My thought - 1080i is dying

Steve Crisdale · May 30th, 2005, 06:48 PM

Must be something about getting light-headed from the brain crippling lack of oxygen.

As much as I'm tempted from my stand-point of HDTV/HDV camcorder early-adopter viewpoint, to prophess insights into the future of the technology and it's delivery; I'm also aware that the bigger picture regarding High Definition, revolves around it's mass distribution and penetration rate into, what till now, has been an analogue and SD viewing world.

Joe Bloggs couldn't give a rat's about 1080i vs 1080p regardless of the frame rate. He does care about having to buy a new TV because transmissions of Free to Air programing are going digital, and how much that's going to cost. Many people faced with such a decision won't even move to a WS Enhanced Definition set - let alone a HD capable option.

No manufacturer is going to make any decision about HD resolution 'supremecy' until they are certain that a particular HD mode is truly redundant. God!! Even the EU can't make up their mind about whether to go 1080i or 720p, but regardless of whether they do or not, you'll still be able to watch 1080i material very nicely indeed on a HDTV with 1280x720 resolution. Many countries that do have HD broadcast guidelines have already given broadcasters the option to broadcast 720p or 1080i, so there'll be plenty of HD material being gathered for both.

It's kinda wierd to be hearing this guff.

I actually feel privileged to be able too afford to shoot the sort of image quality - maybe even better - that even major broadcasters could only barely afford just a year or two ago.

The current crop of HDV camcorders represent a level of inclusion in cutting edge technology for those who may have previously been excluded, despite their desire and capability, from a very exclusive industry. That's gotta be pretty damned scary for quite a few in the Television and Entertainment industries!!!

1080i is dying... Give me a break!!!

Radek Svoboda · May 31st, 2005, 02:21 AM

>>Many countries that do have HD broadcast guidelines have already given broadcasters the option to broadcast 720p or 1080i, so there'll be plenty of HD material being gathered for both.<<

Except for USA, show me one country with 720p broadcast.

Matsushita and Sony are world's foremost electronic manufacturers, no longer fight like in vHS-Beta era. Now they cooperate like with Blu-Ray. They don't want 1080i-720p war, instead they will both pushing for 1080p.

Radek

Roland Clarke · May 31st, 2005, 04:09 AM

In the UK the take up seems to be overwhelmingly biased in favour of the new Sony 730 and 750 along with a bunch of Z1 HDV cameras and of course the F900. On this basis alone 720p isn't the way its going in the UK and I would surmise this is true for the rest of Europe. Sony's dominance in the broadcast field is to a large extent dictating the expansion of HD.

Being that the freelance field in the uk is so prevelant compatability is a real issue if you want to keep busy. You just have to look at the equipment that is offered for hire here (cameras/VTR's), almost all of it is Sony.

Regards

Roland

Radek Svoboda · May 31st, 2005, 05:28 AM

I'm in Czech Republic. It's all Sony here too. If you want shoot something for TV you'd better shoot on Digital Beta.

They don't even plan HD here for now, only started digital broadcast. Soon will be all digital but not HD.

For film rarly CineAlta is used; it's all 35 mm and preferd stock is Fuji, not Kodak.

It's all either film or Sony.

Radek

Duane Smith · May 31st, 2005, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

1080i is dying... Give me a break!!!

Amen. Thanks for standing up and saying that. :-)

Steven White · May 31st, 2005, 07:47 AM

Yeah, I can hardly imagine 1080i is going to die.

It really looks to me like Sony is going to flood the market with 1080i content producing devices on their low-end (HDV) and 1080p cameras on their high end. The shear volume of 1080i content produced with over a year in the market will dominate production.

Furthermore, when the HVX200 arrives, I predict that the majority of users will do everything they can to shoot 1280x1080p to avoid crippling the camera's horizontal resolution with the 1.5 PA ratio of 960x720p. (though I also expect they will use the 1280x1080p material to create two versions of their content: a 1280x1080p version and a 1280x720p version). The only people who will be producing predominantly 720p content will be the JVC HDV and Varicam users... and the Panasonic is releasing 1080 high-end cameras as well.

