.
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 08 February 2006 - 12:43 PM

Besides the fact that you can scan a possible 4k vs 2k scan. Wouldnt 4:2:2 be the more cost effective way to shoot in HD? It would take some really smart eyes to know the difference between the 2.

Would just like to know anyone else thoughts towards the HDCAM SR format.


Hi,

On a monitor you can't see the diffrence. Only if you come to key, color correct or make a film out it becomes an advantage.

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 08 February 2006 - 01:54 PM

Hi,

On a monitor you can't see the diffrence. Only if you come to key, color correct or make a film out it becomes an advantage.

Stephen



Isn't that what we are doing?? ;)
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 08 February 2006 - 02:14 PM

Isn't that what we are doing?? ;)


Hi,

The question was 'who can see the difference' The answer is nobody if looking at a monitor!

Many people shoot HD to save money, recording to compressed formats and wanting to save expensive 'telecine' costs. For people with a large budget, recording uncompressed 4:4:4 will produce a good result. However if they require a 35mm print ,they are going to spend as much or more than shooting on 35mm film in the first place.

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Brandon Robinson

Brandon Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Other
  • Flatiron District New York, NY

Posted 11 February 2006 - 09:43 AM

I am doing a shoot in May, we originally wanted the F950 with SRW-1 deck to capture 444 color 10 bit data, then have a house give us SD dailies and for the online we would receive a DPX sequence (10 bit 4:4:4)
We need to do alot of greenscreen as well as matchmoving and color grading, we decided that 4:4:4 gives us all the latitude we need, but the cost of the F950 plus deck is hard to come by and expensive none the less. Would you guys think it might be better to shoot super 16 with a 100 speed stock or 35mm, what is the cost difference in your eyes (HDCAM-SR to DPX, vs 35mm to DPX) they both should be outputting full 10 bit 4:4:4 (1920x1080 vs 2K) Correct???

As a side note, would anyone be interested in jumping in on our shoot to help with costs and expertise in NYC?
thanks in advance, you are all so helpful
  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:23 AM

I am doing a shoot in May, we originally wanted the F950 with SRW-1 deck to capture 444 color 10 bit data, then have a house give us SD dailies and for the online we would receive a DPX sequence (10 bit 4:4:4)
We need to do alot of greenscreen as well as matchmoving and color grading, we decided that 4:4:4 gives us all the latitude we need, but the cost of the F950 plus deck is hard to come by and expensive none the less. Would you guys think it might be better to shoot super 16 with a 100 speed stock or 35mm, what is the cost difference in your eyes (HDCAM-SR to DPX, vs 35mm to DPX) they both should be outputting full 10 bit 4:4:4 (1920x1080 vs 2K) Correct???

As a side note, would anyone be interested in jumping in on our shoot to help with costs and expertise in NYC?
thanks in advance, you are all so helpful


Hi,

Super 16 is probably going to be the lowest cost route. The quantity of footage will determine any cost advantage between 35mm v F950/HDCAM-SR.

Stephen
  • 0

#9 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:29 AM

Hi,

The question was 'who can see the difference' The answer is nobody if looking at a monitor!

Stephen



Stephen,

This is somewhat misleading considering as soon as you've pushed 4:2:2 a significant amount then the breakup and noise will become apparant on the monitor when compared with 4:4:4 corrected the same way.

Keith
  • 0

#10 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 February 2006 - 11:20 AM

Stephen,

This is somewhat misleading considering as soon as you've pushed 4:2:2 a significant amount then the breakup and noise will become apparant on the monitor when compared with 4:4:4 corrected the same way.

Keith


Keith,

As i previousely stated in this thread 'On a monitor you can't see the diffrence. Only if you come to key, color correct or make a film out it becomes an advantage.'

By pushing 4:2:2 a significant amount, I assume you mean color correction.

Cheers,

Stephen
  • 0

#11 PostSuper

PostSuper

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Producer

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:04 PM

Isn't there a compression difference as well? My understanding is that HDCAMSR still compresses with MPEG, and when you choose to telecine to 4:4:4, you are choosing more compression. What are everyone's thoughts on the comparison between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 from a compression/image quality standpoint?

Edited by PostSuper, 03 March 2006 - 08:04 PM.

  • 0

#12 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 March 2006 - 08:04 AM

Hi,

I think you'd find it would be very situationally dependent. Tests required on your given subject.

I am losing patience with all this stuff. Let's just put it down to hard disk arrays uncompressed and have done with it, eh?

Phil
  • 0

#13 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 04 March 2006 - 10:08 AM

when you choose to telecine to 4:4:4, you are choosing more compression. What are everyone's thoughts on the comparison between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 from a compression/image quality standpoint?



Do you mean, telecine from a film negative? If you do and it is going to a 4:4:4 file, say unocmpressed as most do, then No, there is no more compression.
  • 0

#14 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 March 2006 - 10:28 AM

Isn't there a compression difference as well? My understanding is that HDCAMSR still compresses with MPEG, and when you choose to telecine to 4:4:4, you are choosing more compression. What are everyone's thoughts on the comparison between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 from a compression/image quality standpoint?

If 4:4:4 wasn't superior to 4:2:2, it wouldn't be offered, since it's more expensive to work with and requires greater system resources. If you plan on a 35mm film out, that's the highest quality you'll find. If you're just working on a video broadcast master, especially one not involving green screen or keying, or nothing extreme in terms of color correction, than 4:2:2 will work just fine.
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2006 - 12:12 PM

It's a legitimate question -- is 4:4:4 with some compression better than 4:2:2 with no compression?

Since the compression of HDCAM-SR in 4:4:4 mode is pretty mild, I think most would say that 4:4:4 was still better. Basically if the compression is invisible enough, mild enough, it's effectively not a problem whereas reduced color information in two out of three colors may or may not be a problem depending on the scene content.

Or to put it another way, depending on the scene content, there may be problems either due to a lack of color information or too much compression, so it just depends -- but in theory if the compression is lossless enough, then I'd go for the better color information.
  • 0

#16 Mike Brennan

Mike Brennan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 22 March 2006 - 06:47 PM

It's a legitimate question -- is 4:4:4 with some compression better than 4:2:2 with no compression?


Far as I can tell 99% choose HDCAM 4:4:4 SQ compression at approx 4:1 compression rather than HQ mode at 2:1
This may be because most SR5000 decks only playback SQ mode 4:1 and not 2:1 or that there is very little difference that matters for most subjects.

In respect to 4:4:4 at 4:1 versus 4:2:2 at 2:1 I'd go for the former based on current experience with SR using both Viper and f950.

IMHO the big deal with SR in order of importance is that it is 10bit then 1920x1080 pixels then 4:4:4

Back end compression to tape @ 4:1 could be better certainly for archiving! but passes otherwise.


Mike Brennan
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Opal

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

CineTape

The Slider