Hdmi 4:4:4

Robert Ducon · October 1st, 2007, 03:13 AM

So, I've captured full HDMI from the HV20..

It's 4:2:2, as suspected.

It's 8bit, as suspected.

My workflow is now ProRes 422 which works well with the high-output of the HV20.

Case closed!

Ian G. Thompson · October 1st, 2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Ducon

So, I've captured full HDMI from the HV20..

It's 4:2:2, as suspected.

It's 8bit, as suspected.

My workflow is now ProRes 422 which works well with the high-output of the HV20.

Case closed!

Give us a looky look!! If you don't mind.

Robert Ducon · October 1st, 2007, 06:05 PM

Svyatoslav Pylypchuk's thread will show the same thing and it's ready to go!

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=104431

I'll have something ready in a month or so lol. Mr. Pylypchuk's footage is tack sharp!

Xavier Etown · October 1st, 2007, 09:26 PM

Robert,

IS that 1440x1080 or 1920x1080?

Robert Ducon · October 2nd, 2007, 01:19 PM

The signal that comes out of the HDMI port when looking at any content off the HV20 is 1920x1080. However, I don't know if the image is internally processed at 1440x1080 or 1920x1080. Frankly, it looks just great.

When I captured LIVE video via HDMI to the computer, when viewing on playback, the chroma looked very good.

Looking Svyatoslav's footage, I see the same thing with the red's as in my footage - small horizontal lines. While 4:2:2 is bound to have this (as it's not 1:1 luma to chroma mapping), because I don't have footage from any higher-end 4:2:2 camera's to view, I'm not sure if this is 100% normal for 4:2:2 or if this is particular effect is due to the camera internally processing the image at 1440x1080.

Someone else care to prove if the cam is processing it's true 1920x1080 from the chip?

Joseph H. Moore · October 2nd, 2007, 05:59 PM

It captures 1440 tall "video" pixels, which when corrected for a computer's square pixels equals, wait for it, exactly 1920.

Robert Ducon · October 2nd, 2007, 07:47 PM

Looking for proof here..

The HV20's sensor as Canon states, is and uses 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels, square pixels.

Without referring to HDV at all, and rather, the way that the video signal is internally processed, then if anyone can provide proof that the sensor is seeing/using only 1440 rectangular pixels, please do. Likewise with the 1920 square pixel internal processing. Perhaps seeing that the chroma is 'stretched' is proof enough.

Ian G. Thompson · October 2nd, 2007, 09:16 PM

Personally I believe this is where their claim for "True" 1920x1080 comes into play. Why would it be otherwise?

In the end it does not matter...just look at the magnificent picture it produces.

Joseph H. Moore · October 3rd, 2007, 02:39 PM

In additon to my experience shooting charts, I'm pretty sure that I've read definitively that the signal is 1440 (remember, it's a debayered CMOS reconstruction, so there isn't a 1-to-1 relationship between sensor pixels and RGB signal pixels.)

If I'm confusing cameras, I apologize, but I think this is the case.

Svyatoslav Pylypchuk · October 3rd, 2007, 04:55 PM

Maybe, maybe, but HV20 is very good:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=104431

Joseph H. Moore · October 3rd, 2007, 05:34 PM

I agree, it looks incredible. My point, exactly, actually. I think people get way too hung-up on this 1920 vs 1440 concern. It's important to remember that until very recently NO camera recorded 1920. Its also important to understand the difference between tall video pixels and square computer pixels, because the difference between 1440 video and 1920 computer is even smaller than the raw number suggests.

Robert Ducon · October 9th, 2007, 12:48 AM

This thread isn't about the merits of square-to-rectangle pixels. It's about whether anyone knows/can prove either way. If no one is able to prove, it's a non-issue. If someone can prove, then it's proven and then known, and then a non-issue. Just seeking knowledge, trying to avoid debating if it's a debatable issue or not.

Joseph H. Moore · October 9th, 2007, 07:01 AM

If Svyatoslav could shoot a chart, we could see if HDMI uncompressed resolved any more actual horizontal resolution.

