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

[kcuf2]

I must put a disclaimer first: I may have been involved in photography for close to 6 years, I am a total newbie aka noob in videography.

There is one thing that has been puzzling my mind. Why is it that the Full HD Videos that I took with my DSLR is not as crystal sharp/clear as those that we see in the movies or Blu-Ray Full HD Movies?

Although the DSLR video is Full HD and the Blu-Ray movies are also Full HD, Why is it that I feel that the videos on Blu-Ray Full HD Movies are so much sharper and clearer than what I can shoot using my DSLR? And some more i find that the Blu-Ray Full HD Movies are much smoother.

Equipments I used to take videos at Full HD:
1. 1D MK IV
2. 5D MK 2
3. 50mm F1.2L
4. 85mm F1.2L
5. 16-35mm F2.8L

Anyone can enlighten this newbie over here?

 

[deathrequiem]

I must put a disclaimer first: I may have been involved in photography for close to 6 years, I am a total newbie aka noob in videography.

There is one thing that has been puzzling my mind. Why is it that the Full HD Videos that I took with my DSLR is not as crystal sharp/clear as those that we see in the movies or Blu-Ray Full HD Movies?

Although the DSLR video is Full HD and the Blu-Ray movies are also Full HD, Why is it that I feel that the videos on Blu-Ray Full HD Movies are so much sharper and clearer than what I can shoot using my DSLR? And some more i find that the Blu-Ray Full HD Movies are much smoother.

Equipments I used to take videos at Full HD:
1. 1D MK IV
2. 5D MK 2
3. 50mm F1.2L
4. 85mm F1.2L
5. 16-35mm F2.8L

Anyone can enlighten this newbie over here?

never done videography but i guess the so called HD is just a resolution of 1920x1080. the sharpness itself is defined by the resolving power of the sensors and lenses. its like how come 18mp sensor shoot a picture vs 12mp sensor shoot a picture with similar lenses, does not mean 18mp will be sharper.

 

[kcuf2]

mmm, does that mean that the resolution of Full-HD at 1920x1080 is actually very lousy? i.e. those real movie makers capture movies at resolution that are way beyond the Full-HD standards of 1920x1080?

Thus is this the reason why the movies that we see are so much better than the Full-HD 1920x1080 videos that we took using our DSLR itself? For example, movies are captured at a resolution of 192000x108000?

In a way, my newbie point of view is, i think the resolving power of the sensor and lens & the sharpness of lens is not an issue, because the equipments (1) 1D MK IV (2) 5D MK 2 (3) 50mm F1.2L (4) 85mm F1.2L (5) 16-35mm F2.8L are already the pinnacle of DSLR photography.

Therefore, I really dun understand why I cant capture movies that are as nice as those in the movies. I do not know where is the bottleneck....

 

[eel]

To squeeze 18mp 5616x3744 into 1920x1080 resolution, Canon does some line skipping/downsampling - as in they do not record every line on the sensor into the final picture. I suspect that could be 1 reason why video from a HDSLR may not look as sharp. You might do a search about aliasing on 5D and it'll point you to some interesting discussions.

 

[kcuf2]

thanks eel, that means our DSLR are capable of producing videos that are of much much much much more higher quality and resolution than the low level Full-HD standards of 1920x1080... its just that they omit here and there to sorta "squeeze" out the 1920x1080...

sidenote: am i right to say that for the professional video recorders, they record at resolutions way beyond 1920x1080?

 

[deathrequiem]

thanks eel, that means our DSLR are capable of producing videos that are of much much much much more higher quality and resolution than the low level Full-HD standards of 1920x1080... its just that they omit here and there to sorta "squeeze" out the 1920x1080...

sidenote: am i right to say that for the professional video recorders, they record at resolutions way beyond 1920x1080?

no both of them as long as its 1080p it refers to 1920x1080. video recorders are a different ball game altogether. hd video recorders for filming use can cause few tens of thousands per setup.

