Ive recently been reading up on the forum and although there are some great discussion about the JVC Pro HD line and the Sony and Cannon lines, I have not found something that answers my question. So I guess I might as well ask it.

I dont care about what is better, what is the difference betweem Cannon/Sony's 1080 resolution, versus JVC's 720...? I dont care about Interlaced or Progressive. I can always fix things in post, and I mostly shoot for the intention of Television and occasioanlly the home theatre system with a Pojector screen about 1/4 the size of a regular cinema.

I need a Basic 101, and why ppl think one is better than the other. I need to know what I'm getting into, bacuse I want a JVC HD-101E (I'm in Australia so I dont know the US model numbers) but the Sony Z1 looks tempting and is much cheaper by comparrison, yet I do want a shoulder cam that is under the $10,000 AUD mark. And Cannon cant help with their $14,000 AUD HD cam.

Leo

"I dont care about Interlaced or Progressive."

Well that IS the differance.
If you want a shoulder cam that fits your price, it looks like the JVC is your only option.

I guess I can understand that... But what irks me is that there are some people out there that say 720 isnt real HDV... I dont know what that means, but I thought that they were talking about 1080i and 720i...

Still, JVC will have to be the cam I'm lookin for.

There are two flavors of HDV. Each one is as "real" as the other. There's the JVC flavor, which is 720p, and the Sony flavor which is 1080i. And Ken is quite right, the primary difference between the two is progressive vs. interlace.

according to the spec 720p is real... lol
and according to the manufacturers who are making money from this, its real enough to earn money with...

alot of people also say that HDV isnt real HD...

to me... the difference between 720p and 1080i is afew very key major points.
the first is system resources. with 720p, you dont need oodles of CPU and HDD capacity and grunt. 720p uses only a slightly marginally higher capacity than DV25. on top of that, 720p is true progressive, being that youre getting full frames in HD resolution without interlaced artefacting. On top of that, progressive scan allows for a clean acquistion of stills (without interlacing) as well as progressive motion which is what the "film look" is all about. To me the film look is alot more than progressive, you need good lighting, a great DoF and above all, a good subject to shoot..

If your running ur gear off a projector or plasma, i would recommend delivery in Progressive scan.

In Aus, the Canon is going to go for $14000, while the HVX will hit jsut under the $10k mark, the JVC is at $9k and the Z1 is at $7k
I dont see the need for shoulder mount unless its what youre used to, however i know many guys who used to shoot with the ENG type DSR units, whove jumped ship to the FX/Z1 and are not looking back. Health issues with weight and physiical restrictions while shooting with these cameras is no longer an issue for them.
As for broadcast, i regualarly delivery to DigiBetaSP from HDV shot with Z1s, If i had the choice though, i woulda held back and gotten the HD101e, simply due to its similar mechanics with regard to image tweaking like the DVX100. I also like the lens on the unit, as well as its form factor. JVC did alot of work on these units, but i wa advised to wait for a second release before buying one. Unfortunately due to NDA i cant go into it.
But now that the HVX is coming out soon... well things will change...

I need a Basic 101, and why ppl think one is better than the other.We can provide the Basic 101, but not why "one is better" because that pretty much constitutes a format war and we don't do that on this site. Choose the one which is right for your specific applications. In other words, you're the only one who can determine which one is right FOR YOU. Hopefully we can help out in that process, but we are not hashing out a 720p vs. 1080i battle here. Period.

Even if you tried to argue what format it better, you couldn't win on either front because everyone works and produces their content differently. There's just too many variables. Since I do corporate video, and 90% of my content is viewed on the computer via interactive CD's or from PC Projectors, that 720 progressive seems to be a good fit. I'm going to rent one and see for myself.

Pete

Even though I shoot 1080i, I often encode to 720 because that is the native resolution of the majority of the televisions out there (mine included - for now), it fits better on a PC screen, and the frame size reduction reduces some of the quality loss involved in deinterlacing, and it is easier on the processor to play it back.

For broadcasting, you will find different stations broadcast different formats. So choose according to your clients needs if you can.

My advice is choose the right camera for your end result as well as the features you get for shooting. Take your time and choose carefully.

Thanks all for that guys... It seems that Progresive is the way for me then. Which means I need to come up with another 2 grand somehow.

