I understand 1080i and 1080p. Is there such a thing as 1080n? If so what cameras are shooting it? Thanks.

I've never heard of a format called "Native HD." There is "Native HDV" which means that the application can edit m2t files properly, but that could be either 1080i or 720p, depending on the camera that generated the HDV.
where did you see/hear the phrase "1080n?"

Good question, I guess I should have went into more detail.

I'm working for a production company that is producing a show that airs on The Outdoor Channel starting Jan of 2006. The company that is paying for the production wanted us to shoot some HD footage this year so that we may begin building an HD library. They have told us that beginning in Jan of 2007 they want to be able to commit to HD programming on the new HD Outdoor Channel. The question as to what format the channel would be broadcast was brought up. I had mentioned that some channels were broadcasting at 720i and some at 1080i, and we wanted to know where we needed to be in that regard. We were told that the channel only excepts "1080 Native HD". That's directly from an engineer with the channel.

So, I'm confused. I'm thinking now that native must be the wrong term. I've never heard of it either.

Native 1080i means it originates in 1080i.

For instance Sony FX/Z1 is not native 1080p camera because 1080p is derived from 1080i. There were posts that mentioned if 1080p is written to 1080i, it isn't native 1080p. It is.

If want native 1080i, all HD camera companies except JVC make these. JVC's 1080i derived from 720p. It isn't native. I believe new Panasonic #200 will not be native either because no uncompressed 1080p available. People mentioned it would be written to 1080i, but that happens after compression so it not apply in this case.

Radek

1) Perhaps the engineer meant that the capturing sensor of the camera should not do any upconversion. There should be a 1:1 relationship with respect to the sensor vs. its output.

2) Perhaps he was trying to say the HDV isn't acceptable due to its heavy compression. But being an engineer, you would think he would use standard terminology.


-Mike

I think Uncompressed Raw HD is native HD.

An example is fiber optic HD transmissions from studio HD cameras to master control or in the case of a HD News Helicopter, the fiber optics stream the video from a CINEFLEX Hi-Def to a fiber to HD-SDI adapter to the 2 half-rack HDCAM VTRs that would pass the HD-SDI signal through a switcher then to the H.264 transmitter. I really wish Vancouver's Chopper 9 has this HD setup. Imagine, HDTV breaking news from Chopper 9!

below is an image of the half rack HDCAM VTR:

http://news.sel.sony.com/digitalimages/images/2005/38/26/173826.jpg

a bigger image is below:

http://news.sel.sony.com/digitalimages/images/2005/38/20/173820.jpg

We were told that the channel only excepts "1080 Native HD". That's directly from an engineer with the channel.
So, I'm confused. I'm thinking now that native must be the wrong term. I've never heard of it either.

No one asked this engineer to clarify what he meant by 1080 Native HD? No one dared ask him if he meant current broadcast standard 1080i? Not even a request for a full data sheet of the 1080 HD requirements he believes are acceptable? Was everyone too afraid of seeming stupid if they were made to look like they didn't know eh?
So you're left with having to pose the question here, rather than have the engineer ante-up on his understanding of what's required, and as you can see there's not been one definitive response to your query...

Clever dude your technician!! He makes a general statement about "1080 HD" that has enough vagueness about it to throw everyone off, and he doesn't have to demonstrate whether he actually knows himself...

When is 1080 (whether i or p) recorded and captured from a camera not native? How many consumers sitting in their homes watching that video are going to be able to spot the difference, and even if they do; will they go screaming to the nearest complaints department if the content was gripping enough to keep their attention?

For my 2 cents worth: Native usually means the originating format, and not something converted from any different format. Saying "1080 HD Native" makes about as much sense in my book as saying "3CCD Native"...

It could easily, and likely does mean that the station only accepts footage that originated in 1080, and could be either 60i or 30p or even 60p. I've never heard that referred to as a "format" but depending on how it was used in a sentence, I can see how it might come across as a format rather than a qualifier.

