DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Area 51 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/area-51/)
-   -   I wish I could afford HD... (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/area-51/64120-i-wish-i-could-afford-hd.html)

Frank Granovski April 1st, 2006 05:21 AM

I wish I could afford HD...
 
And that is why I'm posting it here.

It's not that I cannot afford an HD cam, it's all the other stuff!

K. Forman April 1st, 2006 08:00 AM

I'm with you there. I finally get an oppotunity to buy a camera, and money isn't an issue. The H1 seems to be at the top of the list, along with the HD100. But then, I'll be needing to drop another 15K just to edit the Hd. That doesn't even include a deck, but then, there is none for the H1.

Robert Kirkpatrick April 3rd, 2006 08:31 AM

Hmm. I'm confused. I bought an FX1 and I'm working with HDV just fine on my old system (2.6 ghz, 1.5 gig ram, Vegas editing). The only thing I upgraded was my hard drive space (a RAID system) and I bought Cineform Connect HD to act as as intermediary, but that wasn't 15K. Of course, I only make short films, so maybe it would be insufficient for features or longer work. And yes, the render times are a pain -- but it is possible.

Unless you guys are referring to actual HD (and not HDV), in which case, just ignore my post. :)

K. Forman April 3rd, 2006 08:44 AM

Robert- You're right, it can be done much cheaper than 15K. I was shopping the net for HD systems the same day I responded, so I still had some of that "kid in a toy store" mentality. In my case, I don't want to build and shake down another PC, plus having to debug new software. Since I'm still running on Win2K, I figured it would just be easier to get a nice Avid turnkey system. It was either that, or a Mac with Final Cut... *shudder*

Kevin Shaw April 3rd, 2006 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Kirkpatrick
Unless you guys are referring to actual HD (and not HDV), in which case, just ignore my post. :)

Once again please note that HDV is a legitimate way to record a high-definition video image, and that other common HD acquisition formats are far from being full-quality HD. The closest thing to "real HD" most of us are going to see any time soon is the HD-SDI output on the Canon XLH1...which is an HDV camera.

Robert Kirkpatrick April 3rd, 2006 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw
The closest thing to "real HD" most of us are going to see any time soon is the HD-SDI output on the Canon XLH1...which is an HDV camera.

Yeah, HD-SDI is what I meant when I wrote "actual HD" (as well as referencing higher end cameras -- my bad. :) I just wasn't sure what type of HD the original poster was referring to -- if he was referring to say some of Thompson's higher end stuff, yeah, that's pretty expensive. But if he was referring to HDV, I think that's more possible, since from my experience, it doesn't require much more. (For me, the camera was by far the most expensive part.)

Peter Ferling April 3rd, 2006 11:13 AM

I don't think you have to worry about it just yet. The direction is HD... but the adoption rate for viewers who can watch is also slow, because these folks are also facing the high cost of viewing. Other than sat/cable, the publication and distribution is yet unsettled. The new HD-DVD and Blue-ray players are poised to hit the market, and have yet to be worked out.

Unless your handing this stuff over for HD broadcast, then HD or HDV is a personal decision. As such, and with current hardware, there are issues you must be willing to take on.

Give it a couple of years, when the mandates for digital TV have come through, and 64bit computing hits the streets in full swing, with a few more generations in processor advancement to boot. When consumers will have decided the format of choice that we should target. More tools should be on the shelves by then, and you'll have a greater choice, and with competition, should be more affordable.

Kevin Shaw April 3rd, 2006 12:33 PM

One alternative worth considering for now is to shoot and deliver widescreen SD footage, which if done properly should look better on an HDTV than 4:3 output. So get anamorphic lens adapters for your SD cameras, and/or start buying HD cameras and downsampling to widescreen SD for delivery. HDV works fine for this latter approach, so if you can afford the cameras you can get started now using all your other equipment and your customers' standard DVD players connected to their HDTVs.

Wayne Morellini April 3rd, 2006 11:05 PM

Recently there has been a spate of sales of HD cameras, HC1's for down to $1.3K, and FX1's for down to $1995.