I'm sorry if it looked like I was about to spark a format war debate. I didnt intend that, I was only asking why some people would recomend 1080i and others, 720p. And when they do, I get the response, "Its so much better" etc. I know the VHS and beta format war story, I hope it never comes to that in our own time. I hope we can all get along ;)

Leo, the answer for you depends on the kind of footage and end product you are seeking, which you havent really indicated.

Personally I have no interest in 24p "film look", but I do shoot 'run and gun' material with high action.

For that reason I've recently switched from JVC 720p to Sony 1080i, and am pleased with the results.

Drats, I'm getting ahead of myself.

I'm a doco maker who use to use an old hi 8 cam. It was for school uses and secondary material for people in education who wanted to show their kids 'other' certain points of views. Like Showing Outfoxed to a Conservative, Republican School.

Now I want to do both Doco, and start making short films for festivals. So basically, I want something that is really felxible, and I was leaning toward JVC, because not only I can get a picture that I do not need to de-interlace for projection and other such stuff, but something that can be used on DVD and DVD-ROM. So I guess, Its the JVC for me.

Its worth noting that almost all HD broadcasters require 1080 i or p for programme delivery and won't accept 720. That dosn't mean you can't shoot 720 and then up convert, but the delivery format is normally 1080 HDCAM. I sell a lot of stock footage and 1080 is far more popular than 720 with my clients.

Alister,
What is more "popular" is different than what is "required." I'm curious as to your experiences there. The two local stations we deal with won't take 720p, but they do offer (for a fee in their post room) an upconvert to 1080i or 30p. We deliver on hard drive, as it's easier to get it in to their media server than if we deliver on HDCAM, and we rent the HDCAM deck anyway, so it saves us cost.
However, who are the clients/stations you've got that demand/require 1080, and are you delivering in 60i or 30p?

I'm actually a Theatre Graduate with a Background in Videography and directing.

Im 20 going 21. Having said that, I know how to shoot well... The Problem arises inthe cost of having to rent. Which is why I REALLY want to be sure what I'm getting will last mean around 5 or 10 years .... I'm hoping at least 10. But I guess thats a long shot huh?

OK, so you were not around for VHS vs. Beta Max. It just sounded funny, and like it was comming from a kid. Apparently I wasn't far off. Damn I feel real old now.

Leo, only you will know what will suit your needs better (progressive/interlaced) based on the style of your projects. Judging from your responces you have known all along which suits you, just you wanted to take a short cut on your home work. I am glad you shoot well and I wish you the best with whatever cam you choose. See you at the Oscars.
Good luck and good shooting.
Ken.

If you want it to last 10+ years and you approach things from a film perspective it would have to be the HD100. Especially being that in 2-3 years you will be able to pull uncompressed onto a cheap portable capture device that will probably mount onto the cam(yes you can do it now but it ain't cheap or small!).
And want interchangeable lens.
HD is here. Only chip size and compression will change in the next decade. If you go uncompressed you are right up there now!

And skip homework I did...!

Thanks Ken... I mean, Mr Hodson.

Yea, I guess I'm pretty young. And it sounds stupid to be a company of only one, and wanting to spend his entire lifesavings on something that, by all intents in purposes, wont make money back until 2-3 years after purchase.

I just want in on the industry now. I have no backup and no funding other than my drive and my education. And I know its stupid. But I have a few friends who are willing to help. All I need now is a cam, a good mic, and lots and lots of planning.

If what you say is true, then the HD-100 is for me. (The HD101E has recently been reccomended over the 100.) I really want to make docos that is not only worthy of television, but I want them able to be blown up and put on screens. Then I would know that I am ready for the big task of making a film. And by then, have some cash to back myself up.

Mmn.... I read up on unconpressed HDV footage, makes me want to drool. I think I'll get it.... Maybe sometime next month.

Fingers crossed, heres to hoping... See ya at the... umm.... I'll be the fan in the red shirt screamming out "have my baby" at the Oscars... Lol.

There are two flavors of HDV. Each one is as "real" as the other. There's the JVC flavor, which is 720p, and the Sony flavor which is 1080i. And Ken is quite right, the primary difference between the two is progressive vs. interlace.Where's the best to big screen? Maybe 1080i specially if progressive converted because it will have more resolution or isn't it so?