There was a time that I "format" described pretty good how the signal was supposed to look like. Nowadays (digital) video signals can be manipulated in so many ways (compression, rescaling, channel coding, transcoding...) before ending up in a standarized format containing all basic properties of that format but not including a bunch of artefacts which can be "hidden" in the "format". The word "native"has been introduced since then. It means not manipulated. This includes CCD sensor descriptions and read-out architectures, signal transformations and display resolutions as well

The word "native"has been introduced since then. It means not manipulated. This includes CCD sensor descriptions and read-out architectures, signal transformations and display resolutions as well

That's right. You can't have 1080i and/or 720p CCDs and claim camera produces 1080p. If get 1080p out of it, it is not true 1080p; is not native. That's why Z1's 1080/25p is called CF25. New Panasonic #200 will be similar case.

Radek

Argh Radek! Your posts frustrate me to no end.

People mentioned it would be written to 1080i, but that happens after compression so it not apply in this case.

No no no. Despite what Graeme says, interlace is form of sampling - not compression. It's possible to have an uncompressed interlaced signal.

The interlace does NOT necessarily occur in the compressor. MPEG-2 has flags to determine whether its compressing a progressive frame or an interlaced frame. In the case of the FX1 and Z1U it is configured to compress every frame it sees as interlaced, regardless as to whether it is sourced as interlaced or progressive. The DV (and DVCPRO) codecs automatically look at the image, regardless as to whether its interlaced or not, and compress as interlaced or progressive depending on the the content of the frame.

You can't have 1080i and/or 720p CCDs and claim camera produces 1080p.

You can however have a 1080 line CCD that is capable of sampling interlaced as well as progressive. Furthermore, you can bet that Panasonic will claim the HVX200 records "native 1080p" regardless of their CCD resolution is.

-Steve

Argh Radek! Your posts frustrate me to no end.

You and me both...

He's brought up his "revelation" about the HVX's capabilities many, many, many times and numerous professionals on this board have told him that he's incorrect and explained that it will work like every other 24p camera on the planet, and yet he still runs around saying that the HVX 200 can't possibly have 1080p on it.

Grr... Arg.

You can however have a 1080 line CCD that is capable of sampling interlaced as well as progressive. Furthermore, you can bet that Panasonic will claim the HVX200 records "native 1080p" regardless of their CCD resolution is.

I hate to repeat myself. Here goes last time. Uncompressed analog on #200 is either 720p or 1080i. That means that CCDs have these two modes. After this point compression happens and stream is written to tape as interlaced, but is native 720p or 1080i. If 1080p is created somewhere, is not at CCD, unless Panasonic decided to sabotage camera so that user can't get uncompressed 1080p. This is unlikely.

Yes, Panasonic 200 records 1080p, but not native 1080p, but made from 1080i or 720p, similar to FX/Z1.

Why claim about the camera something it not have?

Analogy to DVX does not hold. We are talking apples and oranges.

Radek

Uncompressed analog on #200 is either 720p or 1080i. That means that CCDs have these two modes

You do realize that before going to the uncompressed analog, the image is digitally sampled from the CCDs so that a variety of colour correction, gamma, and other operations can be performed? 720p and 1080i are output formats, necessary for displays and the camera to talk to each other - and need not have anything to do with the CCDs whatsoever. It should be obvious that this is the case, because the digital-to-analog converters (DACs) in the camera are higher bit-depth than the analog out bit depth (i.e., they probably have 10 to 14 bit DACs, while the output format is 8 bit YUV).

Panasonic 200 records 1080p, but not native 1080p, but made from 1080i or 720p, similar to FX/Z1.

You have this totally backwards. The Panasonic HVX200 "makes" 1080i from 1080p, not the other way around. When you get the footage into your computer, you re-assemble the 1080p from the 1080i.

The only place your "argument" is even relevant is at 1080p60 - which is something they have never claimed.

-Steve

Radek, you are completely wrong.

