1080p

Anja Schuetz · July 13th, 2004, 11:20 AM

I know. It was just meant theoratically.Thanks.

Thomas Smet · September 13th, 2004, 05:10 PM

it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money.

HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720
HDV - 720p at 30p frames per second, 1280 x 720

HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080
HDV - 1080i at 30i frames per second, 1440 x 1080 anamorphic

The 720 HDV format gives us the same resolution as standard HD but half the amount of frames so the image will be a little more jerky than standard 720p HD.

The 1080i HDV format gives us the same 30i frame rate as standard HD but with a slightly less resolution and no 24p mode.

Another interesting thing is that there should be no reason why we can't have 24p 1080 HDV. They could use the same techniques as with the Panasonic DVX100a and the Canon XL2 and have 24p chips in the camera but then use a 3:2 pulldown to turn it into 30i to fit it onto tape and HDV specs. We would then have to apply a reverse 3:2 pulldown in our editor which would then at least result in 1440 x 1080 24P anamorphic. Considering Panasonic and Canon already use this 3:2 pulldown it might be safe to say their first HDV camera may do this. Then all we would have to deal with is a softer horizontal resolution and really crappy compression.

Frederic Lumiere · September 14th, 2004, 09:05 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Thomas Smet : it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money.

HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720
HDV - 720p at 30p frames per second, 1280 x 720

HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080
HDV - 1080i at 30i frames per second, 1440 x 1080 anamorphic

The 720 HDV format gives us the same resolution as standard HD but half the amount of frames so the image will be a little more jerky than standard 720p HD.

The 1080i HDV format gives us the same 30i frame rate as standard HD but with a slightly less resolution and no 24p mode.-->>>

Thomas,

I couldn't dissagree with you more. I think that we are getting a lot for our money with HDV.

First, you refer to "HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720". Are you talking about the Varicam? If so, the actual resolution is 960 X 720 and the codec DVCPRO -- The same codec as DVCPRO 50. It has its quality issues. So HD1 (720p HDV) has a higher resolution than Varicam.
What makes the Varicam a better image is the quality of the cameras and the 60 progressive frames per second.

Secondly, you criticize 30p as being a jerky image but you also complain about the lack of 24p. 24p is more "jerky" than 30p.

Thirdly, you refer to "HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080". Are you refering to HDCam? If so, again the resolution isn't 1920 X 1080 but 1440 X 1080. Also, it's 60i, not 30i for both HDCam and HDV. So essentially, there is no difference in resolution and frame rate between HDCam-1080i and HD2 (HDV at 1080i). The difference lies in color space (HDCam: 4:2:2 vs. HD2 4:2:0) and caliber of cameras.

Finally, regarding 24p. The only real need for such a frame rate in my opinion is when one plans on transfering to film. I am sure that the FX1 doesn't include the same 24p solution as the XL2 and the VX100. It remains to be seen. The FX1 will have a 25p version however which is good emough to go to film.

Thomas Smet · September 14th, 2004, 02:57 PM

I was not stating that HDV is a rip off. I was only pointing out the fact that the HDV specs are slightly lower than the regular HD specs. You didn't think they were going to give us full HD for that low of a price did you. I was only pointing out what the specs are.

the standards for HD are 1280 x 720p and 1920 x 1080i or p. These are what the standards are for HD not HDV. If cameras may shoot different but in the end it has to be 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080. If you look at the resolution of current Plasma TV's they are 1280 x 720. 960 x 720 is not a 16 x 9 aspect ratio so the footage is anamorphic and is then stretched to 1280 x 720 to fit.

I wasn't saying that 30p is very jerky just that it is more so than if you had 60p. It is like if you took a video and watched it on your TV at 30p and then rendered the same video at 15p with every frame repeating. The 15p footage would look jerkier to you. Now clearly the difference between 60p and 30p insant as bad because after so many fps the human eye cannot really tell the difference anymore. The point I was making however is that with HDV we get half the amount of frames per second.

Finally 24p is very usefull because most of the people that may use HDV first are film makers. Even though HDV can be used for broadcast and event video the market just isn't there yet.

To finish I was not saying that we are not getting enough for our money. I was saying that "they" are not going to give us full HD specs for $5000.00 when the next step up is $50,000.00. Of course we are getting a lot for $5000.00

Frederic Lumiere · September 14th, 2004, 03:53 PM

Thomas,

But following your argument, we are getting even less for $120,000 (HDCam 1440 X 1080) and for $80,000 (Varicam 960 X 720).