I never really liked de-interlacing anything... I've seen many great shoots in university that just crumpled over after they blew up a de-interlaced production on the Lecture screen. (about half the size of a cinema screen lengthways)

In the replies I've recived in recnt days, I went away and did some heavy homework and understood why Progressive HDV is 720. Its made for film conversion and to make video look like film. (Among more prominent reasons why its 720.) Having said that, yes there is more resolution, but I tend to tell myself, thats more space on the screen you have to take care of. One small mistake, one small artifact, one lighting error or frame size misgudge and everything goes wonky. But thats me... And maybe my fears are unfounded.

Using the replies I've gotten from this forum and my home forum in Australia, anything progressive is great to blow up. And since Sony, canon, sharp and JVC agreed for a 1080i and 720p formats, I think that 1080p is a long way off from here. And I think broadcasters would be hard pressed to accept 1080p without having to interlace them themselves... So I've heard.

In case anyone is wondering, here is why EBU favored 720p over 1080i (for broadcast):

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_301-editorial.html

On the capture side, they favor the highest quality going in (1080p).

The other important factor to consider on 1080 cameras is how are they getting it? Are they really 1080 cameras if they record the image in a lower format and the upsample later? Are you getting true resolution? No you are not. Often times you are better with a true 720p image upped to 1080.

Look at what the various cameras do to the image before delivering it.

This is very quickly turning into exactly what we don't do on DVInfo.net: this isn't the place to debate whether 720 is better than 1080. Let's not have to lock or remove this thread, K guys?

The original question of this thread was valid but confused. You can't have a basic 101 talk about 720 vs 1080 without these types of discussions. It seemed to me that the original question related to which codec to use as it was a determing factor on which camera to buy.

I remember when I first started looking into HD and the various specs and thought, oh boy here we go again, standards all over the place. SMTP lists 720p as true HD. Simple. Now when delivering 1080 material to a broadcast company for air or a stock footage company for sale who knows how this oringial materal was acquired. Just because you hand them a 1080 tape doesn't mean that they are getting full resolution 1080. In fact in most cases it's not true 1080 at full res. Is the Z1 really 1080 if it doesn't record this to tape but downsamples? Why this is important to this discussion is because someone will base their decision to buy a camera based on specs. Well specs are not everything and sometimes you need to weed through the various "tricks" used to achieve HD recording.

One thing worth mentioning is that in all this "1080 v 720" talk, that's leaving aside the other attributes of the systems. The excellent EBU link earlier referenced also leaves out one option which seems to be becoming increasingly popular since it was written - 1080p/25 production, then recorded and transmitted interlaced for compatability, when it is more correctly termed (I believe) 1080psf/25 - "progressive, segmented field".

That was little considered earlier, because of the temporal 'jerkiness', but aesthetically it seems to be proving increasingly popular now for drama etc - considered "film look". As the EBU reference makes clear, 1080 is seen as better than 720 in principle, but progressive is seen as better than interlace. In the future, there's little doubt that other than 1080p/50 should be the ultimate goal, at least for production, the debate is how to proceed in the meantime.

One factor becoming increasingly relevant is that average home screen sizes are becoming much larger than was envisaged only a couple of years ago, and many of the research assumptions that led to the belief that 720 would be good enough are being questioned. 1080psf/25 for drama etc, and 1080i/25 for sport etc may be seen as a valid best interim solution until 1080p/50 becomes viable.

> 1080i/25 for sport

That EBU editorial does a "fudge" that I see happening all the time ... not being clear about what framerate is being referred to. The guy said "progressive has better motion rendition that interlaced". While that will be true for 720p50 versus 1080i25, clearly it's not so for 720p30, 720p25 or 720p24, which the people who visit this forum are often producing.

I remember when I first started looking into HD and the various specs and thought, oh boy here we go again, standards all over the place. SMTP lists 720p as true HD. Simple. Now when delivering 1080 material to a broadcast company for air or a stock footage company for sale who knows how this oringial materal was acquired. Just because you hand them a 1080 tape doesn't mean that they are getting full resolution 1080. In fact in most cases it's not true 1080 at full res. Is the Z1 really 1080 if it doesn't record this to tape but downsamples? Why this is important to this discussion is because someone will base their decision to buy a camera based on specs. Well specs are not everything and sometimes you need to weed through the various "tricks" used to achieve HD recording.


