1080i vs 1080p vs 720p

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Alex Leith

That's not entirely true. Whilst delivery is still going to be 1080i50 the BBC are recommending that any programming that would benefit from a film "look" are acquired as 25p.

More programming in the UK is p25 (25psf) than i50. Films, dramas, soaps, documentaries, sitcoms, even gameshows.

Of course film and episodic programming is 25p as it is 24p here. But, I can tell you there are NO HD soaps, taped documentaries, sitcoms, gameshows, news, or sports done in 24p here or anywhere else in the world. This must be something British. :)

A USA network tried broascasting a major award show in HD 24p "film look" and the response was fast and angry. Absolute crap! Impossible to watch! Made me sick! I saw the show and the comments were correct. Motion judder is a horrible artifact.

Those of us with JVC HD1 and HD10 have had to live with motion judder for many years. Every camera review claimed -- somewhat unfairly -- that the video was unusable. Obviously, not many cameras were sold.

Moreover, in Asia, where ALL narrative programming -- in fact everything except the broacast of film -- is done on video and 50i/60i is the only format used. When I was in a Korean airport I watched an HD video drama shot in 1080/60i. It looked great! The belief in using a "film look" is confined to the USA and Europe.

In fact, in the USA 24p is only used for episodic dramas in prime time. Not for any other HD programming. And, the reason may be less esthetics than the fact 24p can very easily be converted to ANY format. Which is good for world-wide sales.

[Ali Husain]

could someone comment on the dynamic range of the v1? is it greater than the a1?

i was just looking at the footage posted here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=84373

the footage in this link:

http://geekstudios.com/demos/shoeshine.m2t

shows pretty impressive dynamic range and colors (maybe a bit oversaturated). i don't know if it's been CC'd but i haven't seen any xl-h1 or a1 footage, CC'd or not, that looks like that. comments?

thanks!

[Alex Leith]

Sony claims that the V1 has "improved" dynamic range thanks to the CMOS imaging sensors it uses - which are better than CCDs (the sensor type used by the A1) at handling light lattitude.

However the CMOS isn't the only link in the chain that determines the amount of latitude a camera can display in an image.

The Canon XH-A1 has a reasonably impressive dynamic range (for this class of camera) of 8.3 stops.

Looking at comparative images, the V1 undoubtedly has a greater range, but I would imagine the difference was maybe less than a stop. I would be very interested to see test data.

Where the V1 does excel is how it handles near-blown out objects. The A1 does a reasonable job of handling highlights, but the V1 hangs on to detail in bright objects longer than the A1.

However, neither of these cameras display the range that larger cameras can, and I don't think any camera has yet come anywhere near the 16 stop potential that 8bit formats have.

[Tony Tremble]

Alex

When you say A1 do you mean Sony HVR-A1 or Canon Xh-A1?

The jury is still out with me whether it is the CMOS chips alone that are reason for the greater latitude. It is more likely it is a combination of the EIP and CMOS that really makes the difference as every pixel can be addressed more targeted image processing can be achieved.

The Contrast Enhancer does find more detail in darker areas even with black stretch engaged. The effect can be subtle but in hard light it is a godsend taking the image beyond the typical video look.

I think CCD is in its last generation judging by the beauty of the V1 image.

TT

[Alex Leith]

I was talking about the Canon XH-A1 (I've just edited my post to make that clear).

I agree with you that CMOS is undoubtedly mature enough to use in videography. And the image from the V1 does (generally) look great.

However, all I was debating was that the dynamic range in the V1 is actually vastly improved over CCD cameras.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I'm not sure where this idea of ANYONE using 30p for broadcast. They don't! It would look horrible. Which is why FOX gave up the idea of going DTV using 480p30.

This idea even appeared in a Panasonic PR. I caught the error. He is their reply:

`We queried Craig Piligian, and indeed he clarified what's in the story, to wit:'


"We used to shoot Chopper with the Varicams at 720p/60. Since the Varicam is a variable frame rate camera, it was more than we needed in that respect, but it did not shoot 1080i.

When Panasonic came out with the HDX900, we found it to be the perfect combination of a great HD picture
at an affordable price. Since we deliver a 1080i master, we decided to shoot at 1080i to avoid converting and maintain a clean path.

We are now shooting at 1080i/60 with the HDX900 and are very pleased with the picture quality, ease of use, and affordability."

`So, eagle eye, you're right on the money! All the best, P.'

