Thomas, good point about the lens.
Are we to believe that somehow companies are using 2x better lens to match the resolution? My belief is that JVC stuggles to provide adequate lens for 720p never mind trying to adopt a prosumer cam to a 1080i lens. The costs just don't work out.
Sony has taken the Intel route. Speed sell's, or at least bigger numbers. Regardless if your prosumer cam is even coming close to capturing half of your advertised 1080i. Logic would say that a lens capable of that should cost more than the cam! I have no respect for a company that pixel shifts then up-rez's a 960x1080 capture to 1080, strictly for maketing reasons. Although it is still a mighty nice cam ;>)

" tape is pretty much out of the question until they figure out a way to make head gap smaller and/or tape transport faster."

I think they will just double the capture to 38/50 Mbps. Like DV50. Old tech for new HDV. Combine that with 2/3" chips and there will be no need to buy a Varicam. Heck, it will be sucking some of Cinealta's market.

Or double the compression. The HDV spec calls for 60p, but still maintaining the 19mb/s data rate. Actually, if you want to get technical, the new 24P HDV mode of the HD100 *is* a 60p data rate -- it's 24p with 2-3 frame duplication carried within a 60p data stream, at 19mb/s.

Yep - double the compression level. And we'll see it implemented next year, according to JVC's schedule -- they say June 2006 for the GY-HD7000U, the 2/3" 3-CMOS camera. It's listed as supporting 720/50p and 720/60p HDV.

Barry are you sure the 24p will be carried in a 60p stream? I thought the mpeg2 could be written to tape as 24p. Although this does make sense since that is how the analog output would work. So that might mean then that 24p isn't slightly better in quality than 30p but may be slightly worse.

I always thought for the HD7000U they would actually raise the bitrate and not the compression. If they just raise the compression it is going to be hard to sell this as a high end $27,000.00 camera.

If they bumped up the datarate to 25Mbits/s that would give us around the compression of a 4.7 Mb/s DVD which is ok but not perfect. If it stays at 19.7 Mb/s to keep the uncompressed audio track we are looking at a 3.7 Mb/s DVD. Yuck!

Could they maybe run the tape to cover 1.5 the area like with DVCAM to maybe get 37.5 Mb/s with only 40 minutes of recording time?

The HDV specification doesn't allow for 24p. HDV is 720/25p, 720/30p, 720/50p and 720/60p. So to do 24p, and still call it "HDV", they'd have to carry the 24p within a 60p stream using 2-3 frame duplication.

Also, it is my understanding that the Lumiere folks have footage on tape from the HD100, and that they've said that it is indeed a 60p data stream.

Not necessarily. MPEG-2 can be famously efficient with duplicate frames. It's possible that the totally-duplicate frames may not impact the compression one bit (well, okay, they have to take up at least one "bit"!) ;)

But because the frames are exact duplicates, I expect that MPEG-2 will be extremely efficient, and I would expect that the 24p would actually have more bits to spread around to the actual frames than even 30p does.

They may. But if they do, it won't be HDV. And the specs on their website say "HDV recording" and list 60p.

They do have plans for ProHD XE, which includes a "higher bitrate". But that's not HDV, that's a new format. HDV is defined as 720p in 19 megabits, at either 25p, 30p, 50p or 60p. Anything outside that would be, by definition, outside the format.

The JVC specs do list 1080i recording, but it does *not* say HDV, it says "mpeg-2" for that. So perhaps that's where the higher bitrate format would be used?

It's a year away, and anything can change between now and then. A simple terminology change on the spec sheet could make all the difference (i.e., they could change the wording so it says "HDV: 720/25p 720/30p; ProHD XE: 720/50p 720/60p". I wouldn't read too much into it at this point.

Not and still call it HDV. That would be a new format (just like DVCAM is a different format than DV). So if they change the naming of the format, perhaps that would be possible. And they do plan on ProHD XE. But if they do that, it will not be HDV, that's all I'm saying -- it wouldn't be compatible with anything with an HDV logo on it, so they'd have to make a new format and call it something new. And that's not what the currently existing spec sheet says, that's all I'm saying. As it's worded now, they're saying 60p in HDV. And that means 19mb/s.

Barry,

Isn't that why JVC is calling their format 'ProHD', so that they can work around the HDV spec limitations? I was thinking the same with Panasonic but they are just bringing a high end camera format down to an entry level camera with P2.

Just wondering...