Ray Bell · October 9th, 2007, 01:52 PM

My understanding is....

its 1920 - non compressed straight from the HDMI port (pre-tape)
its 1440 - compressed from the firewire port (post tape)
and its back to 1920 - un-compressed from the HDMI port ( post tape )

So the camera will un-compress the 1440 tape footage out of the HDMI
port at 1920...

so if your workflow is 1920, just stay with the HDMI port ( pre or post tape )

if your workflow is 1440, just stay with the firewire port ( pre or post tape )

October 1st, 2007, 03:13 AM	#61
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	So, I've captured full HDMI from the HV20.. It's 4:2:2, as suspected. It's 8bit, as suspected. My workflow is now ProRes 422 which works well with the high-output of the HV20. Case closed! __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

October 1st, 2007, 06:05 PM	#63
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	Svyatoslav Pylypchuk's thread will show the same thing and it's ready to go! http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=104431 I'll have something ready in a month or so lol. Mr. Pylypchuk's footage is tack sharp! __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

October 2nd, 2007, 01:19 PM	#65
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	The signal that comes out of the HDMI port when looking at any content off the HV20 is 1920x1080. However, I don't know if the image is internally processed at 1440x1080 or 1920x1080. Frankly, it looks just great. When I captured LIVE video via HDMI to the computer, when viewing on playback, the chroma looked very good. Looking Svyatoslav's footage, I see the same thing with the red's as in my footage - small horizontal lines. While 4:2:2 is bound to have this (as it's not 1:1 luma to chroma mapping), because I don't have footage from any higher-end 4:2:2 camera's to view, I'm not sure if this is 100% normal for 4:2:2 or if this is particular effect is due to the camera internally processing the image at 1440x1080. Someone else care to prove if the cam is processing it's true 1920x1080 from the chip? __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

October 2nd, 2007, 07:47 PM	#67
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	Looking for proof here.. The HV20's sensor as Canon states, is and uses 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels, square pixels. Without referring to HDV at all, and rather, the way that the video signal is internally processed, then if anyone can provide proof that the sensor is seeing/using only 1440 rectangular pixels, please do. Likewise with the 1920 square pixel internal processing. Perhaps seeing that the chroma is 'stretched' is proof enough. __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

October 9th, 2007, 12:48 AM	#72
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	This thread isn't about the merits of square-to-rectangle pixels. It's about whether anyone knows/can prove either way. If no one is able to prove, it's a non-issue. If someone can prove, then it's proven and then known, and then a non-issue. Just seeking knowledge, trying to avoid debating if it's a debatable issue or not. __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

October 1st, 2007, 09:26 PM	#64
Xavier Etown Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 71	Robert, IS that 1440x1080 or 1920x1080?

October 2nd, 2007, 05:59 PM	#66
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	It captures 1440 tall "video" pixels, which when corrected for a computer's square pixels equals, wait for it, exactly 1920.

October 2nd, 2007, 09:16 PM	#68
Ian G. Thompson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Rockledge, Florida Posts: 351	Personally I believe this is where their claim for "True" 1920x1080 comes into play. Why would it be otherwise? In the end it does not matter...just look at the magnificent picture it produces.

October 3rd, 2007, 02:39 PM	#69
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	In additon to my experience shooting charts, I'm pretty sure that I've read definitively that the signal is 1440 (remember, it's a debayered CMOS reconstruction, so there isn't a 1-to-1 relationship between sensor pixels and RGB signal pixels.) If I'm confusing cameras, I apologize, but I think this is the case.

October 3rd, 2007, 04:55 PM	#70
Svyatoslav Pylypchuk Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ukraine Posts: 40	Maybe, maybe, but HV20 is very good: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=104431

October 3rd, 2007, 05:34 PM	#71
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	I agree, it looks incredible. My point, exactly, actually. I think people get way too hung-up on this 1920 vs 1440 concern. It's important to remember that until very recently NO camera recorded 1920. Its also important to understand the difference between tall video pixels and square computer pixels, because the difference between 1440 video and 1920 computer is even smaller than the raw number suggests.

October 9th, 2007, 07:01 AM	#73
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	If Svyatoslav could shoot a chart, we could see if HDMI uncompressed resolved any more actual horizontal resolution.

October 9th, 2007, 01:52 PM	#74
Ray Bell Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,414	My understanding is.... its 1920 - non compressed straight from the HDMI port (pre-tape) its 1440 - compressed from the firewire port (post tape) and its back to 1920 - un-compressed from the HDMI port ( post tape ) So the camera will un-compress the 1440 tape footage out of the HDMI port at 1920... so if your workflow is 1920, just stay with the HDMI port ( pre or post tape ) if your workflow is 1440, just stay with the firewire port ( pre or post tape )