Pavel Houda
November 15th, 2010, 10:00 AM
LVDS stands for Low-Voltage-Differential-Signaling. That is a serial digital stream. SDI and HDMI are also pixel serial digital uncompressed streams, so you might be o.k. with that output, depending of what you like to interface the camera with. No doubt they would have some sort of recording interface.
In general, interlacing doesn't do any harm to stereoscopic cues. That is what my cameras are. Unless you capture in progressive fashion, there is always de-interlacing taking place somewhere in the chain, because there are not many HD interlace display devices left, and none for 3D, as far as I know. Even TV's de-interlace the i-stream first, convert everything into the native progressive scan, before sending the display controlling stream to the panels. The only interlaced displays I can think of are deflection driven = CRTs - mostly gone. Interlacing was invented mainly to deal with decaying phosphors in CRT displays, to avoid flicker. Later on it was useful to give smoother motion with limited bandwidth. These days it is used to get full 1080 lines with less bandwidth requirement, specially for MPEG2 compression and VSB modulation, in case of ATSC broadcast in the US, but not directly used by the TV display(panel).
For camcorders, specially those at consumer prices, storing the HD stream on Hard Drive is much easier to accomplish, as well as the compression ( and on playback to de-compression) at half the bandwidth provided by the i-stream.
Of course computers and movie projectors also need progressive stream, so everything will be converted at some point.
Depending to what you are doing, the interlace will actually give you the equivalent of 60p. For example if you are distributing above/below stream, you can just use the individual fields and end up with "de-interlaced" 60p a/b stereo stream. As far as quality goes, there are couple of adaptive de-interlacing technologies, that yield excellent results.
@ 1080 lines, if you will be interfacing the playback computer player to a TV directly, (in the US) 60i/p capture would be just fine.
HDMI 1.4 deals with the limits of 1920x1080p frame packed stream high bandwidth by limiting the scan rate( of the pair of frames) to 24p. Of course no TV works in 24/48p, so there is always scan rate conversion required. If that is not done correctly, the 3D cues are completely destroyed. That is one of the reasons why specific 3D TVs, dealing with these conversions properly, are required.
If you will be targeting 3DBD or movie theater, you are best off with NATIVE 24p capture.
In general, interlacing doesn't do any harm to stereoscopic cues. That is what my cameras are. Unless you capture in progressive fashion, there is always de-interlacing taking place somewhere in the chain, because there are not many HD interlace display devices left, and none for 3D, as far as I know. Even TV's de-interlace the i-stream first, convert everything into the native progressive scan, before sending the display controlling stream to the panels. The only interlaced displays I can think of are deflection driven = CRTs - mostly gone. Interlacing was invented mainly to deal with decaying phosphors in CRT displays, to avoid flicker. Later on it was useful to give smoother motion with limited bandwidth. These days it is used to get full 1080 lines with less bandwidth requirement, specially for MPEG2 compression and VSB modulation, in case of ATSC broadcast in the US, but not directly used by the TV display(panel).
For camcorders, specially those at consumer prices, storing the HD stream on Hard Drive is much easier to accomplish, as well as the compression ( and on playback to de-compression) at half the bandwidth provided by the i-stream.
Of course computers and movie projectors also need progressive stream, so everything will be converted at some point.
Depending to what you are doing, the interlace will actually give you the equivalent of 60p. For example if you are distributing above/below stream, you can just use the individual fields and end up with "de-interlaced" 60p a/b stereo stream. As far as quality goes, there are couple of adaptive de-interlacing technologies, that yield excellent results.
@ 1080 lines, if you will be interfacing the playback computer player to a TV directly, (in the US) 60i/p capture would be just fine.
HDMI 1.4 deals with the limits of 1920x1080p frame packed stream high bandwidth by limiting the scan rate( of the pair of frames) to 24p. Of course no TV works in 24/48p, so there is always scan rate conversion required. If that is not done correctly, the 3D cues are completely destroyed. That is one of the reasons why specific 3D TVs, dealing with these conversions properly, are required.
If you will be targeting 3DBD or movie theater, you are best off with NATIVE 24p capture.