Also see:

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~wakeham/index.html

Some of the guys here are doing this cheap uncompressed HDSDI hard drive recorder. Component in is on the cards eventually, but you can buy a component to HDSDI box for less than $1K and use that for the conversion in the meantime. This would allow you to use HD cameras with uncompressed component outs.

K. Forman April 4th, 2006 06:13 AM

I've been reading about Keith Wakeham, and his field recorder. it sounds like a possible solution, and his guesstimated price was around $2500? We'll have to wait and see if he can finish it. There is also a Russian field recorder out there that looks promising, but I couldn't find a price on it. It is also supposed to record 4:2:2 uncompressed.

Jack Zhang April 7th, 2006 12:13 AM

Hopefully I'll get a Z1 soon or Z2!

J. Stephen McDonald April 9th, 2006 10:53 PM

Those worrying about the adequacy of HDV, should consider how its 25mbps CoDec compares to the HDTV that is sent over broadcast and cable channels. The channels with the highest HD bit-rate, use only 19mbps, while some others get by with only 13mbps or less. The best that current consumer HDTV monitors can display, is 768 scanning lines. The better CRT monitors can resolve only about 670 lines, while others with larger dot-pitch sizes can manage only about 570 lines. As picky as broadcast networks have always been about their sources, they have never been able to deliver images into the homes of viewers that were as good as the better high-end consumer camcorders of the day could produce. Already, a couple of video professionals have reported that their new Sony HC3 camcorders put a sharper and richer picture on a screen that what comes from broadcast HDTV.

Wayne Morellini April 10th, 2006 07:18 AM

Yes, I agree. There is also the other problem, that codecs in camera might need extra bandwidth, because the $20K ones used at TV stations are better (but TV stations squeezing bandwidth still compromises this).

There is opportunity though, the two HD DVD formats will be allowing better quality then the cameras. Cinema can use better. But, the reality is HDTV is moving to Mpeg4 (maybe h264) in some markets, and not all markets have such narrow channels and could do with higher quality/bandwidth footage.

What do you mean J, about HD resolutions? There is true 1080 large panels out there, and many 1080 capable computer monitors.


Thanks

Wayne.

Nick Jushchyshyn April 10th, 2006 08:31 AM

As long as you can invest in the capture gear and harddrive space, just about any computer made in the last 3 years with a reasonable amount of memory should be "usable" for handling HD.

The folks at ILM were doing VFX on 2k film scans using beige power macs back in 1998 for Episode I.
I've edited 4:4:4 CineAlta F950 captures on a 2.6Ghz/256Meg Ram laptop running little 'ole Media Studio Pro.
In short .... it can be done, even with SDI capture.

The big trick is to research your editor's ability to use low res, compressed proxy files to do an "offline" style edit for realtime performance, then do a final render to a low compression output from the original captures.

The final trick is output, but you can always output back to the camera or even DVHS deck for your own stuff, and send hard drives out to a better equiped shop to output material your clients want delivered in HD ... an expense you charge them for of course.

J. Stephen McDonald April 10th, 2006 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini
What do you mean J, about HD resolutions? There is true 1080 large panels out there, and many 1080 capable computer monitors.

Thanks

Wayne.

Two things about that: First, there are many HD monitors of all sorts that are promoted as being 1080-capable, but can't really resolve that many lines. This is just a continuation of the marketing tactics that have been used to push wide-screen TV sets for the last dozen years. It's not an issue you will likely see discussed on any type of TV news program. There are some very expensive monitors, mostly thin-panel types, that may be able to show all 1,080 scanning lines. But, they are not common or affordable by any but the most affluent (and extravagant) buyers. Broadcast-level 1080 monitors would also fall outside the reach of those with ordinary assets.