 

[Nel21]

film movie camera has equivalent resolution much higher than fullHD (4k,5k).
I may not have a direct answer to your question but there are so many possible reasons why a hollywood film in DVD is better than a HDSLR footage. The equipments are higher grade ($100k~$200k camera, $30k-100k lens...), professional lighting, professional post procesing and color grading...bla bla. Canon file is compressed H.264 while movie maker used film and scan at hi res (i assume in raw??) or RED cam.
DVD is a final product from many processes. The camera is only one of the process.

 

[eel]

thanks eel, that means our DSLR are capable of producing videos that are of much much much much more higher quality and resolution than the low level Full-HD standards of 1920x1080... its just that they omit here and there to sorta "squeeze" out the 1920x1080...

Not exactly. I don't think current DSLRs have the processing power to capture that kind of super hi resolution at 25/30 fps (video frame rate) for more than a few seconds. My explanation is trying to keep things as basic as possible - there are many different factors such as filters, compression, Bayer pattern etc that will all have an affect on the final image.

There's a lot of info in some of the video forums so maybe have a look there and they'll explain things better.

 

[eel]

thanks eel, that means our DSLR are capable of producing videos that are of much much much much more higher quality and resolution than the low level Full-HD standards of 1920x1080... its just that they omit here and there to sorta "squeeze" out the 1920x1080...

sidenote: am i right to say that for the professional video recorders, they record at resolutions way beyond 1920x1080?

Not exactly, I don't think current crop of DSLRs have the processors to record 25/30 fps at that resolution for more than a few seconds. This is likely the reason why they have to do the lineskipping - to minimise the amount of data that gets captured in order for the processor to cope.

I'm trying to explain it at the most basic level but there's always other factors such as Compression, Pixel patterns etc that impact what finally comes out. There are many video forums that will explain it in much clearer detail.

Most professional digital video recorders will record at exactly 1920x1080 (about 2K) but there are exceptions like Red which can record 3K to 5K resolutions...

 

[kcuf2]

Not exactly. I don't think current DSLRs have the processing power to capture that kind of super hi resolution at 25/30 fps (video frame rate) for more than a few seconds. My explanation is trying to keep things as basic as possible - there are many different factors such as filters, compression, Bayer pattern etc that will all have an affect on the final image.

There's a lot of info in some of the video forums so maybe have a look there and they'll explain things better.

frankly, I did google around, but I dun really get the answers that I wanted.... I think mainly because as a videography newbie, i dun even know what i should ask in the first place. I only know that I wanted to find out "Why DSLR Full HD Videos cannot be compared to Blu-Ray Full HD Videos?" The other technical details and stuffs that gives rise to the differences, i know nothing abt it, which made me dun even know how should i search correctly in google.

but anyway eel, thanks for highlighting to me a few new terms "filters, compression, Bayer pattern" related to videography and especially this <<Red>> thing u are talking about. Somehow this <<Red>> thing seems very interesting! I will go and google on these stuffs as a start..

 

[kcuf2]

film movie camera has equivalent resolution much higher than fullHD (4k,5k).
I may not have a direct answer to your question but there are so many possible reasons why a hollywood film in DVD is better than a HDSLR footage. The equipments are higher grade ($100k~$200k camera, $30k-100k lens...), professional lighting, professional post procesing and color grading...bla bla. Canon file is compressed H.264 while movie maker used film and scan at hi res (i assume in raw??) or RED cam.
DVD is a final product from many processes. The camera is only one of the process.

Wah..... I dint know that videography equipment can be so expensive!! ~ ($100k~$200k camera, $30k-100k lens...), Cos frankly i dun seem to see them being sold on the streets' retails shops...

I have always thought that videography equipment are sorta like camera equipment i.e. the most expensive videocamera is around $10k (i.e. same as the 1Ds MK III) and the lens is at most $18k (i.e. same as the Canon's 800mm F5.6L).. didnt know they can hit 6 figures!!! Thats crazy...