The HVX supports 1080p and 1080i scanning from its CCD. Just as the DVX natively scans its CCD at 480p or 480i, the HVX scans its CCD at 1080p or 1080i.

That is how it works. That natively-scanned image gets carried within a 1080i data stream, yes. But the data coming off the CCD is 1080p or 1080i, depending on which mode the camera is set for.

Since your original supposition on this subject seems to stem from statements in the HVX preview article at http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/HVX200/, let me just say that I was the author of that article. If you're inferring that it's 1080i-only from something you read in that article, I can authoritatively state that you read it wrong. Nothing in that article should be taken to imply that the camera doesn't do 1080p, because it most certainly does. If there was confusing wording, then there was confusing wording and I apologize for that, but confusing wording cannot be extrapolated forward into making incorrect claims.

The HVX does 1080p. It does not "scale" or "de-interlace" or "up-rez" to get to 1080p. It is native 1080p. Its signal gets displayed within a 1080i data stream, but it is scanned at 1080/24p or 1080/30p.

OK Barry, Let's hope that is the case. If is and camera has superb lens, then Panasonic better starts making 1080p Varicam. From presentation they had less than year ago, they mentioned 1080p in 2007 or 2008, I don't remember. If they moved date earlier, we are in for revolution. I'm sure Sony will follow.

But, reading your article, it clearly said 1080i and 720p uncompressed. As I said, you have CCD, ADC, compression, then write progressive to interlaced. Doing it before makes not sense as you would have to change again to progressive (remove it from interlaced stream) before compression. So if true 1080p is available from CCD, it would not be written to progressive before compression.

As to Steven White's post that I have backwards. I don't. You misunderstood what I said.

I will not involved these discussions anymore but you failed to change my conviction and Jan Crittenden has not answer this question at all.

Can you get a statement from Panasonic that uncompressed 1080p is available over the 1080i stream? Why don't you have Panasonic answer that, in this forum? They will not. So why make conclusions it exists?

Radek

If is and camera has superb lens, then Panasonic better starts making 1080p Varicam.
They already are. (okay, I don't know it for a fact, but I do believe they're working on a P2 version of the VariCam, and I'm 97% certain that it will be 1080p.)

But, reading your article, it clearly said 1080i and 720p uncompressed.
Must I say this again? Really? Okay, then I will.

The camera outputs two signals, either 720p or 1080i. That is what the analog component video outputs carry. It has nothing to do with the internals, the CCD, or anything. The final output of the camera is either 720p or 1080i. Just like it is on the JVC. When you connect it to the monitor, you will be sending that monitor either a 720p or a 1080i signal.

When outputting 720p, you are outputting an uncompressed 720p signal carried within a 720p stream.

When outputting 1080i, you are outputting an uncompressed 1080i signal carried within a 1080i stream.

When outputting 1080p, you are outputting an uncompressed 1080p signal that has 2:3 or 2:3:3:2 pulldown applied, carried within a 1080i signal.

That *is* how it works. It has nothing to do with compression -- NOTHING. All this happens before the compression engine touches the signal. The 1080p image is scanned off the CCD at 24 or 30 progressive frames per second. It is converted to interlace for output. It has nothing nothing nothing to do with the compression engine -- that's the whole point of it being uncompressed.

Can you get a statement from Panasonic that uncompressed 1080p is available over the 1080i stream? Why don't you have Panasonic answer that, in this forum?
I'll ask them to. And then, hopefully, once it is confirmed from Panasonic, you will drop this line of questioning? I know that if Jan were to say "sorry, no uncompressed 1080p-over-1080i is available", I'd sure quit insisting it was. Hopefully we can settle the issue soon. I will send her a link to this thread and hope that we will get a definitive statement.

