Hi Guys

Got myself a HC7 and must say I'm loving it, but I'm very curious about the term Full HD as Sony has flogged it to death when it came to marketing the PS3 and that it's the only true Full HD next gen consoles. What I'm getting at is, Sony when it comes to the PS3 say 1980x1080P is full HD but when I check my .m2t from my HC7files I get 1440x1080 and here I'm assuming that the vertical res (1080) is progressive and not interlaced ?.

Is it only the vertical lines (1080P) that dictate if a device is full HD and not the horizontal res, surely more horizontal res would give you a better picture ? I also read somewhere that MiniDv tape cannot capture at 1980x1080P and is limited to 1440x1080P

Thanks for reading...

You are correct that HDV is 1440x1080. And also correct that the marketing of FULL HD relates to the camera giving you 1080 instead of 720.

Even though 1440 is less than 1920 the actual effect it makes in the video is not substantial.

My personal advice is to not worry so much about playing the numbers game and instead get out and show us the world though your electronic eyes! ;)

Chris

Full HD isn't just a Sony marketing term, but aside from that, "Full HD" refers to 1080. Not 1080p or i, just 1080. I'm sure a new buzz word will be created for 1080p60 when it becomes commonly available.

Chris' advice is sound; don't worry about the numbers so much, just go make great pictures.

Hi Guys

I'm assuming that the vertical res (1080) is progressive and not interlaced ?.




Nope - it's interlaced. And yes, I agree that Sony regularly plays fast and loose with this stuff in their ads.

Nope - it's interlaced. And yes, I agree that Sony regularly plays fast and loose with this stuff in their ads.

hmm the plot thickens, so would'nt 1080i then be the same then as 720p, which in Sony's eyes is not true HD ?

true HD = many definititions... including I believe both 720 and 1080 i and p...

"full HD" is what seems to be the marketing term for "we finally managed to get the full maximum HD specification at least as far as the current technology let us..."

That's why you see so many "HDTVs" of differing "flavors", and no doubt it will continue as technology moves forward. The "HDTV" of 2-3 years ago was typically only 768 (720) lines of resolution (ignoring those funky "EDTV/HDready" sets..., now they are pushing the 1080 stuff...

But isn't "Full HD" misleading?

The HDV standard states that the resolution is 1440 x 1080 (with a 1.333 "anamorphic" pixel aspect ration) stretching the image to a 1920 x 1080 resolution.

The HD standard has some variations, but mainly for what we're concerned with, the main resolutions are 1920 x 1080 (square pixels) or 1280 x 720 (square pixels).

If it was up to me, "Full HDV" should be on the sticker on the side of the HC-7.

Now, interlace and progressive has nothing to do with resolution, but how the image is recorded. So any type of resolution could be recorded as interlaced or progressive. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

But that's all the technical mumbo jumbo.

No matter, the HC-7 has been great and produces very nice images. Seriously, like others have said before, once you go HDV, you'll never go back to DV.

But isn't "Full HD" misleading?

The HDV standard states that the resolution is 1440 x 1080 (with a 1.333 "anamorphic" pixel aspect ration) stretching the image to a 1920 x 1080 resolution.

The HD standard has some variations, but mainly for what we're concerned with, the main resolutions are 1920 x 1080 (square pixels) or 1280 x 720 (square pixels).

Not misleading at all. If that were the case, until recently there hasn't been a single, "full HD broadcast" of any kind, because Varicam, HDCAM, XDCAM, etc haven't (and don't) record full raster information on tape. Additionally, no one broadcasts a 1920 x 1080 signal either.

Full HD has virtually nothing to do with the acquisition format and everything to do with the display. A "Full HD" camcorder for example, might record 960 x 540 pixels on tape, but display 1920 x 1080 pixels on output (This is exactly what the HVX200 camcorder does).

The HD standard is related to display, not to acquisition. If the standard were for acquisition, then you can count the number of "ATSC HD standard" compliant camcorders on both hands and have fingers left over.

Not misleading at all.
The HD standard is related to display, not to acquisition.

Then it is clearly misleading.

Then by your context, there isn't a camera you've likely had your hands upon that is HD.

By the ATSC standard for HD delivery being applied to an acquisition device, then no HDV, HVX, HDCAM, XDCAM, Varicam, Infinity product are 1080 High Def cameras. None of them record a full raster 1080 image to whatever their recording medium is.

"Full HD" is a consumer designation relating to output/display, not to acquisition. It's not misleading at all, IMO. So it is obviously *not* "clearly misleading. At worst, it's a debatable point not worth debating because (1) it doesn't relate to camcorders/recording devices, (2)It's a consumer-oriented designation in the consumer-video channel.

Funny! - I had just finished reading this thread and the very next site I visited was here: http://camcorder.jvc.com/microsites/GZHD3/index.html

Scroll down slightly to the white panel and you'll see JVC referring to their new camera as being "FullHD" They even have a nice glossey-gold logo for it.

Full HD isn't just a Sony marketing term, but aside from that, "Full HD" refers to 1080. Not 1080p or i, just 1080. I'm sure a new buzz word will be created for 1080p60 when it becomes commonly available.

Chris' advice is sound; don't worry about the numbers so much, just go make great pictures.

"Fuller HD" ? "Mega HD" "Bestest (for now) HD" ?

