Why DSLR Full HD Videos cannot be compared to Blu-Ray Full HD Videos

[MRSAMO]

You have totally read my mind!!!! What you just said is totally what I am thinking!!!!!

With all the DSLR manufacturers promoting and claiming Full-HD video recording capability, they literally created an image within me that "I am able to shoot super detailed and nice videos such as the ones I see in the Cinema using these Full-HD DSLRs...."

Which after I tried out videography for the first time in my life with the DSLRs, sad to say, I am kinda disappointed with the so called Full-HD quality... The video quality is nowwhere as sharp, as contrasty, and as nice colour as my actual photographs...

But hey, really thanks a lot guys, u guys have thought me a lot more things abt videography now, I would be checking out the links provided tonight

Of course 1080p videos aren't as sharp and contrasty as your photos, photos are captured at a much higher resolution! In my case, my photos are 5184x3456!

You can't compare DSLR videos to Blue Ray movies because the resolution that the movies were captured in are different (Blue rays were captured in a much higher resolution and downscaled to 1080p).

I was the same as you, I was impressed with the sample videos I took, I wasn't overwhelmed but I wasn't surprised at the results either - I haven't done any editing to the video yet! All the cool videos you've seen have all been edited (so are all the photos you've seen). Anyone who claims otherwise is just BSing.

 

[dopplegangus]

HD camcorders have very much smaller sensor size. hence, bigger depth of field; more crystal sharp image.

:bigeyes::bigeyes::bigeyes:


Smaller sensor equal to bigger (deeper) depth of field?

 

[deathrequiem]

:bigeyes::bigeyes::bigeyes:


Smaller sensor equal to bigger (deeper) depth of field?

yes

 

[briansio]

I've spend 1.5 years for my master degree of media and comm in australia, during the period i've spend at least half of it studying cinematography and digital video production, please allow me to share what i've learned during the process to clear many clouded mind.

Comparing Bluray (a.k.a hollywood production) vs DSLR (1080p HD)

to understand the quality difference, 1st you have to understand the light is absorb to the sensor in different way, most professional video recorder have CCD chip, where DSLR have CMOS chip, there's a lot of info on this you can google on, so i dont have to explain.

With the application of CMOS sensor, rolling shutter is introduced to DSLR and most other CMOS chip based recorder where CCD chip can reduce rolling shutter to the minimal, (rolling shutter = wobbly image caused by panning the recorder real fast), and also more accurately represent colour and dynamic range.

when it comes to video, everything is about dynamic range, meaning, how flat/how broad your colour/brightness spectrum is collected. (this is for easier post-production)

Now to your question why is that DSLR Full HD cant compare with Bluray, there are few reason listed below:
1. Most hollywood production is shoot with high-end recorder such as ARRI/RED which shoot RAW at 25p/24p usually recognize as ProRes444/ProRes (4K resolution for cinema display), when it's convert to bluray, it's usually "downsampled" meaning it's loseless format with a lot of detail and sharpness. advance stitching technique is use to stitch HD footage into 4K resolution, from 4 seperate set of recorder.
2. At current stage, the dynamic range of HDSLR is far inferior than those use by ARRI/RED, there's hardly block spot in shadow area, while HDSLR doesnt have enough dynamic range to capture everything, from brightess spot to darkest spot. Detail become lossy.
3. Lens construct, the prime/zoom lens got better lens build quality compare to DSLR, which explain why those lenses are so expensive, carl zeiss is one of the manufacturer for ARRI/RED lenses.
4. Detail,detail and more detail... the reason why its so sharp and why DSLR is not that sharp is because of the resolution and sensor size, more detail = more sharpness, you can see fur from ARRI/RED but you prolly wont able to see tiny fur on DSLR.

well in conclusion, you prolly need a macpro with 4 solid state harddisk and 12 core processor and several of it to render a 2 hours video will probably justify the revenue of movie industry globally.

Please do ask any question if you have doubt. but the simple way to put this, is because bluray video is shot on 4k RAW resolution downsampled to 1080p, while DSLR is shot on 2k compressed resolution at 1080p

 

[briansio]

Of course 1080p videos aren't as sharp and contrasty as your photos, photos are captured at a much higher resolution! In my case, my photos are 5184x3456!

You can't compare DSLR videos to Blue Ray movies because the resolution that the movies were captured in are different (Blue rays were captured in a much higher resolution and downscaled to 1080p).

I was the same as you, I was impressed with the sample videos I took, I wasn't overwhelmed but I wasn't surprised at the results either - I haven't done any editing to the video yet! All the cool videos you've seen have all been edited (so are all the photos you've seen). Anyone who claims otherwise is just BSing.

However it's possible tho to incorporate DSLR footage into 4KProRes, i've seen an american dude that incorporate, 5D footage into video shot by RedOne, i believe they used stitching process. but noway of knowing, but it just look amazing~

 

[sibeiblur]

Image quality is not just based on big sensor and resolution lines alone. The lens, recording codec, exposure, lighting and also the cameraman himself plays an important role in the overall quality of the image.