This year display manufactures are working there way towards native 1920x1080p televisions, and I expect the winning HD-DVD/Blu-ray format will store movies in 1080p mode as well.

It's a 1080(i/p) future IMHO. Of course, it's a 1080(i/p) future with crippling compression in broadcast... but that's aside from the point. Bigger numbers will win - and since when people buy TVs the stores always sell with high-bitrate streams, more 1080p televisions will be purchased.

-Steve

David Kennett · May 31st, 2005, 10:33 AM

1080i works great on a CRT. It is less than stellar on anything else. I think CRTs will eventually die, hence interlaced scanning becomes less valuable as a tool to get additional resolution while keeping apparent frame rate at 60.

Try this (with 1080i if possible) - I know it works this way with 480i. Take a still frame with some identifiable motion, such as a waving hand. Capture the frame WITHOUT de-interlacing. Import the frame into your favorite editor and make a five second clip. If you look at this in NATIVE format on an interlaced CRT, there will appear a flickering motion of the hand between the two frames. Displaying this image progressively will cause the image of the hand to disintegrate into a single image with even lines showing one position, and the odd lines showing the other position, putting apparent horizontal streaks in the hand. If we de-interlace, we loose much of the additional resolution we tried to gain with interlaced scanning in the first place. Only with interlaced scanning AND display do we retain the advantage of a 60 frame rate for motion with the advantage of the lower data rate of 30 frames.

I don't have all varieties of monitors and signals at my disposal. Things might look different with different combinations. My challenge is this: try different formats displayed on different monitors and see for yourself. If the hand doesn't flutter, you have lost the advantage of interlacing. It might be helpful to include a resolution chart in your test footage.

Keep in mind that 720p60 and 1080i30 were chosen because they are both about the same data rate. If you want 1080p60 then you pay the penalty of twice the data rate. Interlaced scanning is a great way of "having your cake and eating it too", but interlaced monitors are slowly disappearing.

Post your findings with different combinations here, and perhaps we can all learn something.

Radek Svoboda · May 31st, 2005, 02:30 PM

If you have 1080p60 monitor,you can show 1080i60 without problems. Or can convert footage to 1080p60 and have even better image.

There is misconception that interlaced not look good on progressive displays. It goes like this: I use 1280x720 display and 720p looks better on it than 1080i. Reason is that 720p display could only show 720i at most, if it is made to handle interlacad at all. Normally it is not, it's using some cheapes deinterlacer to create 720p.

In era of sophisticated 1080p displays it will not make much difference if shot in 720p ir 1080i.

Radek

Jack Zhang · June 2nd, 2005, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Kennett

If you want 1080p60 then you pay the penalty of twice the data rate.

H.264 will solve that! 1080p60 @ 25 Mbps at 4:2:2 in H.264 will result in a perfect 60p picture at the same bitrate as MPEG-2 HD interlaced.

P.S H.264 is also called MPEG-4 Part 10

David Kennett · June 3rd, 2005, 01:08 PM

Jack,

It's true that improved compression will help. But of course it can make everything better. One can take the advantage as lower data rate or higher quality. I have never argued against the higher quality - 1080p60 would be great!

My argument is simple. The advantage of interlaced scanning is fully realized ONLY on an interlaced monitor. Since interlaced monitors (CRTs) are disappearing, so will the advantage of interlacing. It just doesn't make sense to me to create an interlaced image, only to have to de-interlace it (losing resolution and creating other strange artifacts) to show it on the only monitors existing (in a few years).

I used to be a staunch believer that the advantages of interlaced scanning were worth the trade-off. Smaller flat panel LCD displays are dropping in price very quickly. At a certain price point, the CRT will disappear. I know! There are some advantages to the CRT, but that is only meaningful to a small group.