 

[jhansolo]

I dint know that videography equipment can be so expensive!!

Higher end video camcorders have 3 x C-mos and the lens is much wider in diameter. When you deal with Video, look beyond the size 1920 x 1080 is only the size. Just like photography Jpeg and Raw produces image of the same size, but the file sizes are very different.

 

[Jemhadar]

In a way, my newbie point of view is, i think the resolving power of the sensor and lens & the sharpness of lens is not an issue, because the equipments (1) 1D MK IV (2) 5D MK 2 (3) 50mm F1.2L (4) 85mm F1.2L (5) 16-35mm F2.8L are already the pinnacle of DSLR photography.

Therefore, I really dun understand why I cant capture movies that are as nice as those in the movies. I do not know where is the bottleneck....

Found this 2 days ago, take a look and you'll know why.
It's very technical. Especially Part 3 & 4.

http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Additional_Information.html

Cheers!

 

[eel]

frankly, I did google around, but I dun really get the answers that I wanted.... I think mainly because as a videography newbie, i dun even know what i should ask in the first place. I only know that I wanted to find out "Why DSLR Full HD Videos cannot be compared to Blu-Ray Full HD Videos?" The other technical details and stuffs that gives rise to the differences, i know nothing abt it, which made me dun even know how should i search correctly in google.

but anyway eel, thanks for highlighting to me a few new terms "filters, compression, Bayer pattern" related to videography and especially this <<Red>> thing u are talking about. Somehow this <<Red>> thing seems very interesting! I will go and google on these stuffs as a start..

Red camera is probably a good place to start as the workflow is similar to Hi-end digital photography. Shoot in RAW then edit and convert to a compressed format for delivery. Video recorders (videocams) like DSLRs also come in many grades. Those used for movies usually capture uncompressed video at 2K - 4K resolutions and are priced in the hundred K categories. Broadcast/Prosumer HD videocams (which shoot at 1920x1080) are like shooting with beginner DSLRs minus the RAW option. Alot has gone under the hood between the lens, Sensor and Processor before reaching the media (filtering, compression, digital signal processing etc) into a more manageable JPEG form.

 

[azman]

Found this 2 days ago, take a look and you'll know why.
It's very technical. Especially Part 3 & 4.

http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Additional_Information.html

Cheers!

.
Wow Jemhadar ! That's really technical.
I don't know about KCUF2 and the rest of you guys but I think it will take me quite a while to understand even a small portion of it :bsmilie:

I found some info in the link below that is more suited to my level of understanding

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/digital-cinema2.htm
.
.

 

[kklee]

Maybe it is 3-CCD vs single CCD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD_camera

 

[tengo]

It can be a myriad of reasons.

My personal take is that it is most probably due to the low bit-rate compression and long GOP processing of the codec (AVCHD i.e. H.264).

A high-end codec of P2 AVC-Intra would be 100Mbps and it is intraframe with 10 bit 4:2:2 color sampling.

Canon DSLR (H.264) is only about 40Mbps and it is long GOP interframe with 8 bit 4:2:0 color sampling.

Go figure.

 

[playstation]

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

 

[szeping]

Sorry, total newbie here... But interesting to read all your comments.

I have the same thought as TS when I saw some of my friends HD video are not as sharp as the HD demo video displayed on TV sets. I always think that HDTV can only resolve 1920x1080, anything beyond that it's a waste... similar to the experience of viewing a 24MP (6k*4k) image on a 1200px width monitor will not yield better result than viewing a 1200*800 image. But if you sharpen the small image at screen size, it will give you better image as compared to the large format image.

So videography is not the same as photography in this sense?

 

[kcuf2]

I have the same thought as TS when I saw some of my friends HD video are not as sharp as the HD demo video displayed on TV sets. I always think that HDTV can only resolve 1920x1080, anything beyond that it's a waste...

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