 

[szeping]

Please do ask any question if you have doubt. but the simple way to put this, is because bluray video is shot on 4k RAW resolution downsampled to 1080p, while DSLR is shot on 2k compressed resolution at 1080p

Thanks briansio for the detailed explanation... I think TS and me shared the same misconception that HDTV operates the same as our monitor display.

When I see 1920*1080, I am thinking of the resolution of 1920 pixel width x 1080 pixel height. So no matter how high end is your recorder, when the video has been downsized... it will eventually display 1920 "boxes" of dots horizontally. So even if one fit 4 dots into that box, it will just display a single box with normalized value. This "mechanism" is similar to what I have written previously that a display of 24MP photo on screen will not be far superior than another 3MP photo at 1200*800 resolution's monitor.

That's the myth inside my mind for so long... But I think I'm wrong...

 

[loneWolff]

Thanks briansio for the detailed explanation... I think TS and me shared the same misconception that HDTV operates the same as our monitor display.

When I see 1920*1080, I am thinking of the resolution of 1920 pixel width x 1080 pixel height. So no matter how high end is your recorder, when the video has been downsized... it will eventually display 1920 "boxes" of dots horizontally. So even if one fit 4 dots into that box, it will just display a single box with normalized value. This "mechanism" is similar to what I have written previously that a display of 24MP photo on screen will not be far superior than another 3MP photo at 1200*800 resolution's monitor.

That's the myth inside my mind for so long... But I think I'm wrong...

Maybe you can do a comparsion between a GH13/GH2 with your Canon since both uses different methods to downsample.
You might be surprised, but of course its no ProRes.
The most is 50Mbps broadcast quality.

 

[2100]

Its very complicated technically, briansio touched quite a few portions. In youtube there is even modded Panasonic GH1 (those mirrorless camera), that outputs Full HD that resolves more detail than the best of Canon's 7D/5DII. Compression (codec) also sucks the heck out of every quality. Blu-ray gets you ~ 40Mb/s bitrate, which is extremely high comparatively, no contest. Movies nowadays test water with 8K resolution even, there was a Discovery channel program showing that it takes days to convert on server farms.

Now we even have iPhone 4 half-HD and the supporters going WAH. LOL! Marketing....

Here.....downsampling "issues" with Canon dSLRs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1BMugSQl1I

GH2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5qzLNSVOKw

 

[Bamboopictures]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Hollywood movies are still primarily shot on FILM!!!?

 

[henry soh]

If you were to attach a DSLRHD camera to a 42" HDTV display, without recording and compressing the data for storage to SD card, you will notice that it is shaper than having stored the compressed data and later played it back on the same TV with the card.
Therefore, it is the different type of compression that affects the sharpness of the picture. With the camera, it is the card compared with the disc storage. This is only one of the main reasons contributing to the sharpness of the picture. The picture quality will be of much higher grade if the image could be down loaded to a disc from the camera instead of a card.

 

[2100]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Hollywood movies are still primarily shot on FILM!!!?

IMAX 8K scans. :thumbsup:

 

[jasonjoseph]

more than trying to figure a way of making your dslr videos sharper, why not ask yourself why do you want them to be sharp in the first place?

sharpness is relative to the viewer, i personally hate videos/films which are too sharp. you will find increasingly people who shoot on digital- red, alexa, even genesis are adding softness filters to their footage to make them look more filmic.

my 50cents worth

 

[jellyfarm]

They are not really that expensive. The RED camera is less than that and has helped a lot of filmakers shoot HD at a cost-efficient price. The Social Network film and District 9 was shot entirely on the RED and to shoot a 1-minute TVC or mock-up is about 4K rental including lights, C-stands and Soft boxes. Not including DOP/Soundman fee. You will notice that it has massive depth of field (like the Canon 5D MII) hence the soft look at theatres.

But most Blu Ray DVDs are mastered for viewing on HDTVs by the studios hence why they are 'clearer'. As some responded above 1080p is not the ultimate be all and end all of HD. There is a whole other huge range beyond that which the RED camera can capture and maintain even on the big screens. No other camera can reach those levels. (Sorry 5D! )

Also RED is coming up with cheaper alternatives for indie filmakers with a range called the SCARLETT and the EPIC. Peter Jackson is supposed to be shooting "The Hobbit" on the cheaper EPIC which makes a lot of sense because it's smaller frame allows the DOP and crew to move in more efficient ways whilst filming.

Go to http://www.red.com/ for more info.

Btw, this is the 5D range: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzBS3Z_ajnY
Something I produced and directed.

 

[William2010]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Hollywood movies are still primarily shot on FILM!!!?

Well, you will be surprised they are gradually moving to the Alexa, D21, Red and Genesis.

 

[hazmee]

When I watched the movie 'Baraka', I feel like throwing away my 5D Mark II.

 

[Bamboopictures]

I remembered when I watched it in 1992, it made me want to travel the world. Can't wait for Samsara, it's sequel this year. Shot on the same Todd-AO 5 perf 65 mm film. Some way to go before CMOS can match the lattitude of celluloid especially in the highlights.