One of the reasons that the 720p HD programs on our ABC and Fox networks often look just as good as the 1080i on NBC and CBS, is that the monitors commonly used by most of us, can't show more lines than that. My CRT set shifts everything to 1080i and although that many scanning lines may be sent to the screen, its dot-pitch of .64mm can't resolve more than 670 of them. It's a sharp-looking picture and I'm pleased with what I get for the price, but most of these current HDTVs pretty much clip off any edge that broadcast cameras have over good consumer models. As has always been the case, broadcast compression causes a leveling of the output quality of what most of us see at home.

Wayne Morellini April 11th, 2006 06:44 AM

I' m talking about the ones that have true 1080 resolution.

My, secondhand 19 inch crt monitor (based on a Phillips design) is capable of showing above 1080 spec (4:3, letter boxed 16:9) they are cheap compared to LCD of size and res. Last month or so, there was a local sale on a true 32inch 1080 LCD for close to equivalent of $1500 (could have been 37inch, a while ago). Last year this would have been closer to $5KAU from name brands, or closer to $3KAU from this brand. Not saying it is something I would buy though.

So there are an increasing number of lower cost ones out there, and prices are dropping in the last half year.

J. Stephen McDonald April 11th, 2006 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini
I' m talking about the ones that have true 1080 resolution.

My, secondhand 19 inch crt monitor (based on a Phillips design) is capable of showing above 1080 spec (4:3, letter boxed 16:9) they are cheap compared to LCD of size and res. Last month or so, there was a local sale on a true 32inch 1080 LCD for close to equivalent of $1500 (could have been 37inch, a while ago). Last year this would have been closer to $5KAU from name brands, or closer to $3KAU from this brand. Not saying it is something I would buy though.

So there are an increasing number of lower cost ones out there, and prices are dropping in the last half year.


Wayne, if you have the specs on those monitors, see what the dot-pitch of the screen phosphors is. Take the height of the screen and calculate how many dots could fit in a line of that length. Unless there's some way to resolve the horizontal scanning lines with fewer vertical dots than the numbers of lines in the display, that should give you the maximum number of lines those sets can show. Let me know if I'm wrong in equating the dot-pitch size with the maximum number of scanning lines or vertical pixels that can be displayed. Obviously, the screen dimensions of a monitor play a role in the resolution that can be shown, relative to the dot-pitch.

I think that my 30-inch JVC CRT HDTV has a dot-pitch of .64mm. I'm waiting for a reply from JVC to determine this detail exactly. If this is correct, based on a screen height of 14.75 inches and a width of 26.7 inches, the screen pixel-size is 585 X 1060. This is far less than the 1080 X 1440 that is encoded in HDV, not to mention the 1080 X 1960 of full high-definition formats. However, as I said before, this TV puts on a very good picture, but I wonder how much resolution I'm missing. I calculate that the dot-pitch would have to be no more than .377mm, to resolve the full 1,080 lines of HDTV. To show the full 1,960 horizontal pixels, the dot-pitch could be no larger than .33mm.

J. Stephen McDonald April 11th, 2006 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini
I' m talking about the ones that have true 1080 resolution.

My, secondhand 19 inch crt monitor (based on a Phillips design) is capable of showing above 1080 spec (4:3, letter boxed 16:9) they are cheap compared to LCD of size and res. Last month or so, there was a local sale on a true 32inch 1080 LCD for close to equivalent of $1500 (could have been 37inch, a while ago). Last year this would have been closer to $5KAU from name brands, or closer to $3KAU from this brand. Not saying it is something I would buy though.

So there are an increasing number of lower cost ones out there, and prices are dropping in the last half year.


Wayne, if you have the specs on those monitors, see what the dot-pitch of the screen phosphors is. Take the height of the screen and the size of the dots and calculate how many dots could fit in a line of that length. Unless there's some way to resolve the horizontal scanning lines with fewer vertical dots than the number of lines in the signal, that should give you the maximum number of lines those sets can show. Let me know if I'm wrong in equating the dot-pitch size with the maximum number of scanning lines or vertical pixels that can be displayed. Obviously, the screen dimensions of a monitor play a role in the apparent resolution that can be shown, relative to the dot-pitch.

