Hallo!
Imagine one day it will be possible to broadcast 1080p, if so would it be easer to change from 1080i to 1080p or from 720p to 1080p?
In short :Is it easier to switch to 1080p from HDV1 or HDV2?
Thanks already! Bye

I believe interlaced is easier than progressive.

1080p is for HD DVDs. 720p is perfect for going to HD DVDs!

heath

Anja,

It is easier to go from 720p to 1080p than 1080i to 1080p.

The reason is that 720 > 1080 is a simple resolution upconversion but interlaced to progressive is more problematic because interlaced offers only half the data at any point in time (1 field at a time).

HDV doesn't include 1080p in its specs, just 720p and 1080i.

Thank you very much.
I know it is not in the specs, but I am trying to figure out why one or the other standard is chosen, because one day 1080p may be of concern and than it is easier to integrate 720p.
Thanks!

Hi Anja,

I use DiVA to convert the video portion of all of my MPEG-2 HDV data to QuickTime movies. I then drop those QT movies into my FCPHD browser.

DiVA provides a scaling option that can be used to upconvert to 1080p.

DiVA also has a cropping option that can be used to clean up the edges of HDV images.

Try it! DiVA is free and it works very well.

The only downsides are the resulting large data files and high data rates.

Note: You will not 'need' the 3ivx codec.

Maury

Great! Thanks for the info!

Doesn't the best solution depend on whether we are talking 1080p30 or 1080p60?

I'd agree that the best route to 1080p30 would be simple upscaling from 720p60.

But wouldn't the best results, at least in terms of motion, for 1080p60 be by linedoubling and upscaling of 1080i?

Oops....typo in that previous post! I meant:

" ..best route to 1080p30 would be simple upscaling from 720p30"

Graham,

The problem with interlaced is that with high motion, field 1 and 2 don't necessarily match.

It is always better to go from progressive (720p) to progressive (1080p) than interlaced (1080i) to progressive (1080p).

In the first case, you upconvert where in the second you often are missing data. Field 1 is only half the image and with too much motion, field 2 isn't the completion to field 1 anymore. A whole object could be missing in field 2 that exists in field 1.

Hi Frederic,

I was basing my suggestion on the assumption that Anja wants to end up with 1080p60 footage in the future, and that he is trying to decide between shooting in 720p30 (30 frames/sec) or 1080i (60 fields/sec) until technology and cost make that feasible.

If all he wants is 1080p30 then I completely agree that upscaling his 720p30 will be fine.

But wouldn't the best way to get to 1080p60 be to line-double each 1080i field into a full frame? He would only achieve 540 lines of horizontal resolution, but it would provide him with a genuine frame rate of 60 unique frames per second (which isnt available from 720p30).

So- if I am right,let me get this straight, then I need to double my lines from 1080i to get 1080p for each field, if I don`t want to deinterlace-logical.
And I would have to upconvert resolution of 720 to 1080, and to get 60p I would have to also double the frames to get 1080 60p!?
Either way, sounds like motion will look strange.
I could not find any objective tests concerning that theme, but they would sure be interesting!

I doubt there'd be any value in doubling the frames of 720p30 to get p60 - you'd end up with footage that was just successive pairs of identical frames.

(In contrast, with interlaced footage each field is unique, though only half the vertical resolution of a full frame)

I lost track of what we're trying to do.

Actually I was just trying to figure out why Sony chose the 1080i and JVC the 720p standard. I thought it may have something to do with the ability to integrate it-one day- in a 1080p environment, but left out the question of 30p or 60p.

Anja,

There are two standards for HDV:

720p (1280 X 720 30fps progressive)
1080i (1440 X 1080 60fps Interlaced)

These two standards also match HD broadcaster's requirements. Fox HD is 720p, CBS is 1080i.

There is no 1080p planned out for HDTV.

1080p however is often used for film conversion (24p).

I know. It was just meant theoratically.Thanks.

it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money.

HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720
HDV - 720p at 30p frames per second, 1280 x 720

HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080
HDV - 1080i at 30i frames per second, 1440 x 1080 anamorphic

The 720 HDV format gives us the same resolution as standard HD but half the amount of frames so the image will be a little more jerky than standard 720p HD.

The 1080i HDV format gives us the same 30i frame rate as standard HD but with a slightly less resolution and no 24p mode.

Another interesting thing is that there should be no reason why we can't have 24p 1080 HDV. They could use the same techniques as with the Panasonic DVX100a and the Canon XL2 and have 24p chips in the camera but then use a 3:2 pulldown to turn it into 30i to fit it onto tape and HDV specs. We would then have to apply a reverse 3:2 pulldown in our editor which would then at least result in 1440 x 1080 24P anamorphic. Considering Panasonic and Canon already use this 3:2 pulldown it might be safe to say their first HDV camera may do this. Then all we would have to deal with is a softer horizontal resolution and really crappy compression.

<<<-- Originally posted by Thomas Smet : it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money.

HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720
HDV - 720p at 30p frames per second, 1280 x 720

HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080
HDV - 1080i at 30i frames per second, 1440 x 1080 anamorphic

The 720 HDV format gives us the same resolution as standard HD but half the amount of frames so the image will be a little more jerky than standard 720p HD.

The 1080i HDV format gives us the same 30i frame rate as standard HD but with a slightly less resolution and no 24p mode.-->>>

Thomas,

I couldn't dissagree with you more. I think that we are getting a lot for our money with HDV.

First, you refer to "HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720". Are you talking about the Varicam? If so, the actual resolution is 960 X 720 and the codec DVCPRO -- The same codec as DVCPRO 50. It has its quality issues. So HD1 (720p HDV) has a higher resolution than Varicam.
What makes the Varicam a better image is the quality of the cameras and the 60 progressive frames per second.

Secondly, you criticize 30p as being a jerky image but you also complain about the lack of 24p. 24p is more "jerky" than 30p.

Thirdly, you refer to "HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080". Are you refering to HDCam? If so, again the resolution isn't 1920 X 1080 but 1440 X 1080. Also, it's 60i, not 30i for both HDCam and HDV. So essentially, there is no difference in resolution and frame rate between HDCam-1080i and HD2 (HDV at 1080i). The difference lies in color space (HDCam: 4:2:2 vs. HD2 4:2:0) and caliber of cameras.

Finally, regarding 24p. The only real need for such a frame rate in my opinion is when one plans on transfering to film. I am sure that the FX1 doesn't include the same 24p solution as the XL2 and the VX100. It remains to be seen. The FX1 will have a 25p version however which is good emough to go to film.

I was not stating that HDV is a rip off. I was only pointing out the fact that the HDV specs are slightly lower than the regular HD specs. You didn't think they were going to give us full HD for that low of a price did you. I was only pointing out what the specs are.

the standards for HD are 1280 x 720p and 1920 x 1080i or p. These are what the standards are for HD not HDV. If cameras may shoot different but in the end it has to be 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080. If you look at the resolution of current Plasma TV's they are 1280 x 720. 960 x 720 is not a 16 x 9 aspect ratio so the footage is anamorphic and is then stretched to 1280 x 720 to fit.

I wasn't saying that 30p is very jerky just that it is more so than if you had 60p. It is like if you took a video and watched it on your TV at 30p and then rendered the same video at 15p with every frame repeating. The 15p footage would look jerkier to you. Now clearly the difference between 60p and 30p insant as bad because after so many fps the human eye cannot really tell the difference anymore. The point I was making however is that with HDV we get half the amount of frames per second.

Finally 24p is very usefull because most of the people that may use HDV first are film makers. Even though HDV can be used for broadcast and event video the market just isn't there yet.

To finish I was not saying that we are not getting enough for our money. I was saying that "they" are not going to give us full HD specs for $5000.00 when the next step up is $50,000.00. Of course we are getting a lot for $5000.00

Thomas,

But following your argument, we are getting even less for $120,000 (HDCam 1440 X 1080) and for $80,000 (Varicam 960 X 720).

