What exactly is High deffinition?
 

I am new to mini DV video, with an xm2. I have read the posts here, but feel this thread would be usefull as an introduction to what exactly high definition DV is, and what the differences are. Is it the same type of tape, same ccds and a different lens? Or something totally new and radically different?

lets state what DV is first- 720x480 interlaced.

HD is progressive scan 1280x720 or 1920x1080

there is more but I dont have time now

DV is one form of "Standard Definition" video. Other forms include Digital Betacam, VHS, Hi8, Digital8, S-VHS, BetacamSP, MPEG-IMX, DVCPRO50, Digital-S, and I'm sure there are many others.

They're all called standard-definition and all can play video on a standard NTSC television set (assuming NTSC here all the way). Standard-def can be 4:3, or 16:9.

High Definition is a new, totally different format. It is always 16:9, and is defined by the ATSC standard. The resolutions certified as high-definition include 1920 x 1080 (at 60i, 50i, 30p, 25p, 24p, and 23.976p) and 1280 x 720 (at 60p, perhaps at other frame rates as well, I don't recall).

There is no such thing as "high-defintion DV". There is a new proposed standard called HDV, which has been endorsed by Sony, Sharp, Canon and JVC. It provides for 16:9 video at 1440 x 1080 (presumably upscaled to 1920 x 1080 on-the-fly) and 1280 x 720.

HDV is a completely different format, just as PAL is completely different and incompatible with NTSC. HDV signals should be upscale-able and playable on an ATSC-compliant High-Definition television set.

This is excellent. Thanks. So does this mean that the consumer will have to buy H.D television sets if or when this standard comes in? Or will it be compatible with our present TVs? Also are the frames interlaced as with DV or seperate as in movie mode (as on the xm/gm2)?

1080 can interlace. It is referred to as 1080i. 1080 is the vertical resolution whereas 1920 would be the horizontal resolution. The HDTV formats are usually referred to in their horizontal terms, such as 1080i and 720p. 720p can do 60, 30 and 24 frames per second, all progressive, but 1080 has to interlace to get 60 "images" per second. I have not known 1080 to do a truly progressive 30p image but I could be (and hopefully am) wrong.

If you want HDTV you'll need to get an HDTV set. Just be sure to shop around and get something that can display all of the 1080, 720 and 480p formats in their native form with out any of that lame-ass up or downscaling. Avoid plasmas, as they have many longevity problems and you don't get true native HDTV anyway. They are basically just a huge computer monitor, but with lower resolution. But people love them because they are thin. If you like that, then check out some of the newer LCD stuff, it is getting better and better. Prices are coming down for HDTV sets. You'll need some sort of set top converter in the future if you wish to continue using your NTSC TV, but that won't be enforced for probably a billion more years, since everyone moves so slow.

Does anyone know if HDTV will be a worldwide standard, or will each region have their own wacky form of it, similar to PAL and NTSC?

HDV look more like analog Pal or NTSC
 

I asked this question on an anothermessage board but no one has answered.

Does the color system of HDV look more like analog PAL of NTSC?
If it looks like any of them at all.

Being a PAL guy i am interested to know.

Cheers,
Ben Gurvich

Re: HDV look more like analog Pal or NTSC
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Ben Gurvich : I asked this question on an anothermessage board but no one has answered.

Does the color system of HDV look more like analog PAL of NTSC?
If it looks like any of them at all.

Being a PAL guy i am interested to know.

Cheers,
Ben Gurvich -->>>

go to Best buy and check out the Pioneer $8500 LCD set, its as close to real life as I have ever seen, probably because of the serious $80k cameras that took the film. But it really depends on the tv.

