Slashdot Mirror
Sony's HDV 1080i Consumer Camcorder
An anonymous reader writes "Sony has just announced a high-definition video camcorder that records in 1080i. A site was just created with a lot of information about the camcorder. The camcorder uses the HDV spec which records to standard MiniDV tapes. It includes 3 CCDs and along with the announcement it appears Apple and Adobe are now supporting the HDV standard. The camcorder carries a steep price at $3,700 though. See the original press release as well, though it doesn't contain much information."
Cheap porn can be brought to us in HD!
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
It will be competing in the super-high-end consumer market through the professional market. It's similar to the Canon XL1 series, which go for similar prices, with similar characteristics (high end digital video, everything manual, etc.).
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
Well, maybe not cheaper..
I wonder how much storage space is on it, and how long it will take to transfer onto a PC/Editing system given 1080i's bandwidth requirements?
I don't know, do I really need to see every pore on my family's face in home movies?
Uhm, one of the defining features of this camera is that it can do 1080i and 780p.
I beleive the JVC GR-HD1US has been avialble for more than a year now, and at a slightly lower price than the Sony. Sony seems to have been spending a lot of (well considered) money on the PlayStation 2&3 platform and ignoring the "consumer electronics" feild for a while now. They just aren't up to snuff compared to Panasonic, JVC, Zenith and the other giants.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
You could just deinterlace 1080i to 540p, right?
how huge a hard drive I'll need to edit HD iMovie projects now...
Actually, given the benefits of progressive scan, I'm surprised there isn't more equipment in 1080p...especially since the quality difference is apparent.
On the other hand...if you think about how much camcorders cost around 20 years ago...adjust for inflation...this really not all that expensive. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the separate cameras and recording decks of days long past.
I'd be particularly wary of buying any NTSC/PAL camcorders with the new HD standards that are going to be set in the next few years. I'm hoping that by the time I have kids, there'll be more choices on the market with this kind of recording quality.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
I have a Sony DV camera and it works fine with iMovie.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Screw Porn (HAHAHA). Throw caution to the DCMA and BOOTLEG, BOOTLEG, BOOTLEG. Now all I need is 3700$, some milk duds, and a rear seat.
My sony mini-dv works fine with my PowerBook. No need for proprietary software or drivers. The only think I had to do was get a cable.
My
-I get a piece of brand new tech for 500 dollars.
-I get a digital camera that uses the X3 sensor and has a true 8MP CCD, not this 1.5MP x 3 garbage that you see.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
RTFA:
"The HDV spec was agreed upon as a standard by Sony, JVC, Canon, and Sharp for new high-definition consumer camcorders last year. Along with the announcement of the new Sony HDV camcorder comes support from major video editing software companies including Apple and Adobe"
Go on the DV boards like 2-pop or creative cow and find me all the people who are unable to use sony's "not recognized and not standard" DV VTR's and cameras. They ARE standard and any editor that can capture DV can get video from them just as easily as from a JVC, Panasonic or Canon. No drivers necessary.
"I forgot my mantra."
Actually, given the benefits of progressive scan, I'm surprised there isn't more equipment in 1080p...especially since the quality difference is apparent.
;)
Find me a RPTV for less than $15k that supports 1080p.
I'd be particularly wary of buying any NTSC/PAL camcorders with the new HD standards that are going to be set in the next few years. I'm hoping that by the time I have kids, there'll be more choices on the market with this kind of recording quality.
Two words: Post Processing.
By the time you pull in 1080i@60fps, and load it into your computer, and 'flatten' it it'll look fine
I doubt many people really want to watch high-def porn.
It'll just make the flaws and bad makeup stand out more.
I have a Sony DCR-TRV22 mini-dv camcorder and it works fine with all the software I've tried (Adobe Premiere, Microsoft Movie Maker, iMovie etc). I would happily recommend Sony camcorders to anyone, regardless of what platform/software they're using.
1080i and 1080p are distinctly different. And I saw no mention in the article about 720p.
Why does anyone still make interlaced devices? I thought everyone agreed that progressive scan was better. Wouldn't they be better off with 540p than 1080i? It seems to me that it would be easier to make the device, and similar or better quality.
Am I missing something?
I know a lot of sony camera's only work with the proprietary software.. IF you use a USB connection.
However, if you actually go out and buy a 1394 cable, it works in all applications just like any other DV device would.
?SYNTAX ERROR IN LINE 42
It is really surprising that we have interlaced standards in the HDTV specs.
Basically, 1080i = 540 lines / refresh.
720p has 720 lines per refresh.
The problem with interlacing is that it introduces or exacerbates certain visual artifacts. This is one of the reasons some of the networks are sticking with 720p for their HDTV broadcasts.
Whether this interlaced standard is a carryover from the consumer electronics folks or not, I would stick with 720p until something nicer comes out. Be interesting to know the history here. Computer LCD makers are well settled on progressive displays at this point.
Is 1080p in the standard? I didn't think it was....
Anyways, fun stuff.
Yeah, but it tends to make things blurry. Deinterlacing video is never good for quality.
...that HDV's recorded bitrate is still 25Mbit/sec. While you might think that is a lot compared to terrestrial HDTV's 18Mbit stream, in fact, it's very little. In production you generally want to record MORE in acquisition than distribution.
The defacto HD production format, HDCAM, records something like 140-180MBit/sec, the uncompressed signal is something like 996MBit/sec.
The most likely market for this camera will be indie filmmakers, documentaries, and industrial/corporate promotional use. The price makes complete sense--and most of the market buying VX2100's and XL1's will probably look seriously at this.
Most broadcast/network HD will still be HDCAM, DVCPRO HD (off the popular Panasonic Varicam) or 35mm transfer.
Calum
I'm hoping that by the time I have kids
What? I thought this was slashdot!
