Anyone done FX1/ Z1u 60i hdv to 24p files? - Page 4 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > High Definition Video Acquisition > General HD (720 / 1080) Acquisition

General HD (720 / 1080) Acquisition
Topics about HD production.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 15th, 2005, 08:03 PM   #46
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 21
Radek - very interesting...

So if the standard lens on the HD100 is not much better than the Z1 lens (unknown, but likely given it's price) - and the optional wide is $12k ($16k AUD) - why would anyone shooting a run and gun doco for broadcast buy the HD100 ahead of the Z1?

In other words, I can shoot 720p 25 with the JVC, but if I want the product to be broadcast today, or in the next couple of years, I'll have to convert it to some form of interlaced or other - correct?

The advantage of having 24 or 25p is... archive... transfer to DVD... what?

Especially in the context of sacrificing steadyshot, autofocus, known quality product in the Z1. After all, it seems the 1080i can be converted effectively to progressive in post - correct?

The more I read, the more I learn, the more confused I become (in the sub 10k playground that is...)

Cheers
Nigel Traill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 08:32 PM   #47
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 500
1080i HDV frame consists of 2 fields. Each is 1440x540 pixels. Makes total of 778,000 pixels, progressive, 25-30p. When you deinterlace properly, on still image or image with little movement, resolution will double, will be 1,555 pixels, progressive, 25p or 30p, so frame effective pixel count will vary between 778,000 and 1,555,000 pixels. Sony camera with true 1080i capability costs 1,800 USD. Sony people will not get on boards like this to defend products. Are satisfied with market share they control.

DVCPROHD consists of 960x720 pixels = 691,000 pixels.

720p HDV consists of 1280x720 = 922,000 pixels

Radek
Radek Svoboda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 09:35 PM   #48
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
Radek/JG/Don Quixote/Etc, I think we liked you better when you posted under your Joseph George alias -- at least then you didn't drop words out of your sentences to make it sound like you were a foreigner. Your tirades have always been a little difficult to follow, but at least they were usually proper English; now it's even more difficult to follow what you're saying. Except for the one constant: "sony good, matsushita bad" -- that part's coming in loud and clear in your posts.

------------

Nigel, the question was: why the JVC instead of the Sony? There are many differences between those two products, and for some people's circumstances one will be obviously a far superior choice than the other. For someone doing TV commercials, the JVC. For someone shooting live events, the Sony. For someone shooting for a 720p network (Fox, ESPN, ABC) the 720p JVC. For someone shooting for a 1080i network (NBC, CBS, PBS, Discovery), the 1080i Sony.

If someone values the shoulder-mount form factor or the broadcast-style lens or the ability to interchange lenses, the JVC is obviously prefereable for those circumstances. But, the JVC costs more. And it doesn't shoot "live" footage. And that's a major, major drawback. For someone shooting live events or reality TV, someone who wants and needs the 60i/60p look, the JVC can't do it.


There are three basic frame rates that people are discussing here, which are 24p, 30p, and 60i/p. They break down like this:

24P: JVC should be superb, Sony is an atrocious simulation
30P: JVC should be superb, Sony is half-resolution simulation.
60i/P: Sony does superbly, JVC doesn't do *at all*.

So for those wanting a specific frame rate, the question should be really quite easy. Just pick which frame rate suits your shooting style (film-like, go JVC; reality-like, go Sony).

Regarding overall quality of the footage, you really can't compare them directly because they don't do the same frame rates at the same sizes. 720p HDV and 1080i HDV are utterly different, but at the core they will provide about the same perceived resolution, when all is said and done. But not at the same frame rates. The JVC's 24p/25p/30p should (should) be substantially, significantly sharper than the Sony's CF24/CF25/CF30. But the JVC has no way to compare against the Sony's 50i/60i. It doesn't even try. The best it offers is "motion smoothing" on 30p, which we have yet to see, but should be about comparable to shooting 30p with a 1/30 shutter (in other words, it'll probably be blurry and nowhere near a direct simulation of 60i). But, we'll see...

With the JVC, you could always change out the lens. I wouldn't be surprised if the stock lens of the JVC was not a great performer, probably comparable to the Z1's lens (not bad, but a lot of C.A.). But the JVC has the option to put on other glass, something the Sony can't do (well, at least, without a hacksaw and the help of Eidomedia, that is). BUT: the alternative lenses for the JVC are pricey pricey pricey, so I doubt fewer than 5% of HD100 users will ever get the optional lens.