"...when the next step up is $50,000.00" --
Which camera do you have in mind that shoots "Full HD resolution" for $50K?

Frederic

in fact HDCAM is 3:1:1 not 4:2:2 color sampling which is not so much different than 4:2:0.

I wasn't even making an argument. I was just stating the interesting differences between HD and HDV since not very many know the difference.

Just for your information if you check out the SONY Cinealta website you will see that those cameras actually use the full 1920 x 1080 and are at 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 color space for the newer cameras.

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/markets/production/productsite/cinealta/downloads.html

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/markets/production/productsite/cinealta/monitorsfaq.html[/ur]

3:1:1 color space has not been used since BETA SP.

Note how the HDCAM records at Y=74.25 Mhz and Pb/Pr=37.125 Mhz. This means the color channels are half of the Y channel or 4:2:2. Then the newer HD cameras have a 4:4:4 RGB mode.

Here is another site with specs.

http://www.hdvideoguys.com/

Also notice how all HD capture boards use either 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.

Now here are some specs on the Varicam running at 1280 x 720.

[url]http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&modelNo=AJ-HDC27F

If you open the operating instructions you will notice the Panasonic runs at the same 74.25/37.125/37.125 color ratio as the SONY Cinealta and at 1280 x 720.

I hope some of this clears everything up. I am not here to argument but to help people understand what the standards are.

oh I forgot...

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelList?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&catGroupId=14617

a HD Panasonic camera for $49,000.00.

SONY will also have some cheaper cameras soon.

Thomas,

Don't worry, no offense taken here. I can see that you just want to inform people. :)

Same here.

HDCAM (except the new HDCF950) recording does the following:

10-bit is dropped to 8-bit
4:2:2 color is dropped to 3:1:1
Horizontal resolution is dropped from 1920 to 1440 pixels.

The new HDCF950 indeed records the full 1920 X 1080 at 4:4:4 color space for an introductury price of $110,000. But it doesn't include a tape recorder in the camera. You must record direct to hard drive or their portable HDCAM SR VTR (it'll cost you...probably as much as a Varicam)

VARICAM

Trust me, the actual recording resolution is 960 X 720. Do a Goolge search for "Varicam 960" and you will see that i am not the only one who knows this. All you have to do is look at the DVCPRO HD codec and you'll see that it is in fact 960 pixels.

As far as the link you provided as a full HD solution for $50K. The AK-HC931 is a studio camera with no tape recording mechanism. I don't know much about this camera but I wouldn't be surprised if if recorded with the same codec as her sister, the AJ-HDC27 (Varicam)...960 horizontal pixels. They also mention "Upgradable to 720p, 1080i and 24-fps". I don't know what this intales, but I wouldn't be surprised if it costs as well.

Bottom line, you can't rely purely on the manufacturer's brochures. Panasonic never advertises this 960 X 720 resolution but I can guarantee you it is real. Same with sony and HDCam. For the longest time they included 1080i(p) in their F900 series brochures without refering to the 1440 X 1080 actual acquisition resolution.

Frederic

Thomas,

Here's a good summary of HDCam and DVCPRO HD resolution and color space compromises:

http://www.avid.com/dnxhd/index.asp?pageElement=HDproduct

Look under the chapter called "Avid DNxHD encoding Quality"

You will clearly see that HDCAM is 8-bit 3:1:1 and DVCPRO HD 720p is 960 horizontal pixels (not full HD resolution).

yes those are restrictions of the camera or the tape format. I was initially talking about the raw HD specs not what the current cameras record to. There is no HD spec for 960 x 720. The 960 x 720 is anamorphic and is changed to 1280 x 720. The same for 1440 x 1080. This is to make it easier for the tape to handle the bandwidth. 960 x 720 and 1440 x 1080 are actually a 4:3 ratio where HD is a 16:9 ratio so the horixontal resolution is scaled up by 1.33X. Therefor basically you are getting 1280 x 720p sort of. It is the same as people shooting 16x9 with standard def cameras right now. On tape the image is 720 x 480 anamorphic. On playback or during editing however the horizontal resolution is scaled to 853 to make the video 16x9. People still consider this a 853x480 image even though it is interpolated. I just wanted to compare the specs for the formats for HD and HDV not what tape formats are used.