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
I guess the non-projection HD CRTs (the mostly sub-1000 dollar units) do native 1080i still, and people must be buying these since I see a lot of them at Best Buy/CC. Mostly I just find it annoying that nobody has standardized, even on an inferior standard. At least then it would be possible to get one set that displayed all of the content well, as opposed to the mess of trade-off decisions involved in getting a decent HD setup right now.
Whats the point of having a system that records HDV, but must use MPEG2 compresion to store it on miniDV tapes that it uses?
Am I not getting something here??
Phil.
Either the article info is wrong, or I misunderstand HDTV resolutions. According to the article, there are three CCDs:
Each CCD measures 960 x 1080 pixels.
1080 is supposed to be the vertical resolution, with horizontal at 1920. This is less than half the horizontal resolution.
-Adam
Final Cut Pro HD has been out for what, five months now? And even before that some form of HD has been supported in Final Cut Pro. I am not familiar with the earlier versions of it, but some of the FCP books I have all discuss editing it.
It is cool to see a 1080i camera out there though. Give it a few weeks and there will be a consumer affordable model.
For now I will stick with my Canon Optura Xi.
On a serious note. I have been thinking about things like this for a while. It's not exactly a highly original thought, but more and more of high end hardware/software/electronics/mechanics are becoming available to the normal joe. This has been widely known and considered with apache/linux/mysql/php/etc., but it is happening in many realms other than software.
I think that we are stepping into a creative boon as a result of this. When only large profit-intensive, single-minded corporations have access to these types of materials you don't see much creativity in how they are used. However, you stick that power with a vast majority of the public and you are going to have some incredibly original and creative ideas. I am looking forward to the creativity too....Doggy style is so 20th century.
Actually, given the benefits of progressive scan, I'm surprised there isn't more equipment in 1080p
The basic reason they don't is due to the bandwidth of the amount of information you'd have to transfer is double that of 1080i. And then you have to compress that information. Compressed HDTV runs at 19.8 Mega Bits/second. To do 1080p you would have to run at twice that 39.6 Mbps. This amounts to one full 4.7GB disk every 15 minutes. Not many devices can record that fast, except raid arrays. If you want progressive, use 720p for now.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
is whether Sony has managed to solve the compression problems of getting an HD signal on a dv tape. Footage from the GR-HD1 has nasty compression artifacts which has preculded anybody from getting too excited about using it.
My money's on no, but it's still cool to see companies working at getting these products to market. The next few years are gonna be exciting for filmmakers as desktop HD comes online.
Not this again. At the same frame rate, 1080p and 1080i use the same bandwidth (e.g. 60 fields/s == 30 frames/s). It's just a different way to arrange the same number of pixels.
Given the sinking cost on digital still cameras (2mp CCDs are considered outdated it seems, 5mp is the new hotness)... it isn't surprising that HD camcorders are showing up.
:-)
My questions are more about the loss in compression, and how it interacts with existing editing suites? Standard 400mbps firewire? When your capturing from firewire on a host, and it tries to render the live video stream, is Premiere going to blow up? (Well, Premiere blows up on it's own constantly without wierd hardware (Premiere XP is supposidly much better)).
Neato, but expected. Now all the people can replace those old camcorders in the closet that see one use ever two years with a newer, better, camcorder that will see a use every two years
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
1080p is at 24, 25, and 30 fps and therefore runs at equivalent data rates to the 1080i 50i and 60i formats.
Also, 40Mbps is what, 5megabytes per second, which even a 6 year old hard drive can record at quite easily!!! No raid needed!!
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
I don't see that as a problem. 720p is the current top-end for "real" HD. 1080i is not "real" in my eyes because it is interlaced.
It's time we dropped interlacing completely (funnily enough, I was told that was one of the big benefits to digital, that you get 60 discrete full-resolution frames per second, and not 59.94 or 29.97 or some fucked up number). Had I been in charge of the FCC, when CBS threatened to pull their HD over the broadcast flag, I'd have told them, "hahaha, go ahead and pull it, 1080i sucks cock anyway, and so does the broadcast flag".
Plus, devices that are natively 1080i will have to upconvert 720p, which will cause an immediate resolution loss of 1/2 the full 1080i pixel array, since you're converting from 60 full frames per second, to 60 fields per second. And that's not even figuring in the resizing process from 1920x1080 to 1280x720.
I'd rather see 1080i downconverted to 720p, so that the 720p signal will run at native resolution . 720p is the current sweet spot for quality in HDTV, and people completely miss it because "1080 is bigger, durrrrr".
Interlacing should have NEVER BEEN ALLOWED INTO THE DIGITAL STANDARD AT ALL. Legacy interlaced material running at 59.94 fields/sec can be converted to 480p/29.97fps with absolutely NO loss, only problem is you get mice teeth (but they could just bob it in the receiver). For material shot and produced for HD, there should NEVER be any interlacing, EVER. Interlacing was only used as a cheap analog way of compressing the signal at a 1:2 ratio. Now that we have the bandwidth, there is no reason we can't have 60 discrete frames per second.
Oh, and don't even get me started on why we are already locked into MPEG-2 for DTT, despite the availability of better compression methods. Or why companies that broadcast on two separate NTSC licenses (commonly known as 'duopolies') are only being given one 19Mbps ATSC license? Due to this, such companies can NOT offer true HD for both stations. If the analog side of your station broadcasts on two 6MHz channels (discounting translators, etc - just the main transmitter), then you should get two 19Mbps ATSC licenses, point blank.
Digital TV sucks. It will be the end of television, as we know it. Mark my words.
FC Closer
Umm... no they don't. 1080i = 540 lines per second displayed on screen with a total of 1080 lines of resolution. 1080p = 1080 lines per second displayed on screen with a total of 1080 lines of resolution. To do 1080p you've got to send all the data at once since it's got to display all the data all the time, with 1080i you only have to send half of the data at one time, since it only display's half the screen's resolution.