It's just a gut feeling I get as I observe the monitor market. Besides, I was wrong once before. Oh! That's the time I THOUGHT I was wrong!

Duane Smith · June 3rd, 2005, 04:18 PM

Okay, the computer MONITOR market has changed from CRT to LCD fairly quickly (probably around 5 years?), but that hasn't even come close to happening in the television market...and it's probably still several years away because the non-CRT prices are just nowhere near competitive. Just go look at any Best Buy store -- heck, even their website -- and count the number of small televisions; notice how many are CRTs, and how much cheaper they are?

21" - 29" TVs
-- 34 CRT
-- 11 NON-CRT
Cheapest CRT = $139
Cheapest NON-CRT = $949

30" - 39" TVs
-- 33 CRT
-- 10 non-CRTs
Cheapest CRT = $259
Cheapest NON-CRT = $1199

Non-CRT monitors have a LONG way to go before Joe Average buys one for his living room television. Sure, in the big TV (36"+) market the CRT isn't competitive, but on the smaller end of the spectrum -- you know, where most tvs exist -- it's a CRT world. It could be another 5+ years before non-CRTs are as competitive in the television world, and who knows how long before non-CRTs dominate the installed base of televisions. A decade or two?

Claiming 1080i is "dying" is no more valid than claiming a healthy newborn baby is "dying". Sure, the baby will EVENTUALLY die, and 1080i will also certianly EVENTUALLY die. But like a baby, 1080i is just now entering the beginning of it's lifecycle, and it's going to be around a long time.

Kevin Dooley · June 3rd, 2005, 04:27 PM

Okay, aside from the whole 1080i market, I'm pretty sure that the movement away from CRT's won't take another 5 years. LCDs (and other assorted technologies) just keep dropping in price. They're getting closer and closer to competitive every month.

And if the SED technology does what it promises to do, they'll be competitive in another year and a half at the maximum... of course that's a big if, but I don't see DLP, LCD, D-ILA, and Plasma taking another 5 years. They've gone through the stage where they're just dream TVs or TVs that only the rich have and they're now at a point where pretty much everyone I know is looking at them as more and more of an option... Sure, it's not going to replace the 13" on my buddies kitchen counter soon, but if any of my friend's main TV goes down, I don't know a one of them that wouldn't seriously consider spending a couple hundred more to get an HD flat panel (or at the very least the abonination that is EDTV) of some sort...

Steve Crisdale · June 3rd, 2005, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Dooley

Okay, aside from the whole 1080i market, I'm pretty sure that the movement away from CRT's won't take another 5 years. LCDs (and other assorted technologies) just keep dropping in price. They're getting closer and closer to competitive every month.

Just because some company designs and manufactures a product that one individual thinks is revolutionary, desirable and competitive, doesn't mean that every person will: a) think the same. b) buy it simply because they can or c) have enough available cash to lay out on what they may feel is a rash and unwarranted purchase.

If I saw the World as just the area within my own cone of vision, I'd possibly also be beguiled into thinking that LCD WS HDTVs of $4,000+ are going to be quickly bought up for every household. My friends have a different set of priorities in life to me however.

Any change of TV for them will be one that is forced; not by Government guidelines or technological developments, but by total current equipment failure. And what they'll buy to replace any such clapped out set, will be determined by price... certainly they won't be debating the merits of interlaced versus progressive. Most of my friends couldn't give a bugger about HD, because they have families and lives to worry about.

I'm the odd one out in the current video/TV equation... not the vast majority of the populace, and it ain't gonna be 5 years until that changes. Think more like 10 to 15 AT LEAST!!

I will admit that I'm getting asked a lot more about LCD computer monitors being used as pseudo HDTV's by friends and acquaintances who will probably never buy a 'true' WS HDTV because such a purchase makes economic sense to them.

BTW, I have both a CRT and a LCD large screen HDTV... I don't see any difference when viewing interlaced or progressive material - or enough to declare one format 'dead' in comparison to the other. I'd suggest if you do see a marked difference, i.e. enough to put you off, your HDTV needs repair...