-gb-

Originally that's what we thought -- that ProHD was a new format. But then Dave Walton clarified and said that ProHD is *not* a format, that the format is indeed HDV.

ProHD is their take on the idea that they're making professional gear that uses HDV, pretty much the same idea as behind the JVC DV500 -- it was the first in their "Professional DV" lineup. It still used regular DV, it wasn't a new format, but they had a different name for it to differentiate it from their consumer gear.

I believe that's the same thing they're doing here. The ProHD name is a name for the product line, not a different format.

Thanks for the data Barry.

Do you know how much more of a chanllenge is it going to be to capture the 24p video? I did not notice if any current HDV tool can capture and remove duplicate frames on the fly. I did notice Cineform mentioned support for the HD100 when it comes out but thats about it.

Any editing tool will have to not only be able to pull out the duplicate frames but also add them back in to record back to tape.

I'm certain that all the HDV editors will need an update, but I'm also pretty sure it'll be minor. Lumiere is apparently already at work on it, and I'm sure CineForm will be able to implement it quickly.

Once they update it, Vegas will probably do it on the fly, like they do with 2-3-3-2 and 2-3 DV footage, so the user probably won't even notice that anything happened.

If ProHD is not any different how can they add a second set of uncompressed audio or was that always in the 720p specs and they just finally made a camera that can do it?

They haven't. The HD100 only records two tracks of compressed audio. There is no provision for 4 tracks on the HD100.

4 tracks was talked about as a possible add-on to ProHD-XE, but is not part of ProHD or HDV.

WOW!!! You just sealed it for me. My line of freelance work doesn't nor will ever involve sending shows out for broadcast air or film premieres so I will be very happy with 720p compared to my SD projects. Thanks...

Not to continue what has already been an empassioned debate....
But if you don't like the upsample of DV to 720, wait'll you upsample 720p to 1080p. 1080i looks a lot nicer when resampled/deinterlaced to 1080p than 720 does, and while there are those saying we won't see 1080p for a long time....the displays have started shipping already, and so is the hardware. We're not that far off.
So, for short term you'll likely be happy with 720p, but the grail is 1080p.(60)

I agree 1080p60 would be great (whats not to like?). I just would be surprised if cable, broadcast, satellite - whatever - will be willing to "spend" the additional data rate (double that of 1080i30 or 720p60) to deliver it. I know compression is getting better, but there will always be the pressure to deliver an optimum picture with the lowest data rate.

If you have read some of my posts elsewhere, you know that my logic follows thus:
1. CRT is the only really "true" interlaced display.
2. CRTs are disappearing.
3. Why create a picture in a format which MUST be converted to display it?

I would like to observe the comparison you make between 720p60 and 1080i30 converted to 1080p60. Such a test would require the highest quality source material (we're not judging relative merits of different cameras or display technologies - remember.)

I would be willing to bet that in 10 years virtually all of the display devices in people's homes will be 720x1280 or less. The CRT will have pretty much disappeared. It is possible that 1080p60 could be delivered with blue laser DVD to a somewhat limited audience (If they've decided by then!). An even higher resolution could be developed for theater use - perhaps the final nail in the film coffin.

But then that's just what I think will happen.

Spot I actually do not agree that 1080i going to 1080p will look much better than 720p to 1080p.

Since it isn't very easy to compare the camera formats right now I have been some testing in 3D Studio Max to compare quality between 720p, 1080i converted to 1080p and 720p, 1080i converted to 720p.

I have so far tried 4 different deinterlacing methods and for the most part there is very little to no quality difference between the two. I have rendered with many different antialiasing filters to try and better get what a camera would give us. Even using super sharp 3D rendered images there is little to no change. The more camera like the images get in terms of softness the closer both formats become. If the aim is 24p or 30p there is very little difference. If a 60 frame motion is needed than 1080i does have the advantage.

720p scaled up can get just a tiny bit softer but with very smooth results across the whole image.

1080i deinterlaced can be a tiny bit sharper but with either jagged edges or missing pixels on tiny objects or objects at a slight angle. If you use interpolation when you deinterlace the 1080i can get just as soft as the 720p (depends on which software you use)

I am using Shake to test the images by using 6 different scaling methods and 4 different deinterlacing methods.

I agree that 1080p would look better but 1080i is not in my opinion much better than 720p.

I will try and post some of my results in a few days. I want to study this a little bit further first.