True, they are displaying the pixels differently, they aren't turning on half of them (prior to line doubling) because they are only sending data to half of them at a time; because they aren't sending data to them they aren't using up the bandwidth. From a bandwidth perspective 1080i == 540p.
Right now most high-def OTA broadcasters are having problems even with 8 to 1 compression to keep it within a channel, increasing the compression to 16 to 1 to keep it within their channel limits is going to make it look like absolute crap.
We do video between labs for overflow (more students than a lab can hold). Thing is, normal DV cams just don't have the resolution to capture the professor and screens without looking totally blurry. This would go a long way to fixing that. It still wouldn't give a crystal clear image, but much better than what we have now.
At $4,000, it would be an actual viable option, though expensive. A DVPro unit is just out of the question, no way we are paying $50,000 just to get clear video between two labs.
I'm just glad to see it in general, it's probably the first real push I've seen to bring HD recording in to the consumer realm. Still quite a ways off, but at least it's starting.
Just on the heels of the "Death of the floppy disk", I cannot wait for the Death of Interlaced Video Formats!
After spending years programming for and editing interlaced video, I can honestly say, "ARGGGGHHH!"
Can we not yet send someone back in time, to whack the ^%#!$@ who first thought it up?
I haven't had a floppy drive in any of my PCs for 5 years, and I haven't missed it. It would be wonderful if I could say the same thing about interlaced video!
(end of whacko rant).
OK...interlacing is the process of cutting out every other line in each frame, right? So if you just combined 2 frames, wouldn't you remove the interlace? With no quality loss? Hehe, sorry, not 540p but 1080p at a lower FPS, right?
On a serious note. I have been thinking about things like this for a while. It's not exactly a highly original thought, but more and more of high end hardware/software/electronics/mechanics are becoming available to the normal joe. This has been widely known and considered with apache/linux/mysql/php/etc., but it is happening in many realms other than software.
Oh come on, this phenomenon has always been happening in most all fields. Look at cars, a $30000 Subaru WRX can stomp a pure bred race car from even 10 years ago. Look at motorcycles, a Suzuki GSRX can compete with Gran Prix bikes of just a few years ago. Pro versions of things filtering down to the consumer is a daily occurance, and yet this concept of "creative boon" still wants to come up like having a triple chip 1080p uber camcorder is somehow going to make someone more creative than a $200 vhs camcorder. If you can't come up with beautiful poetry with a pencil, having a beowulf cluster isn't going to help either.
540 lines per second? Hehe, try 1/60th second. Parent was correct. 1080i shows 540 lines 60 times per second, 1080p shows 1080 lines 30 times per second. Zero-sum game, basically.
"I forgot my mantra."
You don't know WTF you are talking about. First off -- "540 lines per second" I don't think so. 1080i is 540 lines at 60Hz. That's sixty times per second. Then there is 1080p which is typically one of three rates - 1080 lines at 30Hz, 25Hz or 24Hz. Those last two are more about european (PAL) and film frame rates than anything else.
So, 1080p at the fastest rate of 30Hz that's 1080 lines/field x 30 fields/second = 32400 lines/second.
Compare that to 1080i's 540 lines/field x 60 fields/second = 32400 lines/second.
EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF LINES.
Add to that the fact that MPEG2 does a better job (more efficient) compressing progressive video than it does compressing interlaced video and you find that your required data rates to get the same level of picture quality actually go down slightly.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
1080p60 is just slightly beyond the bandwidth capabilities of current video tape technology. There is presently no way to do it on 1/2" video tape without applying an excessive amount of lossy compression. Plus you have the problem that very little (no?) editing or display equipment supports 1080p60.
I doubt you will see 1080p24 consumer cameras offered soon, out of fear that they would cut into sales of professional 24p cameras.
The HDV spec involves super-lossy compression so it won't really hold up to the established HD formats. However, it should look excellent when down-sampled to NTSC/PAL resolution. (down-sampling will minimize CCD noise and compression artifacts). That might be the primary use of this camera - a cheap substitute for Digital Betacam, or a superior replacement for standard DV.
I've shot with the JVC HDV camera, and my impression of it is that the resolution is excellent (as is to be expected), but the real quality differentiator between it and a "real HD" camera is the quality of color and image delivered by the whole system, not just a high resolution imaging chip.
This is not suprising - I have always found the image and color quality of DV cameras to be much lower than even medium-end pro cameras (such as the elderly SVHS Panasonic Supercam). The prosumer cameras do not have $3,000 lenses. They do not have the amazing amount of color DSP going on as the pro cameras.
But at the same time, HDV cameras are better than nothing, and certainly good for "riskier" shots where a $100,000 HDCAM camera being lost would be a problem. You just can't skydive with a full-size camera, for instance...
One other issue is that 25 Mbps is really limiting for MPEG-2 HD (heh, so is 19.4 Mbps, but that is another topic).
If you are into a lot of action with lots of uncorrelated motion vectors, you might be better off with upconverted DV, as 25 Mbps is fine for inraframe coded DV.
Compressed HDTV runs at 19.8 Mega Bits/second. To do 1080p you would have to run at twice that 39.6 Mbps.
I don't see any reason why you could not take the video in at 30 frames per second progressive. This would have the same bandwidth as 60 fields per second (30 frames per second) interlaced, which is what this camera shoots natively. You would have to alter the front end a little to accomodate this, but 30fps progressive is in the HDTV standards for 1080-line mode. It's called 1080i because it gets delivered to the monitor interlaced.
www.wavefront-av.com
People often observe that the HDTV standards specify 1080i, 720p, and 480p, but there is actually more to it than this. The ATSC standard specifies these resolutions at 60Hz (where Hz here measures refreshes per second, which is the same thing as frames per second for progressive scan, twice the frame rate for interlacing), but it also specifies lower frame rates. In particular the standard actually specifies 1080 line progressive scan at 30fps (because that has the same bitrate as 1080i at 60Hz) and also at 24fps (because this has the same frame rate as movies and other production on film).