For super-telephoto work, the JVC wins hands-down. For shoulder-mount "looking-like-a-broadcast-shooter" concerns, the JVC wins hands-down. For actual manual control of the lens, the JVC wins. For OIS and autofocus and the programmable zoom/focus feature and all that stuff, the Sony is the clear and obvious winner. And the FX1 is much, much cheaper... the Z1 is a little cheaper ($300 retail, we'll see what street price is). Plus the Z1 is true international (does both 50i and 60i, NTSC and PAL) whereas the JVC is only partially international (does 24p/25p/30p, but only NTSC OR PAL, not both).

Graeme's seen footage from the JVC on tape, and I believe he said it was the best-looking HDV footage he'd ever seen. JVC's implementation of HDV has a lot less compression than Sony's implementation, which should make it cleaner with less susceptibility to motion artifacting/macroblocking/etc. You just have to make sure that the type of shooting you intend to do with it is appropriate for the framerates it offers.

For TV display, probably (and this is a wild guess) 90% of the HDTVs out there are 720p-native. JVC's making a big point of that in their marketing. There are a few 1080i TVs (mostly CRTs) and a couple of 1080p televisions, but the vast, vast majority of LCDs and plasmas and DLPs and everything else are 720p native. Plus Europe looks poised to go 720p. The US allows both standards, and so far the major sports networks have gone 720p (ABC/Fox/ESPN) and the others have chosen 1080i. In Europe it'll pretty much be 720p-only, pending the EBU's release of a final recommendation.

So, in other words, there are very good reasons why someone would choose one of these cameras over the other. They both do things that the other one doesn't. You just have to determine which unique capabilities are more important to your shooting style -- after that, the choice should be easy.
Barry Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 09:54 PM   #49
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
It kind of depends on what your shooting now. If you are hand holding at a wedding no matter how sturdy you are that camera will have movement in every single frame which means pretty the whole image will get deinterlaced. Unless you are shooting something like a movie where you can keep the camera perfectly still a good deinterlacer will not help you very much.

So based on that hand help or shoulder shooting might be slightly better with 720p.

Another thing you have to think about also is how much rendering do you really want to do. It is nice to say we can convert and use a high quality deinterlacer but the fact is that most of us who have deadlines may not have that option. If you are talking about a few hours of raw footage for each project have fun converting. Now if you are doing small film shorts or commercials well that might be a little bit different.

Another thing to think about is how many bits do you get per frame in each format.

1440x1080i gets about around the same bits as compared to a DVD encoded at 5.5555 Mb/s

1280x720 gets around a DVD encoded at 7.25 Mb/s.

Depending how JVC will write 24p to HDV tape it may be even better. If they only write the 24p then you could get close to a 9Mb/s DVD which actually isn't all that bad. That is a lot better than 5.555 Mb/s considering even if you have a camera to shoot 24p 1080i that it would still be put in the same size 1080i stream like how the Z1 does it.

Even if the lens on the JVC is of the same quality( I highly doubt it would be less) you may be only able to read X amount of detail anyways. If that area is at or under the 1280x720 the Z1 1080i wouldn't really have any more detail since it would get cut off at about the same level. Even with pixel shift only so much detail can come through the lens. If you shift the green chip one half of a pixel that is like having a chip with the density of 1440 sensors. If that much detail can't come through the lens the pixel shift just doesn't have the same result. I actually think the new HC1 has a tiny bit more detail than the Z1 does. If that thing had a little bit better lens we might really see the difference.

I'm not really on one side or the other right now. In the next few months I will be buying 3 HD cameras along with an uncompressed HD system. I'm in no hurry so I am waiting until the other cameras come out. If the JVC had real 60p to tape this would be a lot easier. I may even get one of each since all three with have their advantages and disadvantages. Either way you look at it we kind of got screwed into a small format war again. If you are in the 720p camp it will be very hard to deal with footage from somebody in the 1080i camp.

To say 24p will go away and never be seen again is kind of silly. As long as there are people out there that want to watch any movies made from the 1930's up to today there will be some kind of support to view 24p.
Thomas Smet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 09:59 PM   #50
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
Good post Barry. Really, it doesn't matter whether you shoot 720p or 1080i today, as long as it's:

a) good quality

b) good quality

and most importantly

c) good quality

because you can pretty much losslessly convert from 720p to 1080i or 1080i to 720p, and although they'll maintain their respective "look" in terms of progressive or interlaced, they'll have sufficient quality.