Tim,
As Chris said, (owner of this site) this is not a thread to debate which is better, 720p or 1080. You yourself, have some significant misunderstandings of 720p vs 1080. To suggest that the Z1 isn't ATSC (Not SMPTE) compliant, or "True HD" where 720p is compliant and "true HD" shows a substantial ignorance to every HD camcorder out there, not just HDV camcorders. The z1 doesn't downsample, it pixel shifts. What camcorder out there has a 1920 x 1080 sensor block? Could you direct me to one, save it be for a couple in the $150k plus category?

Leo, here is a suggestion....
Get both the jvc hd100 for narrative feature work and the Sony HC1 for doc work. Together they are under $8K out of the box from reputable dealers (like the ones supporting dvinfo). Spot has done reviews on the single cmos chip Sonys and gives them a thumbs up for price/performance ratio. Check out the HC1/A1 forum and ask more questions. I think you would be very happy with one of them as your official 'doc' camera. Both the jvc and the Sony record to affordable miniDV tape, so if you budget is stressed you can get by without a deck for awhile.

Anyway, just a suggestion.

Leo, here is a suggestion....
Get both the jvc hd100 for narrative feature work and the Sony HC1 for doc work. Together they are under $8K out of the box from reputable dealers (like the ones supporting dvinfo). Spot has done reviews on the single cmos chip Sonys and gives them a thumbs up for price/performance ratio. Check out the HC1/A1 forum and ask more questions. I think you would be very happy with one of them as your official 'doc' camera. Both the jvc and the Sony record to affordable miniDV tape, so if you budget is stressed you can get by without a deck for awhile.

Anyway, just a suggestion.

That sounds like a really solid idea. But I still think you should rent a z1 and shoot 50i and try the converting everyone is talking about. You might be surprised.

I appreciate Chris' efforts to keep the 720p vs 1080i debate out of a camera selection forum. It seems to me though, that since the manufacturers seem to align themselves with a particular format, understanding the relative merits of each is one of the most important considerations.

I think I have a "fair and balanced" understanding of the two formats, and in the past I understood why some chose either one over the other. Recent events, however, force me to conclude that interlaced scanning is of diminishing value.

To summarize my logic (from other posts):

1. Interlaced scanning can only be displayed (without conversion) on a CRT.
2. ALL new display technologies are progressive.
3. conversion ALWAYS degrades.
4. CRTs will be gone in a few years.
5. Why create something which cannot be displayed without conversion.

You may see it otherwise. This is just the way I see it.

I appreciate Chris' efforts to keep the 720p vs 1080i debate out of a camera selection forum. It seems to me though, that since the manufacturers seem to align themselves with a particular format, understanding the relative merits of each is one of the most important considerations.

I think I have a "fair and balanced" understanding of the two formats, and in the past I understood why some chose either one over the other. Recent events, however, force me to conclude that interlaced scanning is of diminishing value.

To summarize my logic (from other posts):

1. Interlaced scanning can only be displayed (without conversion) on a CRT.
2. ALL new display technologies are progressive.
3. conversion ALWAYS degrades.
4. CRTs will be gone in a few years.
5. Why create something which cannot be displayed without conversion.

You may see it otherwise. This is just the way I see it.

1. Interlaced at the 50i/60 framerate offers sharper pictures in high motion, doesn't suffer from stutter like 24, 25, or 30p, and downconverts very well to those formats.
2. All displays manufactured since January 05 are 1080, and so why shoot in a smaller resolution than native to the display?
3. 720p demonstrates artifacts on a display larger than 46"
4. Progressive displays display interlaced footage as well, and most displays have deinterlacing, so while it indeed has negative effect on the image to deinterlace, it's more semantic than realistic.
5. I agree with your point. Why display something that cannot be displayed without conversion. (720p also requires upconversion for any 1080 display)

Most of your points are non-issues. CRT technology is indeed going away. Progressive will indeed become the display and acquisition standard. Neither of the two preceding statements nullify nor diminish the value of interlaced at higher framerates.
Now, if you want to consider 25p vs 25i...then progressive wins by lengths. but 25p vs 50i, it's a debateable point.

Both formats have merit for acquisition and delivery. Both are viable choices. It's up to shooters whether they want sharper/faster images, or they want smoother pictures. Both have drawbacks, too.

And for theatrical release to 35mm film-out?