Lots of people in the independent film industry really want 24fps progressive (usually referred to as 24p), because video shot this way can be blown up onto 35mm film and shown in a cinema, and can ideally provide film quality for a much lower cost than actual film (and which can be digitally edited etc etc much more easily than stuff shot on film. They have at times gone out of their way to kludge something similar from consumer DV cameras in the past. Quite a few films have been shot by taking a PAL SDTV camera, getting it to output 576 line 25fps progressive, blowing it up onto film and then running the resulting film at 24fps. The playback speed is slightly slower than the filming speed, but it is close enough not to notice. (Just as an aside, the reverse of this is often done when movies are shown on European TV, which are filmed in 24fps and shown at 50Hz interlaced (ie 25fps) on PAL TV. This sometimes explains why films have slightly different running times on European and American TV, and some actors complain that their voices have a higher pitch when they watch their movies in Europe)
Now this camera does not support either of these 1080 line progressive scan modes, presumably because the CCD sensor in the camera would have to be different to do this. It can apparently film 1080i 60Hz and then fake 30fps or 24fps progressive from that, and I would be very interested to see how good this is. It is undoubtedly much better than the old PAL DV camera at 25fps trick, but how it compares with cameras that film 720 lines in genuine progressive scan remains to be seen. These 720p cameras have apparently been a big hit with film-makers, but a genuine 1080p camera for a few thousand dollars would be something special. It would mean that film-makers could rent a camera for a few hundred dollars that could produce something very close to genuine cinema quality, and they could make movies with it without the costs of film stock. Sony have been making 1080 line 24p cameras for professional use for a few years now ("Star Wars Episode 2", the "Spy Kids" movies, and no doubt a few others have been shot with them). This would change the independent film world, as the absolute minimum amount of money required to produce a feature film with decent picture quality would be reduced from a few tens of thousands of dollars to close to nothing.
You could, but that wouldn't give you the nice "film look of progressive". The big problem with interlaced for capturing moving objects is combing (see the adverts for "comb filters" in TVs?) The object moves a little in between the two halves of the interlaced frame being recorded, and the visual result is a nasty jaggie effect on object borders, which looks a bit like the teeth of a comb.
That's a problem with the interlaced acquisition method. Progressive looks nicer if you've got stuff moving around much.
Dude, where you been? This has alreday been going on since the XL1 was out, last century. Only change now it can be in HD.
"I forgot my mantra."
Here is the real reason for the 1080i/720p split:
Sony HDCAM: 1080i
Panasonic D5: 720p
Half of broadcasters went one way, half went the other. Keep in mind the existing business relationships at networks and stations.
But 1080i really does seem to provide a higher-resolution experience (when watched on a real 1080 monitor...) HDNET went 1080i, and most PBS content is 1080i. But I will admit it is really a religious issue.
I've never heard about the duopoly issue with DTV channel assignments. It is my impression that every analog broadcast channel is entitled to a DTV channel as well during the transition. Do you have a reference on this?
I can assure you that MPEG-2 is the ONLY codec that is broadcast-ready. Certainly when ATSC specs were defined, they weren't even thoughts.
I've seen the best H.264 and Windows Media live encoders on the planet, and they can barely get the same quality at the same bitrate as the best mid-level MPEG-2 live encoders.
Keep in mind that MPEG-2 encoders have had years to get better. People keep coming up with ways to cut bits, you now have live 2-pass encoders, pre-filtering, etc. MPEG-2 live encoding quality has improved 100% in the last five years in terms of equivalent bitrate quality.
I expect 2-3 years before the live H.264/WMT encoders can catch up with live MPEG-2 encoders.
From your mouth to God's ears. The end of TV as we know can only be a good thing.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Right, and that is the reason you capture progressively, then and only then (if needed), interlace it. I believe that the current DV camcorders that sport progressive scan already do exactly that.
www.wavefront-av.com
What this discussion doesn't tell you is how perfectly acceptable (I would say fscking GREAT) regular mini-DV is right now.
Yes, I know, lots of people want high-res, high-def, high frame rates, gorgeous colors, minimal artefacts etc. Some of those even NEED those things.
However, if you are reading this discussion and you don't have experience with what "plain, vanilla" mini-DV can do, then just don't worry about new fancy-pants cameras for now.
Instead, get a mini-DV camera and a Mac (especially) or a PC. These cameras are small. lightweight, affordable, easy to learn and quite reliable.
Then you can take 1+ hours digital footage on a $5 tape, import into your fast laptop in real time and edit it right there, in place, about as easily as fixing up your MP3 titles in your mp3 player. Then you can author a DVD, burn it and give it to friends or family, and you know what, it looks great on TV.
The biggest limitation really is the processing time when you finish the product and want to export to DVD, and more resolution would only make this worse.
So, go film a friends band, your kids jumping over the lawn sprinkler, make a roadtrip movie for your car-nut friends or whatever. In two years time it will be much clearer what the next realistic step up in resolution is, and in the meanwhile prices will keep going down.
My thoughts...
I have an HDTV and 1080i looks incredible, with the exception of fast moving video shot at 1080i, because the 4:2:0 color compression screws it up, and creates color banding and unwanted blending. If you watch 1080i originated material frame by frame in MPEG2 format, in fast scenes the color information is sometimes a frame ahead of the fast moving object... quite obvious when you pause the HD TiVo, but hardly noticable at all at 59.94 fields per second.
The main reason 1080i is used and not 1080p, is because it allows for two progressive fields of 540p/59.94 which are then split up into an interlaced picture of 1080i allowing for smoother motion.