It will be awhile before 1080p is broadcast, but don't forget the Home Theater market, where you won't be limited by your local cable company. 108024 and 48p is already available on the high end, and just like technology in the past, it's only a matter of time before it's affordable for a sizeable minority. Since Blue Ray supports 1080p I'd say give it a couple of years. But the time to plan is now. I'm hoping the technology to uprez 720p with great quality is around soon too.

1080/24p or 1080/30p could be broadcast today, if broadcasters wanted to. Those are ATSC-sanctioned broadcast standards, with either the same (or lower) bandwidth requirements than 1080/60i.

The question mark seems to be about 1080/60p, which would seem to be years away from being broadcast, if ever. 1080/60p is not in the ATSC specifications, so it wouldn't work with any ATSC-compatible tuners.

I'll take that bet, gladly. I just hope I'm around in 10 years. I'll go so far as to suggest that it will go faster than 10. The first 30 shipments of 1080p displays were gone before they even hit ground, if you accept what Jon Peddie research has to say, and what most of the other research/advisement firms are saying. I know that I went to B&H a month back to see the one model they had on display. They'd sold it.

Tom,
My point isn't that 1080i is better than 720p. It is indeed sharper for fast motion, but it has its own issues as well. However, I *have* taken 720p and upsampled to 1080p, and have taken 1080i and crosssampled to 1080p (30) and viewed on both large and small LCD's, and on a Sony Qualia projector. 1080i converted to 1080p definitely looks better than 720p upscaled.
I have in my hands now, a GrassValley LDK 6000, courtesy of Lonnie Bates at the national repair center for Grass Valley. We've been doing some fun tests with it, more based around color than anything else. Calibrating these cams is definitely a learning experience. That said, I'm not even using one of the Sony cams to make my comparisons, I'm using the front end of a ViperCam.

Spot I would love to compare results as soon as I finish my tests. I am sure using a high end camera can give different results as to what I am doing. I will try to post my results in a few days.

What methods are you using to deinterlace? I will agree that a really good (but slow) deinterlacer will give good results depending on how much motion there is but most people would never think of using something like that except for short projects. I wouldn't want to do that on a 2 hour 3 camera concert for example.

I also wasn't saying one was better than the other. I actually think they are pretty much the same. I agree with you that the 1080i is a little bit sharper but with some bad aliasing edges. 720p is a little softer but a nice smooth overall image. I guess it all depends on how sharp you like your footage.

I will try to get the results up soon.

Since after 7 pages of responses no one has said it yet, this kind of topic has been hammered to death for YEARS in the avsforums. Not so much from the perspective of recording hardware, but tons from the perspective of display technology and what "looks" better. So, if you've never checked out the avsforums and you're interested in HDTV, go take a look... (BTW, I have no relationship to them at all, but it's a great forum to check out.)

Bill,

I have been observing AVSForum for quite a while too! Never signed up though. There have been times I wanted to say something, but so far have resisted the urge. I have never been an extremist on the 1080i - 720p issue, and for some time thought (and still do) that 1080i was a little preferable. It is only recently that I began to realize that the CRT is disappearing. Interlaced scanning was DESIGNED for the CRT, and offers some disadvantages to progressive displays.

Soon, the street price of smaller flat panel displays (up to, say 30 inches) will be less than comparable tubes, and chip projectors are about that stage now. I'll bet that manufacturing costs of the newer technologies are already less than CRTs, but there are still development costs to recoup. In the not too distant future, you will not see a CRT at Best Buy or CompUSA.

If I'm not mistaken,

A) there's a big difference between 1080i and 1080p so those shouldn't be lumped together

B) saying 1080i @ 24fps would have much higher quality than 720p @ 24fps is half right and half wrong. It would have more temporal resolution but the quality would suffer in terms of jaggies...

There's no such thing as 1080i24. There's 1080p24 embedded into 1080i60 with 3:2 pulldown though. If you've 720p24 and 1080p24, the temporal resolution is identical. I don't see how you think the 1080p24 in 1080i60 with 3:2 or whatever would have more jaggies just doesn't make sense. Can you explain more what you're getting at??

Graeme

Hey, I did say "If I'm not mistaken" ;-)

I was not aware there was no straight 1080i24, and that rather it is 1080p24 embedded into 1080i60. Is it captured as a true 24 fps progressive?

You can remove the pulldown after it's captured to get back to the original 1080p24. Obviously, some high end decks record and play 1080p24 without any pulldown, but then it's 1080p24, not 1080i60.

Graeme