I think that my 30-inch JVC CRT HDTV has a dot-pitch of .64mm. I'm waiting for a reply from JVC to determine this detail exactly. If this is correct, based on a screen height of 14.75 inches and a width of 26.7 inches, the screen pixel-size is 585 X 1060. This is far less than the 1080 X 1440 that is encoded in HDV. However, as I said before, this TV puts on a very good picture, but I wonder how much resolution I'm missing. When I was comparing different CRT HDTVs before I bought this one, I could not find others of that type that had sharper pictures. I calculate that the dot-pitch would have to be no more than .377mm, to resolve the full 1,080 lines of HDTV.

If JVC informs me that the dot-pitch of my monitor is smaller than .64mm, then I'll have to recalculate the resolution potential. As soon as I get an HD camcorder, I can shoot a resolution chart and determine this in a better way than just theorizing. There are some other brands and models of CRT HDTVs that have .84mm dot-pitch. These sets could resolve only about 446 scanning lines, not even up to the full level of NTSC standard-definition. However, they could show 807 horizontal pixels, better than the 640 of SD. When I looked at those .84mm dot-pitch sets, they didn't appear to have a display that was any sharper than that. There's a lot to be desired in the resolution level of most consumer HDTV monitors. The thin-screen types that resolve up to 768 lines are better, but still short of the full HDTV specification.

Wayne Morellini April 12th, 2006 09:39 AM

Mine is 0.25mm, but this is likely diagonal with 21mm horizontal. But I know what you mean, effective beam size can be higher then pixel size, leading to overlapping on the next pixel causing interpolation.

So, mine is around 1738 Hpixels.

Mine is similar to this:

http://web.archive.org/web/200405192...m.tw/bm19f.htm

Notice that diagonal is one of the measurements used:

http://www.viewsonic.com.au/products...ecs.php?id=103

But because of the way the Phillips tube is designed I don't know, the horizontal resolution might be more.

There are a number of ways it is measured, including as trio pixels.

I remember something about 0.22-0.19mm pixels, and maybe 0.17mm pixels. Phillips used to have many pro class monitors. CRTs have gone off, so I haven't found any of smaller pitch ones.

But it must be remembered that professional monitors have been offering much greater resolution for a number of years. 4 Mpixel, or was that 4096 pixels across, was first offered to the professional realm, in the really 80's by a professional workstation company, named something like Tektronix (long time ago). I've seen workstation monitors well advanced of PC stuff in the mid 90's.

LCDs don't have phosphors and use a direct Pixel addressing, so I think it is what it says. Manufacturers tend to get sued for not

Here is the one that was on sale, actually 37inch 1080 fro around $1600US (looks liked e price went back up since the sale):

http://www.strathfield.com.au/ViewPr...sp?ProdID=1598

1920*1080 using the pitch specified would be 819.36mmH and 460.89mmV.

Which equals the diagonal of around the 37inch claimed.

Sharp is another one, and a few Electronics manufacturers have been showing their up and coming large panel 8MP SHD displays.

Cheap CRT TV brands tend to use the same dot pitch for different sizes, and the resolution does fall below spec. I have done measurements, and a 80cm TV is around 720H pixels, all the smaller ones are proportionally smaller then that. I think even name brand TV cheap liens have the same problem, maybe even some more expensive lines. Monitor manufacturers tend to be more accurate and rigorous. They get sued, like over the issue of display size, where manufacturers were quoting tube size, and not display area size etc.


So there is a good 2-3 hours gone again, that I needed for something else.

J. Stephen McDonald April 12th, 2006 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini
Mine is 0.25mm, but this is likely diagonal with 21mm horizontal. But I know what you mean, effective beam size can be higher then pixel size, leading to overlapping on the next pixel causing interpolation.

So, mine is around 1738 Hpixels.

Mine is similar to this:

http://web.archive.org/web/200405192...m.tw/bm19f.htm

Notice that diagonal is one of the measurements used:

http://www.viewsonic.com.au/products...ecs.php?id=103

But because of the way the Phillips tube is designed I don't know, the horizontal resolution might be more.

There are a number of ways it is measured, including as trio pixels.