I've not personally shot anything with the JVC or HVX that has gone to filmout, so can't make a personally-experienced comment. However, everything I've heard is that the JVC looks great out on film. I haven't heard a word about the Panny out to film yet.
I've seen lots of Z1 footage out to film, including my own, along with one piece of film from the Canon. It all looks great. I've seen it on a 60' screen with a Christie projector as well as on the same screen from film. Both were stunning, given the source of the footage. (HDV)

Just to clarify a few things:

To be fair in any comparison, one must compare raw (uncompressed) data rate. 720p60 and 1080i30 (60 fields) are roughly the same data rate, so that's where the comparison should be made. JVC chose to reduce framerate to 30, and use less MPG compression. Sony made in effect the same decision by reducing h-res to 1440.

converting 1080i to 1080p is NOT simplistic if done well. Consider this: In parts of a picture where there is motion, the best resolution you can hope to get is half the vertical res. Since the subject has moved, the information is simply not there. The other part of the problem is that no matter how you combine fields, you are left with only 30 frames. On the other hand, you could give up half v-res, and have 60 frames progressive, but then where are you?

DSE, While I respect your opinions as a professional, as a technonerd, I prefer to see the measurements - or do my own evaluation. Incidently, I've thought for a number of years that Sony cameras have made consistently better pictures.

1080p60 - and this discussion can end.

One of the best bits of pure science research I've seen giving some definitive answers comes from the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP092.pdf . Whilst the science behind it can't be disputed, some of the conclusions may have become outdated almost before they were written for reasons the authors could not have foreseen - mainly the sheer speed with which flat screens have got bigger and cheaper.

They assume a domestic viewing distance of 2.7m which is eerily close to what I've measured at home - 2.6m. However, they further assume that "the preferred size for large flat screen TVs is likely to settle at between 37" and 42" and conclude that therefore 720p/50 is likely to be adequate. Only 18 months later that assumption seems already outdated, with 42" screens almost becoming the norm for this market, and with 50" becoming more common, the prices of the latter plummeting in the past 6 months. My own measurements have led me to feel that I'd prefer a 50" wall mounted screen for that viewing distance. A year ago I'd ruled that out on cost grounds, now I feel it will be quite feasible in the next 12 months.

Returning to the BBC paper, the graph on fig 9 then shows that for that screen size/viewing distance 720 will be inadequate for about 50% of observers, compared to only about 20% for the screen sizes they had envisaged at the time of writing. It's worth noting that these comments (and those of the EBU) are only really applicable to systems fed broadcast material. I wouldn't like to even begin to use them to draw conclusions about individual cameras, especially at the less expensive end, where overall performance may be limited by factors other than the system resolution. They also don't say anything about codecs or compression systems etc.

Seeing as that I'm a theatre graduate with a minor in film. And having extensive knowledge of Directing.... I know what to shoot and what to loook for. But since I'm done with university, and working on my own for now, I've conceded to teach myself Cinematography. So Hence, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about 720p and 1080i

having said that, I can see why there is much confusion and NEED for such discussions in these forums... Even reading these responses to help generate a descision for myself is making my head hurt. Which is why I never became a cinematographer and/or camera operator in the first place.

So in the meantime, I'd like everyone to know that I've made a descision to go for progressive. Film is film, and video is video, and progressive is the poser music fan. the Closer I can get to film without haivng to spend all that money on film and crew, the better. I can do shoots with only 2 people minus talent. Heck Im a director. So Then I've made a descision and going for preogressive... no matter what the resolution, as long as it can still be accepted. someone said that 720 is the minupm res for broadcast. So, I persoanlly dont understnad the animosity towards it...

If progressive can give you a look that Interlaced can not do as well, without hainvg to convert it... and in school (grade 11) I learned that any kind of digital, or analogue conversion will ALWAYS have a level of degredation. So the JVC it is for me... If I want film like quality, and half the job is done for me, then I'll get it. Besides, it can still be shows on Television and projectors without much heavy conversions... right?

now all I need to do is learn how to make the background out of focus to get that cool DoF crispness we always see with american shows show on 35mm.. (ie Stargate Season 3 onwards.)

Leo, I'm confused. At the risk of sounding condescending, how on earth did you graduate with a minor in film knowing very much about progressive vs interlaced media, but you don't understand how to create or shoot with shallow depth of field?

And no, conversions from D 2 A or A 2 D don't always have degradations. In this subject, I'd likely agree they do, but you get to decide where the degradation occurs with 720p, just like you get to decide with 1080.

Its not so much a minor in film, but the directing side of things.... All I knew about cameras itself was limited... I was trained to edit and cut film, and use Non linear editing programs, and studied theoretical texts on the image and presentation of the image.

Basically, I did everyhting but touch a camera... I basically taught myself how to shoot... I do it ok, but I want to move further than just point and shoot...

Lately I've been reading up on Apeture and shutter speed and trying so hard to get all the numbers into my head, but I do know the theories behind it all...

I know about DoF.. I just dont know HOW to make it, I just know it from a book. Its terrible, I know.

In essence, I was a theatre student who had access to theoretical film studies. If its anything to do with movies, I can recite the past 100 years or so of film and photography history. I can also debate the descisions of why directors, cinmeatographers and editors chose to show the story this way or that etc. I was also taught how to apply all that to a directing role, an acting role and an editing role.... I've never touched a camera.

After I graduated, I grabbed as much books etc on cameras and such and found the FX1 the Z1 and all manner of the latest technology.... Then I started reading.... It just so happens, I began to research the diff between Progressive and itnerlaced and all the lovely electronic doohickeys in the back of a camera.... I have a book on optics which is the third one down from the list of books I'm reading up on... I'll probably be back in this forum in about 2 months asking questions and clarrification about optics and DoF and Focus etc...

I dont have a set way to study this subject because no one is teaching me.... I'm learning it all from scratch. i'm sorry if I have made problems with anyone, I just didnt know the whole 720p and 1080i thing was quite advanced to grapple.

Douglas - "1. Interlaced at the 50i/60 framerate offers sharper pictures in high motion, doesn't suffer from stutter like 24, 25, or 30p, and downconverts very well to those formats.
2. All displays manufactured since January 05 are 1080, and so why shoot in a smaller resolution than native to the display?"

A few more inquiries. As to #1, I would have to debate with how you are comming to this conclusion. You don't mention which cam would be shooting 50i/60i, so I will assume a Sony Z1 is your reference and you are comparing it to a HD100 that has been mentioned throughout this thread. Now which cam would offer "sharper pictures" would largely depend on the shutter speed. Now I thought it was pretty well understood that unless you shoot with a lower shutter speed that intentionaly blurs motion, being progressive, the HD100 offers a sharper image where as the Sony, while producing a very nice picture, but is noted to be very soft for HD and natoriously so in the "high motion" catagory. I mean the universally applauded Sony's are noted for two negatives. Not coming anywhere close to actual 1080i level of detail, and being extreemly soft in motion. Maybe you can further refine your point?

As far as knocking 720p for "stuttering" that is just as stupid as knocking 1080i for being interlaced. It is a fact of the format. You don't knock a 35mm film cam because it has stutter. And you can't knock 60i as not looking film like. One should understand what/how they are shooting and shoot within the guidlines of that format. For the last 100 years I don't think anyone said not to shoot film because it "stutters" or they would have been laughed all the way back to film basics 101!

As far as #2: Are you saying know one makes a native 720p set anymore?

Gentlemen, 24p is an electronic emulation of the inadequacy of film!! 24fps was about the limit for acceptable projection and cost and size of film stock. To mask these inadequacies film makers for decades have used shallow depth of field ( to mask juddering backrounds), angled shots ( to mask the juddering of fast moving objects), slow motion ( using high speed cameras to acquire, played back at 24fps to allow a transverse shot without judder, etc, etc. None of these limitations now apply with modern technology. One doesn't need to shoot at 24p to use any of these techniques and give a film look and remove the very annoying judder!!! I believe the next step in commercial entertainment will likely be 1080p60 or more making all this talk about 24p pointless. I am not a professional but am in my mid 60s and made "films" since 1963, 8mm, Super8,16mm,VHS,Hi8,DV and now HDV as part of a seriously addictive hobby!!!
For me the important issue is not whether it is 720 or 1080 its really what is the frame rate. Anything less than about 50P will not meet the criteria for smooth motion and no flicker, 60 or above would be much better. Who has their computer monitor set for less than 60hz?

Ron Evans

> For me the important issue is not whether it is 720 or 1080 its really what is the frame rate.

Exactly! For me, the Sony A1 is preferable to the JVC HD10 not because of 1080 vs 720 but because of i60 vs p30. And p60 is preferable to either them.

And if p60 "doesnt look like film" ... well that's great, I say!

Ron: "None of these limitations now apply with modern technology. One doesn't need to shoot at 24p to use any of these techniques and give a film look and remove the very annoying judder!!"