"...when the next step up is $50,000.00" --
Which camera do you have in mind that shoots "Full HD resolution" for $50K?

Frederic

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · September 14th, 2004, 08:35 PM

in fact HDCAM is 3:1:1 not 4:2:2 color sampling which is not so much different than 4:2:0.

Thomas Smet · September 14th, 2004, 11:41 PM

I wasn't even making an argument. I was just stating the interesting differences between HD and HDV since not very many know the difference.

Just for your information if you check out the SONY Cinealta website you will see that those cameras actually use the full 1920 x 1080 and are at 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 color space for the newer cameras.

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professiona...downloads.html

[url]http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/markets/production/productsite/cinealta/monitorsfaq.html[/ur]

3:1:1 color space has not been used since BETA SP.

Note how the HDCAM records at Y=74.25 Mhz and Pb/Pr=37.125 Mhz. This means the color channels are half of the Y channel or 4:2:2. Then the newer HD cameras have a 4:4:4 RGB mode.

Here is another site with specs.

http://www.hdvideoguys.com/

Also notice how all HD capture boards use either 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.

Now here are some specs on the Varicam running at 1280 x 720.

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...elNo=AJ-HDC27F

If you open the operating instructions you will notice the Panasonic runs at the same 74.25/37.125/37.125 color ratio as the SONY Cinealta and at 1280 x 720.

I hope some of this clears everything up. I am not here to argument but to help people understand what the standards are.

Thomas Smet · September 14th, 2004, 11:54 PM

oh I forgot...

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...tGroupId=14617

a HD Panasonic camera for $49,000.00.

SONY will also have some cheaper cameras soon.

Frederic Lumiere · September 15th, 2004, 07:15 AM

Thomas,

Don't worry, no offense taken here. I can see that you just want to inform people. :)

Same here.

HDCAM (except the new HDCF950) recording does the following:

10-bit is dropped to 8-bit
4:2:2 color is dropped to 3:1:1
Horizontal resolution is dropped from 1920 to 1440 pixels.

The new HDCF950 indeed records the full 1920 X 1080 at 4:4:4 color space for an introductury price of $110,000. But it doesn't include a tape recorder in the camera. You must record direct to hard drive or their portable HDCAM SR VTR (it'll cost you...probably as much as a Varicam)

VARICAM

Trust me, the actual recording resolution is 960 X 720. Do a Goolge search for "Varicam 960" and you will see that i am not the only one who knows this. All you have to do is look at the DVCPRO HD codec and you'll see that it is in fact 960 pixels.

As far as the link you provided as a full HD solution for $50K. The AK-HC931 is a studio camera with no tape recording mechanism. I don't know much about this camera but I wouldn't be surprised if if recorded with the same codec as her sister, the AJ-HDC27 (Varicam)...960 horizontal pixels. They also mention "Upgradable to 720p, 1080i and 24-fps". I don't know what this intales, but I wouldn't be surprised if it costs as well.

Bottom line, you can't rely purely on the manufacturer's brochures. Panasonic never advertises this 960 X 720 resolution but I can guarantee you it is real. Same with sony and HDCam. For the longest time they included 1080i(p) in their F900 series brochures without refering to the 1440 X 1080 actual acquisition resolution.

Frederic

Frederic Lumiere · September 15th, 2004, 10:55 AM

Thomas,

Here's a good summary of HDCam and DVCPRO HD resolution and color space compromises:

http://www.avid.com/dnxhd/index.asp?...ment=HDproduct

Look under the chapter called "Avid DNxHD encoding Quality"

You will clearly see that HDCAM is 8-bit 3:1:1 and DVCPRO HD 720p is 960 horizontal pixels (not full HD resolution).

Thomas Smet · September 15th, 2004, 12:00 PM

yes those are restrictions of the camera or the tape format. I was initially talking about the raw HD specs not what the current cameras record to. There is no HD spec for 960 x 720. The 960 x 720 is anamorphic and is changed to 1280 x 720. The same for 1440 x 1080. This is to make it easier for the tape to handle the bandwidth. 960 x 720 and 1440 x 1080 are actually a 4:3 ratio where HD is a 16:9 ratio so the horixontal resolution is scaled up by 1.33X. Therefor basically you are getting 1280 x 720p sort of. It is the same as people shooting 16x9 with standard def cameras right now. On tape the image is 720 x 480 anamorphic. On playback or during editing however the horizontal resolution is scaled to 853 to make the video 16x9. People still consider this a 853x480 image even though it is interpolated. I just wanted to compare the specs for the formats for HD and HDV not what tape formats are used.