Duane Smith · June 3rd, 2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Dooley

...but if any of my friend's main TV goes down, I don't know a one of them that wouldn't seriously consider spending a couple hundred more to get an HD flat panel (or at the very least the abonination that is EDTV) of some sort...

I dunno....are your friends married? ;-)

When my main TV went on the fritz last year, it was like pulling teeth to get my wife to agree on buying anything but an el-cheapo $350 TV. The fact that no one we knew had an HD flat panel didn't help. I mean sure, everyone I know *wants* one, but not many folks are actually willing to plunk down $2000+ for a TV when a $350 unit works just fine. Eventually, after much debate, my wife agreed to a $1000 budget for a new TV, and I ended up finding an open-box demo unit of a Philips 34" HDTV (CRT) that fit in my price range. But even with a $1000 budget, I couldn't find any non-CRT based HDTV unit. And believe me, nearly everyone I know freaked out at the thought of me spending $1000 on a television! (Note: you don't wanna know what they think of my camera purchase -- ha-ha!)

LCD, DLP, Plasma, SED...they all need to get so much cheaper it's not even funny. Look at the price differences; you can buy 10 CRT TVs for the price of the cheapest non-CRT unit. Or better yet, you can buy 1 CRT tv and afford to make your kids happy with food and clothing.

People in the REAL world have more important things to worry about than TV.

Steve Crisdale · June 3rd, 2005, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duane Smith

I dunno....are your friends married? ;-)

Either that or seperated with kids. I'm seperated, but we didn't have any kids, so I guess I can indulge this HD obsession...

[/QUOTE](Note: you don't wanna know what they think of my camera purchase -- ha-ha!)[/QUOTE]

Too true!! And they're not all poor buggers who don't earn heaps more than me!!

[/QUOTE]People in the REAL world have more important things to worry about than TV.[/QUOTE]

You mean reality isn't compressed into a 60min program that's best viewed in the sort of clarity and precision that only a true 1080p HDTV can provide? The poor deluded fools don't understand what they're missing by choosing to live life that way!! I am being sarcastic BTW... :)

May 30th, 2005, 06:48 PM	#16
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	How limited the view can be from 'The Top'... Must be something about getting light-headed from the brain crippling lack of oxygen. As much as I'm tempted from my stand-point of HDTV/HDV camcorder early-adopter viewpoint, to prophess insights into the future of the technology and it's delivery; I'm also aware that the bigger picture regarding High Definition, revolves around it's mass distribution and penetration rate into, what till now, has been an analogue and SD viewing world. Joe Bloggs couldn't give a rat's about 1080i vs 1080p regardless of the frame rate. He does care about having to buy a new TV because transmissions of Free to Air programing are going digital, and how much that's going to cost. Many people faced with such a decision won't even move to a WS Enhanced Definition set - let alone a HD capable option. No manufacturer is going to make any decision about HD resolution 'supremecy' until they are certain that a particular HD mode is truly redundant. God!! Even the EU can't make up their mind about whether to go 1080i or 720p, but regardless of whether they do or not, you'll still be able to watch 1080i material very nicely indeed on a HDTV with 1280x720 resolution. Many countries that do have HD broadcast guidelines have already given broadcasters the option to broadcast 720p or 1080i, so there'll be plenty of HD material being gathered for both. It's kinda wierd to be hearing this guff. I actually feel privileged to be able too afford to shoot the sort of image quality - maybe even better - that even major broadcasters could only barely afford just a year or two ago. The current crop of HDV camcorders represent a level of inclusion in cutting edge technology for those who may have previously been excluded, despite their desire and capability, from a very exclusive industry. That's gotta be pretty damned scary for quite a few in the Television and Entertainment industries!!! 1080i is dying... Give me a break!!!