I remember something about 0.22-0.19mm pixels, and maybe 0.17mm pixels. Phillips used to have many pro class monitors. CRTs have gone off, so I haven't found any of smaller pitch ones.

But it must be remembered that professional monitors have been offering much greater resolution for a number of years. 4 Mpixel, or was that 4096 pixels across, was first offered to the professional realm, in the really 80's by a professional workstation company, named something like Tektronix (long time ago). I've seen workstation monitors well advanced of PC stuff in the mid 90's.

LCDs don't have phosphors and use a direct Pixel addressing, so I think it is what it says. Manufacturers tend to get sued for not

Here is the one that was on sale, actually 37inch 1080 fro around $1600US (looks liked e price went back up since the sale):

http://www.strathfield.com.au/ViewPr...sp?ProdID=1598

1920*1080 using the pitch specified would be 819.36mmH and 460.89mmV.

Which equals the diagonal of around the 37inch claimed.

Sharp is another one, and a few Electronics manufacturers have been showing their up and coming large panel 8MP SHD displays.

Cheap CRT TV brands tend to use the same dot pitch for different sizes, and the resolution does fall below spec. I have done measurements, and a 80cm TV is around 720H pixels, all the smaller ones are proportionally smaller then that. I think even name brand TV cheap liens have the same problem, maybe even some more expensive lines. Monitor manufacturers tend to be more accurate and rigorous. They get sued, like over the issue of display size, where manufacturers were quoting tube size, and not display area size etc.


So there is a good 2-3 hours gone again, that I needed for something else.

Are you talking about computer monitors only here? My figures were only in regards to HDTV sets. My 17-inch Compaq computer monitor has a dot-pitch of .25mm, far more refined than any ordinary TV monitor.

Wayne Morellini April 13th, 2006 09:47 AM

I don't know the last time I heard somebody refer to a TV set as a monitor. Usually only work monitors are refereed to as monitors.

Well, for editing I was referring to computer monitors. The 1080p Panel above is a flat panel TV. I went into the shop today and the girl, told me that they weren't allowed to sell anymore of them as they were all being returned. I would like to know what is happening to them ;). I don't like it's colour and movement, not that I spent much time studying it, because I thought it was another overly expensive 1388/1280 display previously, but there was something about it I didn't like. According to the stats it is bright. At a thousand dollers it would make a great desktop display, but it's not.

K. Forman April 13th, 2006 09:53 AM

I guess the difference between a monitor and a tv are minor. You tend to get more resolution out of a monitor, as well as a better variety of inputs and tools, like a blue button. And a TV has a channel selector, and... Ok, that's all I've got.

Wayne Morellini April 13th, 2006 11:52 AM

Unless your talking a HDTV CRT, the differences are great, as the precision is just way out there compared to TV. The circuits required were more exacting, and I think that monitors probably trailed TV's for years in full integration. Apart from the extra complexity for precision, there probably is a greater amount of voltage swing to draw the higher resolution faster changing the dynamics of the dynamics to the circuits as well.

In this present age, all this extra complexity probably costs very little extra. The cheap CRT TV manufacturers are probably using single masks so they don't have to have a separate production lines fro each mask (or have to retool for runs for each).


But make no mistake I have read about SHD being shown off on the web, and where ever for computer or for TV they are coming (well 50inch SHD, I guess it is for TV).

Sony has SHD projectors, and I think there is a suggestion that there will be SHD Disks, what ever time. Would be a great premium disk priced move.

There is lower cost screen technology coming (OEL and SED etc) so we expect prices to continue downwards Where ever we will reach $1000 50inch SHD anytime soon, I don't imagine, but 40inch+ HD maybe.

30inch+ SHD, would make a very good work space.

J. Stephen McDonald April 14th, 2006 06:06 AM

JVC is No Help
 
I mentioned having asked JVC to E-Mail me the specs about the dot-pitch of the screen phosphors on my HDTV. I got a very brief reply from them, that made no mention of dot-pitch or actual number of scanning lines its screen could resolve. Instead, they said that I had been misinformed about my TV being capable of 1080i. The resolution is actually 720p, the message stated. It's odd that their website describes it as being a 1080i set and having a special type of technology for upscaling to 1080i. I found that the Sony and Panasonic websites don't give the dot-pitch for their CRT HDTVs, either. I guess that specification would reveal too much about their limitations.