--------


"Since I haven't seen 60p, I'll reserve judgement on that. I'm sure it's a very subjective thing."

If you watch ABC, ESPN, and FOX -- you have only been watching 60p.

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

There are only two ATSC formats used in the USA and their proper designations are:

1080/60i or 1080i60 -- there is no such thing as 1080i30.

720/60p or 720p60

24fps movies are sent with 2-3 pulldown for both 1080/60i and 720/60p.

Some are thinking of transmitting film at 1080/24p as it will fit in a 6MHz channel. This would support displays than can use 24p, 48p, or 72p.

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

The BBC is not going to use 1080p25 for live video -- only for movies that are 25p. Live will be 1080i50 until it can go to 1080p50.

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

DSE seems to have removed my quotes from ABC, ESPN, and FOX that confirmed their use of 720p60.

DSE didn't remove your quotes. DSE removed your personal comments about another poster and moved this thread. If anything has been removed, it was removed by another moderator, but that quote seems to be there.

[Tony Tremble]

Originally Posted by Alex Leith

However, all I was debating was that the dynamic range in the V1 is actually vastly improved over CCD cameras.

I know you were. :)

Even doing a side by side shoot between XH-A1 and HVR-V1 you still wouldn't be able to know how much the difference, if any, is due to DSP EIP technowizardry!

It would be interesting to find out though with some hard evidence not some glib statement like the usual marketing bumf recital.

TT

[Benjamin Eckstein]

Not entirely on topic, but since things have strayed a bit, and now we are back onto the CMOS sensors.....

How would the V1 and Z1 match up in a multi-cam environment? I shoot a lot for docs and corporate work with a company that uses Z1s. I generally take their gear out but but if I get the V1, will it match well enough with stuff shot with the Z1 and its CCD sensor?

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

"Since I haven't seen 60p, I'll reserve judgement on that. I'm sure it's a very subjective thing."

If you watch ABC, ESPN, and FOX -- you have only been watching 60p.

Steve, what I meant to say is that I haven't seen 1920X1080p. :)

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

I don't know how you can say 1080i football games look better. I guess that is your view of it. I recently watched two games one on ABC and one on NBC and I flipped back and forth between the two. The 1080i had a lot of compression artifacts in the grass while the 720p was almost perfect. The levels of detail were very close as well.

There are many variables Tom, such as your display and service provider. My opinion is shared by most others on a different forum where this type of thing is discussed endlessly. Most truly prefer the additional detail in 1920x1080i.

Now the reason I say much depends on your service provider and display is that I used to have Directv and I too saw many compression artifacts. I originally thought this was the broadcast until I realized how much compression was going on by Directv itself. I switched to Verizon's FIOS and it's truly remarkable how much less compression I see now. It's almost non-existant. This has served to further illustrate to me the additional detail in the 1920X1080 picture vs the 1280X720p picture. Those with full rez HDTVs that are capable of reproducing all of the 1920X1080i signal, say the difference is even greater on those sets. Some people with 720p displays that may not downconvert 1080i so well will naturally prefer the 720p broadcasts. So yes, I fully stand behind my feeling that this is 1080i is the preferred medium for live broadcasts and documentaries when your display and service provider can adequately show the quality of the signal.

[Ken Ross]

The above explanation of 720p by Randy Haffner is interesting but also self serving. I've seen equally impressive discourse by engineering heads of CBS and NBC as to the advantages of 1920X1080i...so it's not quite so simple.

One thing Randy seems to leave out is the fact that with virtually all live broadcasts, static or near static shots (yes, even sports!) are the rule. Very fast motion is NOT the rule with any sport. So this mitigates, to some degree, the 'p' advantage. With the static and near static shots, the greater detail in 1920X1080 is very obvious (at least to me and many many others who discuss this ad nauseum). The other thing that Randy leaves out is the weighting factors may well be true for "Joe Six Pack", but videophiles can see beyond simple contrast. Just as many people preferred the look of many EDTVs over HDTVs for the simple reason that many EDTVs provided greater contrast, videophiles saw beyond that. If Randy's weighting factors were so true, why even bother with the expense of full-rez 1080p HDTVs when rez is 'relatively unimportant'? A 1080p display will show no improvement on a 720p broadcast since the current crop of 720p & 768p displays are already 'good enough' to show all that is present in the 720p broadcast. However a 1080p display will show added detail from a 1920X1080 broadcast that current non-1080p displays are missing. No, it goes beyond this.