May 31st, 2005, 10:33 AM	#22
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	1080i works great on a CRT. It is less than stellar on anything else. I think CRTs will eventually die, hence interlaced scanning becomes less valuable as a tool to get additional resolution while keeping apparent frame rate at 60. Try this (with 1080i if possible) - I know it works this way with 480i. Take a still frame with some identifiable motion, such as a waving hand. Capture the frame WITHOUT de-interlacing. Import the frame into your favorite editor and make a five second clip. If you look at this in NATIVE format on an interlaced CRT, there will appear a flickering motion of the hand between the two frames. Displaying this image progressively will cause the image of the hand to disintegrate into a single image with even lines showing one position, and the odd lines showing the other position, putting apparent horizontal streaks in the hand. If we de-interlace, we loose much of the additional resolution we tried to gain with interlaced scanning in the first place. Only with interlaced scanning AND display do we retain the advantage of a 60 frame rate for motion with the advantage of the lower data rate of 30 frames. I don't have all varieties of monitors and signals at my disposal. Things might look different with different combinations. My challenge is this: try different formats displayed on different monitors and see for yourself. If the hand doesn't flutter, you have lost the advantage of interlacing. It might be helpful to include a resolution chart in your test footage. Keep in mind that 720p60 and 1080i30 were chosen because they are both about the same data rate. If you want 1080p60 then you pay the penalty of twice the data rate. Interlaced scanning is a great way of "having your cake and eating it too", but interlaced monitors are slowly disappearing. Post your findings with different combinations here, and perhaps we can all learn something. __________________ Dave

June 3rd, 2005, 01:08 PM	#25
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	Jack, It's true that improved compression will help. But of course it can make everything better. One can take the advantage as lower data rate or higher quality. I have never argued against the higher quality - 1080p60 would be great! My argument is simple. The advantage of interlaced scanning is fully realized ONLY on an interlaced monitor. Since interlaced monitors (CRTs) are disappearing, so will the advantage of interlacing. It just doesn't make sense to me to create an interlaced image, only to have to de-interlace it (losing resolution and creating other strange artifacts) to show it on the only monitors existing (in a few years). I used to be a staunch believer that the advantages of interlaced scanning were worth the trade-off. Smaller flat panel LCD displays are dropping in price very quickly. At a certain price point, the CRT will disappear. I know! There are some advantages to the CRT, but that is only meaningful to a small group. It's just a gut feeling I get as I observe the monitor market. Besides, I was wrong once before. Oh! That's the time I THOUGHT I was wrong! __________________ Dave

June 3rd, 2005, 04:27 PM	#27
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	Okay, aside from the whole 1080i market, I'm pretty sure that the movement away from CRT's won't take another 5 years. LCDs (and other assorted technologies) just keep dropping in price. They're getting closer and closer to competitive every month. And if the SED technology does what it promises to do, they'll be competitive in another year and a half at the maximum... of course that's a big if, but I don't see DLP, LCD, D-ILA, and Plasma taking another 5 years. They've gone through the stage where they're just dream TVs or TVs that only the rich have and they're now at a point where pretty much everyone I know is looking at them as more and more of an option... Sure, it's not going to replace the 13" on my buddies kitchen counter soon, but if any of my friend's main TV goes down, I don't know a one of them that wouldn't seriously consider spending a couple hundred more to get an HD flat panel (or at the very least the abonination that is EDTV) of some sort... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

May 31st, 2005, 02:21 AM	#17
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	>>Many countries that do have HD broadcast guidelines have already given broadcasters the option to broadcast 720p or 1080i, so there'll be plenty of HD material being gathered for both.<< Except for USA, show me one country with 720p broadcast. Matsushita and Sony are world's foremost electronic manufacturers, no longer fight like in vHS-Beta era. Now they cooperate like with Blu-Ray. They don't want 1080i-720p war, instead they will both pushing for 1080p. Radek