Wayne Morellini April 14th, 2006 06:44 AM

I forget, did you have a crt? With these things many TV's claim to be 1080i, or "HD", ready, or take 1080i input, but what they mean is that it will take the signal and down convert it to the display format. So it doesn't matter if it upscales to 1080i before it downscales to around 720p. But because it is analogue the interpolation is more smooth and natural (should I also mention, that there is also a resolution loss because of the zigzag of the scan beam not hitting the pixels directly, producing overlap).

I found a 26 inch for around $340US, that claimed 1080 input, the store owners did not know much, and the information was scarce, so I got a ruler out, measured the columns on part of the on screen logo text, and width, and multiplied out for the rest of the screen. Around SD wide 852 or 950, I forget. Why bother to buy when you will want real HD when it becomes affordable.

There is something else too, measuring pixel hight doesn't really prove much on a CRT, because scanning is analogy variable again, and multiple lines can fit into one pixel cell. I have a 5 inch monitor here that is around 320*240, but it displays 480 lines. Another feature that helps to, is that the pixels are made up of red green blue cells, enabling a resolution of 3 times the pixel size horizontally. Not the best, but it helps define finer borders. That TV I rejected might even have 1080 actual scan lines in the 540 physical cell lines. But the point is that I think measuring horizontal cells is a better way to tell how serious they are (as multiple vertical scan lines can cleanly fit in one cell, but horizontally sub cells are much more course, and only show one primary colour portion for that position).

But while 1080 is best on a 1080 LCD/Plasma, because it fits exactly, when you go to 720p it has to interpolate.

Check out the new generation of rear projection display, they have smoother resolution screen and wider viewing angle, as they have got rid of the lenticular lens. I think this will be one of the cheapest ways to get a large mega pixel TV in the short term.

Have fun.

J. Stephen McDonald April 14th, 2006 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini
I forget, did you have a crt? With these things many TV's claim to be 1080i, or "HD", ready, or take 1080i input, but what they mean is that it will take the signal and down convert it to the display format. So it doesn't matter if it upscales to 1080i before it downscales to around 720p. But because it is analogue the interpolation is more smooth and natural (should I also mention, that there is also a resolution loss because of the zigzag of the scan beam not hitting the pixels directly, producing overlap).

I found a 26 inch for around $340US, that claimed 1080 input, the store owners did not know much, and the information was scarce, so I got a ruler out, measured the columns on part of the on screen logo text, and width, and multiplied out for the rest of the screen. Around SD wide 852 or 950, I forget. Why bother to buy when you will want real HD when it becomes affordable.

There is something else too, measuring pixel hight doesn't really prove much on a CRT, because scanning is analogy variable again, and multiple lines can fit into one pixel cell. I have a 5 inch monitor here that is around 320*240, but it displays 480 lines. Another feature that helps to, is that the pixels are made up of red green blue cells, enabling a resolution of 3 times the pixel size horizontally. Not the best, but it helps define finer borders. That TV I rejected might even have 1080 actual scan lines in the 540 physical cell lines. But the point is that I think measuring horizontal cells is a better way to tell how serious they are (as multiple vertical scan lines can cleanly fit in one cell, but horizontally sub cells are much more course, and only show one primary colour portion for that position).

But while 1080 is best on a 1080 LCD/Plasma, because it fits exactly, when you go to 720p it has to interpolate.

Check out the new generation of rear projection display, they have smoother resolution screen and wider viewing angle, as they have got rid of the lenticular lens. I think this will be one of the cheapest ways to get a large mega pixel TV in the short term.

Have fun.

Wayne, as we get further into this, the complexities and unknown factors become more apparent. Your information about pixel sub-cells and more than one scanning line being shown on a single cell line adds another dimension.