Would "Full HD" be more from scanning a 35mm negative at a 4K res? or Filming at 4K be more like real true HD.

I have a JVC HD110U and dont think of it as full HD in any way shape or form due to it being an "HDV" camera, and not a Sony F900, or Vericam, or Red, or a Genesis camera, etc.

In my opinion, HDV is a marketing scam, yes I have an HDV camera, yes I use it. Yes I want an HDV camera for use around the house for things like the baby, etc. I am only interested in the "larger" image format, better quality, and of course lack of being able to film in low light.

Everyone knows that there are various resolutions of HD, suiting various purposes and budgets. All are genuine HD, in that they are larger than SD, so I don't know what "HDV is a scam" is supposed to mean.

As far as I'm aware, Sony kicked off the stupid "720 isn't true HD" meme when trying to position the PS3 relative to the XBox360 - i.e., in the context of delivery systems, as DSE points out. FullHD seems to be an outgrowth of that.

<sigh> one can only wonder where these myths began.

Sony didn't start the "720p isn't true HD" story. Sony wasn't a member of the Grand Alliance when that story began. Second, it is true that 720p was intended as a "stepping stone" to 1080p HD, which still hasn't come to fruition for the broadcast world. But 720p is here, now. However, notice that all manufacturers are now stepping to the 1080 trough.

BTW, there are only two resolutions for HD; period.

1920 x 1080
1280 x 720
Nothing else.

The standard is based on the delivery/display mechanism. If we someday have a mechanism that carries a 320 x 240 payload that displays in a 1920 x 1080 display, then it's HD. We've lived with smaller than display resolutions in our cameras for years. And will continue to do so for many more years. No one complains about Varicam, HDCAM, etc for not being full raster.

If we someday have a mechanism that carries a 320 x 240 payload that displays in a 1920 x 1080 display, then it's HD.

That is just silly. No, it is not Full HD, HD Ready, or any of those marketing hogwashes. It's 320x240. It's not even VCD resolution. No matter how you display it, I just can't imagine anyone calling it Any HD.

It's very simple really. Either it is 1920x1080 or it isn't. HDV isn't. It doesn't matter if anything else doesn't get to 1920x1080 yet, but that doesn't make it right to market inferior resolutions as Full HD.

Talking about how the "display" is 1920x1080 is a real hoax. Is the LCD on the hc7 1920? No? Is the signal being output by the camera 1920? Well the component/hdmi does output a scaled image, but the firewire ofcourse will not. You can scale a 1x1 image to 3000x3000. Is it Ultra HD then?

So if a someone decides to do an arbitrary resolution like 100x1080 then it's not a hoax to call it Full HD because the vertical resolution is 1080?

Why does it matter? The information isn't hidden. Either you like the footage from a camera or you don't. Who cares what you call it?

That is just silly. No, it is not Full HD, HD Ready, or any of those marketing hogwashes. It's 320x240. It's not even VCD resolution. No matter how you display it, I just can't imagine anyone calling it Any HD.

It's very simple really. Either it is 1920x1080 or it isn't. HDV isn't. It doesn't matter if anything else doesn't get to 1920x1080 yet, but that doesn't make it right to market inferior resolutions as Full HD.

Talking about how the "display" is 1920x1080 is a real hoax. Is the LCD on the hc7 1920? No? Is the signal being output by the camera 1920? Well the component/hdmi does output a scaled image, but the firewire ofcourse will not. You can scale a 1x1 image to 3000x3000. Is it Ultra HD then?

So if a someone decides to do an arbitrary resolution like 100x1080 then it's not a hoax to call it Full HD because the vertical resolution is 1080?

Your opinion is yours to call your own, but the upshot of it is, your opinion is based on opinion, not on standards.
By your opinion, you've never once captured a frame of HD imagery with a camcorder. Varicam, HDCAM, XDCAM are also not 1080 HD by your definition.
The standard says nothing about the quality of the image.
So, let's take a very real world example. If a camera shoots a 720 x 576 image, is it HD? By your standard, of course not. If we place that same PAL stream in an HD package, ie; record PAL VHS to HDCAM, is it now HD? Of course it is. Quality can't be a consideration. It's a standard determined by framerate and resolution. Nothing more. Compression cannot (and likely never will) be part of a standard, because compression is a dynamic value, whereas framerate and resolution on the delivery device are not. They are quantifiable.
Shift the aforementioned rez to 960 x 540. Is that HD? By your standard, no. But that's exactly what one camcorder manufacturer is doing very successfully. Do you really want to argue that the HVX 200isn't an HD camcorder?
And all that said, what difference does it make? I've heard all the insipid, banal, and useless comments about HDV this, HVXProHD that, AVCHD this....and just 72 hours ago, I believe I may have shot the first nationally broadcast AVCHD footage. I'm not a huge fan of AVCHD, however...the engineer that received the footage (in DVCProHD format) wanted to know how I'd acquired it, because of the quality he perceived.
I feel these myths and measurebations over perceptions based on math get pretty silly, don't you? Aren't we better off shooting the very best we can with what our budget allows?

Regardless, "Full HD" is a marketing term widely used by the various manufacturers of HD display devices and related hardware/software to help consumers identify the resolution of the equipment that they are purchasing. One may or may not agree with the use of the term for purposes of acquisition, editing, delivery, or broadcast of the term.
Unless there is something significant to be added to this thread, consider it closed.