I love 1080p/24 material, having shot and worked with it myself. I'm not as thrilled with 1080i, but it still looks fantastic.
If TV as you know it is analog, then yes, Digital TV will be the end of TV a we know it, but it doesn't suck. The only thing that does suck, are cable companies not utilizing the full 19.4Mbps bandwidth. Most of the ones I have are closer to 9 or 10Mbps, and in high action sequences the mpeg just falls apart on the most compressed channels. PBS and DiscoveryHD usually have the best quality, but HBO is hopelessly compressed and since the compression is done in hardware, in real time, it can look awful in fast action scenes, while slow scenes still look acceptable.
Converting 480i to 480p isn't as graceful as you make it sound. I do this sort of stuff for a living, and there is no justification for "mice teeth" in video, ever. If you have to convert to progressive, far better to use interpolation filters during encoding, rather than using bob or weave in the receiver.
Interlacing, while it definitely does suck on projected images, is still a good idea for TVs and you're wrong, it was not used as a cheap analog way of compressing the signal at a 1:2 ratio. It was used as a way to get rid of flicker on your TV.
30 frames per second simply isn't fast enough when shown on a CRT Tube. The image has a very noticable flicker. Using 60 fields, and showing them interlaced, promptly doubled the number of pictures visible on screen, and cut the flicker in half. It's still visible if you look, but for the most part, it's fine. Unless of course you have a very big TV, but then again, the NTSC standard was never meant to be seen on anything bigger than 12" anyway.
I have an HDTV CRT, as well as a projector. If I don't de-interlace the signal that goes into my projector, it doesn't look very appetizing on a 100" projected image. However, my HDTV looks perfectly natural, as it uses scanlines natively.
Material shot and produced on HD looks fantastic at 1080i, in its uncompressed state. The problem here is the 4:2:0 color compression of MPEG2, not the resolution. In fact, you'll see exactly the same kind of problems in PAL DV cameras (they also use 4:2:0, whereas NTSC DV cameras use 4:1:1 and don't have the color banding issues).
What you have to consider, are the benefits of each format. 720p has fewer lines, but at the same time can afford more bandwidth per frame. 1080i splits the signal in half in order to send the same bitrate without losing too much image quality, but suffers the color banding effect on 59.94i material, while still looking sensational on material originating at 24p or even 30p.
Upconverting 720p to 1080i isn't as bad as you make it sound. Mostly because they have the same amount of pictures per second. 720p doesn't use 59.94 full images per second, it uses 29.97 images per second that are then shown twice on your 720p capable TV set (shown twice to eliminate flickering). Thus, when converting to 1080i, each 720 is first blown up to 1080, and then split into two 540 line chunks, which are then interlaced on your screen. Since the motion is exactly the same in both fields, you are pretty much seeing a full 1080 picture, even though the source was 720 and thus not as sharp as 1080p.
This resolution takes up less bandwidth than does 1080i, and
-- This sig for rent.
I couldn't have said it better
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
sorry but I just bought a $5000.00 NON HD camcorder.
the Canon XL-2
and I consider that an inexpensive Video Camera.
Try shooting with a Sony DVCPro camera with a $30,000.00 Fujinon Lens..
Having $100,000.00 on your shoulder or flinging around a el-cheapo $5K camera??? I'll take the $5K camera that get's almost as good video (to the point that even the networks are switching to the Canon XL line of cameras for news and sports) and is basically disposable compared to the workhorse camera's of yesterday.
give me the ability to change lenses on that Sony and I'll look at it as something other than a toy... although it's priced right there with the GL2.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Read the parent post. I was refuting his claim that sony's miniDV was "proprietary" which its not, that it required custom software, which it doesn't, and that it speaks to open source to which its irrelevant. I didn't say that sony is perfect and its too bad you've had bad luck with them. Actually, I had to get rid of my JVC deck because it gave me problems with tapes made in panasonc, sony, canon and even jvc cameras. Replaced it with a sony deck and suddenly all of those tapes work fine now. Seems to play well with others on my desk.
"I forgot my mantra."
Sony's MicroDV format is, indeed, proprietary (altho I believe other vendors are giving some support to this). MiniDV, however, is widely supported and I have used a variety of software (Premier, Pinnacle, etc. etc.) to upload/download off my MiniDV Sony camera.
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
I have to agree that the compression sucks, fast action just breaks down, but last I checked at least Comcast was not doing rateshaping yet (this was early this year). Has that changed? I know they bought some equipment for it in some markets. I think I might need to go to over-the-air HDTV.
720p doesn't use 59.94 full images per second, it uses 29.97 images per second that are then shown twice on your 720p capable TV set (shown twice to eliminate flickering).
Are you sure about this? I have never head this about 720p material unless it was originally shot on film. I thought all native 720p (such as what FOX, ABC and ESPN will use for sports) will be 720p at a unique 60 frames per second.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
39.6 Mbps is about 5 megabytes per second. You could do that with any low end harddrive, a 100mbit ethernet cable or an 8x DVD burner. I think the issue is that a standalone device capable of handling that much data would be too expensive. DVDs didn't catch on until the players fell under $200.
More anti-corporate crap. You probably buy your coffee at Starbucks and wipe your ass with Charmin.
-- No sig for you!
Forgive me for stepping on your words:
Basically, 1080i = 540 lines / refresh. 720p has 720 lines per refresh.
but it seems you are implying that 720p is a higher resolution than 1080i. You are correct that more lines are refreshed during each scanning pass in a progressive scan format. However, the refress rate is half as often.
In progressive formats, all of the screens pixels (each frame) are refreshed every ~1/30 second. In interlaced formats, each frame is made up of 2 fields and fields are refreshed alternately every ~1/60 of a second. In the end 1080i has refreshed 1080 lines of resolution in 1/30th of a second, while 720p has refreshed 720 lines of resolution in 1/30th of a second. In the case of 1080i, the gun is spraying electrons much faster than 720p.