Frederic Lumiere · September 15th, 2004, 12:21 PM

Thomas,

Sorry, but what you are saying makes little sense to me.

You stated "it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money." and you proceeded to compare resolutions with formats that no ENG cameras capture today.

If you aren't going to compare cameras then what are you comparing?

You can't compare HDV Cameras with HD official specs without comparing what other HD cameras provide.

Plus, the HD specs never mention 24p or 60p, these are frame rates from cameras. The HD specs is simple and clear: Anything above or equal to 1280 X 720 is considered HD. According to these specs, Varicam is cheating.

The bottom line is that resolution-wise which is what you were comparing (understanding that resolution isn't everything), HDV Cameras perform just as well if not better (in the case of Varicam) than other HD cameras.

So back to your original statement, I think we are getting an incredible value with HDV...especially when you compare what else is available camera-wise and the price you have to pay for it.

Here's a more accurate camera comparison chart based on resolution and frame rate only:

1080i
HDV 1080i - 1440 X 1080 - 60 interlaced fps - $3,700
HDCAM 1080i - 1440 X 1080 - 60 interlaced fps - $70,000 and above

720p
HDV 720p - 1280 X 720 - 30 progressive fps - $3,000
VARICAM - 960 X 720 (Anamorphic) - 60 progressive fps - $60,000 and above

Based on the above, I think we are getting a pretty value for our money.

Heath McKnight · September 15th, 2004, 12:51 PM

I'll talk to Jon Fordham, who is familiar with the VariCam, about the specs.

heath

Frederic Lumiere · September 15th, 2004, 02:48 PM

Heath,

Most Varicam shooters don't know about the sub HD resolution, editors do because they see the footage come in the NLE.

Michael Struthers · September 15th, 2004, 03:34 PM

You can have HD resolution anytime, you just have to pay for it. Or rent it.

Why would Sony or anyone else give it to you for 5k? They sell reams of those 100k cams....

Eventually when Ultra High Def is here for 100k then you can probably have "plain ol HD" for 10k or so....but there will always be levels above what independent artists can afford. This is the way of the world.

HDV for 5k is pretty good in my book. Don't like it, rent a film camera.

September 15th, 2004, 12:51 PM	#28
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I'll talk to Jon Fordham, who is familiar with the VariCam, about the specs. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

September 15th, 2004, 03:34 PM	#30
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	You can have HD resolution anytime, you just have to pay for it. Or rent it. Why would Sony or anyone else give it to you for 5k? They sell reams of those 100k cams.... Eventually when Ultra High Def is here for 100k then you can probably have "plain ol HD" for 10k or so....but there will always be levels above what independent artists can afford. This is the way of the world. HDV for 5k is pretty good in my book. Don't like it, rent a film camera. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

July 13th, 2004, 11:20 AM	#16
Anja Schuetz New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 11	I know. It was just meant theoratically.Thanks.

September 13th, 2004, 05:10 PM	#17
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money. HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720 HDV - 720p at 30p frames per second, 1280 x 720 HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080 HDV - 1080i at 30i frames per second, 1440 x 1080 anamorphic The 720 HDV format gives us the same resolution as standard HD but half the amount of frames so the image will be a little more jerky than standard 720p HD. The 1080i HDV format gives us the same 30i frame rate as standard HD but with a slightly less resolution and no 24p mode. Another interesting thing is that there should be no reason why we can't have 24p 1080 HDV. They could use the same techniques as with the Panasonic DVX100a and the Canon XL2 and have 24p chips in the camera but then use a 3:2 pulldown to turn it into 30i to fit it onto tape and HDV specs. We would then have to apply a reverse 3:2 pulldown in our editor which would then at least result in 1440 x 1080 24P anamorphic. Considering Panasonic and Canon already use this 3:2 pulldown it might be safe to say their first HDV camera may do this. Then all we would have to deal with is a softer horizontal resolution and really crappy compression.

