A lot of cameras advertise their quality by how many pixels they can produce. However $3000 SD camera, might still look better than a $800 full HD camera, cause the $800 has more grain. Therefore, the SD might look better. So what do you feel is more important, grain or pixels? It's kind of the same way with sound recorders, they will advertise their quality based on khz, rather than how much hissing they have in the preamps or something like that.
Pixels VS. Grain
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
I would definitely go for pixels.
Whilst comparing two very similar pieces of hardware on the basis of megapixel has been obsolete since around 2000, I highly doubt any SD camera would be comparable to even the worst HD video.
What is also important to consider is the sensor size which is something a lot of people look over.
If we look at a sensor size of 1/4" and consider a 14mp versus a 21mp version of it, the 14mp version will generally perform better when it comes to light due to the greater surface area of each pixel.
Whilst comparing two very similar pieces of hardware on the basis of megapixel has been obsolete since around 2000, I highly doubt any SD camera would be comparable to even the worst HD video.
What is also important to consider is the sensor size which is something a lot of people look over.
If we look at a sensor size of 1/4" and consider a 14mp versus a 21mp version of it, the 14mp version will generally perform better when it comes to light due to the greater surface area of each pixel.
Ok. Two things.
HD is either 1080p or 720p. That p stands for pixels. When a camera advertises more pixels than that, it's not for video, it's for still photography.
Re: Grain. Digital goes not have grain, it has noise. Only real film has grain. Grain can look good, noise never looks good.
HD is either 1080p or 720p. That p stands for pixels. When a camera advertises more pixels than that, it's not for video, it's for still photography.
Re: Grain. Digital goes not have grain, it has noise. Only real film has grain. Grain can look good, noise never looks good.
Everything Dready said, plus: resolution (1080p, 720p, 2k, 4k, 480p, 10megapixel, etc) is not equal to image quality.
True. And I suppose I stand corrected. But I assumed H44 wasn't referring to the Red, since he mentioned $800 HD cameras.
To answer the question you're really asking, image quality vs resolution, there has to be compromise on both ends.
Theater/BluRay/TV release? These days it pretty much needs to be HD. Yes, there have been rare SD theater releases in the past, but that was the past. HD is cheap enough to not be an excuse anymore, and it makes a major difference in image quality on a theater screen, I've projected both. Internet release, SD is fine in many cases, as default YouTube is less than SD. You have to click for higher-res, something many never do.
However, HD vs SD is becoming less and less of a concern because the only high image quality SD only cameras you're going to find now are used cameras. None of the pros are making them anymore. With that said, a used DV cam with a high enough quality to matter is going to sell for as much or more than a DSLR. If you need the pro features that come with such cameras (zebra, genlock, long record times, real audio inputs, etc) then you're comparing the $1000 used pro DV camera against a $6000-20000+ modern Pro HD camera generally.
In most of our cases, shooting narrative multi-take work and cinematic documentaries, the argument becomes a moot point. A DSLR will give you high image quality and HD resolution for more or less the same price as a used 'high image quality' pro SD camera. Some documentaries may require extended takes and in-camera audio, but again, that's not most of us here.
Theater/BluRay/TV release? These days it pretty much needs to be HD. Yes, there have been rare SD theater releases in the past, but that was the past. HD is cheap enough to not be an excuse anymore, and it makes a major difference in image quality on a theater screen, I've projected both. Internet release, SD is fine in many cases, as default YouTube is less than SD. You have to click for higher-res, something many never do.
However, HD vs SD is becoming less and less of a concern because the only high image quality SD only cameras you're going to find now are used cameras. None of the pros are making them anymore. With that said, a used DV cam with a high enough quality to matter is going to sell for as much or more than a DSLR. If you need the pro features that come with such cameras (zebra, genlock, long record times, real audio inputs, etc) then you're comparing the $1000 used pro DV camera against a $6000-20000+ modern Pro HD camera generally.
In most of our cases, shooting narrative multi-take work and cinematic documentaries, the argument becomes a moot point. A DSLR will give you high image quality and HD resolution for more or less the same price as a used 'high image quality' pro SD camera. Some documentaries may require extended takes and in-camera audio, but again, that's not most of us here.
Last edited:
Slight correction here, the 'p' refers to progressive (way the camera captures the image). The alternative being interlace (1080i)
Reaction to SD $3000 vs $800 HD is the SD one will most likely cost more for various reasons that are nothing to do with HD vs SD, such as interchangeable lenses, output options, XLR inputs, higher frame rates etc etc.
HD is just a good way to market cameras in a visual way to consumers. If i sold you a camera and said the latitude of the camera was great, to most that would mean nothing (and so it should for average consumer). Thus cameras show off that its got a better resolution as its easy to understand... bigger = better.
Any way noise vs resolution is dependant on what you want a camera for. I would say noise becomes more of a problem the more you want to shoot at night, generally for most who shoot during the day this isnt much of a problem.
One more on noise:
It's represented by many different factors. There are two main types, Luma or luminance and then Chroma noise. It's present at every level of digital cinema, just depends on the camera and how it's represented.
The kind of noise that the general public reacts to negatively is chroma, luma is what people see and consider more "film grain" like.
"high end" Digital cinema tools all have a certain amount of noise present, including Alexa, but it's luma noise. Low end cameras tend to exhibit an abundance of chroma noise which looks unpleasant.
Here's more info on it, explained with some photos and denoising: http://www.campcomet.com/archives/884
It's represented by many different factors. There are two main types, Luma or luminance and then Chroma noise. It's present at every level of digital cinema, just depends on the camera and how it's represented.
The kind of noise that the general public reacts to negatively is chroma, luma is what people see and consider more "film grain" like.
"high end" Digital cinema tools all have a certain amount of noise present, including Alexa, but it's luma noise. Low end cameras tend to exhibit an abundance of chroma noise which looks unpleasant.
Here's more info on it, explained with some photos and denoising: http://www.campcomet.com/archives/884
Last edited:
Ah, yes. You're right. I don't know where my brain was.
But, it still translates to an image that is 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels or about 2 megapixels for the whole image.