I do think that the 720p24 HDV footage I've seen from the JVC HD100 is the best HDV footage I've seen. It looks very, very much better than the early JVC HDV cameras, and much better than the Sony cameras which although offer higher resolution, don't seem to offer any higher detail, and do tend to look rather videoy.

Putting lots of pixels into a 1/3" chip is not an easy task. It puts stress on the major aspects of camera design:

a) the lens,
b) low noise performance,
c) dynamic range,

and hence all 1/3" HD cameras are going to be somewhat limited in their max picture quality, and given that, the 720p models with their larger pixels are just going to look better, and also given that they have less compression, if quality picture is what you want, they're going to be the clear winner.

I think Sony are rather blinkered in their approach to video in that they don't give you proper 1080p24 or 1080p30 on their FX1 or Z1, and don't give 720p either. Similarly, I think JVC should allow 1080i recording on their cameras, but I don't think it's such a necessity as the real progressive modes that Sony are missing.

Panasonic have the right idea in giving us both 720p and 1080i, and even 1080p in one camera. They are telling us to make the choice, not for it to be fixed for us.

But to get into debates about the number of pixels an HD format has is ludicrous.

I find that DVD's 720x480 pixels is good enough to stand up to being projected on an 80" screen. Sure, the picture could be better, but it's more than acceptable. HD looks better still through the projector, but if the screen was any smaller, I'd not be seeing the HD benefit unless I was to sit up really close. Shooting 4k HD matters for a cinema screen, but it's ludicrous to think that it matters in a typical home setting. 720p has more than enough resolution to make great looking big pictures in the home.

But even worse than just looking at the number of pixels, is to ignore the quality of those pixels. I want high definition, not resolution. Resolution is easy, just stick VHS into a Terranex upscaler and you've got high resolution, but you don't have high detail or high definition. HD is high definition, so lets see some real definition!!!

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 10:49 PM   #51
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
And yet once again I have to agree with Barry and Graeme.

I sometimes think SONY loves 1080i just because it sounds more impressive in a brochure. I don't think very many people could really tell the difference between the two if it was shown on a HDTV. Yes it would be nice to have 1080p but 1080i is far from 1080p. Like I said above have fun spending countless hours converting your 1080i footage into 1080p.

I even question at this point if the 1080i/p on the Panasonic is going to be good enough. This is a camera with the same size chips and type of lens as all these other cheap HD cameras so how well could it even look? Now Panasonic could have taken a page from Reel stream to get some half way decent results. Look what the guys at Reel Stream did with the 720x480 chips from the DVX100A.

I know I haven't seen any footage from any of the new 720p cameras but I know Graeme knows what he is talking about when it comes to image quality. I think I might be leaning towards getting a HVX200 and a HD100. They do cost a lot more together so I might have to make due with just 2 HD cameras for now.
Thomas Smet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 05:59 AM   #52
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Green
Radek/JG/Don Quixote/Etc, I think we liked you better when you posted under your Joseph George alias -- at least then you didn't drop words out of your sentences to make it sound like you were a foreigner. Your tirades have always been a little difficult to follow, but at least they were usually proper English; now it's even more difficult to follow what you're saying. Except for the one constant: "sony good, matsushita bad" -- that part's coming in loud and clear in your posts.

ANSWER: Comon, I don't criticize your DVX, HVX propaganda, anti-Sony, pro-Panasonic retoric, don't need your BS. You made so many posts of DVX better than FX1 in past that can't do more but turn head why you did that.
------------

Nigel, the question was: why the JVC instead of the Sony? There are many differences between those two products, and for some people's circumstances one will be obviously a far superior choice than the other. For someone doing TV commercials, the JVC. For someone shooting live events, the Sony. For someone shooting for a 720p network (Fox, ESPN, ABC) the 720p JVC. For someone shooting for a 1080i network (NBC, CBS, PBS, Discovery), the 1080i Sony.

ANSWER: If shoot for 720p networks, need 60p, not 30p. Creating 720p60p from 30p? Do you think can fool them with converted rate to 2x, do you think pros shooting for networks will use uncompressed 60p output, record to computer or super expensive recoreder? Some 90% HDTV broadcast worldwode is 1080i, including Japan, there 1080i started years in front of US. Korea, Europe, significant majority of U.S HDTV broadcast is 1080i. Some only 10% world HDTV broadcast is 720p and is in US only. No 1080i broadcaster or country, ever going switch from 1080i to 720p. If there ever switch, it will be 1080p.
--------

If someone values the shoulder-mount form factor or the broadcast-style lens or the ability to interchange lenses, the JVC is obviously prefereable for those circumstances. But, the JVC costs more. And it doesn't shoot "live" footage. And that's a major, major drawback. For someone shooting live events or reality TV, someone who wants and needs the 60i/60p look, the JVC can't do it.