It is really disturbing to me that the engineers from the 1080i networks would ban the JVC HD100 because it does not capture 1080i natively and there is a conception that this camera would not be as compatible as would be a Sony HDV Camera. First of all I believe the opposite is true.
1. The JVC records video at the 19.7 megabit per secound rate which is the native bandwidth of all HDTV broadcasting. The Sony records at over 25 megabits per secound and must be further compressed before it can be broadcasted.
2. Progressive video can much more easily be converted to interlace as no interpolation or deinterlacing is required merely a division of the progressive image into the odd and even interlaced fields which results in an almost lossless conversion.
3. For fast action sports 720p video even when converted to 1080i produces less artifacting than native 1080i video. Look at the diving video footage at the Olympics. Horrible artifacting occured that could have been avoided if the JVC HD100 were available at the time.
4. The 1080i networks want to ban the JVC HD100 camera even before it is available. This shows a total lack of consideration.
I can understand that the 1080i networks really want to promote their 1080i format. However the best way to promote your format is to do it with a camera that generates the best possible footage.

Tommy,

I don't know why engineers would evaluate a picture on anything but the final result either. Kinda reminds me of the double-blind listening tests Stereo Review would do on speakers, amplifiers, etc. Making your evaluation without having any idea of the technology involved takes away the possibility of prejudice coloring your judgement.

I was just reading an article on lenses, and it promoted the idea that the lens with the highest resolution was not necessarily the sharpest looking. It revolved around what we have called "depth of modulation" in the TV world. There could be a lower "depth of modulation" for fine detail than for larger objects. In this case, a picture with technically higher resolution might not look as sharp as a lens which maintained a high DOM for the fine detail, and then fell off sharply at the limits of the system. In the audio world, an audio amp that was flat to say 10KHz, with nothing above 11 KHz might sound better than an amp that started dropping off at 5 KHz, but still had some response at 20KHz. All this has said to me that maybe we would be better off giving up some pixel resolution for a better frame rate.

If you've read some of my posts elsewhere, you'll know that I contend that interlaced scanning must be displayed on a CRT to be seen properly. It would be interesting to compare 1080i with some action on a CRT 1080i display with other displays.

As enjoying as the debate between the mythical camera has been it seems to me that there really hasn't been any hard answers as to what the technician means. (note: it never hurts to ask questions, no one understands what technicians are talking about even other technicians) If the outdoor HD channel is like the other HDNET channels they will want something that is native 1080i not something (like the old JVC HD) that is 720p and converted to 1080i or GASP something that is shot in standard definition and then converted to 1080i. So for now it seems like they jsut want something that is shot with the sony HD cameras (be they 700,730, 750 900 or 950) and possibly the z1 though some of the networks are hesitant about using anything with HDV compression. Personally it sounds like this engineer wasn't terribly enlightened or had done his homework extensively and forgot that he was speaking geek and few could understand what he was saying... (ahem... been there... done that...) It probably wouldn't hurt to call him back and clarify what EXACTLY he meant though.

Well quite frankly I think these engineers don't know what they are talking about when they attempt to ban HDV cameras. First of all the engineers say that they don't think that the HDV 19.7 megabit per secound bandwidth is adequate for high definition and they want to go with 100 megabits per secound. But when they are reminded that the FCC has only allocated the broadcasters the 19.7 megabit per secound bandwidth they reply that they are technicians not politicians. Now I'm not saying that it is impossible to broadcast at these mega bandwidths but I'm sure that the FCC is not going to give away this kind of bandwidth for free. In the meantime the engineers have sold themselves on the idea that high definition broadcasting is impractical and HDV is beneath their dignity so they end up broadcasting in crummy standard definition.

Well quite frankly I think these engineers don't know what they are talking about when they attempt to ban HDV cameras.

Maybe they understand enough to know they don't like the prospect of what it could do to their standing within the broadcast industry. Fear is a mighty fine motivator of a dismissive attitude, and I'm sure there's more than just broadcast technicians who will be more than a little wary of what HDV could potentially alter within the current broadcast industry set-up.

It's the potential of what HDV could bring about that may have us HDV exponents excited... just don't expect everyone's excitement over HDV to be as positive.