September 14th, 2004, 09:05 AM	#18
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	<<<-- Originally posted by Thomas Smet : it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money. HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720 HDV - 720p at 30p frames per second, 1280 x 720 HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080 HDV - 1080i at 30i frames per second, 1440 x 1080 anamorphic The 720 HDV format gives us the same resolution as standard HD but half the amount of frames so the image will be a little more jerky than standard 720p HD. The 1080i HDV format gives us the same 30i frame rate as standard HD but with a slightly less resolution and no 24p mode.-->>> Thomas, I couldn't dissagree with you more. I think that we are getting a lot for our money with HDV. First, you refer to "HD - 720p at 60p frames per second, 1280 x 720". Are you talking about the Varicam? If so, the actual resolution is 960 X 720 and the codec DVCPRO -- The same codec as DVCPRO 50. It has its quality issues. So HD1 (720p HDV) has a higher resolution than Varicam. What makes the Varicam a better image is the quality of the cameras and the 60 progressive frames per second. Secondly, you criticize 30p as being a jerky image but you also complain about the lack of 24p. 24p is more "jerky" than 30p. Thirdly, you refer to "HD - 1080p, 1080i at 24p or 30i frames per second, 1920 x 1080". Are you refering to HDCam? If so, again the resolution isn't 1920 X 1080 but 1440 X 1080. Also, it's 60i, not 30i for both HDCam and HDV. So essentially, there is no difference in resolution and frame rate between HDCam-1080i and HD2 (HDV at 1080i). The difference lies in color space (HDCam: 4:2:2 vs. HD2 4:2:0) and caliber of cameras. Finally, regarding 24p. The only real need for such a frame rate in my opinion is when one plans on transfering to film. I am sure that the FX1 doesn't include the same 24p solution as the XL2 and the VX100. It remains to be seen. The FX1 will have a 25p version however which is good emough to go to film.

September 14th, 2004, 02:57 PM	#19
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I was not stating that HDV is a rip off. I was only pointing out the fact that the HDV specs are slightly lower than the regular HD specs. You didn't think they were going to give us full HD for that low of a price did you. I was only pointing out what the specs are. the standards for HD are 1280 x 720p and 1920 x 1080i or p. These are what the standards are for HD not HDV. If cameras may shoot different but in the end it has to be 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080. If you look at the resolution of current Plasma TV's they are 1280 x 720. 960 x 720 is not a 16 x 9 aspect ratio so the footage is anamorphic and is then stretched to 1280 x 720 to fit. I wasn't saying that 30p is very jerky just that it is more so than if you had 60p. It is like if you took a video and watched it on your TV at 30p and then rendered the same video at 15p with every frame repeating. The 15p footage would look jerkier to you. Now clearly the difference between 60p and 30p insant as bad because after so many fps the human eye cannot really tell the difference anymore. The point I was making however is that with HDV we get half the amount of frames per second. Finally 24p is very usefull because most of the people that may use HDV first are film makers. Even though HDV can be used for broadcast and event video the market just isn't there yet. To finish I was not saying that we are not getting enough for our money. I was saying that "they" are not going to give us full HD specs for $5000.00 when the next step up is $50,000.00. Of course we are getting a lot for $5000.00

September 14th, 2004, 03:53 PM	#20
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Thomas, But following your argument, we are getting even less for $120,000 (HDCam 1440 X 1080) and for $80,000 (Varicam 960 X 720). "...when the next step up is $50,000.00" -- Which camera do you have in mind that shoots "Full HD resolution" for $50K? Frederic

September 14th, 2004, 08:35 PM	#21
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	in fact HDCAM is 3:1:1 not 4:2:2 color sampling which is not so much different than 4:2:0.

September 14th, 2004, 11:41 PM	#22
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I wasn't even making an argument. I was just stating the interesting differences between HD and HDV since not very many know the difference. Just for your information if you check out the SONY Cinealta website you will see that those cameras actually use the full 1920 x 1080 and are at 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 color space for the newer cameras. http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professiona...downloads.html [url]http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/markets/production/productsite/cinealta/monitorsfaq.html[/ur] 3:1:1 color space has not been used since BETA SP. Note how the HDCAM records at Y=74.25 Mhz and Pb/Pr=37.125 Mhz. This means the color channels are half of the Y channel or 4:2:2. Then the newer HD cameras have a 4:4:4 RGB mode. Here is another site with specs. http://www.hdvideoguys.com/ Also notice how all HD capture boards use either 4:2:2 or 4:4:4. Now here are some specs on the Varicam running at 1280 x 720. http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...elNo=AJ-HDC27F If you open the operating instructions you will notice the Panasonic runs at the same 74.25/37.125/37.125 color ratio as the SONY Cinealta and at 1280 x 720. I hope some of this clears everything up. I am not here to argument but to help people understand what the standards are.

September 14th, 2004, 11:54 PM	#23
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	oh I forgot... http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...tGroupId=14617 a HD Panasonic camera for $49,000.00. SONY will also have some cheaper cameras soon.