The alternation of even and odd lines is virtually invisible to the eye when dealing with slower moving images. Our eye's persistence of vision continues to see the odd lines of the TV image while the even lines are being displayed. The reason films run at 24 fps is because that is that is the point at which the human mind percieves continuous motion from individual stills. (You may have noticed that sometimes when you see silent films that they appear to be sped up. This is because they were often filmed at 18 fps and played back at 24 fps. Film is expensive, especially back then! (Film contains silver.) Shooting a film at 30 fps, instead of 24, would add 25% more cost to film stock and processing. Why raise the budget with very little visual impact?
Also, folks often confuse the way things are acquired and the way they are distributed. Just because something is distributed in 1080i does not mean that it has to be aquired in an interlaced format. For example, the Panasonic AG-DVX100A is a prosumer 24p camera. But it uses the standard MiniDV format to record the image. The image is recorded at NTSC 29.97 interlaced. All of which is explained here by Adam Wilt. By using 3:2 pulldown (RTFA), the 24p images can be encoded and displayed on standard 29.97i NTSC equipment. The same technique is used to produce DVDs.
The difficulty of interlacing is that when motion occurs quickly, the odd and even lines don't seem to match up correctly and can create moire (that weird visual pattern you see when somebody wears a tightly striped shirt on TV) or other visual distractions. However, this effect only applies to images that are acquired interlaced. If the images are acquired progressively and displayed interlaced, you will never notice the problem. 1080i, if care is taken in the acquisition phase, should always looks better than 720p.
You said it man. Nobody f#%ks with the Jesus.
- I've never heard about the duopoly issue with DTV channel assignments. It is my impression that every analog broadcast channel is entitled to a DTV channel as well during the transition. Do you have a reference on this?
My reference is the station I work for =PWe have two primary stations, an ABC affiliate and a UPN affiliate. Now, I would assume that part of this issue is because our UPN affiliate is a former LP station, now CA. And I am unsure if there are any duopolies with two full power stations (perhaps in larger markets, this is the 92nd DMA). However, we have a single DTV allotment that we run 1 HD stream (ABC HD or upconverted NTSC, depending on the hours), 1 SD stream at a good bitrate (the UPN station), a lower-bitrate SD stream that carries ABC News Now, and a couple of extra audio streams. I don't know the numbers, but I'm under the impression that we don't have much available bandwidth currently. There is absolutely no way we could carry UPN in HD, with our fulltime HD stream for the ABC station.
Again, I am unsure if there are duopolies that have two fullpower NTSC stations, and I am also unsure if any such stations would be entitled to two ATSC allotments. However, for any duopolies that incorporate an LP/CA station, they're getting screwed hard.
About the MPEG-2 issue - I agree with your points, but as I understand it, there wasn't much room left for the allowance of using a newer codec on your primary stream as they mature. I also understand that broadcasters can pretty much send out what they want, as long as they broadcast one MPEG-2 stream (SD or HD). But still, that MPEG-2 can take up a good chunk of your stream, if you run it at any quality rate. I'm not so much peeved at the simple fact that MPEG-2 is the primary codec in use *currently*, however - I'll definitely agree that MPEG-2 is the most mature codec in major use currently, at the average bitrates used.
Perhaps I'm just over-worried a bit about it. I don't discount the possibility that ATSC will make room for a different primary codec when (if) they mature and produce good live results. I also understand that realtime live encoding will never be as high quality as a good multipass offline encoder that can gain from bidirectional encoding - live encoders will never win this simply because they can't see in the future (unless the video is delayed a few frames, to allow the encoder to do some bidirectional encoding, but then it's not technically a 'live' encoder in the strictest sense of the word).
FC Closer
You're probably both right on that, I'm pretty sure that 720p can be either 60fps or 30fps. I think it can also be 59.94fps or 29.97fps as well, but this is probably just used when upconverting NTSC material.
FC Closer
i thought there were 540p cameras already available for this market segment.
540p is higher bandwidth.
Interlacing, while it definitely does suck on projected images, is still a good idea for TVs and you're wrong, it was not used as a cheap analog way of compressing the signal at a 1:2 ratio. It was used as a way to get rid of flicker on your TV.
30 frames per second simply isn't fast enough when shown on a CRT Tube. The image has a very noticable flicker. Using 60 fields, and showing them interlaced, promptly doubled the number of pictures visible on screen, and cut the flicker in half. It's still visible if you look, but for the most part, it's fine. Unless of course you have a very big TV, but then again, the NTSC standard was never meant to be seen on anything bigger than 12" anyway.
Well, we're both right on the original reason for interlacing, really. Of course 30Hz would have been a horrible refresh rate, but yet there wasn't enough bandwidth for a progressive 60fps signal. So, to compromise, the frame was split into fields to allow a 60fps motion rate and increase the total vertical resolution available at such a speed. Also, interlacing is clearly visible on even a small TV - but that's more the fault of graphics designers who think nothing of using one or two pixel horizontal lines with absolutely no interlace compensation.
I'll agree that the current use of interlacing in DTT is pretty much a religious issue - I hate interlacing for exactly the reason you probably at least have *some* dislike for it, because it makes it hard to display properly on a progressive display. I might agree that, in a professional setting, mice teeth aren't wanted. However, when archiving existing 480i material on a progressive medium, at high bitrates, I feel the best approach is to encode the material with no deinterlacing done during processing, followed by encoding with a codec that supports the necessary metadata to denote progressive/interlaced and top/bottom field first (to deal with the specific capture device used). Then, you record the closest signal you can to the original video, and thus can utilize better deinterlacing methods that mature in the future. Plus, at least on an LCD monitor, I've found that bobbing looks way better than many people claim it to - there is an almost imperceptible loss in vertical sharpness, but the increased motion fluidity more than makes up for this. I'll also agree that it mainly depends on the original source of the material in the first place - definitely the best thing to do with a telecined 24fps source is to reconstruct the original 24fps as best you can with IVTC techniques. Also, there is material that is recorded at 29.97fps progressive and recorded on standard NTSC videotape - this material can simply be archived as progressive, of course. But for native 480i material, and for the purpose of archiving, I feel that no processing (other than color correction and blemish removal, if desired) should be done to deinterlace the material prior to encoding. For production and broadcast, I agree that deinterlacing is a good idea, however.