The other thing that's simply ignored is the quality of the deinterlacer & scaler in the display itself. A high quality display with high quality scalers and deinterlacers will provide a 1920X1080 picture that's almost completely devoid of interlaced artifacts. When people hear 'interlaced artifacts', they immediately think back to the days of NTSC. Those artifacts ARE horrible. It is a totally different ballgame with HD. I've got a Fujitsu plasma that only does 1366X768 and I'll tell you that interlaced artifacts are extremely rare on any live sporting event that broadcasts in 1920X1080. The Fujitsu plasmas are known for top quality signal processing. Yes, I've seen some low quality displays that show many artifacts due to poor scalers and deinterlacers that rob resolution. But to say that interlaced artifacts are always originating with the broadcasters, is simply not the case. You need to look at all elements in the chain. As I've said before, simply switching from the horrid Directv broadcasts to the pristine FIOS broadcasts, is like day and night.

And of course if we talk about film, 720p broadcasts will never ever equal the quality of movies broadcast in 1920X1080.

But this is not to say that 720p is not capable of stellar images, it is, but I'm simply saying I prefer the greater detail of 1920X1080. IMO it's what HD is all about....sharper, more detailed imagery.

So IMO, I'll take the occasional interlaced artifacts for the greater detail I see almost all the time in 1920X1080. And as I've said, owners of full rez displays contend the difference is even greater with those displays.

[Thomas Smet]

I don't use direcTV. I have Charter Cable for my HD provider. If the best in my area looks this bad for 1080i then HD really has a long way to go yet because only the top markets are at high quality.

Ken, just how close are you actually sitting in front of your TV? There was a chart recently that talked about viewing distance and HD resolutions and prety much any TV 50" or smaller with a viewing distance of 10' of more would gain nothing at all by using any resolution higher then 720p. It is my understanding that most HDTV's sold are either 42" or 50" and sit in living rooms with at least a 8' or 10' viewing distance.

[John Miller]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

When people hear 'interlaced artifacts', they immediately think back to the days of NTSC. Those artifacts ARE horrible.

I'm still living in the past, then (along with a lot of others, I'm sure). I have only SD NTSC and PAL equipment. Except when I view video on a PC's non-interlaced monitor or I pause playback, I've never seen 'interlaced artifacts'.

Are you saying that standard programming that is watched as it should be (i.e., not pausing or viewing on a progressive display) is full of artifacts?

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

I don't use direcTV. I have Charter Cable for my HD provider. If the best in my area looks this bad for 1080i then HD really has a long way to go yet because only the top markets are at high quality.

Ken, just how close are you actually sitting in front of your TV? There was a chart recently that talked about viewing distance and HD resolutions and prety much any TV 50" or smaller with a viewing distance of 10' of more would gain nothing at all by using any resolution higher then 720p. It is my understanding that most HDTV's sold are either 42" or 50" and sit in living rooms with at least a 8' or 10' viewing distance.

Tom, I've heard some horrendous things about Charter Cable, so I'm not surprised your HD looks so bad. You can't believe the picture quality on FIOS...it truly is everything people are saying about it. Coming from Directv it was a shocker to say the least. Alll the artifacts are essentially gone.

I'm sitting about 8' from my 50" Fujitsu. When I go 1080p, which I will, I'll be up at a 60" (new Pioneer shown at CES with new gen blacks) or possibly a 65" Fujitsu. So I agree that to appreciate the benefits of 1080p, you need a larger screen and a suitable viewing distance. At my viewing distance I should be able to see the full-rez benefits of 1080p. But my point was that the benefits are there. Reading the ABC blurb, one would be led to think there are essentially no benefits to this added rez.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by John F Miller

I'm still living in the past, then (along with a lot of others, I'm sure). I have only SD NTSC and PAL equipment. Except when I view video on a PC's non-interlaced monitor or I pause playback, I've never seen 'interlaced artifacts'.

Are you saying that standard programming that is watched as it should be (i.e., not pausing or viewing on a progressive display) is full of artifacts?

Yes John, with out NTSC system, many broadcasts suffered quite badly from interlaced artifacts when viewing on a standard NTSC TV. Once pointed out, you'll see them forever. You can certainly see them with a larger screen or relatively close viewing distance. As I said, at my same distance with HDTV, these artifacts are essentially gone...with 1080i or 720p.