Thomas,

Sorry, but what you are saying makes little sense to me.

You stated "it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money." and you proceeded to compare resolutions with formats that no ENG cameras capture today.

If you aren't going to compare cameras then what are you comparing?

You can't compare HDV Cameras with HD official specs without comparing what other HD cameras provide.

Plus, the HD specs never mention 24p or 60p, these are frame rates from cameras. The HD specs is simple and clear: Anything above or equal to 1280 X 720 is considered HD. According to these specs, Varicam is cheating.

The bottom line is that resolution-wise which is what you were comparing (understanding that resolution isn't everything), HDV Cameras perform just as well if not better (in the case of Varicam) than other HD cameras.

So back to your original statement, I think we are getting an incredible value with HDV...especially when you compare what else is available camera-wise and the price you have to pay for it.

Here's a more accurate camera comparison chart based on resolution and frame rate only:

1080i
HDV 1080i - 1440 X 1080 - 60 interlaced fps - $3,700
HDCAM 1080i - 1440 X 1080 - 60 interlaced fps - $70,000 and above

720p
HDV 720p - 1280 X 720 - 30 progressive fps - $3,000
VARICAM - 960 X 720 (Anamorphic) - 60 progressive fps - $60,000 and above

Based on the above, I think we are getting a pretty value for our money.

I'll talk to Jon Fordham, who is familiar with the VariCam, about the specs.

heath

Heath,

Most Varicam shooters don't know about the sub HD resolution, editors do because they see the footage come in the NLE.

You can have HD resolution anytime, you just have to pay for it. Or rent it.

Why would Sony or anyone else give it to you for 5k? They sell reams of those 100k cams....

Eventually when Ultra High Def is here for 100k then you can probably have "plain ol HD" for 10k or so....but there will always be levels above what independent artists can afford. This is the way of the world.

HDV for 5k is pretty good in my book. Don't like it, rent a film camera.

you are still missing the point of my post. I was not bashing HDV in any way. I was talking about how it almost gets us there. I already responded that I didn't think HDV was a rip off but that we cannot expect the same quality as full HD. I never heard anybody do a real comparison between HDV and HD so I thought of pointing out the "slight" differences hence my words of almost there. Why in the heck is everybody thinking this is a negative post in any way. If anything I was saying how good of a value HDV is compared to HD.

You know DV is still considered SD even though it is at 4:1:1. DV and digibeta for example are very different but yet they are still SD. This is the problem we are having right now. Some people think the specs are what the cameras are doing while some think of the specs as just the format specs. We are talking about two different things here. The only reason I brought up the cameras was because it was the only information I had on hand at the time of writing the post. It also shows what the HD are supposed to be. Now if the cameras fudge the numbers to fake those specs is a different story. I was not comparing cameras or tape formats. Clearly HDCAM wasn't up to full HD specs thats why SONY came out with HDCAM SR which does the full HD specs.

The whole point I was brining up was that HDV does give us a lot for our money but cuts it back slightly to not give us too much. For example HDV 720p only has 30p compared to HD's 60p. To some this may not be a big issue but that doesn't change the fact that it is a lower frame rate. There are going to be down sides to using a cheaper format. I mean DV was/is great but at the end of the day it still isn't dvcpro50 or digibeta.

Will HDV be good enough to use- yes
is it the same as HD-no

SONY and Panasonic would have to be pretty dumb to give Joe-Schmoe the same quality for $5000.00 instead of $100,000.00.

Fair enough ;)

Here's a 15k HD camera ;-)

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/negative/aminima.shtml

Michael,

I totally agree. I've always said that Super 16mm is a fantastic alternative to getting a film-like full HD image. Because it's already Film!

Thomas- I think your point was pretty weak. The only point you end up making is HDV 720p is 30fps / HD 720p is 60fps. If you had taken up issue with colour space, or compression you would have been more on track.