Well, by DTT, I of course meant Digital Terrestrial Television, so I'm not referring to cable or satellite at all. I'm merely referring to the ATSC requirement to broadcast at least one MPEG-2 stream. Not necessarily the use of MPEG-2 currently, as I realize it's quite mature. However, I don't know that the ATSC is so open-ended as to
FC Closer
What do you guys who claim that HD porn reveals too much detail (i.e., pimples, sores, blemishes, scars, etc...) think you see when you actually have sex with a real person? You guys are making it clear that you're virgins. Well, HD porn will give you a better idea what it's like; It can be disgusting. So the argument that it won't do well is ridiculous because people go to prostitutes.
live encoders will never win this simply because they can't see in the future (unless the video is delayed a few frames, to allow the encoder to do some bidirectional encoding, but then it's not technically a 'live' encoder in the strictest sense of the word)
Will residential viewers of free-to-air TV even care that their feed is delayed by 60 fields (one second) for bidi encoding? Viewers in the United States already endure an FCC-mandated 300-field delay in order to censor content harmful to minors.
The 720 v. 1080 argument compares 720 60p v. 1080 60i. 60p is better for sports because it is progressive scan. The JVC cameras are actually 30p, and so actually have less temporal information than 60i.
These new cameras are really better in almost every way than the JVC. Presumably JVC is working on an upgrade, now that they no longer have the market to themselves.
My video compression blog
The ATSC (broadcast digital HD MPEG-2) standard in includes 1080 24p (perfect for film source) and 30p (perfect for not much) formats.
If I was the ruler of the digital video world (and I'm working on it), the HD broadcast formats would be 720 60p for stuff that's shot on 60i video today (news, reality), and 1080 24p for entertainment content (movies, dramatic series).
I really, really wish this camera supported 1080 24p - if it did it'd take over every film school in the nation in a matter of months!
My video compression blog
Yeah, best way to think of HDV is that it's the HD version of DV. It's NOT a pro broadcast format, but it is "good enough" for a wide variety of tasks, and likely will wind up going more upmarket than its creators considered.
Also, since HDV uses interframe MPEG-2, it gets a lot more bang for its bit than the other intraframe only formats get. But that makes it a pain to edit.
Beyond the broadcast/network side, Hollywood DV is mainly D5, which is the main thing I've worked with.
My video compression blog
If you have to convert to progressive, far better to use interpolation filters during encoding, rather than using bob or weave in the receiver.
It's not always possible. Some licensors provide an interlaced bitstream to the broadcaster. In those cases, would it be wise to use a 50-50 mix of bob and weave when interpolating up to progressive, to simulate how phosphors in real CRT TVs work?
The DTT doesn't really care what the compression scheme is, as long as it fits into the TS (transport stream) and that the receiver can decode it
But when 90+ percent of receivers can decode only MPEG-2...
Now that we have the bandwidth, there is no reason we can't have 60 discrete frames per second.
I think many would argue that we don't have that kind of bandwidth. Further, why do we need 60 discrete frames? Our minds percieve motion at 24 fps. If the bandwidth allowed, should we have 120 frames per second, just because we can?
Digital TV sucks. It will be the end of television, as we know it. Mark my words.
I hope that you are not right, but you probably are. Sigh.
You said it man. Nobody f#%ks with the Jesus.
If I might toot my own Third Law:
Democratizing media technologies raise the total number of worthwhile pieces, but reduces the percentage of worthwhile pieces.
My video compression blog
Except that Hollywood really wants 24p, not 60p, so it'll be LOWER bandwidth than 60i. Plus you get better compression efficiency with progressive content.
I really am flummoxed as why they didn't do 24p. Well, this is Sony, so I'm sure it's some self-destructive, PCjr style attempt to preserve market segmentation.
My video compression blog
Oh, D5 definitely does 1080. Most of my HD work is with D5 24p 1920x1080.
It rocks.
If only the decks didn't cost $50,000 and up...
My video compression blog
Yup, my bad I dropped a word or two between the per second. Actually it's 30, 29.9, 24 or 23.9. The 24&23.9 are what movies are normally filmed at. They then display the same image twice to reduce the flicker.
Ahh... but you aren't comparing apples to apples, 1080/60i == 1080/30p != 1080/60p. You do realize that 1080/60p is a valid format don't you? The only reason why it's not there as much is because the ATSC had lots of problems fitting it into a 6mhz channel (plus for some reason they've got a boner for interlaced), there are quite a few consumer products with a full 60p and about all broadcast equipment has that capability.
Right now it's all about the bandwidth limits, That's why I said that to fit 1080 running at the same mhz within their channel requirements they'd have to compress the absolute shit out of it. 1080/60p won't fit on a 19meg OTA channel without massive compression, but many cable receivers do have the capability so they can support via 256QAM 38meg capabilities (my Motorola supports 256QAM, and could take a 1080/60p signal if the cable company decided to send one to me).
If you want to compare apples (1080/60i) and oranges (1080/30p) than that's something different.
Wow, sorry about your DTV allocation!
70% of people watch on cable anyway - will your LP station get an HD slot with your MSO?
While ATSC standards seems like something written in stone, keep in mind that ATSC just approved Enhanced VSB which is a variant bitstream than can be added to your existing DTV signal to provide a channel that is easier to receive.