There are three basic frame rates that people are discussing here, which are 24p, 30p, and 60i/p. They break down like this:

24P: JVC should be superb, Sony is an atrocious simulation
30P: JVC should be superb, Sony is half-resolution simulation.
60i/P: Sony does superbly, JVC doesn't do *at all*.

ANSWER: You forgot 25p. Europe shoots 25p, 24p and 25p makes no differnce. Slowdown and digital pitch change in post extremely easy and fast. You can go from 24p to 25p very easily. No one in audience will ever notice difference. So Sony FX1E and Z1 do have 24p, made from 25p. Sholder mount? Just get shoulder mount for the Sony.
-----------

So for those wanting a specific frame rate, the question should be really quite easy. Just pick which frame rate suits your shooting style (film-like, go JVC; reality-like, go Sony).

ANSWER: As I said, forget Sony's 24p, use their excellent 25p or use superb, fast post conversion by DVfilm software.
---------

Regarding overall quality of the footage, you really can't compare them directly because they don't do the same frame rates at the same sizes. 720p HDV and 1080i HDV are utterly different, but at the core they will provide about the same perceived resolution, when all is said and done. But not at the same frame rates. The JVC's 24p/25p/30p should (should) be substantially, significantly sharper than the Sony's CF24/CF25/CF30. But the JVC has no way to compare against the Sony's 50i/60i. It doesn't even try. The best it offers is "motion smoothing" on 30p, which we have yet to see, but should be about comparable to shooting 30p with a 1/30 shutter (in other words, it'll probably be blurry and nowhere near a direct simulation of 60i). But, we'll see...

ANSWER: The JVC recorded to tape will NOT be significantly sharper than CF24, CF25, for certain not when converted by DVfilm. CF24? Yes, the JVC will be significantly better, just shoot 1080i50-60, deinterlace by DVfilm or use CF25.
-----------


With the JVC, you could always change out the lens. I wouldn't be surprised if the stock lens of the JVC was not a great performer, probably comparable to the Z1's lens (not bad, but a lot of C.A.). But the JVC has the option to put on other glass, something the Sony can't do (well, at least, without a hacksaw and the help of Eidomedia, that is). BUT: the alternative lenses for the JVC are pricey pricey pricey, so I doubt fewer than 5% of HD100 users will ever get the optional lens.

For super-telephoto work, the JVC wins hands-down. For shoulder-mount "looking-like-a-broadcast-shooter" concerns, the JVC wins hands-down. For actual manual control of the lens, the JVC wins. For OIS and autofocus and the programmable zoom/focus feature and all that stuff, the Sony is the clear and obvious winner. And the FX1 is much, much cheaper... the Z1 is a little cheaper ($300 retail, we'll see what street price is). Plus the Z1 is true international (does both 50i and 60i, NTSC and PAL) whereas the JVC is only partially international (does 24p/25p/30p, but only NTSC OR PAL, not both).

ANSWER: For super telephoto work, use telephoto extenders on the Sony cameras, which lot less expensive than 82 mm JVC accessories.
---------

Graeme's seen footage from the JVC on tape, and I believe he said it was the best-looking HDV footage he'd ever seen. JVC's implementation of HDV has a lot less compression than Sony's implementation, which should make it cleaner with less susceptibility to motion artifacting/macroblocking/etc. You just have to make sure that the type of shooting you intend to do with it is appropriate for the framerates it offers.

ANSWER: I have Sony FX1E and microblocking, motion artifacting is myth. Unless do extremely fast pans, etc., which are ridiculous anyway. Difference between Sony and JVC artifacting not be that different anyway because compression is about equal, because you guys don't take consideration fact that Sony has GOP 12-15, JVC has GOP only 6, makes Sony compression equal to JVC compression. Longer GOP MPEG2 is more efficient.
----------

For TV display, probably (and this is a wild guess) 90% of the HDTVs out there are 720p-native. JVC's making a big point of that in their marketing. There are a few 1080i TVs (mostly CRTs) and a couple of 1080p televisions, but the vast, vast majority of LCDs and plasmas and DLPs and everything else are 720p native. Plus Europe looks poised to go 720p. The US allows both standards, and so far the major sports networks have gone 720p (ABC/Fox/ESPN) and the others have chosen 1080i. In Europe it'll pretty much be 720p-only, pending the EBU's release of a final recommendation.

ANSWER: You, Panasonic man and Steve Mullen, JVC man, been repeatedly saying that. JVC, Pansonic are Matsushita brands, Matsushita is pushing 720p HDTV, Sony pushing, lot more successfully, 1080i. Just small segment, maybe 10%, not 90% of HDTV's in use are 720p native. Most what was sold as HDTV are EDTV with 480p performance, added downsampling from 720p, 1080i. Many were plasmas, many were made by Matsushita. See native resolution of sets. Just because now are lot more 720p's sold does not mean it was past or will be future. Future HDTV sets is 1080p. JVC announced two new lines HDTV sets Japan and Canada. One is 1080p native, one 720p native, same screen sizes, 1080p somewhat more expensive. Westinghouse now offering native 1080p about 37" LCD set for only 2,000 USD list. Panasonic, Hitachi keep making plasmas, two Japan's most respected TV makers, Sony and Toshiba abandoned plasmas, because LCD better quality image. It's not true Europe will be pretty much 720p. Only HDTV broadcast we have are two 1080i satellite channels, Sony been very active pushing 1080i in Europe, providing kit of HDCAM camera, HDCAM VTR, HD lens, software, etc. to every European country at about 30,000 euros. Is provided to state controlled broadcasters like BBC, Czech TV, etc. Sony's push for 1080i in Europe been very strong, that's why EBU backed away decision on 720p. Sony's logic is future will be MPEG4, level 10, 1080p, plus future HDTV sets will be all 1080p native, so 1080i more suitable.
---------

So, in other words, there are very good reasons why someone would choose one of these cameras over the other. They both do things that the other one doesn't. You just have to determine which unique capabilities are more important to your shooting style -- after that, the choice should be easy.

ANSWER: That is true. Thank you. I'm sending copy of this to Sony CEO. I do have his email address, was provided by someone. Sony should know what going on these boards, especially one you moderate.
----------
My answers are above.
Radek Svoboda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 07:17 AM   #53
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Smet
I sometimes think SONY loves 1080i just because it sounds more impressive in a brochure. I don't think very many people could really tell the difference between the two if it was shown on a HDTV. Yes it would be nice to have 1080p but 1080i is far from 1080p. .
As an owner of a WUXGA projector that shows on an 11.5' screen, you can tell one hell of a diff between 720p and 1080i converted to 1080p. No, I don't like the render time. No, I don't like that the cam doesn't shoot it. But...720p converted to 1080p doesn't look at all the same as 1080i converted to 1080p, and I've viewed it at p30 and p60 both, with a variety of different footages as tests. I've not done a full-length anything in 1080 p 60. I don't think I've got a vacation coming up during which I could render. But...It's not just Sony's "thing" but rather where the industry is heading. 1080p60. I hope it's ubiquitous while I still have decent eyes to enjoy it.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 08:12 AM   #54
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 21
Barry, Thomas, Graeme,

Thanks for your responses - very valuable.

[QUOTE=Barry Green]Radek/JG/Don Quixote/Etc, I think we liked you better when you posted under your Joseph George alias -- at least then you didn't drop words out of your sentences to make it sound like you were a foreigner.


Hmmm, I've pondered over these 'Radek' posts...

Cheers,

Nigel
Nigel Traill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 08:17 AM   #55
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,543
Guys, just a friendly reminder from the management... we really can't allow this to turn into a discussion about personal feelings regarding each other. Please try to concentrate on technical issues. Thanks!
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 08:18 AM   #56
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle
As an owner of a WUXGA projector that shows on an 11.5' screen, you can tell one hell of a diff between 720p and 1080i converted to 1080p. No, I don't like the render time. No, I don't like that the cam doesn't shoot it. But...720p converted to 1080p doesn't look at all the same as 1080i converted to 1080p, and I've viewed it at p30 and p60 both, with a variety of different footages as tests. I've not done a full-length anything in 1080 p 60. I don't think I've got a vacation coming up during which I could render. But...It's not just Sony's "thing" but rather where the industry is heading. 1080p60. I hope it's ubiquitous while I still have decent eyes to enjoy it.
This means if you do film out, means using 2K burner, you're better shooting at 1080i, which is 2K, and rendering to 2K, although is very slow, than shooting 720p, which is 1K, and rendering to 2K. 1080i originated footage should give better quality image on film than 720p. I've herad from DP's that quality for film out is about same for 720p Varicam and 1080i HDCAM, not 1080p HDCAM, origination.

If understand correctly, if CCDs and lenses are excellent, 1080i HDV may have edge over 720p HDV for film out, and for conversion to 1080p, which where is industry heading.

Radek
Radek Svoboda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 08:28 AM   #57
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
"ANSWER: The JVC recorded to tape will NOT be significantly sharper than CF24, CF25, for certain not when converted by DVfilm. CF24? Yes, the JVC will be significantly better, just shoot 1080i50-60, deinterlace by DVfilm or use CF25."

But as one of the few people who've actually seen HD100 720p24 footage, I can tell you it's a lot sharper than anything of a FX1 or Z1, and looks less compressed.

As for "everyone is broadcasting 1080i", just think about that for a second. What are they broadcasting exactly?? For the most part it will be film sourced material, ie movies, and that's 24p embedded in 1080i with 3:2 pulldown.

Sony loves 1080i because interlace is the look of drama in Japan. In the USA, 24p is the look of drama, and interlace is the look of crappy soap operas, news and current events.

The point is, that 720p produces video with equal quality to 1080i (at the same frame rate) so to get any real improvement we're looking at moving to 1080p60 / 1080p50 which I don't see coming very soon. I mean, the USA can't even manage a "simple" move to digital broadcasting without mucking it up so completely that the implementers have become a laughing stock. They're fouling up a move to HD by having upmteen different standards, and they've not had the common sense to address the major failings of NTSC in the process, the utterly ludicrous 29.97fps non-integer frame rate. I wouldn't trust the FCC, ATSC, whoever, to organise a piss-up in a brewery.... Ok rant off. Sorry...

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 08:58 AM   #58
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 500
Is clear that present 1080i is dominating HDTV broadcast and HDV, with Sony being main proponent. Future will be 1080p60. For most of us 1080p24 is enough, if 1080i60 can be pushed through 25 Mbps pipe, you be able push 1080p24 through 20 Mbps pipe, even better quality 1080p24 at 25 Mbps.

Maybe new Panasonic HVX200 will be catalyser, will make 1080p24 mainstream mode on future HDV cameras by Sony, others.

If new Panasonic camera provides true 1080p24 at 80 Mbps, and 1080p30 at 100 Mbps, will be true breakthough. My opinion is we will have to wait for true 1080p for while. Sony, Matsushita need make money first by saturating market with 1080i and 720p. 1080p24 will be next step, then 1080p60, will become new HDTV standard and everyone in industry need to upgrade again.

Radek
Radek Svoboda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 09:18 AM   #59
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
But who has enough room in their house to do justice to a 1080p picture?? Most people don't have a TV good enough for standard def. The broadcast pipe to people's homes is so compressed (and will always be if they can broadcast two channels instead of one in the same bandwidth) that there's little point in high def anyway, if it's going to look like macroblock city....

HD is wonderful for replacing film for drama production, for movies and stuff, but to madly rush onwards when very much most people cannot even fully appreciate standard def is really ignoring the major issues facing television production today.

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 10:47 AM   #60
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress
But who has enough room in their house to do justice to a 1080p picture?? Most people don't have a TV good enough for standard def. The broadcast pipe to people's homes is so compressed (and will always be if they can broadcast two channels instead of one in the same bandwidth) that there's little point in high def anyway, if it's going to look like macroblock city....

HD is wonderful for replacing film for drama production, for movies and stuff, but to madly rush onwards when very much most people cannot even fully appreciate standard def is really ignoring the major issues facing television production today.

Graeme
Did you ever watch excellent set HDTV next to excellent set TV? It's night and day. If 1080i60 can pushed through 19 Mbps pipe, you can push through 1080p60 just easily if MPEG4, part 10 is used. 1080p allow you sit closer to set, not be bothered by pixels, etc., if you have lot room, can sit far away, watch real big screen.

The macroblocks you refer are caused by operaters who are trying squeeze more than one channel through one channel pipe/bandwidth.

Radek
Radek Svoboda is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > High Definition Video Acquisition > General HD (720 / 1080) Acquisition

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:42 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network