|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 21st, 2004, 04:08 PM | #91 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
1080p - 1920x1080 1080i - 1920x540 (two fields) 720p - 1280x720 So is it still up in the air whether the Sony will be 720p or 1080i? I don't think we'll be seeing a 1080p consumer cam anytime soon. |
|
March 21st, 2004, 04:45 PM | #92 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Point Pleasant, NJ
Posts: 437
|
Here's a good article on the topic:
http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/videography/printer_7015.shtml |
March 21st, 2004, 05:49 PM | #93 |
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 932
|
ITU HD 1080i is 1920x1080, HDV 1080i seems to be 1440x1080.
Tommy can you tell us where the 1920x540 number comes from?
__________________
Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands. |
March 21st, 2004, 05:51 PM | #94 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Point Pleasant, NJ
Posts: 437
|
You are correct Ignacio.
I removed my question after doing a bit of research. I guess anything above or equal to 1280 X 720 is considered HD. |
March 21st, 2004, 06:07 PM | #95 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Ignacio, I went back and edited my post to reperesent the two 1920x540 fields. 1080i is of course interlaced which leaves two fields of 1920x540.
|
March 21st, 2004, 06:29 PM | #96 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 40
|
1440x1080i is not a specific HD format. So technically, if Sony does not have a 1280x720p mode and it uses the 1440x1080i format exlusively, then it is not a true HDV camcorder according to specs.
But of course its image quality will be HD. But keep in mind that reducing the horizontal resolution to 1440 is not a big deal. The resolution is still superior to 1280x720p and far superior to SDTV. One concern about the resolution loss is that it is not a natively 16:9 resolution. This is a big deal, because it indicates that the CCD will be 4:3 and the video will be anamorphically squeezed to widescreen. This is similar to what High Resolution CCDs like the PDX-10 and Optura Xi/300 do now with DV's 720x480 format (a 4/3 resolution with non-square pixels). Concerning the issue of wanting progressive video. Think of it like this: If you want progressive using a 1080i format, just separate fields and select even/odd and resize to 16:9 EDTV resolution. You will get 960x540 in true progressive (no interlaced artifacts or field blending). Of course this is perfect for DVD production, the benefits of HDTV are mostly lost (except for increased detail, sharpness, lower noise, etc). So its what best fits your needs really. The previous JVC 1280x720p is best for high motion filming (sports), but the increased resolution of 1440x1080i is significant enough to warrant its use for most cases. Edited: I just read that Sony's pro HDCAM also has 1440 horizontal pixels? And the chroma is subsampled below 4:2:2? Here's the link: http://videoexpert.home.att.net/artic3/262hdvr.htm |
March 21st, 2004, 07:12 PM | #97 | ||
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
The following is from Joe Kane of http://www.videoessentials.com. Quote:
|
||
March 21st, 2004, 09:48 PM | #98 |
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 932
|
Very interesting Johann, Tommy, thanks for all the insight.
Love this place. And can't wait to get my hands on one of these new cams and see what their video looks like on the right monitor!
__________________
Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands. |
March 21st, 2004, 10:25 PM | #99 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Northridge Ca
Posts: 734
|
Wow! I guess all you folks already have your Hi Def televisions?
Anyway, here is some additional information: http://tinyurl.com/3cbnl |
March 22nd, 2004, 12:30 AM | #100 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
The wife says "no" until they come down substantially in price. But she did give two thumbs up on the home theater, so it ain't all that bad around this house.
|
March 22nd, 2004, 12:45 AM | #101 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 1,427
|
Tommy thanks for the post.
I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays witha DVI input so I could run it from my computer. WHen I select the monitor it gives me two options either 640x800 or 1920 x540 and for the life od me I couldn't figure out why that was now if only I could figure out how to get the 1280 x 720 resolution... Also I may be mistaken but I believe even the cinealta camer when it's hooked up to a monitor only does 1080 48i so I agree VERY few 1080/24p displays exist. |
March 22nd, 2004, 10:55 AM | #102 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
|
|
March 22nd, 2004, 11:05 AM | #103 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
|
|
March 22nd, 2004, 06:01 PM | #104 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 267
|
I actually think an AVI based format would have been better then MPEG2. I mean lets look at the positives. Every editor out there is compatible with AVI. The bitrate's that we could be using would be "high" for any MPEG4 varients so the lack of quality that MPEG2 is brigning would actually be dismissed because they'd be high bitrates for MPEG4 there for giving us more data to play with and greater quality (which is what i want). Also every frame could be a K frame for perfect editing and quality as said. And all still with 1 hour on a tape (if not more). :P
But oh well no use dreaming we're stuck with shi*y MPEG2 for a long time now. Guess we'll just have to hope they dont choke it and the features to much. Come on Canon :)
__________________
Welcome... to the real world! |
March 22nd, 2004, 06:22 PM | #105 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,802
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays -->>>
Which display do you have? Is it one of the 16:9 panels that is native 1280x768? I have a 17" Sony 16:9 LCD (SDM-V72W) and it supported 1280x768 right out of the box when plugged it into my Macintosh. I believe that all newer versions of Windows and MacOS should recognize the available display resolutions due to some self-configuring circuitry built into the monitor. Otherwise you might need to install some drivers, which should have been provided on a CD with the monitor. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|