No doubt if H.264/WMT comes along in a serious way, ATSC will buy into it, and the CEA will lobby the FCC to make the change so they can sell lots of new set-top-boxes.
I was under the impression that it had to do with differences in how the LP record mode is implemented between brands. I've never seen a miniDV tape recorded in SP that had compatibility problems.
Black trenchcoats with pockets large enough to carry one very high quality video camera, three extended-play tapes, and a small red penlight so you can see what you're doing in the darkened movie theater.
That and some contraband Junior Mints. You can't do illegal movie pirating without Junior Mints. Remember: If you're watching a pirated movie, chances are you've helped finance the terrorist organization that makes Junior Mints.
Be safe: Only watch movies that were pirated by people eating Goobers.
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
If that's so, then why can we tell a difference between 24fps video (whether telecined or not) and 60fps? The only reason 24fps looks anywhere close to fluid is because of the presence of motion blur. Given otherwise identical content, 60fps is much more fluid than 24fps.
And yes, if we could do 120fps, without otherwise lowering the quality of the stream, I'd recommend it. We definitely don't have the bandwidth for it now. We *do* have the bandwidth to broadcast 60 discrete frames per second, as every station transmitting 720p is currently doing.
Perhaps for low-motion material, and material such as that shot for Discovery, 1080i might be best from a pure resolution standpoint. But for sports, music events, and generally any content with high motion, 720p should be preferred, as it gives a higher vertical resolution per 1/60th of a second (720p has 720 lines, 1080i has only 540). Also (and this doesn't apply to broadcast video, but would apply with an HD video format for the home), still images should always be stored at a 1080 line height, as this provides for native output with either 1080i or 1080p, and resampled output with 720p or lower.
FC Closer
Anybody know how compression algorithms handle interlacing?
In two years, these will be $300-500. If I start saving a dollar a day, by that time I should be able to afford the camera and some nice accessories.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I will wait until it is under 1K and everybody offers it.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Yeah, your previous post wasn't clear. The poster said that 1080i (meaning 60 fields/sec) had the same bandwidth of 1080p (meaning 30 full frames/sec) and you said they were wrong, which they weren't. Personally, I think 60p is overkill, not even IMAX has a framerate that high, but then most 1080p work right now is being to to present film at its native framerate without telecine.
"I forgot my mantra."
1080p30 = 1080i60 in terms of bandwidth. When talking in terms of complete frames, 1080p30 and 1080i60 are *exactly* the same. You can convert 1080i60 into 1080p30 pixel-for-pixel, but you'll have mice teeth on playback since 30fps sources are usually displayed frame-doubled on 60Hz displays, and you'd have to bob the video to display it smoothly at 60fps, since the original was at 60 fields/sec.
FC Closer
Yup my bad, I really should have stated some additional things.
As to whether or not it's overkill... I don't know 720/60p is pretty damn good for fast motion; but then when you want to sit down with a really immersive movie you give up some on the res. Switching back and forth between them isn't the best on my older RPTV; and creates some hell for recording. Once I get that 200" front projector (which will have to be snuck in to get past the S.O. factor), I'll probably be beating down someone's door to get my 1080/60p.
720/60p is pretty damn good for fast motion; but then when you want to sit down with a really immersive movie you give up some on the res. Switching back and forth between them isn't the best on my older RPTV; and creates some hell for recording.
What material is available in 720p at 60Hz? No film-based material will be since its all shot at 24Hz to begin with and as far as I know, even ABC only does 720p at 30Hz for their few native-HDTV shows.
You do realize that 1080/60p is a valid format don't you?
Just as valid as 1080/75p. The ATSC standard only defines 4 frame rates for 1920x1080:
23.976Hz, 24Hz, 29.97Hz and 30Hz.
Look it up, it is specified on page 21 of ATSC standard A/53C rev C, dated May 2004.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Actually I believe both ABC & ESPN to 720/60p via satelite (I've got cable, but watching my buds projector on ESPN was sweet).
I'd disagree with your statement abour just as valid. Do a quick search for just 1080/60p and see the number of products that support it, now do the same for you 1080/75p; notice a bit of a difference in the quantity of results. It's a standard for the cable & satelite guys, the OTA people right now are SOL.
Yeah I know. as I said previously the ATSC have plans to keep OTA in 6mhz effectivley 19mb/s. Cable & satelite providers aren't under those same restrictions and already their hardware support 1080/60p. What's interesting is that the FCC didn't make a statement about any of the 18 "official" standards, just the bandwidth. Another reason why with OTA you won't see 1080/60p (without serious compression), FCC doesn't set the bandwidth on cable and satelite for cable QAM256 allows them to get that bigger bandwidth benefit.
It leads into the whole broadcast flag. The intent for cable providers is to send the signals in 1080/60p, if your device isn't broadcast flag "ready" the receiver will drop it down to maybe 480p (if you are lucky) if you play nicely you get to see the benefits of the whole shebang. If one wants to get tinfoilish, one might see this as a way to squeeze the OTA market completely out and make sure everybody does the flag dance, since they won't be able get as good of a signal (but the difference between them of course is actually pretty minimal) marketing hype will force everybody over to a cable or satelite provider.
The camcorder carries a steep price at $3,700 though.
Actually, that's pretty cheap for an HD camcorder.
In professional broadcasting, even a standard-definition camera runs US$50,000-$70,000.
World's tallest building rises in the desert
Yes, but can end up looking wierd. Interlacing was an old cheap trick to get effectively 60fps instead of the "real" 30fps -- each "half-frame" was captured at a different point in time from it's sibling half. This does actually make for smoother motion, as you're getting twice as many samples -- and its one of the reasons you can kind of "tell" then you're looking at stuff shot on video vs. stuff shot on film. Anyways, if you "deinterlace" and then freeze a frame you can get a "blurriness" where an object has comb-like edges to the left and right.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell