Question for Adam Wilt (and his response). - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic P2HD / DVCPRO HD Camcorders

Panasonic P2HD / DVCPRO HD Camcorders
All AG-HPX and AJ-PX Series camcorders and P2 / P2HD hardware.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 30th, 2006, 06:39 PM   #31
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antoine Fabi
which codec is working in 10 bit 4:2:0 ?
Maybe infinity will have this as an option.
Funny thing is that 4:2:2 codecs are designed for interlaced picture, where vert rez is more important than horz rez. In progressive picture they are equally important, so when human vision is more accurate for luminance than for chrominance, having same vert luminnance & chrominance rez is waste of data. Much more important would be getting more tones for color correction.
Toke Lahti is offline  
Old January 30th, 2006, 06:53 PM   #32
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toke Lahti
4:2:2 codecs are designed for interlaced picture, where vert rez is more important than horz rez. In progressive picture they are equally important
Is that right? Well hot diggity. I wonder why everybody is so hellbent on "verticle" resolution when it comes to these cameras? I was under the impression horizontal rez is not all that important based on the way humans view images.

If this is the case, then that's good news for cameras with high horizontal rez that wish to do a film-out or one day be recorded to HD-DVD/BLURAY

- ShannonRawls.com
__________________
Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition.
Shannon Rawls is offline  
Old January 30th, 2006, 07:05 PM   #33
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
I was under the impression horizontal rez is not all that important based on the way humans view images.
Human eye's fovea's center, where the sharpest vision is, is a round thing with equal amount of horizontal and vertical cells. BTW, there are only couple of hundreds of them per dimension, so it is quite funny how much resolution we need to reproduce natural view. If we could just nail all audineces eyes on one point of picture all else could be just blurred. But everybody's eyes seem to wonder through the pictures with their own path and pace...

Of course for chroma keying and compositing 4:4:4 is always the best and it gets worse when you go further from that, but with natural image, there should be no way to separate progressive 4:2:2 picture from progressive 4:2:0 picture.
Toke Lahti is offline  
Old January 30th, 2006, 07:24 PM   #34
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toke Lahti
Of course for chroma keying and compositing 4:4:4 is always the best and it gets worse when you go further from that, but with natural image, there should be no way to separate progressive 4:2:2 picture from progressive 4:2:0 picture.
Oh !!!!

Here i completely disagree.

I mean, i can easily "see" the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0
and i can easily "see" the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:1:1

Even watching the footage at a good distance from the monitor, i can actually see that 4:2:2 looks more "solid", but smoother (more natural) at the same time.
Antoine Fabi is offline  
Old January 30th, 2006, 11:30 PM   #35
Go Go Godzilla
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 2,739
Images: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toke Lahti
...but with natural image, there should be no way to separate progressive 4:2:2 picture from progressive 4:2:0 picture.
If you think that's true, take a look at Adams site and look at the direct color comparison he shows on the site. While 4:4:4 is king, there is a huge difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. The difference is not only noticeable, it's downright ugly!
__________________
Producer/CEO
Reel Lane Films LLC
Robert Lane is offline  
Old January 31st, 2006, 03:54 AM   #36
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Lane
While 4:4:4 is king, there is a huge difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. The difference is not only noticeable, it's downright ugly!
Just shot some stuff in 4:2:2 and 4:1:1; I think the difference is noticeable enough (and ugly enough!) that it deserves its own thread...
Barry Green is offline  
Old January 31st, 2006, 05:14 AM   #37
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Green
Just shot some stuff in 4:2:2 and 4:1:1; I think the difference is noticeable enough (and ugly enough!) that it deserves its own thread...
I wasn't talking about 4:1:1.
That is about ugliest chroma resolution for progressive picture.
So are you guys seeing differences with 4:1:1 or 4:2:0?
Or just between 4:4:4 and everything else?

If you are seeing difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 progressive natural images with full framerate playback, I'd guess that you are looking from too short distance, so that you are able to separate single luminance pixels.

Otherwise you guys have just trashed the theory behind component video and our perception has evolved in couple of decades.

I still haven't heard a single argument, why human eye should not notice lower chroma resolution horizontally, but should notice it vertically.
Toke Lahti is offline  
Old January 31st, 2006, 10:24 AM   #38
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada
Posts: 108
Toke,

4:2:2 is twice the color resolution of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1, twice !

It's not about satuation level, the 4:2:2 color will always appear smoother, richer, more natural than 4:2:0 and 4:1:1.

Yes, even at a good distance from the monitor, you can see the difference.
Antoine Fabi is offline  
Old January 31st, 2006, 02:55 PM   #39
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antoine Fabi
4:2:2 is twice the color resolution of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1, twice!
So you are saying that your eyes resolve chroma as sharply as luminance?
Or that your eyes can see the difference vertically but not horizontally?

Well, maybe this old story about component chroma resolution compression is just a legend. Maybe I'll have to do some tests with my own eyes.
Some of these old "laws of nature", that you learn very early, you just take for granted. Should question everything...
Toke Lahti is offline  
Old January 31st, 2006, 04:41 PM   #40
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toke Lahti
Maybe I'll have to do some tests with my own eyes.
Yes Toke !
Antoine Fabi is offline  
Old February 1st, 2006, 07:02 PM   #41
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
I'd like to give Toke some support. In principle, the most desirable system would call for chroma to have the same resolution as luminance - 4:4:4. For many systems it is unfortunately necessary to use techniques to achieve bitrate reductions, compression is obviously one, reducing the chroma resolution relative to luminance is another.

If the latter technique is employed, it makes sense to do it symmetrically in the vertical and horizontal directions for all the reasons Toke says - it suits the way the eye works. Hence 4:2:0 seems a far more logical choice than 4:1:1, and I believe the latter originates from when digital recordings were seen as 'islands' in an analogue world - it was reckoned to survive repeated A-D conversions better than 4:2:0, especially true when interlace is taken into account.

It may be argued that extra chroma res can't do any harm, so 4:2:2 must be better than 4:2:0, mustn't it? I can see the reasoning there, but the bitrate to allow it must come from somewhere, and in 4:2:2 systems where bitrate is constrained that has to mean that the whole image is more highly compressed than if 4:2:0 was used. Hence, is it not conceivable that a better compromise may result from less vertical chroma resolution if it allows lower overall compression, or even 10 bit working?
David Heath is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2006, 04:24 PM   #42
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
I've been working with the FX1 and Z1 for a year now, and the 4:2:0 color space is really nice. I am looking forward to using the HVX soon and see how the 4:2:2 looks. Until then, I'll wait to pass judgment, but until then, I like the Z1's color space, and the HD100 has a nice image, too.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to put a camera through its paces then look at footage on my HDTV and a calibrated HD monitor before I decide what's right.

heath
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2006, 05:11 PM   #43
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heath McKnight
I've been working with the FX1 and Z1 for a year now, and the 4:2:0 color space is really nice. I am looking forward to using the HVX soon and see how the 4:2:2 looks. Until then, I'll wait to pass judgment, ...........
Whatever your final conclusion is, the differing colour spaces are only one aspect of the differing recording systems and codecs. With one an intraframe 100Mbs system, the other 25Mbs interframe, and differing luminance resolutions, all those alone may make more difference than the differing colourspaces. And that's before we even start thinking of the cameras having different lenses, chips, processing.......

Practically though, I'll agree with your second paragraph!
David Heath is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2006, 05:18 PM   #44
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
I'll know more shortly.

heath
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline  
Old February 10th, 2006, 04:19 AM   #45
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 158
I'd say that hvx is just the first step out of chains of locked tape formats.
With this camera you can choose two resolutions and variable frame rate.
Maybe in next model, you could choose different codec, adjust compression ratio, color depth and sampling.
1280x720@10bit@4:2:0 would need only 25% more with same compression ratio than today's 960x720@8bit@4:2:2.
So 10bit colors with 24pN and bitrate of dvcpro50. Doesn't that sound good?
Toke Lahti is offline  
Closed Thread

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 > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic P2HD / DVCPRO HD Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 AM.


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