Yea i know, ive heard it said many a time frm experts that plasma TVs are just not the best. But i have seen a pioneer model, costing around £7,500, that displays the best picture ive ever seen. Most of the others, regardless of price seemed to produce a somewhat grainy weak picture, noticable more close up. Everyone is getting 'wide screen' tvs here in the UK. In my opinion, the picture looks stretched, and prettey rubbish, a normal large TV screen looks much better. High deffinition sounds like a massive improvement. I hope there can be one standard. There are variations of pal, and secam and other different formats, which ive never worked with. NTSC is a pain, when preparing it for broadcast in UK, with whites appearing grey, and needing chroma adjustment when converted to pal. Doesnt help when your provided with 5 seconds of jerky bars and tones! And ppm levels sometimes seem to be a bit wacky too. However the higher framerate seems superior in theory.

So what do you guys reckon, would you say HD looks like really good Pal or really good NTSC, on a normal home TV,

Im guessing it looks closer to PAL,

ALthough it is neither.

HDTV looks more like a computer monitor than NTSC or PAL. There is no interlace flicker (unless you are looking at 1080i, in which case the flicker is less severe since the lines are "thinner"). There is no color bleed. You can't really compare NTSC or PAL to HDTV.

Michael, the reason those widescreen TV's have images that look stretched is because a moron set them up. They are stretching standard 4:3 video to fill the width of the 16:9 screen, thus stretching it and making it look inferior. When you get true anamorphic 16:9 video (such as those on DVDs) then it fills the entire width of the screen and look really nice. Proper 4:3 should have black bars on each side. I know I'd be angry if I made a program in 4:3 and someone stretched it to 16:9.

Properly executed HDTV doesn't look like PAL or NTSC -- it looks like a window.

Ben, you asked what "HDV" colors look like. There aren't really any HDV cameras out, the JVC predates HDV (although the HDV spec was written such that the JVC would be compliant). JVC's HD1 colors look very flat and desaturated, with narrow latitude. But that's just JVC's current implementation, and shouild in no way be taken as an indication of what HDV's future colors will look like. That won't be known until there are more HDV models available.

If HDTV looks like a window then it must look more like PAL than NTSC, PAL colors are pretty much the same as what we see (for the purpose of this question) and NTSC changes colors slightly.

To me being in Australia the HD broadcasts ive seen, in the HiFi store look like really good PAL, although they looks far superior the color system doesnt have the NSTC tinge.

Yes i know HDV and HDTV are different. And i know HDTV doesnt look like digibeta, but for you NTSC guys it must look even more different because your not used to looking at things on TV the color they actally are.

I guess in answering my own question, the HD in Spy Kids 2 looks like film, but sharper and better, in my own opinion.

NTSC doesn't change colours unless broadcast analogue. Plenty of NTSC people are used to great colours because they are totally digital. If you watch NTSC DVD's, then you'll not see any colour issues.

HD just looks like HD, it's not like film and it's not like normal video - sort of a best of both worlds.

Graeme

NTSC looks different from PAL, analog or digital.

The color in Pal looks truer to life, (not necesarily better for crating drama) than NTSC.

HD has to look like one of them more, I just want a straight answer, NTSC or PAL,

From someone who grew up in England (PAL), and has recently moved to Canada (NTSC) I can safely state that in their unprocessed digital forms, the colour you get from NTSC is identical to that you get from PAL. If you're seeing anything different at your end it's because you're seeing what happens to analogue NTSC after it's been broadcast or converted.

You can prove this to yourself with a PAL or NTSC video clip and your NLE. Just re-save the file with either the PAL DV or NTSC DV codec and look at the colour. You won't (or shouldn't if it's a decent code you're using) see any hue or tint shift change. You may see a little loss of detail caused by re-compressing, but that's all.

How well the colours from real life get recorded is down to the camera - it's chips and DSPs etc. And what settings are used. The difference between cameras in how colour is reproduced can vary quite a bit, so nobody can tell you that because it's DV or because it's HDV or HDCAM the colour will look like so-and-so. All modern digital tape formats record the colour accurately as presented to them from the camera. They'll most likely compress the resolution of the colour a bit, but they don't go altering the hues and tints - they just record what the camera sees.

Graeme