While I hear what you are saying, 24p is very much a reality today. If you want a filmout it has to be 24p. If you want to make the highest quality DVD, you want it to be 24p anamorphic. As much as I wish 60p was ther standard it isn't. Yet. So are you suggesting everyone shoot 50/60i? as that is the only other option. And it will give you a dirastically differant look.

If you want a filmout it has to be 24p. If you want to make the highest quality DVD, you want it to be 24p anamorphic.


While you're welcome to your opinion, Ken, the above statement is not accurate.
You might want to do a film out on your own, it's the best way to understand the process. Or spend some time talking to the various film-out houses, or read what they have written novels about acquiring at 60i and converting to 24p. There are benefits both ways, and no film house in the world will support what you've said here.
I recommend DFG, they've done a few for us. http://www.digitalfilmgroup.net/ (They were part of the development team for the JVC, BTW) They, like many filmhouses, have spend thousands of $ and more in hours developing 60i to 24p output tools, and depending on how you shot 24p, some prefer the 60i.
24p is great as an artistic tool, but to suggest it's the *only* thing out there that delivers quality is wrong. In fact, many television shooters hate it, and if you spend time reading other fora where you'll catch a lot of the DGA shooters, they're more excited about 60p than anything.

There is no one single method for 35mm film out from HDV or any other digital video format. Just about every transfer house out there has a different way to do it and a different set of preferences.

Douglas: "24p is great as an artistic tool, but to suggest it's the *only* thing out there that delivers quality is wrong."

If you think that is what I said, you need to re-read my post(s) and take into referance to what I was responding to. I don't know why you are arguing with me that a film out has to be 24p. Yes you can use 60i source, but what has to happen to it? It has to be converted to 24p! So what are you even debating?

I think DSE (and now me) are taking issue with your statement that "a DVD has to be 24p for highest quality".

Filmout is a separate issue...

I thought it is universally accepted that an anamorphic 24p DVD affords the highest quality. Less frames to compress and full widescreen resolution. It is the format of the highest quality DVD's.

As far as film-out is concerned if Douglas wants provide a link to a filmout house that states they prefer 60i converted to 24p over natively shot 24p I would like to have more information. So would everyone in the HD100 and HVX forums.

I did. Read those pages carefully, you'll find information that 60i is preferable over improperly shot 24p. Read my words, read their page. You'll find they're identical.

I am also of the opinion that 24 frames per second is an old and un acceptably flickery frame rate. Let's face it.. feature films are projected with each frame being displayed twice giving a 48fps flicker as 24fps for an extended period will give many people a headache.

having said that I belive that it is that very flicker that helps remove us from reality and transports us to a land of make-believe when we go to a cinema. But it's not just the flicker but the whole cinema environment. A dark room, a large screen filling your feild of view, surround sound, popcorn and sticky carpets. When you enter that environment your mind switches over to entertainment mode, you forget about paying your extortinate gas bill, you become imersed in the film. This is hard to achieve in the average home, there are too many distractions and you associate the TV with news programmes and reality and that gas bill is sitting on the table.

A great example of how bad 24 fps is is IMAX, the frame stutter really detracts from what would otherwise be an amazing experience. For me it has to be 1080, the biggest frame size I can currently afford. As I live in PAL land then im stuck down at 25 frames per second and for me 50i is far truer to life than 25or 24p. In a perfect world I would be shooting at 50P but at the moment I can't afford that.

I am also of the opinion that 24 frames per second is an old and un acceptably flickery frame rate.I agree completely... but it's very difficult to ignore the *legacy* of 24p. For the better part of a century, mainstream film has been shot only at 24p. Since so much work already exists in the frame rate, it's guaranteed to be around for quite some time to come.

I knew that sooner or later that any thread titled "1080 vs. 720" would have to be closed... long story short: there are proponents for each side, both are here and now today, so both are worthy of discussion. What I don't appreciate though, is when our members become confrontational with each other and begin to argue the person instead of arguing the point. Therefore... several posts that were borderline flames have been removed, and since it's pretty much pointless to continue, this thread is now closed.

If you are trying to decide between 1080i and 720p, your best bet is to *try before you buy.* The right one for you is the one which looks and feels best to your own subjective tests. And it'll continue to be that way until 1080i and 720p are both replaced by 1080p... still a ways off yet. Hope this helps,