Is it possible to make HDV 24P

Toke Lahti · January 18th, 2005, 02:16 PM

Interlacing was just a analog compression method inroduced mainly because in the 1930s' it would have been to expensive to build progressive scan crt's for receivers.

I really don't understand why to keep this ancient method anymore in digital domain. With digital domain we have lots of more advanced ways to compress the image that interlacing. Eg. mpeg.

When atsc formats were designed there were still strong belief from major receiver manufacturers that hdtv's will be mainly based on crt's.

Now that we know that receivers mainly are and will be progressive displays, so there's no reasons for interlaced pictures any more.

720p has equal aquity than 1080i, so there's no benefit in that direction either.

Like it is said in EBU's papers, we will get better quality if interlaced material is de-interlaced at tv-station with expensive equipment than at homes with consumer priced receivers.

So I hope EBU will decide to end the interlaced era pretty soon.

I don't believe that anybody prefers interlaced over progressive.
Some just prefer higher frame rates over slower ones.

But bigger numbers (1080) are easier to market than small letters (i/p).

Ignacio Rodriguez · January 18th, 2005, 02:50 PM

> we will get better quality if interlaced material is de-interlaced
> at tv-station with expensive equipment than at homes with
> consumer priced receivers.

That is a VERY good point in favor of either 720p or 1080p. Very good indeed!

Toke Lahti · January 18th, 2005, 05:27 PM

There are some bright people in EBU.
I think that proposed path that first 720p is the basic level and 1080p is an option and after couple of years 1080p becomes mainstream, sounds quite sane.
Allthough I believe that 1080p displays will rush to stores already next year. Will they rush to the homes, depends on the prices.
Someody remembers the time when they tried to sell 480-line plasmas for 20 000 ¤ in PAL land?

Nick Hiltgen · February 3rd, 2005, 03:13 AM

I only know of a few Real camera that shoot 1080 24p and those are close to $250k. I'm sorry I understand that some people still harbor that whole "I shoot vide and it should look like film" which is odd because a lot of the people I know who think that have never SHOT film. I think a lot of people think that the f900 shoots real 24p which is not the case, it shots psf which is a frame that's split in half. Maybe that's the direction things will go but to say that everything should go progressive (as pretty as it may or may not be) seems like regurgetated ad propaganda. The varicam is the only can I know that shoots 60p but often times it's just flagged for 30 or 24. and it's 720 lines not 1080. I'm sorry but to do 1080 60p that would be a rediculus amount of storage and information, for what? because 5% of the population who havd HD TV's think that maybe when they have a set that is capable of doing 60p 1080x1920 they'll like it better. Why not just go ahead and insist that everything should be 4k? I mean there are camera's that can shot that now, why doesn't everyone jsut accept that, after all it's obviously superior...

Toke Lahti · February 6th, 2005, 11:55 AM

PsF is a progressive picture format. It doesn't matter if fields are separated in the tape, as they are captured at a same moment of time.

PsF is just a method how to record both progressive and interlaced picture with same tape recording technic.

Storage space get's cheaper quite accurately with Moore's law.
So it is now 18 times cheaper that when ATSC decided their 1080i/720p formats.

If you are saying that there's no point in 1080@60p, because there's too little people who would want it, it is same like saying there's no idea in anykind of HD, because majority still watches SD.

And you can have great quality with AVC compressed 1080@60p with 8Mbitps bandwidth.
Is that's too much?

January 18th, 2005, 02:50 PM	#17
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> we will get better quality if interlaced material is de-interlaced > at tv-station with expensive equipment than at homes with > consumer priced receivers. That is a VERY good point in favor of either 720p or 1080p. Very good indeed! __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

January 18th, 2005, 02:16 PM	#16
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	Interlacing was just a analog compression method inroduced mainly because in the 1930s' it would have been to expensive to build progressive scan crt's for receivers. I really don't understand why to keep this ancient method anymore in digital domain. With digital domain we have lots of more advanced ways to compress the image that interlacing. Eg. mpeg. When atsc formats were designed there were still strong belief from major receiver manufacturers that hdtv's will be mainly based on crt's. Now that we know that receivers mainly are and will be progressive displays, so there's no reasons for interlaced pictures any more. 720p has equal aquity than 1080i, so there's no benefit in that direction either. Like it is said in EBU's papers, we will get better quality if interlaced material is de-interlaced at tv-station with expensive equipment than at homes with consumer priced receivers. So I hope EBU will decide to end the interlaced era pretty soon. I don't believe that anybody prefers interlaced over progressive. Some just prefer higher frame rates over slower ones. But bigger numbers (1080) are easier to market than small letters (i/p).

January 18th, 2005, 05:27 PM	#18
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	There are some bright people in EBU. I think that proposed path that first 720p is the basic level and 1080p is an option and after couple of years 1080p becomes mainstream, sounds quite sane. Allthough I believe that 1080p displays will rush to stores already next year. Will they rush to the homes, depends on the prices. Someody remembers the time when they tried to sell 480-line plasmas for 20 000 ¤ in PAL land?

February 3rd, 2005, 03:13 AM	#19
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	I only know of a few Real camera that shoot 1080 24p and those are close to $250k. I'm sorry I understand that some people still harbor that whole "I shoot vide and it should look like film" which is odd because a lot of the people I know who think that have never SHOT film. I think a lot of people think that the f900 shoots real 24p which is not the case, it shots psf which is a frame that's split in half. Maybe that's the direction things will go but to say that everything should go progressive (as pretty as it may or may not be) seems like regurgetated ad propaganda. The varicam is the only can I know that shoots 60p but often times it's just flagged for 30 or 24. and it's 720 lines not 1080. I'm sorry but to do 1080 60p that would be a rediculus amount of storage and information, for what? because 5% of the population who havd HD TV's think that maybe when they have a set that is capable of doing 60p 1080x1920 they'll like it better. Why not just go ahead and insist that everything should be 4k? I mean there are camera's that can shot that now, why doesn't everyone jsut accept that, after all it's obviously superior...

February 6th, 2005, 11:55 AM	#20
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	PsF is a progressive picture format. It doesn't matter if fields are separated in the tape, as they are captured at a same moment of time. PsF is just a method how to record both progressive and interlaced picture with same tape recording technic. Storage space get's cheaper quite accurately with Moore's law. So it is now 18 times cheaper that when ATSC decided their 1080i/720p formats. If you are saying that there's no point in 1080@60p, because there's too little people who would want it, it is same like saying there's no idea in anykind of HD, because majority still watches SD. And you can have great quality with AVC compressed 1080@60p with 8Mbitps bandwidth. Is that's too much?