September 15th, 2004, 07:15 AM	#24
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Thomas, Don't worry, no offense taken here. I can see that you just want to inform people. :) Same here. HDCAM (except the new HDCF950) recording does the following: 10-bit is dropped to 8-bit 4:2:2 color is dropped to 3:1:1 Horizontal resolution is dropped from 1920 to 1440 pixels. The new HDCF950 indeed records the full 1920 X 1080 at 4:4:4 color space for an introductury price of $110,000. But it doesn't include a tape recorder in the camera. You must record direct to hard drive or their portable HDCAM SR VTR (it'll cost you...probably as much as a Varicam) VARICAM Trust me, the actual recording resolution is 960 X 720. Do a Goolge search for "Varicam 960" and you will see that i am not the only one who knows this. All you have to do is look at the DVCPRO HD codec and you'll see that it is in fact 960 pixels. As far as the link you provided as a full HD solution for $50K. The AK-HC931 is a studio camera with no tape recording mechanism. I don't know much about this camera but I wouldn't be surprised if if recorded with the same codec as her sister, the AJ-HDC27 (Varicam)...960 horizontal pixels. They also mention "Upgradable to 720p, 1080i and 24-fps". I don't know what this intales, but I wouldn't be surprised if it costs as well. Bottom line, you can't rely purely on the manufacturer's brochures. Panasonic never advertises this 960 X 720 resolution but I can guarantee you it is real. Same with sony and HDCam. For the longest time they included 1080i(p) in their F900 series brochures without refering to the 1440 X 1080 actual acquisition resolution. Frederic

September 15th, 2004, 10:55 AM	#25
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Thomas, Here's a good summary of HDCam and DVCPRO HD resolution and color space compromises: http://www.avid.com/dnxhd/index.asp?...ment=HDproduct Look under the chapter called "Avid DNxHD encoding Quality" You will clearly see that HDCAM is 8-bit 3:1:1 and DVCPRO HD 720p is 960 horizontal pixels (not full HD resolution).

September 15th, 2004, 12:00 PM	#26
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	yes those are restrictions of the camera or the tape format. I was initially talking about the raw HD specs not what the current cameras record to. There is no HD spec for 960 x 720. The 960 x 720 is anamorphic and is changed to 1280 x 720. The same for 1440 x 1080. This is to make it easier for the tape to handle the bandwidth. 960 x 720 and 1440 x 1080 are actually a 4:3 ratio where HD is a 16:9 ratio so the horixontal resolution is scaled up by 1.33X. Therefor basically you are getting 1280 x 720p sort of. It is the same as people shooting 16x9 with standard def cameras right now. On tape the image is 720 x 480 anamorphic. On playback or during editing however the horizontal resolution is scaled to 853 to make the video 16x9. People still consider this a 853x480 image even though it is interpolated. I just wanted to compare the specs for the formats for HD and HDV not what tape formats are used.

September 15th, 2004, 12:21 PM	#27
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Thomas, Sorry, but what you are saying makes little sense to me. You stated "it is interesting how HDV almost gets us to true HD but then falls a little short so to not give us to much for our money." and you proceeded to compare resolutions with formats that no ENG cameras capture today. If you aren't going to compare cameras then what are you comparing? You can't compare HDV Cameras with HD official specs without comparing what other HD cameras provide. Plus, the HD specs never mention 24p or 60p, these are frame rates from cameras. The HD specs is simple and clear: Anything above or equal to 1280 X 720 is considered HD. According to these specs, Varicam is cheating. The bottom line is that resolution-wise which is what you were comparing (understanding that resolution isn't everything), HDV Cameras perform just as well if not better (in the case of Varicam) than other HD cameras. So back to your original statement, I think we are getting an incredible value with HDV...especially when you compare what else is available camera-wise and the price you have to pay for it. Here's a more accurate camera comparison chart based on resolution and frame rate only: 1080i HDV 1080i - 1440 X 1080 - 60 interlaced fps - $3,700 HDCAM 1080i - 1440 X 1080 - 60 interlaced fps - $70,000 and above 720p HDV 720p - 1280 X 720 - 30 progressive fps - $3,000 VARICAM - 960 X 720 (Anamorphic) - 60 progressive fps - $60,000 and above Based on the above, I think we are getting a pretty value for our money.

September 15th, 2004, 02:48 PM	#29
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Heath, Most Varicam shooters don't know about the sub HD resolution, editors do because they see the footage come in the NLE.