DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-pro-handhelds/)
-   -   XDcamEX vs JVC GY HD250 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-pro-handhelds/100357-xdcamex-vs-jvc-gy-hd250.html)

Thomas Smet November 30th, 2007 12:19 AM

I am pretty sure 1920x1080 at 60p is not possible with mpeg2 so a move to a very high level of AVC would be needed in order to get that type of video.

While we may at some point get some funky camera to record a funky form of 60p you guys will be waiting a very long time for a delivery option for that type of video. If you could shoot that type of video you would have to choose to deliver it as 1920x1080ix60i or 1280x720px60p in which case you would have been better off just shooting in that format to begin with.

For the very tiny quality boost you would get I just don't see how spending twice the amount of bandwidth is worth it. No TV station is going to eat up double the bandwidth just for that tiny boost in quality. Most consumers who are still very happy with DVD is going to be perfectly happy with 720px60p and 1080ix60i for a very long time yet.

This whole 1920x1080x60p thing is just insane and is more of a sick fantasy then anything of any great use other then to waste money.

David Heath November 30th, 2007 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet (Post 784562)
While we may at some point get some funky camera to record a funky form of 60p you guys will be waiting a very long time for a delivery option for that type of video. ...........

For the very tiny quality boost you would get I just don't see how spending twice the amount of bandwidth is worth it. No TV station is going to eat up double the bandwidth just for that tiny boost in quality. ........

This whole 1920x1080x60p thing is just insane and is more of a sick fantasy then anything of any great use other then to waste money.

Sorry - I disagree, and the latest research has shown that the additional bandwidth required to transmit 1080p/50 is nothing like twice as much as for 1080i/25. Although the initial data rate may well be twice as much, it compresses far better, so the COMPRESSED data rate is far less than that would suggest.

The BBC in the UK has just released a detailed report about it's plans to start a full HD service next year - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...onclusions.pdf - and one section is relevant to technical issues.
Quote:

"3.39

We think it likely that broadcasters may face a variety of pressures, including regulatory, to move towards the 1080p picture resolution – capability for which is not available in current consumer display equipment. But we would expect that future transmission of 1080p pictures would be backwards compatible with current display equipment. So there should not arise an issue of consumer disadvantage. Nonetheless, we would expect the BBC Executive to make any move towards 1080p with sensitivity towards the current choices facing consumers who equip themselves to receive HD."
From which it seems they see a move to 1080p/50 highly likely - the only concern being not rendering existing home displays obsolete.

Werner Wesp November 30th, 2007 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet (Post 784346)
As much as I hate 1080i it really isn't fair to call it 1440x540. If you create a image that is 1440x540 pixels in size and then one that is 1440x540 but with space alternated in between the second one will look sharper. 1080 with every other line duplicated will look sharper then 540 pixels blown up to 1080. It is all about the illusion of detail and that is exactly what it does. It doesn't really work to think of interlaced in terms of pixel size because there are so many optical illusion factors in place that it just doesn't work.

Once more: at 1/50th (1/60th) of a second it IS 1440x540. Due to displacing it look somewhat more (+/-750) when playing, I never denied that. but every FIELD is just 1440x540.
Since 720p50 has no fields, just full frames, it has full resolution every 1/50th (1/60th) of a second.

Stitching together SD can never work, because there's no 50p mode is SD (unless with JVC HD100). You have to stich some 720p50 together to get some 1080p. Never try to get decent progressive images out of interlaced onces - you always loose quality, that's just the raw laws of physics.

Werner Wesp November 30th, 2007 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Heath (Post 784635)
Sorry - I disagree, and the latest research has shown that the additional bandwidth required to transmit 1080p/50 is nothing like twice as much as for 1080i/25. Although the initial data rate may well be twice as much, it compresses far better, so the COMPRESSED data rate is far less than that would suggest.

Indeed: All or virtually all compression schemes work far more efficiently with progressive images, therefore you can have less compression artifacts in 1080p then in 1080i, withouth doubling bandwith - although, the larger the bandwith, the better of course.

Obviously 1080p50 and 1080p60 is no sick fantasy - it is the logical next standard and a serious improvement over 720p50 (and an even bigger improvement over 1080i50). It is defenately no slight improvement. Furthermore is it a logical stardard that will fit all LCD- and Plasma-displays, as they are pushing that new standard (known by regular consumers as "Full HD").

Kevin Shaw November 30th, 2007 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet (Post 784562)
I am pretty sure 1920x1080 at 60p is not possible with mpeg2 so a move to a very high level of AVC would be needed in order to get that type of video.

The Convergent Designs XDR recorder discussed here recently includes a 1080i/p recording mode using MPEG2 compression at variable data rates of 50 or 100 Mbps. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...d-sdi+recorder

I'm not sure why we're discussing 1080i versus 720p here given the original topic of this thread, which is the XDCAM EX versus the JVX HD-250U. The EX can record 720p60 like the JVC (but at higher bandwidth) or record in 1080 formats with twice the real-world resolution, so all around better than the JVC by any technical measure. If you like shoulder-mounted cameras that's a different discussion, and form factor is an important consideration in picking a camera.

David Heath November 30th, 2007 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werner Wesp (Post 784779)
Indeed: All or virtually all compression schemes work far more efficiently with progressive images, therefore you can have less compression artifacts in 1080p then in 1080i, withouth doubling bandwith - ...........

I don't think it's just the progressive nature. Go to higher resolution frames and it's possible to use higher levels of compression, even when both systems are progressive - hence it still shouldn't be 2x the 720p/50 data rate after compression.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw
........the original topic of this thread, which is the XDCAM EX versus the JVX HD-250U. The EX can ....., so all around better than the JVC by any technical measure. If you like shoulder-mounted cameras that's a different discussion, .......

All true, and once accessories like radio mic receivers and camera lights start to be used, the JVC form factor starts to take on even more significance. It's also pretty easy to add a Firestore to a JVC camera, and still end up with an ergonomic package, and some users may find that tape+tapeless combination a big draw.

Thomas Smet December 1st, 2007 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw (Post 784782)
The Convergent Designs XDR recorder discussed here recently includes a 1080i/p recording mode using MPEG2 compression at variable data rates of 50 or 100 Mbps. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...d-sdi+recorder

I'm not sure why we're discussing 1080i versus 720p here given the original topic of this thread, which is the XDCAM EX versus the JVX HD-250U. The EX can record 720p60 like the JVC (but at higher bandwidth) or record in 1080 formats with twice the real-world resolution, so all around better than the JVC by any technical measure. If you like shoulder-mounted cameras that's a different discussion, and form factor is an important consideration in picking a camera.

Yes that is for 1080i 60i or 1080p 24p,25p or 30p. Nowhere does it ever say it can encode 1080p 60p.

Werner Wesp December 1st, 2007 11:56 AM

MPEG2 is scalable to 1080p.

Kevin Shaw December 1st, 2007 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet (Post 785278)
Nowhere does it ever say it can encode 1080p 60p.

And neither can the JVC, so I don't see how that's relevant to this comparison. In any case, the EX1 works well and makes a fine alternative to other HD cameras in the same price range, depending on your particular needs.

Thomas Smet December 2nd, 2007 12:02 PM

I was commenting on the fact that no camera while still using mpeg2 will be able to do 1080p 60p. This includes HD broadcast as well. So if JVC or SONY sticks with mpeg2 then you will not see 1080p 60p. Also until the point when we can make Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs with VC1 and AVCHD encoding you will have no way to deliver 1080p 60p.

So while in a few years 1080p 60p may be nice it is pointless to think about it right now. This is why it is a fantasy. Until we can shoot with it and make use of it it is a fantasy. Sure maybe some people are working on a solution but it isn't ready yet so it is pointless to get all worked up over a format that isn't even around yet. When it does come out it may be awhile before any of us will be able to deliver with such a format.

This is relevant because I am trying to point out for now we can use 720p 60p or 1080 60i or 1080p 30p. So we should all go back to thinking about using those formats and stop thinking about 1080p 60p.

Werner Wesp December 2nd, 2007 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet (Post 785872)
I was commenting on the fact that no camera while still using mpeg2 will be able to do 1080p 60p.

This is ridiculous. You need a well adapted bandwith (less than double indeed but still adapted to the raw datastream), but there's nothing in the MPEG2 that prohibits encoding in 1080p50 and/or1080p60. More so, MPEG2 will probably be a preferred format for 1080p, because codecs without temporal efficiency would eat up too much bandwith.

1080p50 or 1080p60 in MPEG2 with 6 (or 12) frame GOP and a bandwith of 50-100Mbps would look very, very good indeed.

Kevin Shaw December 2nd, 2007 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werner Wesp (Post 784778)
Once more: at 1/50th (1/60th) of a second it IS 1440x540. Due to displacing it look somewhat more (+/-750) when playing, I never denied that. but every FIELD is just 1440x540.

On the EX1 in HQ 1080i mode each field would be 1920x540, and in 1080p mode would be 1920x1080. In 720p60 mode the still-frame resolution would be the same as a JVC HDV camera, but with slightly more bandwidth per frame.

After shooting some footage on the EX1 this weekend I'm hungry for even higher resolution: when can I get 4K at 60 fps? ;-)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network