May 31st, 2005, 04:09 AM	#18
Roland Clarke New Boot Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 7	In the UK the take up seems to be overwhelmingly biased in favour of the new Sony 730 and 750 along with a bunch of Z1 HDV cameras and of course the F900. On this basis alone 720p isn't the way its going in the UK and I would surmise this is true for the rest of Europe. Sony's dominance in the broadcast field is to a large extent dictating the expansion of HD. Being that the freelance field in the uk is so prevelant compatability is a real issue if you want to keep busy. You just have to look at the equipment that is offered for hire here (cameras/VTR's), almost all of it is Sony. Regards Roland

May 31st, 2005, 05:28 AM	#19
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	I'm in Czech Republic. It's all Sony here too. If you want shoot something for TV you'd better shoot on Digital Beta. They don't even plan HD here for now, only started digital broadcast. Soon will be all digital but not HD. For film rarly CineAlta is used; it's all 35 mm and preferd stock is Fuji, not Kodak. It's all either film or Sony. Radek

May 31st, 2005, 07:47 AM	#21
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	Yeah, I can hardly imagine 1080i is going to die. It really looks to me like Sony is going to flood the market with 1080i content producing devices on their low-end (HDV) and 1080p cameras on their high end. The shear volume of 1080i content produced with over a year in the market will dominate production. Furthermore, when the HVX200 arrives, I predict that the majority of users will do everything they can to shoot 1280x1080p to avoid crippling the camera's horizontal resolution with the 1.5 PA ratio of 960x720p. (though I also expect they will use the 1280x1080p material to create two versions of their content: a 1280x1080p version and a 1280x720p version). The only people who will be producing predominantly 720p content will be the JVC HDV and Varicam users... and the Panasonic is releasing 1080 high-end cameras as well. This year display manufactures are working there way towards native 1920x1080p televisions, and I expect the winning HD-DVD/Blu-ray format will store movies in 1080p mode as well. It's a 1080(i/p) future IMHO. Of course, it's a 1080(i/p) future with crippling compression in broadcast... but that's aside from the point. Bigger numbers will win - and since when people buy TVs the stores always sell with high-bitrate streams, more 1080p televisions will be purchased. -Steve

May 31st, 2005, 02:30 PM	#23
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	If you have 1080p60 monitor,you can show 1080i60 without problems. Or can convert footage to 1080p60 and have even better image. There is misconception that interlaced not look good on progressive displays. It goes like this: I use 1280x720 display and 720p looks better on it than 1080i. Reason is that 720p display could only show 720i at most, if it is made to handle interlacad at all. Normally it is not, it's using some cheapes deinterlacer to create 720p. In era of sophisticated 1080p displays it will not make much difference if shot in 720p ir 1080i. Radek

June 3rd, 2005, 04:18 PM	#26
Duane Smith Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 234	Okay, the computer MONITOR market has changed from CRT to LCD fairly quickly (probably around 5 years?), but that hasn't even come close to happening in the television market...and it's probably still several years away because the non-CRT prices are just nowhere near competitive. Just go look at any Best Buy store -- heck, even their website -- and count the number of small televisions; notice how many are CRTs, and how much cheaper they are? 21" - 29" TVs -- 34 CRT -- 11 NON-CRT Cheapest CRT = $139 Cheapest NON-CRT = $949 30" - 39" TVs -- 33 CRT -- 10 non-CRTs Cheapest CRT = $259 Cheapest NON-CRT = $1199 Non-CRT monitors have a LONG way to go before Joe Average buys one for his living room television. Sure, in the big TV (36"+) market the CRT isn't competitive, but on the smaller end of the spectrum -- you know, where most tvs exist -- it's a CRT world. It could be another 5+ years before non-CRTs are as competitive in the television world, and who knows how long before non-CRTs dominate the installed base of televisions. A decade or two? Claiming 1080i is "dying" is no more valid than claiming a healthy newborn baby is "dying". Sure, the baby will EVENTUALLY die, and 1080i will also certianly EVENTUALLY die. But like a baby, 1080i is just now entering the beginning of it's lifecycle, and it's going to be around a long time.