I've been thinking about what JVC told me about the actual screen resolution of my "1080i" CRT, being 720p. If this is actually the fact, then it would explain a lot. If they recognized that this screen had a dot-pitch too large to resolve 1,080 lines, then by downshifting to 720p, the scanned image would better match the screen. Your mention of upscaling to 1080i, then downscaling to 720p, before scanning, fits right into this. This way, they can claim to upscale to 1080i and describe it as a 1080i TV. Perhaps, they're afraid of using the dreaded "720" number in their promotions, as "a full 1,080 lines", has become an advertising catch-phrase in a very competitive market.

However, everything I've found at various places on the Web, including some JVC sites, indicates that my TV upscales all inputs to 1080i and makes no mention of 720p. This wouldn't be the first time some flawed information came out of a manufacturer's customer-care department. However, on another forum, an owner of this same model described it as a 720p TV, with no further explanation. This mystery is not solved yet.

I've got a lot to learn about basic TV display technology and I believe I've gotten a good start on this tonight. Much of what I've said in previous messages may be partially or completely off-base, regarding the size, numbers and arrangements of CRT screen phosphors. Apparently, JVC uses an Invar Shadow Mask, rather than the Trinitron system that Sony developed. Descriptions of these two masking systems indicate that there's a difference in the way their phosphors are grouped regarding color. If I have to acquire some more fundamentals in TV knowledge, just to understand my own set, so much the better.

Wayne Morellini April 15th, 2006 02:41 PM

I'm loosing track of the conversation, but there are TV's that accept 1080 (or SD and upscale it) and what I am saying is that the actual cell structure might be closer to 720p, so it is downscaled for LCD/Plasma, but for CRT, they might just scan it directly over the shadow mask. But one thing is sure, that 720 lines does not divide into 1080, so there will be lots of lines hitting the shadow mask boundaries. But if I didn't mention it, most people wouldn't have realised, so don't worry too much until you shop for the next one (and as you can seer there are many different ways they can do this, and they are not really goign to tell you which, so it is not worth getting hung up trying to find out which they use.

www.extremetech.com has many articles of display technology, they would know more than I can tell you.

Frank Granovski April 17th, 2006 04:58 AM

I wonder how much a real consumer HD cam will cost once they come out!

Wayne Morellini April 17th, 2006 10:46 AM

$799, less on discount.

Sanyo HD1EX

Of course you might prefer pseudo 1080i, under $1.3K on discount.

Sony HC3.

K. Forman April 17th, 2006 10:58 AM

I found something called Bonsai Drive, a portable unit that is supposed to capture uncompressed 4:2:2 video to a HDD. Unfortunately, I can't find anyone selling them, or any price. http://bonsaidrive.com/bonsai.html

Wayne Morellini April 18th, 2006 02:04 AM

I googled a price on it a while ago (or emailed) on it, not cheap, I think that it was over a thousand or thousands.

K. Forman April 18th, 2006 06:06 AM

That's still way cheaper than a deck that can't capture 4:2:2, and even more so than a Mac or Wafian. More portable too!

Wayne Morellini April 19th, 2006 06:12 AM

One of the guys here is doing a commercial HDSDI uncompressed recorded for around $2.5K (Likely to be expanded to to other formats). There is stuff coming that has pretty good compression before end of the year, but I am under confidentiality. But you might the one from Earthsoft, it is similar in capability as DVCPROHD, it is cheaper, but I don't know if the codec is truly compatible with work flow.

HDU-1 HDSDI:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...498#post459498

Earthsoft:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=61344

Wayne Morellini April 27th, 2006 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Stephen McDonald
Two things about that: First, there are many HD monitors of all sorts that are promoted as being 1080-capable, but can't really resolve that many lines. This is just a continuation of the marketing tactics that have been used to push wide-screen TV sets for the last dozen years. It's not an issue you will likely see discussed on any type of TV news program.

A matter of coincidence, this is similar to what you are talking about, it is about:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31270

Wayne ;)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:09 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2019 The Digital Video Information Network